{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_7360/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_7360","id":"gutenberg_7360","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7360","summary":null,"tags":["Assembly, Right of -- England","Category: History - British","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Freedom of speech -- England","Mead, William, 1628-1713 -- Trials, litigation, etc.","Penn, William, 1644-1718 -- Trials, litigation, etc."],"text":"Produced by David Garcia, Tiffany Vergon, William Flis,\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRYAL\n\nOF\n\n_William Penn & William Mead_\n\nFOR\n\nCAUSING A TUMULT\n\n_At the_ SESSIONS _held at the_ OLD BAILEY\n\n_in_ LONDON\n\n_the_ 1ST, 3D, 4TH, _and_ 5TH _of_ SEPTEMBER\n\n1670\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Done by Themselves_\n\nTRANSCRIBED _from the_ COMPLEAT COLLECTION\n\n_of_ STATE TRYALS\n\nFIRST PUBLISHED IN 1719 _and_ EDITED by\n\nDON C. SEITZ\n\n\n\n\n_To the Memory_\n\nof\n\nTHOMAS JEFFERSON\n\nWHICH NEEDS FREQUENT REFRESHING\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nLiberty, Equality and Fraternity have been preached through all time but\nit was left for William Penn, the Quaker, to come nearer establishing the\nideal of this Trinity than any other being called Human before or since his\nday.\n\nIt may be argued that more was due to the Faith he held than to the Man.\nYet this must be answered that it took some more than ordinary Man to\nabsorb and fulfill the requirements of such a Faith. There have been many\nQuakers and but one Penn!\n\nBorn on the 15th of October, 1644, in the angry days of the Roundhead\nRevolt, his early years were spent in an intensely religious atmosphere\nthat saturated his soul, but at the same time bred detestation of bigotry\nand persecution. If he seemed to be performing out of his class because of\nhis family's eminence, it should be recalled that this was acquired, not\ninherited. His father, Admiral Sir William Penn, was the son of Giles Penn,\na merchant navigator trading into the Mediterranean, and his wife Margaret\nJasper, daughter of Hans Jasper, a sea trader of Rotterdam: From these\nforbears the youth received independence of thought and firmness of mind.\nHe was therefore less of an anomaly than he appeared to be.\n\nThe rigid religious rule of Cromwell, under which he had spent his youthful\nyears, had passed and in its stead befell a period of loose living and\neasy ways. Puritanism, though speaking and acting in the name of Liberty,\npossessed but little of that quality either for mind or body. In setting up\nfor the great cause he fared as well, or better, with all his persecutions,\nthan did his Quaker brethren in that New England which had been founded for\nopinion's sake.\n\nEntering Oxford at fifteen the boy soon fell under the influence of Thomas\nLoe, a preacher of Quaker doctrine and became imbued with his teachings.\nThis clashed at once with his surroundings and the College requirements. He\nrefused to attend chapel or to wear the customary gown, deeming it a sort\nof surplice. A little group of students who had accepted Loe's principles\njoined him in this obduracy, going so far as to strip the gowns from the\npersons of willing wearers. This led to his expulsion.\n\nSamuel Pepys mentions him in his diary on October 31st, 1661, as having\n\"but come from Oxford\" and meeting his father at Pepys' house. On the 25th\nof January, 1662, the Admiral discussed with Pepys a plan for sending his\nson to Cambridge or some private college. Pepys undertook to write Dr.\nFairbrother and inquire into the merits of Hezekiah Burton at Magdalen, as\nan instructor for the difficult youth. It was impossible to fit him into\nany school under the dominion of the Church of England and in wrath his\nfather forbade him the house. His mother interceded, with the result that\nhe was sent to Europe for the grand tour, presumably with outward success,\nfor on August 6, 1664, Mrs. Pepys informs Samuel that \"Mr. Pen, Sir\nWilliam's son, is come back from France and come to visit her. A most\nmodish person, grown, she says, a fine gentleman.\"\n\nAfter dinner on the 30th of the same month \"comes Mr. Pen to visit me, and\nstaid an hour talking with me. I perceive something of learning he has got,\nbut a great deal, if not too much of the vanity of the French garb and\naffected manner of speech and gait. I fear all real profit he hath made of\nhis travel will signify little.\"\n\nThe home coming soon stripped Penn of the \"vanity of the French garb,\"\nand he became once more a problem. He tried the study of law, but could\nnot interest himself in it. To keep him out of the way and repress his\ndangerous thoughts he was given the management in 1665, of an estate owned\nby the Admiral in Ireland, where he went and did as he pleased, falling in\nagain with Thomas Loe and resuming his Quaker views. December 29th, 1667,\nPepys records a call from Mrs. Turner \"...and there, among other talk, she\ntells me that Mr. William Pen, who is lately come over from Ireland, is a\nQuaker again, or some very melancholy thing; that he cares for no company,\nnor comes into any; which is a pleasant thing, after his being abroad\nso long, and his father such a hypocritical rogue and at this time an\nAtheist.\"\n\nThis return he signalized by intense activity in pressing Quakerism upon\nthe public, to the vexation of his father who was one of the notables of\nEngland, as Admiral both under Cromwell and the King. He had commanded\nthe fleet of the Lord Protector which wrested the rich Island of Jamaica\nfrom Spain and as one of the three commissioners of the Navy, laid the\nfoundation for that British fleet which has ever since played so large\na part in the history of the world. He was the practical man of the\ncommission, from whom James, Duke of York, afterwards, and very briefly\nKing, took most of his advice. He reformed the higgledy-piggledy naval\ntactics of the time and taught the commanders to attack the enemy in line,\nthe most important change in the sea annals of his country. Knighted in\n1665 for service against the Dutch he failed of the peerage because of the\npublic prejudice against his son, which deterred the King from giving him\nan honor as high as he deserved. As Clerk of the Acts, Pepys was much in\ncontact with him socially and officially. The famous diary teems with\nreferences, many of them convivial, others most unkind. He was faithful to\nthe commonwealth as long as it was faithful to itself. Perceiving that it\ncould not hold together after the death of Cromwell he joined with George\nMonk in bringing about the restoration of the Stuarts.\n\nAgainst this background of paternal distinction, the young reformer shone\ninvidiously and brought his father great chagrin by his association with\ncarpenters and weavers in their non-conformist agitations. He preached in\npoor halls and in the streets. The newspaper, not having arrived, he took\nto pamphleteering to spread his doctrines. This activity reached a crisis\nin 1669. Writing in his diary under date of February 12, 1669, Pepys says:\n\"...Felling hath got me W. Pen's book against the Trinity. I got my wife\nto read it to me; and I find it so well writ as, I think, it is too good\nfor him ever to have writ it, and it is a serious sort of book not fit for\neverybody to read.\"\n\nThe extended title of this work was \"The Sandy Foundation Shaken--or those\n...Doctrines of one God subsisting in three distinct and separate persons;\nthe impossibility of God's pardoning persons by an imputative refuted from\nthe authority of scripture testimonies and right reason,\" etc.\n\nIt was a drastic review of the doctrine of the Trinity and as the title\nimplies, undertook to prove that the majestic edifice of the State Church\nwas not founded upon a rock. It created much excitement and speedily landed\nits author in the Tower. Here he remained nine months, unrepentant and\nwriting more pious sedition, to wit: \"No Cross No Crown,\" and \"Innocency\nWith Her Open Face.\" These were further polemics against Episcopacy.\n\nThe King having no heart for persecution, and the Duke of York, who was a\nfirm friend, contrived to have the prisoner released on the 4th of August\nand turned over to his father to be transported to some spot where he would\nbe less troublesome. This plan was not seriously carried out. Indeed the\nAdmiral's days were numbered. He died after a year's illness, on the 16th\nof September, 1670.\n\nPenn's prominence and influence increased with the death of his father. It\nwas plain that no ordinary mind directed his actions. Respect followed.\nHe took much part in public matters and as umpire in a dispute between\nFenwick and Byllinge, two Quakers, over some land rights in New Jersey, he\ndeveloped an interest in the New World and planned to found in it a place\nof refuge for those persecuted in Old and New England for opinion's sake.\nThis desire was readily carried out. By fortunate chance the Crown owed\nAdmiral Penn's estate some $80,000. To pay this debt and be rid of an\nagitator, the shrewd King made an easy adjustment in 1681 by handing over\nto the heir a vast province between the Delaware and the Ohio, in return\nfor an annual tribute of two beaver skins, to be paid for ninety-nine\nyears.\n\nHere the idealist created his elysium and came as close to making one\nas the curious animal he sought to benefit would permit. The King set\nforth in writing the Grant that it was due \"the memory and merits of Sir\nWilliam Penn in divers services, and particularly his conduct, courage and\ndiscretion under our dearest brother, James, Duke of York, in that signal\nbattle and victory fought and obtained against the Dutch fleet commanded by\nthe Heer Van Opdam, in 1665.\"\n\nNot to be outdone by his Royal brother, James threw in the Province of\nDelaware to which he held the fee, \"out of a special regard to the memory\nand many faithful and eminent services heretofore performed by the said Sir\nWilliam Penn to his Majesty and Royal Highness.\" This under date of August\n21st, 1682.\n\nIt was Penn's purpose to call his Paradise Sylvania, because of its wooded\nvales, but the King, with his obligation to the Admiral well in mind neatly\nprefixed \"Penn\" to the fanciful selection and it became justly and rightly\n\"Pennsylvania\" not in memory of William, but of his valiant father.\n\nCharles II was an able politician and understood human nature. Often\naccused of ingratitude and seldom deserving the charge, with a willingness\nto perform a good action as readily as a bad one, he acted perhaps in\nlanguid memory of the mistake made by his heedless father when he stayed\nthe departure of Cromwell for the New World, where he had resolved to\ngo \"and never see England more,\"--determining that there should be no\nrepetition of history so far as he was concerned by repressing a zealot\nin narrow quarters near home.\n\nThus Charles for once at least, belied the couplet scrawled upon his\nchamber door by the ribald Earl of Rochester:\n\n  Here lies our sovereign lord the King\n    Whose word no man relies on;\n  He never says a foolish thing\n    Nor ever does a wise one.\n\n\nHis sayings, Charles aptly replied, were his own; his acts those of his\nministers. He ordered well indeed when he placed Penn where he did in the\nNew World and he meant wisely when he decreed that the red races should\npossess, free and forever, the lands beyond the Alleghanies. With Penn's\nventure we need have no more to do than to recall that so long as his\ncontrol lasted or his wishes extended, the Pennsylvania Indians and their\ncousins of New York and Ohio, were at peace with the whites; that his words\nand those of his agents were trusted; that Pennsylvania sheltered the\npersecuted Palatines and that the Liberty Bell first rang in the city he\nhad named Philadelphia--the City of Brotherly Love!\n\nThe Trial here recited began in London, on the first of September, 1670, a\nfortnight before his father's death, while the disturbance of which it was\nthe outgrowth, occurred on the fourth of August preceding.\n\nThe text is repeated from the report embedded in the second volume of the\nfour great folios, comprising \"A Compleat Collection of State Tryals,\"\ncovering the period of English justice and injustice from the reign of King\nHenry the Fourth to the end of that of Anne, printed for six venturesome\nLondon booksellers, Timothy Goodwin, John Walthoe, Benjamin Tooke, John\nDarby, Jacob Tonson, and John Walthoe, Junior, in 1719, where is found this\nfirst record of a legal effort to punish free speech among the English\nrace--and by the same token to vindicate it. Reported by the accused, it no\nless reads fair. The \"Observer\" whose comments interlard and conclude the\n\"Tryal\" was Penn. It was a rare proceeding in which both prisoners and jury\nended up in jail for their obduracy in maintaining that right to speak\nas we may, which is still one of the most difficult to maintain, and yet\nremains the foundation of human liberty.\n\nD. C. S.\n\nCOS COB, CONN.,\n\nMarch 15, 1919.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRYAL of WILLIAM PENN _and_ WILLIAM MEAD,\n  _at the Sessions held at the_ Old Baily _in_ London,\n  _the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th of_ September, _1670.\n  Done by themselves_.\n\n\n      PRESENT\n\n  SAM. STARLING, _Mayor_\n\n  THO. HOWEL, _Recorder_.\n\n  THO. BLOODWORTH, _Alderman_.\n\n  WILLIAM PEAK, _Alderman_.\n\n  JOHN ROBINSON, _Alderman_.\n\n  RICHARD FORD, _Alderman_.\n\n  JOSEPH SHELDEN, _Alderman_.\n\n  JOHN SMITH, JAMES EDWARDS, RICHARD BROWNE, _Sheriffs_.\n\n\nCRYER. O Yes, _Thomas Veer, Edward Bushel, John Hammond, Charles Milson,\nGregory Walklet, John Brightman, William Plumsted, Henry Henley, Thomas\nDamask, Henry Michel, William Lever, John Baily_.\n\nThe Form of the OATH.\n\n    \"You shall well and truly Try, and true\n    Deliverance make betwixt our Sovereign\n    Lord the King, and the Prisoners at the\n    Bar, according to your Evidence.\n    _So help you God_.\"\n\nThat _William Penn_, Gent. and _William Mead_, late of _London_,\nLinnen-Draper, with divers other Persons to the Jurors unknown, to the\nNumber of 300, the 14th Day of _August_, in the 22d Year of the King, about\nEleven of the Clock in the Forenoon, the same Day, with Force and Arms,\n_&c_. in the Parish of _St. Bennet Gracechurch_ in _Bridge-Ward, London_,\nin the Street called _Gracechurch-Street_, unlawfully and tumultuously\ndid Assemble and Congregate themselves together, to the Disturbance of\nthe Peace of the said Lord the King: And the aforesaid _William Penn_\nand _William Mead_, together with other Persons to the Jurors aforesaid\nunknown, then and there so Assembled and Congregated together; the\naforesaid _William Penn_, by Agreement between him and _William Mead_\nbefore made, and by Abetment of the aforesaid _William Mead_, then and\nthere, in the open Street, did take upon himself to Preach and Speak, and\nthen and there did Preach and Speak unto the aforesaid _William Mead_,\nand other Persons there, in the Street aforesaid, being Assembled and\nCongregated together, by Reason whereof a great Concourse and Tumult of\nPeople in the Street aforesaid, then and there, a long time did remain and\ncontinue, in contempt of the said Lord the King, and of his Law, to the\ngreat Disturbance of his Peace; to the great Terror and Disturbance of many\nof his Leige People and Subjects, to the ill Example of all others in the\nlike Case Offenders, and against the Peace of the said Lord the King, his\nCrown and Dignity.\n\nWhat say you, _William Penn_ and _William Mead_, are you Guilty, as you\nstand indicted, in Manner and Form, as aforesaid, or Not Guilty?\n\nPENN. It is impossible, that we should be able to remember the Indictment\nverbatim, and therefore we desire a Copy of it, as is customary in the like\nOccasions.\n\nRECORDER. You must first plead to the Indictment, before you can have a\nCopy of it.\n\nPEN. I am unacquainted with the Formality of the Law, and therefore, before\nI shall answer directly, I request two Things of the Court. First, that no\nAdvantage may be taken against me, nor I deprived of any Benefit, which I\nmight otherwise have received. Secondly, that you will promise me a fair\nhearing, and liberty of making my Defence.\n\nCOURT. No Advantage shall be taken against you; you shall have Liberty; you\nshall be heard.\n\nPEN. Then I plead Not guilty in Manner and Form.\n\nCLERK. What sayest thou, William Mead, art thou Guilty in Manner and Form,\nas thou standest indicted, or Not guilty?\n\nMEAD. I shall desire the same Liberty as is promised William Penn.\n\nCOURT. You shall have it.\n\nMEAD. Then I plead Not guilty in Manner and Form.\n\nThe Court adjourn'd until the Afternoon.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCRYER.   O Yes, _&c_.\n\nCLER. Bring _William Penn_ and _William Mead_ to the Bar.\n\nOBSERV. The said Prisoners were brought, but were set aside, and other\nBusiness prosecuted. Where we cannot choose but observe, that it was the\nconstant and unkind Practices of the Court to the Prisoners, to make them\nwait upon the Trials of Felons and Murderers, thereby designing, in all\nprobability, both to affront and tire them.\n\nAfter five Hours Attendance, the Court broke up and adjourned to the third\nInstant.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe third of _September_ 1670, the Court sate.\n\nCRYER. O Yes, _&c._\n\nCLER. Bring _William Penn_ and _William Mead_ to the Bar.\n\nMAYOR. Sirrah, who bid you put off their Hats? Put on their Hats again.\n\nOBSER. Whereupon one of the Officers putting the Prisoners Hats upon their\nHeads (pursuant to the Order of the Court) brought them to the Bar.\n\nRECORD. Do you know where you are?\n\nPEN. Yes.\n\nRECORD. Do not you know it is the King's Court?\n\nPEN. I know it to be a Court, and I suppose it to be the King's Court.\n\nRECORD. Do you not know there is Respect due to the Court?\n\nPEN. Yes.\n\nRECORD. Why do you not pay it then?\n\nPEN. I do so.\n\nRECORD. Why do you not pull off your Hat then?\n\nPEN. Because I do not believe that to be any Respect.\n\nRECORD. Well, the Court sets forty Marks a piece upon your Heads, as a Fine\nfor your Contempt of the Court.\n\nPEN. I desire it might be observed, that we came into the Court with our\nHats off (that is, taken off) and if they have been put on since, it was by\nOrder from the Bench; and therefore not we, but the Bench should be fined.\n\nMEAD. I have a Question to ask the Recorder. Am I fined also?\n\nRECORD. Yes.\n\nMEAD. I desire the Jury, and all People to take notice of this Injustice\nof the Recorder; who spake to me to pull off my Hat? and yet hath he put a\nFine upon my Head. O fear the Lord, and dread his Power, and yield to the\nGuidance of his Holy Spirit, for he is not far from every one of you.\n\nThe Jury sworn again.\n\nOBSER. _J. Robinson_, Lieutenant of the _Tower_, disingenuously objected\nagainst ---- _Bushel_, as if he had not kiss'd the Book, and therefore\nwould have him sworn again; tho' indeed it was on purpose to have made use\nof his Tenderness of Conscience in avoiding reiterated Oaths, to have put\nhim by his being a Jury-man, apprehending him to be a Person not fit to\nanswer their Arbitrary Ends.\n\nThe Clerk read the Indictment, as aforesaid.\n\nCLERK. Cryer, Call _James Cook_ into the Court, give him his Oath.\n\nCLERK. _James Cook_, lay your Hand upon the Book.\n\n_The Evidence you shall give to the Court, betwixt our Sovereign the King,\nand the Prisoners at the Bar, shall be the Truth, and the whole Truth, and\nnothing but the Truth_. So help you God.\n\nCOOK. I was sent for, from the _Exchange_, to go and disperse a Meeting in\n_Gracechurch-Street_, where I saw _Mr. Penn_ speaking to the People, but I\ncould not hear what he said, because of the Noise; I endeavoured to make\nway to take him, but I could not get to him for the Crowd of People; upon\nwhich _Capt. Mead_ came to me, about the Kennel of the Street, and desired\nme to let him go on; for when he had done, he would bring _Mr. Penn_ to me.\n\nCOURT. What Number do you think might be there?\n\nCOOK. About three or four Hundred People.\n\nCOURT. Call _Richard Read_, give him his Oath.\n\nREAD being sworn was ask'd, what do you know concerning the Prisoners at\nthe Bar?\n\nREAD. My Lord, I went to Gracechurch-Street, where I found a great Crowd\nof People, and I heard _Mr. Penn_ preach to them; and I saw Capt. Mead\nspeaking to Lieutenant Cook, but what he said, I could not tell.\n\nMEAD. What did William Penn say?\n\nREAD. There was such a great Noise, that I could not tell what he said.\n\nMEAD. Jury, observe this Evidence, He saith he heard him Preach, and yet\nfaith, he doth not know what he said.\n\nJury, take notice, he swears now a clean contrary thing to what he swore\nbefore the Mayor when we were committed: For now he swears that he saw\nme in _Gracechurch-Street_, and yet swore before the Mayor, when I was\ncommitted, that he did not see me there. I appeal to the Mayor himself, if\nthis be not true. But no Answer was given.\n\nCOURT. What Number do you think might be there?\n\nREAD. About four or five hundred.\n\nPENN. I desire to know of him what Day it was?\n\nREAD. The 14th Day of August.\n\nPEN. Did he speak to me, or let me know he was there; for I am very sure I\nnever saw him.\n\nCLER. Cryer, call ---- ---- into the Court.\n\nCLER. Give him his Oath.\n\n---- My Lord, I saw a great Number of People, and Mr. _Penn_ I suppose was\nspeaking; I see him make a Motion with his Hands, and heard some Noise, but\ncould not understand what he said. But for Capt. Mead, I did not see him\nthere.\n\nREC. What say you, Mr. _Mead_, were you there?\n\nMEAD. It is a Maxim in your own Law, _Nemo tenetur accusare seipsum_, which\nif it be not true Latin, I am sure it is true English, _That no Man is\nbound to accuse himself_: And why dost thou offer to ensnare me with such\na Question? Doth not this shew thy Malice? Is this like unto a Judge, that\nought to be Counsel for the Prisoner at the Bar?\n\nREC. Sir, hold your Tongue, I did not go about to ensnare you.\n\nPEN. I desire we may come more close to the Point, and that Silence be\ncommanded in the Court.\n\nCRY. O yes, all manner of Persons keep Silence upon Pain of\nImprisonment--Silence Court.\n\nPEN. We confess our selves to be so far from recanting, or declining to\nvindicate the Assembling of our selves to Preach, Pray, or Worship the\nEternal, Holy, Just God, that we declare to all the World, that we do\nbelieve it to be our indispensable Duty, to meet incessantly upon so good\nan Account; nor shall all the Powers upon Earth be able to divert us from\nreverencing and adoring our God who made it.\n\nBROWN. You are not here for worshipping God, but for breaking the Law; you\ndo yourselves a great deal of Wrong in going on in that Discourse.\n\nPEN. I affirm I have broken no Law, nor am I guilty of the Indictment that\nis laid to my Charge; and to the End the Bench, the Jury, and my self, with\nthese that hear us, may have a more direct Understanding of this Procedure,\nI desire you would let me know by what Law it is you prosecute me, and upon\nwhat Law you ground my Indictment.\n\nREC. Upon the Common Law.\n\nPEN. Where is that Common Law?\n\nREC. You must not think that I am able to run up so many Years, and over so\nmany adjudged Cases, which we call Common Law, to answer your Curiosity.\n\nPEN. This Answer I am sure is very short of my Question, for if it be\nCommon, it should not be so hard to produce.\n\nREC. Sir, will you plead to your Indictment?\n\nPEN. Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no Foundation in Law? If it\ncontain that Law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce\nthat Law, since it will be impossible for the Jury to determine, or agree\nto bring in their Verdict, who have not the Law produced, by which they\nshould measure the Truth of this Indictment, and the Guilt, or contrary of\nmy Fact?\n\nREC. You are a sawcy Fellow, speak to the Indictment.\n\n[Sidenote: Obser. _At this time several upon the Bench urged hard upon the\nPrisoner to bear him down._]\n\nPEN. I say, it is my place to speak to Matter of Law; I am arraign'd a\nPrisoner; my Liberty, which is next to Life it self, is now concerned:\nYou are many Mouths and Ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to\nmake the best of my Case, it is hard. I say again, unless you shew me, and\nthe People, the Law you ground your Indictment upon, I shall take it for\ngranted your Proceedings are meerly Arbitrary.\n\nREC. The Question is, whether you are guilty of this Indictment?\n\nPEN. The Question is not whether I am guilty of this Indictment, but\nwhether this Indictment be legal. It is too general and imperfect an\nAnswer, to say it is the Common Law, unless we knew both where, and what\nit is: For where there is no Law, there is no Transgression; and that Law\nwhich is not in being, is so far from being Common, that it is no Law at\nall.\n\nREC. You are an impertinent Fellow, will you teach the Court what Law is?\nIt's _Lex non scripta_, that which many have studied thirty or forty Years\nto know, and would you have me to tell you in a Moment?\n\nPEN. Certainly, if the Common Law be so hard to be understood, it's far\nfrom being very Common; but if the Lord _Cook_, in his _Institutes_, be of\nany Consideration, he tells us, That Common Law is Common Right, and that\nCommon Right is the Great Charter-Privileges: Confirmed 9 _Hen_. 3. 29. 25\n_Edw_. I. i. 2 _Edw_. 3. 8. _Cook Instit_. 2 p. 56.\n\nREC. Sir, you are a troublesome Fellow, and it is not for the Honour of the\nCourt to suffer you to go on.\n\nPEN. I have asked but one Question, and you have not answer'd me; tho' the\nRights and Privileges of every _Englishman_ be concerned in it.\n\nREC. If I should suffer you to ask Questions till to Morrow Morning, you\nwould be never the wiser.\n\nPEN. That is according as the Answers are.\n\nREC. Sir, we must not stand to hear you talk all Night.\n\nPEN. I design no Affront to the Court, but to be heard in my just Plea: And\nI must plainly tell you, that if you will deny me Oyer of that Law, which\nyou suggest I have broken, you do at once deny me an acknowledged Right,\nand evidence to the whole World your Resolution to sacrifice the Privileges\nof _Englishmen_ to your sinister and Arbitrary Designs.\n\nREC. Take him away. My Lord, if you take not some Course with this\npestilent Fellow, to stop his Mouth, we shall not be able to do any thing\nto Night.\n\nMAYOR. Take him away, take him away, turn him into the Bale-dock.\n\nPEN. These are but so many vain Exclamations; is this Justice or true\nJudgment? Must I therefore be taken away because I plead for the\nFundamental Laws of _England_? However, this I leave upon your Consciences,\nwho are of the Jury (and my sole Judges) that if these Ancient Fundamental\nLaws, which relate to Liberty and Property, and (are not limited to\nparticular Persuasions in Matters of Religion) must not be indispensibly\nmaintained and observed. Who can say he hath Right to the Coat upon his\nBack? Certainly our Liberties are openly to be invaded, our Wives to be\nravished, our Children slaved, our Families ruined, and our Estates led\naway in Triumph, by every sturdy Beggar and malicious Informer, as their\nTrophies, but our (pretended) Forfeits for Conscience sake. The Lord of\nHeaven and Earth will be Judge between us in this Matter.\n\nREC. Be silent there.\n\nPEN. I am not to be silent in a Case wherein I am so much concerned, and\nnot only my self, but many ten thousand Families besides.\n\nOBSER. They having rudely haled him into the Bale-dock, _William Mead_ they\nleft in Court, who spake as followeth.\n\nMEAD. You Men of the Jury, here I do now stand, to answer to an Indictment\nagainst me, which is a Bundle of Stuff, full of Lyes and Falshoods; for\ntherein I am accused, that I met _Vi & armis, illicite & tumultuose_: Time\nwas, when I had Freedom to use a carnal Weapon, and then I thought I feared\nno Man; but now I fear the Living God, and dare not make use thereof, nor\nhurt any Man; nor do I know I demeaned my self as a tumultuous Person: I\nsay, I am a peaceable Man, therefore it is a very proper Question what\n_William Penn_ demanded in this Case, An Oyer of the Law, in which our\nIndictment is grounded.\n\nREC. I have made Answer to that already.\n\nMEAD. Turning his Face to the Jury, saith, you Men of the Jury, who are my\nJudges, if the Recorder will not tell you what makes a Riot, a Rout, or an\nunlawful Assembly, _Cook_, he that once they called the Lord _Cook_, tells\nus what makes a Riot, a Rout, and an unlawful Assembly--A Riot is when\nthree, or more, are met together to beat a Man, or to enter forcibly into\nanother Man's Land, to cut down his Grass, his Wood, or break down his\nPales.\n\nOBSER. Here the Recorder interrupted him, and said, I thank, you Sir, that\nyou will tell me what the Law is, scornfully pulling off his Hat.\n\nMEAD. Thou mayst put on thy Hat, I have never a Free for thee now.\n\nBROWN. He talks at random, one while an Independent, another while some\nother Religion, and now a Quaker, and next a Papist.\n\nMEAD. _Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ad ipsum_.\n\nMAY. You deserve to have your Tongue cut out.\n\nREC. If you discourse on this Manner, I shall take Occasion against you.\n\nMEAD. Thou didst promise me, I should have fair Liberty to be heard; why\nmay I not have the Privilege of an _Englishman_? I am an _Englishman_, and\nyou might be ashamed of this dealing.\n\nREC. I look upon you to be an Enemy to the Laws of _England_, which ought\nto be observed and kept, nor are you worthy of such Privileges, as others\nhave.\n\nMEAD. The Lord is Judge between me and thee in this Matter.\n\nOBSER. Upon which they took him away into the Bale-dock, and the Recorder\nproceeded to give the Jury their Charge, as followeth.\n\nREC. You have heard what the Indictment is. It is for preaching to the\nPeople, and drawing a tumultuous Company after them, and Mr. _Penn_ was\nspeaking; if they should not be disturbed, you see they will go on; there\nare three or four Witnesses that have proved this, that he did preach\nthere; that Mr. _Mead_ did allow of it; after this, you have heard by\nsubstantial Witnesses what is said against them: Now we are upon the Matter\nof Fact, which you are to keep to, and observe, as what hath been fully\nsworn, at your Peril.\n\nOBSER. The Prisoners were put out of the Court into the Bale-dock, and the\nCharge given to the Jury in their Absence, at which _W. P._ with a very\nraised Voice, it being a considerable distance from the Bench, spake.\n\nPEN. I appeal to the Jury, who are my Judges, and this great Assembly,\nwhether the Proceedings of the Court are not most Arbitrary, and void of\nall Law, in offering to give the Jury their Charge in the Absence of the\nPrisoners; I say, it is directly opposite to, and destructive of, the\nundoubted Right of every _English_ Prisoner, as _Cook_ in the 2 _Instit_.\n29. on the Chap. of _Magna Charta_, speaks.\n\nOBSER. The Recorder being thus unexpectedly lash'd for his extrajudicial\nProcedure, said, with an inraged Smile.\n\nREC. Why, ye are present, you do hear, do you not?\n\nPEN. No thanks to the Court, that commanded me into the Bale-dock; and\nyou of the Jury take notice, that I have not been heard, neither can\nyou legally depart the Court, before I have been fully heard, having at\nleast ten or twelve material Points to offer, in order to invalid their\nIndictment.\n\nREC. Pull that Fellow down, pull him down.\n\nMEAD. Are these according to the Rights and Privileges of _Englishmen_,\nthat we should not be heard, but turned into the Bale-dock, for making our\nDefence, and the Jury to have their Charge given them in our Absence; I say\nthese are barbarous and unjust Proceedings.\n\nREC. Take them away into the Hole: To hear them talk all Night, as they\nwould, that I think doth not become the Honour of the Court, and I think\nyou (i. e. the Jury) your selves would be tired out, and not have Patience\nto hear them.\n\nOBSER. The Jury were commanded up to agree upon their Verdict, the\nPrisoners remaining in the stinking Hole. After an Hour and half's time\neight came down agreed, but four remained above; the Court sent an Officer\nfor them, and they accordingly came down. The Bench used many unworthy\nThreats to the four that dissented; and the Recorder, addressing himself to\n_Bushel_, said, _Sir, You are the Cause of this Disturbance, and manifestly\nshew your self an Abettor of Faction; I shall set a Mark upon you, Sir_.\n\nJ. ROBINSON. Mr. _Bushel_, I have known you near this fourteen Years; you\nhave thrust your self upon this Jury, because you think there is some\nService for you. I tell you, you deserve to be indicted more than any Man\nthat hath been brought to the Bar this Day.\n\nBUSHEL. No, Sir _John_, there were threescore before me, and I would\nwillingly have got off, but could not.\n\nBLOODW. I said, when I saw Mr. _Bushel_, what I see is come to pass, for I\nknew he would never yield. Mr. _Bushel_, we know what you are.\n\nMAY. Sirrah, you are an impudent Fellow, I will put a Mark upon you.\n\nOBSER. They used much menacing Language, and behaved themselves very\nimperiously to the Jury, as Persons not more void of Justice than sober\nEducation: After this barbarous Usage, they sent them to consider of\nbringing in their Verdict, and after some considerable time they returned\nto the Court. Silence was call'd for, and the Jury call'd by their Names.\n\nCLER. Are you agreed upon your Verdict?\n\nJURY. Yes.\n\nCLER. Who shall speak for you?\n\nJURY. Our Fore-man.\n\nCLER. Look upon the Prisoners at the Bar. How say you? Is _William Penn_\nGuilty of the Matter whereof he stands indicted in Manner and Form, or Not\nGuilty?\n\nFORE-M. Guilty of Speaking in Gracechurch-Street.\n\nCOURT. Is that all?\n\nFORE-M. That is all I have in Commission.\n\nREC. You had as good say nothing.\n\nMAY. Was it not an unlawful Assembly? You mean he was speaking to a Tumult\nof People there?\n\nFORE-M. My Lord, This is all I had in Commission.\n\nOBSER. Here some of the Jury seemed to buckle to the Questions of the\nCourt; upon which, _Bushel, Hammond_, and some others, opposed themselves,\nand said, they allowed of no such Word, as an unlawful Assembly in their\nVerdict; at which the Recorder, Mayor, _Robinson_ and _Bloodworth_ took\ngreat occasion to villifie them with most opprobrious Language; and this\nVerdict not serving their Turns, the Recorder express'd himself thus.\n\nREG. The Law of _England_ will not allow you to part till you have given in\nyour Verdict.\n\nJURY. We have given in our Verdict, and we can give in no other.\n\nREC. Gentlemen, you have not given in your Verdict, and you had as good say\nnothing; therefore go and consider it once more, that we may make an end of\nthis troublesome Business.\n\nJURY. We desire we may have Pen, Ink and Paper.\n\nOBSER. The Court adjourn'd for half an Hour; which being expired, the Court\nreturns, and the Jury not long after.\n\nThe Prisoners were brought to the Bar, and the Jury's Names called over.\n\nCLER. Are you agreed of your Verdict?\n\nJUR. Yes.\n\nCLER. Who shall speak for you?\n\nJUR. Our Fore-man.\n\nCLER. What say you, look upon the Prisoners: Is _William Penn_ Guilty in\nManner and Form, as he stands indicted, or Not Guilty?\n\nFORE-M. Here is our Verdict, holding forth a piece of Paper to the Clerk of\nthe Peace, which follows;\n\nWe _the Jurors, hereafter named, do find_ William Penn _to be Guilty of\nSpeaking or Preaching to an Assembly, met together in_ Gracechurch-Street,\n_the 14th of August last, 1670_. _And that_ William Mead is _Not guilty of\nthe said Indictment_.\n\n  Fore-m.  _Thomas Veer,\n            Edward Bushel,\n            John Hammond,\n            Henry Henley,\n            Henry Michel,\n            John Brightman,\n            Charles Milson,\n            Gregory Walklet,\n            John Baily,\n            William Lever,\n            James Damask,\n            Wil. Plumsted._\n\nOBSER. This both Mayor and Recorder resented as so high a rate, that they\nexceeded the Bounds of all Reason and Civility.\n\nMAY. What will you be led by such a silly Fellow as _Bushel_? an impudent\ncanting Fellow? I warrant you, you shall come no more upon Juries in haste:\nYou are a Fore-man indeed, addressing himself to the Fore-man, I thought\nyou had understood your Place better.\n\nREC. Gentlemen, you shall not be dismist till we have a Verdict, that the\nCourt will accept; and you shall be lock'd up, without Meat, Drink, Fire,\nand Tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the Court; we will have a\nVerdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.\n\nPEN. My Jury, who are my Judges, ought not to be thus menaced; their\nVerdict should be free, and not compelled; the Bench ought to wait upon\nthem, but not forestall them. I do desire that Justice may be done me, and\nthat the Arbitrary Resolves of the Bench may not be made the Measure of my\nJury's Verdict.\n\nREC. Stop that prating Fellow's Mouth, or put him out of the Court.\n\nMAY. You have heard that he preach'd, that he gathered a Company of\ntumultuous People, and that they do not only disobey the Martial Power,\nbut Civil also.\n\nPEN. It is a great Mistake; we did not make the Tumult, but they that\ninterrupted us: The Jury cannot be so ignorant, as to think, that we met\nthere, with a Design to disturb the Civil Peace, since (1st.) we were by\nForce of Arms kept out of our lawful House, and met as near it in the\nStreet, as their soldiers would give us leave; and (2dly.) because it was\nno new thing (nor with the Circumstances expres'd in the Indictment) but\nwhat was usual and customary with us; 'tis very well known that we are a\npeaceable People, and cannot offer Violence to any Man.\n\nOBSER. The Court being ready to break up, and willing to huddle the\nPrisoners to their Goal, and the Jury to their Chamber, Penn spoke as\nfollows:\n\nPEN. The Agreement of Twelve Men is a Verdict in Law, and such a one being\ngiven by the Jury, I require the Clerk of the Peace to record it, as he\nwill answer it at his Peril. And if the Jury bring in another Verdict\ncontradictory to this, I affirm they are perjur'd Men in Law. And looking\nupon the Jury, said, You are _Englishmen_, mind your Privilege, give not\naway your Right.\n\nBUSH. &c. Nor will we ever do it.\n\nOBSER. One of the Jury-men pleaded Indisposition of Body, and therefore\ndesired to be dismist.\n\nMAY. You are as strong as any of them; starve with them; and hold your\nPrinciples.\n\nREC. Gentlemen, You must be contented with your hard Fate, let your\nPatience overcome it; for the Court is resolved to have a Verdict, and\nthat before you can be dismist.\n\nJURY. We are agreed, we are agreed, we are agreed.\n\nOBSER. The Court swore several Persons, to keep the Jury all Night without\nMeat, Drink, Fire, or any other Accommodation; they had not so much as a\nChamberpot, tho' desired.\n\nCRY. O Yes, _&c._\n\nOBSER. The Court adjourns till Seven of the Clock next Morning (being the\n4th Instant, vulgarly call'd Sunday) at which time the Prisoners were\nbrought to the Bar: The Court sat, and the Jury called to bring in their\nVerdict.\n\nCRY. O Yes, _&c._ ---- Silence in the Court, upon pain of Imprisonment.\n\nThe Jury's Names called over.\n\nCLER. Are you agreed upon your Verdict?\n\nJUR. Yes.\n\nCLER. Who shall speak for you?\n\nJUR. Our Fore-man.\n\nCLER. What say you? Look upon the Prisoners at the Bar. Is William Penn\nGuilty of the Matter whereof he stands indicted, in Manner and Form as\naforesaid, or Not guilty?\n\nFORE-M. _William Penn_ is guilty of Speaking in _Gracechurch-Street_.\n\nMAY. To an unlawful Assembly?\n\nBUSH. No, my Lord, we give no other Verdict than what we gave last Night;\nwe have no other Verdict to give.\n\nMAY. You are a factious Fellow, I'll take a Course with you.\n\nBLOOD. I knew Mr. _Bushel_ would not yield.\n\nBUSH. Sir _Thomas_ I have done according to my Conscience.\n\nMAY. That Conscience of yours would cut my Throat.\n\nBUSH. No, my Lord, it never shall.\n\nMAY. But I will cut yours so soon as I can.\n\nREG. He has inspired the Jury; he has the Spirit of Divination, methinks\nI feel him. I will have a positive Verdict, or you shall starve for it.\n\nPEN. I desire to ask the Recorder one Question, Do you allow of the Verdict\ngiven of _William Mead_?\n\nREC. It cannot be a Verdict, because you were indicted for a Conspiracy,\nand one being found Not guilty, and not the other, it could not be a\nVerdict.\n\nPEN. If Not guilty be not a Verdict, then you make of the Jury and _Magna\nCharta_ but a meer Nose of Wax.\n\nMEAD. How! is Not guilty no Verdict?\n\nREC. No, 'tis no Verdict.\n\nPEN. I affirm, that the Consent of a Jury is a Verdict in Law; and if\n_William Mead_ be Not guilty, it consequently follows, that I am clear,\nsince you have indicted us of a Conspiracy, and I could not possibly\nconspire alone.\n\nOBSER. There were many Passages, that could not be taken, which past\nbetween the Jury and the Court. The Jury went up again, having received a\nfresh Charge from the Bench, if possible to extort an unjust Verdict.\n\nCRY. O Yes, _&c_. Silence in the Court.\n\nCOUR. Call over the Jury. Which was done.\n\nCLER. What say you? Is _William Penn_ Guilty of the Matter whereof he\nstands indicted, in Manner and Form aforesaid, or Not Guilty?\n\nFORE-MAN. Guilty of speaking in _Gracechurch-Street._\n\nREC. What is this to the Purpose? I say, I will have a Verdict. And\nspeaking to _Edw. Bushel_, said, You are a factious Fellow; I will set a\nMark upon you; and whilst I have anything to do in the City, I will have an\neye upon you.\n\nMAY. Have you no more Wit than to be led by such a pitiful Fellow? I will\ncut his Nose.\n\nPEN. It is intolerable that my Jury should be thus menaced: Is this\naccording to the Fundamental Laws? Are not they my proper Judges by the\ngreat Charter of _England_? What hope is there of ever having Justice done,\nwhen Juries are threatened, and their Verdicts rejected? I am concerned to\nspeak and grieved to see such Arbitrary Proceedings. Did not the Lieutenant\nof the Tower render one of them worse than a Felon? And do you not plainly\nseem to condemn such for factious Fellows, who answer not your Ends?\nUnhappy are those Juries, who are threatened to be fined, and starved, and\nruined, if they give not in Verdicts contrary to their Consciences.\n\nREC. My Lord, you must take a Course with that same Fellow.\n\nMAY. Stop his Mouth; Jaylor, bring Fetters, and stake him to the Ground.\n\nPEN. Do your Pleasure, I matter not your Fetters.\n\nREC. Till now I never understood the Reason of the Policy and Prudence of\nthe _Spaniards_, in suffering the Inquisition among them: And certainly\nit will never be well with us, till something like unto the _Spanish_\nInquisition be in _England_.\n\nOBSER. The Jury being required to go together to find another Verdict, and\nsteadfastly refusing it (saying they could give no other Verdict than what\nwas already given) the Recorder in great Passion was running off the Bench,\nwith these Words in his Mouth, _I protest I will sit here no longer to hear\nthese Things_; at which the Mayor calling, _Stay, stay_, he returned, and\ndirected himself unto the Jury, and spoke as followeth:\n\nREC. Gentlemen, we shall not be at this trade always with you; you will\nfind the next Sessions of Parliament there will be a Law made, that those\nthat will not conform shall not have the Protection of the Law. Mr. _Lee_,\ndraw up another Verdict, that they may bring it in special.\n\nLEE. I cannot tell how to do it.\n\nJUR. We ought not to be return'd, having all agreed, and set our Hands to\nthe Verdict.\n\nREC. Your Verdict is nothing, you play upon the Court; I say you shall go\ntogether, and bring in another Verdict, or you shall starve; and I will\nhave you charted about the City, as in Edward the Third's time.\n\nFORE-M. We have given in our Verdict, and all agreed to it; and if we give\nin another, it will be a Force upon us to save our Lives.\n\nMAY. Take them up.\n\nOFFIC. My Lord, they will not go up.\n\nOBSER. The Mayor spoke to the Sheriff, and he came off of his seat, and\nsaid.\n\nSHER. Come, Gentlemen, you must go up; you see I am commanded to make you\ngo.\n\nOBSER. Upon which the Jury went up; and several sworn to keep them without\nany Accommodation, as aforesaid, till they brought in their Verdict.\n\nCRY. O yes, _&c_. The Court adjourns till to Morrow Morning, at seven of\nthe Clock.\n\nOBSER. The Prisoners were remanded to Newgate, where they remained till\nnext Morning, and then were brought unto the Court, which being sat, they\nproceeded as followeth.\n\nCRY. O yes, _&c_. Silence in the Court, upon pain of Imprisonment.\n\nCLER. Set _William Penn_ and _William Mead_ to the Bar. Gentlemen of the\nJury, answer to your Names: _Tho. Veer, Edw. Bushel, John Hammond, Henry\nHenly, Henry Michell, John Brightman, Charles Milson, Gregory Walklet, John\nBaily, William Plumstead._ Are you all agreed to your verdict?\n\nJUR. Yes.\n\nCLER. Who shall speak for you?\n\nJUR. Our Fore-man.\n\nCLER. Look upon the Prisoners. What say you? Is _William Penn_ Guilty of\nthe Matter whereof he stands indicted, in Manner and form, &c., or Not\nGuilty?\n\nFORE-MAN. Here is our Verdict in Writing, and our Hands subscribed.\n\nOBSER. The Clerk took the paper, but was stopt by the Recorder from reading\nof it; and he commanded to ask for a positive Verdict.\n\nFORE-MAN. That is our Verdict; we have subscribed to it.\n\nCLER. How say you? Is William Penn Guilty, &c., or Not Guilty?\n\nFORE-MAN. Not guilty.\n\nCLER. How say you? Is William Mead Guilty, &c., or Not Guilty?\n\nFORE-MAN. Not guilty.\n\nCLER. Then hearken to your Verdict; you say that William Penn is Not Guilty\nin Manner and Form as he stands indicted; you say that _William Mead_ is\nNot guilty in Manner and Form as he stands indicted, and so you say all?\n\nJUR. Yes, we do so.\n\nOBSER. The Bench being unsatisfied with the Verdict, commanded that every\nPerson should distinctly answer to their Names, and give in their Verdict,\nwhich they unanimously did, in saying, Not Guilty, to the great\nSatisfaction of the Assembly.\n\nREC. I am sorry, Gentlemen, you have followed your own Judgments and\nOpinions, rather than the good and wholsome Advice, which was given you;\nGod keep my Life out of your Hands; but for this the Court Fines you forty\nMark a Man; and Imprisonment till paid. At which _Penn_ stept up towards\nthe Bench, and said:\n\nPEN. I demand my Liberty, being freed by the Jury.\n\nMAY. No, you are in for your Fines.\n\nPEN. Fines, for what?\n\nMAY. For contempt of the Court.\n\nPEN. I ask, if it be according to the Fundamental Laws of _England_,\nthat any English-Man should be Fined or Amerced, but by the Judgment of\nhis Peers or Jury; since it expressly contradicts the fourteenth and\ntwenty-ninth Chap. of the great Charter of _England_, which say, No\nFree-Man ought to be amerced, but by the Oath of good and Lawful Men of\nthe Vicinage.\n\nREC. _Take him away, Take him away, take him out of the Court._\n\nPEN. I can never urge the Fundamental Laws of _England_, but you cry,\nTake him away, take him away. But it is no wonder, _Since the Spanish\nInquisition hath so great a place in the Recorder's Heart_. God Almighty,\nwho is just, will judge you all for these things.\n\nOBSER. They haled the Prisoners into the Bale-dock, and from thence sent\nthem to Newgate, for Non-payment of their Fines; and so were their Jury.\n\n\n\n\nL'ENVOIE\n\n\nSo ended the \"Tryal.\" The contumacious jurors did not long remain in\nduress. The pertinacious Bushel, being a man of substance, took steps to\nlegally rescue himself and fellows, and soon succeeded. The affair had an\nimportant after echo at the trial in New York, of John Peter Zenger, the\nPalatine Printer, in 1735, for libelling Governor William Cosby, by telling\nthe truth about his infringement of popular liberty, when the attempted\nforcing of the Penn jury was powerfully employed by Andrew Hamilton,\nattorney for the defense, to curb the efforts of Mr. Justice De Lancey to\ncoerce the twelve. In his remarkable address--an address that solidified\nthe foundation for liberty of the press and free speech on this continent\nand was a worthy preface to the Declaration of Independence drawn some\nforty years later--Hamilton said, concerning this \"Tryal\":\n\n\"Mr. _Penn_ and _Mead_ being Quakers, and having met in a peaceable Manner,\nafter being shut out of their Meeting House, preached in Grace Church\nStreet, in London, to the People of their own Perswasion, and for this\nthey were indicted; and it was said, _That they with other Persons, to the\nNumber of 300. unlawfully and tumultuously assembled, to the Disturbance\nof the Peace, &c_. To which they pleaded _Not Guilty_. And the Petit Jury\nbeing sworn to try the Issue between the King and the Prisoners, that\nis, whether they were Guilty, according to the Form of the Indictment?\nHere there was no Dispute but they were assembled together, to the Number\nmentioned in the Indictment; But _Whether that Meeting together was\nriotously, tumultuously, and to the Disturbance of the Peace_? was the\nQuestion. And the Court told the Jury it was, and ordered the Jury to find\nit so; _For_ (said the Court) _the Meeting was the Matter of Fact, and\nthat is confessed, and we tell you it is unlawful, for it is against the\nStatute; and the Meeting being unlawful, it follows of Course that it was\ntumultuous, and to the Disturbance of the Peace_. But the Jury did not\nthink fit to take the Court's Word for it, for they could neither find\n_Riot, Tumult_, or any Thing tending to the _Breach of the Peace_ committed\nat that Meeting; and they acquitted Mr. _Penn_ and _Mead_. In doing of\nwhich they took upon them to judge both the _Law_ and the _Fact_, at which\nthe Court (being themselves true Cortiers) were so much offended, that\nthey fined the Jury 40 Marks a piece, and committed them till paid. But Mr.\n_Bushel_, who valued the Right of a Juryman and the Liberty of his Country\nmore than his own, refused to pay the Fine, and was resolved (tho' at\na great Expence and trouble too) to bring, and did bring, his _Habeas\nCorpus_, to be relieved from his Fine and Imprisonment, and he was released\naccordingly; and this being the Judgment in his Case, it is established for\nLaw, _That the Judges, how great soever they be, have no Right to Fine,\nimprison, or punish a Jury, for not finding a Verdict according to the\nDirection of the Court_. And this I hope is sufficient to prove, That\nJurymen are to see with their own Eyes, to hear with their own Ears, and to\nmake use of their own Consciences and the Understandings, in judging of the\nLives, Liberties or Estates of their Fellow Subjects.\"","title":"The Tryal of William Penn & William Mead for Causing a Tumult: at the Sessions Held at the Old Bailey in London the 1st, 3d, 4th, and 5th of September 1670","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":8920}