SAS Open Journals

Braithwaite, Alfred W

The Mystery of Swarthmoor Hall
THE recent death of Isabel Ross, a former President of the Friends' Historical Society, will have led some 
readers to turn back to her book Margaret Fell, Mother 
of Quakerism (1949). This admirable biography was the 
result of many years of research and sifting of records, and 
there is probably no source touching on the Fell family that 
Isabel Ross left untapped. There was, however, one problem 
that continued to baffle her—the problem as to just what 
view should be taken of the dispute between Margaret Fell 
and her son George as to the rightful ownership of Swarth­ 
moor Hall. 1
To Isabel Ross this was not a question of purely academic 
interest. For if in fact her famous ancestress had unfairly 
deprived the son of what was rightfully his, then this might 
well affect our whole judgment of Margaret Fell's character. 
I remember a conversation with Isabel Ross in which she 
confessed her misgivings, and although this does not appear 
in her book, there is no doubt that she was troubled by them. 
I am sorry that I was not able, at the time, to do more than
make a few generalizations, which may or may not have 
comforted her. But recently I have had another look at the 
problem, and it does seem as though a rather different line 
of approach might enable us to form a clearer judgment of 
the rights and wrongs of the case. I offer what follows,, 
therefore, as a tribute to Isabel Ross's memory.
JUDGE FELL'S WILL
The mystery begins with Thomas Fell's Will,2 which he 
made in September 1658, only a week or two before his 
death. The language of the Will is perfectly plain and 
straightforward, and it appears to do three things:
I. It gives to his widow, Margaret Fell, Swarthmoor Hall, 
with its gardens, and 50 acres of ground, "so long as she 
shall continue and remain in my name, and as my widow,, 
and unmarried to any other, and no longer, in hopes that she
1 The questions involved were previously discussed, and many of the 
original documents quoted, in three articles by Norman Penney, "George 
Fell and the Story of Swarthmoor Hall" in the Jnl.F.H.S. for 1932-34,. 
xxix, 51-61; xxx, 28-39; xxxi, 27-35.
2 Printed in full in Ross, Margaret Fell, Appendix Ten, pp. 398-400.
22
THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL 23
will be careful and loving unto my poor fatherless children."
2. Except for a number of legacies and bequests, it gives 
"'the residue and remainder of my real and personal estate" 
equally between his seven daughters.
3. By necessary implication, therefore, it gives nothing 
whatever, apart from a legacy of books, to the only son 
George Fell.
Now it has long been recognized that this cannot really 
have been how Judge Fell's property devolved. A hundred 
years ago, John Abraham of Liverpool (Isabel Ross's grand­ 
father), was voicing his doubts. 1 Apart from anything else, 
the behaviour of the persons involved in the subsequent 
dispute is quite inconsistent with the proposition that George 
Fell's sole claim derived from the Royal Grant made in 1665 
(to be discussed later). In fact, before there was any such 
grant, there is evidence that George Fell had a considerable 
interest in the estate; for example, he was in receipt of rents,2 
and his signature was required to a lease to his sister. 3
A lawyer consulted by John Abraham in 1865* suggested 
that there might have been previous settlements of the estate, 
under which George Fell derived his interest. This seems to 
me unlikely, as there is no reference to such documents, 
either in his father's Will or subsequently. A simpler explana­ 
tion is this. In the seventeenth century, although land might 
legally be left away from the eldest or only son, this was still 
an unnatural and extraordinary proceeding, which would 
require the clearest and most positive language to make it 
effective. When therefore Judge Fell usec the words "the 
residue and remainder of my real and personal estate," he 
was not referring to his landed estate, and no one would have 
taken him as doing so; what he was referring to was his 
property other than land; the word "real" was inserted to 
catch any property of this nature which owing to some 
peculiarity of tenure might technically be realty. Similarly, 
the gift to his widow was not intended to be an absolute one, 
but only an interest for life; and this is confirmed by the 
proviso which was inserted, that it was to cease on her
* Ross, Margaret Fell, p. 123.
a Ibid., p. 187. Cf. J.F.H.S., xxix, 1932, p. 57, and Ross, Margaret Fell, 
p. 134-
3 J.F.H.S., xxix, 1932, p. 58.
4 Ross, Margaret Fell, p. 123.
24 THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL
re-marriage. On this hypothesis, Judge Fell's landed estate 
massed, by the laws of inheritance, to George Fell as heir-at- 
!aw (subject to any customary rights of the widow and 
the other children), and did not pass under the Will at all.
This fits in with what appears to have happened, namely, 
that a considerable part of the rents of his father's property 
were paid to the son from the beginning. Just what his sisters' 
rights or interest may have been we have no certain means of 
telling. But as to his mother's interests, some facts are clear. 
At the time of her trial in 1664 she stated positively, when 
she was threatened with forfeiture of her estate, that "my 
estate is but a widow's estate," and again "my estate is a 
dowry." 1 This, in the seventeenth century, would convey a 
precise meaning, namely, that she had an interest for life in 
a third of her husband's landed estate.
Normally, this would not have included the use of the 
husband's mansion or principal dwelling-house, which would 
have gone at once to the heir; but the provision in the Will 
made it clear that Judge Fell wished his widow to have this, 
and the words quoted above imply that she regarded it as 
part of her dowry, and if so, her other receipts would have 
been adjusted accordingly. It seems fairly clear that this 
was the legal position.
George Fell, on his side, appears, at the time, to have 
accepted the position with a good grace. It probably suited 
him well to live in London, enjoying the income remitted to 
him from Swarthmoor by his mother and sisters, and leaving 
to them the responsibility (which they were quite willing 
and able to undertake) of managing the estate. Though he 
had no sympathy with their Quakerism, his personal relations 
with them remained for some time cordial and affectionate, 
apart from any friction caused by their disapproval of his 
and his wife's extravagance.
MARGARET FELL'S PRAEMUNIRE
In 1664 Margaret Fell came under sentence of praemunire, 
of which one of the consequences was that the whole of her 
estate was forfeited to the King, and could be disposed of 
at his pleasure. This catastrophe was not unexpected, and 
it would be likely that any property of which she was free to 
dispose would already have been made over by her to her
* Ross, Margaret Fell, pp. 172 and 177.
THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL 25
daughters. 1 But there remained her "dowry," that is, her 
life interest in Swarthmoor Hall and other parts of her 
husband's landed estate. Some action with regard to this was 
urgently needed, as there were many hangers-on of the King 
constantly on the look-out for forfeited estates which he 
might be persuaded to grant to them.
The danger was averted when George Fell successfully 
petitioned the King to have his mother's estate granted to 
him. 2 1 share the view of those who regard this as a friendly 
rather than a hostile action on the part of the son. It is true 
that in his petition he speaks in a somewhat unfilial manner 
of his mother and her Quaker activities. But he had no doubt 
been advised that it was essential for him to disavow com­ 
pletely any personal connection with Quakerism, and that 
the more disparaging he was, the more conviction his 
disavowal would cany.
After the grant to George Fell, there was some discussion 
in the family as to whether he would wish to take up resi­ 
dence at Swarthmoor Hall, 3 but there is no evidence that he 
did wish to do this. He continued for some time living in 
London, still on friendly terms with his sisters,4 who retained 
possession of the Hall during their mother's imprisonment, 
:Tom 1664 to 1668.
MARGARET FELL'S RE-MARRIAGE
What apparently changed George Fell's attitude was the
combination of two events, his coming to live in Furness, 
and his mother's marriage to George Fox. About six miles 
west of Swarthmoor Hall was another house, Marsh Grange, 
which, though originally in Margaret's family, had passed to 
her husband Thomas Fell as part of his wife's property, and. 
her interest in it after his death was limited to her "dowry" 
of one third. George Fell's financial difficulties were now 
presumably such as to make it desirable for him to live out 
of London, and it was agreed that he and his family should
1 In 1669, when considering his proposed marriage to Margaret Fell, 
George Fox asked the daughters whether they would suffer loss if their 
mother re-married, and whether she had made provision for them. 
"And the children made answer and said she had doubled it" (Journal, 
Ed. Nickalls, p. 554). This must mean that the daughters had received a 
good deal of property from their mother, at one time or another; there is, 
other evidence that all the sisters were possessed of independent means.
2 Extracts from State Papers, edited by Norman Penney, 1913, pp. 227-8.
3 J.F.H.S., 1933, xxx, p. 29.
4 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
26 THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL
occupy Marsh Grange. The fact that he regarded this as a 
matter requiring agreement indicates again that the King's 
grant was thought of by him not as conferring any personal 
benefit on him, but as held for the benefit of the family. 
It is clear that although George Fell afterwards attempted 
to repudiate it, a written agreement was made, 1 which in 
some way compensated his mother for the loss of her income 
from Marsh Grange; it is natural to suppose that this was 
contained in the two deeds executed at this time, the contents 
of which we know from the reference to them in a later 
conveyance,2 though the documents themselves are lost. 
This reference, as it has not previously been printed, should 
be given in full. It excepts, from the land conveyed:
such parcells of the said premises as by two severall Inden­ 
tures made or mentioned to be made the fifth and sixth days of 
March which was in the Eighteenth yeare of the Reign of his late 
Majesty King Charles the second ^1666] betweene the said George 
Fell deceased of the one part anc the said Margaret Fox mother 
of the said George Fell of the other part were limited assigned 
granted and demised to the said Margaret Fell in lieu and satis­ 
faction of the dower of the said Margaret or otherwise for the 
better and more perfect assuring such annual or yearly payments 
as are therein mentioned and expressed to be granted and payable 
to the said Margaret and her assigns.
The "parcells" comprised in the deed are probably not 
Swarthmoor Hall, but some minor part of the estate, which, 
in accordance with current conveyancing practice, would be 
charged to secure the carrying-out of George Fell's under­ 
taking as to the payment of income to his mother.
The son's change of residence had, however, an unfortu­ 
nate result. While he was living in London, the doings of his 
family, at the other end of England, had little importance 
to him; they would be known to few of his acquaintances, 
and could be ignored. At Marsh Grange he was thrown into 
association with the neighbouring gentry, and quickly found 
that they regarded the Quaker activities of Swarthmoor 
Hall as something of a public scandal: this feeling was 
intensified when his mother was released—too speedily as 
the local gentry thought3—from her imprisonment, and at 
once resumed her illegal holding of meetings.
i See letters of 23rd and 25th December 1669, quoted in J.F.H.S.,
xxx, 1933, PP- 33-36.
* Conveyance of Swarthmoor estate in 1691 to Daniel Abraham, now 
at Friends House, London (in the care of Friends Trusts Ltd).
3 Extracts from State Papers, p. 277.
THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL 2.J
The growing antagonism of the son towards the mother 
found a handle in her marriage with George Fox in October 
1669. It has been suggested that the marriage was felt to be 
a social humiliation; however this may be, it would certainly 
be regarded as an open defiance of the local opposition to 
Quakerism. George Fell must have been urged on all sides to 
end the situation by taking possession of Swarthmoor Hall 
himself. The threat was made that unless Margaret left 
Swarthmoor Hall she would be re-imprisoned, under the old 
praemunire sentence, and although it is not certain that 
George Fell approved of this threat, he certainly reported 
it to his mother's advisers;1 he had now determined to eject 
her, by whatever means he could contrive.
The crucial question therefore arises, and this is the 
question that caused Isabel Ross concern: had George Fell 
the right to take this action, and if so, was his mother 
justified in resisting him? We are hampered, in our considera­ 
tion of this, by having only one side of the case presented to 
us; we do not know just what the son's contention was, nor 
the arguments upon which he based it. The best indication 
of them is to be found in the reports of John Rous's interviews 
with George Fell in December i669.2 John Rous seems to 
have been the only member of the family to have approached 
his brother-in-law in a "tender" spirit, or to have tried in 
any way to win his confidence. It is clear that George Fell 
still did not base any claim on the King's grant; he was 
apparently prepared to waive this, and to rely on his mother's 
forfeiture of her interests as a result of her re-marriage.
Even so, he did not claim that she had forfeited all her 
interests. Although he disputed the validity of the agree­ 
ment mentioned above, he offered to make her an allowance 
of £2oo3 a year, a substantial sum for those days, and one 
that cannot have come far short of a third of the income of 
the estate, which would represent a widow's full dowry.4
* J.F.H.S., xxx, 1933, P- 35-
2 Ibid., pp. 33-6 (Letters from Rous and Geo. Fox). The information in 
Rous's own letter is clearer than that in Fox's. No one has yet explained 
how Margaret could have "lost her right by building," or what building 
she did!
3 The figure of ^100 a year given in Ross, Margaret Fell, p. 221, should 
be corrected.
4 By way of comparison, it may be mentioned that the purchase price 
of the whole estate in 1691 was ^4,500. This price did not, however, include 
Marsh Grange.
28 THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL
But he insisted that she should give up Swarthmoor Hall, 
his most telling argument doubtless being the expressed 
wish of his father that she should only have the use of it 
while she remained unmarried.
/
WHAT SHOULD OUR JUDGMENT BE?
Having put George Fell's position as well as we can, in 
the absence of any express statement by him, let us now put 
Margaret's side of the case. I think this would probably have 
been summed up as follows:
1. You know well that Swarthmoor Hall is particularly 
precious to me, not only for its own sake, but as a centre for 
Friends, and that no monetary payment could compensate 
me for it. If, therefore, you admit that I am still entitled to 
some portion of my dowry in spite of my re-marriage, it is 
unconscionable and unnatural to refuse to let me have it in 
the form in which it will be of most value to me.
2. The provision in my first husband's Will as to my giving 
up Swarthmoor Hall was intended to apply to quite different 
circumstances. If my second husband had been a man with 
an estate elsewhere, or, alternatively, a man who wished to 
live at my expense, it would be reasonable, in my daughters'
interests, for me to leave Swarthmoor Hall. But as it is, no 
such question can arise, and I am convinced that Thomas 
Fell would have approved my continued occupation of it, 
as my daughters do.
3. When the arrangement was made between us that you 
should live at Marsh Grange, you appeared entirely satisfied 
with this. It is only your association with our hostile neigh­ 
bours that has caused you to change your mind. This shows 
again that your desire to turn me out is not founded on 
justice and reason, but on caprice and animosity.
Put in this way, it is difficult to resist the conclusion 
that Margaret Fox had an unassailable moral case for 
resisting her son's demand, and we need not hesitate to be 
glad that she was able to do so successfully. For before 
George Fell could commence any legal action, he died, on 
I4th October 1670. He had evidently been ill for some time, 
and this, together with his financial worries, must mitigate 
any harsh judgment we might be inclined to pass on him. 
He left an infant son; and his widow, who had shared his 
animosity, continued to claim possession of Swarthmoor
THE MYSTERY OF SWARTHMOOR HALL 29
Hall, though without attempting any decisive action. The 
dispute was only finally settled when Daniel Abraham, 
the husband of Margaret's youngest daughter, purchased the 
whole estate in 1691, and the interests of all members of the 
family were bought out. 1
There is one further problem on which a few words may 
be said. When Margaret Fox was finally released from her 
imprisonment under the praemunire sentence, in 1671, she 
was given an official pardon, and a grant was made of her 
estate to two of her daughters, Susannah and Rachel. 2 The 
question has been asked, first, how could this be done when 
the King had already granted her estate to George Fell, and 
secondly, why he did not make the grant back to her, 
instead of to her daughters.
The answer to the first question is clearly that the grant 
to George Fell had come to an end on his death; it was a 
grant to him personally, not to him "and his heirs." The 
second question is more puzzling; I believe the solution may 
be that any grant back to Margaret would be in effect (as 
married women could not hold property) a grant to her 
husband George Fox, and that Fox had always desired to- 
obtain as little financial advantage as possible from his 
marriage, 3 and therefore wished the grant to be to two of the 
unmarried daughters.
It is interesting that although Fox did not counsel his 
wife to submit to her son's demands, he was anxious that 
she should not reach a frame of mind in which she was 
attaching undue importance to earthly possessions, even so- 
precious a possession as Swarthmoor Hall. The key-note of 
his advice is in the words:
"As concerning the house, keep over it.'"
ALFRED W. BRAITHWAITE
1 I think we must discount the statement, made by James Lancaster,, 
that George Fell admitted that the "title" to Swarthmoor Hall was in his 
mother and not in him (Ross, Margaret Fell, p. 225). We do not know the 
context of this "admission," nor what George Fell intended to convey by it_ 
He may have meant only that he could not legally dispossess his mother 
without a court action.
* Extracts front State Papers, pp. 329-30.
3 Cf. Ross, Margaret Fell, pp. 214-15.


English

The Mystery of Swarthmoor Hall

Editors, The

Recent Publications
You und Thou. Studien zur Anrede im Englischen (mit einem 
Exkurs uber die Anrede im Deutscheri). By Thomas Finken- 
staedt. Berlin, de Gmyter, 1963. pp. xi, 301.
Professor Finkenstaedt has produced a valuable and welcome 
work on a subject which has hitherto received scant attention from 
historians of English, and he is to be warmly congratulated on pro­ 
viding us with a scholarly, lucid, and (mercifully) succinct study of 
the pronouns of address, from Old English to the end of the seven­ 
teenth century. His study is enlivened by the inclusion of numerous 
quotations, few of them familiar, from primary source-material. 
A particularly interesting section on "Das Quaker Thou/' illustrated 
with a variety of quotations (some perhaps a little repetitive) from 
early Quaker tracts, provides a valid reason for reviewing this book 
here. But before commenting on Professor Finkenstaedt's esquisse 
on the traditional Quaker form of address, a few general remarks on 
his book may not be out of place.
Although this is scarcely the proper place for an extended 
critique of Professor Finkenstaedt's book, this reviewer feels justi­ 
fied in criticizing certain features of the book which have a general 
relevance. Although the author has demonstrated throughout the 
comprehensiveness of his search for original source-material (the 
Bibliography lists 619 works used, of which about half are works of a 
secondary nature), there is one type of material, listed in the Biblio­ 
graphy under "Grammatiken and Schulbiicher" (nos. 286-319), 
which is quite inadequately covered. There would, of course, have 
been little point in examining all the extant English and inter­ 
lingual grammars published before 1700, but the inclusion of a mere
handful of these early grammars (33 out of a total corpus of perhaps 
200), not all of them of the first importance, may legitimately be 
regarded as a serious weakness. The importance of the early inter­ 
lingual grammars lies not so much in their prescriptive rules as in the 
quantity of illustrative material which is to be found in the "Familiar 
Dialogues'' and "Familiar Phrases" with which they were frequently 
supplied, and which provide a most valuable (and, alas, unstudied) 
record of seventeenth-century speech. It is also a pity that the 
Bibliography should be vitiated by so many errors, and incomplete- 
references. Thus, it is common knowledge that New Dialogues or 
Colloquies, London, 1639 (no. 286) is an edition of Noel van Barle- 
ment's Colloquia et Dictionariolum, reprinted many times in the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (most editions having an 
English text); the item entered under E.A., Grammaire Angloise et 
Francoise, Rouen, 1595, is, in fact, a reprint of James Bellot's 
Le Maistre d'escole Anglois (London, 1580), and was printed in 1695, 
the error on the first title-page being corrected on the second to 1695; 
the authorship of Manuductio: or, a leading of Children by the Hand 
to the Latine Tongue, London, 1656, has, always (and authoritatively)
61
62 RECENT PUBLICATIONS
been ascribed to J[ames] S[hirley]; Claudius Hollyband's The 
French Littleton could not, as has frequently been pointed out, have 
been printed in 1566, and the date as given on the title-page must be 
an error for 1576; Alexander Hume is given as Hulme, and Kathleen 
Lambley's The Teaching of the French Langauge (Manchester, i<)2o) 
hardly belongs with "Schulbiicher."
Professor Finkenstaedt's treatment of the Quaker "Thou/ 1 
which will have special interest for readers of this journal, is con­ 
fessedly an esquisse, but provides nevertheless a useful summary of 
the views of the apologists and antagonists alike, with apt quotations 
from contemporary sources. The classic source-book is, of course, 
that extraordinary compilation A Battle-Door for Teachers and 
Professors (by Fox, Stubs and Furley) published in 1660, but al­ 
though the book is occasionally quoted, one would have appreciated 
a fuller comment on its significance.
Although it does not strictly belong to the period dealt with in 
this study, I cannot forbear mentioning a little work (apparently 
unknown to philologists) by one J. J., published in 1752, and entitled 
Prittle prattle. Or, a familiar discourse on the persons I, Thou, He or 
She. We, Ye or You, and They. Designed for the use and benefit of the 
youth of the people called Quakers, who have not had the opportunity of 
learning a grammar. There are four copies in the library at 
Friends House, in London, and another in the library of Woodbrooke 
College, Birmingham. Its interest is that, having dispensed with the 
traditional arguments in favour of "Thou and Thee/' the author 
proceeds to a grammatical rationale of the usage, and an analysis of 
the English pronoun in particular. The parts of speech are also 
briefly dealt with, and English usage is compared with the prescrip­ 
tions of Latin grammar. One particularly interesting (and relevant) 
observation occurs on page 26:
The Word Thee, the Accusative Case of Thou, never comes next 
before, or next after any Verb of the Second Person Singular. 
Well; I lately heard two Friends talking together, and the one 
said to the other, How dost do; The other reply'd pretty well, How 
dost thee do; Did not both these Friends speak the plain Language? 
I answer, No. The first Friend spoke the plain Language; but the 
other spoke a Linsey Woolsey Language: Such as God's People 
heretofore were forbidden to wear a Garment of.
It is a pity that space does not permit a fuller appreciation of the 
positive virtues of this work, and it should be understood that the 
criticisms offered above in no way detract from the merits of Professor 
Finkenstaedt's useful historical study of a complex grammatical 
feature covering a thousand years of English usage.
R. C. ALSTON
Friends of Humanity (with special reference to the Quaker 
William Alien, 1770-1843). By L. Hugh Doncaster. Dr. 
Williams's Trust, 14 Gordon Square, London W.C.I. 1965.55.
The "Friends of Dr. Williams's Library" (the famous theological 
library in Bloomsbury) are responsible for the series of lectures of
NOTES AND QUERIES
which this represents the nineteenth; we believe it is the first to be 
given by a member of the Society of Friends. As was only proper, 
Hugh Doncaster took a largely Quaker subject; his purpose was, as 
he puts it, "to look at some of the ways in which, under the influence 
of the Evangelical Movement, Christians of different traditions found 
themselves bound together in a network of witness and relationship 
while working on behalf of deprived and downtrodden men and 
women/' He does this largely through the eyes of one man, William 
Alien, partly because he feels that the extraordinary philanthropic 
achievements of this Friend are insufficiently recognized, no adequate 
biography having yet been written. Hugh Doncaster's hope is that 
he will tempt future social historians to make further researches into 
this fascinating period of interdenominational endeavour.
Notes and Queries
FRIENDS AROUND PENDLE
"The Forest of Pendle in the 
i yth century" by Mary Brigg 
appears in the Transactions of the 
Historic Society of Lancashire 
and Cheshire, 115, 1963, pp. 65- 
90. The author mentions that 
in 1690 "the house of Henry 
Sagar, of Roughlee, was licensed 
as a Quaker meeting house. In 
the area east and south of Pendle 
Forest, from Foulridge to Burn­ 
ley, twelve other Quaker meet­ 
ings were licensed in the same 
year/' Notice is also given to the 
Barcroft family, of Noyna, in 
Foulridge, some of whose rela­ 
tions were in Ireland. One son 
had gone to Pennsylvania to 
assist in surveying the land.
QUAKERS AT BOWES, YORKS
The parish register of Bowes, 
1670-1837 (Bishop's transcripts, 
1615-1700} (Yorkshire Archaeo­ 
logical Society Parish Register 
section, publications, vol. 127),
1964, includes the following 
entries mentioning Friends: 
Marriages Dec. 31, 1696. James 
Rain and Margret Sayer, 
Quakers.
Baptisms March 31, 1701. James 
son of John Ripling a quaker 
born.
Oct. i Margret daughter of 
James Rain (a quaker) of 
Stony Keld born. 
Jan. 20, 1705 [1706]. Jonathan 
Browne ye son of John Browne 
aged about 17 years his Father 
dead & his Mother a Quaker.
JONATHAN LAYCOCK OF 
SKIRCOAT
Rowland Bretton, secretary of 
the Halifax Antiquarian Society, 
in the course of a paper on 
"Gibraltar Farm" mentions 
Jonathan Laycock (d. 1696) and 
his family, including his wife 
Mary, and Joshua and Elizabeth 
Laycock. (Transactions of the 
Halifax Antiquarian Society,
1963, pp. 77-89.)


Recent Publications

Edwards, George W

The Great Fire of London
WHEN Samuel Pepys, a near neighbour of the Penn family at Tower Hill, was awakened by his servant 
about 3 o'clock on the morning of Sunday, 2nd 
September, 1666, to be told of a great fire that could be seen 
in the City, he decided, after looking out of the window, that 
it was too far away and so returned to bed. Later that 
morning he realised that this was no ordinary fire, and all 
that day, and the following days, he was torn between his 
curiosity to see more of the fire and his anxiety as to the 
possible damage to his goods, his home and to the Navy 
Office of which he was Secretary. On the Monday he and 
Sir William Penn sent some of their possessions down river 
to Deptford. The narrow congested streets, with bottlenecks 
at the gates and posterns, where everyone was endeavouring 
to escape with what goods he could save, added to the con- 
fusion.
On the evening of the second day of the fire Pepys and 
Sir William Penn dug pits in their gardens in which to place 
their wine; Pepys, remembering his favourite Parmesan 
cheese, put that in, as well as some of his office papers. Sir 
William Penn brought workmen from the Dockyard to blow 
up houses in order to prevent the fire reaching the church 
of All Hallows by the Tower.
The anxiety of Pepys and Penn, their uncertainties 
whether or not to remove their goods, their lack of sleep 
and the difficulty of obtaining food, which Pepys records in 
his Diary, are typical of the problems of the citizens, among 
whom were a large number of Quakers.
Friends' Book of Sufferings for the year 1666 has no 
mention of the Fire. Friends only recorded those Sufferings 
inflicted on them by the hand of man; a catastrophe which 
was suffered by all finds no place in Quaker records. They 
saw in the Fire a Divine Judgment on the Nation that had 
been their persecutors. Friends were not alone in this, and 
each sect saw the Fire as a judgment on their own particular 
enemies. Catholics regarded it as a punishment for heresy; 
many people believed that the Cathoi ics were responsible for 
starting the fire, and at one time The Monument had an
67
68 THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON
inscription to this effect. Anglicans laid the blame on the 
Schisms, and the Dissenters said it was because of the pride 
of the Clergy; some thought it was for the murder of the 
late King, others a judgment on the licentiousness of 
the Court. Most Englishmen were convinced that it was 
the work of French or Dutch secret agents.
Solomon Eccles, a Southwark Quaker, had been moved 
to pass, almost naked, through Bartholomew Fair (24th 
August) bearing upon his head a pan full of fire and brimstone, 
warning the pleasure-loving city of God's impending judg- 
ment. Another Quaker, a few days before the fire broke out, 
had stopped the King's coach as it was leaving Whitehall, 
in order to present a petition as to the Sufferings of Friends 
in Reading. A footman who endeavoured to prevent him 
mounting the step, was told by the King to desist and to 
allow the Petitioner to approach; the King also told the 
footman to return the Quaker's hat; the Friend then informed 
the King that unless he set Friends at liberty the Lord would 
bring a judgment of sword and fire upon him.
The most singularly correct prophecy was made by 
Humphrey Smith, who died in Winchester Gaol in 1662, 
four years before the Great Fire. In A Vision which I saw 
concerning London, he wrote:
As for the City herself and her suburbs and all that belong to her, 
a fire was kindled therein, but she knew not how, even in all her 
goodly places, and the kindling of it was in the foundation of 
all her buildings and there was none that could quench it, and 
the burning thereof was exceedingly great, and it burned inward 
in a hidden manner which cannot be described. All the tall buildings 
fell and it consumed all the costly things therein, and the fire 
searched out all the hidden places, and burnt most of the secret 
places, and there were parts of broken down walls which the fire 
continued burning against, and the vision thereof remained in 
me as a thing that was shewn me of the Lord.
Some of the more responsible Friends tried to curb the 
exuberance of their prophetic brethren. "That morning the 
fire broke out," wrote George Whitehead:
some of us were at Gerard Roberts' House in Thomas Apostle's 
where Thomas Ibbot met us and told us, he must go to the King 
with a message to warn him to release our Friends out of Prisons 
or else the Decree of the Lord would be sealed against him in 
three days time to his destruction and overthrow. Upon which 
I was afraid he would be too forward and give occasion against
THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON 69
Friends and cause that to reproach Truth and them. I earnestly 
charged him not to limit a time; if he had a warning to give the 
King that he would set no time of the King's death or end or that 
might be so taken or constructed as a prophesy thereof for he 
might cause Truth to suffer if he did.
Many Friends were imprisoned in Newgate gaol which 
was destroyed by the Fire. One Friend records that he carried 
his bed out on his back when the prison was burnt.
Ellis Hookes, the first Recording Clerk, writing to Mar- 
garet Fell in reply to an enquiry by her as to how Friends 
had fared, replied:
people are in great confusion here by reason of the fire which hap- 
pens in this City to the great destruction and ruin of the same 
which has not been without a just cause or provocation of the 
Lord. Concerning what thou desired to know how it was with 
Friends where the fire was; there were very few but lost a great 
deale yett not so much I think as the people of ye world lost 
because Friends were helpful one to the other. I saved thy booke 
from the fire and last seventh day I gave it to W. Warwick.
Ellis Hookes also rescued Friends' Records, which were 
kept at the Chamber at the Bull and Mouth Meeting House; 
this building, which formed part of Northumberland House, 
and had been the headquarters of Friends since 1655, was 
destroyed on the last day of the fire.
John Penny man, a Friend, had his business premises 
on Ludgate Hill; he also had a cottage in the country at 
Kentish Town. On the morning of 2nd September he saw 
from the upper window of his city property, the fire in 
Thames Street, and sent at once to Kentish Town for two 
carts and removed his goods to the country.
At the other end of the city lived another Friend, Mary 
Boreman; she was a spiritually minded woman with strong 
mystical leading; she was obedient to such leadings. Being 
a widow with three children, she supported her family by 
selling oil and lamps. During the visitation of the Plague in 
1665, trusting in Providence, she continued her business; 
none of her family sickened, though her shop was next to 
a churchyard where many victims of the epidemic were 
buried. During August 1666 she felt strong promptings to 
settle all her outstanding debts, which she obeyed.
The Great Fire broke out on the second of September in 
Pudding Lane, only a short distance from Leadenhall Street,
IB
70 THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON
where Mary Boreman's shop with its inflammable wares 
was situated. Her servants and children were nervous, so 
she sent them to the country at Mile End Green, but she 
herself remained in London. Friends and neighbours urged 
her to follow while there was yet time, using the argument 
that it was not ri^ht to cause loss to her creditors by 
not saving her gooes. One Friend told her "that she cared 
nothing that her children might become chargeable to 
Friends." To these she replied that she did not owe anyone 
anything and she could work for her children, but she must 
be faithful to her leadings. When John Homested, who had 
come 20 miles from the country with a cart to help remove 
her goods, learnt that there were no debts and that Mary 
Boreman did not wish to leave, he departed satisfied. The 
fire had travelled westward, fanned by a strong east wind; 
the eastern section of the City only suffered damage among 
the wharves by the river, so that the oil-shop escaped un- 
harmed and Mary Boreman's faith was justified. The 
churches of St. Catherine Cree and St. Andrews Undershaft, 
of which the latter adjoined her shop, still survive in Leaden- 
hall Street.
After the fire had abated, when others were charging 
exorbitant prices, Mary Boreman said she dare not raise 
the price of her goods but must allow her customers to benefit 
from her preservation.
The spectacle of the fire and its effect on the atmosphere 
must have been awe-inspiring. In Reliquiae Baxterianae we 
read "To see the air, as far as could be beheld, so filled with 
the smoke that the sun shined through it with a colour of 
blood; yea even when it was setting in the west, it so appeared 
to them that dwelt on the west side of the City."
George Whitehead describes how Friends reacted to the 
catastrophe:
Our meetings were held on fourthday weekly at Wheeler Street, 
our usual place, the Bull and Mouth being demolished by the 
fire; and at the other parts of and about the City, we kept our 
Meetings at the usual time and places, as at the Peel in John 
Street, at Westminster, Horslydown, Ratcliff and Devonshire 
House. We had some respite and ease from violent persecution 
and disturbance until the city came in a great measure to be 
rebuilt. Our adversaries took no warning by the Plague nor the 
following consuming fire which had laid waste the best part of 
the City.
THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON 7!
In the long run much good came out of what at the 
time seemed a terrible misfortune. Building Acts were passed 
which ensured that houses were built of brick, with brick 
or stone partitions, no oversaving was allowed, streets 
were widened and "New River" water made available to 
all households.
When William Penn was laying out the city of Phila- 
delphia in his new state of Pennsylvania, he had in mind 
the Great Fire of London and planned that each house should 
have space round it to prevent any fire from spreading. He 
also planned the streets wide and straight with no bottle- 
necks that might impede transport in the event of a similar 
catastrophe.
Caroline Graveson in her story of "The Farthing Family" 
has described the fire of London from the point of view of a 
Quaker living near Aldersgate. While the story is fiction 
the description of the experience of this family is based on 
accounts left by people who were living in the City, and can 
be taken as typical of the experience of London Quakers at 
the time.
GEORGE W. EDWARDS
NOTE ON SOURCES
Friends House Library: Cross collection, 64; Swarthmore MSS. 
A. K. Barclay, Letters, <S-c., of early Friends, 1841, p. 160. 
W. G. Bell, The Great Fire of London in 1666, 1920. 
R. Bury, Collection of sundry messages and warnings, 1713-28. 
S. Pepys, Diary. 
Quakeriana, i. 136.
G. Whitehead, Christian Progress, 1725, pp. 291-316, and in 
particular, pp. 314-16.


The Great Fire of London

Davis, Robert

An Exercise in Quaker Ancestor Worship
ABOUT fifty years ago, when visiting Friends at Bentham (Yorks.), I was having tea on Sunday afternoon at the 
house of Benson Ford, and in the course of conversation 
he asked me if I had any connection with the Robert Davis 
who was Clerk of London Yearly Meeting in 1781. I have, he 
said, a folio copy of the Epistle of that year bearing his name 
as Clerk, and he very kindly presented it to me.
In reply to his question I had to plead ignorance. I knew 
that among my Irish Quaker forbears there were Grubbs 
and Shackletons and Russells and Clibborns (collateral), but 
I was unaware of any direct ancestral connection with 
English Friends.
My curiosity being aroused, I set to work to find out how 
anyone bearing my name could ever have been Clerk of 
London Yearly Meeting! Knowing that my cousin, Isabel 
Grubb of Carrick-on-Suir, was a recognized authority on the 
history of Friends in Ireland, as well as on genealogy, I 
wrote to ask if she could throw light on this mystery, and 
she drew my attention to an article by William Ball which 
appeared in The Friends' monthly magazine, vol. 2, 1831.
This gives an account of a remarkable, probably unique, 
incident in the annals of Quaker history. Its title is "Some 
Account of the Shipwreck of Joseph Sparrow and Edith 
Lovell, in the year 1782." It occurs to me that a brief sum- 
mary of this article may be of interest to readers of Journal 
F.H.S., and so I will venture to re-tell the story in my own 
words, and shall try to do justice to its main features. What 
deductions may be drawn from the narrative must be left 
to the judgment of the reader.
It appears that the said Robert Davis, who lived at Mine- 
head, had a large family, one of whom, Mary by name, 
became engaged to a young Friend, Joseph Sparrow, of 
Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. At that time an English Friend, 
Edith Lovell, residing in Bristol, paid a ministerial visit to 
Friends in Ireland during the latter part of the year 1781. 
Having concluded her service in the South, and being about 
to return home, it was arranged that Joseph Sparrow should 
accompany her to Bristol and then go on to Minehead to visit
Il6 AN EXERCISE IN QUAKER ANCESTOR WORSHIP
his fiancee. It seems clear that Joseph Sparrow felt a strong 
desire to accompany Edith Lovell on this journey, and share 
with her the hazards of the voyage, so much so that, instead 
of embarking at Waterford, much nearer his own home, he 
went to Cork, from where Edith Lovell proposed to sail. After 
various enquiries about sailings they eventually left Cork for 
Bristol by the Elizabeth Packet on 29.xii.i78i. All went 
well across St. George's Channel, the boat passed Minehead 
on a beautiful afternoon (though dark clouds threatened a 
change of weather) and continued smoothly on her way up 
the Bristol Channel, when a heavy storm broke and she was 
wrecked on the Culver Sands off the Burnham Strand. This 
disaster was caused, not by the storm but by the illness and 
death of the lighthouse-keeper, whose son was so busy 
attending to his father that he forgot to put fire in the beacon. 
When the vessel struck on the sands she was soon over- 
whelmed by rough seas. 1
At this point we come to the most surprising and baffling 
part of the story. Passengers were being taken off, on to 
lifeboats, with all speed, but Edith Lovell stoutly refused to 
leave the sinking ship! Why? No clue is given and we are left 
to guess the answer. Did she fear to trust herself to the life- 
boat? Did she feel that the boat was already overloaded and 
she must sacrifice her own life (and that of her companion) in 
order that others might be saved? Was she acting under a 
mistaken sense of divine guidance? The answer to these 
questions will never be known. All we do know is that the 
stop in her mind proved to be a full stop both for her and 
her companion who, being a gallant young man, felt it his 
duty to stay by her side to the end. "I will not leave thee", 
was his firm resolve.
1 The Gentleman's Magazine, January, 1782 (p. 42), under date 
December soth, [1781], has the following entry: "The Elizabeth Packet, 
Capt. Summister, on her passage from Cork to Bristol, struck on the 
Culver Sands, near the Steep Holmes, and bulged. In this dreadful situa- 
tion a young gentleman from Canada and some of the crew got the boat 
out, into which 13 men and a woman ventured, intreating the Captain 
and the other passengers to come also, which they refused, chusing rather 
to abide bv the wreck than venture a more immediate death in the boat.
^
About a quarter past 10 at night the boat left the wreck, leaving behind 
them 24 persons. The boat was . . . thrown on shore near Uphill, about half 
past six the next morning. It is supposed the poor souls on board the wreck 
continued in their dismal situation till the flood tide swallowed them up." 
 £D.
AN EXERCISE IN QUAKER ANCESTOR WORSHIP 117
The body of Edith Lovell was never recovered, but that 
of Joseph Sparrow was washed ashore seven weeks after- 
wards at the village of Quantoxhead and was immediately 
buried on the spot.
Naturally news of this event came as a shattering blow 
to the Davis family, and in particular to Mary, who had lost 
her future husband. She seems to have borne her loss with 
serenity and Christian fortitude.
The sequence provides the answer to my question: with 
many generations of Irish Quaker ancestry on both sides, how 
did it come to pass that a direct ancestor of mine was Clerk 
of London Y.M. in 1781? It appears that soon after this sad 
event, a brother of Mary's went over to Clonmel to visit the 
bereaved family, and whilst there he fell in love with one of 
the Sparrow girls, married and settled in the town. Hence it 
came about that many years later my father, one of his 
descendants, lived in Clonmel, and was at one time a partner 
in business with Ernest Grubb (father of Isabel Grubb and 
brother of Anna Southall of Birmingham). Later, before I 
was born, the family moved to within a few miles of Limerick 
and later still, after my father died, to Dublin. The plate 
which bears the family crest inscribed "Robert Davis, 
Clonmel" was handed down to me and is a treasured 
possession.
How unpredictable are the forces that shape our lives and 
determine our destiny!
ROBERT DAVIS


An Exercise in Quaker Ancestor Worship

Harvey, T Edmund

Looking Back

LOOKING BACK 59
and encouraging influence of John Woolman, the study of 
whose life and the full text of whose writings are now avail- 
able to us as to no previous generation. Yet through the 
years that are gone they have borne their silent witness and 
challenged the conscience of many a reader.
Thus, as we compare conditions today with those of two 
generations ago, while we may regret much that has been lost, 
and wish that we might share the uncrowded lives, the 
absence of rush and hurry of an earlier day, yet we must be 
thankful for the living heritage which has been handed on to 
us, which cannot be preserved except as something living 
and subject to change, a heritage which calls upon each 
succeeding generation to make its own sacrifice that the 
work of the Kingdom of God may go forward. 1
1 I am indebted to the editor for much of the substance of the footnotes 
on pp. 55, 56 and 57.
Accounts for the year 1952 and Journal, vol. xliv
£ s. d.
Journal of Friends 9 
Historical Society, 
vol. xliv, parts i 
and 2 ..
Stationery
Expenses, including 
postage
Equipment for stor- 
age of stock of 
Journals
700 copies of Tolles' 
A tlantic Com­ 
munity of Early 
Friends
Donation towards 
Rowntree's His­ 
tory of Guildford 
Meeting
Balance carried for- 
ward to 1953    
214 15 
35 i8
3 1
21 14
10
4
2
72 12 4
o
242 13 2
£629 7 i
s. d._ o*
Balance brought for- 
ward . . .. 201 6 o
Anonymous donations,
1951 and 1952.. 200 o o
Subscriptions
. •
199
26
2 2 
2 II
Interest on Post
Office Savings 
Account 2 16
£629 7
Examined with the books of the Society and found correct.
(Signed) BASIL G. BURTON. 
i6.vii.i953.


Accounts

Contents
PAGE
Editorial
Early Quakerism in Ireland. Presidential Address,
1955. John M. Douglas ..     .. .. 3
Ireland in the Sixteen-fifties. A Background to the
Coming of Quakerism. Olive C. Goodbody . . 33
Anthony Sharp, Wool Merchant, 1643-1707, and the
Quaker Community in Dublin. Olive C. Goodbody 38
Recent Publications


Vol. 48 No. 2 Autumn 1956
THE JOURNAL
OF THE
FRIENDS' HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Publishing Office: Friends House, Euston Road, London, N. W. i.
Communications should be addressed to the Editor at
Friends House.
Editorial
IN this issue we print Amy E. Wallis's address on Darling- ton Friends which was given at our meeting on March ist. 
Russell Mortimer follows up the Irish interest of our 
Spring number with an account of connections between 
Irish Friends and Bristol; Geoffrey Nuttall provides notes 
on Richard Farnworth; and there is a further instalment 
of the A. R. Barclay manuscripts.
By generous assistance we have been enabled to distribute 
with the present issue Alfred Braithwaite's stimulating presi- 
dential address on Thomas Rudyard, Early Friends' Oracle of 
Law, the 27th Supplement to this Journal. This was delivered 
at our meeting held on October 4th at Friends House.
Printing costs have continued to rise, and as a small 
measure of economy in printing title-pages and indexes, we 
propose to let the volumes of the Journal run over two years. 
The 1957 issues will therefore be the 3rd and 4th in the 
present volume, and the Autumn number 1957 will contain 
the title-page, contents and index to Vol. 48.
In the last five years, prices of learned periodicals have 
risen on an average by 25 per cent, in response to increased 
costs of production. The Friends' Historical Society has not 
increased its subscription rates, and the only way for this 
Society to absorb increases of this order is by securing addi- 
tional subscribers. A larger membership is the only firm 
remedy which will enable the Society to continue unimpaired 
its work in publication of Quaker historical material. Full 
particulars and a specimen copy of the Journal will gladly be 
supplied to anyone interested, on application to Muriel A. 
Hicks, The Library, Friends House.
Vol. 48 401
54 WILLIAM HASELDINE PEPYS, 1775-1856
In our companion society across the Atlantic, the Friends Histori- 
cal Association, Thomas E. Drake has succeeded Henry J. Cadbury 
as President. Thomas Drake is professor of American History at 
Haverford College, Pennsylvania, and curator of the Quaker Collec- 
tion there. Quakers and Slavery in America, which he published in 
1950 was reviewed in Vol. 43 of this Journal. Henry J. Cadbury is 
spending the autumn term at Woodbrooke.
William Haseldine Pepys, 1775-1856
A hundred years ago on iyth August, 1856, there died at the ripe 
age of 81 years an old Friend who was well known in his time as a 
man of many parts but who is scarcely even a name to thousands of 
people who benefited from his scientific discoveries, his work as a 
scientific instrument maker, an administrator, and a successful man 
of business.
He was born three years before Sir Humphry Davy and survived 
him by nearly 30 years and like him was an ardent fisherman. Davy 
quickly realized the value of Pepys 1 laboratory gas-holder (an 
appliance now seldom seen except in some museums, but formerly 
largely used in various schools and colleges as well as in some private 
laboratories. It was by means of this device that Pepys and William 
Alien, F.R.S., were able to store and eventually establish the com- 
position of carbon dioxide and to undertake their skilful and accurate 
work on respiration in which they used other new and accurate 
apparatus devised and made by Pepys. These classical experiments 
included those in which they showed that the volume of carbon 
dioxide expired in a given time was almost exactly equal to that of the 
oxygen removed from the inspired air. Pepys made numerous 
scientific discoveries, some chemical, some physical and others of a 
botanical nature (including some good work on manures) and in 
connection therewith he devised numerous pieces of scientific 
apparatus still in use today though his connection with it is almost 
unknown to those of the present generation who use them.
Pepys, with Alien and others in 1796 formed the Askesian Society 
from which sprang the British Geological and Mineralogical Societies 
and the London Institution; he was honorary secretary of the last- 
named and spent much time in making the large galvanic batteries 
there which were used by Davy in his great work on electromagnetism.
What vigorous and sturdy men were those eighteenth century 
scientists, what wide interests many of them had so different from 
the narrow specialization now so common today!
Pepys appears in the Dictionary of National Biography, but his 
name is not mentioned in Raistrick's Quakers in Science and Industry, 
Some particulars about him will be found in Silvanus P. Thompson's 
Michael Faraday, His Life and Work, and in Faraday's book on 
Chemical Manipulation. Other details are also published in "Chemistry 
and Industry", No. 31 (August nth, 1956).
A. B. SEARLE


Editorial

Contents
Editorial
PAGE
237
Some Quaker Firms of the Nineteenth Century. William
H. Marwick .. .. .. .. .. .. 239
Accounts
Friends and Charitable Briefs. R. S. Mortimer
Notes and Queries 
Index
259
Friends around Pyrmont in the early Nineteenth
Century. Leonhard Friedrich .. .. .. 260
267
William Singleton of Sheffield. L. Hugh Doncaster .. 280
.. 282
'  - 285
Journals and Supplements Wanted
F.H.S. would be glad to receive, and in some cases to buy
unwanted copies of the following. Address to F.H.S., The
Library, Friends House, London, N.W.I.
Journal: Vol. 37 (1940); Vol. 46, No. i (1954).
The London (Quaker) Lead Co. By Arthur Raistrick. 1938.
Psychical Experiences of Quaker Ministers. By John W.
Graham. 1933.
Appeal to Members
During the last two or three years the Committee has 
made repeated efforts to gain new members for the Friends' 
Historical Society. The Society needs also the help of members 
in getting new subscribers.
You are invited to do one of these things:
(1) Encourage someone who does not wish to subscribe 
to give a donation.
(2) Increase your own subscription above the minimum 
los. per annum.
(3) Send an annual subscription as a gift to someone else.
(4) Remind your Monthly or Preparative Meeting that 
it may become an Institutional Member for los. 
a year.


Armsby, Ruth L

The Authorship of "A Word for the Common
Weale" (1650)
pamphlet is ascribed by Joseph Smith1 to Penington 's 
-L father, Isaac Penington senior.
His ascription seems improbable. Penington (junior) was writing 
in just such a vein at that very time, whereas his father wrote only 
in collaboration with others to defend the acts of his mayoralty in 
reply to specific charges brought against him and his colleagues.2
The reasons Smith gives for denying the authorship to Penington 
(junior) are two. First, that it is not mentioned in the review of his 
writings which form the second part of J. Gurney Bevan's Memoirs 
of Isaac Penington. But this is no argument at all, since this book 
was not written till a century later (1784), and then only in such 
terms as these: "Our author's next piece of which we have an account, 
and of which copies remain, is. . . ."3 And there is an obvious reason 
for the omission, in that Bevan based his work on Whiting's 
catalogue,* which does not mention it (giving indeed nothing of his 
earlier than 1654). More impressive is the argument that for long he 
was accustomed to sign himself "Isaac Penington (junior) 1 '. But here 
again, we find that his earliest works were anonymous, and that it 
was only after the date of A Word for the Common Weale that he began 
to put "Isaac Penington (junior)" on the title page.
Accordingly, a possible theory seems to be that his earliest works 
were anonymous; that he then issued one — this A Word for the Common 
Weale  signed "Isaac Penington", and that when he found confusion 
as to the authorship resulted from that mode of signature, then, and 
then only, did he see the desirability of signing himself "Isaac 
Penington (junior) 0 for the future, to avoid further such mistakes. 
On his father's death, he returned to the old mode of signature.
There seems then no real reason for doubt as to the authorship of 
A Word for the Common Weale, which the British Museum Catalogue 
ascribes to him unhesitatingly. The internal evidence of style and 
sentiment is so strong as to seem alone conclusive, and the matter is 
settled by the discovery that a page advertising "books by the same 
author" at the end of the Divine Essays of 1654 (only f°ur years later) 
includes A Word for the Common Weale among other books which are 
indubitably by "Isaac Penington (junior)".
RUTH L. ARMSBY
1 A descriptive catalogue of Friends 9 books (1867), ii. 334-5. [Wing: Pi 148].
2 A Declaration and Vindication of Isaac Penington, Feb. 1642; A Humble 
Remonstrance. . . .in vindication of the Honourable Isaac Penington, 1643 
(O.S.).
3 1830 ed. p. 138.
* A catalogue of Friends 9 books, by John Whiting (1708). It gives (p. 124) 
nothing of Penington's earlier than The way of life and death made 
manifest (1654).
96


Not a member yet

The Mystery of Swarthmoor Hall

Recent Publications

The Great Fire of London

An Exercise in Quaker Ancestor Worship

Looking Back

Accounts

Contents

Editorial

Contents

The Authorship of "A Word for the Common Weale" (1650)

3,074

4,299