|
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)
| | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|