THE IMPORTANCE OF A HAT
by
John S. Wilson
Delivered to
The Chicago Literary Club
October 18, 1999
Let me clear up the possibility that the title of this paper
has anything to do with my wearing a hat
during the meetings of The Chicago Literary Club. Yes, I got a
certain amount of pleasure at being able to
use "Hat" in my title. You will discover, however, that the
incident of the "Hat" in the paper took place
more than 300 years ago! Enough digression!
New York, August 13, 1789,
The First congress under the new United States Constitution
of 1787, was debating James Madison's
article on freedom of opinion.
"The freedom of speech and the press, and the right of the
people to peaceably assemble and
consult for the common good, and to apply to the Government for
the redress of grievances shall not be
infringed."
When some ridiculed the article, Congressman Page took up
the challenge:
Is so trivial a nature. He supposes it no more essential
than whether a man
Has a right to wear his hat or not; but let me observe to
him that rights
Have been opposed, and a man has been obliged to pull off
his hat when he
Appeared before the face of authority; people have also
been prevented from
Assembly together on their lawful occasions If the people
could be deprived
Of the power of assembling under any pretext whatsoever,
they might be
Deprived of every other privilege contained in the
clause.
That ended the argument. The statement was not challenged
as untrue. There was no request for
clarification or to be more specific, Page's colleagues knew
exactly to whom he was referring the, "Man in
the Hat." Anyone with any kind of legal background in the United
States at that time either had a copy of,
or had access to the pamphlet entitled "The Peoples Ancient
and Just Liberties, asserted, in the Trial
of William Penn and William Mead."
They all knew that William Penn was not only the founder
of the colony of Pennsylvania, but
was the principal character in a trial in the previous century
involving a "major portion of the basic
freedoms guaranteed in the American Bill of Rights."
Who was this William Penn who would have been just as well
known to this group without
founding Pennsylvania because of those trials? Why did he choose
the type of life he did when he was
blessed with the choice of doing anything he wanted; thanks to a
wealthy and well connected father who left
his son financially independent at the age of 26? What motivated
him to eventually petition the king of
England for a grant of land in America for the purpose of
establishing a haven for those seeking freedom of
worship without persecution?
At the time of the trial in 1670 William Penn was a Quaker
minister. He and another Quaker,
William Mead, had been hailed into court and charged with
unlawful assembly and conspiracy to disturb the
peace and incite to riot. After pleading not guilty to the
charge, they reappeared in court two days later. The
Lord Mayor was the presiding judge and was all set to charge Penn
and Mead with contempt of court for
wearing hats. There was one problem. The defendants were not
wearing hats! The infuriated Lord Mayor
demanded that hats be immediately found and placed on their
heads. When the prisoners were brought
before the bar they were asked to show respect for the court by
removing their hats. Since they were
Quakers, they did not consider the removal of hats as a sign of
respect and so they were each fined forty
marks for being in contempt of court!
This was the reference to the "Man and his Hat" by
Congressman Page more than 100 years
later. Page, however, had more than the hat in mind when
referring to the trial. After a jury had been sworn
in, testimony began with the prosecution attempting to make a
case of unlawful assembly, produced
witnesses who could only state that they had seen the defendants
in the area as charged but could not and/or
did not hear what they said.
Penn made no attempt to deny his presence at the time and
place so stated in the indictment and
by the witnesses. He would repeat his actions of preaching,
praying, or worshipping the "eternal, holy, just
God, that we declare to all the world that we do believe it to be
our indispensable duty to meet incessantly
upon such a good account." No power on earth would distract them
from worshipping their Creator. A
court official suggested that to continue this course would do
him more harm than good. Penn denied
breaking any law and wished to know under what law he was being
prosecuted? "Under the common law,"
was the reply. "And where was that common law?" Penn asked. The
Recorder, another official of the court,
saw no reason to go to the trouble to "run over all those
adjudged cases for so many years which they call
common, law to satisfy his curiosity." Penn accused the Recorder
of evading the question and wondered if
the law really was common why could it not be easily
produced?
The court was trying to get Penn to plead to the
indictment. He refused because, as he saw it, it
was not based on law. After several attempts to get Penn to plead
the indictment, he was forcibly placed in
the bale-dock, a walled off corner of the courtroom with
partitions that did not reach the ceiling. While he
was being conducted to the bale-dock, he managed to address the
jury that if it was necessary for him to be
removed while he was pleading "for the fundamental laws of
England," he warned the jury, "that if these
ancient and fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and
property...must not be indispensible maintained
and observed, who can say he hath the right to the coat upon his
back?" Following Penn's lead the other
defendant, Mead, was soon forced to join Penn in the bale-dock.
Then, in blatant violation of the common
law, the Lord Mayor charged the jury without the presence of the
defendants.
The whole trial was fascinating reading. But for the
purposes of this biographical sketch, the
point is that the court directed the jury to return against both
defendants the only verdict that the court
would accept which was "guilty as charged." If the jury did not
find that Penn's preaching was not a
violation of the law against tumultuous assembly and rioting,
"they would be subject to summary
punishment."
After an hour and a half of deliberation, the jury was
divided and was called before the court.
The Foreman, Edward Bushell, was specifically threatened by the
court and the jury was ordered to
deliberate further and return with a verdict acceptable to the
court. The verdict the jury returned was that
William Penn was guilty of speaking in "Gracechurch Street." The
court would not accept the verdict and
ordered the jury out again. On the second return, it was the same
verdict for Penn and acquittal for Mead.
At this point the trial shifted from the defendants versus the
court, to the jury versus the court. That court,
using vigorous language, advised the jury that it would not be
released until there was a verdict acceptable
to the court. Furthermore, members of the jury were to be
confined for the night without any food or drink
and did not even have the "luxury" of a chamber pot.
The following morning the jury delivered the same verdict
as on the previous day and repeated
this verdict two more times. After a second night of confinement
at Newgate Prison, the jury finally
changed its verdict on both defendants to NOT GUILTY. The
court then proceeded to fine each
juror forty marks and remanded them to Newgate until
paid.
When William Penn demanded his release, the Lord Mayor
fined both defendants forty marks for
contempt of court "for having obeyed the court's order to put
on their hats."
This is a brief summary of the trial that Congressman Page
referred to some 119 years later and
which ended without explanation. Eight of the jurors paid their
fines after a brief stay in Newgate. The other
four, including the Foreman, Edward Bushell, refused to pay the
fines and resolved to put their plight to a
test by engaging legal counsel to plead their cause. About a year
later they were acquitted of all charges
when their case was brought before the ten judges of the Court of
Common Pleas. In its decision the Court
established standards liberating jurors, from that point on,
"from coercive pressure of the Crown." Penn
was resolved not to pay the fine either, but his father paid the
fines for his son and William Mead. The
father was dying and wanted his son near him in his final days.
There is not a lot of hard evidence for
reasons why the court went to such lengths to find Penn guilty.
Some things are clear, however. He was a
leader of the Quaker movement, he was well educated, and, most
importantly, he was well connected with a
famous father who had access to the Court of Charles, II.
How did William Penn become a Quaker? Why did he become a
Quaker? William Penn was
born on October 14, 1644, the son of Captain William Penn of the
English Navy and the widow Margaret
Vanderschuren. They lived in a "most adequate" house on Tower
Hill in London. Captain Penn at 23 was
what we today would call a "rising star" in the English Navy. He
had very good prospects for a successful
career, combining good connections with higher-ups in the
political system and outstanding abilities as a
seaman and a naval commander. The times, however, were quite
unsettled. Rather than yield to his
emotional bias and follow the misfortunes of King Charles,I,
Captain Penn had chosen to remain with the
government of Parliament for pragmatic and practical reasons. He
now had the additional responsibility of
providing for a child as well as his wife and knew that under
Parliament his salary was more likely to
continue than under the king.
Within two weeks of his son's birth, Captain Penn was
ordered to sea. For the next eleven years
the father would continue a pattern of being away for months and
being home for weeks. A sister was
added to the family in 1652.
In 1647, now Admiral, Penn moved his family to a house in
Wanstead near the village of
Chigwell in Essex County, about ten miles northeast of London.
The move was made primarily because
London was becoming too dangerous for a woman alone with a small
child. Young William's elementary
education was taken care of by his mother. This was in the
tradition of the times, since the grammar
schools were not equipped to teach the fundamentals of reading
and writing.
This must have been a period of emotional security and an
ideal atmosphere for a young boy to
spend his early years growing up in country atmosphere, in a
large house, with an ample staff of domestics,
its own sources of food, and peaceful surroundings. There is no
record of Margaret Penn's overseeing her
son's education, but there is no evidence that she did not. There
is no evidence of when William was sent to
Chigwell School and the only evidence that he attended at all is
from Aubrey's Brief Lives. There
has not been any attempt, however, at contradicting Aubrey who
was acquainted with Penn as an adult. The
curriculum offered to the classical scholar courses in "Greek,
Latin, English grammar, spelling, catechism,
daily prayers, Sunday church attendance, and training in manners
and morals." Every student was subjected
to the "gentlemanly art of composing and delivering orations with
standardized and rehearsed gestures."
For an extra charge, lessons were available "in the skill of
writing a good Roman hand with quill, ink and
paper." The Latin schoolmaster, who was also the headmaster, had
to meet certain rigid requirements of
being a man not under twenty seven years old, skillful in the
Greek and Latin tongues, a good poet, of a
sound religion, neither Papist nor Puritan. In addition he was a
strict taskmaster holding his students from
six in the morning until eleven and from one in the afternoon
until six in the summer months and from
seven in the morning until five in the winter.
The disturbing political situation at this time, including
the execution of Charles, I in January of
1649, probably had little effect on young William Penn. As he
grew older he must have been aware that his
father was less involved in larger events, but until he was
eleven years old, these were more exhilarating
than troublesome. Each visit of Admiral Penn to his family was as
a conquering hero with stories of exploits
that would stir the imagination of any youth. In between his
father's visits, William Penn's life centered on
Chigwell school and the large home in Wanstead with his mother
probably supporting him in his studies and
efforts at growing and comforting him when needed. A strong
emphasis on religion was present both at
home and in the school. There would be no distractions from this
curriculum, other than the restlessness of
growing boys. Piety would have been encouraged at home as well as
at school. His parents were
"godfearing" people and "godfearing" also made political
sense.
The whole atmosphere appeared to be conducive to the study
and learning of the Scripture, which
appeared to have a positive effect on young William who often
sought the solitude of his room for religious
study and meditation. Shortly before his eleventh birthday, he
had his first religious experience. Alone in his
room he was suddenly surprised with an inward comfort and, as he
thought, an external glory in his room,
which gave rise to religious emotions. During this time he had
the strangest conviction of the being of a
God and that the soul of man was capable of enjoying
communication with Him. He also believed that the
seal of Divinity had been put upon him at this moment or that he
had been awakened or called upon to a
holy life
Soon after this religious experience, he and his sister
were taken from the friendly confines of
Wanstead to rooms on Tower Hill in London. This was the first
adverse experience for young William
Penn. For a sensitive youth of eleven it could have been quite
disturbing seeing his father confined in the
Tower of London pending investigation into the failure of the
expedition to capture Hispaniola. We don't
know what went through young William's mind at the idea of his
father being a prisoner in the Tower. It
could have been a frightening experience since the Tower was
associated with executions. Happily, Admiral
Penn was released from the Tower, and more happily for his son,
the Admiral did not return to sea, but
returned to Wanstead with his family He decided the most prudent
course to follow was to maintain a low
profile and leave the English scene altogether. The finger of
suspicion had been pointed at him by the
Cromwell government and he would be a marked man from this point
on. He calculated that the chances of
improving his position were not as good as the very real danger
of being arrested again with results not
nearly as fortunate as his last experience.
On August 12, 1655, the William Penn family, a party
consisting of the father, mother, three
children and a tutor for the eldest son; landed in Cork, Ireland
and proceeded to the castle and manor of
Macroom. Admiral Penn had acquired this land as rewards for
meritorious service under the Lord Protector
in 1652 during the war with the Dutch. He was in command of a
squadron which had destroyed a number
of enemy shipping and was at the height of his naval career under
the Commonwealth Government The
father had another reason for not going to sea. His son was now
at an age where he could and should be
taught the things that a gentleman has to know to be a success in
the career the father had in mind for him.
He could also be more of a companion to his son and get to know
him as a person. Among the things to be
learned were the management of an estate, the art of delegating
work graciously to social inferiors, the art of
self-defense with the sword and the "manner, mien and finesse of
a courtier so that he would be ready to
assume his role in the courts and salons of London.
In the second year of self imposed exile, the senior Penn,
upon hearing that an itinerant Quaker
preacher named Thomas Loe was in the area, decided that before
passing judgment he should be heard and
sent him an invitation to hold a meeting in the Penn home This
was the first of two contacts young
William Penn had with Thomas Loe in Ireland. The second contact
occurred nine years later when Penn
became a Quaker. There is no record of the text or content of
Loe's preaching, and perhaps Penn was too
young to understand all that he said. He could, however, have
been captured by the sincerity, zeal and
eloquence of the man and been reinforced in his first religious
experience previously at
Wanstead.
The four years in Ireland seem to have been happy years
for Penn. The estates, under the capable
management of his father, flourished and he was able to keep up
with events as they occurred in England.
Father and son became closer and young William could share in the
news brought to his father through the
navy connection. The death of Oliver Cromwell in October of 1658
relieved some of the tension that may
have been hanging over them concerning their safety. A year later
they were back in London with the senior
William Penn returning as an elected member of the Convention
Parliament, representing the town of
Weymouth
The following year when he had just turned 16, William
Penn was "entered a gentleman
commoner at Christ's Church, Oxford. While there, he participated
in "manly sports in which he took great
delight," and sought the company of Robert Spencer (later the
Earl of Sutherland), John Locke and other
students This had to be quite an adjustment from the almost
frontier life in Ireland and one tutor devoted
exclusively to his education. There were no other students and
only a few young men of his age for
distraction. Another distracting factor was that the university
itself was emerging from under the somber
mantle of Puritanism and donning with pent up eagerness the
colorful plumes and colors of the
Restoration.
The early stages of the end of a period that has lasted
too long can be times of good will and
good feeling for all, a relaxing in gratitude and being able to
indulge in frivolity and just plain good fun.
This was the situation at Oxford in the autumn of 1660 and it was
a reflection of what was happening over
most of England to a greater or lesser degree. Charles II had
returned to London in May of 1660 and the
people felt justified in "whooping it up" in celebration of a
return to those nostalgic "good old days." It
does not appear that William Penn had any serious problems of
adjustment. He entered into the activities of
his new surroundings without any profound upsetting of his
personality. A reason for this may lie in the fact
that during the four years in Ireland, he was, for the most part,
pretty much on his own as far as intellectual
pursuits were concerned. A tutor may have been a member of the
household, but reports are conflicting,
with the most recent biography of Harry Emerson Wildes making no
reference to the presence of one. Penn
may have acquired his preferences for books over society at this
time in response to his father's solace
seeking in the bottle when the General of the Sea may not have
been a very good companion to a quiet and
introspective young man in his early teens. His reference to life
at the university as a "hellish darkness
debauchery, may indicate a distaste for what went on, but it also
showed an awareness of his surroundings.
One can only speculate on the degree of his participation.
He came home to London in the spring of his first year at
Oxford to attend the Coronation with
his father. Sir William Penn, Knighted by Charles II as one of
his first acts upon boarding the Naseb the
previous year, was well known and liked by the king and his
brother, the Duke of York. From Irish isolation
to one of the centers of attention in a wild celebration in the
short space of a year may have turned off the
son. In the space of that year at the age of 16, he was suddenly
transferred from a quiet rural scene where
piety, respect and proper conduct were emphasized, to an
atmosphere that must have appeared to be the
antithesis of his previous life. As long as the celebrations and
aura of good will lasted, Penn probably had
nothing to which to object or show displeasure, since, as far as
he could see, everyone seemed
agreeable.
The honeymoon of the Restoration showed signs of ending at
Oxford during Penn's second year
with the "beginning of persecution of the Puritan sects" along
with the "re-establishing of the Anglican
Church as the only church of the land. In order to understand
how, or why this happened, a review of
some of the events of this period is in order.
The seventeenth century was relatively unsettled compared
to the previous century of the Tudor
dynasty with glorious Queen "Bess" ringing down the curtain on
that family's reign and ushering in the
reign of the Stuarts. The last of the Tudor monarchs, however,
left some unfinished business in the religious
sector with the ambiguous position of the non-Anglican Protestant
sects. The country had come from a
tradition lasting several centuries of one authorized church.
This was the Church of Rome until Henry VIII
took it upon himself to declare that the reigning monarch of
England had replaced the Pope as the
intermediary between the people of England and God. The
authorities and the people were having a hard
time accepting the idea that Christian faith could be a matter of
more than one interpretation. Furthermore,
the efforts to suppress nonconformity were clumsy as well as
brutal and seemed to invite martyrdom as
almost a welcome alternative to recantation. Early in the
century, the Catholics were the victims of religious
persecution based on some subversive attempts to restore the
Church of Rome to its previous status. After
the Restoration religious persecutions were less focused on
Papists and now included all nonconforming
religious sects. This was due to the dangerous disarray of the
political situation left by the death of Oliver
Cromwell, who had left the problem of succession up in the
air.
Cromwell's neglect of succession plans practically assured
the restoration of the Stuart monarchy
on its own terms. The Convention Parliament, of which Sir William
Penn was a member, elected for the
purpose of bringing back the monarchy, convened in April, 1660,
to consider a "conciliatory declaration"
from Charles II which contained, among other items, an offer of
"a limited freedom of conscience. There
was a minimum amount of debate before Charles "was proclaimed
king and urgently summoned to return to
his sorrowing and repentant people. Even in the early joyous days
of the Restoration, Parliament was not
able to "secure that modest liberty for tender consciences'
promised by Charles II. Gone was the "vital
and intellectual force" of Puritanism and with it the "dreams of
a restricted monarchy" and "general
toleration. All the members of nonconformist sects were
considered "political incendiaries, responsible for
the worst excesses of the Great Rebellion. This impression seemed
to be confirmed by the "Fifth
Monarchy" revolt in London in January of 1661, otherwise known as
Venner's Rising after the name of
their leader, Thomas Venner Venner's followers believed in the
imminent return of Christ who would rule
the earth for a thousand years
Numerous acts were passed by Parliament to force
recognition of the Anglican Church as the
only church. For the purpose of this biographical sketch, there
were two acts which most affected William
Penn. The first Conventicle Act of 1664 was aimed at the
suppression of dissenting congregations. The Five
Mile Act of 1665 was designed to restrict "the activities of
dissenting ministers. The rationale behind all
these acts was the fear of a "radical Nonconformist plot to
overwhelm the establishment." This continued to
be a political factor until at least 1688
The Quaker sect, officially identified as the Society of
Friends, was considered a radical sect that
"provoked even deeper suspicion as to their final objectives."
They refused to "compromise with the world's
vanities and demands symbolized by such practices as their
rejection of oath taking," their use of thee and
thou when speaking to anyone, showing that they were all
"brothers and sisters," and the refusal to remove
their hats to superiors. These characteristics or practices
contributed to the suspicion that they were
subversives whose goal was the dissolution of all forms of
authority. Their initial direct action tactics of
disruption of church services and the dire threats to all
sinners, including King Charles II, with god's wrath,
either "aroused popular antagonism, or exasperation." Eventually,
some of this unpopularity was dispelled
by their "extraordinary steadfastness under the most savage and
sustained repression." What continued to
confirm the official hostile attitude towards them was their
ability to survive this harsh repression. This was
due to their flexible and successful organization which helped
those who were suffering. At the same time
they continued active proselytizing while other sects could only
concentrate on bare survival Their policy
of nonviolence also made it easy for anyone to ridicule and
harass them because there was no danger of
reprisal. Besides, the law was on the side of the persecutors.
Not only was it legal to harass and make life
as miserable as possible for them, it could be interpreted as a
patriotic duty to frustrate their efforts toward
achieving any kind of success, especially material success.
During the period from 1660 to 1688, it was not
unusual to have whole communities of Quakers in prison and their
lands and livestock confiscated and
redistributed.
Into this condition, young William Penn, fresh from Irish
isolation and only a few months of
London as a sort of decompression chamber, arrived at Oxford. He
had not joined in the festivities at his
family's new home on Tower Hill. Instead, he continued his
previous habits of retiring to his room to read
and study. He was not his father's son. He did not take to social
life and although he loved his father, he
probably preferred his companionship without others vying for Sir
William's attention. Sir William would
certainly have plenty of things to think about. He had been
appointed to the navy as well as being knighted.
It was not beyond the realm of possibility to think of being
awarded a title to pass on to his son, if he
played his cards right, along with a certain amount of luck. He
could not understand his son's propensities
for the written word, but he was all for his going to college
where he could make the right connections and
hopefully have all the "bookish nonsense" knocked out of his
head
William Penn continued to read at Oxford as assiduously as
he had while preparing for Oxford.
His purpose was to store up information and prove the already
known truths. He was seeking further
understanding of "what God had wrought, not how or why he had
performed his miracles. He was not yet
a dissenter, and would have no trouble swearing "his belief in
the Thirty Nine Articles of the Anglican
Faith. While he mixed with some of the aristocratic students, he
was no more impressed with their
anti-scholastic activities than he had been with his father's
friends at the Tower Hill home. He was friendly
with them and, because of his father's name, was asked to join
them in their fun and games, but he
declined
There was one group of students he joined every Sunday. It
met outside of Oxford at the home of
Dr. John Owen, recent university vice-chancellor and dean of
Christ Church College. Owen had been
dismissed by the Stuarts "because of his unorthodox religious
opinions. This student group disliked "High
Church formalism" and was looking for more inspiration than could
be found in the college chapels Owen
was helpful in stabilizing Penn's thought processes, emphasizing
the need for tolerance and letting him see
that it was all right to have doubts about certain ceremonies and
symbols Penn's mind was churning with
thoughts, but he did not know "where they might lead him.
Even these Sunday meetings with Dr. Owen were not enough
to counterbalance the ultimate
disillusionment with Oxford that Penn felt. He was deeply
disturbed by debauchery and sin and he
discovered that it was a "signal place for idleness, loose
living, profaness, prodigality and gross ignorance.
By February, 1662, less than two years after matriculating, he
had had enough. He left Oxford and came
home to spend "five uncomfortable months" while Sir William
pondered what to do with this young "Mr.
Know-it-all" with these crazy ideas The younger Penn was going
through a transition stage in which he
was widely read with a retentive memory, but he didn't fully
understand the knowledge from Dr. Owen's
talks. He could not sort out all this learning into any
direction. He knew, or strongly felt, that something
was not right with the Anglican religion in which he had been
reared
The ostensible reason for sending William Penn to France
was to round out his education. The
real reason may have been an act of desperation after five months
of tension with father and son unable to
engage in rational discussion. His first destination was Paris
where he made an attempt to lead "the gay life"
and wear fine clothes "to please his parents." There is no
evidence that he did anything else. There is no
evidence concerning anything he did, with one exception, which
was witnessed. On his way home one
evening, he was stopped by a stranger demanding that he defend
himself for not properly returning his
greeting by doffing his hat! When Pen calmly explained
that he did not see him and meant no
offense, the stranger demanded satisfaction. Swords were drawn
and Penn disarmed the man and then
handed him back his sword and continued on his way.
Penn was bothered by this incident because conventional
wisdom dictated that he should take the
man's life. "I ask any man of understanding or conscience if the
whole ceremony were worth the life of a
man, considering the dignity of his nature and the importance of
his life, both with respect to God, his
Creator, himself, and the benefit of civil society? Penn wrote
these words several years later as part of "No
Cross, No Crown," when imprisoned in the tower. He did not have
time to think all of this through when he
had disarmed his assailant. Something, nevertheless, had stopped
him from committing the fatal deed and
whatever it was, it must have been a reinforcement of what he was
struggling towards, or fighting against.
Unable to stay away from his books for very long, Penn
pursued his theological studies under
Moise Amyraut, the town of Saumir's "best known professor and a
lawyer turned teacher who held
unorthodox theological views. Amyraut was an eminent Protestant
minister, professor of divinity in this
small town in Touraine on the Loire River, and was held in the
highest esteem "of any divine in France.
One of his views was that God's laws reside in men's hearts and
the truth might be learned by anyone who
would listen to his own conscience Penn may have learned about
Amyraut from Dr. Owen while he was
still at Oxford. It is possible that Dr. Owen could have written
the French theologian about this serious and
thoughtful young man because Penn "became a member of the Amyraut
household," even though he did not
formally enroll at the seminary It is not clear how long he
studied under Amyraut. It is known that the
atmosphere of master and student discussing religion and beliefs
from knowledge previously acquired was in
the finest classical tradition.
Amyraut provided new interpretations of previous
teachings. Men could be predestined to
happiness through faith in God. Freedom was brought to all who
truly believed in the universality of grace,
and the Sabbath was a day of rest, not the burdens that Puritans
considered it to be
Much emphasis was placed on the age-old injunction to fear
God, but that did not mean to
tremble and quake in terror, but to hold him in reverence and
respect.
These discussions may have sharpened the doubts that were
already in Penn's mind.
Unfortunately, the discussions came to an untimely end with the
death of Amyraut early in 1664 Penn was
not yet ready to break away from the Anglican Church, in spite of
the influence of Owen and Amyraut.
Doubts were increasing and each of these contacts brought Penn
closer to the point of decision. He was
summoned home by his father shortly after leaving Saumir when he
was traveling with Robert Spencer
through Provence on his way to Italy. The ostensible reason was
the possibility of war between England and
Holland. The real reason may have been that Sir William had
learned from an alumnus of Saumir seminary
about the curriculum, which could hardly have been what he had in
mind when he sent his son to France the
previous year.
A more mature Penn appeared to his father to have taken
completely to the good life of high
French society. The son had learned some lessons about what and
what not to discuss with his superiors and
elders and especially his father. Some might call it deception;
others might call it good sense. Penn had
learned by this time that his father did not and could not
approve of his coming under the influence of
unorthodox ideas and that neither he nor his father was capable
of objective discussion. Penn was able to
avoid or evade any confrontations and his father felt that all
that was needed to "perfect his etiquette" was
some time studying at one of the Inns of Court. He was not
expected to become a lawyer, but to round out
his training in what in those days was considered one of the
"graduate schools of gentlemanly
culture.
Penn continued his self-taught study habits while at
Lincoln's Inn with further research into
English common law or equity. During the two months winter recess
period he continued to "read
prodigiously. He never completed a semester. In the first place,
he was late in registering. During the
second term he was called to sea by his father. Just five days
into the third term, the school was closed
because of the Great Plague during the summer of 1665. His time
at Lincoln's Inn, however, was not
wasted. On the contrary, he probably used the time, including the
recess periods, more usefully and more
efficiently than the average full time student, judging from the
curriculum and the habits of 17th century law
students. To all intents and purposes, Penn was self-taught from
very early in his life and acquired and
maintained study habits that had little resemblance to the
dilettante approach to academics of the usual
Restoration students. He did not become a lawyer, but he did form
some opinions of lawyers as the Inns of
Court produced them. These he summed up rather nicely in "No
Cross, No Crown," by writing that they
"now and then afford us a few able lawyers but generally are like
the man of old who returned home seven
times worse than when he went out.
After several months at home still using his time for
further study, his father sent him to Ireland
to look into some matters concerning Sir William's title to his
lands and his tenants' paying of rents. Penn
was successful in both commissions mainly because his father's
well prepared plans, which only needed an
effective emissary to deliver them to the right persons to be
accepted and put into execution. Penn spent
several months in and around Dublin and Cork. One day he happened
to be in a shop in cork and
recognized the owner as someone he had known ten years before
when he was with his family at Macroom.
In the conversation recalling those days, he mentioned the visit
of Thomas Loe to their home and that he
"would go a hundred miles to hear him again." The woman's answer
must have been a pleasant shock
because she indicated that Thomas Loe was in Cork and Penn could
hear him speak that very evening if he
wished. [footnote:Without taking anything away from the eloquence
and logic of Loe, this was not a sudden
conversion. Penn had been readying himself for the break away
from Anglicism ever since his studies at
Chigwell and the religious experience some twelve years before.
He was not aware that he would break
away, but when a doctrine was presented that seemed to answer or
show the way to answers to the doubts
and questions he had about religion and religious beliefs, it
would be hard to resist. He found what he had
been looking for, a place where he could worship and be
comfortable in and would not have to apologize
for his conscience. Everything seemed to fall into
place.]
A few weeks prior to this he had unsuccessfully tried to
pursue a military career! This is truly
extraordinary when one is reminded of his refusal to apply the
coup de grace on his assailant in Paris.
Perhaps the logic of Thomas Loe was more meaningful to Penn in
that he had considered and may still have
been considering a military career and that he had been rescued
by divine intervention in the form of this
man who had made such an impression on him at the first meeting
and had not let him down at this second
encounter.
This was not a sudden inspirational convincement. It had
its origins many years previous and
involved considerable study and questioning and providing a solid
foundation of faith that was to last
William Penn for the rest of his life.
This decision soon got him into serious trouble and
confinement in the Tower of London for
more than seven months. Penn had written a three-part pamphlet,
Sandy Foundations of God Standeth Still.
Church officials concluded that Penn's views on the Holy Trinity
were blasphemous and that he was
denying the divinity of Christ. Even though he was not able to
persuade Penn to recant, he was
instrumental in effecting his release by suggesting that he
clarify his views in writing to the authorities
convincing them of his belief in the deity of Christ and the
non-denial of the Holy Trinity. Penn complied
with the suggestion by producing the pamphlet, Innocency With Its
Open Face, subtitled, An Apology for
Sandy Foundations Shaken. This plus some pressure from Sir
William, and also a previous application
of Penn's to Lord Arlington for release because during all this
time he had been denied the right to a fair
trial, seemed to have proved effective. He was released on July
28, 1669.
It was during this confinement that he wrote No Cross,
No Crown, containing an
effective appeal to all people to:
Choose the good old paths of temperance, wisdom, gravity
and holiness. When people
have first learned to fear, worship and obey their
Creator, to pay their numerous debts,
to alleviate and abate their oppressed tennants, but above
all outward regards, when
the pale faces are more commiserated, the pinched bellies
relieved and naked bodies
clothed, when the famished poor, the distressed widow and
helpless orphan are provided
for, then, I say, it will be time enough to plead
indifferency of your pleasures..
Penn used this time to write on a number of subjects, not
limited to the deplorable conditions at
Newgate. Other subjects included the loyalty of Quakers as
English subjects, attacks on other persecutors of
Quakers and, in collaboration with George Whitehead, A Serious
Apology for the People Called Quakers.
This last work was in response to a pamphlet insulting to the
Quaker religion called Quakerism
Anatomized.
Even though Penn lived for another 48 years, the habits,
patterns and personality had been
established for the rest of his life.
Today, he is better known in this country for his
successful efforts to establish a colony in
America providing a haven for the members of the Society of
Friends and other religious sects or
denominations to worship without persecution and harassment. He
believed that the most important human
right for all who believed in God and followed scriptural
precepts was FREEDOM of
CONSCIENCE. Consistent in this belief from his early boyhood
studies at Chigwell, before he could
articulate such a concept. He continued throughout his life to
advocate this belief in public meetings, in
writings and in private conversations. This conscience of
man belonged to God only, and
this communion was a matter which could not be invaded by mortal
rulers or human institutions. The
most flagrant sort of tyranny was the denial of this basic human
right.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brant, Irving, The Bill of Rights, Its Origins and
Meaning, Indianapolis, Kansascity, New York,
1965. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Clarkson, Thomas, M.A., Memoirs of the Private and Public Life
of William Penn, Vol. I. Printed by
Richard Taylor and Co., Shoe-Lane, for Longman, Hurst, Rees,
Orme, and Brown, Paternoster Row,
London, 1813.
Dick, Oliver Lawson, Ed., Aubrey's Brief Lives, Secker
and Warburg, London, 1950.
Dunn, Mary Maples & Richard S., Assoc. Eds., The Papers of
William Penn, Vol. I, 1644-1679.
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Editor's Collections, Passages From the Life and Writings of
William Penn. From his published
works and correspondence and from the biographies of Clarkson,
Lewis and Janney and other reliable
sources. Philadelphia, 1882.
Jones, J.R., Country and Court, England, 1658-1714 Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
1978.
Kenyon, J.P., Stuart England, Penguin Books, Ltd., The
Pelican History of England,
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, first published, 1978.
Peare, Catherine Owens, J.B. William Penn, J.B. Lippincott
Company, Philadelphia & New York,
1957.
Wildes, Harry Emerson, Ph.D., William Penn, MacMillan
Publishing Co., Inc., New York,
1974.
Yust, Walter, Ed. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. 9,
University of Chicago, 1947.
John S. Wilson, 10/18/1999
The Chicago Literary Club
Return to PAPERS
Return to Main Menu