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

In Short

This work is a primary-source record of the 1670 trial of William Penn and William Mead for allegedly leading a tumultuous, illegal assembly in London. When the presiding judges attempt to coerce a guilty verdict, the jury refuses to submit, enduring imprisonment and starvation rather than violate their conscience. By recording the proceedings, the defendants helped cement the right of jurors to render verdicts based on their own judgment rather than judicial command. It remains a vital document in the history of civil liberty and English common law.

The Story

The narrative begins in August 1670, when William Penn and William Mead, both Quakers, attempt to enter their meeting house in London, only to find it barred by soldiers. Undeterred, they gather their fellow worshipers in Gracechurch Street to pray and preach. This act of peaceful religious defiance results in their arrest for causing a "tumult" and disturbing the King's peace.

When the trial opens at the Old Bailey in September, the proceedings immediately descend into a battle of wills. The Mayor and the Recorder, acting as judges, show open contempt for the defendants, repeatedly mocking them and ordering them to remove their hats—a gesture the Quakers refuse on principle. Throughout the trial, the court denies the prisoners the basic right to know the specific laws under which they are charged, instead demanding they plead guilty to a vague indictment of conspiracy. Penn, drawing on his knowledge of law and the "Great Charter," insists that the court produce the statute he has supposedly broken. His refusal to be silenced earns him repeated insults and threats of physical removal to the "bale-dock," a dark, secluded area of the courtroom.

The conflict reaches a breaking point when the case goes to the jury. The judges, determined to secure a conviction, pressure the jurors to find the men guilty of "unlawful assembly." The jurors, however, find the evidence lacking and return a verdict that only acknowledges the fact of the preaching, not the criminality of the gathering. Enraged, the judges berate the jury, refusing to accept the verdict and threatening them with starvation. They lock the jurors in a room without food, water, or even basic sanitation, hoping to break their resolve.

Through several days of intense coercion, the jurors remain steadfast. Led by Edward Bushel, they refuse to yield to the bench's intimidation. Finally, they deliver a unanimous verdict of "Not Guilty." The judges, humiliated and furious, fine both the defendants and the jurors, ordering them all to prison until the payments are made. The narrative concludes with the legal aftermath: the refusal of the jurors to pay their fines, the subsequent litigation of their rights, and the final, monumental legal ruling that established the independence of the jury system. It is a story not just of a verdict, but of the triumph of personal integrity over arbitrary power, ensuring that the law serves the conscience of the people rather than the whims of the bench.

How It Unfolds

The assembly on Gracechurch Street The narrative opens with the arrest of the two men, who are charged with inciting a riot simply by gathering to worship in a public thoroughfare. The indictment paints their peaceful religious practice as a threat to the state, setting the stage for a conflict between institutional authority and individual faith.

The battle of the hats Upon entering the courtroom, the defendants are confronted by judges who view their refusal to remove their hats as a direct assault on the court’s dignity. This trivial point of etiquette rapidly escalates, as the bench uses the perceived slight to justify fines and verbal abuse against the prisoners.

The demand for the law Penn persistently challenges the judges to produce the specific statute that prohibits his preaching. His insistence on legal transparency exposes the court’s reliance on arbitrary, unwritten power, causing the judges to lose their composure and order him silenced.

The jury’s ordeal The court takes the jury captive, denying them basic sustenance in an attempt to coerce a guilty verdict. Despite these harsh conditions, the jurors hold their ground, repeatedly rejecting the court’s demand for a conviction and asserting their own power to weigh the facts.

The verdict and its legacy The jury eventually delivers a clear, final acquittal of the prisoners, prompting the court to punish the jurors themselves. The aftermath clarifies the enduring legal principle that a jury cannot be held liable for its verdict, effectively stripping the bench of its most dangerous form of unchecked authority.

The People

William Penn is the intellectual force at the center of the trial. A man of deep religious conviction and surprising legal acumen, he refuses to be intimidated by the court's hostility. He views the trial as a stage to defend not only his faith but the fundamental rights of all English subjects.

William Mead, his co-defendant, stands by him with steady resolve. While he speaks less frequently than Penn, his refusal to answer the court’s entrapment questions—citing the principle that no man is bound to accuse himself—is a key moment of the defense.

The judges—the Mayor and the Recorder—represent the rigid, authoritarian establishment. They are obsessed with maintaining their power and are deeply suspicious of any dissent, whether religious or legal. They view the law as a tool for enforcing social conformity and react with genuine malice when their authority is questioned.

Edward Bushel is the most prominent of the jurors. He becomes the primary target of the judges' rage, yet he refuses to buckle under the threats of starvation and imprisonment. His tenacity transforms the jury from a passive participant into an active, protective force for justice. He ends the ordeal as a symbol of the juror's duty to act according to conscience rather than court mandate.

In Its Own Voice

"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, since you have indicted us of a Conspiracy, and I could not possibly conspire alone."

Penn argues this point to the court, using logic to highlight the inherent contradictions in the indictment against him.

"The Bench ought to wait upon them, but not forestall them."

Penn reminds the judges of the proper role of the court, arguing that they have no right to influence the jury's deliberations during the trial.

"I demand my Liberty, being freed by the Jury."

After the jury delivers the final, unanimous acquittal, Penn asserts his right to walk free, challenging the court's attempt to keep him detained on fraudulent charges of contempt.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an exploration of the limits of state power and the necessity of independent judgment. It asks whether a legal system can claim legitimacy if it relies on the intimidation of those it is meant to serve. The argument centers on the "fundamental laws of England," with the author asserting that rights like a fair trial and a free jury are not gifts from the government, but inherent protections against tyranny. It explores the tension between "lex non scripta"—the amorphous common law used by judges—and the "Common Right" that belongs to every citizen. The text argues that justice is impossible when a court prioritizes its own authority over the evidence and the conscience of the people.

Why Read It Today

Readers who appreciate history told through raw, authentic documentation will find this an engrossing, albeit challenging, experience. Because it is a transcript-heavy record from 1670, the language retains the dense, formal, and sometimes archaic rhythms of seventeenth-century legal proceedings. You will encounter unfamiliar terms and the occasionally exhausting, circular bickering between the prisoners and the bench, which reflects the high-stakes friction of the era.

However, the reward is an intimate look at the birth of modern legal rights. Watching the jurors—ordinary men—gradually realize their own power in the face of angry, shouting judges is remarkably moving. It feels like witnessing the moment when the scales of justice begin to tip away from the absolute authority of the state and toward the protection of the individual. You will walk away with a profound respect for the jury system and a better understanding of how much personal courage it once took to secure the freedoms we now often take for granted. If you have any interest in constitutional history, civil rights, or the simple, stubborn power of someone saying "no" to an unjust authority, this book is an essential piece of the puzzle.