happened the Quaker then gave up the benefit of the jurifdiction of the juftices. Notwithstanding what had been laid by his Learned Friend, he ftill was of opinion that the measure would be for the benefit of the holder. It was in fact balancing property against perfonal liberty. The Tythe-holder would be enabled to recover his claim, inftead of merely obtaining the imprisonment of the Quaker for life. His Learned Friend had faid a great deal to prove that Tythes were property, and in this he perfectly agreed with him. The object of the measure was to enable the Tythe-holder to recover his claim without the neceffity of a fuit. His Learned Friend feemed to ftate it as if the Bill was to give the holder a law-fuit inftead of his demand what, however, is the cafe at prefent? If the Quaker is either confcientious or obftinate, an expenfive and tedious fuit is the confequence, which under the prefent Bill would be avoided. No fuit at all would be necefiary; the demand would be recovered in a mode fimilar to diftrefs. In reality, he was furprifed at the objections urged by his Learned Friend. They feemed as if intended as a contraft to its regulations, and proved the excellency of the principle of the Bill, which went to remedy thofe very evils which his Learned Friend had flated as objections. Was it no benefit to the holder that a great deal of time and expence were faved in the recovery of his claim? Was it no advantage that he got his property inftead of the perfon? Was it no benefit to the Quaker that he efcaped the calamity of imprisonment for life, which might now be his fate? Inftead of the bodies of feven obftinate or confcientious men, the Tythe-holder would be able, in two days, by a fummary and cheap mode of proceeding, to recover his money. Whatever prejudice and alarm might at prefent exift among the clergy with regard to the effect of this Bill, he was convinced it would be overcome by the House, and that after a fair experiment of its operation for a limited time, the clergy themselves would join with the Quakers in their wifhes for its renewal. His Learned Friend afked, if the Quakers petitioned for the relief contained in this Bill?-To this he anfwered, They did not: the Quakers had petitioned for relief as to the imprisonment of their perfons. In his fituation, as a Member of Parliament, he was to confider what was wife and proper to be done, not what was agreeable to the wifhes of thofe who were the objects. The Quakers were not answerable for what the Bill contained; he alone was refponfible for that. It was for the Houfe, however, to determine whether they would entertain the Bill and fanction the purposes it was intended to ferve. Among the different arguments which his Learned Friend had fuggefted in favour of the meafure, which he himself might have overlooked, there

4 1 2

was

was one of which he was aware. It was faid that the remedy fhould be prompt and efficacious. This indeed was the very object of the Bill; for at prefent, if the Quaker was obftinate, no court could enable the holder to recover his tythe, while under this Bill the claim might eafily be made good. It was faid that at prefent those who refufed to pay were obliged to do it by the terror of the law. He was furprifed that his Learned Friend fhould have employed fuch an argument. In the fame manner the torture and every fort of abufe were juftified. A degree of terror might be proper, but it was an object of policy to render it proportionate to the offence. Terror too was not the way that ought to be employed to effect obedience, when other means could be obtained. It was better to facilitate the object by the intervention of legiflative regulation. This then was the object, to remove that terror which was inconfiftent with humanity, and to prevent offences (if they were to be called offences) by removing their neceffity. It was much better to enable the holder to take the Tythes that were before him, than to frighten the Quaker into a payment which his fcruples forbade, and when, if he was obftinate, it might be altogether defeated. The mode of fequeftration was objected to by his Learned Friend, and the inconvenience of the holder being obliged to look for the property of the Quaker at a distance, was alfo ftated, but it was to be obferved that Tythes differed from every other fpecies of debt, because here the fund for payment was pre-fuppofed, and it must always be in the power of the holder to make his claim effectual, fince property to ten times its amount must always exift. Sequeftration too was not to be employed till the warrant of the juftices had been put in force, which, in almoft every cafe, would fuperfede the neceffity of the fecond procefs. Indeed that claufe had been put in the Bill by the fuggeftion of his Learned Friend, or fome other perfon who took a part in the difcuffion when it was first introduced, for he himself had not confidered it to be requifite, although it was poffible that, in some cases, the mode of fequeftration might be employed. Thefe, however, were matters rather for the confideration of the Committee, and did not go to the principle of the Bill. With regard to the dangers with which the measure might be attended, he differed moft widely from his Learned Friend. He was forry to hear that opinions hoftile to Tythes were abroad, but he did not imagine it was in any great degree. For his own part, he thought the Clergy ought to be provided for, and well provided

for. If any opinions hoftile to Tythes exifted, were they not more likely to be diffipated by the difplay of mild, cheap, and expeditious modes of levying, than by cruel, tedious, and expenfive proceedings? If fuch dangers actually exifted, it would

furnish

furnish an argument for going much farther than the prefent measure propofed. If there were people who had finifter motives in the prefent application, they would find them defeated in the agreeable and conciliating effects which it was fitted to produce. With regard to the extravagant and dangerous doctrines which had gone abroad in the world, his opinions were known. Sure he was, however, that every provifion which tends to make the weight of property lefs oppreffive in the mode of levying, and to render it lefs felt by thofe who contribute to it, muft tend to banish thofe opinions that would shake the folidity of its foundations. The object of the Bill was to facilitate the claim of the older, and to render it lefs burdenfome to the perfon from whom it is due. With regard to the threat which his Learned Frii faid was held out in cafe the parties removed from the jurifdiction of the juftices, he was led to think, from confiderations of experience, which in his mind had always the highest weight, that the option fhouid be taken away. From experience it had been feen that no inconvenience arofe from confining the jurifdiction, with regard to Tythes, within the fifty-one parishes of the City of London, to the Magiftrates, under the fingle exception of their refufing to act. In the fame manner no inconvenience would probably arife from a fimilar confined jurifdiction in the prefent cafe. At all events, however, it was probable that the Tythe-holder would take that mode of recovering his claim, which was cheap and easy, instead of that which was tedious and expensive. He would fubmit to the House then, whether this was a Bill fo radically defective in principle, as to preclude any farther difcuffion. For his own part he thought it was calculated to be equally beneficial to every party interefted, and in this opinion, till enlightened by the vote of the Houfe, he fhould remain.

The Solicitor General faid, that the whole argument of the Learned Sergeant was founded upon an affumption that certain grievances exifted; that formed the first question of confideration. He maintained, that no grievances of the nature complained of exifted, because there did not exift thofe fcruples of confcience from which thofe grievances were fuppofed to have their origin. He defied the Learned and Honourable Gentleman to adduce fuch proof, as fhould fatisfy the Houfe, that any oppreffion had been used againft the Quakers. For the last twenty years, there had been none imprifoned for confcience fake: for the York cafe, of which the Houfe had heard fo much, did not fall within that defcription. And he would venture to affert, that if a Bill could be framed, fuch as thofe would with who had merely pretended fcruples of confcience, and whofe real object was the interested view of eluding payment of a juft and legal due, it

would

would be fuch a Bill as now was prefented: In fact, it would be holding out an encouragement to men of fuch principles.

His Learned Friend had noticed, that Tythes were not merely Ecclefiaftical Dues, but a great part was alfo in the hands of Lay Impropriators, and must be confidered as civil property. When he faw this fort of property in the hands of Quakers, when he faw them leafing Tythes, the Impropriators of Tythes, and Collectors, he muft infer, that they had no religious or conicientious fcruples upon the fubjećt. Nor could he fuppofe it, that they held it unlawful to pay Tythes, when he faw many refpectable men, of that clafs, themselves in poffeffion of them, and collecting them from others. The Law, as it now ftood, was completely adequate for their recovery; feldom was there application, even to a Juftice; and in general Quakers paid their Tythes as other men. The cafe of those now prifoners in York, of which they had heard, and which the Learned Serjeant admitted gave rife to his prefent Bill, was attended with circumftances peculiar to itfelf. In that cafe, when the Clergyman. demanded his Tythes, they fet up a modus; and this very plea, on their part, was an admiffion of the right: for what was modus but a manner of tything a Commutation in lieu of Tythes in kind? This cuftom the Magiftrates, of courfe, could not try; and the Clergyman was obliged to try the caufe in the Exchequer. The Learned Gentleman then read Extracts from the Cause. In their answer, he observed, they did not hesitate folemnly to affirm, that there exifted an ancient and laudable cuftom of a madus; yet this, that they fo folemnly affirmed, they had not the leaft proof to fupport. In this Bill, a great burden was to be thrown upon the Magiftrate: for frequently the quantum of the Tythe was a matter of litigation and difpute.

In Quakers of refpectability, whom he had known, he never found any of thofe rigid fcruples; and in all the experience he had had, and he had had much, he never found Quakers concerned merely as Quakers, but frequently joined with and pleading as other defendants. About fixty years ago, a fimilar measure was attempted to be brought forward, and fimilar grievances were ftated; after much difcuffion it paffed that Houfe; and when it went to the other, the Quakers were called upon to prove to that Houfe the existence of thefe grievances. This they could not do, and after many pertinent remarks by Lord Talbot and Lord Harwicke, the Bill was rejected. Since that time, a period of fixty years had elapfed, with the law as it now ftood, without any evil confequence refulting. If it happened that a Quaker fubjected himself to perpetual imprisonment, he brought himself into that fituation, exactly in the fame manner as a litigious man who obftinately maintained a fuit, and overwhelmed

whelmed himself with cofts. That fuch confequences fhould be prevented, if poflible, he admitted; and he wifhed a mode could be deviled which might extend to all perfons in that fituation. From the Learned Serjeant's ftatement, the Houfe might be induced to fuppofe that he had difcovered a mode for the more fpeedy recovery of Tythes; if it were fo, why did not the Bill come in that fhape, that they might debate it? The principle of this feemed to be, that the perfon fhould be exonerated, and the property only liable; but he would afk commercial men, whether they confidered rendering fecure the perfon of the debtor in the leaft improved their fecurity? He conceived, that this measure would shake that furety which hitherto exifted, and, as fuch, he muft oppofe it. With respect to the other parts of the Bill, he was not prepared to give any opinion; he thought, if the affirmation of a Quaker was fit to be admitted, in lieu of his oath, it might as well be the fubject of a distinct Eill; but, as it now flood, coupled with the other measures, he fhould oppose the whole.

Mr. Serjeant Adair explained.

Mr. Wigley faid, he wifhed to call the attention of the House to the Bills which had heretofore paffed upon this subject. The Houfe would then clearly fee, that the principle of the Bill was not a new one, as had been afferted, but that it extended the principle of the Act of King William.

Mr. Richards faid, after the fulleft confideration, he thought the Bill unneceffary. He then examined the principle of the religious fcruples of the Quakers. In a book, containing the principles of Quakers, and instructions from their elders, it was forbidden even to talk of War: and yet they paid Taxes--Why? because they knew Government had a strong hand, by which they could at any time enforce obedience to their Laws.

Mr. Wilberforce noticed an inconfiftency in the arguments of the Gentlemen who oppofed the Bill. They praised the original statute of King William, and yet decried the prefent Bill which proceeded on the fame principle. When the advocates of the Bill fuggefted the propriety of extending the provifions of the ftatute, its opponents then talked of the falutary effect to be derived from enforcing provifions of more wholesome severity, fo that from their language there was reason to conclude, that if they had lived in the reign of King William, they would have voted against that ftatute. If in the prefent inftance they thought fo highly of the benefit to be reaped from holding out a fyftem of terror, why did they not act in conformity to their own principle? Either they ought to move for the repeal of the provifions of the ftatute of King William, or they ought to fupport the prefent Bill for the purpofe of adopting them to