| |
| 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. |
|