| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial
Central Question: | |
<
< | What contributed to the not-guilty verdict in William Penn's trial, when most other trials of Quakers that are of the same facts (illegal gathering under the Conventicle Act) all resulted in a guilty verdict? | | |
We could just say, "Why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act?"
| |
>
> | 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?
| | | Reference | | | 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 | | | | |
>
> | 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:
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.
Rec. Upon the common-law.
Penn. Where is that common-law?
Rec. You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call common-law, to answer your curiosity.
Penn. This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce.
Rec. Sir, will you plead to your indictment?
Penn. Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine, or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced, by which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt, or contrary of my fact?
Rec. You are a saucy fellow, speak to the Indictment. | | | | |
>
> | Penn. I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary. | | | |
|