William Penn:
A Brief Look into the Life of William Penn and His Relationship with the Stuart Kings

 

 

 

 

 

 

By:

Cameron Hawkins

 


English Legal History, Fall Semester

Professor Wilkes

 

 

University of Georgia School of Law


December 7, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

           This paper is designed to deal with two cardinal personalities of the modern era; authoritative men who redirected the political current of their time and left lasting influences that still can be felt on both sides of the Atlantic.[1] It is interesting that a Quaker and a Catholic should have been so close during those times. However the relationship between King James II and William Penn becomes much more fascinating because Penn was a famous Quaker leader of that era and James was a Catholic monarch who ruled over an Anglican nation. Yet, they stood together at center of power in England for several decisive years.

           Nothing else in the life of William Penn has puzzled the biographers and historians so much as his persistent loyalty to James II. Because of this relationship, some biographers and historians such as Thomas Babington Macaulay might have been unfair in their historical treatment of William Penn.  Macaulay does recognize the positive aspects of Penn’s life, but he is especially critical of the relationship between the Quaker and the Stuart’s.  It should be acknowledged that Penn did lay himself open to suspicion; he is a controversial and unique figure in history. The reasons for Macaulay’s unfairness are chiefly two; fist his strong prejudices, which made it difficult for him to see any good in those he disliked. Second “his marvelous memory to which he trusted far more than any historian should.[2]

           The antithesis between Catholic Monarch and Quaker subject would seem to make any real understanding between the two men improbable. Yet Penn was not only a courtier throughout this reign but also a friend, possibly the best friend of the King. Lord Macaulay notes that James and Penn had long been acquaintances. “[T]he Quaker had become a favorite courtier of James.”[3]  James II is one of the most reviled figures of modern history; William Penn is one of the most revered. How is their steadfast friendship to be explained?

 

 

The History

            To fully understand the relationship between William Penn and James II, it is critical to examine the roots of the Penn-Stuart connection. There are reasons why it is not completely shocking that there was a Penn at court. It was already a family tradition when James II came to the throne. The Penn’s had served the Stuarts and been favored by them, for at least two generations.  It began with Giles Penn, a trader of the early seventeenth century who acted on behalf of Charles I as a diplomat in Morocco. However it was Giles Penn’s son, Admiral Sir William Penn who truly developed the Penn-Stuart friendship. Admiral Penn was a fighting sailor, molder of the English naval tradition, favorite at the court of Charles II, and father of William Penn the Quaker statesman. It is because of Admiral Penn, that the relationship between James II and the Quaker Penn was possible. As one author put it, “Admiral Penn served under the future James II and forged the indissoluble links of friendship and patronage which bound the Penn’s to the Crown and led to the creation of Pennsylvania.”[4]

Admiral Penn

            The exact date of Admiral William Penn’s birth is unknown, but his baptism occurred on 23rd April, 1621.[5]  Admiral Penn served in the parliamentary navy during the Puritan Revolution (1647), when the royal forces of King Charles I (1600–1649) fought with those of England's Parliament. He was rewarded by English statesman Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658) and given land in Ireland. He soon fell out of favor and took part in the restoration of Charles II (1630–1685) as the King of Great Britain. A close friend of the Duke of York, Admiral Penn was knighted by Charles II. With so influential a father, there seemed little doubt that William's future had promise.

            Admiral Penn had led the Penn name to one of status and stature. At the age of 39 Admiral Penn was a Knight, Commissioner, Member of Parliament and standing in high favor of Charles II, with even more accolades to come. Admiral Penn’s relationship with James, Duke of York[6] truly began at the Restoration.  The Duke of York later became Lord High Admiral of the Navy. Once he received the position, he immediately set out to find someone to help and advise him; someone who had seniority, experience and knowledge. “The first mad to come to his attention was that renowned seaman with a pro-Stuart background and a fighting reputation, Admiral William Penn.[7]” Thus, began the bond between them. Their relationship grew and strengthened through their working together.  Soon Admiral Penn became a close friend of James Stuart.  This relationship is critical; it must be established that the close relationship between the Duke of York and Admiral Sir William Penn led directly to the subsequent relationship of James II and William Penn. James, becoming King, naturally welcomed to his Court the son of his friend and colleague.

Background of William Penn

           William Penn was a rebel with a cause. He was born in London, England, on October 14, 1644. He was the first of three children of Admiral Penn and Margaret Jasper. Penn's developmental years took a conventional route. His education was fairly typical of his social class, being schooled at home until the age of eleven. From eleven he began his formal training at Chigwell Academy, near Wanstead in Essex.[8]  Later, Penn attended Oxford University, studied law, and tried a military career (in emulation of his father, Admiral Penn of the British Navy). It was at Oxford that Penn first heard Quaker preachers professing that each life is part of the Divine spirit, and that all people should be treated equally, even royalty. Although this experience of hearing Quaker theology for the first time at Oxford is usually seen as a turning point in Penn's religious leanings, it must be remembered that he came from a dissenting background. His father was a Presbyterian, albeit one that conformed to the Church of England after 1660 and his mother was a Dutch Calvinist. Therefore, “it would not have been unreasonable to be instructed by somebody sympathetic to dissent.”[9]

           Penn entered Christ Church, Oxford, in 1660 as a gentleman commoner. There, under the deanship of John Fell, he improved his knowledge of classical scholarship. Although he was to spend less than two years at Christ Church, he came into contact with men who would become political allies, such as Robert Spencer, later earl of Sunderland. Also at this time there were other men who influenced Penn's thinking in ways which would enhance his religious-political outlook. John Locke was then a lecturer at Christ Church and most probably instructed Penn in Greek. While it could not have been through any acquaintance with Locke that Penn would have developed a radical political philosophy at this time, since Locke was then still conservative in his thinking, nevertheless Penn would have developed a rigorous style of debate that would serve the Quaker later in political and religious disputes. In later decades, however, the ideas of his former tutor may have influenced Penn's concept of colonization. In the 1690s Locke's influence would be seen in the development of colonial policy.[10]

  1. Penn Joins the Quakers:

            In late 1667 William Penn Attended a Quaker meeting. He took to the ideals immediately. Despite high social position and an excellent education, at age 23, Penn joined the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), who at the time were considered religious zealots. Penn's conversion marked a crucial point in the path towards furtherance and consolidation in Quaker principles. Although the exact time of his conversion to Quakerism is not certain, it roughly coincides with his involvement at the Quaker meeting in Cork in 1667. By the time he returned to England that year, he had taken on the mantle of the Friends, ready to proselytize his beliefs. After a couple of spells in prison, in 1671 Penn embarked on an evangelical tour of Europe.[11]

            Penn was convinced that this religion held the truth that had eluded him for so long, and he joined George Fox’s Society of Friends. He began to appear regularly. Soon, William Penn became increasingly open about his relationship with The Friends. His conversion to Quakerism was inspired by the simple piety and religious devotion of their religion and the need to provide relief for victims of persecution. Soon he openly joined them as a preacher and missionary, touring through England and speaking to crowds everywhere.  

            Finally, his marriage in 1672 to Gulielma Maria Springett, of a well-known Quaker family, completed his religious commitment.  Penn and his wife had known each other since the 1660s and their marriage seems to have been a love match. One of their earliest known letters shows an affection that went beyond mere friendship. At the same time their relationship was based upon shared interests and background. Both were Quakers and both came from families of good standing—Gulielma held considerable lands in Kent and Sussex. They had three sons and four daughters.

            Eventually he came forward as one of the major figures of the Quaker movement. He preached to the faithful, he defended them from their enemies in public and at Court; and he began to write. Toward the end of 1668 he published a work called The Sandy Foundation Shaken. It was a strong assertion of certain cardinal doctrines of Quaker theology, which many believed amounted to a denial of the Trinity. He published it without a license, and as a result he was arrested and thrown into the Tower of London where he lay until the summer of 1669.  Penn was imprisoned in the Tower of London several times for his heretical pamphlets; but he was spared worse persecution because of his father's support of King Charles II.

  1. Understanding the Quakers:

            Penn was misunderstood and jailed several times because of his association with the Quakers.  To fully understand the situation, it is important to understand who the Quakers were. Quakers are a religious following who were persecuted and harassed in the seventeenth century for their beliefs.  Generally, there was not a high opinion of the Quakers in those times.  Macaulay speaks of them during that era, saying the Quakers were generally considered a gang of crazy heretics.[12]  However, Macaulay also acknowledges that the Quakers had been cruelly persecuted by some of the revolutionary governments.[13]

            Plain and simple, the Quakers were different. They refused to dress like the rest of society. They deliberately rejected the courtesies of “refined” society. They keep their hats on their heads no matter who was present, including the King. When they spoke they used the archaic “thee” and “thou” for the second person singular instead of “you” which was conventionally being used at the time.

            However, Penn along with many Quakers benefited from the Penn-Stuart relationship.  Penn used his inherited wealth and rank to benefit and protect his fellow believers. Despite the unpopularity of his religion, he was socially acceptable in the King's court because he was trusted by the Duke of York, later King James II. Penn's background and political connections were important resources for the persecuted Quakers. Macaulay, speaking of William Penn notes that “the Quakers had a powerful and zealous advocate in court…who lived in the highest circles and had constant access to the royal ear—this was the celebrated William Penn.[14]

            Penn's networking certainly paid dividends, for he established valuable contacts with several prominent English politicians. One of the most useful of his friends was Robert Spencer, now second earl of Sunderland, with whom he shared a similar viewpoint on religious toleration; Sunderland was in a position of power, as privy councilor and secretary of state. Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, was another connection at court, perhaps even more useful to him than Sunderland. Rochester, together with his brother Henry, second earl of Clarendon, and his father, had accompanied the King into exile, and had spent time in Europe as envoy; by the end of the decade he was first lord of the Treasury and a privy councilor.[15]

The Relationship Between William Penn and the Stuarts

            Admiral Sir William Penn died on September 16, 1670. His funeral was conducted in the traditional Anglican rights and he received the military honors due to one of his rank.[16]  Admiral Penn drew up his will and named his son William Penn his executor. But Admiral Penn suffered from doubt and agony as to what would happen to his family estate after his death. He was not sure that his family estate would be allowed to descend to an heir who happened to be a Quaker. Admiral Penn wrote an urgent letter to King Charles and the Duke of York, commending his son to them, requesting that they not condemn his son for his Quaker antics.  They both assured Admiral Penn that they would look take care of his son.  With that Admiral Penn could die in peace.

            The death of his father left William Penn on unstable footing with regard to the Court. To his advantage there was the enduring friendship between Admiral Penn and the Duke of York and the pledges given to the Admiral by both Charles and James. However, the royal brothers were aware of his committed Quakerism with its uncouth conduct, his bizarre moralist principals and his prison record.

            What made Penn’s position remarkable is the fact that he did not curry favor. He went his own way in both religion and politics, doing what he considered right without pausing to ask how it would look to the royal Stuarts. The relationship between Penn and the Stuarts is an interesting one. The Quakers never removed their hats, no matter the occasion. One story tells about how William Penn meet with Charles II and the King took off is hat for Penn. “Friend Charles,” said William Penn, “why dost thou remove thy hat?” The King responded, “Friend Penn, in circumstances such as these it is customary for only one man to keep his hat on.[17]” This encounter reveals that Charles II had a good sense of humor.

            Much harder to understand is the fact that Penn was known to be hostile to the religion preferred by Charles and practiced by James—Catholicism. William Penn published a furious attack on Catholic doctrine in 1670, his Seasonable Caveat against Popery. It is not easy to understand why Charles and James did not take offense at such rough handling of the creed they cherished.  The mystery does not end there. During the 1670’s religion became a thorny practical problem in England as it had not been during an earlier part of the Restoration. Penn played a role in this and not always on the side of the Court.  His primary transgression was the amount of credence he gave to the most terrible atrocity of Charles’ reign—the Popish Plot. When Titus Oates swore to his knowledge of a Romanist plot to kill the King and put his Catholic brother on the throne. Soon the Catholics in England were facing a reign of terror. The toll of the judicially murdered mounted within the weeks.

            At the height of the madness Penn had given credence to the absurd plot. In England’s Great interest in the Choice of This New Parliament (1679) he called on the legislators of his country to “pursue the discovery and punishment of the Plot; for that has been the old snake in the grass, the Trojan Horse, with the army in the belly of it.[18]” He urged voters to choose sincere Protestants in opposition to Papal interest. It seems extraordinary that James and Charles did not make Penn pay for those words.

 

            However there was more to the relationship between Penn and the Stuarts. True, Penn boldly opposed them when he thought it necessary, by the same token he could be trusted when he said things they wanted to hear. Also, when we consider the political climate of the time, we see that Penn’s views were moderate. In several ways he actually defended Catholics. On moral grounds, Penn thought that Catholics had as much right as any one to practice their religion without penalties.  Overall, what is certain is that Penn never lost his place with either Charles or James. In fact he strengthened his relationship with the Court from one reign to the next. Of course the King gained something by having a Quaker leader to speak for him on issues like religious toleration and the rights of the Crown. Penn’s voice would be heard by dissenters who would not listen to Catholics or Anglicans. Perhaps one of the best pieces of evidence of James’ toleration is the fact that one of his most wholehearted supporters was the Quaker William Penn.[19]

            In all of this, Penn had no official status. An enemy of the Stuarts could make the King accept him by force of political circumstances, however, with Penn, the only thing which he could rely on was personal friendship (a fragile bond where royalty is concerned). That he never lost favor with the Kings is a tribute to his character, intelligence and ability as well as the magnanimity of his royal friends. They enjoyed his company, and he enjoyed theirswhich could be the basic motive behind the Penn-Stuart relationship. Penn’s gain from the relationship is obvious. Repeatedly he went to court to get justice and mercy for the afflicted members of his faith. Repeatedly he got both.

Penn and the Court of James II

            Charles II died in 1685. By that time, Penn and James had known one another for a quarter century. They had been good friends for quite some time. Consequently they both assumed that when James became King, Penn would come to Court.  It is important to note that Penn had not been a courtier during the reign of Charles II. With James II he was a courtier from the beginning of the reign until its collapse.

            Penn and James had many things in common; one being that they both accepted religion with the total commitment of converts. Both freely judged and then adopted the tenets of a particular faith. Both obeyed the injunction to make those tenants effective in their everyday lives, uniting belief and practice despite the hostility of the world around them.

            James and Penn shared many common values, especially when it came to religion.  Penn was willing to admit some good in Catholicism, as when it produced Magna Carta. James admired the Quaker way, if not the theology of the Friends. Also, they were completely united in their hope of religious toleration in England. Each had seen members of their own religion oppressed by penal laws.

            Throughout the reign of the James II we see that William Penn is a good friend and unofficial advisor to the King. Penn was close enough to express his disapproval, frankly and forcefully, but he was in no position to speak as one formally bound by an office to do so. William Penn remained loyal to the King. At no time did he lose faith in James II or consider abandoning him. He was sure in his own mind that James remained an essentially good ruler and the best for the people of England.

  1. Penn, James and Religion:

            Another area where Penn and James could find common ground to establish their friendship came with the idea of toleration. It is debatable whether James II truly believed in religious toleration. However, it is commonly understood that William Penn did.  Penn, like most of the men in his country had an ill feeling towards Catholicism. Nevertheless, whatever ill feelings Penn had about Catholicism, was outweighed by his solid belief in men being able to practice their own religion in the way they saw fit.

            For Penn, religion and politics should always be viewed as interacting when penal laws affect one religion in favor over another. No doubt this view was advocated by Penn in part, because of the religious discrimination experienced by the Quakers in both society and in the courts.  Catholicism was the most hated religion in England; this made King James religiously unpopular (among other things). So together, both Penn and King James shared the view that we should be tolerant of religion (or at least tolerant of Quakers and Catholics).

            During the time, it may have seemed that Penn was a defender of the Catholics. However, Penn was not Pro- Catholic, Pro-Anglican or Pro-Dissenter. “He denounced those in power and backed those out of power, but by no means was hopeful of seeing them change places.[20]” He wanted to see the end of this type of ecclesiastical domination. In the context of English politics that could only be achieved by curtailing the authority of the Church of England. Penn wanted toleration and universal religious freedom, one to include Dissenters and Catholics. In essence, the position taken by James and Penn comes down to the same thing. Both would preserve the rights of the Church of England; both would support certain privileges and not others; both would eradicate its power to oppress non-Anglicans.

  1. The Declaration of Indulgence:

            It is widely speculated that William Penn had a hand in the creation of the “Declaration of Indulgence.” No one knows whether he actually wrote the document or any part of it, but several clauses echo his thoughts if not his words. The measure separated an Englishman’s religion from his nationality, and incidentally brought the Quakers into full citizenship for the first time. It therefore embodied the main goals Penn had worked so hard and long for.

            The Quakers were particular grateful to the King. They were among the first to express their appreciation for the mercy extended to them by the King through the Declaration of Indulgence. William Penn had led a delegation of Friends to Whitehall to offer a formal statement of esteem and thanks.

            Penn had known James for more than 15 years. In 1673 James, as Duke of York, told Penn he advocated religious toleration short of a breach of the peace. After 1685 James as King, repeated the same sentiment on many occasions, and released crowds of dissenters from their prison cells. In the eyes of Penn, the Declaration of indulgence simply extended the sentiment and codified it, and made it principal of practical politics.[21]

Penn’s Theory of Government and the English State

            No one can pinpoint where William Penn’s derived his theory of the state. The major influences however, can be guessed with reasonable certainty. Penn’s aspirations are from Plato and St. Augustine, his theory of man as a social being is from Aristotle, his political morality is from Grotius, his conception of English rights is from Coke, and his governmental machinery is from Harrington.[22] Behind them all towers the Bible. Anyone who bears these seminal sources in mind can easily understand Penn’s attitude toward English liberty. Penn believed the function of government is to make laws, execute them, and see that those who break them are punished. In any society there must be two laws: Fundamental Laws that are indispensable and immutable and Superficial laws, which are temporary and alterable.

The Glorious Revolution

            James II reign ended in chaos. William of Orange landed in England and marched on London. James’ military commanders joined William along the way; led by John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough.[23]  Once James abandoned England he gave up his throne. His refusal to stay and fight disgusted the army. “James’ flight harmed his cause so much that, when he was captured during his first attempt to get out of his kingdom, William ordered him to be set free so that he might escape to France—which he promptly proceeded to do, thus undermining any countermove that might still be mounted in his favor.[24]

            Many people associated with James were questioned. Typically, James’ associates had three options; (1) they would either betray James, (2) they could flee into exile, or (3) they could manipulate the revolutionary circumstances in their own favor. One man refused to do any of these things. That man was William Penn.

            Penn did not leave London during the crisis, he remained where he was. Always brave enough to face animosity, always convinced of his correctness, he did not consider himself to be in any danger to warrant a drastic move. He probably imagined to be left alone after answering some questions. He was wrong. Penn had long been under suspicion by Whigs and Anglicans. William had known him as a spokesman for James II ever since their meeting at The Hague to discuss religious equality for England. Penn was harassed for the next four years, arrested several times, and questioned by the Privy Council and by the new King himself. During this period, Penn spent part of his time in the Tower and part in hiding.[25]

            Mistrusted because of his past friendship with James II, he was accused of conspiring for James to return to the throne. He was said to have been corresponding with the Stuart, advising him to come back and undo the Glorious Revolution. Penn’s position in court on cross examination was that “he did freely admit his friendship with James; moreover he would not say that he had been wrong or that he thought any less of James for what happened. But he did most strenuously deny conspiring in any way for a return of the exiled Monarch.”[26]

            It is unlikely that Penn was conspiring for a return of James, if there was any correspondence then it was likely words between old friends. Some historians (including Macaulay) give credence to the belief that there was something more sinister than mere correspondence.  Ultimately, there was no reason to question Penn’s words when he calls himself a “true and faithful servant to King William and Queen Mary.” Penn believed that he could express gratitude to James II and defend James’ reign without being opposed or faithful to the current reigning King.

            Penn had practical and theoretical reasons for acknowledging the new order. Retirement to be with James II would mean to live in exile, ruin his private affairs, hurt his family and lose his American province (Pennsylvania). His conscience told him to be frank about his loyalty to James II; it did not tell him to throw away everything for a lost cause.  Penn made peace with the constitutional system introduced after the Glorious Revolution. A substantial part of the Bill of Rights was in harmony with Penn’s political philosophy. He had no reason to object to limited monarchy

Conclusion

            Penn is the best defense of James II. He was the ideal man for the task. No one else has such a realistic view of the Kings acts and intentions. Penn was neither Catholic like Petre, nor an anti-Catholic like Halifax, nor a suspect convert to Catholicism like Sunderland. He also was not tied to the court like Jefferies. His expressed convictions are neither invariable favorable to the King nor systematically derogatory. And from all the works he has published over the years, we know him to be a man who honestly said what he believed. Who else could establish James’ motives better than his friend of more than twenty years? 

             Penn will be remembered by history as being one of the most zealous advocates for toleration in England as in Pennsylvania. The friendship between the Catholic and the Quaker is neither inexplicable nor extraordinary. There is more to be said for William Penn’s loyalty to James II than many have been willing to concede.  Penn hoped that one day England would go Quaker. James hoped it would go Catholic. These hopes were incompatible; but both were consistent with a mutual determination to take a step forward.

            One author had this to say of Penn; “England is proud of his name. A great commonwealth beyond the Atlantic regards him with a reverence similar to that which the Athenians felt of Theseus and the Romans for Quirinus. The respectable society of which he was a member regards him as an apostle. By pious men of other persuasions he is generally regarded as a bright pattern of Christian virtue…His name has thus become, throughout all civilized countries, a synonym for probity and philanthropy.[27]   

The Final Years

            After England's Glorious Revolution, when James II was replaced by William III (1650–1702) and Mary II (1662–1694) as England's rulers in 1689, Penn and his family went to live in Pennsylvania. Arriving in 1699, he reestablished friendly contacts with the Indians and worked hard to heal a religious schism among the Quakers. He also fought piracy and tried to secure financial backing for colonial self-defense, demanded by the Crown but resisted by the Quakers.         

            Penn's major achievement was the new charter of 1701. Under its terms Pennsylvania became the only colony governed by a single legislature of elected representatives. This system, which lasted until 1776, permitted the Delaware settlers to have their own governing body. Penn returned to England late in 1701 to fight a proposal in Parliament which would have voided all proprietary grants. He never saw Pennsylvania again.

 

            Penn's last years were filled with disappointment. After the death of his first wife in 1694, on 5 March 1696 Penn married for the second time.[28] His wife was Hannah Callowhill (1670–1726), daughter of Thomas Callowhill, an influential Bristol merchant. They had two daughters, one of whom, Margaret, lived into adulthood and married Thomas Freame of Philadelphia, and four sons, John, Thomas Penn, Richard, and Dennis, all of whom became co-proprietors of Pennsylvania.[29]

            Penn's last years were overshadowed by illness and financial worries. Hampered by debts, colonial disaffection, and the general poor relationship with the King's ministers toward private colonies, Penn almost completed the sale of Pennsylvania to the Crown in 1712 before he suffered his first disabling stroke, a destruction of brain tissue which often leads to paralysis. He suffered two strokes in 1712 and left his wife to take care of his business. He died on 30 July 1718 at Ruscombe, Berkshire, and was buried at the Quaker burial-ground at Jordans, near Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Beddard, Robert. A Kingdom Without a King: The Journal of the Provisional        Government in the Revolution of 1688. Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1988

 

 

Buranelli, Vincent. The King & The Quaker. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania       Press, 1962.

 

 

Geiter, Mary K. William Penn. Longman Publishing Group, July 2000.

 

 

Geiter, Mary K.Penn, William (1644–1718), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,     Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Jan2007             http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxyremote.galib.uga.edu:2048/view/article/21857

            Accessed 5 Dec 2007

 

 

Michigan Historical Reprint Series (Author) & W.E. Forster . William Penn and Thomas    B. Macaulay: being brief observations on the charges made in Mr. Macaulay's             History of England, against the character of William Penn. Publisher: Scholarly      Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library (December 20, 2005) & Also             published in Philadelphia, by Henry Longstreth 1850.

 

 

Macaulay, Thomas Babington. The History of England from the Accession of James II.    Philadelphia: Thomas Y. Crowell. 1879 (American Reprint)

 

 

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online. 5 December 2007.

            < http://www.oxforddnb.com/>

 

Street Corner Society. Online. 5 December 2007.

            <http://www.strecorsoc.org/macaulay/title.html>

 

 

Street, Lucie. An Uncommon Sailor. Oxford; The Kensal Press, 1986

 

 

William Penn Biography. Online. 5 December 2007.

            <http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pe-Pu/Penn-William.html>

 

 

“William Penn, Macaulay, and Punch.” Bulletin of Friends’ Historical Society. May 1927



[1] Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962) at 7

[2] William Penn, Macaulay, and “Punch.” Bulletin of Friends’ Historical Society. (May 1927)

[3] Thomas Babington Macaulay,. The History of England from the Accession of James II. (Philadelphia, American Reprint 1879) at 462

[4] Lucie Street, An Uncommon Sailor. (Oxford, The Kensal Press, 1986)

[5] Id. at 13

[6] Later he would inherit the throne and become King James II

[7] Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962) at 23

[8] The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online. 5 December 2007. < http://www.oxforddnb.com/>

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Thomas Babington Macaulay,. The History of England from the Accession of James II. (Philadelphia, American Reprint 1879) at 462

[13] Id. at 460

[14] Id. at 462

[15] The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online. 5 December 2007.< http://www.oxforddnb.com/>

[16] Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962), at 46.

[17] Id. at 50

[18] Id. at 54

[19] Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962), at, 206

[20] Id. at 117

[21] Buranelli at 128

[22] Id. at 139

[23] Buranelli at 169

[24] Id.

[25] Id. at 171

[26] Id. at 173

[27] Thomas Babington Macaulay,. The History of England from the Accession of James II. (Philadelphia, American Reprint 1879) at  463

[28] William Penn Biography. Online. 5 December 2007. < http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pe-Pu/Penn-William.html>

[29] The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online. 5 December 2007.< http://www.oxforddnb.com/>