| |
| 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)
|
|