MERCANTILE INDEMNITY. Mr. Alderman Lushington role to ftate the grounds of a Motion, of which he had given notice on a former day, for a Committee to investigate the caufes and the amount of the loffes which had been fuftained by the merchants who had, in a time of public fcarcity, fupplied the country with corn, and to confider if there were any mode of indemnifying them for thefe loffes. He was aware that, in propofing this Motion, he had to encounter a ftrong general principle, that in mercantile fpeculation, thofe who engaged in them, who were entitled to their eventual profits, ought not to be indemnified for the eventual loffes. This propofition, taken generally, was true; but he would fhew the Houfe, that, in this cafe, they were fairly entitled to an exemption from the rule, becaufe it was strongly marked with peculiarities, which made it different from other cafes. It was upon this ground that he brought forward his Motion. He profeffed neither to be the advocate of the fufferers, nor a complainant of perfonal damage; but to be actuated by a fincere defire to promote the peace of the country, and an ardent zeal to encourage that public fpirit by which alone, in critical emergencies, it could be preferved. He was entirely unacquainted with thofe individuals who had fuffered in confequence of their exertions in importing grain into the country, at a time when it was threatened with one of the greatest calamities incident to man; and therefore he felt for them only as he would feel for others who had been subjected to a fevere and ruinous lofs. But it was extremely neceflary for the Houfe, overlooking all individual confiderations, to take care that thofe who, by their fpirited and patriotic exertions had afforded feafonable relief to the country, fhould not be fubjected to fuch a lofs as might in future difcourage and check that fpirit from which the public, as a body, had fo eminently benefited. He hoped we should not again be reduced to a fimilar ftate of diftress, and that Government would not again be obliged to interfere. It was unneffary for him to ftate, that all the purchases made by Government were not fufficient for the purpofe. He was enabled to ftate with the greatest accuracy, that all the grain imported by Government, in 1795, did not exceed 250,000 quarters. In the year 1796, in confequence of the ftrong inducements held out by Government, the merchants fent out orders to all parts of the globe. [Mr. Lufhington here read a part of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, in order to fhew the strong inducements held out by Government on this fubject] Thefe refolutions of the Committee induced them to make every poffible exertion; and the confequence was, that in the year 1796, above 700,000 quarters 4 H No. 17. were were imported. The fuccefs, however, of their exertions, militated against their intereft: for the great quantity they imported reduced the price fo much, that they actually loft between 60 and 70 per cent. The caution which, on the part of Government, led to thefe exertions, could not be cenfured, when the object at flake was confidered; because, if the harvest had not turned out fo abundant as it fortunately did, the value of their importations would have been more effectually felt. But this was not all; his argument derived ftrong collateral aid from the interference of Government in the market. By fupplying the market regularly every week with a certain quantity of corn, at a certain price, the merchants were of course under the neceffity of felling what they had imported at the fame price, and thus were deprived of thofe profits which, from the ftate of the country, they had been given to expect. He did not mean to propofe a complete indemnification for all their loffes. The utmost they could expect was, that their loffes fhould be foftened. It was a fubject of particularly great hazard. They relied upon the liberality of the Houfe; and if they could fhew that they had been urged on by the folicitation of Government, they fhould at leaft give them a hearing to eftablish their claim. Upon thefe grounds he should move for a Committee to inquire into their loffes. Mr. Sheridan did not oppofe the appointing a Committee; he hoped, however, that it would be an open one. He refe merely to afk the worthy Alderman one queftion. He had no doubt that the merchants who engaged in the fpeculation of importing grain were influenced by views of perfonal interest as well as by motives of public fpirit. Now he wished to know whether, if the harveft had failed, and the price of corn of courfe had rifen, they would have given up any part of their profits to the public? Mr. Alderman Lushington explained, that he did not mean to ftate that the merchants had been guided in their fpeculations folely by difinterested motives; but he contended that they were urged and impelled by Government to enter into the speculation, and that as they had fuftained fevere loffes by yielding to this impulfe, they had a fair and juft claim to indemnity. As to what would have happened if the price of corn had rifen instead of falling, he was fully convinced that, had this unfortunately been the cafe, the fituation of the country would have been truly deplorable, for he doubted much as the people were inclined to obey the laws, whether they would have remained long in fubjection to them, had the price of bread continued to rife after it was at fifteen-pence the quartern loaf. An open Committee was appointed to confider the motion. Mr. Mr. Powis moved for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend an Act paffed two years ago for regulating weights and meafures.--Leave was given. QUAKER'S BILL. The Order of the Day for the House refolving itself into a Committee of the whole Houfe on a Bill for granting relief to the people called Quakers, and for taking their folemn affirmation in criminal as well as civil cafes being read, Mr. Serjeant Adair moved, that the Speaker thould leave the Chair. Sir W. Scott entertaining fome folid and grave objections to the measure, expreffed a hope that the candour of the House would permit him to ftate them at fome length: of thofe objec tions, the most weighty related principally to that part of the Bill refpecting the payment of tythes; upon the other part, refpecting the affirmation of the Quakers, his judgment of courfe muft yield to thofe of fuperior practice and experience. He trusted, that he fhould not be deemed an enemy to Toleration, when he averred that religious opinions, the practice of which affected the civil rights of property, had no claim to have that practice provided for by the Legiflature; in other words, religious opinion, the exercife of which was injurious to the rights of others, did not give that exercife a title to fpecial provifions and protection. If, from thofe opinions, and the operation of them, civil inconveniences were to follow, thofe inconveniences ought to fall upon the perfon maintaining fuch opinions. The religious fentiments of the Quakers he took to be of this kind; upon the subject of Tythes, whatever the ideas of persons might be in a general point of view, it would not furely be denied that they were the abfolute property of those who were entitled to them. In fome cafes they were mere lay property, and therefore it was not, as had been stated, a question only of Ecclefiaftical property. A large mafs of the Tythes were lay property, under the title of Lay Impropriations. Another large mals was in the hands of Lay Corporations, fuch as the univerfities. If, to these masses, were added the beneficial Leafes of Tythes in the poffeffion of many Gentlemen, he should not, he prefumed, be accused of exaggeration, if he afferted that nearly half the Tythes of the Kingdom was in lay hands. It was a fact that the Quakers not only refufed to pay Tythes to the Clergy, but also to Lay Impropriators; and though thefe Tythes had been for three hundred years lay fees; yet, because before that period they belonged to the Clergy, the confcience of the Quakers, whofe fect had no exiftence then, revolted at the payment of them. But to whatever perfons they belonged, whether to the Clergy or Laity, ftill, as he had before contended, they were the ablolute property of the perfons poffeffing them. The Quakers, 4 H 2 however, however, acknowledging this to be the law, withheld the payment of them. It was not, certainly, his intention to queftion the foundation upon which fuch religious opinions and objections were held; but he owned, that it was to him unaccountable, that a Quaker holding an eftate, and obtaining an allowance for Tythes himself, fhould refufe to pay Tythes to others. He asked whether it did not found odd that a man should take a farm, and to get an allowance from the landlord for what he was to pay in tythes, and by way of putting this allowance in his pocket, plead that his confcience would not permit him to employ it for the purpofes for which it was intended? This opinion of the Quakers was one which directly affected the rights of civil property. Would Gentlemen inform him, how far a Legiflature ought to accede to the principles of varying the Rights of Property upon a mere religious opinion. This was a queftion which he was more inclined to prefs, becaufe this was the first time that a Legislature had ever been called upon to recognize fuch a principle. In the preamble of the Bill it was ftated, that it was to relieve Quakers from imprisonment, and extend the provisions of the Statute of William and Mary. He defired part of that Statute, the 7th and 8th of William, to be read. [It was read by the Clerk]. From that part which related to the Exemptions granted to Quakers, it appeared that our Ancestors had defcribed this as a pretended fcruple of the Quakers: they talked of Offender; they confidered it as a Trefpafs. It was not his wish to use invidious terms, but he ftill had a right to say, that it was not the intention of that Statute to relieve Quakers from the prosecutions of other men, but to relieve other men from the profecution of the Quakers. When a perfon withheld from him what was his property, he was a profecutor. Looking at it, therefore, in this point of view, and confidering that the Leg flature had it in contemplation to protect the payment of tythes, he would afk whether it could be prudent to admit this principle, that on account of religious fancies, the whole tenure of property ought to be altered? To what extent might such a principle be carried? and especially in fuch times as thefe, when the wildeft notions were propagated? One man might refufe to pay his rent, and, for his own part, he knew not whether the Scripture might not be perverted to fupport fuch a doctrine; another man might take it into his head that it was anti-chriftian to pay his debts, and that he owed nothing to any one but love. Were thefe fuppofitions of his own? No, he had the Pamphlets put into his hand, at the very door of the Houfe, in which the Nobility, Clergy, &c. were pelted with Texts from Scripture, and confidered as monopolizers, who ought to fhare what they poffeffed with those who had not had fuch a liberal fhare of the good things of fort une dealt out to to them. Such opinions were justly confidered as worthy only of derifion, but he aflerted that they admitted of as good a defence as thofe upon which the Quakers profefled to act. For thefe reasons therefore he wished the Houfe to confider well before they laid the property of the country at the mercy of fuch wild and wicked fancies---fancies which an affent to the prefent measure would invite and encourage. He reminded the Houfe alfo of the ground upon which their indulgence was claimed, not because of other religious opinion's held by the Quakers, not because they held it unlawful to wear a button on their hats, or to use the fecond perfon plural, but because they deemed it improper to pay thithes. If the principle of the indulgence was once admitted, others might claim the benefit of it, and the fect of anti-tithe Chriftians would foon become the most numerous in the kingdom. He wished now to call the attention of the House to another ground on which the bill was maintained, viz. that it would be more beneficial to the Tythe Owners. If that were the fact, he could hardly believe that the Bill had been folicited by the Quakers; for thinking; the payment of Tythes altogether unlawful, how could he fuppofe that they would fupport a principle which tended to facilitate the payment of them? But the ground upon which it had been contended that it would facilitate the payment of Tythes,, was that it would accord with the confciences of the Quakers, by rendering fuits neceffary. Yet even difguifed in this, or any other way, ftill the mode was compulfory; it was to make mer pay what they otherwife would not pay. Every perfon was to go to law with the Quakers to recover the Tythes due from them. Let the Houfe feriously confider the confequences of fuc h a principle; apply it to a Landholder and to a Merchant ; the world could not go on; the Government of a country could not go on under it. The provifion therefore in the Bill was, in his opinion, a fevere perfecution of men who were entitled to Tythes. The remedy ought to be prompt and efficacious. It ought to put the Tythe-Owner in the speedy poffeffion of his right, and to fecure it to him in future; it ought not to place him in the deplorable fituation of being an owner of Suits, inftead of being an owner of Tythes. At present the Quaker was not under the compulfion of law, but under the apprehenfion of that compulfion. This was a prompt remedy. Was it advifcable therefore to remove it to a greater diftance? What was the rem edy propofed? It was indirect and flow. The party was first to look out for the property of the Quaker. If there was no property of his in the place where he refided, he was to fearch for it in other places---he was then to apply for a fequeftration. Of the effects of a fequeftration, a better defcrip tion |