Trial of Peter Boss
New-England's spirit of persecution transmitted to Pennsilvania, : and
the pretended Quaker found persecuting the true Christian-Quaker, in the
tryal of Peter Boss, George Keith, Thomas Budd, and William Bradford, at
the sessions held at Philadelphia the nineth, tenth and twelfth days of
December, 1692. Giving an account of the most arbitrary procedure of
that court. By George Keith. Printed (by William Bradford?) in New York,
1693.
Charles P. Keith, Chronicles of Pennsylvania.
Chapter VIII, RELIGIOUS DISSENSION. Part 2, including:
Written judgment against him and replies thereto--Arrest of
Bradford and McComb, seizure of Bradford's tools, and proclamation
against Keith--The Yearly Meeting of 1692--Liability of Keith to
punishment under the civil laws--His arraignment with that of Boss,
Budd, Bradford, and McComb--Hat incident--The rest of the Court
proceedings--Relief granted by the Governor under the Crown--
The ministers in Quarterly Meeting judged Stockdale on 4mo. 4, 1692
[i.e. June 4]; the paper signed by Jennings as Clerk reproved him for
"uttering new words offensive to many sound and tender persons," but
blamed Keith for violating Gospel order in not dealing with Stockdale
alone before prosecuting the complaint, and for his "indecent
expression" to Stockdale. Keith not appearing to retract what he said
about "cloaking heresies and deceits," and the persons sent by the last
Quarterly Meeting to admonish him reporting his words about "doctrines
of devils," and about trampling "the judgment of the Meeting under his
feet," a second committee was sent to him, and the Meeting adjourned
for a fortnight. The second committee, obtaining no satisfaction,
prepared a testimony, to be published after he should have an
opportunity to read it, for which they were obliged to wait four or five
days later. The Meeting, on reconvening, forbade him to preach, and the
declaration was published against him, dated 4mo. 20, 1692, and signed
by the twenty-eight "public friends" following: (See note 4.)
Certain of these twenty-eight signers went from Meeting to Meeting to
deliver the judgment. On 4mo. 27, Lloyd, Jennings, and Delaval with
Samuel Richardson went to Frankford Monthly Meeting to give
countenance to the reading of the judgment, Lloyd speaking against
Keith for "imposing unscriptural words," i.e. asking belief according to
theological terms. This judgment could not have been received at
Frankford Monthly meeting with unanimous satisfaction; for
Martindale's _History_ says that John Hart controlled the constituent
First Day Meeting at Byberry in Keith's favor, and in time drove the
opposing attendants of Byberry to secede.
The friends and followers of Keith in Philadelphia were not overawed.
In protest against the judgment, Peter Boss wrote two letters to
Jennings. The first receiving no notice, Boss kept a copy of the second,
to insure an answer to it. It was clearly scurrilous in saying that the
twenty-eight would have been better employed in inquiring whether
Jennings or Simcock had been drunk on certain occasions, and also it
was scurrilous in Quaker eyes in similarly insinuating that Jennings had
once made a bet on the speed of his horse. The letter was not put in
print until after Boss had been tried for defaming a magistrate. Keith and
Thomas Budd wrote a _Plea for the Innocent_, signing it on behalf of
themselves and other Friends of their Meeting. Extenuating and
justifying Keith's use of bad names to his opponents, and telling of the
bad names which they gave to him, the _Plea_ was very severe on
Jennings, and said much more besides calling him "an ignorant,
presumptuous, and insolent men" and "too high and imperious both in
Friends meetings and worldly courts"; expressions for which Keith and
Budd were indicted as contravening an Act of Assembly that no words
of defamation be spoken against a magistrate. An answer to the
judgments was issued "on behalf of brethren who are falsely called the
Separate meetings at Philadelphia," maintaining that, by the first
judgment of Monthly Meeting, those making it had declared themselves
no true believers in Christ Jesus, and so the answerers could not own
them as Christians, nor join with them in worship. This answer was
dated 5mo. 3, 1692, at a meeting at the house of Philip James, and
signed by (5).
This answer was followed by an Appeal to the Yearly Meeting. The
Appeal was signed by Keith, Budd, Dungworth, George Hutcheson,
John Hart, and Abraham Opdegraves, and offered to have tried by two
or three impartial men twelve questions, whether Keith's "reviling
words" were not true, and whether the expressions and certain practices
of his enemies were not condemnable. The 9th of these questions was
based upon the use of force against Babbitt and his men, as mentioned
in the last preceding chapter (6), and inquired whether the twenty-eight
condemners of Keith had not better have condemned some of
themselves for hiring men to fight, commissioning them, as one preacher
had done, and so, by force of arms, recovering a sloop, and taking
privateers. There will be little doubt that the hiring of men to fight, and
the providing of Indians with powder and lead to fight other Indians,
against which the 10th question was directed, was inconsistent with the
peace principles of Friends. Question No. 11 was whether it was
according to the Gospel that ministers should pass sentence of death on
malefactors, as some had done, "preaching one day not to take an eye
for an eye, . . . another day taking life for life?" In this connection, it
may be remarked that the Bishops in the English House of Lords do not
adjudge matters of treason or capital crime. This 11th question, which
may have been suggested by Opdegraves, a former Mennonite, brought
forward the difficulty in conscience which had induced Quakers
elsewhere and all Mennonites to keep aloof from administering secular
government. Bradford, the printer, having taken side with Keith, printed
this Appeal.
"Justices Cooke, Jennings, Richardson, Morrey, Ewer,
and Anthony Morris asked the only Justices who were
not Quakers, viz : Lasse Cock, a Swede, and John
Holmes, a Baptist, to join in taking steps against 'the
seditious and dangerous,' but Cock and Holmes told
their five colleagues that the whole matter was a
religious difference, and did not relate to the
government."
Thereupon began proceedings which amounted to religious persecution
by indirection, although it took the form of prosecution for slander, and
for unlicensed use of the press, and could be justified if the acts of some
modern judges of our day in punishing for contempt of court can be.(7)
Those whose conduct had been animadverted upon in this published
Appeal, who probably had previously, in another situation, contended
for liberty of conscience and of the press, now persuaded themselves
that bitter words against magistrates uttered in religious controversy, and
questions whether their executing offices was consistent with their
principles, tended to overthrow the government. They proceeded against
the printer. A warrant was signed by Samuel Richardson and Robert
Ewer, Justices; and the Sheriff and a constable entered Bradford's shop,
and seized all the copies of the _Appeal_ which could be found, and
took Bradford before the Justices. John McComb, who was alleged to
have circulated two copies, was also arrested. Refusing to give security
to answer at the next court, Bradford and McComb were committed to
jail by warrant dated Aug. 24, 1692, signed by Justices Cooke, Jennings,
and Humphrey Morrey, as well as Robert Ewer. On another warrant,
Bradford's house was searched, and his type taken away. The day after
the commitment of Bradford and McComb, Justices Cooke, Jennings,
Richardson, Morrey, Ewer, and Anthony Morris asked the only Justices
who were not Quakers, viz : Lasse Cock, a Swede, and John Holmes, a
Baptist, to join in taking steps against "the seditious and dangerous," but
Cock and Holmes told their five colleagues that the whole matter was a
religious difference, and did not relate to the government. Holmes asked
them to send for Keith, and offered to join them if it them appeared that
Keith struck at the government. This not being done, Cock and Holmes
then withdrew. The others then issued a proclamation describing Keith
as a seditious person and enemy to the King and Queen's government,
in that Keith had publicly reviled Thomas Lloyd, the Deputy-Governor,
calling him an impudent man, telling him that he was not fit to be
Governor, and that his name would stink, and in that Keith had
misrepresented the industry, care, readiness, and vigilance of some
magistrates and others in the proceedings against some privateers. The
point was made in the documents that to grant that it was inconsistent
for ministers of the gospel to act as magistrates, would render the
"Proprietary incapable of the powers given him by the King's letters
patent, and so prostitute the validity of every act of government more
especially in the executive part thereof to the courtesie and censure of all
factious spirits." After explaining that the procedure against those in the
Sheriff's custody, and what was intended against others, respected only
the tendency to sedition and disturbance, and did not relate to difference
in religion, the proclamation warned against giving countenance to any
contemners of authority, and against further publishing of the pamphlet
called the _Appeal_. It is declared in _New England's Spirit of
Persecution Transmitted to Pennsilvania_ (8) that Keith never spoke
the aforesaid words except in Monthly Meetings and religious
controversies, and that Lloyd had several times said that he would take
no advantage of what was being said.
Bradford and McComb asked for a trial at the approaching term of
Court, but the case was continued until December, and McComb's
license to keep an inn was revoked. Meanwhile Bradford retired from
his employment of printing for Friends. The restraint upon the two was
indeed relaxed by the Sheriff : McComb's wife lying ill, he was let off
daily, and even at night, to visit her, and afterwards both he and
Bradford were allowed to go about their business, on giving their word
to appear. But they or their advisers saw the dramatic effect of writing a
statement from prison, so, having prepared a statement to the public,
they went to the Sheriff's house, which served as jail, and which
communicated by a common entry with the house adjoining, and, the
Sheriff being out, so that they could get in no further, they signed their
names in the entry. With more frankness, to show the unfairness of the
claim that the Appeal was subversive of government, the three
judgments complained of by Keith, the Answer, and the Appeal were
then printed in one pamphlet. The _Appeal_ was set up on posts in
Philadelphia nine days before the time appointed for the Yearly Meeting.
The Yearly Meeting was held that year in Burlington on the 4th, 5th,
6th, and 7th days of 7th month [i.e. September]. It is evident that those
who gave the judgment appealed from, were not willing to submit the
subject to the general company of Friends attending : Keith, if given the
opportunity to make a speech, was to be feared. He and his supporters
conferred together in the Court House, and sent to the Meeting a paper
asking for an answer to the _Appeal_, or requesting their adversaries to
allow a fair hearing before impartial Friends an hour after the close of
meeting for worship on the second day of meeting. The messenger
found the door of the meeting-house crowded, with the object, he
supposed, of keeping out the Keith party; whereupon the messenger got
up into the window, and stood there while he read, probably both letter
and Appeal, nor did he desist when Thomas Janney started to pray,
which the Keithians believed to be an expedient to stop the reading. It is
not necessary here to examine the question, who had the standing to be
considered in adjourning the sittings, or taking the action of Yearly
Meetings. Many who claimed impartiality, as not having been concerned
actually on either side, met at the time Keith desired for a hearing. Lloyd
and his party were then sent for, but refuse to come, and those in
attendance adjourned until an hour after the public meeting the next day.
Then Lloyd and his party again refused to come. Then or on the
previous day some ministers came to offer a hearing on the last day of
the Meeting, but these were sent away, because Keith would not agree :
he knew that the large attendance, on which he depended for victory,
would not continue so long. The following, who may have included a
number of New Jersey ministers, then declared Lloyd and his party in
default, and proceeded to hear Keith, and decided in his favor: (See note
9).
They signed as from the Yearly Meeting, on behalf of themselves and
"many more Friends who are one with us herein," a declaration that
Keith and his friends were not guilty of the division leading to the setting
up of separate meetings, that Lloyd and the rest of the twenty-eight
should recall their paper of condemnation, and condemn the same in
writing, and that the public Friends charged with misdemeanors and ill
behavior should forbear speaking in public meetings until they cleared
themselves. The declaration, or decision, with the signatures was printed
: a reprint of the whole is in Mrs. Thomas Potts James's _Memorial of
Thomas Potts_. We are more familiar with other forms of some of the
surnames, such as Fitz Randolph (now Randolph of Phila. and N. J.),
Updengraff, van Bebber, &ct. A Confession of Faith, probably the one
prepared by Keith, as before mentioned, was also issued under date of
7mo. 7, 1692. It was subsequently printed by Bradford. It appears that
those remaining in attendance at the meeting-house either treated Keith's
appeal as not prosecuted before them, or formally confirmed the
judgment against him, the latter action being mentioned by Gough. A
contrite letter dated 11, 31, 1692, from Caleb Wheatly, aforesaid signer
in favor of Keith, saying that he had been blinded by fond, foolish
affection for Keith, is printed by Gough.
"It seems straining the meaning to say that putting to
death was authorized. Overt acts of sedition, rioting,
&tc. seem to have been so punishable, by the laws of
England in this regard not having been superseded."
As hinted in the Justices' proclamation, Keith could be caught under
Chapter XXVIII of the Great Law of 1682, that any person convicted of
speaking, writing, or any act tending to sedition or disturbance of the
peace should be fined not less than 20s., or else under Chapter XXIX,
that any person convicted of speaking slightingly or carrying himself
abusively against any magistrate or person in office should suffer
according to the quality of the magistrate and nature of the offence, but
not less than a fine of 20s. or ten days imprisonment at hard labor. Both
of these statutes allowed much latitude to the judges imposing sentence,
although Chapter XXVIII did not admit of imprisonment, except as
resulting from non-payment of a heavy fine, whereas Chapter XXIX
contemplated a severe punishment when the magistrate in question was
the highest officer in the Province, as was Thomas Lloyd. It seems
straining the meaning to say that putting to death was authorized. Overt
acts of sedition, rioting, &tc. seem to have been so punishable, by the
laws of England in this regard not having been superseded. As to one
who had done more than print or circulate a pamphlet, or write a
scurrilous letter, it was to be expected, from the tone of the
proclamation, that in some process or proceeding emanating from them
or other members of their party invested with the authority, there would
be the formal charge of sedition. We cannot suppose that there was any
likelihood of Keith suffering death, but the possibility of it was not only
set forth by him, some years later, apparently as a claim to hearing and
consideration, but, indeed, was mentioned by his old antagonist, Rev.
Cotton Mather, before Keith's statement, at least the one known to the
present writer, appeared. Mather said in his _Decennium Luctuosum_,
printed in Boston in 1699 (reprinted in _Narratives of Indian Wars
1675-1699_) : "'tis verily thought that poor George would have been
made a sacrifice to Squire Samuel Jennings and the rest of the
Pennsylvania dragons [is there an allusion to St. George and the
dragon?]; and that since a crime which their laws had made capital was
mentioned in the mittimus whereby Keith was committed, they would
have hang'd him, if a revolution upon their government had not set him
at liberty." Keith's statement was "I was presented by a grand jury at
Philadelphia, and the presentment would have been prosecuted if the
government had not been changed, and I had been accused for
endeavoring to alter the government, which is capital by their law, and
they would have found me guilty of death, had they not been turned out
of the government, tho' I was innocent, and when I objected against the
jury, they would not suffer one of the jury to be cast." Perhaps he
meant the Grand Jury.
The actual proceedings in the County Court, as far as ascertained, were
as follows. Boss, Budd, Keith, Bradford, and McComb, having been
indicted by the grand jury of Philadelphia County, were arraigned for
trial in December, 1692. The Justices sitting through the proceedings
were Jennings, Cooke, Richardson, Ewer, Henry Waddy, and Griffith
Owen, Quakers, and Holmes, the Baptist, but Turner, a Keithian,
attended on the 10 and 12th of the month, and Cock, the Swede, and
Anthony Morris attended on the 12th. When Bradford and McComb,
apparently the first ones to be tried, appeared, a Justice upraided them
for "standing so before the Court." McComb said "You can order our
hats taken off." Probably the Quaker Justices did not proceed to such
inconsistency. About thirty years after this, when, as Chancellor of the
Court of Equity, Sir William Keith--no near relative of George--ordered
John Kinsey's hat to be taken off, strong exception was taken to such
interference with Quaker custom, and, on the next day, the Chancellor
made an order that thenceforth, in the Courts of the Province, every
man should remain covered or uncovered according to his persuasion.
We may here recall the story which Miss Strickland, in her _Queens of
England_ ,tells of King James II, when, for the first time after his
accession, receiving William Penn. Penn came with his hat on,
whereupon the King took off his own, and, on Penn being surprised,
naively remarked that it was the custom in that place for "only one man
to wear a hat."
"The jurors in this case remained out forty-eight
hours, and then came in to ask a question, and were
sent back, according to the barbarous method of
forcing a decision,--it was Winter,--without meat,
drink, fire, or tobacco. In the afternoon, they returned
and said that they could not agree, and were
discharged."
The vindication of the dignity of Lloyd and the Quaker ministers in the
judiciary was not left in the hands of impartial men, and in the
proceedings in Court, there was a neglect of the proprieties which only
the scarcity of lawyers, judges, and jurors disconnected with the
controversy can, as to some points, excuse. The public prosecutor, or
Attorney-General, John Moore, being an adherent of the Church of
England, David Lloyd was appointed to conduct the prosecution.
Jennings sat on the bench with the other Judges, even in the trial of
Boss, although refraining from joining in the judgment, or the fixing of
the fines. Keith made a speech, but declined to plead in form, and was
marked "Nihil dicit;" the others, particularly Boss, putting themselves on
trial, excepted to the Quakers on the jury as prejudice, some especially
so, against Keith and all who favored him, but the majority of the
Judges would not allow the exceptions, although the Baptist Judge
wished to; and one of the twenty-eight who signed the paper of
condemnation against Keith, and against whom Boss's letter was
written, actually sat on this jury. However, to the credit of Quakers be it
spoken, the jurors, or at least enough to control the verdict, were rather
scrupulous, and gave a verdict satisfactory to the prosecution only in the
case of Boss, whom they found guilty of transgressing the XXIXth
Chapter of the Law. He was accordingly fined 6£, in default of paying
which he remained a prisoner until after the change of government. In
Budd's case, the jury, after sitting all night, found him simply guilty of
saying that Jennings behaved himself too high and imperiously in
worldly courts. It was claimed that this was no conviction on the
indictment. However, Budd was fined 5£. Bradford, denying that the
_Appeal_ was seditious, asserted the advanced principle that the jury
must find both that it was seditious, and that he had printed it. This
protection to liberty was not allowed : a majority of the Judges declared
that whether it was seditious was a question for the Judges, and that all
the jury had to do was to say whether he had printed it. To prove that
fact, his printing frame was sent to the jury after he had retired, without
it being exhibited in open court. The jurors in this case remained out
forty-eight hours, and then came in to ask a question, and were sent
back, according to the barbarous method of forcing a decision,--it was
Winter,--without meat, drink, fire, or tobacco. In the afternoon, they
returned and said that they could not agree, and were discharged.
McComb appears to have been acquitted or discharged; for Gough says
that he afterwards was so just as to give a true state of the case. Budd
and Keith asked for an appeal to the Provincial Court, but this was
denied. They then asked for an appeal to the King and Queen under the
Vth article of the Charter to Penn. This, too, was denied, Justice Robert
Turner dissenting, as he had done on several points. However guilty the
various accused had been of discrediting the civil government, and even
if the circumstances had not mitigated their offence, there is no wonder
that, reading the report of these trials in _New England's Spirit of
Persecution Transmitted to Pennsilvania_, and even before hearing of
any danger to the life of Keith, people outside of the Province felt, that,
if such were Quaker methods, no man could trust his liberty or property
to a trial by Quakers. Whether the law had been stretched too far or not,
the fact remained that both liberty and property had been taken away
judicially by the opposing party in a religious dispute. Should a case arise
where the legal penalty clearly involved loss of life, would not the
Quakers vindicate their authority in the same way as the
Congregationalists of New England? This suspicion had nothing to do
with the assumption, described in the next chapter, of the government
by the Crown. That change had already been ordered. What was the
occasion of the letter of Lloyd and others to Keith shortly after the
Court adjourned, is not known.
The indictment or a fresh one was pending against Keith when the new
Governor assumed authority. (10) Keith, in his aforesaid statement
about being accused of a capital offence, goes on to say that this
representative of the Crown "ordered them to let fall the indictment, and
I was cleared by a public writ signed by the Deputy Governor Col.
Markham and the Council." The only record found bearing on this is the
minute of Fletcher's Council for June 20, 1693, Markham presiding, that
George Keith (printed "Seith" in _Colonial Records_, Vol. I.) exhibited
a letter to Keith dated 10th month 26, 1692 [i.e. December], from
Thomas Lloyd, Samll. Jennings, Arthur Cooke, and Jno. Delaval,
charging him with being crazy, turbulent, a decrier of magistracy, and a
notorious evil instrument in Church and State; whereupon Fletcher's
Council issued a certificate of Keith's good behavior. The fines against
Keith and Budd, which the Quaker government had not attempted to
collect, were remitted, as well as Boss's, by Fletcher, who released Boss
from prison, and caused Bradford's tools and type to be returned to him.
==> Part 3.
NOTES and LINKS --
(4)Thomas Lloyd, John Willsford, Nicholas Waln, William Watson, George Maris,
William Cooper, Thomas Thackory, William Biles (printed "Byles"), Samuel
Jennings, Thomas Duckett, Joshua Fearne, Even Morris, Richard Walter, John
Symcock, Griffith Owen, John Bown, Henry Willis, Paul Sanders, John
Blunston, John Deleval, William Yardley (printed "Yeardly"), Joseph Kirkbride,
Walter Fawcit, Hugh Roberts, Robert Owen, William Walker, John Lynam,
George Gray
(5)Richard Dungworth, John Wells, Phillip James, Henry Furnis, James Shattuck,
James Cooper, Sen., William Davis, Robert Wallis, James Poulter, Nicholas
Pierce, Thomas Budd, John Barclay, William Bradford, James Cooper, Junr.,
John Loftus, John McComb, James Chick, John Bartram, Abel Noble, Joseph
Walker, Thomas Paschall, Richard Hilliard, William Waite, Anthony Sturges,
Ralph Ward, Thomas Peart, John Chandler, Peter Chamberlain
(6)When Peter Babbitt and some accomplices stole a sloop from a wharf in
Philadelphia, three magistrates, including a minister and two other Quakers,
"issued a warrant in the nature of a hue and cry," followed by the owner's offer
of a 100l. reward. A party of volunteers recovered the vessel and captured the
robbers. (C. Keith, page 208.)
(7)This comment was originally printed in 1917, during the first World War, when
civil liberties had been seriously abridged in many U.S. courts.
(8)_New-England's spirit of persecution transmitted to Pennsilvania, : and
the pretended Quaker found persecuting the true Christrian-Quaker, in the
tryal of Peter Boss, George Keith, Thomas Budd, and William Bradford, at
the sessions held at Philadelphia the nineth, tenth and twelfth days of
December, 1692. Giving an account of the most arbitrary procedure of
that court._ By George Keith. Printed (by William Bradford?) in New York,
1693.
(9)Robert Turner, Elias Burling, John Reid, Charles Read, Thomas Coborne,
Harmon Updengraves, Thomas Powell, Nathaniel Fitzrandal, Joseph Richards,
Edmund Wells, Thomas Kimber, Edward White, Thomas Gladwin, Thomas
Rutter, Edward Smith, Benjamin Morgan, Joseph Sharp, William Thomas, John
Bainbridge, John Snowden, William Black, William Snowden, Nathaniel
Walton, Robert Roe, Peter Boss, Thomas Bowles, William Budd, James Silver,
Samuell Taylor, Griffith Jones, William Righton, Thomas Kendall, Samuell
Houghton, John Neall, Anthony Woodward, Andrew Smith, William Hixon,
John Pancoast, Henry Burcham, Thomas Hearse, John Jones, Joseph Willcox,
Thomas Godfrey, John Budd, Roger Parke, Caleb Wheatly, Abraham Brown,
John Hampton, Daniel Bacon, Joseph Adams, Edward Guy, Bernard Devonish,
Samuel Ellis, Thomas Cross, James Moore, Thomas Jenner, John Harper,
Robert Wheeler, Emanuel Smith, Peter Daite, Richard Sery, George Willcox,
William Wells, Isaac Jacobs Van Biber, Cornelius Scivers, William Snead,
David Sherkis, John Carter, Henry Paxon, Thomas Tindal.
(10)In the aftermath of the unsuccessful Preston Conspiracy to return James II to the
throne in England, William Penn's loyalty to King William was called into
question. Colonel Benjamin Fletcher, Governor of New York, was
commissioned to take the Province of Pennsylvania under his command, and in
April, 1693, Fletcher arrived in Philadelphia. He was apparently welcomed by
many Philadelphians, not least the Keithian Quakers, while Thomas Lloyd and
others in the Quaker establishment ascquiesced to the new regime (much to
Penn's dismay). This was effectively the end of the Quaker franchise in
Pennsylvania.
http://www.mindspring.com/~kwattles/keith2.html
