On William Penn's trial

Clerk. Bring William Penn and William Mead to the bar.

Mayor. Sirrah, who bid you put off their hats? put on their hats again.

Obser. Whereupon one of the officers putting the prisoners hats upon their heads (pursuant to the order of the court) brought them to the bar.

Record. Do you know where you are?

Penn. Yes.

Record. Do not you know it is the king's court,

Penn. I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the king's court.

Record. Do you not know there is respect due to the court?

Penn. Yes.

Record. Why do you not pay it then?

Penn. I do so.

Record. Why do you not pull off your hat then?

Penn. Because I do not believe that to be any respect.

Record. Well, the court sets forty marks a piece upon your heads, as a fine for your contempt of the court.

Penn. 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 should be fined.

Mead. I have a question, to ask the Recorders am I fined also?

Record. Yes.

Mead. I desire the Jury, and all people to take notice of this injustice of the recorder: Who spake to me to pull off my hat? and yet hath he put a fine upon 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."

Introduction

The survey of William Penn's trial started from this ridiculous drama about Penn's hat. To those who found such a "saucy" conversation amusing, this article aims to offer some historical background and meaning of this milestone trial of William Penn. There is much to be said about this trial. The central question this article wants to address is what contributed to the acquittal of William Penn, when most other trials of Quakers ended up with guilty verdict and imprisonment. The first section will be a background section about why Quakers like William Penn are being persecuted and how they were facing the tyranny of the law. Then there will be a brief description of Penn's trial and three other trials of Quakers in comparison. Finally in the analysis section, some factors that contribute to Penn's acquittal will be presented, including the Crown's attitude, the personal traits of William Penn, and the conscience of the jurors.

Background

It may seem obvious that Quakers as Nonconformists were not so popular in a Christen society. However, it will be helpful to start this article with some additional background knowledge about why, more specifically, were Quakers persecuted massively. To start with, we have already seen one reason from the excerpt: Quakers were unwilling to take off their hats in the court. Trivial it may appear, such behavior was offensive in 17th century England. It was a social customary at that time that people would doff their hats to acknowledge others passing by, and would not wear a hat in a church or court, particularly not in the presence of superiors. Quakers, due to their religious beliefs of equality, did not follow many such customs; they dressed simply, used plain language like "thou/thee" casually, and refused to take off their hats in front of any judge or magistrate. While Charles II may tolerate William Penn's hat by taking off his own and tease that only one person may wear a hat in the palace, most authorities did not take such behaviors lightly. To them, such actions were not simply innocent eccentricity since they have historically stood for a social protest. The feeling of being disrespected and the concern of potential social disturbances as the size of Quakers grew was therefore a big reason why Quakers were so so unpopular among Judges and other people of high social status.

But of course, Quakers were not being widely persecuted only because they kept their hats on their heads. Quakers' belief in the inner light led to some certain actions that were plainly against the law, including refusal to take an oath and preaching on the streets. The most trouble-causing action was Quakers' insistence in holding their own meetings. For Quakers, meetings for their worship were essential for spreading the words of the Light and for providing the support each Quaker needed. They also insisted these meetings be public so that they could serve both as a means to encourage new converts and as a witness to their faith. Such public meeting and preaching of the idea that each person has his own connection to God were certainly intolerable to those in power. The persecution of Quakers began with the 1662 Quakers Act and reached its height in 1664 when Parliament passed the Conventicle Act. The Act was designed to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles under the pretense of religion; it made most nonconformists' meetings unlawful and it was the legal basis on which most indictments to Quakers were based.

The persecution of Quakers was the tyranny of the law that followed those indictments. Whether Quakers' meetings were really against the Conventicle Act was actually not a black or white question. The Act's preamble by the Parliament declared that the act was designed to prevent "seditious" conventicles, but the texts of the Act proscribed meetings "under pretense or colour of religion", which did not include the word "seditious". The bench took the Act literally; instructions given by Judges stated that a conviction does not require proof of a seditious purpose which was presumed by the law. A jury should be able to give a verdict simply with the evidence that defendants were at an assembly, unless defendants could prove otherwise. We can see this from Judge Orlando Bridgeman's instruction in 1664 Hertford summer assizes:"[You] are not to expect a plain, punctual evidence against them for anything they said or did at their meeting... [I]f you find, or believe in your hearts that they were in the meeting, under colour of religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an unlawful meeting...And you must find the bill, for you must have respect to the meaning and intent of the law..."

Quakers, in their defense, pleaded the jury to consider the true intent of the Act. In a tract named Jury-man charged, Quakers made their arguments: "The intention of the Parliament is manifest from the title and preface of the Act: the title, an Act to prevent and suppress seditious conventicles: but what sedition in worshiping God?" Quakers urged the jury against the instruction that verdict can be given with the evidence of a religious meeting alone, as that will in effect give a judge the power to decide whether the meeting was seditious. "But will this satisfy you sir? Can you take a passionate and testy judge's word as your infallible director in so many most difficult controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your faith upon the judge's sleeve in matters of religion (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the statute book)?"

While Quakers were defending themselves with their pen and making all the legal arguments against the bench, in trials they could only bear the tyranny of the judges. At a time when there was no appeal procedure, no counsel for defendants, and no fine or other punishment for a judge's misconduct, judges enjoyed an unrestraint discretionary power. We can already get a taste of how tyrannical a judge can be from the excerpt when the Judge literally ordered the hat to be put on Penn's head and then fined him for contempt of the court. Such a ludicrous punishment was actually a common practice; in a more outrageous case, Judge Hyde did the same thing to a Quaker who was simply standing by listening to a trial; after perceiving him to be a Quaker, Judge Hide ordered a Sheriff to bring the man to the bar with the hat off, then ordered the hat to be put on and fined the man. These tricks were only some superficial manifestation of judges' power; the real tyranny of judges was their control over the jury. Although jurors may question the instruction given by a judge and entertain serious doubts about whether the defendants' meeting was against the Conventicle Act, in most if not all trials of Quakers, the judge will force jurors to give a guilty verdict by persuasion or threats. In the end, the result of a trial always ended up depending on the malleability of jurors' conscience.

Trials

Now with some background knowledge about how unpopular Quakers were and how tyrannical judges could be in those trials of Quakers, the central question should make more sense: why was William Penn acquitted at his trial, when so many other Quakers were easily convicted under the Conventicle Act? To analyze this question, it is necessary to give a fuller picture or Penn's trial and put three more trials of other Quakers in comparison.

Penn's Trial

On August 14th 1670, William Penn and William Mead were addressing a large crowd at Gracechurch Street. They were soon arrested under the warrants signed by the Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Starling. According to the warrant, Penn and Mead were arrested for "preaching seditiously and causing a great tumult of people ... to be gathered riotously and routously." (pg. 222, fn 91). They were charged under the Conventicles Act; both demanded a jury trial. In September 1670, they were tried in London, the Old Bailey. The ludicrous hat show was the beginning of the trial, which then escalated into a drama out of control. The Recorder(Howel) called three witnesses, who all testified that they saw Penn and Mead and a large group of people at Gracechurch Street at that time, but did not hear what they said. Penn did not really question or object those witnesses; he actually admitted with pride that he assembled to preach and pray. Penn believed that the Crown's evidence, even factually true, did not make his acts unlawful; he then demanded the Court to produce the law on which the indictment against him was based:

Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment.

Rec. Upon the common-law.

Penn. Where is that common-law?

Rec. You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call common-law, to answer your curiosity.

Penn. This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce.

Rec. Sir, will you plead to your indictment?

Penn. Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine, or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced, by which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt, or contrary of my fact?

Rec. You are a saucy fellow, speak to the Indictment.

Penn. I say, it is my place to speak to matter of law; I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned: you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make the best of my case, it is hard, I say again, unless you shew me, and the people, the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.

The Recorder did not give an answer in the end, and under the pressure of Penn's persistent demand and sarcastic challenge, the Recorder ordered Penn be taken back to the bale-dock. Here Penn directly addressed to the jury for the first time:

Penn. These are but so many vain exclamations; 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 fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, (and are not limited to particular persuasions in. matters of religion) must not be indispensably maintained and observed, who can say he hath right to the coat upon his back? Certainly our liberties are openly to be invaded, our wives to be ravished, our children slaved, our families ruined, and our estates led away in triumph, by every sturdy beggar and malicious informer, as their trophies, but our (pretended) forfeits for conscience sake. The Lord of Heaven and Earth will be judge between us in this matter.

After Mead did a similar thing and was taken to the dock, the Recorder gave an instruction to the jury, that Penn and Mead were indicted for "preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultuous company after them". Penn shouted from the dock to the jury that he was not heard for the indictment, and reminded the jury that they could not give a verdict till he was heard and made his defense; the Recorder, couldn't bear Penn anymore, ordered Penn be taken to the Hole. After "some considerable time", the jury gave its first verdict, that Penn was guilty of speaking in Grace-church street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly causing a riot. The Recorder would not accept such a verdict (for him, a not-guilty verdict is not a verdict):

Rec. The law of England will not allow you to part till you have given in your Verdict.

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

Rec. Gentlemen, you have not given in your Verdict, and you had its good say nothing; therefore go and consider it once more, that we may make an end of this troublesome business.

The jury returned with the second verdict after one hour and a half, which was the same: guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly; not a word about it being unlawful. The Court's reaction was not hard to imagine: "both Mayor and Recorder resented at so high a rate, that they exceeded the bounds of all reason and civility." The Recorder made a threat which was repeated many times later:

Recorder. Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.

Penn took the chance to speak for the jurors who are his true judges, that they can not be threatened. He then made his defense and urged the jury not give in:

Penn. The agreement of 12 men is a verdict in law, and such a 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 contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law; And looking upon the jury, said, You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right.

Penn's speech certainly did its work. The jury was starved for a night, and the next day it gave the same verdict. Then it was sent back to give another verdict; the same result. After repeating for two more times, the jury gave an affirmative not-guilty verdict, and the Recorder, couldn't bear with it anymore, accepted the verdict but fined and imprisoned all the jurors; Penn in the end was not released either, as he was sent back to prison till he pays the fines for contempt of the Court.

More Trials of Quakers

The first trial to compare is the one taken place right after Penn's. This trial will serve as a great comparison because it was almost exactly the same as Penn's but a different verdict was reached. Another group of Quakers was tried for the same facts. In the beginning, the Recorder performed the same ridiculous hat show again, forcing the prisoners to put on their hats and fined them for 20 Marks. Because the first jury panel was imprisoned, a new panel was summoned by the Sheriff. "The Recorder, perusing the panel of the last summoned jury, gave directions to the clerk to call them over, who, it was observed, picked here and there such persons who were most likely to answer the design of the bench, not calling the panel in direct course or order as usual." All the prisoners kept asking by what law can the court pick a different jury, and Recorder, failing to produce a legal answer, in the end "in a great rage told one of the prisoners, that he should be gagged, and deserved to have his tongue bor'd through with a red-bot iron, telling them it should suffice that the Court was of opinion against them, and did overrule them."

The Court then proceeded. The Jury was sworn, the indictment was read, and some witnesses produced evidence that they saw prisoners among the assembly of people in Grace-church street. The prisoners required the Recorder to produce to the jury upon what law they were indicted; the Recorder answered: "that he was not bound to produce the law, for it was lex non scripta." Prisoners further argued that they had always been peaceful, and the law against riots was never made against them but to those who disturb the peace. The Recorder answered that the prisoners were worse than those rioters, that they were "stubborn and dangerous people". The Court disregarded the prisoners' further arguments and threw them to the dock. In the prisoners' absence, the Recorder gave the charge to the jury, telling the jury that "they [prisoners] were a refractory people, delighting in deeds of darkness, and they must be suppressed, and that upon the indictment they must bring them in guilty". The jury, as Besse describes, did give the guilty verdict as it was prepared for such purpose.

The second trial was in the Assizes of Hartford in 1664. The prisoners were indicted for the same offense upon the Conventicle Act. Witnesses deposed that they found the prisoners assembled at a certain place and time, but added that they did not see or hear any of the prisoners speak (silent meetings were normal for Quakers). Facing such evidence, the Grand jury, "after a long debate, returned the Bill ignoramus(meaning "We ignore it", effectively discharge the prisoners because of insufficient evidence). Judge Orlando Bridgeman was angry about this conclusion and said: "My masters, what do you mean? Will you make a nose of wax of the law? Will you suffer the law to be baffled? Those that think to deceive the law, the law will deceive them." The jury was thus sent out again with this new instruction, and a guilty verdict was reached.

The record of this trial was short (which is very typical of most records of Quakers trials), but it represents how a trial of Quakers looked like for most of the time: some evidence of the prisoners met at certain time and place was presented, and the jury was asked to give verdict based on such facts alone. While some jurors might have serious doubt about the conviction, judges would always argue or threat those jurors; in the end, a guilty verdict was dictated by the judges.

That said, the third trial was actually another one that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. In October 15th 1664, Old Bailey London, about 40 Quakers were indicted for "contempt of the law in that case provided, and contrary to the peace of our lord king, did meet in a third time aofresaid..." These prisoners, apparently lacking the legal eloquence like Penn, only pleaded not guilty and made defenses like "I have wronged no man" and "I think the meetings at Bull and Mouth street to be lawful and peaceble." The jury in this trial seemed to be very unsatisfied with the witnesses. The first witness was the keeper of the prison (Newgate), who gave a self-contradictory testimony. When the jury challenged the witness, Judge Hyde overruled them and reproved the jury for being too scrupulous. The other witness gave an even worse testimony, that he swore to have seen the prisoners at Bull and Mouth, though the fact showed that he did not see them until they were brought to the Newgate. Again, one juror challenged such evidence; the Judge became angry, and "threatened him for undervaluing the King's witness, saying he should know the Court had power to punish him, and would do it."

After some time the jury gave its verdict, that four prisoners were not guilty and the rest they could not agree on. Judge Hyde was not pleased, and after giving the jury another instruction, he sent them out again. After one and a half hours, the jury returned with the verdict of "Guilty of meeting, but not of Fact." When Judge asked what that meant, the jury explained that "there was evidence that they met, therefore we say guilty of meeting, but no evidence to prove what they did there, therefore we say not guilty of meeting contrary to the liturgy of the church of England." One of the jurors said:" My Lord, I have the venerable respect for the liturgy of the church of England, as to believe that it is according to the Scriptures, which allow of the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and if any man in the world worship God in spirit, he doth not worship contrary to the liturgy, it being according to the Scriptures, if not, I shall abate my respect for it." Although six of the jurors seemed in the end inclined to comply with the Court's demand, the others would not despite all the persuasion and threats from the Judge. Judge Hyde after making more threats spoke to the unbending six jurors that they would be bound to answer for such misdemeanor at King's bench. "One of them [jurors] seemed unwilling to be bound, but the Judge told him, he must and should. Then said he, My Lord, I am content, any wounding, but the wounding of my Conscience." Therefore, the trial ended with the jury being fined a hundred pounds each.

Analysis

Weaving around these trials, the rest of this article aims to lay out some reasons/factors that led to Penn's acquittal. The first reason is the Crown's attitude, i.e. Charles II's indulgence to dissenters. Although this reason certainly did not lead to the specific success of Penn in his trial, it is a very important background reason that made any such success more likely. The second reason was William Penn's personal traits, including his eloquence and personal charisma. The last reason would be the jury, both as a whole and as individual jurors whose attitude sometimes can shape the legal development.

Charles II's indulgence

When Charles II was restored, he took an attitude of tolerance to all of the non-conformists, hoping to prevent religion from ever again being the cause of civil disturbances. For example, in January 1663, Charles ordered the release from Newgate of all those who had been imprisoned for unlawful meetings; two weeks later, he released all in Southward who were kept for unlawful assembly to the disturbance of the peace, except those being "dangerously seditious". In one of the meetings with congregational ministers, he said:" I am against persecution for religion and shall be as long as I live. I would have no man punished for that that he cannot help. No man can believe but as brought to it from God."

However, Charles's indulgence was ineffective for political reasons. His declarations of indulgence became a vehicle testing the balance of power between the King and the Parliament. The attitude of the Parliament to the dissenters was more than unfavorable. Private meetings of large groups of people who believe they have individual access to God were dangerous and disturbing to those Lords and Justices; they sincerely believed that those Quakers were dangerous people. Parliament therefore protested that Charles' indulgence policy exceeded King's powers. "Vengeful for the past, fearful for the future, righteous in the service of the Lord, and jealous of its prerogatives, Parliament responded to every rising and rumor with more legislation designed to suppress dissent." Charles, however, could not push his indulgence policy too much against such opposition of the Parliament because he was aware of the constitutional limit of his power, and facing the warfare and the need of money, he had to be cautious.

Although King's indulgence proved to be very elusive, Charles' attitude still could have been one of the big reasons that made Penn's success possible because King's bench would consider King's policy after all. This might not be a specific reason for Penn's success, but it is a background contributor that supported Quakers like Penn to get an acquittal.

Penn's charisma

Speaking of reasons for Penn's success in getting the acquittal, his personal traits was for sure one big reason, if not the reason. As shown Penn's trial, criminal trials in 17th century England were not like trials today. First, defendants did not have trained legal counsel who would speak for them, and second, the court proceeding lacked the seriousness and sacredness; on the contrary, especially for trials of Quakers, the proceedings "often degenerated into a raucous, public brawl", in which the defendant's personal charisma would more heavily influence the result. William Penn happened to be the most eloquent Quaker defendant who did not need a counsel and the most charismatic whom everyone liked.

In Penn's earliest formal education he learned Latin, Greek, and math. He entered Oxford at the age of 16, although soon sent out for nonconformity. Then Penn was sent to the court of Louis XIV in France. When Penn returned to London in 1664 (when he was 20), he was set to learn the law in Lincoln's Inn. In 1666 he was sent to Ireland to take care of Penn estates, where he proved to be "sharp in his transaction concerning the estates, but graceful in local society". Therefore, by the time when he was tried in 1670, he was a man traveled and educated, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that he was potentially the most eloquent Quaker defendant one could conceive at that time. His legal training and his eloquence were clearly manifested in the trial we read, in his personal defense when he later became a frequent guest of the prison, and in his later works speaking for all Quakers.

Besides being a defendant who did not need counsel, William Penn was also a charismatic man everyone likes. If it can be arguable that Penn was the most eloquent Quaker defendant, it was an undeniable fact that Penn was the Quaker who enjoyed the highest social status. As the son of the Admiral Willam Penn, Penn junior, as introduced above, received a first-class education and was acquainted with so many Dukes and Lords, even the King himself. The audience and jury might find most Quakers in other trials as ignoble people talking nonsense, they would not think so of William Penn. By the time of the trial, "he was reported handsome and personable, and was winning friendly attention from his father's aristocratic and influential friends." Although there was no direct evidence that shows how the jury and audience were attracted by him, he certainly also won their friendly attention, as the jurors would stand with him even when they would be punished for doing so.

Jurors' conscience

The last but also the most important reason for Penn's acquittal is the jury. In the trial right after Penn's, with the same facts and witnesses, a guilty verdict was easily attained through the careful selection of the jury. In the third trial, even when the defendants were not nearly as eloquent as Penn and only made a defense as simple as "I wronged no man", the conscientious jury still chose to hold its position and gave an acquittal verdict.

The importance of the jury can be appreciated from two perspectives. First is the importance of the jury as a whole. In a time when there was no restraint on Judges' discretionary power, when even the King's tolerance policy proved to be elusive, the jury was perhaps the only entity that could keep judges in check, allowing the slight possibility for Quakers to get away from the tyranny of the law. Thomas Green has a great discussion of this, but the idea is that the jury played a very important role in legal justice through "jury nullification", that a jury would also be a law finder sometimes, when they think the instruction given by the judge was unjust. The tracts Quakers wrote against the Bench's interpretation of the Conventicle Act was actually encouraging the jury to nullify the law given by the judges, and that actually was exactly what Penn's jury did. If the jury followed the instruction given by the Recorder, that a guilty verdict should be given based on the evidence of the existence of an assembly at a certain time and place, then the jury should have given a guilty verdict. However Penn successfully encouraged the jury to "nullify" the law; when the jury refused to say Penn was guilty of the assembling unlawfully, they reached such verdict upon their own interpretation of the law, that one should be guilty not only for assembling, but also requires proof of the seditious nature. So the jury was important to Penn's acquittal as it could and did perform a law finder's role.

That said, the importance of those composing individual jurors, the impact of each individual juror had on the result, should also be noticed. We should not forget that each juror was a human being, that he could be afraid as to bend to judge's dictation, nonchalant as to follow the majority, or conscientious as to stand against judges' unrestraint rage. In Penn's trial, it was Mr. Bushel who unified the non-agreeing jury at the beginning to firmly stood together with Penn in the end. In contrast, there were also jurors like William Smith who was "like an old bloodhound to hunt and persecute innocent people", who turned a jury from ten to two against conviction to giving a unanimous guilty verdict. Each juror's conscience can change the result of a trial, sometimes even the course of legal history. The bench was actually aware of how much jurors' conscience matters, and even though after Bushel's case judges could no longer dictate the jury during court proceedings, they still could dictate the result by controlling the process of jury selection, like what the Court did after Penn's trial. In a word, individual juror like Mr. Bushel's conscience was essential for Penn's acquittal; had Robinson successfully challenged out Bushel for not kissing the Bible when swearing, the result could be completely different.

Conclusion--Criminal trial as a show

I hope for those readers who found Penn's trial dramatic and amusing can have a better understanding of that trial after reading this article: what was the historical background of the trial, how trials of Quakers normally looked like, and why Penn could get an acquittal verdict. I only presented some reasons I think as the most important, but of course there were certainly more than those reasons, some my knowledge is insufficient to understand and some we might never know. In the end, I want to share with you a very inspiring idea professor Moglen shared with me, that the criminal trials in those times were in nature a show the court put on. The defendant played the opposite Court in the trial, and the jurors were the audience (and also those real audiences). In Quakers persecution shows the Court almost always won, by controlling the evidence put on show and sometimes by some threats. However, Penn's trial was the epic failure of such a show, when the audience refused to buy it and gave its appulse to the defendant, for reasons we just analyzed: the culture trend (crown's attitude), player's outstanding skills (Penn's eloquence and charisma), and the audience's preference (jurors' conscience).

Bibliography

• William Penn's trial (I read it on a state trials collection, but here is an online version: https://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm)
• Thomas Green, Verdict According to Conscience
• Thomas Green, Lights Hidden Under Bushel's Case
• Craig Horle, The Quakers and the English Legal System 1660-1688
• Vincent Buranelli, The King & The Quaker, A Study of William Penn and James II
• Marry Dunn, William Penn, Politics and Conscience
• Mary Dunn * Richard Dunn, The Wolrd of William Penn
• A Complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors : from the earliest period to the year 1783, with notes and other illustrations / Compiled by T.B. Howell item
• Kelyng, John, Sir, A report of divers cases in pleas of the crown, adjudged and determined in the reign of the late King Charles II.
• The Reports and Arguments of that learned Judge Sir John Vaughn
• Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of...Quakers, from ... [1650 to 1689]. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7fr05209&view=1up&seq=305&size=125)
• Alexnder Scherr, The Genesis of Bushell's Case: John Vaughan and Legal Change (Can't find it)
• Sir Samuel Starling, An Answer to the Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlet (Found online version)
• William Penn, Truth Rescued from Imposture (Found online version)
• William Penn, Joseph Besse edit., A collection of the works of William Penn (2 vols) (Read in Burke special collection)

This is work well under way now. There are two primary jobs to do: tightening the relationship between narrative and analysis, and removing yourself from the draft to give a more "academic" tone to the writing.