Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
William Penn on the three fundamental rights of citizens
William Penn on the three fundamental rights of citizens
Dec 25, 2025 10:06 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 These rights cannot be altered or repealed.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
6 Quotes: C.S. Lewis on government, economics, and freedom
The beloved novelist and Christian thinker C. S. Lewis was born on Nov. 29, 1898, in Belfast, Ireland. In honor of his 119th birthday, here are six quotes from Lewis on government, economics, and freedom: On democratic government: “I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they...
Appreciating the importance of vocational education
If there is one thing young people believe in collectively, it is their individuality. “No two people are alike,” the refrain goes. But in the age of Common Core, educational systems too often treat all students alike, glossing over their unique skills and abilities. A top-down, cookie-cutter curriculum and the decline of vocational education have left too many children, on both sides of the Atlantic, without an ability to exercise their gifts. Erik Lidström, who has written extensively on educational...
Christian freedom isn’t about choice
As supporters of economic freedom, we frequently find ourselves in vigorous defense of personal choice, whether in business, trade, consumer goods, education, or otherwise. But while the elevation of economic choice is based on plenty of principle, not to mention historical and empirical analysis, we ought to be careful that our views about freedom aren’t confused or conflated in the process. Given our cultural appetite for turning choice into an idol above all else, it’s a risk we’d do well...
Against canned food drives: When gift-giving is wasteful
During a season such as Christmas, when hyper-consumerism and hyper-generosity often converge in strange and mysterious ways, how much of our gift-giving is inefficient or wasteful? It’s a question that economists continue to ponder, but to which many a gift-giver is prone to shrug. In one sense, isn’t the whole pointto mirror the most extravagant gift of all? Why be concerned about “wasteful” giving? But if the starting points of our generosity e decidedly apathetic or misaligned with actual human...
Why increasing job safety lowers workers wages
Note: This is post #58 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Here’s a surprising fact: Firms have an incentive to increase job safety, because then they can lower wages. In this video by Marginal Revolution University, economist Alex Tabarrok explores this claim in much greater depth and answers the questions: Why do riskier jobs often pay more? Why has job safety increased over the years? How does a firm’s profit motive play a role? (If you find the...
The persistent advantage of private virtue
Several years ago, in a discussion on Charles Murray’s bookComing Apart, Ross Douthat included a brilliant observation about what he dubs the “persistent advantage of private virtue“: Finally, Murray makes a very convincing case . . . for the power of so-called “traditional values” to foster human flourishing even in economic landscapes that aren’t as favorable to less-educated workers as was, say, the aftermath of the Treaty of Detroit. Even acknowledging all the challenges (globalization, the decline of manufacturing, mass...
Why we need the profit system
There is a paradox when es to profits, says economist Arnold Kling: while the profits that accrue to any given individual may be unjust, the profit system itself is necessary in order to have a modern, progressive society. There is no simple way for us to enjoy the benefits of the system while ing all of the instances of injustice. Yet despite the injustice, says Kling, the profit system is the most effective, humane way to organize economic activity. The...
What would life be like without free enterprise?
The Fund for American Studies has a superb It’s a Wonderful Life-style video about life without capitalism. The video not only shows what life would be like if we banned free enterprise (i.e., a lot like Soviet Russia) but also makes the point that when you lose economic freedom you lose other freedoms too. As the angel says, “When you take away the carrot, all you’re left with is the stick. My favorite part of the video: Anti-capitalist activist: “I...
No size or space in subsidiarity
When thinking and talking about principle of subsidiarity I’ve tended to resort to using metaphors of size and space (i.e.,nothing should be done by a higher orlargerorganization which can be done as well by a smalleror lower organization). But philosopher Brandon Watson explains why that is not really what subsidiarity is all about: The subsidiarity principle is often paired with the principle of solidarity, and there is a real connection between the two. Solidarity is the active sense of responsibility...
When it comes to work-life balance, women know better than government
A series of governments across the West have crafted policies designed to help women achieve their goals. However, they failed to ask women what those goals might be. Economic interventions designed to nudge women into careers they don’t want, or to enter the workforce full-time even if they prefer to work in the home, uniquely disempower the women they are intended to help. Juan A. Soto, executive director of the Barcelona-based think tankFundación Arete, tackles the issue in a new...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved