|
WilliamPennTrial 36 - 02 Jan 2020 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | It may seem obvious that Nonconformists like Quakers were not so popular in a Christen society. However, it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear a hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow many such customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity but behaviors that historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status. | |
<
< | But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the law, including refusal to take an oath, preaching on the streets, and most trouble-causing one: their insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. Quakers also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meetings and preaching of the idea that each person has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | >
> | But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the law, including refusal to take an oath, preaching on the streets, and the most trouble-causing one: insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. Quakers also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meetings and preaching of the idea that each person has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | | | The real trouble for Quakers came from the tyranny of the law that followed those indictments. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black or white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict simply with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly, unless defendants could prove otherwise. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..."
Quakers, in their defense, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers made their arguments: "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with the evidence of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give a judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infallible director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?" | |
<
< | While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure, no counsel for defendants, and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny of judges was their control over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and may entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge would force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | >
> | While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench in public, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure, no counsel for defendants, and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical it can be from the excerpt when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny was their control over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and may entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge would force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | | |
Trials | | | Penn's Trial | |
<
< | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | >
> | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | | | Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason but the most important reason is be the jury, both as an entity and as those composing individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason but the most important reason is the jury, both as an entity and as those composing individual jurors whose conscience sometimes can shape the legal history. | | | Charles II's indulgence
When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, in January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released those in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | |
<
< | However, Charles's indulgence was not so effective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need for money, he had to be cautious. | >
> | However, Charles' indulgence was not so effective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need for money, he had to be cautious. | | | | |
<
< | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, Charles' attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. This might not be a specific reason for Penn's success, but it is a background contributor that supported Quakers like Penn to get an acquittal. | >
> | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, Charles' attitude still was one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. Had Charles never expressed such an attitude, law enforcement could have been more dictating and leave Quakers no chance to get an acquittal. | | | Penn's charisma | |
<
< | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As shown Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England were not like trials today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | >
> | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure another big reason, if not the reason. As shown in Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England were not like trials today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | | | | |
<
< | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to the court of Louis XIV in France. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and his eloquence were clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became a frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | >
> | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to the court of Louis XIV in France. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and his eloquence were clearly manifested in the excerpt above, in his personal defense when he later became a frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | | | | |
<
< | Besides being a defendant who did not need counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as introduced above, received a first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | >
> | Besides being a defendant who did not need counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as introduced above, received a first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him in his trial, he certainly won their friendly attention, as the jurors like Mr. Bushell would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | | |
Jurors' conscience | |
<
< | The last but also the most important reason for Penn's acquittal is the jury. In the trial right after Penn's, with the same facts and witnesses, a guilty verdict was easily attained through the careful selection of the jury. In the third trial, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn and only made a defense as simple as "I wronged no man", the conscientious jury still chose to hold its position and gave an acquittal verdict. | >
> | The last but also the most important reason for Penn's acquittal is the jury. In the trial right after Penn's, with the same facts and witnesses, a guilty verdict was easily attained through the Recorder's careful selection of the jury. In the third trial, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn and only made simple defenses like "I wronged no man", the conscientious jury still held its position and gave an acquittal verdict. | | | | |
<
< | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | >
> | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was the only entity that could keep judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this; the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role and nullified judge's dictation of the Conventicle Act. | | | | |
<
< | That said, the importance of those composing individual jurors, the impact of each individual juror had on the result, should also be noticed. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. In Penn's trial, it was Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. In contrast, there were also jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. Each juror's conscience can change the result of a trial, sometimes even the course of legal history. The bench was actually aware of how much jurors' conscience matters, and even though after Bushel's case judges could no longer dictate the jury during court proceedings, they still could dictate the result by controlling the process of jury selection, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the Bible when swearing, the result could be completely different. | >
> | That said, the importance of those composing individual jurors, the impact of each individual juror had on the result, should also be noticed. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. In Penn's trial, it was Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. In contrast, in other trials, there were jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. Each juror's conscience can change the result of a trial, sometimes even the course of legal history. The bench was actually aware of how much jurors' conscience matters, and even though after Bushel's case judges could no longer dictate the jury during court proceedings, they still could dictate the result by controlling the process of jury selection, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the Bible when swearing, the result could be completely different. | | |
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show | |
<
< | This article only presented several key reasons for Penn's acquittal, but of course there were certainly more than those and some of the reasons we might never know. In the end, to conclude this short survey with one inspiring point made by professor Moglen: the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In Quakers persecution shows the Court almost always won, by controlling the evidence put on show and sometimes by some threats. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience). | >
> | This article only presented several key reasons for Penn's acquittal, but of course there were more than those, and some of the reasons we might never know. In the end, to conclude this short survey with one inspiring point made by professor Moglen: the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In the persecution shows of Quakers, the Court almost always won by controlling the evidence put on the show and sometimes even by threating the audience. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience). | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 35 - 22 Dec 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | The survey of William Penn's trial started from this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. To those who found such a "saucy" conversation amusing, this article aims to offer some historical background and meaning of this milestone trial of William Penn. There is much to be said about this trial. The central question this article wants to address is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. The first section will be a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then there will be a brief description of Penn's trial and three other trials of Quakers in comparison. Finally in the analysis section, some factors that contribute to Penn's acquittal will be presented, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors. | >
> | This short survey of William Penn's trial started from this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. To those who found such a "saucy" conversation amusing, this article aims to offer some historical background and deeper meaning of this milestone trial of William Penn. Although there is much to be said about this trial, the central question addressed here is what contributed to the acquittal of Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. The first section will be a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then there will be a brief description of Penn's trial and three other trials of Quakers in comparison. Finally, in the analysis section, some factors that contribute to Penn's acquittal will be presented, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors. | | |
Background | |
<
< | It may seem obvious that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear a hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow many such customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity since they have historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status. | >
> | It may seem obvious that Nonconformists like Quakers were not so popular in a Christen society. However, it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear a hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow many such customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity but behaviors that historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status. | | | | |
<
< | But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action was Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. They also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each person has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | >
> | But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the law, including refusal to take an oath, preaching on the streets, and most trouble-causing one: their insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. Quakers also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meetings and preaching of the idea that each person has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | | | | |
<
< | The persecution of Quakers was the tyranny of the law that followed those indictments. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black or white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict simply with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly, unless defendants could prove otherwise. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." | >
> | The real trouble for Quakers came from the tyranny of the law that followed those indictments. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black or white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict simply with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly, unless defendants could prove otherwise. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." | | | Quakers, in their defense, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers made their arguments: "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with the evidence of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give a judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infallible director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?" | |
<
< | While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure, no counsel for defendants, and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny of judges was their control over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge will force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | >
> | While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure, no counsel for defendants, and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny of judges was their control over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and may entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge would force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | | |
Trials | |
<
< | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, the central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | >
> | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, the central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when the result of so many other Quakers' trials were easily dictated by the judges? To analyze this question, it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | | |
Penn's Trial | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason but the most important reason is be the jury, both as an entity and as those composing individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | | | Charles II's indulgence | |
<
< | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, in January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | >
> | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, in January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released those in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | | | | |
<
< | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | >
> | However, Charles's indulgence was not so effective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need for money, he had to be cautious. | | | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, Charles' attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. This might not be a specific reason for Penn's success, but it is a background contributor that supported Quakers like Penn to get an acquittal. |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 34 - 20 Dec 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show | |
<
< | I hope for those readers who found Penn's trial dramatic and amusing can have a better understanding of that trial after reading this article: what was the historical background of the trial, how trials of Quakers normally looked like, and why Penn could get an acquittal verdict. I only presented some reasons I think as the most important, but of course there were certainly more than those reasons, some my knowledge is insufficient to understand and some we might never know. In the end, I want to share with you a very inspiring idea professor Moglen shared with me, that the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In Quakers persecution shows the Court almost always won, by controlling the evidence put on show and sometimes by some threats. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience). | >
> | This article only presented several key reasons for Penn's acquittal, but of course there were certainly more than those and some of the reasons we might never know. In the end, to conclude this short survey with one inspiring point made by professor Moglen: the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In Quakers persecution shows the Court almost always won, by controlling the evidence put on show and sometimes by some threats. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience). | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 33 - 19 Dec 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Trials | |
<
< | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, our central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | >
> | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, the central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | | |
Penn's Trial | |
<
< | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | >
> | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | | | Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. | | |
More Trials of Quakers | |
<
< | The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff. "The Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them." | >
> | The first trial to compare is the one taken place right after Penn's. This trial will serve as a great comparison because it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff. "The Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them." | | | The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The prisoners required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered: "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had always been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling the jury that "they [prisoners] were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose.
| |
<
< | The second trial I want to share was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). The Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said:"My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached. | >
> | The second trial was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said: "My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached. | | | | |
<
< | The record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), but I picked it because it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such facts alone. While some jurors might entertain serious doubt about the conviction, judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | >
> | The record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), but it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such facts alone. While some jurors might have serious doubt about the conviction, judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | | | | |
<
< | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | >
> | That said, the third trial was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though the fact showed that he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | | | | |
<
< | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I didn't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons). | >
> | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | | | Charles II's indulgence | |
<
< | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, on January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | >
> | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, in January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | | | | |
<
< | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle for testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | >
> | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | | | | |
<
< | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, the Crown's attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. As I said, this reason certainly was not a reason that led to the specific success of Penn's acquittal, but I believe it was helpful and important enough to mention. | >
> | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, Charles' attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. This might not be a specific reason for Penn's success, but it is a background contributor that supported Quakers like Penn to get an acquittal. | | | Penn's charisma | |
<
< | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As we can see from Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England was not like trials we have today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | >
> | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As shown Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England were not like trials today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | | | | |
<
< | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to France at the court of Louis XIV. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and the eloquence was clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became the frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | >
> | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to the court of Louis XIV in France. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and his eloquence were clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became a frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | | | | |
<
< | Besides being a defendant who did not need a counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as I introduced above, received the first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | >
> | Besides being a defendant who did not need counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as introduced above, received a first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | | |
Jurors' conscience | |
<
< | After we see how Penn's eloquence and charisma contributed to the acquittal verdict, I want to point out the last important reason: the jurors. I think from the comparison of the trials the jury is the most obvious factor that would determine the result of a trial. As we saw, in the trial right after Penn's, a guilty verdict can be easily attainted through careful selection of the jury; also in the third trial I presented, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn, a conscientious jury could still choose to hold its position and give acquittal verdict. | >
> | The last but also the most important reason for Penn's acquittal is the jury. In the trial right after Penn's, with the same facts and witnesses, a guilty verdict was easily attained through the careful selection of the jury. In the third trial, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn and only made a defense as simple as "I wronged no man", the conscientious jury still chose to hold its position and gave an acquittal verdict. | | | | |
<
< | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep Judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | >
> | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | | | | |
<
< | That said, I also want readers to see the importance of the jury from the perspectives of individual jurors, to appreciate the impact of each individual juror had on the result. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. It is important to notice that for example in Penn's trial, it was very likely to be Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. And at the same time there were also some jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. The importance of individual juror's attitude could not be overlooked also because even though after Bushel's case judges could no control the jury during court proceedings, they still could control the result by controlling the process of picking individual jurors, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the book when swearing, the result could be completely different. | >
> | That said, the importance of those composing individual jurors, the impact of each individual juror had on the result, should also be noticed. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. In Penn's trial, it was Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. In contrast, there were also jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. Each juror's conscience can change the result of a trial, sometimes even the course of legal history. The bench was actually aware of how much jurors' conscience matters, and even though after Bushel's case judges could no longer dictate the jury during court proceedings, they still could dictate the result by controlling the process of jury selection, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the Bible when swearing, the result could be completely different. | | |
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 32 - 19 Dec 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | |
<
< | Working draft:
I'm just writing out what I'm thinking, so please ignore the stupid spelling and grammar mistakes. I will certainly proofread and refine it later.
Central Question:
My questions (Updating)
- Why the Recorder does not say under what law the indictment was based (the part when they talked about "common law"). Thomas Green said the indictment was based on the Conventicles Act, and the Recorder later did say Penn was charged for preaching to the people and drawing a tumultuous company after them,
The indictment will have been read in court. The US Supreme Court held in 1816 in US v. Hudson & Goodwin that there can be no federal criminal common law, and state criminal common law has been largely but not completely eliminated by statutory codification, but that's not English law then or now.
- Why the challenge to select Bushell failed? In the original texts, it said one Lord challenged Bushell as a juror for failing to kiss the Bible, but apparently it didn't work. Why?
Because that in itself was not a cause for rejecting the juror.
- How do I do citation here...
You can use links, or you can make footnotes in the ordinary form, by using "{\{ ... }\}" to mark the footnote. See the FootNotePlugin documentation.
William Penn's Trial | | | Clerk. Bring William Penn and William Mead to the bar.
Mayor. Sirrah, who bid you put off their hats? put on their hats again. | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | I was led into a survey of William Penn's trial by this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a criminal trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article, I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to address is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in comparison three other trials of Quakers from 1664-1670. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors. | >
> | The survey of William Penn's trial started from this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. To those who found such a "saucy" conversation amusing, this article aims to offer some historical background and meaning of this milestone trial of William Penn. There is much to be said about this trial. The central question this article wants to address is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. The first section will be a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then there will be a brief description of Penn's trial and three other trials of Quakers in comparison. Finally in the analysis section, some factors that contribute to Penn's acquittal will be presented, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors. | | |
Background | |
<
< | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow those customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status.
However, Quakers were certainly not being widely persecuted because of their eccentric behaviors alone. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some other actions that were more directly against law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action was Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. They also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each one has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | >
> | It may seem obvious that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear a hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow many such customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity since they have historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status. | | | | |
<
< | Now we know why Quakers were being persecuted, another background point I want to make is the tyranny of the law Quakers encountered at that time. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black and white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose, which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly unless defendants could prove the meeting was not under the color of religion or not nonconformist. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." | >
> | But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action was Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. They also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each person has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | | | | |
<
< | Quakers, as you can imagine, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers gave their legal defense. "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with proof of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give the Judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infallible director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?" | >
> | The persecution of Quakers was the tyranny of the law that followed those indictments. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black or white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict simply with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly, unless defendants could prove otherwise. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." | | | | |
<
< | While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt, when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man for contempt of the court. More importantly, what really needs to be stressed about judges' tyranny was the fact that they were dictating over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge will force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | >
> | Quakers, in their defense, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers made their arguments: "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with the evidence of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give a judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infallible director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?" | | | | |
>
> | While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure, no counsel for defendants, and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny of judges was their control over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge will force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | | |
Trials |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 31 - 05 Dec 2019 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | I'm just writing out what I'm thinking, so please ignore the stupid spelling and grammar mistakes. I will certainly proofread and refine it later.
Central Question: | |
>
> | My questions (Updating)
- Why the Recorder does not say under what law the indictment was based (the part when they talked about "common law"). Thomas Green said the indictment was based on the Conventicles Act, and the Recorder later did say Penn was charged for preaching to the people and drawing a tumultuous company after them,
| | | | |
<
< | We could just say, "Why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act?" | >
> | The indictment will have been read in court. The US Supreme Court held in 1816 in US v. Hudson & Goodwin that there can be no federal criminal common law, and state criminal common law has been largely but not completely eliminated by statutory codification, but that's not English law then or now. | | | | |
<
< | My questions (Updating)
- Why the Recorder does not say under what law the indictment was based (the part when they talked about "common law"). Thomas Green said the indictment was based on the Conventicles Act, and the Recorder later did say Penn was charged for preaching to the people and drawing a tumultuous company after them,
| | |
- Why the challenge to select Bushell failed? In the original texts, it said one Lord challenged Bushell as a juror for failing to kiss the Bible, but apparently it didn't work. Why?
| |
>
> |
Because that in itself was not a cause for rejecting the juror.
| | |
- How do I do citation here...
| |
>
> |
You can use links, or you can make footnotes in the ordinary form, by using "{\{ ... }\}" to mark the footnote. See the FootNotePlugin documentation.
| | | William Penn's Trial
Clerk. Bring William Penn and William Mead to the bar. | | | Record. Yes. | |
<
< | Mead. I desire the Jury, and all people to take notice of this injustice of the recorder: Who spake to me to pull off my hat? and yet hath he put a fine upon my head. O fear the Lord, and dread his power, and yield to the guidance of his holy spirit, for he is not far from every one of you."_ | >
> | Mead. I desire the Jury, and all people to take notice of this injustice of the recorder: Who spake to me to pull off my hat? and yet hath he put a fine upon my head. O fear the Lord, and dread his power, and yield to the guidance of his holy spirit, for he is not far from every one of you." | | |
Introduction | | | | |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | These are all the necessary parts, loose in a bag. Now it is time for a draft that writes the history, as narrative combined with analysis. This is the literary exercise: story-telling for engaged readers eager to grasp both details and larger meanings. Excelsior. | >
> | This is work well under way now. There are two primary jobs to do: tightening the relationship between narrative and analysis, and removing yourself from the draft to give a more "academic" tone to the writing. | | |
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 29 - 28 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article, I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in comparison some other trials from 1660-1670. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, the 1theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual juror; although we always focus on a jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | >
> | I was led into a survey of William Penn's trial by this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a criminal trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article, I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to address is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in comparison three other trials of Quakers from 1664-1670. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors. | | |
Background | |
<
< | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not such behaviors lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | >
> | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow those customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status. | | | | |
<
< | However, Quakers were certainly not being widely persecuted because of their eccentric behaviors alone. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some other actions that are more directly against law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action is Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship are essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needs. They also insist these meetings be public so that they serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each one has his own connection to God is certainly beyond unwelcome. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act, the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion, making most nonconformists' meeting unlawful. | >
> | However, Quakers were certainly not being widely persecuted because of their eccentric behaviors alone. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some other actions that were more directly against law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action was Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. They also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each one has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. | | | | |
<
< | Now we know why Quakers are being prosecuted, another background point I want to make is the tyranny of law Quakers were facing at that time. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually a controversial question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which does not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges state that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose, which is presumed by the law. Jury should be able to give a verdict with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly unless they can prove such meeting was not under the color of religion or not nonconformist. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." Friends, as you can imagine, plead the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers gave their legal defense. "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with proof of religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give the Judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infalliable director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this cas be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?" | >
> | Now we know why Quakers were being persecuted, another background point I want to make is the tyranny of the law Quakers encountered at that time. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black and white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose, which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly unless defendants could prove the meeting was not under the color of religion or not nonconformist. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." | | | | |
<
< | While Quakers could defend themselves with the pen and make all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure and no fine or other punishment for Judge's misconduct, Judges' enjoyed a dictating power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a Judge can be from the excerpt, when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a trick was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by and hearing the trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, ordered the hat to be put on, then fined the man for contempt of the court for not taking off his hat. What really needs to be stressed is judges' dictation over the jury. Although the instruction given by a judge can be questioned as we see above, although some jurors may entertain serious doubt about whether the defendant Quakers' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all Quakers trials Judge will dictate jurors to give a guilty verdict with the threat to starve them or fine them. In the next section I will present Penn's and some other tirals in a fuller picture, but it is important to know as background knowledge that in most Quaker trials, Judges would force the jury to give a guilty verdict. | >
> | Quakers, as you can imagine, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers gave their legal defense. "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with proof of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give the Judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infallible director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?"
While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt, when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man for contempt of the court. More importantly, what really needs to be stressed about judges' tyranny was the fact that they were dictating over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge will force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience. | | |
Trials | |
<
< | Now with the background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical Judges were in Quakers' trial, we should get back to our central question: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put two more Quaker trials from 1664 in comparison. | >
> | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, our central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison. | | |
Penn's Trial | |
<
< | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracehurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracehurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; they actually both admitted with pride that they assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make their acts unlawful: | >
> | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | | | Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. | | | Penn. These are but so many vain exclamations; is this justice or true judgment? Must I therefore be taken away because I plead for the fundamental laws of England? However, this I leave upon your consciences, who are of the jury (and my sole judges,) that if these ancient fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, (and are not limited to particular persuasions in. matters of religion) must not be indispensably maintained and observed, who can say he hath right to the coat upon his back? Certainly our liberties are openly to be invaded, our wives to be ravished, our children slaved, our families ruined, and our estates led away in triumph, by every sturdy beggar and malicious informer, as their trophies, but our (pretended) forfeits for conscience sake. The Lord of Heaven and Earth will be judge between us in this matter. | |
<
< | After Mead did a similar thing and was taken to the dock, the Recorder gave an instruction to the jury, that Penn and Mead were indicted for "preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them". Penn, shouting from the dock, addressed to the jury that he was not heard for the indictment, and reminded the jury that they can not give a verdict till he was heard and made his defense; the Recorder, couldn't bear Penn anymore, ordered Penn be taken to the Hole. After "some considerable time", the jury gave its first verdict, that Penn was guilty of speaking in Grace-church street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly causing a riot. The Recorder would not accept such a verdict (for what is worth, a not guilty verdict is not a verdict): | >
> | After Mead did a similar thing and was taken to the dock, the Recorder gave an instruction to the jury, that Penn and Mead were indicted for "preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them". Penn shouted from the dock to the jury that he was not heard for the indictment, and reminded the jury that they could not give a verdict till he was heard and made his defense; the Recorder, couldn't bear Penn anymore, ordered Penn be taken to the Hole. After "some considerable time", the jury gave its first verdict, that Penn was guilty of speaking in Grace-church street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly causing a riot. The Recorder would not accept such a verdict (for him, a not-guilty verdict is not a verdict): | | | Rec. The law of England will not allow you to part till you have given in your Verdict. | | | Penn. The agreement of 12 men is a verdict in law, and such a one being given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer it at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law; And looking upon the jury, said, You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right. | |
<
< | Penn's speech certainly did its work. The jury was starved for a night, and the next day it gave the same verdict. Then it was sent back to give another verdict; the same result. After repeating for two more times, the jury gave an affirmative not guilty verdict, and the Recorder, couldn't bear with it anymore, accepted the verdict but fined and imprisoned all the jurors; Penn in the end was not released either as he was sent back to prison till he pays the fines for contempt of the Court. | >
> | Penn's speech certainly did its work. The jury was starved for a night, and the next day it gave the same verdict. Then it was sent back to give another verdict; the same result. After repeating for two more times, the jury gave an affirmative not-guilty verdict, and the Recorder, couldn't bear with it anymore, accepted the verdict but fined and imprisoned all the jurors; Penn in the end was not released either, as he was sent back to prison till he pays the fines for contempt of the Court. | | |
More Trials of Quakers | |
<
< | The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because the trial was almost exactly the same but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. At the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff
l. "the Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them." | >
> | The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff. "The Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them." | | | | |
<
< | The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The jury required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered: "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had alway been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "a stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling them that "they were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose. | >
> | The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The prisoners required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered: "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had always been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling the jury that "they [prisoners] were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose. | | | | |
<
< | The second trial to share was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings seem to be quite normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). The Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said:"My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again 1with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached. | >
> | The second trial I want to share was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). The Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said:"My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached. | | | | |
<
< | The record of this trial was pretty short, but I picked it because it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such fact alone. While some jurors might entertain serious doubt about the conviction, Judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | >
> | The record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), but I picked it because it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such facts alone. While some jurors might entertain serious doubt about the conviction, judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | | | | |
<
< | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The witnesses in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfactory to the jury. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | >
> | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | | | | |
<
< | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. The Judge was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, sent them out again. After one and a half hour, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that ""there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor ath King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I can't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons). | >
> | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I didn't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons). | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his characteristics and his knowledge. The last reason would be the conscience of the jurors. I want to point out the importance to see the jury not just as a whole, but to notice each individual juror as a conscientious human being whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | | | Charles II's indulgence | |
<
< | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, on January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all though who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he ordered the release of all those in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | >
> | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, on January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | | | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle for testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent. "Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | |
<
< | As a result, during the time period we are examining, the crown's attitude could have been one of the background reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. However, King's indulgence proved to be very elusive and ineffective, as the Parliament and law enforcement officers disliked even feared Quakers, and due to many political concerns, Charles II could not fully enforce his policy. As I said, this reason certainly was not a reason that led to Penn's success, but I believe it was helpful and important enough to mention. | >
> | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, the Crown's attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. As I said, this reason certainly was not a reason that led to the specific success of Penn's acquittal, but I believe it was helpful and important enough to mention. | | | Penn's charisma | |
<
< | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure a big reason, if not the reason. As we can see from Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England was not like trials we have today. First, defendants did not have counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent and charismatic Quaker defendant. | >
> | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As we can see from Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England was not like trials we have today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | | | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to France at the court of Louis XIV. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and the eloquence was clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became the frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 27 - 24 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
- How do I do citation here...
| |
<
< | Reference
- William Penn's trial (I read it on a state trials collection, but here is an online version: https://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm)
- Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
- Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
- Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
- Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker, A Study of William Penn and James II
- Marry Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
- Mary Dunn * Richard Dunn, The Wolrd of William Penn
- A Complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors : from the earliest period to the year 1783, with notes and other illustrations / Compiled by T.B. Howell item
- Kelyng, John, Sir, A report of divers cases in pleas of the crown, adjudged and determined in the reign of the late King Charles II.
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7fr05209&view=1up&seq=305&size=125)
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| | | William Penn's Trial
Clerk. Bring William Penn and William Mead to the bar. | | | Penn's charisma
Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure a big reason, if not the reason. As we can see from Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England was not like trials we have today. First, defendants did not have counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent and charismatic Quaker defendant. | |
>
> | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to France at the court of Louis XIV. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and the eloquence was clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became the frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Besides being a defendant who did not need a counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as I introduced above, received the first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | | |
Jurors' conscience | |
>
> | After we see how Penn's eloquence and charisma contributed to the acquittal verdict, I want to point out the last important reason: the jurors. I think from the comparison of the trials the jury is the most obvious factor that would determine the result of a trial. As we saw, in the trial right after Penn's, a guilty verdict can be easily attainted through careful selection of the jury; also in the third trial I presented, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn, a conscientious jury could still choose to hold its position and give acquittal verdict. | | | | |
>
> | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep Judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | That said, I also want readers to see the importance of the jury from the perspectives of individual jurors, to appreciate the impact of each individual juror had on the result. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. It is important to notice that for example in Penn's trial, it was very likely to be Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. And at the same time there were also some jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. The importance of individual juror's attitude could not be overlooked also because even though after Bushel's case judges could no control the jury during court proceedings, they still could control the result by controlling the process of picking individual jurors, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the book when swearing, the result could be completely different. | | |
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show | |
>
> | I hope for those readers who found Penn's trial dramatic and amusing can have a better understanding of that trial after reading this article: what was the historical background of the trial, how trials of Quakers normally looked like, and why Penn could get an acquittal verdict. I only presented some reasons I think as the most important, but of course there were certainly more than those reasons, some my knowledge is insufficient to understand and some we might never know. In the end, I want to share with you a very inspiring idea professor Moglen shared with me, that the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In Quakers persecution shows the Court almost always won, by controlling the evidence put on show and sometimes by some threats. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience). | | | | |
>
> | Bibliography
- William Penn's trial (I read it on a state trials collection, but here is an online version: https://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm)
- Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
- Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
- Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
- Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker, A Study of William Penn and James II
- Marry Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
- Mary Dunn * Richard Dunn, The Wolrd of William Penn
- A Complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors : from the earliest period to the year 1783, with notes and other illustrations / Compiled by T.B. Howell item
- Kelyng, John, Sir, A report of divers cases in pleas of the crown, adjudged and determined in the reign of the late King Charles II.
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689]. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7fr05209&view=1up&seq=305&size=125)
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| | |
| |
<
< | Potentially useful citations
3. Horle
--Why Quakers being persecuted, pg. 6-10. The reasons I see most related in Penn's case is Quaker's defiance against the authorities and customs, therefore the fun part about the hat in Penn's trial and why legal officials don't like Quakers.
--pg. 111
- Jury not cooperating, Judge threating, Jury cooperated. Court give reward to jury? Check if anything from Thomas Leader.
4. Besse,
--Pg. 401:
- Indictment "...present at a certain unlawful assembly, under colour or pretense of exercise of religion, in other manner that is allowed by the practice of the church of England...in contempt of the law, and contrary to the peace of our lord of the King...."
- Jury fund them "guilty of meeting, but not of Fact". Jury said "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England."
- Jury said respect for those meeting worshiping the God. Judge unpleased but several jurors refused to change. "My lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my conscience."
--pg. 244
- indicted on Conventicle Act. Witness testified meeting at certain time and place, but heard none of them speak or do anything.
- Prisoners said they transgressed no law, Judge replied (holding Conventicle Act) that they transgressed this law, and instructed jury:" You are not to expect plain punctural evidence of antyhing; a bare proof of their being met is sufficient for their conviction. It is not your business to enter into the meaning of the law, but singly to determine the fact of the meeting."
- Jury found prisoners guilty.
--pg. 403
- I found in one trial Judge Hide, perceiving the prisoner to be a Quaker, who came in with hat off, ordered the hat to be put on, and then fined him for not taking hat off (So it is a common exercise huh, side note says "an offense on purpose to bu punished)
--pg. 425
- Right after Penn's trial, another grp of Quakers tried for the same facts. Court empaneled another jury (intentionally selected those who would like to listen to the court). Still lacking evidence of causing riot, but jury convicted the prisoners.
5. Mary Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
--pg 5. Penn had legal training, which helped a lot in his later imprisonment and in trials.
--pg. 6 "This in 1666 was William Penn. He was educated, traveled, and perhaps excitable. He was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends...
--pg. 7. Charles II, crown's tolerance to nonconformists. However such indulgence was opposed by Parliament; wasn't really helpful
"Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jelous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent. "
--pg. 10. Penn because of his status, became a famous advocate for Quakers
--pg. 12. Meeting of sufferings providing legal counsel and support to Quakers
--pg. 19. Pennn was not only carrying on his religious exercises despite the law and according to conscience ... he was also anxious to test the laws under which they were persecuted; ensuing trials, it was hoped, would bring redress and, given sufficiecnt friendly verdicts, overturn persecution itself. | | | | |
<
< | -- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019 | | |
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 26 - 24 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle for testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent. "Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious. | |
<
< | As a result, during the time period we are examining, the crown's attitude could have been one of the background reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. However, King's indulgence proved to be very elusive and ineffective, as the Parliament and law enforcement officers disliked even feared Quakers. | >
> | As a result, during the time period we are examining, the crown's attitude could have been one of the background reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. However, King's indulgence proved to be very elusive and ineffective, as the Parliament and law enforcement officers disliked even feared Quakers, and due to many political concerns, Charles II could not fully enforce his policy. As I said, this reason certainly was not a reason that led to Penn's success, but I believe it was helpful and important enough to mention. | | | Penn's charisma | |
>
> | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure a big reason, if not the reason. As we can see from Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England was not like trials we have today. First, defendants did not have counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent and charismatic Quaker defendant.
| | | Jurors' conscience |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 25 - 24 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his characteristics and his knowledge. The last reason would be the conscience of the jurors. I want to point out the importance to see the jury not just as a whole, but to notice each individual juror as a conscientious human being whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development.
Charles II's indulgence | |
>
> | When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, on January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all though who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he ordered the release of all those in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God." | | | | |
>
> | However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle for testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent. "Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious.
As a result, during the time period we are examining, the crown's attitude could have been one of the background reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. However, King's indulgence proved to be very elusive and ineffective, as the Parliament and law enforcement officers disliked even feared Quakers. | | | Penn's charisma
Jurors' conscience |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 24 - 24 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, this is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his characteristics and his knowledge. The last reason would be the conscience of the juror. I want to point out the importance to see the jury not just as a whole, but notice each individual juror as a conscientious human being whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his characteristics and his knowledge. The last reason would be the conscience of the jurors. I want to point out the importance to see the jury not just as a whole, but to notice each individual juror as a conscientious human being whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | | | Charles II's indulgence |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 23 - 21 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Analysis | |
>
> | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, this is a very important background reason that made any such success more possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his characteristics and his knowledge. The last reason would be the conscience of the juror. I want to point out the importance to see the jury not just as a whole, but notice each individual juror as a conscientious human being whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development.
Charles II's indulgence
Penn's charisma
Jurors' conscience
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show | | |
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 22 - 21 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The witnesses in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfactory to the jury. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | |
<
< | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. The Judge was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, sent them out again. After one and a half hour, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that | >
> | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. The Judge was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, sent them out again. After one and a half hour, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that ""there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor ath King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I can't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons).
Analysis | | | | |
<
< |
- The last one was another trial in 1664. Found not guilty (pg. 400)
| | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 21 - 20 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | |
>
> | Working draft:
I'm just writing out what I'm thinking, so please ignore the stupid spelling and grammar mistakes. I will certainly proofread and refine it later. | | | Central Question:
| | | My questions (Updating)
- Why the Recorder does not say under what law the indictment was based (the part when they talked about "common law"). Thomas Green said the indictment was based on the Conventicles Act, and the Recorder later did say Penn was charged for preaching to the people and drawing a tumultuous company after them,
- Why the challenge to select Bushell failed? In the original texts, it said one Lord challenged Bushell as a juror for failing to kiss the Bible, but apparently it didn't work. Why?
| |
>
> |
- How do I do citation here...
| | |
Reference | | |
More Trials of Quakers | |
<
< |
- The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because the trial was almost exactly the same but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. At the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheirff. "the Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them."
| >
> | The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because the trial was almost exactly the same but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. At the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff
l. "the Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them."
The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The jury required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered: "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had alway been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "a stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling them that "they were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose.
The second trial to share was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings seem to be quite normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). The Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said:"My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again 1with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached.
The record of this trial was pretty short, but I picked it because it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such fact alone. While some jurors might entertain serious doubt about the conviction, Judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges. | | | | |
<
< | The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The jury required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had alway been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "a stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling them that "they were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose. | >
> | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The witnesses in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfactory to the jury. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it." | | | | |
>
> | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. The Judge was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, sent them out again. After one and a half hour, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that | | | | |
<
< |
- The second trial was one in 1664, by Judge Orlando Bridgeman. (pg. 244)
| | |
- The last one was another trial in 1664. Found not guilty (pg. 400)
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 19 - 20 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
More Trials of Quakers | |
<
< |
- The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. Another group of Quakers were tried for the exact same facts. (pg. 426)
| >
> |
- The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. This trial will serve as a great comparison because the trial was almost exactly the same but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. At the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheirff. "the Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them."
The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The jury required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had alway been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "a stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling them that "they were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose.
| | |
- The second trial was one in 1664, by Judge Orlando Bridgeman. (pg. 244)
- The last one was another trial in 1664. Found not guilty (pg. 400)
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 18 - 19 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | | |
<
< | Potentially useful citations
- Thomas Green, Verdict
--"Restoration persecution of the Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664, the year in which Parliament passed Conventicle Act, which made most nonconformist religious meetings unlawful." | >
> | More Trials of Quakers
- The first trial I want to cite here in comparison is the one taken place right after Penn's trial. Another group of Quakers were tried for the exact same facts. (pg. 426)
- The second trial was one in 1664, by Judge Orlando Bridgeman. (pg. 244)
- The last one was another trial in 1664. Found not guilty (pg. 400)
| | | | |
<
< | --"The Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles was literally interpreted by the Stuart bench. The Act's preamble declared that Parliament sought to suppress seditious conventicles, but the body of the Act proscribed meetings, "under pretense or color of religion" without repeating the adjective "seditious". The bench concluded that the jury must convict if there was manifest proof that the defendant had taken part in what appeared to be such a meeting, unless the defendant showed either that the meeting was not under pretense of religion or that it was not nonconformist. Conviction did not require proof of seditious purposes. That, the bench ruled, was presumed by law. (pg. 204) | | | | |
<
< | --Description of what Penn did. pg 222 | | | | |
<
< | 2. State Trial (Original text of Penn's trial)
--Court fails to state a specific law on which the indictment is based (WHY?) | >
> | Potentially useful citations | | | | |
<
< | --Court then stated one (after pulling Penn and Mead down to the dock), that "You have heard what the Indictmet is, It is for preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them | | | 3. Horle
--Why Quakers being persecuted, pg. 6-10. The reasons I see most related in Penn's case is Quaker's defiance against the authorities and customs, therefore the fun part about the hat in Penn's trial and why legal officials don't like Quakers. |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 17 - 19 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | Penn. I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary. | |
>
> | The Recorder did not give an answer in the end, and under the pressure of Penn's persistent demand and sarcastic challenge, the Recorder ordered Penn be taken back to the bale-dock. Here Penn directly addressed to the jury for the first time: | | | | |
>
> | Penn. These are but so many vain exclamations; is this justice or true judgment? Must I therefore be taken away because I plead for the fundamental laws of England? However, this I leave upon your consciences, who are of the jury (and my sole judges,) that if these ancient fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, (and are not limited to particular persuasions in. matters of religion) must not be indispensably maintained and observed, who can say he hath right to the coat upon his back? Certainly our liberties are openly to be invaded, our wives to be ravished, our children slaved, our families ruined, and our estates led away in triumph, by every sturdy beggar and malicious informer, as their trophies, but our (pretended) forfeits for conscience sake. The Lord of Heaven and Earth will be judge between us in this matter.
After Mead did a similar thing and was taken to the dock, the Recorder gave an instruction to the jury, that Penn and Mead were indicted for "preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them". Penn, shouting from the dock, addressed to the jury that he was not heard for the indictment, and reminded the jury that they can not give a verdict till he was heard and made his defense; the Recorder, couldn't bear Penn anymore, ordered Penn be taken to the Hole. After "some considerable time", the jury gave its first verdict, that Penn was guilty of speaking in Grace-church street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly causing a riot. The Recorder would not accept such a verdict (for what is worth, a not guilty verdict is not a verdict):
Rec. The law of England will not allow you to part till you have given in your Verdict.
Jury. We have given in our Verdict, and we can give in no other.
Rec. Gentlemen, you have not given in your Verdict, and you had its good say nothing; therefore go and consider it once more, that we may make an end of this troublesome business.
The jury returned with the second verdict after one hour and a half, which was the same: guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly; not a word about it being unlawful. The Court's reaction was not hard to imagine: "both Mayor and Recorder resented at so high a rate, that they exceeded the bounds of all reason and civility." The Recorder made a threat which was repeated many times later:
Recorder. Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.
Penn took the chance to speak for the jurors who are his true judges, that they can not be threatened. He then made his defense and urged the jury not give in:
Penn. The agreement of 12 men is a verdict in law, and such a one being given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer it at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law; And looking upon the jury, said, You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right.
Penn's speech certainly did its work. The jury was starved for a night, and the next day it gave the same verdict. Then it was sent back to give another verdict; the same result. After repeating for two more times, the jury gave an affirmative not guilty verdict, and the Recorder, couldn't bear with it anymore, accepted the verdict but fined and imprisoned all the jurors; Penn in the end was not released either as he was sent back to prison till he pays the fines for contempt of the Court. | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 16 - 18 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial
Central Question: | |
<
< | What contributed to the not-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict? | | |
We could just say, "Why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act?"
| |
>
> | My questions (Updating)
- Why the Recorder does not say under what law the indictment was based (the part when they talked about "common law"). Thomas Green said the indictment was based on the Conventicles Act, and the Recorder later did say Penn was charged for preaching to the people and drawing a tumultuous company after them,
- Why the challenge to select Bushell failed? In the original texts, it said one Lord challenged Bushell as a juror for failing to kiss the Bible, but apparently it didn't work. Why?
| | | Reference | | | Trials
Now with the background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical Judges were in Quakers' trial, we should get back to our central question: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put two more Quaker trials from 1664 in comparison. | |
<
< | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracehurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracehurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; they actually both admitted with pride that they assembled to preach and pray, believing that was their duty. Penn believe that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make their acts unlawful. Penn demanded the Court to show what law was the indictment was based on. The Recorder replied that | | | | |
>
> | Penn's Trial
On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracehurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracehurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; they actually both admitted with pride that they assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make their acts unlawful:
Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment.
Rec. Upon the common-law.
Penn. Where is that common-law?
Rec. You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call common-law, to answer your curiosity.
Penn. This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce.
Rec. Sir, will you plead to your indictment?
Penn. Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine, or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced, by which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt, or contrary of my fact?
Rec. You are a saucy fellow, speak to the Indictment. | | | | |
>
> | Penn. I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary. | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 15 - 18 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | We could just say, "Why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act?"
| |
<
< | Structure:
- Introduction
- Background (How Quakers are being persecuted and why so)
- Trials in comparison (Brief description of one typical trial of Quakers that result in imprisonment (I'm now trying to pick one from Horle's book), and Penn's trial)
- Analysis
-
- Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading)
- Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess)
- Jury's attitude (Don't know where this is leading to yet, need to read more about William Penn) Some thoughts now:
- the gradual development of Quaker's legal response (that the Act should require proof of seditious intent, laid the theory foundation for jurors to give such verdict.
- difference of COA. Penn was not charged for unlawful meeting but unlawful assembly causing disturbance of the peace
- William Penn's personal charisma. Both books I found about W.P. has very little about him at the time of the trial, so I haven't found anything about how Penn's charisma affects the jurors.
- Beyond the Trial I think it will be too shallow an analysis of the trial and not law-related enough if this paper just end up being an analysis of how charismatic William Penn is. I don't know where I'm going but I guess there should be something to be said about the role of the jury.
Candidate trials
- Hertford summer assizes, presided by Orlando Bridgeman (Verdict, pg. 205 fn 16)2
- Wagstaffe's Case (Rex v. Wagstaffe, 83 Eng. Rep. 1328)
| | | Reference | |
>
> | | | |
- Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
- Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
- Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
- Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker, A Study of William Penn and James II
| |
>
> |
- Marry Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
| | |
- Mary Dunn * Richard Dunn, The Wolrd of William Penn
- A Complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors : from the earliest period to the year 1783, with notes and other illustrations / Compiled by T.B. Howell item
- Kelyng, John, Sir, A report of divers cases in pleas of the crown, adjudged and determined in the reign of the late King Charles II.
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
| |
<
< | Other Reference
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
| >
> |
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
| | | (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7fr05209&view=1up&seq=305&size=125) | |
<
< |
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| >
> |
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| | | | | | | |
>
> | Trials
Now with the background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical Judges were in Quakers' trial, we should get back to our central question: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put two more Quaker trials from 1664 in comparison.
On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracehurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracehurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; they actually both admitted with pride that they assembled to preach and pray, believing that was their duty. Penn believe that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make their acts unlawful. Penn demanded the Court to show what law was the indictment was based on. The Recorder replied that
| | | Potentially useful citations
- Thomas Green, Verdict
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 14 - 16 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in parallel some other trials from 1660-1670 in comparison. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual juror; although we always focus on a jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | >
> | I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article, I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in comparison some other trials from 1660-1670. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, the 1theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual juror; although we always focus on a jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | | |
Background | |
<
< | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such acts lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | >
> | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not such behaviors lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | | | | |
>
> | However, Quakers were certainly not being widely persecuted because of their eccentric behaviors alone. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some other actions that are more directly against law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action is Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship are essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needs. They also insist these meetings be public so that they serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each one has his own connection to God is certainly beyond unwelcome. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act, the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion, making most nonconformists' meeting unlawful. | | | | |
>
> | Now we know why Quakers are being prosecuted, another background point I want to make is the tyranny of law Quakers were facing at that time. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually a controversial question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which does not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges state that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose, which is presumed by the law. Jury should be able to give a verdict with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly unless they can prove such meeting was not under the color of religion or not nonconformist. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..." Friends, as you can imagine, plead the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers gave their legal defense. "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with proof of religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give the Judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infalliable director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this cas be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?"
While Quakers could defend themselves with the pen and make all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure and no fine or other punishment for Judge's misconduct, Judges' enjoyed a dictating power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a Judge can be from the excerpt, when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a trick was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by and hearing the trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, ordered the hat to be put on, then fined the man for contempt of the court for not taking off his hat. What really needs to be stressed is judges' dictation over the jury. Although the instruction given by a judge can be questioned as we see above, although some jurors may entertain serious doubt about whether the defendant Quakers' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all Quakers trials Judge will dictate jurors to give a guilty verdict with the threat to starve them or fine them. In the next section I will present Penn's and some other tirals in a fuller picture, but it is important to know as background knowledge that in most Quaker trials, Judges would force the jury to give a guilty verdict. | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 13 - 14 Nov 2019 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
| |
<
< | On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | >
> | On William Penn's trial | | | Central Question: | |
<
< | What contributed to the not-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict. | >
> | What contributed to the not-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict?
We could just say, "Why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act?"
| | | Structure:
- Introduction
| | | -- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019 | |
>
> |
These are all the necessary parts, loose in a bag. Now it is time for a draft that writes the history, as narrative combined with analysis. This is the literary exercise: story-telling for engaged readers eager to grasp both details and larger meanings. Excelsior.
| | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1573137895" from="Sandbox.DaihuiMeng" to="EngLegalHist.WilliamPennTrial" |
|---|
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 12 - 14 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | | --pg. 425
- Right after Penn's trial, another grp of Quakers tried for the same facts. Court empaneled another jury (intentionally selected those who would like to listen to the court). Still lacking evidence of causing riot, but jury convicted the prisoners.
| |
>
> | 5. Mary Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
--pg 5. Penn had legal training, which helped a lot in his later imprisonment and in trials.
--pg. 6 "This in 1666 was William Penn. He was educated, traveled, and perhaps excitable. He was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends...
--pg. 7. Charles II, crown's tolerance to nonconformists. However such indulgence was opposed by Parliament; wasn't really helpful
"Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jelous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent. "
--pg. 10. Penn because of his status, became a famous advocate for Quakers
--pg. 12. Meeting of sufferings providing legal counsel and support to Quakers
--pg. 19. Pennn was not only carrying on his religious exercises despite the law and according to conscience ... he was also anxious to test the laws under which they were persecuted; ensuing trials, it was hoped, would bring redress and, given sufficiecnt friendly verdicts, overturn persecution itself. | | | -- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1573137895" from="Sandbox.DaihuiMeng" to="EngLegalHist.WilliamPennTrial" |
|---|
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 11 - 13 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in parallel some other trials from 1660-1670 in comparison. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual jurors; although we always focus on jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | >
> | I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in parallel some other trials from 1660-1670 in comparison. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual juror; although we always focus on a jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | | |
Background | |
<
< | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their courts in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Friends, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such acts lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | >
> | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such acts lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 10 - 13 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | | I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in parallel some other trials from 1660-1670 in comparison. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual jurors; although we always focus on jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | |
>
> | Background
It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their courts in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Friends, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such acts lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 9 - 12 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | |
- Wagstaffe's Case (Rex v. Wagstaffe, 83 Eng. Rep. 1328)
| |
<
< | Reference found | >
> | Reference | | |
- Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
- Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
- Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
| | |
- Kelyng, John, Sir, A report of divers cases in pleas of the crown, adjudged and determined in the reign of the late King Charles II.
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
| |
<
< | Other Reference on the list | >
> | Other Reference | | |
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7fr05209&view=1up&seq=305&size=125)
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
| | |
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| |
>
> |
William Penn's Trial
Clerk. Bring William Penn and William Mead to the bar.
Mayor. Sirrah, who bid you put off their hats? put on their hats again.
Obser. Whereupon one of the officers putting the prisoners hats upon their heads (pursuant to the order of the court) brought them to the bar.
Record. Do you know where you are?
Penn. Yes.
Record. Do not you know it is the king's court,
Penn. I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the king's court.
Record. Do you not know there is respect due to the court?
Penn. Yes.
Record. Why do you not pay it then?
Penn. I do so.
Record. Why do you not pull off your hat then?
Penn. Because I do not believe that to be any respect.
Record. Well, the court sets forty marks a piece upon your heads, as a fine for your contempt of the court.
Penn. I desire it might be observed, that, we came into the court with our hats off (that is, taken off,) and if they have been put on since, it was by order from the bench; and therefore not we, but the bench should be fined.
Mead. I have a question, to ask the Recorders am I fined also?
Record. Yes.
Mead. I desire the Jury, and all people to take notice of this injustice of the recorder: Who spake to me to pull off my hat? and yet hath he put a fine upon my head. O fear the Lord, and dread his power, and yield to the guidance of his holy spirit, for he is not far from every one of you."_
Introduction
I was led into the survey of William Penn's trial by this dramatic conversation about Penn's hat. For a US law student who just had a summer intern in a Federal District Court, such "saucy" conversation in a "high-crime" trial is unimaginable and definitely amusing, therefore I decided to dive deeper into it and here in this short article I present some of my research results and thoughts. There is much to be said about this milestone trial. The central question this article wants to shed some light on is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. I will start with a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they are facing the tyranny of Judges who dictate the jury's verdict. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in parallel some other trials from 1660-1670 in comparison. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, theoretical foundation laid by Quakers, and most importantly, the conscience of the jurors and the charisma of Penn. I think in the end, what I learned from this researching project is the importance of every individual jurors; although we always focus on jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters.
| | | Potentially useful citations
- Thomas Green, Verdict
--"Restoration persecution of the Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664, the year in which Parliament passed Conventicle Act, which made most nonconformist religious meetings unlawful." |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 7 - 11 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Sandbox.WebHome" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
| | | On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page)
Central Question: | | |
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
Other Reference on the list | |
<
< |
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689]. (Found online version)
| >
> |
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7fr05209&view=1up&seq=305&size=125) | | |
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
| | | 3. Horle
--Why Quakers being persecuted, pg. 6-10. The reasons I see most related in Penn's case is Quaker's defiance against the authorities and customs, therefore the fun part about the hat in Penn's trial and why legal officials don't like Quakers. | |
>
> | --pg. 111
- Jury not cooperating, Judge threating, Jury cooperated. Court give reward to jury? Check if anything from Thomas Leader.
| | | | |
>
> | 4. Besse,
--Pg. 401:
- Indictment "...present at a certain unlawful assembly, under colour or pretense of exercise of religion, in other manner that is allowed by the practice of the church of England...in contempt of the law, and contrary to the peace of our lord of the King...."
- Jury fund them "guilty of meeting, but not of Fact". Jury said "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England."
- Jury said respect for those meeting worshiping the God. Judge unpleased but several jurors refused to change. "My lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my conscience."
--pg. 244
- indicted on Conventicle Act. Witness testified meeting at certain time and place, but heard none of them speak or do anything.
- Prisoners said they transgressed no law, Judge replied (holding Conventicle Act) that they transgressed this law, and instructed jury:" You are not to expect plain punctural evidence of antyhing; a bare proof of their being met is sufficient for their conviction. It is not your business to enter into the meaning of the law, but singly to determine the fact of the meeting."
- Jury found prisoners guilty.
| | | | |
>
> | --pg. 403
- I found in one trial Judge Hide, perceiving the prisoner to be a Quaker, who came in with hat off, ordered the hat to be put on, and then fined him for not taking hat off (So it is a common exercise huh, side note says "an offense on purpose to bu punished)
--pg. 425
- Right after Penn's trial, another grp of Quakers tried for the same facts. Court empaneled another jury (intentionally selected those who would like to listen to the court). Still lacking evidence of causing riot, but jury convicted the prisoners.
| | | -- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019 | |
>
> | | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1573137895" from="Sandbox.DaihuiMeng" to="EngLegalHist.WilliamPennTrial" |
|---|
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 6 - 07 Nov 2019 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Sandbox.WebHome" |
|---|
| | | On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page)
Central Question: | | |
-- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019 | |
>
> |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1573137895" from="Sandbox.DaihuiMeng" to="EngLegalHist.WilliamPennTrial" |
|---|
|
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 5 - 07 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | | 2. Background (How Quakers are being persecuted and why so)
3. Trials in comparison (Brief description of one typical trial of Quakers that result in imprisonment (I'm now trying to pick one from Horle's book), and Penn's trial)
4. Analysis | |
<
< |
- Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading) B. Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess) C. *Jury's attitude (Don't know where this is leading to yet, need to read more about William Penn) Some thoughts now: a. the gradual development of Quaker's legal response (that the Act should require proof of seditious intent, laid the theory foundation for jurors to give such verdict. b. difference of COA. Penn was not charged for unlawful meeting but unlawful assembly causing disturbance of the peace
| >
> |
-
-
- Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading)
- Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess)
- Jury's attitude (Don't know where this is leading to yet, need to read more about William Penn) Some thoughts now:
- the gradual development of Quaker's legal response (that the Act should require proof of seditious intent, laid the theory foundation for jurors to give such verdict.
- difference of COA. Penn was not charged for unlawful meeting but unlawful assembly causing disturbance of the peace
- William Penn's personal charisma. Both books I found about W.P. has very little about him at the time of the trial, so I haven't found anything about how Penn's charisma affects the jurors.
| | | 5. Beyond the Trial
I think it will be too shallow an analysis of the trial and not law-related enough if this paper just end up being an analysis of how charismatic William Penn is. I don't know where I'm going but I guess there should be something to be said about the role of the jury. | | |
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
Other Reference on the list | |
<
< | 1. Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
2. Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change
3. Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet | >
> |
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689]. (Found online version)
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| | |
Potentially useful citations | |
<
< | 1. Thomas Green, Verdict | >
> |
- Thomas Green, Verdict
| | | --"Restoration persecution of the Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664, the year in which Parliament passed Conventicle Act, which made most nonconformist religious meetings unlawful."
--"The Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles was literally interpreted by the Stuart bench. The Act's preamble declared that Parliament sought to suppress seditious conventicles, but the body of the Act proscribed meetings, "under pretense or color of religion" without repeating the adjective "seditious". The bench concluded that the jury must convict if there was manifest proof that the defendant had taken part in what appeared to be such a meeting, unless the defendant showed either that the meeting was not under pretense of religion or that it was not nonconformist. Conviction did not require proof of seditious purposes. That, the bench ruled, was presumed by law. (pg. 204) |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 4 - 04 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | | Other Reference on the list
1. Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
2. Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change | |
<
< | | >
> | 3. Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet | | |
Potentially useful citations | | | --Court then stated one (after pulling Penn and Mead down to the dock), that "You have heard what the Indictmet is, It is for preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them | |
>
> | 3. Horle
--Why Quakers being persecuted, pg. 6-10. The reasons I see most related in Penn's case is Quaker's defiance against the authorities and customs, therefore the fun part about the hat in Penn's trial and why legal officials don't like Quakers. | | | |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 3 - 04 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page) | | |
- Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading) B. Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess) C. *Jury's attitude (Don't know where this is leading to yet, need to read more about William Penn)
| |
>
> | Some thoughts now: a. the gradual development of Quaker's legal response (that the Act should require proof of seditious intent, laid the theory
foundation for jurors to give such verdict.
b. difference of COA. Penn was not charged for unlawful meeting but unlawful assembly causing disturbance of the peace | | | 5. Beyond the Trial
I think it will be too shallow an analysis of the trial and not law-related enough if this paper just end up being an analysis of how charismatic William Penn is. I don't know where I'm going but I guess there should be something to be said about the role of the jury. | |
>
> | Candidate trials
1. Hertford summer assizes, presided by Orlando Bridgeman (Verdict, pg. 205 fn 16)2
2. Wagstaffe's Case (Rex v. Wagstaffe, 83 Eng. Rep. 1328) | | | | |
<
< | Reference | >
> | Reference found | | |
- Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
- Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
- Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
- Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker, A Study of William Penn and James II
- Mary Dunn * Richard Dunn, The Wolrd of William Penn
| |
>
> |
- A Complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors : from the earliest period to the year 1783, with notes and other illustrations / Compiled by T.B. Howell item
- Kelyng, John, Sir, A report of divers cases in pleas of the crown, adjudged and determined in the reign of the late King Charles II.
- The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
Other Reference on the list
1. Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
2. Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change
Potentially useful citations
1. Thomas Green, Verdict
--"Restoration persecution of the Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664, the year in which Parliament passed Conventicle Act, which made most nonconformist religious meetings unlawful."
--"The Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles was literally interpreted by the Stuart bench. The Act's preamble declared that Parliament sought to suppress seditious conventicles, but the body of the Act proscribed meetings, "under pretense or color of religion" without repeating the adjective "seditious". The bench concluded that the jury must convict if there was manifest proof that the defendant had taken part in what appeared to be such a meeting, unless the defendant showed either that the meeting was not under pretense of religion or that it was not nonconformist. Conviction did not require proof of seditious purposes. That, the bench ruled, was presumed by law. (pg. 204)
--Description of what Penn did. pg 222
2. State Trial (Original text of Penn's trial)
--Court fails to state a specific law on which the indictment is based (WHY?)
--Court then stated one (after pulling Penn and Mead down to the dock), that "You have heard what the Indictmet is, It is for preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them | | | | |
<
< | -- DaihuiMeng - 02 Nov 2019 | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | -- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019 |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 2 - 04 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page)
Central Question: | |
<
< | What contributed to the non-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict. | >
> | What contributed to the not-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict. | | | Structure:
1. Introduction
2. Background (How Quakers are being persecuted and why so)
3. Trials in comparison (Brief description of one typical trial of Quakers that result in imprisonment (I'm now trying to pick one from Horle's book), and Penn's trial)
4. Analysis | |
<
< |
- Crown‘s attitude (Charles II, need more reading)
| >
> |
- Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading)
| | | B. Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess)
C. *Jury's attitude (Don't know where this is leading to yet, need to read more about William Penn)
5. Beyond the Trial |
|
|
WilliamPennTrial 1 - 02 Nov 2019 - Main.DaihuiMeng
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page)
Central Question:
What contributed to the non-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict.
Structure:
1. Introduction
2. Background (How Quakers are being persecuted and why so)
3. Trials in comparison (Brief description of one typical trial of Quakers that result in imprisonment (I'm now trying to pick one from Horle's book), and Penn's trial)
4. Analysis
- Crown‘s attitude (Charles II, need more reading) B. Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess) C. *Jury's attitude (Don't know where this is leading to yet, need to read more about William Penn)
5. Beyond the Trial
I think it will be too shallow an analysis of the trial and not law-related enough if this paper just end up being an analysis of how charismatic William Penn is. I don't know where I'm going but I guess there should be something to be said about the role of the jury.
Reference
- Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
- Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
- Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
- Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker, A Study of William Penn and James II
- Mary Dunn * Richard Dunn, The Wolrd of William Penn
-- DaihuiMeng - 02 Nov 2019 |
|
|