| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | |
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 comparison some other trials from 1660-1670. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the crown's attitude, the 1theoretical 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 juror; although we always focus on a jury as a whole, we should keep in mind that it is made of individual human beings, that each one's conscience matters. | >
> | I was led into a survey of William Penn's trial by this ridiculous drama 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 criminal 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 address 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 were facing the tyranny of the law. Then I will briefly describe Penn's trial and put in comparison three other trials of Quakers from 1664-1670. In the analysis section, I will try to explain some reasons I found convincing, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors. | | |
Background | |
<
< | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists are not so popular in the eyes of legal enforcement. However, I think it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers prosecuted so often. The first reason, as shown in the excerpt, is that Quakers are unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear now, such behavior could be intolerable in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and not wearing the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs that I will not explain more here, did not follow those customs; they use dress simply, use words like "thou" and "thee" casually, and refuse 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 such behaviors lightly. To authorities, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity, as they have historically stand for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as Quakers group grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so unpopular among Judges and other law enforcement. | >
> | It shouldn't be too surprising that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, I think 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 the hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow those 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, as 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. | | | | |
<
< | However, Quakers were certainly not being widely persecuted because of their eccentric behaviors alone. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some other actions that are more directly against law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action is Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship are essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needs. They also insist these meetings be public so that they 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 one has his own connection to God is certainly beyond unwelcome. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quaker Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act, the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion, making most nonconformists' meeting unlawful. | >
> | However, Quakers were certainly not being widely persecuted because of their eccentric behaviors alone. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some other actions that were more directly against 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 one 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. | | | | |
<
< | Now we know why Quakers are being prosecuted, another background point I want to make is the tyranny of law Quakers were facing at that time. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually a controversial 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 does not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges state that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose, which is presumed by the law. Jury should be able to give a verdict with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly unless they can prove such meeting was not under the color of religion or not nonconformist. 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..." Friends, as you can imagine, plead the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers gave their legal defense. "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 proof of religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give the 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 infalliable director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this cas 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)?" | >
> | Now we know why Quakers were being persecuted, another background point I want to make is the tyranny of the law Quakers encountered at that time. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black and 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 with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly unless defendants could prove the meeting was not under the color of religion or not nonconformist. 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..." | | | | |
<
< | While Quakers could defend themselves with the pen and make 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 and no fine or other punishment for Judge's misconduct, Judges' enjoyed a dictating 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 trick was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by and hearing the trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, ordered the hat to be put on, then fined the man for contempt of the court for not taking off his hat. What really needs to be stressed is judges' dictation over the jury. Although the instruction given by a judge can be questioned as we see above, although some jurors may entertain serious doubt about whether the defendant Quakers' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all Quakers trials Judge will dictate jurors to give a guilty verdict with the threat to starve them or fine them. In the next section I will present Penn's and some other tirals in a fuller picture, but it is important to know as background knowledge that in most Quaker trials, Judges would force the jury to give a guilty verdict. | >
> | Quakers, as you can imagine, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers gave their legal defense. "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 proof of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give the 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 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 for contempt of the court. More importantly, what really needs to be stressed about judges' tyranny was the fact that they were dictating 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. | | |
Trials | |
<
< | Now with the background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical Judges were in Quakers' trial, we should get back to our central question: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, I think it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put two more Quaker trials from 1664 in comparison. | >
> | Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, our 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, I think 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 | |
<
< | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracehurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracehurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; they actually both admitted with pride that they assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make their acts unlawful: | >
> | On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all basically testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based: | | | Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. | | | Penn. These are but so many vain exclamations; is this justice or true judgment? Must I therefore be taken away because I plead for the fundamental laws of England? However, this I leave upon your consciences, who are of the jury (and my sole judges,) that if these ancient fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, (and are not limited to particular persuasions in. matters of religion) must not be indispensably maintained and observed, who can say he hath right to the coat upon his back? Certainly our liberties are openly to be invaded, our wives to be ravished, our children slaved, our families ruined, and our estates led away in triumph, by every sturdy beggar and malicious informer, as their trophies, but our (pretended) forfeits for conscience sake. The Lord of Heaven and Earth will be judge between us in this matter. | |
<
< | After Mead did a similar thing and was taken to the dock, the Recorder gave an instruction to the jury, that Penn and Mead were indicted for "preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them". Penn, shouting from the dock, addressed to the jury that he was not heard for the indictment, and reminded the jury that they can not give a verdict till he was heard and made his defense; the Recorder, couldn't bear Penn anymore, ordered Penn be taken to the Hole. After "some considerable time", the jury gave its first verdict, that Penn was guilty of speaking in Grace-church street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly causing a riot. The Recorder would not accept such a verdict (for what is worth, a not guilty verdict is not a verdict): | >
> | After Mead did a similar thing and was taken to the dock, the Recorder gave an instruction to the jury, that Penn and Mead were indicted for "preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them". Penn shouted from the dock to the jury that he was not heard for the indictment, and reminded the jury that they could not give a verdict till he was heard and made his defense; the Recorder, couldn't bear Penn anymore, ordered Penn be taken to the Hole. After "some considerable time", the jury gave its first verdict, that Penn was guilty of speaking in Grace-church street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly causing a riot. The Recorder would not accept such a verdict (for him, a not-guilty verdict is not a verdict): | | | Rec. The law of England will not allow you to part till you have given in your Verdict. | | | Penn. The agreement of 12 men is a verdict in law, and such a one being given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer it at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law; And looking upon the jury, said, You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right. | |
<
< | Penn's speech certainly did its work. The jury was starved for a night, and the next day it gave the same verdict. Then it was sent back to give another verdict; the same result. After repeating for two more times, the jury gave an affirmative not guilty verdict, and the Recorder, couldn't bear with it anymore, accepted the verdict but fined and imprisoned all the jurors; Penn in the end was not released either as he was sent back to prison till he pays the fines for contempt of the Court. | >
> | Penn's speech certainly did its work. The jury was starved for a night, and the next day it gave the same verdict. Then it was sent back to give another verdict; the same result. After repeating for two more times, the jury gave an affirmative not-guilty verdict, and the Recorder, couldn't bear with it anymore, accepted the verdict but fined and imprisoned all the jurors; Penn in the end was not released either, as he was sent back to prison till he pays the fines for contempt of the Court. | | |
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 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 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 it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In 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. "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 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 prisoners 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 always 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 "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 the jury that "they [prisoners] 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 second trial I want 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 a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were 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 with 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 record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), 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 facts 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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." | >
> | That said, the third trial I want to share was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, 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 jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. 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 ""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." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor ath King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I can't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons). | >
> | After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "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." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each. (I didn't see what happened to the prisoners in the texts; I assume they were still kept in prison for some other reasons). | | |
Analysis | |
<
< | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor 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 possible. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his characteristics and his knowledge. The last reason would be the conscience of the jurors. I want to point out the importance to see the jury not just as a whole, but to notice each individual juror as a conscientious human being whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development. | >
> | After presenting Penn's trial in more detail and putting in comparison three other trials of Quakers, I want to propose some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first factor 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 possible. 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. | | | 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, on January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all though who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he ordered the release of all 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." | >
> | 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, on 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." | | | 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, 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. | >
> | Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, the Crown's 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. As I said, this reason certainly was not a reason that led to the specific success of Penn's acquittal, 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. | >
> | Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one 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 trained legal 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 Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked. | | | 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. |
|