l and religious
liberty of his people. Mr. Forster, on the other hand, would ascribe
Penn's appearance in these scenes exclusively to his good and charitable
intentions. He would represent him solely as a peacemaker (which is,
perhaps, not far from the truth), and he would exculpate him from all
motives except those of charity; attributing to him a thorough and
undisguised repugnance to the king's evil designs, and a resolution
simply to realize out of these evil doings the great and permanent
blessing of religious liberty for his countrymen at large.

"The first bone of contention is the participation of Penn in that
nefarious transaction by which the Royal Maids of Honor extorted ransoms
from the poor Taunton girls who had welcomed the arrival of Monmouth. It
seems that the chief, if not the sole authority for Mr. Macaulay's
remarks on this head is contained in a letter of Sunderland's, preserved
in the State-Paper office, and addressed to "Mr. Penne." Mr. Forster,
therefore, disputes the identity of the two persons. Now, we think that
very few people, after a careful exercise of their judgment, would doubt
either that this letter was addressed to Penn, or that another,
subsequently alluded to, was written by him. Still we admit that its
phraseology does not bear out all Mr. Macaulay's circumstantial details
of the transaction, and it certainly cannot be denied that his conduct
was, to say the least, _susceptible_ of an interpretation which should
have called rather for the approval than the censure of the historian.
The principal subject, however, of the controversy is the share taken by
William Penn in the dealings of James with the Fellows of Magdalen
College, Oxford. We feel it very difficult to give any sufficient
statement of this case, not only by reason of our narrow limits, but for
want of words so to express ourselves as not to assume what one or other
of the disputants deny. Yet Mr. Forster must not complain if we assert
that William Penn, in this as in other questionable transactions, was,
if not an agent of the king, at least a kind of go-between, and
generally with an inclination towards that conclusion which James
desired. Perhaps he often interfered because nobody else could interfere
so beneficially--this we are very willing to allow, but, to take the
case now before us, it surely cannot be gainsayed that in his mediation,
if Mr. Forster will accept the term, between the king and the college,
he reall