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.
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 circumstances, 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 passages, 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 institutions 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 passed his life in declaiming against a hireling ministry. He held, that he was bound to refuse the payment of tithes, and this even when he had bought lands, chargeable with tithes, and had been allowed the value of the tithes 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. There is not the least pretence, that he offered, or was authorized to offer, any such “bait.” He spoke of a mere contingency; and did the best he could to mediate, between the King and the Fellows, both of whom were highly incensed.
As to the matter of tithes, Penn was mediating, between men, who had no scruples about tithes. He recognized, pro hac vice, the usages of the parties; and a Christian judge may, as shrewdly, be charged with infidelity, for conforming to the established law of evidence, and permitting a disciple of Mahomet to be sworn, upon the Koran.
When Hough replied, that the Papists had robbed them of University College, and Christ Church, and were now after Magdalen, and would have all the rest, “Penn,” says Mr. Macaulay, “was foolish enough to answer, that he believed the Papists would now be content. ‘University,’ he said, ‘is a pleasant college. Christ Church is a noble place. Magdalen is a fine building. The situation is convenient. The walks by the river are delightful. If the Roman Catholics are reasonable, they will be satisfied with these.’”
And now I will present Clarkson’s just and sensible view of this transaction. Mr. Macaulay has said, vol. ii. page 295, that “the agency of Penn was employed,” meaning, as the context shows, employed by the King. Clarkson, vol. i. chap. 23, says expressly, that, Oct. 3, 1687, Dr. Bailey wrote to Penn, “stated the merits of the case, and solicited his mediation.” Penn told the Fellows, as appears from Dr. Hough’s own letter, written the evening after their last interview, that he “feared they had come too late. He would use, however, his endeavors; and, if they were unsuccessful, they must attribute it to want of power in him, and not of good will to serve them.” The mediation came to nothing. The Fellows grew dissatisfied with Penn; falling, doubtless, into the very common error of parties, highly excited, and differing so widely, that all, who are not for them; in toto, are against them. They seem to have been specially offended, by the following liberal remark of Penn’s—“For my part, I have always declared my opinion, that the preferments of the Church should not be put into any other hands but such as they at present are in; but I hope you would not have the two Universities such invincible bulwarks of the Church of England, that none but they must be capable of giving their children a learned education.”
In the same volume and chapter, Clarkson remarks—“They (the delegates from Magdalen) thought, strange to relate, that Penn had been rambling; and because he spoke doubtfully, about the success of his intended efforts, and of the superior capacity of the established clergy, that they alone should monopolize education, that his language was not to be depended upon as sincere. How this could have come into their heads, except from the terror, into which the situation of the College had thrown them, it is not easy to conceive; for certainly William Penn was as explicit, as any man could have been, under similar circumstances. He informed them, that, after repeated efforts with the King, he feared they had come too late. This was plain language. He informed them again, that he would make another trial with the King; that he would read their papers to him, unless peremptorily commanded to forbear; but that, if he failed, they must attribute his want of success not to his want of will, but want of power.”
“This, though expressive of his doubts and fears, was but a necessary caution, when his exertions had already failed; and it was still more necessary, when there was reason to suppose, that, though the King had a regard for him, and was glad to employ him, as an instrument, in forwarding his public views, yet that he would not gratify him, where his solicitations directly opposed them. That William Penn did afterwards make a trial with the King, to serve the College, there can be no doubt, because no instance can be produced, wherein he ever forfeited his word or broke his promise. But all trials with this view must of necessity have been ineffectual. The King and his ministers had already determined the point in question.”
Such were the sentiments of Clarkson.