| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
- How do I do citation here...
| |
<
< | Reference
- William Penn's trial (I read it on a state trials collection, but here is an online version: https://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm)
- 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
- Marry Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
- 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
- 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)
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- 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. | | | 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. | |
>
> | In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to France at the court of Louis XIV. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and the eloquence was clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became the frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Besides being a defendant who did not need a counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as I introduced above, received the first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so. | | |
Jurors' conscience | |
>
> | After we see how Penn's eloquence and charisma contributed to the acquittal verdict, I want to point out the last important reason: the jurors. I think from the comparison of the trials the jury is the most obvious factor that would determine the result of a trial. As we saw, in the trial right after Penn's, a guilty verdict can be easily attainted through careful selection of the jury; also in the third trial I presented, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn, a conscientious jury could still choose to hold its position and give acquittal verdict. | | | | |
>
> | The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep Judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | That said, I also want readers to see the importance of the jury from the perspectives of individual jurors, to appreciate the impact of each individual juror had on the result. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. It is important to notice that for example in Penn's trial, it was very likely to be Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. And at the same time there were also some jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. The importance of individual juror's attitude could not be overlooked also because even though after Bushel's case judges could no control the jury during court proceedings, they still could control the result by controlling the process of picking individual jurors, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the book when swearing, the result could be completely different. | | |
Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show | |
>
> | I hope for those readers who found Penn's trial dramatic and amusing can have a better understanding of that trial after reading this article: what was the historical background of the trial, how trials of Quakers normally looked like, and why Penn could get an acquittal verdict. I only presented some reasons I think as the most important, but of course there were certainly more than those reasons, some my knowledge is insufficient to understand and some we might never know. In the end, I want to share with you a very inspiring idea professor Moglen shared with me, that the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In Quakers persecution shows the Court almost always won, by controlling the evidence put on show and sometimes by some threats. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience). | | | | |
>
> | Bibliography
- William Penn's trial (I read it on a state trials collection, but here is an online version: https://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm)
- 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
- Marry Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
- 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
- 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)
- Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
- Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
- William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
- William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)
| | |
| |
<
< | Potentially useful citations
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.
5. Mary Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
--pg 5. Penn had legal training, which helped a lot in his later imprisonment and in trials.
--pg. 6 "This in 1666 was William Penn. He was educated, traveled, and perhaps excitable. He was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends...
--pg. 7. Charles II, crown's tolerance to nonconformists. However such indulgence was opposed by Parliament; wasn't really helpful
"Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jelous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent. "
--pg. 10. Penn because of his status, became a famous advocate for Quakers
--pg. 12. Meeting of sufferings providing legal counsel and support to Quakers
--pg. 19. Pennn was not only carrying on his religious exercises despite the law and according to conscience ... he was also anxious to test the laws under which they were persecuted; ensuing trials, it was hoped, would bring redress and, given sufficiecnt friendly verdicts, overturn persecution itself. | | | | |
<
< | -- DaihuiMeng - 04 Nov 2019 | | |
|
|