« 上一頁繼續 »
often been flung at us, viz.: If you Quakers had it in your power none should have a part in government but those of your own way." He says also that property has a right to representation which cannot be denied. IIe explains very fully and very succinctly in a letter to Roger Mompesson his purposes in the effort to establish a State :
"I went thither to lay the foundation of a free colony for all mankind that should go thither, more especially those of my own profession ; not that I would lessen the civil liberties of others because of their persuasion, but screen and defend our own from any infringement on that account."
way of the purchase. *
The matter, however, appears to have been kept in view, and in 1674, when Lord Berkeley offered for sale one-half of New Jersey, it was purchased by two Quakers, John Fenwick and Edward Billinge, probably with the knowledge and approval of others of their persuasion. Billinge, however, failed, and in order that the opportunity should not be lost, assigned to William Penn and two others nine-tenths of the new territory. Many Quakers moved there, and thus West Jersey became in a sense a Quaker colony. It grew so rapidly in population, that the experiment was extended to cast New Jersey, and in 1681 Wil. liam Penn, and eleven other Friends, purchased of the proprietor, Sir George Carteret, the remainder of the province, organized the government, and invited immigration. Robert Barclay, of Urie, the Quaker apologist, was made Governor for life. There were, however, in the country such numbers presumably not in sympathy with Quaker views that the experiment was deemed hardly a fair one, and Pennsylvania, “virgin settlement,” was at last procured. “My God hath given it me in the face of the
Thirty years before Penn led his colony to America, the far-sighted George Fox had under consideration the project of procuring a place there to which persecuted Friends might emigrate. He requested Josiah Cole, a minister going to see the Indians of the interior, to look for a favorable location, where he might purchase from them a home, not for his Society bodily to move to, but for the poor who could not stand the shock of persecution. But Cole, while favorable to some territory on the Susquehanna, reported in 1660 difficulties in the
* Penn and Logan Correspondence, Vol. I., page 373.
* Bowden's History of Friends in America, Vol. I., p. 380.
world,” Penn says in 1682, and evidently the long-delayed Quaker desire was accomplished.
There was some excuse then for the fact that Friends felt a sense of proprietorship in the new colony, and wished to hedge themselves around with some power and preferment. That they took so little is greatly to their credit. They asked only what their numbers and character would give them. William Penn was anxious they should take office in government and give their principles a full trial. When complaint was made to England that a man was sentenced to douth by an aflirmed rathor than a sworn jury, he writes to Logan in 1703 : “ It was not to be thought that a colony and constitution of government made by and for Quakers would leave themselves and their lives and fortunes out of so essential a part of the government as juries.
If the coming of others shall overrule us that are the originals and made it a country wo are unhappy ; that it is not to be thought wo intended no easier nor better terms for ourselves in going to America than we left behind us."*
The Quakers, therefore, meant to retain for themselves just what they were willing to grant
to all other Protestants. But because they held peculiar views concerning the immorality of oaths and of war, the ordinary forms of government had to be seriously changed to conform to the new conditions. While therefore they felt that they were only asserting for themselves a reasonable liberty of conscience, it seemed to others that thev were giving away the stability and permanence of the State. Hence arose the strong opposition to Quaker rule among certain elements of the population of Pennsylvania, which found a still stronger echo in England.
Part of this was reasonable. Evidently there could be no possibility of arrangement between those who believed oaths to be indispensable and those who believed them to be sinful. One or the other must prevail. The Quaker, determined to have the share in government to which his numbers and character entitled him, would neither take oaths nor adıninister them. lle did not deny them by statute to others, and an Episcopalian could take them without prejudice if he could find an Episcopalian to administer them. The subject was a standing bone of contention on which there was an honest fundamental dif. ference of opinion.*
Penn and Logan Correspondence, Vol. I., page 205.
* Penn and Logan Correspondence, Vol I., page 65.