I am not aware, that he ever attended any other execution. And if he did not, the remark of Mr. Macaulay, which is _general_, can never be justified, in relation to Penn; though it would fairly apply to the celebrated George Selwyn, who, though remarkable for the keenness of his sensibility, and the kindness of his heart, was in the habit of attending every execution in London; and who, upon one remarkable occasion of this kind, actually embarked for the Continent.

Why could not Mr. Macaulay, who often refers to Clarkson, have adopted some of his charitable and gentlemanly constructions of Penn's conduct, upon this occasion? Clarkson says--"Men of the most noted benevolence have felt and indulged a curiosity of this sort. They have been worked upon, by different motives; some, perhaps, by a desire of seeing what human nature would be, at such an awful crisis; what would be its struggles; what would be the effects of innocence or guilt; what would be the power of religion on the mind." * * * * "I should say that he consented to witness the scenes in question, with a view to do good; with a view of being able to make an impression on the King's mind, by his own relation," &c.

In vol. ii. page 222, 1687, Mr. Macaulay says--"Penn had never been a strong-headed man: the life which he had been leading, during two years, had not a little impaired his moral sensibility; and, if his conscience ever reproached him, he comforted himself by repeating, that he had a good and n.o.ble end in view, and that he was not paid for his services in money."

Again, ibid., page 227, referring to the effort of the King, to propitiate William Kiffen, a great man, among the Baptists, no phraseology would suit Mr. Macaulay, but this--"_Penn was employed in the work of seduction_."

What _seduction_? Indeed, whenever a good chance presents itself to reach the Quaker, anywhere and anyhow, through the joints of the harness, the phylactery of Mr. Macaulay seems to have been--_semper paratus_.

It was enough, that Penn was, in some sense, the confidant, and, occasionally, the _unconstrained and perfectly conscientious_ agent of this most miserable King.

That posterity will sanction these politico-historical flings, at the character of William Penn, I cannot believe.

Tillotson knew him well. He had once expressed a suspicion that Penn was a Papist. A correspondence ensued. "In conclusion," says Chalmers, "Tillotson declared himself fully satisfied, and, as in that case he had promised, he heartily begs pardon of Penn."

Chalmers himself, who had no sympathy with the "_cursed Quakers_," closes his account of Penn, as follows--"_It must be evident from his works, that he was a man of abilities; and from his conduct through life, that he was a man of the purest conscience. This, without acceding to his opinions in religion, we are perfectly willing to allow and to declare_."

No. LXV.

There was a couple of unamiable, maiden ladies, who had cherished, for a long time, an unkindly feeling to the son of their married sister; and, whenever her temporary absence afforded a fitting opportunity, one of them would inquire of the other, if it was not _a good time to lick Billy_. Mr.

Macaulay suffers no convenient occasion to pa.s.s, without exhibiting a practical ill.u.s.tration of this opinion, that it is _a good time to lick Billy_.

In vol. ii. page 292, Mr. Macaulay says--"Penn was at Chester (in 1687,) on a pastoral tour. His popularity and authority among his brethren had greatly declined since he had become a tool of the King and the Jesuits."

In proof of this a.s.sertion Mr. Macaulay refers to a letter, from Bonrepaux to Seignelay, and to Gerard Croese's Quaker History. Let us see, for ourselves, what Bonrepaux says--"Penn, chef des Quakers, qu'on sait etre dans les interets du Roi d'Angleterre, est si fort decrie parmi ceux de son parti qu'ils n'ont plus aucune confiance en lui."

Now I ask, in the name of historical truth, if Mr. Macaulay is sustained in his a.s.sertion, by Bonrepaux? Is there a jot or t.i.ttle of evidence, in this reference, that Penn "_had become a tool of the King and of the Jesuits_;" or that Bonrepaux was himself of any such opinion?

Let us next present the pa.s.sage from Croese--"Etiam Quakeri Pennum non amplius, ut ante, ita amabant ac magnifaciebant, quidam aversabantur ac fugiebant."

I ask, in reference to this quotation from Croese, the same question? No possible version of these pa.s.sages into English will go farther, than to show, that the Quakers were dissatisfied with Penn, about that time: in neither is there the slightest reference to Penn, as "_a tool of the King and of the Jesuits_." Mr. Macaulay's pa.s.sage is so constructed, that his citation of authorities goes, not only to the fact of Penn's unpopularity, for a time, but to the cause of it, as a.s.signed by Mr. Macaulay himself, namely, that Penn "_had become a tool of the King and of the Jesuits_."

Now it is well known, that Penn, in 1687, was in bad odor with some of the Quakers. He was _suspected_, by some persons, of being a Jesuit--George Keith, the Quaker renegade, called him a deist--he was said by others to be a Papist. Even Tillotson had given countenance to this foolish story, which Penn's intimacy with King James tended to corroborate. How far Tillotston believed Penn to be a _Papist_, or a _tool_ of the King, or of the _Jesuits_, will appear, upon the perusal of a few lines from Tillotson to Penn, written in 1686, the year before that, of which Mr. Macaulay is writing--"I am very sorry that the suspicion I had entertained concerning you, of which I gave you the true account in my former letter, hath occasioned so much trouble and inconvenience to you: and I do now declare with great joy, that I am fully satisfied, that there was no just ground for that suspicion, and therefore do heartily beg your pardon for it."

Clarkson's Memoirs, vol. i. chap. 22.

If the authorities, cited, sustained the statement of Mr. Macaulay, their credibility would still form a serious question. In vol. ii. pages 305-7-8, Mr. Macaulay refers to Bonrepaux's "complicity with the Jesuits."

It would have been quite agreeable to that crafty emissary of Lewis, to have had it believed, that Penn was of their fraternity. As for Gerard Croese, Chalmers speaks of him and his history, with very little respect; and states, that it dissatisfied the Quakers. However this may have been, there is not a syllable in Gerard Croese's Historia Quakeriana, giving color to Mr. Macaulay's a.s.sertion, that Penn "_had become a tool of the King and of the Jesuits_." On the contrary, Croese, as I shall show hereafter, speaks of Penn, with great respect, on several occasions.

In the same paragraph, of which a part is quoted, at the commencement of this article, Mr. Macaulay, after stating, that, when the King and Penn met at Chester, in 1687, Penn preached, or, to use Mr. Macaulay's word, _harangued_, in the tennis court, he says--"_It is said indeed, that his Majesty deigned to look into the tennis court, and to listen, with decency, to his friend's melodious eloquence_." What does Mr. Macaulay mean?--that the King did not laugh outright?--that he made some little exertion, to suppress a disposition to make a mock of Penn and his preaching? No intelligent reader, though he may not catch the invidious spirit of this remark, can fail to perceive the writer's design, to speak disparagingly of Penn.

Well: what is Mr. Macaulay's authority for this? He quotes "Cartwright's Diary, Aug. 30, 1687, and Clarkson's Life of William Penn"--but without any indication of volume, chapter, or page. This loose and unsatisfactory kind of reference is quite common with Mr. Macaulay; and one might almost as well indicate the route to the pyramids, by setting up a finger post in Edinburgh, pointing in the direction of Cairo. No eminent historian, English or Scotch, has ever been thus regardless of his reader's comfort; neither Rapin nor Tindal, Smollett nor Hume, nor Henry, nor Robertson, nor Guthrie, nor any other. Of this the reader may well complain. This may all be well enough, in a historical romance--but in a matter, pretending to be true and impartial history, no good reader will walk by faith, altogether, and upon the staff of a single narrator; and he will too often find, that the spirit of the context, in the authority, is very different, from that of the citation.

He, who imparts to any historical fact the coloring of his own prejudice, and _dresses up_ a statement, after his own fancy, has no right to vouch in, as his authority, for the _whole thing_, however grotesque he may have made it--the writer, who has stated the _naked fact_. If Clarkson said simply, that the King had listened to Penn's preaching, Mr. Macaulay has no right to quote Clarkson, as having said so, in a manner to lower Penn, the t.i.the of a hair, in the estimation of the world. _A fortiori_, if Clarkson has said, that the King listened to Penn's preaching, _on several occasion, with respect_, Mr. Macaulay had no right to quote Clarkson, as his authority, for the sneering and ill-natured statement, to which I have referred. This is not history, it is gross misrepresentation; and, the more forcibly and ingeniously it is fabricated, the more unjust and the more ungenerous the libel, upon the dead.

The reader, if he will, may judge of Mr. Macaulay's impartiality, by comparing his words with the _only words_ uttered by Clarkson, on this point. They may be found, vol. i. chap. 23--"Among the places he (Penn) visited, in Cheshire, was Chester itself. The King, who was then travelling, arriving there at the same time, went to the meeting-house of the Quakers, to hear him preach. This mark of respect the King showed him also, at two or three other places where they fell in with each other, in the course of their respective tours."

This is the only pa.s.sage, which can be referred to, in Clarkson, by Mr.

Macaulay, to sustain his ill-natured remark, whose evil spirit is entirely neutralized, by the very authority he cites. But there will be many, who will rather give Mr. Macaulay credit, for stating the point impartially; and few, I apprehend, who will take the trouble to look, through two octavo volumes, for a pa.s.sage, thus vaguely referred to, without any indication of the volume, chapter, or page.

This rude a.s.sault, upon the character and motives of William Penn, Mr.

Macaulay commences, by saying--"_To speak the whole truths concerning Penn, is a task, which requires some courage_." It is becoming, in every historian, to speak the truth, the whole truth, and _nothing but the truth_. It certainly requires some courage--audacity, perhaps, is the better word--to present citations, in French and Latin, to sustain an a.s.sertion, which those citations do not sustain; and to refer to a highly respectable author, as having stated that, which he has nowhere stated.

It may not be amiss, to present my views of Mr. Macaulay's injustice, more plainly than I have done. It is obvious to all, that a fact--the same fact--may, by the very manner of stating it, raise or lower the character of him, in regard to whom it is related. The _manner_ of representing it may become _material_, or, substantially, part and parcel of the fact, as completely, as the coloring is part and parcel of a picture. No man has a right to take the sketch or outline of an angel, and, having given it the sable complexion of a devil, ascribe the entire thing, such as he has made it, to the author of the original sketch. No man, surely, has a right to seize a wreath, respectfully designed for the brows of his neighbor; distort it into the shape of a fool's cap; clap it upon that neighbor's head; and then charge the responsibility upon him, who prepared the original chaplet, as a token of respect.

Mr. Macaulay represents King James, as listening to the preaching of Penn, with concealed contempt--such are the force and meaning of his words; and he quotes Clarkson, as authority for this, who says precisely the contrary.

Every reader, who is uninstructed in the French and Latin languages, will view the quotations from Bonrepaux and Croese, as authorities for Mr.

Macaulay's a.s.sertion, that Penn had "_become the tool of the King and the Jesuits_"--for, whether carelessly, or cunningly, contrived, the sentence will certainly be understood to mean precisely this. A large number, even of those, who understand the languages, will take these quotations, as evidence, upon Mr. Macaulay's word, without examination. Now, as I have stated, there is not the slightest authority, in these pa.s.sages, for Mr.

Macaulay's a.s.sertion.

No. LXVI.

Mr. Macaulay's last attack upon William Penn will be found, in vol. ii., pages 295-6-7. The Fellows of Magdalen College had been most abominably treated, by James II., in 1687. The detail is too long for my limits, and is, withal, unnecessary here, since there is neither doubt nor denial of the fact. The mediatorial agency of Penn was employed. The King was enraged, and resolved to have his way. His obstinacy was a proverb. There were three courses for Penn--right, left, and medial--to side with the King--to side with the Fellows--or to act as a mediator. Mr. Macaulay is pleased, in his Index, to speak of the transaction, as "_Penn's mediation_."

Had he sided with the Fellows entirely, he would have lost his influence utterly, to serve them, with the King. Had he sided with the King entirely, he would have lost all confidence with the Fellows. Mr.

Macaulay, here, as elsewhere, is evidently bent upon showing up Penn, as the "_tool of the King_:" and, if there is anything more unjust, upon historical record, I know not where to look for it.

[1]With manifest effort, and in stinted measure, Mr. Macaulay lets down a few drops of the milk of human kindness, in the outset, and says of Penn--"_He had too much good feeling to approve of the violent and unjust proceedings of the government, and even ventured to express part of what he thought_." Here, that which proceeded from _fixed and lofty principle_, is ascribed to a less honorable motive--"_good feeling_," or _bonhommie_; and the "_part of what he thought_," was neither more nor less, than a bold and frank remonstrance, committed to writing, and sent to the King, by Penn.

[1] The palpable reluctance of Mr. Macaulay to deal in liberal construction, and to award the smallest praise, on such occasions, is not confined to Penn. A writer in Blackwood's Magazine, for October, 1849, page 509, after referring to the glorious defeat of the Dutch fleet, off Harwich, when the Duke of York, afterwards James II., commanded in person, remarks--"Mr. Macaulay, in his late published _History of England_, has not deigned even to notice this engagement--a remarkable omission, the reason of which omission it is foreign to our purpose to inquire. This much we may be allowed to say, that no historian, who intends to form an accurate estimate of the character of James II., or to compile a complete register of his deeds, can justly accomplish his task, without giving that unfortunate monarch the credit for his conduct and intrepidity, in one of the most important and successful naval actions, which stands recorded, in our annals."

Other English historians have related it. Hume, Oxford ed. 1826, vol.

vii. page 355--Smollett, Lond. ed. 1759, vol. viii. page 31.--Rapin, Lond. ed. 1760, vol. xi. page 272. "The Duke of York," says Smollett, "was in the hottest part of the battle, and behaved with great spirit and composure, even when the Earl of Falmouth, the Lord Muskerry, and Mr. Boyle, were killed at his side, by one cannon ball, which covered him with the blood and brains of these three gallant gentlemen."

When they met at Oxford, says Clarkson, vol. i. chap. 23, "William Penn had an opportunity of showing not only his courage, but his consistency in those principles of religious liberty, which he had defended, during his whole life." After giving an account of the Prince's injustice, Clarkson says--"Next morning William Penn was on horseback, ready to leave Oxford, but knowing what had taken place, he rode up to Magdalen College, and conversed with the Fellows, on the subject. After this conversation, he wrote a letter, and desired them to present it to the King." * * * * "Dr.

Sykes, in relating this anecdote of William Penn, by letter to Dr.

Chazlett, who was then absent, mentions that Penn, after some discourse with the Fellows of Magdalen College, wrote a short letter, directed to the King. He wrote to this purpose--that their case was hard, and that, in their circ.u.mstances, they could not yield obedience."

This was confirmed by Mr. Creech, as Clarkson states, and by Sewell, who states, in his History of the Rise and Progress of the Quakers, that Penn told the King the act "_could not in justice be defended, since the general liberty of conscience did not allow of depriving any of their property, who did what they ought to do, as the Fellows of the said College appeared to have done_." This is the "_part of what he thought_,"

referred to by Mr. Macaulay, who has not found it convenient, upon this occasion, to quote a syllable from Clarkson, nor from Sewell, of whose work Chalmers and others have spoken with respect.

I know of no better mode of presenting this matter fairly, than by laying before the reader contrasted pa.s.sages, from Mr. Macaulay, and from Clarkson, relating to the conduct of Penn, upon this occasion. Mr.

Macaulay shall lead off--"James, was as usual, obstinate in the wrong. The courtly Quaker, therefore, did his best to seduce the college from the path of right."--Therefore!--Wherefore? Penn did his best to _seduce_ the college from the path of right, _because_ James was, as usual, obstinate in the wrong! This is based, of course, upon Mr. Macaulay's favorite hypothesis, that Penn was "_the tool of the King and the Jesuits_."--"He tried first intimidation. Ruin, he said, impended over the society. The King was highly incensed. The case might be a hard one. Most people thought it so. But every child knew that his Majesty loved to have his own way, and could not bear to be thwarted. Penn, therefore, exhorted the Fellows not to rely on the goodness of their cause, but to submit, or at least to temporize. Such counsel came strangely from one, who had been expelled from the University for raising a riot about the surplice, who had run the risk of being disinherited, rather than take off his hat to the princes of the blood, and who had been more than once sent to prison, for haranguing in conventicles. He did not succeed in frightening the Magdalen men."

It may be thought scarcely worth while, to charge a Quaker, at the age of _forty-three_, with inconsistency, because his views had somewhat altered, since he was a wild young man, at _twenty-one_.

It is also clear, that Penn viewed the Magdalen question, as one quite as much of _property_ as of _conscience_; and that he could see no good reason, with his eyes of toleration wide open, why all the great educational inst.i.tutions should be forever, in the hands of one denomination.

Mr. Macaulay again--"Then Penn tried a gentler tone. He had an interview with Hough and some of the Fellows, and after many professions of sympathy and friendship, began to hint at a compromise. The King could not bear to be crossed. The college must give way. Parker must be admitted. But he was in very bad health. All his preferments would soon be vacant. 'Dr. Hough,'

said Penn, 'may then be Bishop of Oxford. How should you like that, gentlemen?' Penn had pa.s.sed his life in declaiming against a hireling ministry. He held, that he was bound to refuse the payment of t.i.thes, and this even when he had bought lands, chargeable with t.i.thes, and had been allowed the value of the t.i.thes in the purchase money. According to his own principles, he would have committed a great sin, if he had interfered, for the purpose of obtaining a benefice, on the most honorable terms, for the most pious divine. Yet to such a degree had his manners been corrupted by evil communications, and his understanding obscured by inordinate zeal for a single object, that he did not scruple to become a broker in simony of a peculiarly discreditable kind, and to use a bishopric as a bait to tempt a divine to perjury."

Are these the words of truth and soberness? I rather think they are not.

In the sacred name of common sense--did Penn become a _broker in simony of a peculiarly discreditable kind, and use a bishopric, as a bait to tempt a divine to perjury_, by stating, that Parker was very infirm, and, that, should he die, Hough might be his successor! If this is history, give us fiction, for Heaven's sake, which is said to be less marvellous than fact.