صور الصفحة
PDF

thasse-marées appeared from St Jean de Luz, preceded by menof-war boats. Several men and vessels were lost in crossing the bar; but by noon on the 26th of February the bridge of 26 vessels had been thrown and secured; batteries and a boom placed to protect it, 8000 troops passed over, and the enemy’s gunboats driven up the river. Bayonne was then invested on both banks as a preliminary to the siege.

On the 27th of February Wellington, having with little loss efiected the passage of the Pan below Orthes, attacked Soult. In this battle the Allies and French were of about equal strength (37,000): the former having 48 guns, the latter 40. Soult held a strong position behind Orthes on heights command

Battle of . one“, mg the roads to Dax and St Sever. Beresford was Zebi 27, directed to turn his right, if possible cutting him off

from Dax, and Hill his left towards the St Sever road. Beresford’s attack, after hard fighting over difficult ground, was repulsed, when Wellington, perceiving that the pursuing French had left a central part of the heights unoccupied, thrust up the Light Division into it, between Soult’s right and centre. At the same time Hill, having found a ford above Orthes, was turning the French left, when Soult retreated just in time to save being cut off, withdrawing towards St Sever, which he reached on the 28th of February. The allied loss was about 2000; the French 4000 and 6 guns.

From St Sever Soult turned eastwards to Aire, where he covered the roads to Bordeaux and Toulouse. Beresford, with r 2,000 men, was now sent to Bordeaux, which opened its gates as promised to the Allies. Driven by Hill from Aire on the 2nd of March 1814, Soult retired by Vic Bigorre, where there was a combat (March 19), and Tarbes, where there was a severe action (March 20), to Toulouse behind the Garonne. He endeavoured also to rouse the French peasantry against the Allies, but in vain, for Wellington’s justice and moderation afforded them no grievances. Wellington wished to pass the Garonne above Toulouse in order to attack the city from the south—its weakest side—and interpose between Soult and Suchet. But finding it impracticable to operate in that direction, he left Hill on the west side and crossed at Grenade below Toulouse (April 3). When Beresford, who had now rejoined Wellington, had passed over, the bridge was swept away, which left him isolated on the right bank. But Soult did not attack; the bridge (April 8) was restored; Wellington crossed the Garonne and the Ers, and attacked Soult on the 10th of April. In the battle of Toulouse the French numbered about 40,000 (exclusive of the local National Guards) with 80 guns; the Allies under 52,000 with 64 Battle of guns. Soult’s position to the north and east of the "WW": city was exceedingly strong, consisting of the canal gpfl'w’ of Languedoc, some fortified suburbs, and (to the

° extreme east) the commanding ridge of Mont Rave, crowned with redoubts and earthworks. Wellington’s columns, under Beresford, were now called upon to make a flank march of some two miles, under artillery, and occasionally musketry, fire, being threatened also by cavalry, and then, while the Spanish troops assaulted the north of the ridge, to wheel up, mount the eastern slope, and carry the works. The Spaniards were repulsed, but Beresford gallantly took Mont Rave and Soult fell back behind the canal. On the 12th of April Wellington advanced to invest Toulouse from the south, but Soult on the night of the 11th had retreated towards Villefranque, and Wellington then entered the city. The allied loss was about 5000; the French 3000. Thus, in the last great battle of the war, the courage and resolution of the soldiers of the Peninsular army were conspicuously illustrated.

On the 1 3th of April 1814 officers arrived with the announcement to both armies of the capture of Paris, the abdication of Napoleon, and the practical conclusion of peace; and on the 18th a convention, which included Suchet’s force, was entered into between Wellington and Soult. Unfortunately, after Toulouse had fallen, the Allies and French, in a sortie from Bayonne on the 14th of April, each lost about 1000 men: so

that some 10,000 men fell after peace had virtually been made.v

In the east. during this year (1814), Sir W. Clinton had, on xxx. 4

[graphic]

the 16th of January, attacked Suchet at Molins de Rey and blockaded Barcelona (Feb. 7); the French posts of Lerida, Mequinenza and Monzon had also been yielded up, and Suchet, on the 2nd of March, had crossed the Pyrenees into France. Figueras surrendered to Cuesta before the end of May; and peace was formally signed at Paris on the 30th of May.

Thus terminated the long and sanguinary struggle of the Peninsular War. The British troops were partly sent to England, and partly embarked at Bordeaux for America, with which country war had broken out (see AMERICAN WAR OF 1812—15): the Portuguese and Spanish recrossed the Pyrenees: the French army was dispersed throughout France: Louis XVIII. was restored to the French throne: and Napoleon was permitted to reside in the island of Elba, the sovereignty of which had been conceded to him by the allied powers. For the operations of this campaign Wellington was created marquess of Douro and duke of Wellington, and peerages were conferred upon Beresford, Graham and Hill.

The events of the Peninsular War, especially as narrated in the Wellington Despatches, are replete with instruction not only for the soldier, but also for the civil administrator. Even in a brief summary of the war one salient fact is noticeable, that all Wellington’s reverses were in connexion with his sieges, for which his means were never adequate. In his many battles he was always victorious, his strategy eminently successful, his organizing and administrative power exceptionally great, his practical resource unlimited, his soldiers most courageous; but he never had an army fully complete in its departments and warlike equipment. He had no adequate corps of sappers and miners, or transport train. In 1812 tools and material of war for his sieges were often insufficient. In 1813, when he was before San Sebastian, the ammunition ran short; a battering train, long demanded, reached him not only some time after it was needed, but even then with only one day’s provision of shot and shell. For‘the siege of Burgos heavy guns were available in store on the coast; but he neither had, nor could procure, the transport to bring them up. By resource and dogged determination Wellington rose superior to almost every difficulty, but he could not overcome all; and the main teaching oi the Peninsular War turns upon the value of an army that is completely organized in its various branches before hostilities break out. (C. W. R.)

AUTHOR1T1Es.—The Wellington Despatches, ed. Gurwood (London, r834—18 9); Supplementary Wellington Despatches (London, 1858— 1861 an 1867—1872) ; Sir W. Napier, History of War in the Peninsula and South of France (London, 1828-1840); C. W. C. Oman, History 0 the Peninsular War (London, 1902); Sir I. jones, Journals and

ie es in SPain, I8I1—12 (London, 1814); and Account of the War in pain, Portugal and South of France, 1808—14 (London, 1821); Sir ]. F. Maurice, iary of Sir John Moore (London, 19%); Commandant Balagny, Cam a ne de l’EmPereur Na oléon en spagne, 18081809 (Paris, 1902 ; ‘lajor-General C. \ . Robinson. Wellington’s Campaigns (London, 1907); Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789— 1815 (London, 1835—1842); T. Choumara, Considerations militaires sur les mémoires du Maréchal Suchet et sur la bataille de Toulouse (Paris, 1838); Commandant Clerc, Campa ne du Maréchal Soult dans les Pyrénées occidentales en 1813-14 ( aris, 1894); Mémoires du Baron Marbot (Paris, 1891; En . trans. by A. ~]. Butler, London, 1902); H. R. Clinton, The War int Peninsula, é‘c. (London, 1889); Marshal Suchet's Mémoires (Paris, 1826; London, 182?); Ca tain L. Butler, Wellington’s Operations in the Peninsula, 180 —14 ( 0ndon, 1904); Batty, Camjmign of the Le t Wing o the Allied Army in the Western Pyrenees and South of rance, 1 13-14 (London, 1823); Foy, Histoire de la guerre de la Péninsule, 8%., sous NaPoléon (Paris and London. 1827): Lord Londonderry, Narrative of the Peninsular War, I808—I3 (London, 1823); R. Southe , History of the Peninsular War (London, 1823—1832); ajor A. Gri ths, Wellington and Waterloo (illustrated; London, 1898); Thiers, Histoire du consulat et de l'empire (Paris, 1845-18 7; and translated by D. F. Campbell, London, 1345); Captain . H. Marindin, The Salamanca Campaign (London, 1906); Marmont's Mémoires (Paris, 1857); Colonel_Slr A. S. Frazer, Letters during the Peninsular and Waterloo Campaigns (ed. b Major-General E. Sabine. London, 18 9); Lieut.-Colonel W. Hill-James. Battles round Biarritz, Nivelle an the Nwe (London, 1896); Battles round Biarritz, Garres and the Bridge of Boats (Edinbur h. 1897); H. B. Robinson, Memoirs 0 Lieutenant-General 51! T. iiclon (London. 18%;): G. C. Moore- mith, Autobiografhf o] Lieutenant-General Sir arry Smith (London, 1901); Life 0 ohn Colborne (F.-M. Lord Seatan) (London, 1903); Rev. A. H. Crauford.

[ocr errors]

General Craufurd and his Light Division (London, 18 1); Sir George Larpent, Private Journal of F. S. Larpent during the eninsular War (LondonI I853); Major-General H. D. Hutchinson, O eratians in the Peninsula; 1808—9 (London, 1905); The Dickson 88., being Journals of Major-General Sir Alexander Dickson during the Peninsular War (\Voolwich, 1907).

PEfiISCOLA, a town of eastern Spain, in the province of Castellén de la Plana, and on the Mediterranean Sea, 5 in. by road S. of Benicarlé. Pop. (1900), 3142. Pefiiscola, often called the Gibraltar of Valencia, is a fortified seaport, with a lighthouse, built on a rocky headland about 220 ft. high, and only joined to the mainland by a narrow strip of sand. Originally a Moorish stronghold, it was captured in 1233 by James I. of Aragon, who entrusted it to the Knights Templar. In the 14th century it was garrisoned by the knights of Montesa, and in 1420 it reverted to the Crown. From 1415 it was the home of the schismatic pope Benedict XIII. (Pedro de Luna), whose name is commemorated in the Bufador de Papa Luna, a curious cavern with a landward entrance through which the sea-water escapes in clouds of spray.

PENITENTIAL (Lat. Poonitenliale, libellus poonitenlialis, &c.), a manual used by priests of the Catholic Church for guidance in assigning the penance due to sins. Such manuals played a large role in the early middle ages, particularly in Ireland, England and Frankland, and their influence in the moral education of the barbarian races has not received sufficient attention from historians. They were mainly composed of canons drawn from-various councils and of dicta from writings of some of the fathers. Disciplinary regulations in Christian communities are referred to from the very borders of the apostolic age, and a system of careful oversight of those admitted to the mysteries developed steadily as the membership grew and dangers of contamination with the outside world increased. These were the elaborate precautions of the catechumenate, and -—as a bulwark against the persecutions—the rigid system known as the Discipline of the Secret (disciplina arrani). The treatment of the lapsed, which produced the Novatian heresy, was also responsible for what has frequently been referred to as the first penitential. This is the libellus in which, according to Cyprian (Ep. 51), the decrees of the African synods of 251 and 255 were embodied for the guidance of the clergy in dealing with their repentant and returning flocks. This manual, which has been lost, was evidently not like the code-like compilations of the 8th century, and it is somewhat misleading to speak of it as a penitential. Jurisdiction in penance was still too closely limited to the upper ranks of the clergy to call forth such literature. Besides the bishop an official well versed in the penitential regulations of the Church, called the floenitentiarius, assigned due penalties for sins. For their guidance there was considerable conciliar legislation (e. g. Ancyra, Nicaea, Neocaesarca, &c.), and certain patristic letters which had acquired almost the force of decrctals. Of the latter the most important were the three letters of St Basil of Caesarea (d. 379) to Bishop Amphilochus of Iconium containing over eighty headings.

Three things tended to develop these rules into something like a system of penitential law. These were the development of auricular confession and private penance; the extension of the penitential jurisdiction among the clergy owing to the growth of a parochial priesthood; and the necessity of adapting the penance to the primitive ideas of law prevailing among the newly converted barbarians, especially the idea of compensation by the wergild. In Ireland in the middle of the 5th century appeared the “ canons of St Patrick.” In the first half of the next century these were followed by others, notably those of St Finian (d. 552). At the same time the Celtic British Church produced the penitentials of St David of Menevia (d. 544) and of Gildas (d. 583) in addition to synQdal legislation. These furnished the material to Columban (d. 615) for his Liber de poenitentia and his monastic rule, which had a great influence upon the continent of Europe. The Anglo-Saxon Church was later than the Irish, but under Theodore of Tarsus (d.690), archbishop of Canterbury, the practice then in force was made

[graphic]

the basis of the most important of all penitentials. The Poenitentiale Theodori became the authority in the Church’s treatment of sinners for the next four centuries, both in England and elsewhere in Europe. The original text, as prepared by a disciple of Theodore, and embodying his decisions, is given in Haddan and Stubbs’s Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland (i. 173 seq.). A Penilentiale Commeani (St Cumian), dating apparently from the early 8th century, was the third main source of F rankish penitentials. The extent and variety of this literature led the Gallican Church to exercise a sort of censorship in order to secure uniformity. After numerous synods, Bishop Haltigar of Cambrai was commissioned by Ebo of Reims in 829 to prepare a definitive edition. Haltigar used, among his other materials, a so-called poonitcnliale romannm, which was really of F rankish origin. The canons printed by David Wilkins in his Concilia (1 73 7) as being by Ecgbert of York (d. 767) are largely a translation into Anglo-Saxon of three books of Haltigar’s penitentials. In 84! Hrabarius Maurus undertook a new Liber Poenitentium and wrote a long letter on the subject to Heribald of Auxerre about 853. Then followed the treatise of Reginon of Prum in 906, and finally the collection made by Burchard, bishop of Worms, between 1012 and 1023. The codification of the canon law by Gratian and the change in the sacramental position of penance in the 12th century closed the history of penitentials.

Much controversy has arisen over the question whether there was an official papal penitential. It is claimed that (quite apart from Haltigar’s paenitentiale romanum) such a set of canons existed early in Rome, and the attempt has been made by H. J. Schmitz in his learned treatise on penitentials (Buszbitrher und das kanonisohe Buszverfahrcn, 1883 and 1898) to establish their pontifical character. The matter is still in dispute, Schmitz’s thesis not having met with universal acceptance.

In addition to the works mentioned above the one important work on the penitentials was L. W. H. W'asserschleben’s epoch-making study and collection of texts, Die Buszordnungen der abendlandisehen Kirche nebst einer rechtsgeschichtlichen Einleitnng (Halle, 1851). See articles in \Vetzer and \Nclte's Kirchenloxikon, Hauck's Realencyklopiidie, and Haddan and Stubbs’s Councils. See also Seebasz in Zeitschrift fin Kirchengeschichte, xviii. 58. On the canons of St Patrick see the Life of St Patrick by J. B. Bury (pp. 233—275).

PENITENTIARY (med. Lat. floenitcntiarius, from poenitentia, penance, poena, punishment, :1 term used both as adjective and substantive, referring either to the means of repentance or that of punishment. In its ecclesiastical use the word is used as the equivalent both of the Latin poenitentiarius, “ penitentiary priest,” and poenitentiaria, the dignity or office of a poenitentiarius. By an extension of the latter sense the name is applied to the department of the Roman Curia known as the apostolic penitentiary (sacra poenitenliaria apostolica), presided over by the cardinal grand penitentiary (major poenitentiarius, Ital. penitenziere maggiore) and having jurisdiction more particularly in all questions in fora interno reserved for the Holy See (see CURIA ROMANA). In general, the poenitentiarius, or penitentiary priest, is in each diocese what the grand penitentiary is at Rome, i.e. he is appointed to deal with all cases of conscience reserved for the bishop. In the Eastern Church there are very early notices of such appointments; so far as the West is concerned, Hinschius (Kirchenrecht, i. 428, note 2) quotes from the chronicle of Bernold, the monk of St Blase (c. 1054—1100), as the earliest record of such appointment, that made by the papal legate Odo of Ostia in 1054. In r215 the fourth Lateran Council, by its roth canon, ordered suitable men to be ordained in all cathedral and conventual churches, to act as coadjutors and assistants to the bishops in hearing confessions and imposing penances. The rule was not immediately nor universally obeyed, the bishops being slow to delegate their special powers. Finally, however, the council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. cap. viii. dc reform.) ordered that, “wherever it could conveniently be done,” the bishop should appoint in his cathedral a poenitentiarius, who should be a doctor or licentiate in theology or canon law and at least forty years of age.

[ocr errors]

PENKRIDGE, a town in the western parliamentary division of Staflordshire, England; 134 m. N.W. from London by the London & North-Western railway, on the small river Penk. Pop. (1901), 2347. Trade is chiefly agricultural and there are stone-quarries in the vicinity. The church of St Michael and All Angels, formerly collegiate and dedicated to St Mary, is a fine building principally Perpendicular, but with earlier portions. The Roman Watling Street passes from east to west 3 111. south of Penkridge. In the neighbourhood is Pillaton Hall, retaining a picturesque chapel of the 15th century.

PENLEY, WILLIAM SYDNEY (1852— ), English actor, was born at Broadstairs, and educated in London, where his father had a school. He first made his mark as a comedian by his exceedingly amusing performance as the curate in The Private Secretary, 9. part in which he succeeded Beerbohrn Tree; but he is even more associated with the title r61e in Brandon Thomas’s Charley’s Aunt (1892), a farce which had an unprecedentedly long run and was acted all over the world.

PENMARC’H, a village of western France in the department of Finistére, 18 m. S.W. of Quimper by road. Pop. (1906), of the village, 387; of the commune, 5702. On the extremity of the peninsula on which it is situated are fortified remains of a town which was of considerable importance from the 14th to the 16th centuries and included, besides Penmarc 'h, St Guénolé and Kerity. It owed its prosperity to its cod-banks, the disappearance of which together with the discovery of the Newfoundland cod-banks and the pillage of the place by the bandit La Fontenelle in 1595 contributed to its decadence. The church of St Nouna, a Gothic building of the early 16th century at Penmarc’h, and the church of St Guénolé, an unfinished tower of the 15th century and the church of Ken'ty (15th century) are of interest. The coast is very dangerous. On the Point de Penmarc’h stands the Phare d’Eckmuhl, with a light visible for 60 miles. There are numerous megalithic monuments in the vicinity.

PENN, WILLIAM (1621—1670), British admiral, was the son of Giles Penn, merchant and seaman of Bristol. He served his apprenticeship at sea with his father. In the first Civil War he fought on the side of the parliament, and was in command of a. ship in the squadron maintained against the king in the Irish seas. The service was arduous and called for both energy and good seamanship. In 1648 he was arrested and sent to London, but was soon released, and sent back as rear admiral in the “ Assurance ” (32). The exact cause of the arrest is unknown, but it may be presumed to have been that he was suspected of being in correspondence with the king’s supporters. It is highly probable that he was, for until the Restoration he was regularly in communication with the Royalists, while serving the parliament, or Cromwell, so long as their service was profitable, and making no scruple of applying for grants of the confiscated lands of the king’s Irish friends. The character of “ mean fellow ” given him by Pepys is borne out by much that is otherwise known of him. But it is no less certain that he was an excellent seaman and a good fighter. After 1650 he was employed in the Ocean, and in the Mediterranean in pursuit of the Royalists under Prince Rupert. He was so active on this service that when he returned home on the 18th of March 1651 he could boast that he had not put foot on shore for more than a year. When the first Dutch War broke out Penn was appointed vice-admiral to Blake, and was present at the battle of the 28th of September 06 the Kentish Knock. In the three days’ battle ofl Portland, February 1653, he commanded the Blue squadron, and he also served with distinction in the final battles of the war in June and July. In December he was included in the commission of admirals and generals at sea, who exercised the military command of the fleet, as well as “ one ofthe commissioners for ordering and managing the affairs of the admiralty and navy.” In 1654 he oflered to carry the fleet over to the king, but in October of

[graphic]

the same year he had no scruple in accepting the naval command in the expedition to the West Indies sent out by Cromwell, which conquered Jamaica. He was not responsible for the shameful repulse at San Domingo, which was due to a panic among the troops. On their return he and his military colleague Venables were sent to the Tower. He made humble submission, and when released retired to the estate he had received from confiscated land in Ireland. He continued in communication with the Royalists, and in 1660 had a rather obscure share in the Restoration. He was reappointed commissioner of the navy by the king, and in the second Dutch War served as “ great captain commander” or captain of the fleet, with the duke of York (afterwards King James II.) at the battle of Lowestoft (June 3, 1665). When the duke withdrew from the command, Penn’s active service ceased. He continued however to be a commissioner of the navy. His death occurred on the 16th of September 1670, and he was buried in the church of St Mary Redclifie, Bristol. His portrait by Lely is in the Painted Hall at Greenwich.‘ By his wife Margaret Jasper, he was the father of William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. Though Sir William Penn was not a high-minded man, he is a figure of considerable importance in British naval history. As admiral and general for the parliament he helped in 1653 to draw up the first code of tactics provided for the navy. It was the base of the “ Duke of York’s Sailing and Fighting Instructions,” which continued for long to supply the orthodox tactical creed of the navy.

See the Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Si rWilliam Perm, by Granville Penn. (D. H.)

PENN, WILLIAM (1644—1718), English Quaker and founder of Pennsylvania, son of Admiral Sir William Penn (1621-1670) and Margaret Jasper, a Dutch lady, was born at Tower Hill, London, on the 14th of October 1644. During his father’s absence at sea he lived at Wanstead in Essex, and went to school at Chigwell close by, in which places he was brought under strong Puritan influences. Like many children of sensitive temperament, he had timesof spiritual excitement; when about twelve he was “ suddenly surprised with an inward comfort, and, as he thought, an external glory in the room, which gave rise to religious emotions, during which he had the strongest conviction of the being of a God, and that the soul of man was capable of enjoying communication with Him.” Upon the death of Cromwell, Penn’s father, who had served the Protector because there was no other career open, remained with his family on the Irish estates which Cromwell had given him, of the value of £300 a year. On the resignation of Richard Cromwell he at once declared for the king and went to the court in Holland, where he was received into favour and knighted; and at the elections for the convention parliament he was returned for Weymouth. Meanwhile young Penn studied under a private tutor on Tower Hill until, in October 1660, he was entered as a gentleman commoner at Christ Church. He appears in the same year to have contributed to the Threnodia, a collection of elegies on the death of the young duke-of Gloucester.

The rigour with which the Anglican statutes were revived, and the Puritan heads of colleges supplanted, roused the spirit of resistance at Oxford to the uttermost. With this spirit Penn, who was on familiar terms with John Owen (1616—1683), and who had already fallen under the influence of Thomas Loe the Quaker, then at Oxford, actively sympathized. He and others refused to attend chapel and church service, and were fined in consequence. How far his leaving the university resulted from this’ cannot be clearly ascertained. Anthony Wood has nothing regarding the cause of his leaving, but says that he stayed at Oxford for two years, and that he was noted for proficiency in manly sports. There is no doubt that in January 1662 his father was anxious to remove him to Cambridge, and consulted Pepys on the subject; and in later years he speaks of being “ banished ” the college, and of being whipped, beaten and turned out of doors on his return to his father, in the anger of the latter at his avowed Quakerism. A reconciliation, however, was effected; and Penn was sent to F rancc to forget this folly. Theplan was foratime successful. Penn appears to have entered more or less into the gaieties of the court of Louis XIV., and while there to have become acquainted with Robert Spencer, afterwards earl of Sunderland, and with Dorothy, sister to Algernon Sidney. What, however, is more certain is that he somewhat later placed himself under the tuition of Moses ' Amyraut, the celebrated president of the Protestant college of Saumur, and“ at that time the exponent of liberal Calvinism, from whom he gained the patristic knowledge which is so prominent in his controversial writings. He afterwards travelled in Italy, returning to England in August 1664, with “ a great deal, if not too much, of the vanity of the French garb and affected manner of speech and gait.“l

> Until the outbreak of the plague Penn was a student of Lincoln’s Inn. For a few days also he served on the staff of his father—now great captain commander—and was by him sent back in April 166 5 to Charles with despatches. Returning after the naval victory ofi Lowestoft in June, Admiral Penn found that his son had again become settled in seriousness and Quakerism. To bring him once more to views of life not inconsistent with court preferment, the admiral sent him in February 1666 with introductions to Ormonde’s pure but brilliant court in Ireland, and to manage his estate in Cork round Shannangarry Castle, his title to which was disputed. Penn appears also later in the year to have been “ clerk of the cheque ” at Kinsale, of the castle and fort of which his father had the command. When the mutiny broke out in Carrickfergus Penn volunteered for service, and acted under Arran so as to gain considerable reputation. The result was that in May 1666 Ormonde offered him his father's company of foot, but, for some unexplained reason, the admiral demurred to this arrangement. It was at this time that the well-known portrait was painted of the great Quaker in a suit of armour; and it was at this time, too, that the conversion, begun when he was a boy by Thomas Loe in Ireland, was completed at the same place by the same agency.2

On the 3rd of September 1667 Penn attended a meeting of Quakers in Cork, at which he assisted to expel a soldier who had disturbed the meeting. He was in consequence, with others present, sent to prison by the magistrates. From prison he wrote to Lord Orrery, the president of Munster, a letter, in which he first publicly makes a claim for perfect freedom of conscience. He was immediately released, and at once returned to his father in London, with the distinctive marks of Quakerism strong upon him. Penn now became a. minister of the denomination, and at once entered upon controversy and authorship. His first book, Truth Exalted, was violent and aggressive in the extreme. The same offensive personality is shown in The Guide Mistaken, a tract written in answer to John Clapham’s Guide to the True Religion. It was at this time, too, that he appealed, not unsuccessfully, to Buckingham, who on Clarendon’s fall was posing as the protector of the Dissenters, to use his efforts to procure parliamentary toleration.

Penn’s first public discussion was with Thomas Vincent, a London Presbyterian minister, who had reflected on the “ damnable ” doctrines of the Quakers. The discussion, which had turned chiefly upon the doctrine of the Trinity, ended uselessly, and Penn at once published The Sandy Foundation Shaken, a tract of ability sufficient to excite Pcpys’s astonishment, in which orthodox views were so offensively attacked that Penn was placed in the Tower, where he remained for nearly nine months. The imputations upon his opinions and good citizenship, made as well by Dissenters as by the Church, he repelled in Innocency with her Open Face, in which he asserts his full belief in the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and justification through faith, though insisting on the necessity of good works. It was now, too, that he published the most important of his books, No Cross, No Crown, which contained an able defence of the Quaker doctrines and practices, and a scathing attack on the loose and unchristian lives of the clergy.

l Pepys, August 30. 1664.
’ Webb, The Penns and Penningtons (1867), p. 174.

[graphic]

While completely refusing to recent Penn addressed a letter to Arlington in July 1669, in which, on grounds of religious freedom, he asked him to interfere. It is noteworthy, as showing the views then predominant, that he was almost at once set at liberty.

An informal reconciliation now took place with his father, who had been impeached through the jealousy of Rupert and Monk (in April 1668), and whose conduct in the operations of 1665 he had publicly vindicated; and Penn was again sent on family business to Ireland. At the desire of his father, whose health was fast failing, Penn returned to London in 1670. Having found the usual place of meeting in Gracechurch Street closed by soldiers, Penn, as a' protest, preached to the people in the open street. With William Mead he was at once arrested and indicted at the Old Bailey on the Ist of September for preaching to an unlawful, seditious and riotous assembly, which had met together with force and arms. The Conventicle Act not touching their case, thetrial which followed, and which may be read at length in Penn’s People’s Ancient and Just Liberties Assorted, was a notable one in the history of trial by jury. With extreme courage and skill Penn exposed the illegality of the prosecution, while the jury, for the first time, asserted the right of juries to decide in opposition to the ruling of the court. They brought in a verdict declaring Penn and Mead “ guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street," but refused to add “ to an unlawful assembly ”; then, as the pressure upon them increased, they first acquitted Mead, while returning their original verdict upon Penn, and then, when that verdict was not admitted, returned their final answer “not guilty ” for both. The court fined the jurymen 40 marks each for their contumacy, and, in default of payment, imprisoned them, whereupon they vindicated and established for ever the right they had claimed in an action (known as Bushell’s case from the name of one of the jurymen) before the court of common pleas, when all twelve judges unanimously declared their imprisonment illegal.

Penn himself had been fined for not removing his hat in court, had been imprisoned on his refusal to pay, and had earnestly requested his family not to pay for him. The fine, however, was settled anonymously, and he was released in time to be present at his father’s death on the 16th of September 1670, at the early age of forty~nine. Penn now found himself in possession of a fortune of {1500 a year, and a claim on the Crown for £16,000, lent to Charles II. by his father. Upon his release Penn at once plunged into controversy, challenging a Baptist minister named Jeremiah Ives,- at High Wycombe, to a public dispute and, according to the Quaker account, easily defeating him. No account is forthcoming from the other side. Hearing at Oxford that students who attended Friencls’ meeting were rigorously used, he wrote a vehement and abusive remonstrance to the vice-chancellor in defence of religious freedom. This found still more remarkable expression in the Seasonable Caveat against Popery (Jan. 1671).

In the beginning of 1671 Penn was again arrested for preaching in Wheeler Street meeting-house by Sir J. Robinson, the lieutenant of the Tower, formerly lord mayor, and known as a brutal and bigoted churchman. Legal proof being wanting of any breach of the Conventicle Act, and the Oxford or Five Mile Act also proving inapplicable, Robinson, who had some special cause of enmity against Penn, urged upon him the oath of allegiance. This, of course, the Quaker would not take, and consequently was imprisoned for six months. During this imprisonment Penn wrote several works, the most important being The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience (Feb. 1671), a noble defence of complete toleration. Upon his release he started upon a missionary journey through Holland and Germany; at Emden he founded a Quaker society, and established an intimate friendship with the princess palatine Elizabeth.

Upon his return home in the spring of 1672 Penn married Gulielma Springett, daughter of Mary Pennington by her first husband, Sir William Springett; she appears to have been equally remarkable for beauty, devotion to her husband, and firmness to the religious principles which she had adopted when little more than a child.1 He now settled at Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire, and gave himself up to controversial writing. To this year, 1672, belong the Treatise on Oaths and England’s Present Interest Considered. In the year 1673 Penn was still more active. He secured the release of George Fox, addressed the Quakers in Holland and Germany, carried on public controversies with Thomas Hicks, a Baptist, and John Faldo, an Independent, and published his treatise on the Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated, the Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practice,2 Reasons against Railing (in answer to Hicks), Counterfeit Christianity Detected, and a Just Rebuke to One-and-twenty Learned Divines (an answer to F aldo and to Quakerism no Christianity). His last public controversy was in 1675 with Richard Baxter, in which, of course, each party claimed the victory.

At this point Penn’s connexion with America begins. The province of New Jersey, comprising the country between the Hudson and Delaware rivers on the east and west, had been granted in March 166 3—1664 by Charles II. to his brother; James in turn had in June of the same year leased it to Lord Berkeley and Sir G. Carteret in equal shares. By a deed, dated 18th of March 1673—1674, John Fenwick, a Quaker, bought one of the shares, that of Lord Berkeley (Stoughton erroneously says Carteret’s) in trust for Edward Byllinge, also a Friend, for {1000. This sale was confirmed by James, after the second Dutch War, on the 6th of August 1680. Disputes having arisen between Fenwick and Byllinge, Penn acted as arbitrator; and then, Byllinge being in money difficulties, and being compelled to sell his interest in order to satisfy his creditors, Penn was added, at their request, to two of themselves, as trustee. The disputes were settled by F enwick receiving ten out ofthe hundred parts into which the province was divided,3 with a considerable sum of money, the remaining ninety parts being afterwards put up for sale. Fcnwick sold his ten parts to two other Friends, Eldridge and Warner, who thus, with Penn and the other two, became masters of West Jersey, West New Jersey, or New West Jersey, as it was indifferently called.‘ The five proprietors appointed three commissioners, with instructions dated from London the 6th of August 1676, to settle disputes with Fenwick (who had bought fresh land from the Indians, upon which Salem was built, Penn being himself one of the settlers there) and to purchase new territories, and to build a town—New Beverley, or Burlington, being the result. For the new colony Penn drew up a constitution, under the title of “ Concessions.” The greatest care is,taken to make this constitution “as near as may be conveniently to the primitive, ancient and fundamental laws of the nation of England”. But a democratic element is introduced, and the new principle of perfect religious freedom stands in the first place (ch. xvi.). With regard to the liberty of the subject, no one might be condemned in life, liberty or estate, except by a jury of twelve, and the right of challenging was granted to the uttermost (ch. xvii.). Imprisonment for debt was not abolished (as Dixon states), but was reduced to a minimum (ch. xviii.), while theft-was punished by twofold restitution either in value or in labour to that amount (ch. xxviii.). The provisions of ch. xix. deserve special notice. All causes were to go before three justices, with a jury. “ They, the said justices, shall pronounce such judgment as they shall receive from, and be directed by the said twelve men, in whom only the judgment resides, and not otherwise. And in case of their neglect and refusal, that then one of the twelve, by consent of the rest, pronounce their own judgment as the justices should

have done.” The justices and constables, moreover, were

1 For a very charming account of her, and the whole Pennington connexion, see Maria Webb's The Penns and Penningtons.

' See on this Stoughton's Penn, p. 113.

‘ The deed by which Fenwick and B llinge conveyed West New Jersey to Penn, Lawry and Nicholas ucas is dated the 10th of

ebruary 1674—1675.

‘The line of partition was “ from the east side of Little Egg Harbour, straight north,through the country, to the utmost branch of Delaware River." ,

[ocr errors][graphic]

elected by the people, the former for two years only (ch. xli.). Suitors might plead in person, and the courts were public (ch. xxii.). Questions between Indians and settlers were to be arranged by a mixed jury (ch. xxv.). An assembly was to meet yearly, consisting of a hundred persons, chosen by the inhabitants, freeholders and proprietors, one for each division of the province. The election was to be by ballot, and each member was to receive a shilling a day from his division, “ that thereby he may be known to be the servant of the people.” The executive power was tobe in the hands of ten commissionersB chosen by the assembly. Such a constitution soon attracted large numbers of Quakers to West Jersey.

It was shortly before these occurrences that Penn inherited through his wife the estate of Worminghurst in Sussex, whither he removed from Rickmansworth. He now (July 25, 1677) undertook a second missionary journey to the continent along with George Fox, Robert Barclay and George Keith. He visited particularly Rotterdam and all the Holland towns, renewed his intimacy with the princess Elizabeth at Herwerdcn, and, under considerable privations, travelled through Hanover, Germany, the lower Rhine and the electorate of Brandenburg, returning by Bremen and the Hague. It is worthy of recollection that the Germantown (Philadelphia) settlers from Kirchheim, one of the places which responded in an especial degree to Penn’s teaching, are noted as the first who declared it wrong for Christians to hold slaves. Penn reached England again on the 24th of October. He tried ’0 gain the insertion in the bill for the relief of Protestant Dissenters of a clause enabling Friends to aflirm instead of taking the oath, and twice addressed the House of Commons’ committee with considerable eloquence and etlect. The bill, however, fell to the ground at the sudden prorogation.

In 1678 the popish terror came to a head, and to calm and guide Friends in the prevailing excitement Penn wrote his Epistle to the Children of Light in this Generation. A far more important publication was An Address to Protestants of all Persuasions, by William Penn, Protestant, in 1679; a powerful exposition of the doctrine of pure tolerance and a protest against the enforcement of opinions as articles of faith. This was succeeded, at the general election which followed the dissolution of the pensionary parliament, by an important political manifesto, England’s Great Interest in the Choice of this New Parliament, in which he insisted on the following points: the discovery and punishment of the plot, the impeachment of corrupt ministers and councillors, the punishment of “ pensioners,” the enactment offrequent parliaments, security from popery and slavery, and ease for Protestant Dissenters. Next came One Project for the Good of England, perhaps the most pungent of all his political writings. But he was not merely active with his pen. He was at this time in close intimacy with Algerhon Sidney, who stood successively for Guildford and Bramber. In each case, owing in a great degree to Penn’s eager advocacy, Sidney was elected, only to havchis elections ann_ullcd by court influence. Toleration for Dissenters seemed as far off as ever. Encouraged by his success in the West Jersey province, Penn again turned his thoughts to America. In repayment of the debt mentioned above he now asked from the Crown, at a council held on the 24th of June 1680, for “ a tract of land in America north of Maryland, bounded on the east by the Delaware, on the west limited as Maryland [i.e. by New Jersey], northward as far as plantable”; this latter limit Penn explained to be “ three degrees northwards.” This formed a tract of 300 m. by 160, of extreme fertility, mineral wealth and richness of all kinds. Disputes with James, duke of York, and with Lord Baltimore, who had rights over Maryland, delayed the matter until the 14th of March 1681, when the grant received the royal signature, and Penn was made master of the province of Pennsylvania. His own account of the name is that he suggested “ Sylvania,” that the king added the “ Penn ” in honour of his father, and that, although he

5 Penn's letter of the 26th of August 1676 says twelve, and Clarkson has followed this; but the Concessions, which were not assented Ito by the inhabitants until the 3rd of March 1676-1677, say ten.

« السابقةمتابعة »