| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
On William Penn's trial | |
<
< | Working draft:
I'm just writing out what I'm thinking, so please ignore the stupid spelling and grammar mistakes. I will certainly proofread and refine it later.
Central Question:
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,
The indictment will have been read in court. The US Supreme Court held in 1816 in US v. Hudson & Goodwin that there can be no federal criminal common law, and state criminal common law has been largely but not completely eliminated by statutory codification, but that's not English law then or now.
- 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?
Because that in itself was not a cause for rejecting the juror.
- How do I do citation here...
You can use links, or you can make footnotes in the ordinary form, by using "{\{ ... }\}" to mark the footnote. See the FootNotePlugin documentation.
William Penn's Trial | | | Clerk. Bring William Penn and William Mead to the bar.
Mayor. Sirrah, who bid you put off their hats? put on their hats again. | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | The survey of William Penn's trial started from this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. To those who found such a "saucy" conversation amusing, this article aims to offer some historical background and meaning of this milestone trial of William Penn. There is much to be said about this 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. The first section will be a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then there will be a brief description of Penn's trial and three other trials of Quakers in comparison. Finally in the analysis section, some factors that contribute to Penn's acquittal will be presented, 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 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 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. | >
> | It may seem obvious that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, 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 a hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow many such 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 since 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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..." | >
> | But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the 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 person 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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)?" | >
> | The persecution of Quakers was the tyranny of the law that followed those indictments. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black or 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 simply with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly, unless defendants could prove otherwise. 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 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. | >
> | Quakers, in their defense, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers made their arguments: "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 the evidence of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give a 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, no counsel for defendants, 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. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny of judges was their control 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 |
|