| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | | | We could just say, "Why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act?"
| |
<
< | Structure:
- Introduction
- Background (How Quakers are being persecuted and why so)
- 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)
- Analysis
-
- Crown's attitude (Charles II, need more reading)
- Judge's attitude (Didn't change much I guess)
- 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.
- 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
- Hertford summer assizes, presided by Orlando Bridgeman (Verdict, pg. 205 fn 16)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
| |
>
> |
- 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
| |
<
< | Other Reference
- Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689].
| >
> |
- 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)
| >
> |
- 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)
| | | | | | | |
>
> | 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.
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, believing that was their duty. Penn believe that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make their acts unlawful. Penn demanded the Court to show what law was the indictment was based on. The Recorder replied that
| | | Potentially useful citations
- Thomas Green, Verdict
|
|