Penn, William

Penn, William conspicuous as a leader of a Christian sect, philanthropist, founder and legislator of a colony which has expanded into the second state of the American Union, was born in London, England, Oct. 14, 1644. He was the son of Sir William Penn, a gentleman of Welsh descent, who, first as a captain, then as an admiral in the British navy, by several victories at sea and the capture of Jamaica, greatly contributed towards the English maritime ascendency over the Dutch, and stood in high favor with court and country. His mother, Margaret, was the daughter of John Jasper, a Rotterdam merchant, an amiable, sensible woman. Young William was started to a careful education befitting his rank at the school of Chigwell, Essex, and, duly prepared, in his fifteenth year entered the college of Christ's Church, Oxford. He is described as from his earliest youth remarkable for an amiable disposition, docility, and uncommon aptitude, beauty in person, and altogether a harmonious development of faculties- physical, intellectual, and moral. He advanced rapidly in his studies, and cultivated the acquaintance of those classmates who were most distinguished for learning and good conduct; among their number was John Locke (q.v.). Enjoying excellent health and strength, he engaged also and delighted in athletic exercises — sports of the leisure hours — such as fencing, shooting, boating. On the whole, he bade fair to make a career to distinction such as his ambitious father had in view, and most auspicious circumstances made easy to realize. This prospect, however, was suddenly changed in an unexpected manner, and the youth thrown into a train of thoughts much at variance with the usual pursuit of honor and glory. With other students, he attended a meeting of the society then lately formed by the agitation of George Fox (q.v.). The speaker on this occasion was Thomas Lee, who had formerly belonged to the university. His discourse made a deep impression on Penn, reviving certain religious ideas which, as he confessed, had seriously occupied his mind when he was only twelve years old. Some of his classmates were equally affected. In consequence they ceased to attend the worship of the Established (Episcopal) Church, as running into ritualism and formality, and held conventicles of their own, where they exhorted and prayed and discussed theological topics. Reprimanded and fined for "nonconformity," they nevertheless persisted in their proceedings; they went even farther. When the students were enjoined to wear again the surplice, which had been abolished since the Reformation, they (the conventiclers) not only refused compliance with the royal order, but fell upon those who appeared in the hateful popish garment. Hence the severest punishment which the college authorities could inflict was pronounced against the refractory pupils. Among those thus expelled from the college was Penn. The feelings of the admiral can easily be imagined. William's reception at home was not the most cordial. Highly incensed at the views and actions of his son, on whom he otherwise doted, he first tried remonstrances, then threats, at last even bodily chastisement, to induce a change of sentiment and conduct; but in vain. He concluded by sternly interdicting the paternal roof. Young William, although strongly attached to his father, who was hotheaded and hasty, but kindly at heart, bore it gently, yet remained firm in his purpose and faith. After a while, by the intercession of lady Penn, the admiral relented so far as to allow William to return home, and finally sent the youth traveling (1662) into France and Italy, in the hope that acquaintance with the world might divert and alter his mind. During this tour, furnished with letters of introduction and his own prepossessing exterior, he was well received in the brilliant circles of Paris and at the court of Louis XIV. In Saumur he enjoyed the intercourse of a prominent Protestant divine, Moses Amyrault, and devoted a couple of months to becoming familiar with theological matters. He spent about two years on the Continent, as it seemed to good advantage and the satisfaction of his father, who recalled him, when he had gone as far as Turin, to take charge of his affairs while he was absent at sea. To prevent any relapse into his former oddities, it was deemed proper to keep him busy, and, as the best preparation both for family and state affairs, he was entered at Lincoln's Inn to study law. This curriculum was soon interrupted by the plague which broke out in the metropolis. To remove him out of danger, he was dispatched to Ireland, where in the county of Cork the admiral owned large estates. With letters to the viceroy. the duke of Ormond, who was an intimate friend of the admiral, William was a welcome guest at the gay vice-regal court. During this visit he had a special opportunity of ingratiating himself, and still more rising in estimation. When at Carrick-Fergus a mutiny broke out among the troops. Young Penn volunteered his services, under the command of the viceroy's son, to assist in reducing them to obedience, and by his coolness and courage displayed in the affair earned general praise. Elated by this success, he resolved to choose the profession of arms as his way to fame and fortune; and so enraptured was he with that idea that he had his picture painted in military dress, said to be the only one for which he ever sat. Unexpectedly and strangely, the admiral, even disregarding the duke's (Ormond's) congratulation about his son's bravery, etc., disapproved of this step, and ordered him to superintend the management of his Irish possessions. Reluctantly but promptly he obeyed. While so engaged business called him to the city of Cork. There he met again the Quaker preacher who had made so strong an impression on him in Oxford. His old convictions revived. He attended Lee's meetings, and finally professed publicly adherence to his doctrines. Ere long (1667) he had to share also their lot of persecution. He was, with eighteen others of the sect convened for nonconformity worship, arrested and imprisoned. A letter which he immediately addressed to the earl of Orrery, lord president of Munster, showing the injustice of the proceeding, and advocating general religious toleration, soon effected his own release. This was probably the first time he touched the keynote of his life, which subsequently resounded frequently and in many variations in his words and actions. Great was the chagrin of the parent when the news of this new conversion reached him — a reverse of all his fond hopes and aspirations. William was immediately called home. Could it be true? A fine young gentleman of twenty-three, polished and courtly in address, distinguished for sprightly wit and profound erudition, admired for martial courage, with honors and wealth ready to fall to him almost at the asking, consorting with the despised people nicknamed Quakers — self-styled Friends — followers of a ranting, enthusiastic cobbler! It was even so. Young Penn, looking more to the merits of the underlying truth than to external appearances, modestly avowed his principles; and while expressing his sincere desire to obey his father in everything that did not conflict with his duty to God, he declared he could not abandon his religion. his duty to his heavenly Father being paramount to all other considerations. The admiral, so used to command, descended to resort with his beloved son to expostulation, argument, persuasion, entreaty; yea, he even proposed a compromise-to overlook the rest of his opinions provided he would agree to uncover his head before his majesty the king, the duke of York, and himself, acknowledging them as his superiors. Yet even this trifling request William refused to entertain, after having implored by prayer God's help and illumination. A second banishment from home ensued, throwing him on the hospitality of friends and the clandestine supplies of money from a tender-hearted mother, since he, with all his accomplishments, had no certain profession to fall back upon for support. But in spite of all the adverse surrounding circumstances, and the sad feelings of a sensitive heart, he continued with his whole soul to work in the holy cause he had embraced by deed, word, and writing. We may here observe it was principally Penn, ill connection with Robert Barclay, George Keith, and Samuel Fisher, who tempered the rude and irregular utterances of George Fox, and reduced them to a system of doctrine and discipline, the main features of which are still preserved as the rules of the Society of the Friends. The first essay published by Penn, under the title Truth Exalted, was addressed to lay and clericals, to the king and the people, exhorting all to examine into the foundation of their faith, etc. On account of a succeeding publication, The Sandy Foundation Shaken, he had to undergo an imprisonment in the Tower (1668-69). It was declared heretical, as, among other things, it attempted to refute "that the Godhead existed in three separate persons." During this incarceration, when it was reported to him that the bishop of London had threatened, "Penn must either recant or die in it," he said, "Then the prison shall be my grave before I will budge a jot: my conscience I owe to no mortal man:" and in this expected martyrdom he wrote one of his most popular treatises, No Cross, no Crown; followed shortly after by another, Innocency with her Open Face, in which he acknowledged Christ's divinity. This latter pamphlet gave somewhat better satisfaction to the clergy, and the intercession of the duke of York with the king effected, after nearly nine months' confinement, his liberation. But in August, 1669, he was again arrested for preaching in the open street before the Friends' meeting-house, which was shut, and kept closed against them by a guard of soldiers. On the occasion of this trial before mayor (of London), recorder, and aldermen, he made a most manly defense, not only of his own case, but of the liberties of the English people so greatly involved in this case, and won from the jury an honest verdict of acquittal. The magistrate turned now in anger against the jury, and fined the members, and imprisoned them until the fine should be paid. An appeal, however, pronounced this absurd sentence, which would render the jurors only tools of the judge, illegal. Penn and Mead were fined for contempt of court, because they had kept their heads covered. The admiral settled this matter, although his son protested. About this time a reconciliation took place between father and son. The admiral's health had been of late fast declining, and he learned to see earthly things, however splendid, in a more sober light. William, too, had gained greatly in his esteem by the firm and able stand he had made in the last trial. Without being a Simeon, he could easily foresee the thorny paths, the persecutions and dangers, which such a character would have to encounter, and with paternal solicitude he made to the king and to the duke of York the dying request that they might extend to his son their protection. The promise was graciously given, and in after-years truly complied with on their side, and duly and gratefully appreciated by him on whom it was conferred. He remained at his father's bedside. watching him with tender assiduity until he breathed his last, and had even the gratification to hear from the lips of the dying man, "Let nothing in the world tempt you to wrong your conscience," etc.. a confirmation of what William had contended for. Admiral Penn died Sept. 16, 1670, and left William property yielding all annual revenue of £1500 ($7500), and a claim of £16,000 ($80,000) on the government, due for services and money advanced to the crown. Shortly after this event he was again committed by the lieutenant of the Tower rather arbitrarily to the loathsome prison of Newgate for addlressing. a meeting on the street on religious subjects, and refusing to take the oath of the Oxford Act, which, according to his view, applied only to persons in orders addressing unlawful assemblies. He employed during this term of six months his pen busily in support of his principles and in defense of his society. Among the treatises issued from this dungeon stands pre-eminent for ability, learning, and charity, The Great Cause of Liberty of Conscience once more briefly Debated and Defended by the Authority of Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity. After the expiration of his imprisonment he visited the Continent on a religious mission, and traveled through Holland and some parts of Germany. After his return to England (1672) he married the daughter of Sir William Springett, of Darling, Sussex, and then connected with the Quakers by her mother, who had become thewife of Isaac Penington (q.v.). His domestic relations and the attention required for the management of his extensive private affairs did not abate his zeal in behalf of what he deemed true religion. He engaged either in controversies or in exposing the hardships to which his society was subjected by oppressive and unequal laws. He also wrote during this period a treatise On Oaths, and another on the Necessity of Religious Toleration, in which he ventured to maintain that the civil affairs of all governments may be peaceably transacted under the different liveries or trims of religion. "So far from a government being weakened or endangered by a variety of religious sentiments," he writes, "it is, on the contrary, strengthened by them, provided that all are equally tolerated; for it prevents combinations against the government." In 1677 he undertook with Fox and Barclay another journey to Holland and Germany, to make converts no less than to smooth the way of the persecuted. In the former country he preached with great acceptance; but in the latter empire, although the countess-palatine Elizabeth, granddaughter of James I, favored his intentions, he found less appreciation, perhaps because less understood or less needed, the Peace of Westphalia, ending the Thirty-years' War, having at least partially settled the principle of religious tolerance. On his return he was called upon to defend his cause before a committee of the Commons, Parliament inclining to severer measures against people who differed so much in their habits. and demanded liberty of faith and conscience for all, even Roman Catholics. For the last ten years continually harassed, he now conceived a plan by which he might escape further trials and troubles, and realize his ideal of Christianity, viz., by founding a commonwealth after his own model in the transatlantic territories of Great Britain. By his transcendent abilities, his efforts, not to mention the sacrifices and personal sufferings in behalf of the sect, his honesty, his wealth and rank, overshadowing influence, and his beneficence, he had become, without seeking the position, their head and leader, and was consulted also in other not strictly religious matters. Thus it came to pass that he was appealed to in difficulties and disputes that had arisen between two Friends, Edward Byllinge and John Fenwick, so-called proprietors of lands in New Jersey. William Penn as referee carefully examined the matter, and made his award. Fenwick refused to comply. Finally, however, by Penn's good offices the dispute was adjusted. Byllinge, who afterwards became embarrassed, wished to transfer his interest in the territory to his creditors, but in order to make the property more available entreated Penn to act as assignee. Penn became thereby (1675) instrumental in the settlement of New Jersey, with a constitution of equitable rights. In this way engaged in colonizing West New Jersey, and subsequently as a purchaser also of the eastern part of that province, he acquired a knowledge of the adjoining region. This promised to be a place of refuge and security, where the distressed Friends and others might enjoy civil and religious liberty. He applied to king Charles II, the friend and patron of his father, and, "after many waitings, watchings, solicitings, and disputes in council," obtained the grant of a tract of land in payment of the governmental debt above mentioned. The patent bears the date of March 4, 1681, and comprised lands on the Delaware River, including also settlements previously made by Sweden and Holland with 2000 inhabitants, to whom a royal proclamation was issued April 2, 1681. The new province, against his own wish, for he wanted it called New Wales or Sylvania, was named by the king, as he pleased to pretend; in memory of admiral Penn, Pennsylvania. Penn himself says of this grant:" It is a clear and just thing; and my God, that has given it me through many difficulties, will, I believe, bless and make it the seed of a nation. I shall have a tender care to the government that it will be well laid at first." He forthwith (July 11, 1681) published an account of his acquisition, and invited purchasers at the rate of forty shillings a hundred acres, subject to a quit-rent of one shilling per annum forever. The next object of colonization was to establish an asylum for the Quakers, who were still persecuted, to form a people whose morals would correspond with the purity of the faith they professed, and to demonstrate that the use of arms was unnecessary for the protection of society. The propagation of his religious views, however, was a secondary consideration; his form of government he was anxious to submit to the test of reality and experience in general. Soon after preliminary arrangements had been made, three ships, with numerous emigrants of his own persuasion from England and Wales, were dispatched the Amity and John and Sarah to sail from London, the Factor from Bristol. The expedition was under the control of colonel William Markham, Penn's relative, as his deputy, joined with others as commissioners authorized to confer with the aborigines on the purchase of land (for he considered the royal patent invalid as to them), and to conclude a treaty of amity. He instructed his agents to bear themselves with candor, justice, and humanity, and addressed to the Indians a letter of the same sentiments, sent presents to the chiefs, and merchandise to pay for the land bargained for. In the following year (1682) Penn himself, leaving his wife and children in England, crossed the ocean, to settle the affairs of the new colony. On Dec. 14, 1682, he held a grand council with the sachems and their people, assembled in great numbers, trusting himself, with his European train, unarmed among the wild sons of the forest. The savages, at a sign from their head sachem, throwing bows and arrows to the ground, seated themselves in a semicircle around their chiefs. The locality chosen was then called Shackamaxon; it bears now the name of Kensington, a suburb of the present Philadelphia; a gigantic elm, with its widespreading branches, formed the main spot of their gathering (the tree was blown over in 1810, when it was, by its annual growth-rings, ascertained to have been two hundred and eighty-three years old, consequently one hundred and fifty-five at the time). The place is now marked by a marble monument. We have no space here to detail the tenets of the principal party interested, SEE FOX; SEE FRIENDS; SEE QUAKERS, but we cannot withhold an account of this transaction as a memorable manifestation of their Christianlike policy and practice, which, if followed consistently, would have saved millions of lives and treasure, and crowned Christian colonists with the renown of true missionaries of the Gospel of Peace. Penn addressed them by interpreter substantially as follows: The Great Spirit who rules the heavens and the earth, the Father of all men, bore witness to the sincerity of his wishes to dwell with them in peace and friendship, and to serve them with all his power. Himself and followers had met them unarmed, because their religion forbade the use of hostile weapons against their fellowcreatures. They came not to injure others-that was offensive to the Great Spirit; but to do good, in which he delighted. Having met in the broad way of truth and benevolence, they ought to disdain deception, and to regulate their conduct by candor, fraternity, and love." Unrolling the parchment, he explained the articles of the treaty and the terms of purchase. "By these," he continued, "they were protected in their lawful pursuits even in the lands they had sold. Their right to improve their plantations, and means to secure subsistence, would be in all respects similar to those of the English. Should unfortunately disputes arise between the two peoples, they should be adjusted by arbitrators composed of equal numbers of Indians and Englishmen." From the merchandise before him he then paid for the land to their satisfaction, and made them besides many presents. The sums which he spent for the purchase of all land on this and other occasions is computed at £6000 ($30,000). Laying the roll of parchment upon the ground, he bade them observe it as a sign "that the land should be thenceforth common to both peoples." "He would not," he added, "like the people of Maryland, call them his children or his brethren; for some parents chastised their children too severely, and brethren could disagree. Nor would he compare their friendship to a chain, which the rain might rust. But tlhey would consider them as of one flesh and blood with the Christians, and the same as if one body was divided in two parts." Taking up the parchment, he presented it to the chief sachem, and desired that it might be carefully preserved for three generations, that their children might know what had passed, as if he remained to repeat it." The Indians in return made long and stately speeches, the gist and end of which was that they pledged themselves to live in love with William Penn and his children as long as the sun and moon would endure. This transaction is one of the brightest pages in American history, and has been honorably noticed even by the sarcastic Voltaire in these words: "This was the only treaty between these people (the natives) and the Christians which was not ratified by an oath, and which was never broken." For the space of more than seventy years, as long as the Quakers retained supremacy in the government of Pennsylvania, the peace and amity then solemnly promised never was violated, nor was the blood of a single Quaker shed by the Indians. It is significant that the place thus sanctified, near the junction of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, and selected for the capital of his province, has become the largest inland city of the continent, the cradle of the American republic, and the center of the late Centennial celebration. A few months after Penn bought the site from the Swedes, who had already erected a church there, and designed a map, according to which it was regularly laid out.

In the political construction of the new country, as proprietor empowered to enact laws with the assent of the freemen, he availed himself of this right in a manner which ranks him with Moses, Lycurgus, and Solon, without incurring their faults. His laws, although not exempt from error, are surely in advance of all similar works of his age, even Locke's plan of government adopted by lord Baltimore not excepted. His code is dated April 25, 1682, and was drawn up before he embarked. His friend, Algernon Sidney, was consulted in framing it. Of the twenty-four chapters of this document we will mention only a few of the more striking features:

1. "Almighty God being only Lord of conscience, Father of lights, and the author as well as the object of all divine knowledge, faith, and worship, who can only enlighten the mind and convince the understanding of people in reference to his sovereignty over the soul of mankind, therefore be it enacted, that no person now or hereafter living in the province, who shall confess one Almighty to be the creator and upholder and ruler of the world, and who professes himself or herself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly under civil government, shall in any wise be molested or prejudiced for his or her conscientious persuasion or practice; nor shall he or she at any time be compelled to frequent or maintain any religions worship, place, or ministry contrary to his or her mind, but shall freely and fully enjoy his or her liberty in that respect without any interruption or reflection; and if any person shall abuse or deride any other for his or her different persuasion or practice in religion, such shall be looked upon as a disturber of the peace, and be punished accordingly."

2. Yet only professed Christians were admitted to office, and of them such only as paid taxes; the purity of election was guarded by penalties against bribery, other corruption and frauds nowadays so frequently resorted to probably being then unknown and not thought of. Besides these he made very wise enactments.

3. The law of primogeniture, still to this day in force in England, was abolished; all members of a family should enjoy an equal share of inheritance.

4. Every one, rich or poor, was to learn a useful trade or occupation, the poor to live on it, the rich to have a resort, if they should become poor.

5. Even to malefactors his clemency extended; all penalties to have a tendency rather to improve than to punish the criminal. He substituted for about two hundred offenses which were at that time capitally punished in England some milder penalty. Only murder and treason were punishable by death.

In March, 1683, he held in the infant settlement the second assembly, and, waiving some more of his proprietary privileges, amended "the frame of government," so that almost in all but the name Pennsylvania was rendered a representative democracy; and to his dying day he declared that if the people needed anything more to make them happy he would readily grant it. Says a modern writer: "In the early constitutions of Pennsylvania is to be found the distinct annunciation of every great principle, the germ, if not the development, of every valuable improvement in government or legislation which has been introduced into the political systems of more modern epochs." After having settled the provincial administration (five commissioners, with Lloyd as president during his absence), he returned in August, 1684, to England on account of his domestic affairs, and the prospect that, by his influence on king Charles II, he could give better protection to the increasing sect of the Quakers. In 1685 Charles II was succeeded on the throne by his brother, the duke of York, as James II. In accordance with the pledge given to the admiral on his death-bed, the new king bestowed on the son the same friendship he had on the deceased. Penn, therefore, failed not to attend the royal court, and tried to use as heretofore his influence for good. But these frequent visits at Whitehall were misconstrued, and the most invidious and rididiculous slanders were put in circulation. He was accused of being a Catholic, a disguised Jesuit, corresponding with the pope and trafficking with pardons to convicted criminals. All the actions which in the eyes of zealots might give color to these criminations may be easily explained by the radical principles of equal rights and tolerance to all denominations openly avowed by Penn, and by the promptings of broad humanity to redress or alleviate grievances of any kind so natural to his character. The facts are that, mainly through his influence on the monarch, in 1686 a proclamation was issued which, with a number of other Dissenters, set fourteen hundred imprisoned Quakers at liberty; and in 1687 another declaration for liberty of conscience to all, unrestricted by any test and penalties. When, under a liberal construction of this Nonconformity Act, the king filled offices with Catholics, and committed himself to other reactionary measures, the Whig party prevailed in Parliament (1688), and declared James, who left England, to have forfeited the crown, and installed William of Orange and Mary as rulers of the realm. Now a still graver offense, that of high-treason, was laid on Penn: the charge that, out of attachment to the fallen royalty, he was accomplice to a plot calculated to overthrow the newly chosen regime and restore the self-exiled James to the throne. The indictment rests mainly on the statement of the head conspirator Preston, who, convicted of the crime and condemned to death, naming among others also Penn as implicated, tried to postpone or avert his own execution. Fuller, the principal witness against him, was by Parliament afterwards branded as an impostor. The impeachment is too outrageous. That Penn, the man of common-sense, the apostle of peace and good-will, who had forbidden the use of carnal weapons, an exemplar of frankness, enjoying under the Reform more toleration than ever, should invite a hostile (French) invasion and civil war for the uncertain caprice of a bigoted and licentious king! (For a detailed refutation we refer the reader to Dixon.) In answer to these calumnies, to which, with other still more serious charges, even Macaulay gives credence in his History of England, Penn published (1688) a letter of which the following is an extract: "It is fit that I contradict them as particularly as they accuse me. I say then, solemnly, I am so far from having been bred at St. Omer's, and received orders at Rome, that I never was at either place; nor do I know anybody there; nor had I ever any correspondence with anybody in these places. And as for officiating in the king's chapel, or any other, it is so ridiculous, as well as untrue, that, besides that nobody can do it but a priest, I have been married to a woman of some condition above sixteen years, which no priest can be by any dispensation whatever. I have not so much as looked into any chapel of the Roman religion, and consequently not the king's, though a common curiosity warrants it daily to people of all persuasions. And, once for all, I do say I am a Protestant Dissenter, and to that degree such that I challenge the most celebrated Protestant of the English Church, or any other on that head, be he layman or clergyman, in public or private. For I would have such people know it is not impossible for a true Protestant Dissenter to be dutiful, thankful, and serviceable to the king, though he (the king) be of the Roman Catholic communion. We hold not our property or protection from him by our persuasion, and therefore his persuasion should not be the measure of our allegiance." Another attempt to fasten a disreputable transaction on Penn is the charge that he was an agent of the queen in extorting or collecting a penalty from the parents of certain girls who, under the lead of their schoolmistress, tendered colors to the rebellious Monmouth when passing Taunton; and who were for this act imprisoned on the charge of high- treason. The imputation against Penn rests on a letter dated Feb. 13, 1685- 6, by secretary Sunderland, addressed to "Mr. Penn," who, in company with Walden, should manage the affair. The penalty demanded was £7000, which her gracious majesty donated to her maids of honor. In reply: 1. It nowhere appears that William Penn was meant — to one George Penn the business would have been more congenial; 2. It is not proved that either William or George or any Penn accepted the commission; 3. It is a fact, substantiated by the contemporary Oldmixon, that one Brent, a popish lawyer, and Crane as his deputy, were engaged, and executed the collection, much to their own benefit, so that the maids of honor received only one third part of the imposed fine. Equally groundless is the insinuation that he interfered in the affair of Magdalen College to the injury of the Protestant faculty. He tried to mediate and save it, if possible, even by a compromise, which was construed by his enemies as trying to induce the president (Hough) to commit simony. His only fault was that he could not prevail over the king, who, bent on his purpose, by a royal order transferred the institution to the Jesuits despite all remonstrances. But as credence to these calumnies, fostered probably by High Churchmen, was accorded by the government, an order for his arrest was finally issued (1690). Penn, absent to attend the funeral of his master, George Fox, when learning of it, to escape the blind fury of his powerful enemies, first concealed himself in London, and then by the way of Shoreham passed over into France, and once only had a secret interview with Algernon Sidney, in which he with more than his usual earnestness protested his innocence. In December, 1693, after the passion had subsided, he appeared again in England, and stood trial before the royal privy council, and was honorably acquitted. Meanwhile he had suffered greatly, not only in person, but also in property. Just before his intended arrest (1690) he had prepared a new expedition of five hundred colonists, and was on the eve of sailing. All the expenses of the outfit were lost, and in 1692 he was deprived of his supreme rights in Pennsylvania, and the province administered by royal governors until 1694, when he was reinstated as proprietor. In 1696 he married a second time, taking for his wife Hannah Callowhill. In 1699 he embarked with his family for his territories, with the intent of permanently residing there. He stayed only two years. The English ministry had presented to the House of Lords a bill to subject all the proprietary governments to the perfect control and authority of the crown. Penn's friends succeeded in postponing its discussion. His return and presence prevented it from being passed. The remaining period of his life he spent in England, employing tongue and pen in the service of civil and religious liberty; maintaining an active correspondence with his representatives and agents in his American province, for which he had an anxious care. The succession of queen Anne, the Protestant daughter of the Catholicizing James 11, procured for him a certain favor and patronage at court, but he rarely availed himself of this advantage. The losses and great expenses incurred during the last years caused him financial embarrassments- a heavy burden and a source of chagrin, as the provincial assembly, to which he applied for relief, ungratefully refused to come to his aid. He was obliged to contract a mortgage of £66,000 on his transatlantic territories. In 1712 he himself proposed to the English government to sell his right and title to them; but before the business was closed, overcome by labors and cares, he had three consecutive attacks of apoplexy, the last of which deprived him almost entirely of memory; but his cheerful and benevolent disposition and the amenity of his conversation were apparent to the last. He died at his country-seat of Rushcombe, Buckinghamshire, July 30, 1718. -His remains were buried near the Friends' meeting house at Jordans. The plain recital of his doings is his best eulogy.

Besides the treatises already named, Penn wrote and published the following, which are all controversial: A seasonable Caveat against Popery (1670): — Truth rescued from Imposture (1671): — The Spirit of Truth Vindicated (1672): — Quakerism a New Nickname for Old Christianity (1673): — England's Present Interest Considered (1674). His collected writings, with a biography, were published in 1726 at London, and in 1782 in 4 vols. See Marsillac, Vie de GuillaumePenn (Paris, 1791); Clarkson, Miemoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (Lond. 1813, 2 vols.; new ed. 1849, with a preface by W. E. Forster, which deserves particular attention as containing a refutation of some of the calumnies started against him by Macaulay); Hepworth Dixon, Williamn - Penn, a Historic Biography from New Sources (2d ed. Lond. 1853); Paget, Inquiry into the Evidence of the Charges brought by Lord Macaulay against William Penn (Edinb. 1858); Janney, Life of Penn (Philad. 1852). See also Ranke, Englische Geschichte, vol. v; Weingarten. Revolutions- Kirchen Englands (Leips. 1868), p. 405-421; Janney, Hist. of the Friends, vol. iii; Skeats, Hist. ofthe Free Churches of England, p. 81, 82, 153,315; Neal, Hist. of the Puritans; Stoughton, Eccles. Hist. of England, vol. i and ii; Marsden, Hist. of the Churches and Sects of Christendon. For a full account of Penn's writings, and of those relating to him, see especially Joseph Smith's Catalogue of Friends' Books, 2:282-326; Allibone, Dict. of Brit. and Amer. Authors, 2:1551-1553. See also the excellent article in Thomas, Biog. Dict. s.v.; Quarterly Review of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, April, 1863, art. ii; Christian Review, 17:555; Westminster Review, October, 1850; Littell's Living Age, March 28,1846, art. vii.