On William Penn's trial (Test Wiki page)

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.

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
   1. 1. Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading)
      2. Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess)
      3. 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.

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

• 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

1. 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)

1. Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
2. Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
3. William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
4. 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

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

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