238 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



Moutesquieu compared him with Lycurgus. Jefferson pronounced him " the 

 greatest lawgiver the world has produced ; the first in either ancient or 

 modern times, who laid the foundations of Government in the pure and 

 unadulterated principle of peace, of reason, and of right."' He had a respect 

 for the freedom of conscience unusual in his own day. His relations with 

 the Indians, his plan for the union of the American colonies are proofs of his 

 far-sightedness in his adopted country, while his scheme for a general 

 European federation, and his advocacy of peace, attest it in the land of his 

 birth. Nor was tliis idealism coufiued to paper. In the constitution which 

 he probably framed for renusylvauia in 1676 he attempted to combine 

 democracy and toleration. In the course of time some of the theoretical 

 devices of the new constitution disappeared, but civil and religious liberty 

 remained secure. That Montesquieu and Voltaire should admire it is 

 intelligible. That Coleridge and Wordsworth should have contemplated 

 emigrating to the land where it was in operation is remarkable. 



This practical idealism was quite in keeping with the character of the 

 man. To say with William Peuu, " The Tower is to me the worst argument 

 in the world," is one matter, but to act upon it is another. Peun did 

 act as he wrote, and this lends additional weight to his book on " The Great 

 Case of Liberty of Conscience Once more lirietly Debated and Defended," 

 1671. Perhaps the zeal of the Quaker received some inspiration from the 

 fact that he was in Newgate when he wrote this carefully reasoned plea. 

 To him the sphere of the State and that of the Church were distinct. The 

 business of the State is to protect the property of men, not to save the ir 

 souls. Here, indeed, is the contribution he made to the theory which 

 John Milton and Koger Williams had advocated before him. Penal law s 

 were, therefore, wrong, for they destroyed the security of property. His 

 writings prove, if proof were required, that England was becoming a com- 

 mercial nation. Can such a nation impose a test for all the occupations of life ? 

 Will it not thereby be seriously hampered in the mercantile struggle ? 



These are practical arguments in favour of toleration, but his pamphlet 

 presents idealistic arguments. As a Q.uaker he held that God gave inner 

 light to man. As this inner light was given to man in sundry stages and in 

 divers manners, how could one man be so presumptuous as to persecute 

 another ? I'enn elaborately demonstrates that the imposition, restraint, and 

 persecution for matters relating to the conscience directly invade the Divine 

 prerogative. Is a proof required of this statement ? At once he tells you 

 that government over the conscience is the incommunicable right of God, 



' Haiiiird. '■ lie^ister," xvi. 43. 



