|
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. | | | |
|
|