The 1670 trial of Two Quakers that changed English law

The arrest and trial of two Quakers in 1670 exposed the limits of religious repression in Restoration England and helped secure the principle of jury independence in English law.

Arrest under the Conventicle Act

In 1670, William Penn and William Meade were arrested in Gracechurch Street, London, after preaching at a Quaker gathering. Their arrest took place under the recently passed Conventicle Act, which forbade religious assemblies of more than five people unless they were services of the Church of England.

The following day, both men were fined forty marks for refusing to remove their hats in court, a gesture consistent with Quaker plainness and refusal to perform outward signs of deference. Penn went further, citing Edward Coke on common law and appealing to rights rooted in the Great Charter (Magna Carta).

These arguments were dismissed. The recorder instructed the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty.

The jury refuses to comply

The trial took a decisive turn when the jury repeatedly refused to convict. Although William Penn is usually named as the central figure in the case, he was not alone in the dock. Penn was the principal speaker at the Gracechurch Street meeting and the more prominent defendant, but he was tried alongside William Meade, whose charge rested largely on his presence and association with the gathering.

The jury initially attempted a compromise verdict - finding Penn guilty of speaking in the street, but not guilty of unlawful assembly. This distinction mattered. It refused the central claim that Quaker worship itself constituted a criminal threat.

The magistrates refused to accept the verdict and ordered the jury to be locked up without meat, drink, fire, or tobacco. From the dock, Penn called out to them not to surrender their rights as Englishmen.

Imprisonment of prisoners and jurors

The charge that unarmed worshippers had riotously broken the peace was widely regarded as absurd. Yet the consequences were severe. Penn, Meade, and all twelve jurors were committed to prison.

Someone - almost certainly Penn’s father - paid the fines, and the prisoners were released. The jurors, however, pursued the matter further. Freed on a writ of habeas corpus, they sued the mayor and recorder for their treatment.

What had begun as an attempt to suppress Quaker worship was now exposing deeper flaws in the administration of justice.

Bushel’s Case and the law corrected

The jurors’ legal challenge culminated in Bushel’s Case, heard before the Court of Common Pleas. The court ruled that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts, establishing a vital principle: judges might advise or instruct juries, but could not coerce them.

The judgement stated that judges may try to open the eyes of jurors, but not to lead them by the nose. This ruling secured the independence of juries and placed a lasting limit on judicial power.

Penn later reinforced the argument in print, publishing a pamphlet with an appendix citing precedents stretching back to the Magna Carta of 1215. The Penn-Meade trial became a reference point in the long struggle against arbitrary justice.

Why the Penn-Meade trial still matters

The trial became famous because it showed how badly the arbitrary and oppressive practices of the courts needed reform. Attempts to coerce conscience - whether of defendants or jurors - weakened the law itself.

For Quaker history, the episode fits a familiar pattern. Friends did not set out to reform the legal system, but their refusal to act against conscience repeatedly exposed its limits. In 1670, the presence of two Quakers in the dock forced English law to correct itself.

The principle established then - that jurors must be free to judge without fear of punishment - remains a cornerstone of justice today. It stands as a reminder that enduring legal protections are often secured not by power, but by principled refusal.

Leave a comment