Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
William Penn on the three fundamental rights of citizens
William Penn on the three fundamental rights of citizens
Feb 16, 2026 7:57 PM

Yesterday was the birthday ofWilliam Penn, the influential English Quaker and founder of Pennsylvania. This year also marks the 300th anniversary of his death.

Although Penn was an Englishman, he became, as Gary M. Galles says, the first great champion of American liberty. As Galles notes,

When Charles II died, a large debt to Penn’s father was settled in 1681 by granting him what would e Pennsylvania. Penn implemented his authority over the colony in his 1682Frame of Government, Pennsylvania’s first constitution. Despite being answerable only to the King, Penn provided for elected representatives, a separation of powers, religious freedom, and fair trials, all of which were incorporated in our Constitution.

In 1679, three years before he took over the American colony, Penn laid the groundwork by arguing in the English Parliament for the recognition of three fundamental rights that should belong to all citizens: the right to property, the right to share in the making of the laws, and the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers. Penn wanted to warn his countrymen about the dangers offorgetting their rights—a lesson we still need to hear today.

Because Penn’sseventeenth century grammar and vocabulary is unfamiliar to us, I’ve taken the liberty of “translating” his speech for modern readers:

We, the members of the House of Commons of England, are a great part of the fundamental government of the country. Three rights are so particular and important to us that we will not relinquish them for fear or favor, for meat and drink, or for those other little present profits, that men of ill will offer to tempt us with. These rights cannot be altered or repealed. And this I was willing to give you a brief hint of, that you may know what sort of creatures you are and what your power is, lest through ignorance of your own strength and authority, you e captive the fickle moods of those in power, that properly and truly are but your servants, and ought to be used so.

The first of these three fundamentals is property. You have the right and title to your own lives, liberties, and lands. In this, every man is a sort of little supreme authority to himself. No other man has power over him, to imprison or hurt it, or over his property to trespass or seize it. Only your own violation of the civil laws, (and those you made through your representatives) lays you open to losing your property, which is but the punishment due to your crimes, and this but in proportion to the mitted. So that the legitimate power of the state of England is the power of laws, which is the only form that should truly merit the name of legitimate government. That which is contrary to the rule of law, is a tyranny, and not properly a government. Now the law is umpire between King, Lords and Commons, and the right to one’s property is the same for all men!

The second fundamental right, as your birthright and inheritance as Englishmen, is the right of legislation, or the power of making laws. No law can be made or repealed in England without you. Before Henry III’s time, your ancestors, the landowners of England, would represent themselves. But their population has increased, and there is now so many people that such direct assemblies are no longer a practicable way of conducting the business of governance. This way of representation was first proposed as an expedient measure, both to maintain mon right of making law, and to avoid the confusion of trying to do it in large assemblies of people. So that now, as in the past, no law can be made, no taxes imposed, and no money demanded of you (even to defray the costs of the government) without your own consent. Is there a better way of creating free and secure people?

Your third great fundamental right and privilege is the right to a jury. The right is connected to the other two, in order plete both your freedom and security. This right is your share in the administration of justice, in the execution and application of those laws that you agree to be made. To the extent that no man, according to the ancient laws of the nation, can be adjudged in matters of life, liberty, or property, but it must be by the judgment of his peers, that is, twelve men of the monly called a jury. Though this right has been infringed by two acts made in the previous Parliament—one against the Quakers in particular, and the other against dissenters in general—called, An Act against Seditious Religious Meetings, where persons are declared offenders of the law and punished without a jury. It is hoped this Parliament will think fit in their wisdom to repeal this law, though with less severity, than one of the same nature (as to punishing men without juries) was by Henry VII, who beheaded Edmund Dudley and Sir Richard Empson for embezzlement.

Consider for your selves that there is nothing more important to your interest than for you to understand your rights in the government, and to be constantly protective of them, for your well-being depends upon their preservation.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Sir Roger Scruton was a fearless ‘Knight of the West’
The late Sir Roger Scruton has been given many titles since his death on January 12. He’s been hailed as the “greatest conservative thinker of our age,” Britain’s “intellectual dissident” and beauty’s best modern defender. For Samuel Gregg, he will be forever remembered “as a gentle Knight of the Realm, but above all a fearless Knight of the West.” Writing at Law & Liberty, Gregg recalls Scruton’s fearlessness in the face of harassment endured for decades. Scruton was an unapologetic...
This policy would destroy $11.5 trillion of U.S. wealth
A presidential season is a time of policies, proposals, and promises. All will guarantee they will increase national wealth and well-being, but history and rational analysis show that some reforms will hurt the very voters who support them. The wealth tax is one such policy, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The organization released its analysis of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “Ultra-Millionaires Tax” and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal – and the results are distinctly dispiriting. A wealth tax would shrink GDP,...
Untangling the roots of wealth inequality is more complex than it appears
Inequality is one of those topics that is sure to spark quick and intense debate, wherever and whenever it is raised. In any such discussion, however, facts matter. That’s one reason why my attention was recently drawn to an article published in early December at Real Clear Markets, titled “Inequality Is Decidedly Not the Problem In the U.S.” The author, Aaron Brown, writes: There is a simple theory of inequality in which rich people have nearly all the wealth and...
Catholics and classical liberals, yesterday and today
In many countries, debates we had 40 years ago are starting to be rehashed: can one be both a Catholic and a classical liberal? It’s good to remember some of the arguments that liberal Catholics used then to justify their positions. The Spanish priest Enrique Menéndez Ureña, SJ (1939-2014) started to work on this topic in the late 70s and early 80s. His work culminated in the book The Myth of Socialist Christianity, first published in 1981 as El Mito...
Law & Liberty forum helps break down free markets versus economic nationalism debate
Since 2015, I have spent more time than I could ever have imagined debating the issue of whether free markets are more optimal for the United States (or any other country) than the various policies usually grouped together under the phrase “economic nationalism.” It’s a discussion that touches on questions ranging from the place of economics in determining policy to issues of foreign policy (most particularly, America’s relationship with China) and the economic role of the state. It also has...
Warren wants to stop Russia from spreading disinformation, like she does
Today is the Iowa caucuses. For Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), it may be a campaign-defining day. Her support has been waning in the polls in what should be one of her strongest states. If she doesn’t garner at least 15% support, she won’t get any Iowan delegates and likely won’t end up the Democratic party’s presidential nominee. The excitement and tension is palpable. Can’t you feel it? (No? Just me?) Well, I’m excited because Warren has run a unique campaign....
Samuel Gregg: ‘Economic nationalism will not make America great again’
In early January, Samuel Gregg explained at Law & Liberty how economic policies driven by nationalist protectionism have, in many cases, eventually resulted in economic loss. Generally, protectionist policies are implemented in order to protect workers and industries, however, they also have the effect of throwing market incentives off balance. When a nation employing protectionist policies disincentivizes other countries from importing or exporting parative advantage in that nation’s industries is “dulled,” argues Gregg. “The more you protect the industry, the...
Acton Institute ranks among world’s best in 2019 think tank report
A report on the global impact of think tanks has ranked the Acton Institute among the world’s most influential thought leaders. The University of Pennsylvania released its “2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report” last Friday. This year, the annual report – which was “designed to identify and recognize centers of excellence in all the major areas of public policy research” – opened the ratings to all 8,248 think tanks in its database. The report has recognized the Acton...
Alejandro Chafuen in Forbes: Impeachment and markets
In an essay entitled “Passions, Politics and the Removal of a President: Lessons Learned from the Impeachment of President Clinton,” which appeared in Grove City College’s Journal of Law & Public Policy, former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty tried to share what he and other Republicans learned from President William Jefferson Clinton’s impeachment in the late 1990s. After we are done with President Donald John Trump’s impeachment, perhaps McNulty will have a follow-up article on “lessons not learned.” In case...
Brexit restores the UK’s national character
After a bitter, three-and-a-half year political battle, the UK will leave the European Union at 11 p.m. on Friday, January 31, 2020. Brexit returns control of British political institutions, immigration laws, regulatory standards, and free trade policies to its citizens. That is, Brexit empowers the British people to determine their own destiny. “Brexit was really about a fundamental desire of humanity: our thirst for liberty,” writes Rev. Richard Turnbull ina new analysisfor the Acton Institute’sReligion & Liberty Transatlanticwebsite. Rev. Turnbull,...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved