| | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |