Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1855-09-05

to |sseduce them from the path Of light, - that
they agree exactly in the emphatic aud con
elusive statement, that, after hearing their
reasons, he agreed with them that they were
justified in their resistance. He even went
further, he became their champion. In their
| presence he wrote manly English letter to
his sovereign, in which he told him in very
plain ternls-''that their case was hard; that
! in their circumstances they could not yield
without breach of their oaths; and that such
mandates were a force on conscience, and not
agreeable to the Kings's other gracious indul-.
gences.'' How singulafly unfortunate is Mr..
Macaulay in his authorities! ssPenn,'' he says,
sFexhorted the Fellows not to rely on the good
ness of their cause, but to submit, or at least
to temporize." l defy Mr. Macaulay to give
any trustworthy authority for this macchilyel-
liam council. He wisely abstains from quoting
his author; but the curious reader VIII find it
in the twelfth volume OF the estate Trials,''
in the shape Of an anonymous letter which was
addressed by some unknown person, during the
heat of the dispute, ,toDr. Bailey ,one of the Eel
lows. Bailey, from the charitable Puroses OF the
letter, thought it might have come from Penn;
and to ascertain the fact, wrote reply to
Penn without signing his name, saying, that
if he eere his anonymous correspondent, he
would know how TO address his answer. or
course no reply came. No man conversant
with PennS habit of writing could for an in
stant mistake it for his; it commences, ssSir,'
aud the second person plural is used through
out. Nor is this all the evidence against its
being written by Penn. The contemporary
account of these proceedings has written, in
Hunts hand, on the margin Of this letter, the
wordS-E'This letter Mr. Penn disowned,"-
Yet it is on the assumption that Penn actually
wrete this thrice-proyen spurious epistle, that
Mr.. Macaulay has built his most serious accu-
sation Let me say, to the credit of Macin-
tosh, that HE makes no charge against Penn in
this Oxford business. Here Mr.. Nacaulay is
perfectly original.-5. Did Penn deal sin si-
mony of particularly diSrepptable kind, and
use bishopric as a bait to tempt divine to
perjury 2'' MI. Macaulsy continues TO repre-
sent him employed by the court; and hav
ing, as he says, failed in his attemptto terrify |
the eollegians into obedience, he 'Ethen tried |
gcntler tone He had an interview with |
Hough, and with some Of tho Fellows, /
friendship, began to hint at a compromise.
How should you like said Penn, >to see Dr.
Hough Bishop of Oxford a F" Hereupon fol-
lows the Indignation about simony and perjury.
Now let US see what is really known about
this interview. DR.. Hough, its chief subject,
wrote on the evening of the day on which it
took place a letter to his cousin in which he
recited the principal heads of the discourse,-.I
and this account, from one too deeply inter
ested to be impartial, and too much excited
to remember anything but whatespecially con-
cerned his own prospects and position, is un-
fortunately the only existing authority. Hunt
was not present at this interview, and no ac-
count of it is preserved in the Magdalen Col
lege MSS. Holden's Ms. letters in the same
library commence posterior to the affair of
Penn; and Baron Jenner's Ms. account of the
Visitation is not to be found. But let us take
the authority ne have, imperfect thoughit be,
and see what matter can be drawn from it in
support of the accusation. What says Hough?
In the outset, instead of Penn being ssemploy-
ed.'' as Mr. Nacaulay continues to misrepre-
sent him, to solicit the Fellows, it appears that
the Fellows had sent deputation to him, con-
of the college. Their conversation lasted
three hours AR. Macaulay's version of it is in
exact in all its essential particulars. ssHe then
tried a gentler tone.'' The historian does not
seem to know that two interviews took place,
one at Oxford, the other at Windsor, with six
weeks of an interval; there is no evinence ex-
cept the spurious letter, that he ever used 9TH
er than gentle tone. He .Ebepan to hint at a |
compromises the words of Hough are-S.I /
thank God he did not so much as offer at any
proposal by way of accommo odation." How
reconcile such statements! Now let us hear
what Hough says of the simony and perjury.
Penn, who, according to Swift, ''spoke agree
ably and with spirit, was always more or less
facetious in conversation Like his father, he |
was found of a joke, and had that delight in
drollery which belongs to the highest natures
In this very conversation we see how he made
his rhetoric dance-s.Christ Church is noble |
structure, University is pleasant place, and
Magdalen is a comely building" Hough, tho
not the most quick-witted of men, saw that he
chad a mind to droll upon u.s., Stolid and
heavy, Hough no doubt reported the converse
tion honestly, so far as he could remember and
understand it. To quote his words, s'6nce he
said, smiling, If the Bishop of Oxford die, DR..
Hough may be made Bishop. What think you
of that, gentleman ~ Cradock, one of the
Fellows present, took up the tone of pleasant
ry, and replied, esthey should be heartily glad
of it-for it would do very well with the presi-
dency.'' Does any one doubt that this was
more nleasantry 2 Observe Pam had no COM