SEmper ego Auditor tantum? Nunquamrè reponam? Can it be, that a dumb Child can stand by and see a Traitor about to assassinate his Soveraign, and not cry out, Miles noli Regem ferire! (Do not kill the King!) Or can, or ought I to be silent, and hear a turbulent and inhumane sort of People, called Qnakers, in a printed Book, by them falsely Entituled, The Peoples ancient and just Liberties asserted, in the Tryal of William Penn and William Mead at the Sessions held at the Old Baily in London, the first, third, fourth, fifth of September, 1670. Which Book I have great reason to believe was composed by William Penn the half Quaker, and therefore can give it no other name, but The Second Part to his Blasphemous Treatise called The Sandy Foundations shaken; for it's no wonder, that if he, who could daringly Blaspheme the Holy Tri­nity in that Book, should not blush to villifie and contemn the Kings Court, and falsely scandalize and reproach the Kings Justices, and revile all Methods of Law, and Forms of Indictments, calling them detestable Juggles, [Page 2] and stiling this particular Indictment a Romance Indict­ment, fol. 29. sect. 4. and his Brother William Mead to the like purpose stiles this Indictment, a bundle of stuff, Lyes, and Falshoods, fol. 13. Penn's impudency carrying him still further, to endevour in a popular way to subject the Fundamental Laws of the Land, impudently asserting in his Preface to the said Book, That the Jury were the proper Judges both of Law and Fact, vid. fol. 3. And Penn being for his turbulency and imper­tinency commanded to be put into the Bail-dock, ex­claimed with a loud voice to the Jury, This I leave upon your Consciences, who are of the Jury, [and my sole Judges,] &c. vid. fol. 12.

Now Gentlemen of the long Robe look to your selves, and your Westminster-Hall: If these learned Reformers of Religion shall likewise Reform your Laws and Methods of Proceedings (as doubtless they design it) and make twelve Jury-men, eleven of which it's possible can neither write nor read, to be the sole Judges both of Law and Fact; farewel then to your great Acquisitions, your Year books then will be out of date, and an Ouster will be put to your Books of En­tries. These are the Beasts of Ephesus, that the late Lord Mayor, Recorder, and Bench of Justices have been contending withall; the Court asserting the Jury to be Judge of the Fact only, and that it was the Courts Prerogative to judge the Law, according to the old Maxim, Ad questionem juris respondent Judices, ad questionem facti respondent Juratores. And doth not Magna Charta say in effect as much? (which they so much glory in for their own Ends, although when it toucheth them in point of observing the Laws of the Holy Church and Gods Worship, they will call it Magna [Page 3] Fartha, or something worse.) Doth not the Great Char­ter made Anno 9. Hen. iij. Chap. 29, say, That no Free­man shall be taken, or imprisoned; nor be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be Out-lawed, or Exiled, or any other ways de­stroyed; nor we shall not pass upon him, nor con­demn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, [or] by the Law of the Land. This [or] is disjun­ctive, or copulative; if disjunctive, then it must imply some other Judges besides the Jury of twelve Men, which are called the Peers or Equals; if it be taken copulative (or for and) it still implies another Jurisdiction besides that of the Peers, and per Legem terrae in that place cannot (as this Novice of the Law doth infinuate) be understood to be the Tryal of the Jury only, but to be the Tryal both of Judge and Jury, according to that Maxim, Ex facto jus oritur: Therefore the Form of Entry of the Judgment is Ideo consider at umi est per curiam, Vid. Coke's Institutes, lib. 2. cap. 12. sect. 234. fol. 154, 155. If the Law be as this Youngster would have it, viz. that the Jury is both Judge of Law and Fact, and that the Kings Justices cannot Fine for Contempt of the Court, nor correct the Corruption or Misdemeanor of Jury-men, nor inform their Ignorance, nor rectifie their Mistakes; the Justices in Oyer and Terminer have that Name for nothing, and the Justices will be but Cyphers, and sit there only to be derided and villified by every saucy and impertinent Fellow.

Thus you see, Gentlemen, if these things take place, they will not only do as their Brethren, the late Refor­mers of Law and Religion, turn the Laws into English, but turn the Judges and Juries also out of Westminster-Hall, and set up a High Court of Justice of Saints; [Page 4] and this John of Leyden, together with his Brethren the Quakers, (who esteem themselves the Saints) shall judge the World: Which God for his Name Sake prevent.

THese People called Quakers (if they are to be be­lieved) will tell you, they have this Angelical Spirit, the Meekness of Moses, the Patience of Job, and all other Graces. But the contrary appears, fol. 57. of William Penn's Book. Vide this Passage.

A high Charge against Sr. Samuel Starling, then Lord Mayor, (if true) Cujus contrarium verum; and there­fore a Railing Acusation: And that Light, which is (as they say) within them, (by which they are acted, and speak, as they pretend) is the Spirit of the Devil, the Father of Lies. But in regard this Libel chargeth the then Lord Mayor of Disloyalty to his King, and of Un­kindness to the true-hearted Royalists; I think it ne­cessary, for his Vindication, to desire the Courteous Rea­der to enquire of S. Edward Deering, the Dean of S. Pauls, Dr. Sancroft, Dr. Whitcheackes, Mr. Christopher Flower Minister of Lothbury, and of Francis Pemberton Esquire of the Middle Temple, who all can bear witness of his Loyalty, when he was at Cambridge; [...]d that he mani­fested the same in the Schools, and upon all occasions. And in the Years 1643, 1644, 1645, when Loyalty was most out of Fashion; and was at last compelled to leave the University, and his hopes of preferment that way, he utterly refusing to take the Scottish Covenant.

In the Years 1646, 1647, 1648, 1649, he applied him­self to the Study of the Laws at Grays-Inn; and after he had performed his Exercises, he could not be admit­ted to the Bar, because he utterly refused to subscribe the Cursed Engagement; witness Cornelius Hooker EEs (que)s;q Nicholas Jacob EEs (que)s;q both Barristers of Grays-Inn, and his Contemporaries. From 1650, until His Majesties Re­stauration, [Page 6] he was a Trader in the City; and how he demeaned himself in those Cromwellian Times, all that knew him, will bear Testimony, that he walked Antipodes to the Genius of that age, to the endangering of his Life and Estate. His Majesty being by Gods providence restored, he was esteemed for his Loyalty a fit Person to be of the Jury upon the Kings Judges; and passed a Juror upon no less than 18. of those assassinating Tray­tors.

But why do I endeavour to vindicate his Loyalty; which was never questioned by any, but by these Scep­ticol Quakers, whose whole business is to asperse our Religion, Laws, and all men that are not of their cursed Principles?

But I shall make this fair Offer for Sr. Samuel Starling, and undertake for him, That if William Penn can make out that the late Lord Mayor ever wronged one of the Kings Friends either in Body, Goods, or Good Name, one penny, that he shall restore to that Gentleman, whosoever he be a Thousand pounds for every penny­worth of wrong.

But I suppose this wild rambling Colt William Penn mistakes when he chargeth these things upon the late Lord Mayor, he means his own Seir deceased, who from a Captain, was made Olivers High Admiral for his great Service in promoting that New Instrument; who afterwards did eminent Service for the English Nation at Hispaniota, when he delivered up the Flower of the English Souldiers a Sacrifice to the Cow-Killers.

This was a Renegado worse than three Turks; that performed such excellent Service in the late Dutch Wars, in plundering the two East-India Dutch Ships of the Prize Goods; for which he was turned out of the [Page 7] House of Commons; it is hoped, that he leaving so great an Estate of—just gotten Goods to so conscientious a Son a [...] this William Penn pretends himself to be, that the tender-Conscienc'd Youth will make satisfaction to His Majesty: Taceo caetera; De Mortuis nil nisi Bonum.

The Libeller proceeds to asperse Sir Thomas Bludworth, vid. fol. 57, 58. Alderman Bludworth (saith he) being conscious to himself of his partial kindness to the Popish Friers, hopes to make amends by his zealous prosecution of the poor Dissenters; for at the same Sessions he moved to have an Evidence (of no small quality) against Harrison, the Frier, sent to Bridewel and whipt; that he was earnest to have the Jury fined and imprisoned, because they brought not the Prisoners guilty, for only worshipping their God: Whence it may be easie to observe, That Popish Friers and Prelatical Persecutors are meer Confederates.

This likewise is a Railing Accusation, false and ma­licious: That worthy Knight never moved at that Sessions to have an Evidence against Harrison the Frier, sent to Bridewell, and whipt, as this Libeller chargeth him; neither was it ever proved at the Sessions, That the idle prating Fellow Harrison was a Frier, or ever attempted to set the City on Fire, as was falsely sug­gested; but it was proved, that he had raised a rumour that the City would be burnt, whereby great fears and terrours was upon the spirits of the people; for which cause, he was deservedly Fined, Whipt, and Pillo­red by the Court.

I could heartily wish, That these Libelling, Lying, and Discontented People, were as free of the Design of putting this whole Kingdom into a Flame, as he was from the actual Firing of the City.

But the malice of this Accusation appears in the Infe­rence [Page 8] the Libeller makes, viz. That Popish Friers, and Prelatical Persecutors, are meer Confederates. By which, the Libeller would perswade the too credulous World, that the honest, sober Protestant, who endevoureth to put the Laws in Execution against seditious Meeters, are Persecutors: To which false, wicked, and divelish Accusation, I at present make no other reply, but what Michael did to the Devil, The Lord rebuke thee: The Lord in Heaven judge between us, and these lying dis­contented People.

The Accusation against the Recorder is twofold; first, that he should say, That there would be a Law made the next Session of Parliament, That no man should have the protection of the Law, but such as conformed to the Church, fol. 68. This Saying of the Recorders is falsely and maliciously recited; for he said, That we shall not be always at this trade with you, you will find the next Session of Parliament there will be a Law made. That those that will not conform to the Law, shall not have the protection of the Law. And is it not most reasonable, that they which would have protection, should give subjection? And was it not the Opinion of those blessed Saints, whose steps these men follow, when they made a Law, That those that would not subscribe the wicked Engage­ment, against King and House of Lords, should not have the benefit of the Law? Was not that Law then esteemed by Men of their Principles a blessed Law? And is not this Lex Talionis? Nec lex est justior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire suâ? And would not such a Law, if the wisdom of Parlament think fit, save the Magi­shtrates from a great deal of trouble, and take more effect upon these stubburn people, than all the Laws [Page 9] that have yet been made, or by the wit of man can be invented?

The second Accusation against the Recorder is, that he should say, Till now I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in suffering the Inquisition amongst them: And certainly it will never be well with us, till something like the Spanish Inquisi­tion be in England. The Inference the Libellers Take is, What does this but justifie that Hellish Design of the Papists to have prevented the first Reformation.

This is a wicked and uncharitable construction of the Recorders words: These words do no ways justifie the Papists, in preventing the first Reformation by the Hellish Inquisition.

If these Libellers had but the least grain of Charity, they would have construed the words cum grano salis, & in initiori sensu, as the Rule of Charity directs all words to be construed; and they will admit of no other construction but this, viz. That if the Papists be so politick and prudent, by their Inquisition, to preserve and maintain their false Religion; surely it will be the Protestants prudence, to find ways for the preservation of their true Religion.

Quod Faxit DEƲS.

THe Trial of William Penn and William Mead at the Old-Baylie, London, the 1 st. 3 d. 4 th. 5 th. of Septem­ber, 1670. being made publick by a Libellers hand, tend­ing to the Dishonour of Justice and Courts of Justice, with divers Scandalous and Malicious Observations thereupon, I thought good, being an Eye and Ear wit­ness of all that passed, to give a True and Impartial Re­lation of that Affair, whereby the Justice, Candor and Integrity of that Court towards the Prisoners, and the Scornful, Abusive and Unbecoming Behaviour of the Prisoners towards the Court, may be made manifest to the world.

• Sr. Sam Starling, Kt. then L. Mayor.
• Sr. John Robinson, Kt.
• Sr. Tho. Bludworth, Kt. and Ald.
• Sr. William Peake, Kt. and Ald.
• Sr. John Hovel Kt. and Recorder.
• Sr. R. Ford, Kt. & Ald.
• Sr. J. Shelden, Kt & Ald.
• She­riffs.
  • Sr. John Smith
  • Sr. James Edwards

I thought good to set down the Names of those Ju­stices who were present at that Trial, Honoris causâ, with all their Additions and Titles, that so the World may know that the City of London wants not Worthy Patriots, who dare call to Accompt these vile railing [Page 11] Rabshekah's of this Age, who speak evil of our Religi­on and our God and the rather, because the Libeller hath in a disgraceful way prefix'd, their Names without any Additions, to his Narrative; thereby intending to make them odioas to the People.

O Yes, Thomas: [...], [...] Bushel, John Ham­mond, Charles Milson, Gregory Walklet, John, Brightman, Will. Plumsted, Henry Henley, Thomas Damask, Henry Michel, William Lever, John Bail,

You shall well and truly try, and true Delive­rance make betwixt our Soveraign Lord the King, and the Prisoners at the Bar, according to your E­vidence; So help you God.

That William Penn Gent. and William Mead late of London, Linnen-Draper, with divers other persons to the Jurors unknown, to the number of three hundred, the 14th. day of August, in the 22th. Year of the King, about Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon, the same day, with Force and Arms, &c. in the Parish of S. Ben­net Grace-Church▪ in Bridge-Ward, London, in the Street called Grace-Church-Street. unlawfully and tumultu­ously did assemble and congregate themselves together, to the disturbance of the Peace of our said Lord the King; and the aforesaid William Penn, and William Mead, toge­ther; with other persons, to the Jurors aforesaid un­known, then and there so assembled and congregated to­gether; the aforesaid William Penn, by agreement be­tween [Page 12] him and William Mead before made, and by abet­ment of the aforelaid William Mead, then and there, in the open street, did take upon himself to preach and speak, and then and there did preach and speak unto the aforesaid William Mead, and other persons there, in the street aforesaid, being assembled and congregated together, by reason whereof a great concourse and tu­mult of people in the street aforesaid, then and, there, along time did remain and continue, in contempt of our said Lord the King, and of His Law, to the great disturbance of His Peace, to the great terror and di­sturbance of many of His Liege People and Subjects, to the ill example of all others, in the like Case Offen­ders, and against the Peace of our said Lord the King, His Crown and Dignity.

What say you, William Penn and William Mead, are you Guilty as you stand Indicted, in manner and form as aforesaid, or not Guilty?

It is impossible, that we should be able to re­member the Indictment verbatim, and therefore we de­sire a Copy of it, as is customary in the like occasions.

You must first plead to the Indictment, before you can have a Copy of it.

I am unacquainted with the formality of the Law, and therefore, before I shall answer directly, I request two things of the Court; first, that no advan­tage may be taken against me, nor I deprived of any benefit which I might otherwise have received; se­condly, that you will promise me a fair Hearing, and liberty of making my Defence, and that the Court would be my Council.

No advantage shall be taken against you; you [Page 13] shall have liberty; you shall be heard; this is an Indict­ment for Trespass, therefore you may have what Coun­cil you please.

Then I plead, not Guilty in manner and form.

What saist thou, William Mead, art thou Guilty in manner and form as thou stand'st Indicted, or not Guilty?

I shall desire the same liberty as is promised William Penn.

You shall have it.

Then I plead, not Guilty in manner and form.

Oyes, &c.

Bring William Penn and William Mead before the Barr.

Sirrah, Who bid you put off their Hats? Give them their Hats again.

Nota. The Prisoners in stubborn manner refusing to take their Hats, they were put on again by the same person, before they came into the Court.

Nota. The Court observing, that the Prisoners standing on the Leads behind the Barr, with their Hats on, facing the Court all that day, as it were daring the Court to a Tryal, so that the Court and all the Spectators looked upon them, as offering a great Affront to the Honour of His Majesties Court, the Justices were resolved to chastise them for the same.

Do you know where you are?

Yes.

Do you not know it is the Kings, Court?

I know it to be a Court, and I suppose it to be the Kings Court.

Do you not know there is respect due to the Court?

I do so.

Why do you not pull off your Hat then?

Because I do not believe that to be any respect.

Well, the Court sets Forty Marks a piece on your Heads, as a Fine for your Contempt of the Court.

I desire it might be observed, that we came into the Court with our Hats off, (that is, taken off,) and if they have been put on since, it was by Order from the Bench; and therefore not we, but the Bench ought to be Fined.

Nota. This is a great Falshood, for their Hats were put on be­hind the Barr, before they came into the Court.

I have a Question to ask the Recorder: Am I Fined also?

Yes.

I desire the Jury, and all people, to take notice of the injustice of the Recorder, who spake to me to pull off my Hat, and yet he hath put a Fine on my Head. O fear the Lord, and dread his power, and yield to the guidance of his holy Spirit, for he is not far from every one of you.

Nota. This is insignificant Canting.

Nota. It was by Sir John Robinson observed, that— Bushel, the tender conscienced Jury-man, made an offer to kiss the Book, but did not wherefore he was called to by the Court to be sworn again.

Call James Cook into the Court; give him his Oath. He being sworn, he gave his Evidence.

I was sent for from the Exchange, to disperse a Meeting in Gracious-street, where I saw Mr. Penn speak­ing to the people, but I could not hear what he said, because of the noise; I endevoured to make way to take him, but I could not get to him for the crowd of people; upon which Mr. Mead came to me, and desired me to let him go on, for when he had done, he would bring Mr. Penn to me.

What number do you think might be there?

About three or four hundred people.

What do you know concerning the Prisoners at the Barr?

My Lord, I went to Gracious-street, where I found a great crowd of people, and I heard Mr. Penn preach to them: I endevoured with my Watchmen to get at Mr. Penn to pull him down, but I could not, the people kicking my Watchmen and my self on the shins: I saw likewise Captain Mead speaking to Lieutenant Cook, but what he said I cannot tell.

What did William Penn say?

There was such a great noise, that I could not tell what he said.

Jury, observe this Evidence, he saith he heard him preach, and yet saith, he doth not know what he said.

What number do you think might be there?

About four or five hundred.

I desire to know of him what day it was.

The 14th. day of August.

Did he speak to me, or let me know he was there? for I am very sure I never saw him,

Call Whiting into the Court.

Give him his Oath.

My Lord, I saw a great number of People, and Mr. Penn I suppose was speaking, I saw him make a motion with his Hands, and heard some noise, but could not understand what he said; but for Captain Mead, I did not see him there.

What say you, Mr Mead, were you there?

It's a Maxim in your own Law, Nemo tenetur accusare seipsum. Which if it be not true Latine, I am sure it's true English, That no man is bound to accuse him­self: And why dost thou offer to ensnare me with such a Question? Doth not this shew thy Malice? Is this like a Judge that ought to be Council for the Prisoner at the Bar?

Sir, Hold your Tongue, I did not go about to ensnare you.

I desire we may come more close to the point; and that Silence be commanded in the Court. [Silence being made.]

We confess our selves to be so far from recanting or declining to vindicate the Assembling of our selves to Preach, Pray, or worship the Eternal, Holy, Just God, that we declare to all the World, That we do believe it to be our indispensable Duty, to meet incessantly upon so good an Account, nor shall all the Powers upon Earth be able to divert us from reverencing and adoring our God who made us.

[Page 17] Nota As clear Evidence as ever was offered to any Jury, two Witnesses prove the Fact against both the Prisoners, and the Priso­ners confess the whole Matter in effect, and justifie themselves, and declare they will do the like again, whatsoever Laws the King and Parliament can provide against the same. O confident Impudency! Surely both King and Parliament will take notice of Penn's Arro­gancy.

You are not here for worshipping of God, but for breaking the Law.

What have you to do there? you are no Justice: Come off the Bench.

Sir, I am a Justice, and you are an Impudent Fellow.

I affirm I have broken no Law; nor am I guilty of the Indictment laid to my Charge; And to the end the Bench, the Jury, and my self, with those 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.

The Indictment is grounded upon the Common Law.

Where is that Common Law?

You must not think I am able to run up so many Years, and so many Adjudged Cases, which we call Common Law, to answer your Curiosity.

If it be Common, it should not be so hard to pro­duce.

Nota. How Mr. Penn plays upon the Word Common.

It's call'd Common Law, to distinguish it from the Statute-Law: Now the Common Law is Common Right, or Lex Rationis, imprinted in every mans Un­derstanding; [Page 18] and the publick Peace is the Law's Dar­ling, and every great Assembly of people may endanger the publick Peace; and therefore the Law esteems them unlawful Assemblies, unless they have a Warrant for their Assembling.

Sir, Speak to the Indictment; you are now up­on Matter of Fact, which Fact you have heard proved against you; you are to answer it: If the Fact be found against you, you may then speak to the Matter of Law, in Arrest of Judgment, and you shall be heard.

I say, it is my place to speak to Matter of Law; I am arraign'd a Prisoner, my Liberty, which is next to Life it self, 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; unless you shew me, and the people the Law you ground your Indictment upon, I shall take it for granted, your proceedings are meerly Arbitrary.

You have been told, if the Fact be found against you, it is time then to dispute the Law. The Question now is, whether you are guilty of the Indictment.

I have asked but one Question, and you have not answered me; though the Rights and Priviledges of every Englishman be concerned in it.

If I should suffer you to ask Questions till to Morrow Morning, you would be never the wiser.

That is according as the Answers are.

Sir, We must not stand to hear you all night.

You have been answered your Question; it's time to dispute the point of Law, if you are found guil­ty of the Fact. But your Design is to affront the Court, and amuse the people; you have not Confidence enough to deny the Fact so plainly prov'd against you; but you [Page 19] have Impudence enough to abuse the Court by your un­seasonable Discourse.

I design no affront to the Court, but to be heard in my just Plea; and I must plainly tell you, That if you will deny me Oyer of the Law, which you suggest I have broken, you do at once deny me an acknowledged Right; and evidence to the whole world, your resoluti­on to sacrifice the priviledges of Englishmen to your Si­nister and Arbitrary Designs.

Take him away; if you take not some course with this pestilent Fellow, to stop his Mouth, we shall not be able to do any thing to night.

Take him away, take him away; turn him in­to the Bail-Dock.

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 Laws, which relate to Liberty and Property (and are not limited to particular perswasions in Matters of Religion) must not be indispensably main­tained and observed, who can say, he hath right to the Coat upon his Back? &c.

Be silent there.

I am not to be silent in a Case wherein I am so much concerned.

Nota, Mr. Penn makes it to be a Fundamental Law, viz. The Jury to be his Sole Judges; when by the Fundamental Laws all Trials are to be by Judge and Jury; and never questioned by any before Mr. Penn (the New Broacher of Old Heresies) disputed the same. And this is the Reason he so often calleth for Oyer of the Law, upon which the Indictment is grounded, that so the Jurors might measure the Truth of the Indictment, and Guilt of the Fact by the knowledge of that Law. See his Book, fol, 30.

You men of the Jury, here I do now stand, to answer to an Indictment against me, which is a Bundle of Stuffe, Lies and Falshoods; for therein I am accused that I met vi & armis; Time was, when I had freedom to use a Carnal Weapon; and then I thought I feared no man; but now I fear the Living God; and dare not make use thereof.

Believe you who can; your Brethren the Munsterians pretended as much.

I say I am a peaceable man; therefore it is a proper Question what William Penn demanded in this Case, an Oyer of the Law, on which the Indictment is grounded.

I have made Answer to that already.

Turning his Face to the Jury, saith,

You men of the Jury, who are my Judges, if the Recorder will not tell you, what makes a Riot, a Rout, or an Ʋnlawful Assembly; Coke tells us what makes a Riot, a Rout, and an Unlawful Assembly: A Riot is, when three or more are met together, to beat a Man, or to enter forcibly into another mans Land, to cut down his Grass, his Wood, or break down his Pales.

Yes, and to do any other Unlawful Act. But I thank you, Mr. Mead, That you will tell me what the Law is; [pulling off his Hat.]

Thou maist put on thy Hat, I have never a Fee for thee now.

An intollerable Affront! Mr. Mead, I thought you had been a meek man, as you profess. You deserve to have your Tougue cut out for affronting the Court, as well as the Prisoner had his Hand cut off that threw a Stone at the Court.

If you discourse on this manner, I shall take occa­sion against you.

[Page 21] Nota. Mr. Mead being put into the Bail-Dock, the Recorder proceeded to give the Jury their Charge.

You have heard what the Indict ment is; it is for Preaching or Speaking to the people, and drawing a Tumultuous Company after them: there are three Wit­nesses that have proved this; That Penn did preach there, that Mr. Mead was there, and did abet him, and did allow of the same; now we are upon the matter of Fact, which you are to keep to and observe as what hath been sworn at your peril.

I appeal to the Jury, who are my Judges, whe­ther the proceedings of the Court are not most Arbi­trary, and void of all Law; in offering to give the Jury their Charge in the absence of the Prisoners: I say, it's directly opposite to, and destructive of the undoubted Right of every English Prisoner, as Coke in the 2 Inst. 29. on the Chap. of Magna Charta speaks.

Why, why you are present, you do hear, do you not?

No thanks to the Court, that commanded me into the Bail-Dock.

Nota. Penn made such an uncivil noise, that the Court could not give the Jury the Charge; he was therefore put into the Bail-Dock, which stands even with the Bar, and the Prisoners might hear the Charge there as well as a Prisoner might hear at the Bar: This therefore was a causless Exclamation.

Are these according to the Rights and Privi­ledges of Englishmen, that we should not be heard, but turned into the Bail-Dock, for making our Defence; and the Jury to have their Charge given them in our Ab­sence.

Take them away into the Hole; to hear them [Page 22] talk all night, as they would, that I think doth not be­come the Honour of the Court; and I think that you, (i. e.) the Jury, your selves, would be tired out, and not have patience to hear them.

Nota. The Jury withdrew for an hour and half; eight came down agreed, but four remain'd above; the Court sent for them, and they accordingly came down: The four Dissenters said, They were not agreed.

Sir, You are a Cause of this Disturbance, and manifestly shew your self an Abettor of Faction. I shall set a Mark on you.

Mr. Bushel, I have known you this fourteen years; you have thrust your self upon this Ju­ry, because you think there is some work for you; I tell you, you deserve to be indicted more than any man that hath been brought to the Bar this day.

No Sir John, There were threescore before me, and I would willingly have got off, but could not.

I said, when I saw Mr. Bushel, what I see is come to pass; for I knew he would never yield. Mr. Bushel, we know what you are.

You are an Impudent Fellow, I will put a Mark upon you.

Nota. The Jury was sent up until agreed, and some considera­ble time after they returned; Silence call'd, the Jury was called over.

Are you agreed upon your Verdict?

Yes.

Who shall speak for you?

Our Fore-man.

Look upon the Prisoners at the Bar; How say [Page 23] you? Is William Penn guilty of the Matter where of he stands Indicted in manner and form, or not guilty?

Guilty of speaking in Gracious-Street.

Is that all?

That is all I have in Commission.

You had as good say nothing.

What, was it not an unlawful Assembly? You mean he was speaking to a Tumult of People there?

My Lord, this was all I had in Commission.

Nota. Six or seven of the Jury did agree to the Mayors Questi­on; upon which Bushel, Hammond, and two others opposed them­selves, they allowed of no such Word as an Ʋnlawful Assembly in their Verdict.

The Law of England will not allow you to de­part till you have given in your Verdict.

We have given in our Verdict, and can give in no other.

Gentlemen, you have not given in your Verdict this is no Verdict in Law; and you had as good say no­thing; therefore go and consider it again once more, that we may make an end of this troublesome business.

We desire we may have Pen, Ink and Paper.

Nota, The Court adjourns for half an hour; The Court returns, and the Jury come down likewise.

The Prisoners are brought to the Bar: The Jury being called over,

Are you agreed of your Verdict?

Yes.

Who shall speak for you?

Our Fore-man.

Look upon the Prisoners; what say you? Is [Page 24] William Penn guilty in Manner and Form, as he stands Indicted, or not guilty?

Here is our Verdict; holding forth a piece of Paper to the Clerk of the Peace, which follows;

VVE the Jurors, hereafter named, do find William Penn to be guilty of Speaking or Preaching to an Assembly met to­gether in Gracious-Street, the 14 ^th of August-last 1670. And that William Mead is not guilty of the said Indictment.

• Thomas Veer, Fore-man.
• Edward Bushel.
• John Hammond.
• Henry Henley.
• Henry Michel.
• John Brightman.
• Charles Milson.
• Gregory Walklet.
• John Baily.
• William Lever.
• James Damask.
• William Plumsted.

Nota, Some of the Court were for accepting this Verdict; but the Evidence being as plain and full against Mead as against Penn, the Court refused the Verdict.

What will you be led by such a silly Fellow as Bushel? a Canting Fellow; I warrant you, you shall come no more upon Juries in haste: You are a Fore-man in­deed; I thought you had understood your place bet­ter.

Gentlemen, You shall not be dismiss'd till we have a Verdict; and by the Law of England you are to be lock'd up without Meat, Drink, Fire or Tobacco; you do abuse the Court; we will have a Verdict by the help of God.

My Jury (who are my Judges) ought not to be thus menaced; their Verdict ought to be free, and not compelled; the Bench ought to wait on them, and not forestall them; I do desire that Justice may be done me, and that the Arbitrary Resolves of the Bench may not be made the measure of my Juries Verdict.

Stop that prating Fellows mouth; or put him out of the Court.

Nota, How Mr. Penn abuses the Court; the Court are by Law Judges, what is a Verdict in Law, and what is not a Verdict in Law.

Gentlemen, You have heard that Mr. Penn Preached, that he gathered thereby a Tumult of People; that Mr. Mead was there, and abetted him; and that they not only disobey the Martial Power, but Civil also.

It's a great Mistake; we did not make the tu­mult, but they that interrupted us. We met not there with a Design to disturb the Civil peace, since (1.) We were with force of Arms kept out of our lawful House; and met as near it as the Souldiers would give us leave. (2.) Because it was no new thing, but what was usual and customary with us; it's very well known we are a peaceable people, and cannot offer violence to any man.

Nota, A peaceable innocent People indeed, that when the King had seized the Meeting-House into His Hands, as by Law he might, they would come and break open the Doors, and there congregate, expresly against the Kings Command; and therefore there was a necessity of Souldiers to keep the Kings possession; they violently overpow'ring the Constable and his Watchmen, and it is proved, that these People at this time kicked and spurned the Constable and his Watchmen, he endeavouring to dissipate this Unlawful Assembly, as is sworn by Read the Constable.

The agreement of Twelve Men is a Verdict in Law, and such an 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 con­trary to this, I affirm they are perjur'd men in Law.

Nor will we ever do it.

Nota, The Jury in Mr. Penn's opinion, and Bushel's both, are perjur'd men, for that at last they brought in a Verdict contradicto­ry to this.

At this time some of the Jury complained to the Court, that the four men, viz. Bushel and Hammond, and the other two, would starve them, and that they had brought Strong-Water Bottles in their Pockets designedly.

You are as strong as any of them; starve them, and hold your Principles.

Gentlemen, You must be contented with your hard Fare, let your Patience overcome it; for the Court is resolved to have a Verdict, and that before you can be dismist.

We are agreed; we are agreed.

Nota, The Court having a respect to the health of the Jury, ad­journed until Seven next Morning although it was Sunday; which otherwise they would not have done.

Are you agreed upon your Verdict?

Yes.

Who shall speak for you?

Our Fore-man.

Look upon the Prisoners at the Bar; Is William Penn guilty of the Matter whereof he stands Indict­ed?

William Penn is guilty of speaking in Gracious-street.

To an unlawful Assembly.

No my Lord, we give no other Verdict than what we gave last night.

You are a factious fellow, and a course ought to be taken with you.

I knew Bushel would never yield.

Sir Thomas, I have done according to my Con­science.

That Conscience of yours would cut my Throat.

No my Lord, it never shall.

But rather than you shall cut my Throat, I will in defence of my self cut yours first.

He hath inspired the Jury, he has the Spirit of Divination; I will have a positive Verdict, or else you shall starve for it.

I will ask the Recorder one Question: Do you allow of the Verdict given of William Mead?

It cannot be a Verdict, for that you both were indicted for a Conspiracy; and one being found Not Guilty, and not the other, it could not be a Verdict.

If Not Guilty be no Verdict, then you make of the Jury and Magna Charta a Nose of Wax.

How! Is Not-Guilty no Verdict?

No, it's no Verdict in this Case.

I affirm that the Consent of a Jury is a Verdict in Law. And if William Mead be not guilty, it conse­quently follows, That I am clear; for that I could not conspire alone.

Oyes, &c. Silence in the Court.

Call over the Jury.

What say you, Is William Penn guilty of the Matter whereof he stands Indicted, in manner and form aforesaid, or not guilty?

Guilty of speaking in Gracious-Street.

What is this to the purpose? I say, I will have a Verdict; and speaking to Edward Bushel, said, You are a Factious Fellow, I will set a Mark upon you, and whilst I have to do in the City, I will have an eye on you.

Have you no more wit than to be led by such a pitiful Fellow as Bushel? Were I of the Jury, rather than he should starve me, I would slit his Nose for him.

It is intolerable that my Jury should be thus menaced: Is this according to the Fundamental Laws?

Nota, This is the fourth time the Jury brought in this insignifi­cant Verdict; viz. [I hat they find Penn guilty of speaking in Gra­cious-Street] and how this answers the Question, viz. [What say you, Is William Penn guilty of the Matter whereof he stands In­dicted, in manner and form, or not guilty?] Let the world judge whether this be a Verdict or not. They thus often abusing the Court, made the displeasure of the Court against them; and surely not without cause.

Nota, William Penn made such a Noise in the Court, that the Court could not hear the Jury, nor the Jury the Court.

My Lord, you must take a course with that same Fellow.

Stop his mouth; Goaler, bring Fetters, and stake him to the Ground.

[Page 29] Nota. Upon this Mr. Penn was very silent and quiet, although nothing was done to him.

Till now I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in suffering the Inquisition amongst them; and certainly it will never be well with us till some thing like unto the Spanish Inquisi­tion be in England.

Nota, The Jury being commanded up again, the Jury refused.

Gentlemen, We shall not always be at this Trade with you; you will find the next Session of Par­liament, there will be a Law made, That those that will not conform to the Law, shall not have the protection of the Law.

We ought not to be returned, having all a­greed, and set our hands to the Verdict.

Your Verdict is no Verdict in Law; you play upon the Court; I say you shall go together, and bring in another Verdict, or you shall starve.

We have given in our Verdict, and all agreed to it, and if we give in another, it will be a force upon us to save our lives.

Nota. These Men were very like to be starved, when they had Roast beef, Capons, Wine and Strong-drink sent them (as it ready to be proved) during the time they were considering of their Verdict.

My Lord, they will not go up.

Nota. The Court spoke to the Sheriff, and he came from his Seat, and said,

Come Gentlemen, you must go up; you see I am commanded to make you go.

O yes, &c. The Court adjourns until seven of the clock next morning.

Set William Penn and William Mead to the Bar: Are you all agreed of your Verdict?

Yes.

Who shall speak for you?

Our Fore-man.

Look upon the Prisoners: What say you? Is William Penn Guilty of the Matter whereof he stands Indicted in manner and form, &c. or Not Guilty?

Here is our Verdict in Writing, and our hands subscribed to it.

How say you? Is William Penn Guilty, &c, or Not Guilty?

Not Guilty▪

How say you? Is William Mead Guilty, &c. or Not Guilty?

Not Guilty.

Then hearken to your Verdict; you say, That Will. Penn is not Guilty in manner and form, as he stands Indicted: You say that Will. Mead is not Guilty in manner and form as he stands Indicted: And so you say all?

Yes, we do so.

I am sorry, Gentlemen, you have followed your own wilful Opinions, rather than the good and wholesom advice which was given you; God keep my Life out of your hands: But for this, the Court Fines you Forty Marks a Man, and Imprisonment until paid.

I demand my Liberty, being freed by the Jury.

No, you are in for your Fines.

Fines! for what?

For Contempt of the Court.

I ask, If it be according to the Fundamental Laws of England; That any Englishman should be Fi­ned or Amerced, but by the judgment of his Peers or Jury?

By the Laws of England this Court hath power to Fine for Contempts.

IN regard that this is a Case, that very much concerns the King and Kingdom, and is now under the consi­deration of all the Judges, I shall only make four Re­marks upon this Case, and leave the determination of the same to the Honourable Sages of our Law.