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 tithe 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 passage, 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 passage, thus vaguely referred to, without any indication of the volume, chapter, or page.
This rude assault, 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 assertion, 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 assertion, 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 passages, for Mr. Macaulay’s assertion.