William Penn and the right to free speech
Recently, Irish comedian Graham Linehan was jailed by the UK government for mocking transgenderism. The renowned comedian was so shocked by this he was then hospitalized for a dangerously high blood pressure spike.
One of the posts he was arrested for was the following: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.” The comedian’s punchline, relying on the absurdity of self-identified women having testicles, was used as justification for his arrest under “suspicion of inciting violence.”
The UK government has become increasingly repressive toward political speech, recently arresting protest organizers in the English town of Epping. Protesters there have been opposing the use of a local hotel to house foreigners claiming asylum. One leader, Sarah White, was arrested after she “unfurled a Union flag” outside the Epping council building, though the police deny that was the reason.
The protests started in July, in response to a sexual assault of a local girl by a foreign man, Hadush Kebatu of Ethiopia. Anger at mass migration has been rising in the UK, with child sex abuse gangs of predominantly Pakistani background back in the news with the release of a 2025 government inquiry on the gangs.
As government authorities prosecute speech, juries become a last line of defense for the speakers.
The London trial of William Penn in 1670, and the subsequent trial of Edward Bushel, one of Penn’s jurors, established the right of jury nullification in common law. The peoples of the UK and US should know this right, as they may be needing it. Penn’s case pertained directly to public assembly.
The court charged Penn, and alleged co-conspirator William Mead, thusly:
“William Penn, by Agreement between him and William Mead before made, and by Abetment of the aforesaid 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…
By Reason whereof a great Concourse and Tumult of People in the Street aforesaid, then and there, a long time did remain and continue, in contempt of the 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 Leige People and Subjects, to the ill Example of all others in the like Case Offenders, and against the Peace of the said Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity.”
The court used intimidation tactics to cow the defendants, but Penn upheld his dignity, as the dialogue transcript between the mayor, the judge (recorder), and Penn shows. The observer narrator was also Penn:
MAYOR:. Sirrah, who bid you put off their Hats? Put on their Hats again.
OBSERVER: Whereupon one of the Officers putting the Prisoners Hats upon their Heads (pursuant to the Order of the Court) brought them to the Bar.
RECORDER: Do you know where you are?
PENN: Yes.
RECORDER: 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.
RECORDER: Do you not know there is Respect due to the Court?
PENN: Yes.
RECORDER: Why do you not pay it then?
PENN: I do so.
RECORDER: Why do you not pull off your Hat then?
PENN: Because I do not believe that to be any Respect.
RECORDER: 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.
The court prosecuted the case imperiously, not identifying what defined Penn’s assembly as unlawful. It fell to defendant William Mead to define an unlawful assembly in his defense:
“the Recorder will not tell you what makes a riot, a rout, or an unlawful assembly. Cook, he that once they called the Lord Cook, 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 man’s land.”
There was no evidence of their having gathered for those criminal purposes. Yet the recorder still demanded that the jury convict, and affirm his opinion.
RECORDER: You have heard what the Indictment is. It is for preaching to the People, and drawing a tumultuous Company after them, and Mr. Penn was speaking; if they should not be disturbed, you see they will go on; there are three or four Witnesses that have proved this, that he did preach there; that Mr. Mead did allow of it; after this, you have heard by substantial Witnesses what is said against them: Now we are upon the Matter of Fact, which you are to keep to, and observe, as what hath been fully sworn, at your Peril.
The jury found Penn not guilty of the indictment, as the transcript between clerk, foreman, recorder, and mayor shows.
CLERK: Look upon the Prisoners at the Bar. How say you? Is William Penn Guilty of the Matter whereof he stands indicted in Manner and Form, or Not Guilty?
FOREMAN: Guilty of Speaking in Gracechurch-Street.
COURT: Is that all?
FOREMAN: That is all I have in Commission.
RECORDER: You had as good say nothing.
MAYOR: Was it not an unlawful Assembly? You mean he was speaking to a Tumult of People there?
FOREMAN: My Lord, This is all I had in Commission.
CLERK: What say you, look upon the Prisoners: Is William Penn Guilty in Manner and Form, as he stands indicted, or Not Guilty?
FOREMAN: Here is our Verdict, holding forth a piece of Paper to the Clerk of the Peace, which follows;
We the Jurors, hereafter named, do find William Penn to be Guilty of Speaking or Preaching to an Assembly, met together in Gracechurch-Street, the 14th of August last, 1670. And that William Mead is Not guilty of the said Indictment.
The recorder ordered the jury jailed, without food or drink.
RECORDER: Gentlemen, you shall not be dismist till we have a Verdict, that the Court will accept; and you shall be lock’d 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.
Still the next morning the jury returned with the same verdict, declining to convict. This led to Penn declaring the prerogative of the jury, to judge both the facts and the law.
PENN: The Agreement of Twelve 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 perjur’d Men in Law. And looking upon the Jury, said, You are Englishmen, mind your Privilege, give not away your Right.
The jury famously responded: “Nor will we ever do it.”
The jury was imprisoned for this defiance of the court. But they did not remain prisoners for long, being justified by a subsequent case brought by the foreman Edward Bushel.
William Penn later became the founder of the Pennsylvania colony. And both British and American citizens can look to his case as grounds for rejecting prosecutions of lawful public assembly.
