LETTER

ADDRESSED

TO A MEMBER

OF THE

LEGISLATURE

OF

VIRGINIA.

BY BENJAMIN BATES.

No. 19.

NEW-YORK:

PRINTED BY MAHLON DAY,

No. 84, WATER-STREET.

The following Letter was addressed the Legislature of Virginia, at the tim rial of the Society of Friends, upon the s Fines, was laid before that body. And to present a just view of a subject of v both to individuals and the community, i lished for more general circulation.

A LETTER, &c.

3000000

THE friendly manner in which we discussed to ether the principles of our memorial, (now before e legislature) induces me to hope that a few aditional observations will receive a candid and imartial consideration.

It would be useless, I apprehend, in introducing is subject, to enter into any minute inquiry resecting the nature and extent of the rights of men a society; or to examine any of the various theoies of government to find in how many ways these ights have been abused. The American people understand this subject-they did not, in establishng the empire of liberty on the basis of equal laws, ook to the pittance of privilege which had, in difFerent ages, been extorted from bigotry, or wrung from the grasp of power. No-they were men, and conscious of their rights-they were brethren, and saw that their rights were equal. To preserve them, they did not set up human beings, like themselves, with crowns and mitres on their heads, and commit to their ambition, cupidity and caprice, for safekeeping and distribution, those sacred immunities with which their Creator had endowed them, which he had made co-existent with mind itself, inherent and unalienable.

It was to preserve to themselves these inestimable blessings, to transmit them to their children; to guard them forever from usurpation; that, viewing

the whole ground of polity with a eye, they declared irrevocably, that c longs to God, and civil government On this principle their whole politica erected: hence the law emanates, and in the government is bound by its aut stands upon paper-but how does it op tice? Is the liberty of conscience in ed inviolate? Do the laws impose traint on religious freedom than ar preserve the peace and order of societ of the honest and inoffensive inhab commonwealth taxed, fined or harra persons or property, on account of tenets? These are questions on whic and statesman may ponder, but the ar ous and undeniable. The liberty of abridged the laws do impose other r those contemplated by the act establis freedom-and a number of peaceabl citizens are exposed to fines and pe count of their religious principles. H fraction of natural and constitutional ri counted for? It will not be said that people or their principles were unknow declaration of rights was made, and government established. It will not b that they were excluded from the comm of citizens and the common rights of No, but it is said that the government fended; and they are therefore enrol purpose of learning the use of the firel onet, and for acquiring the art of inflictin

o. his commands involves dreadful and eternal conequences.

This society maintains, with the framers of our constitution, and in conformity with the repeated leclared sense of the American people, that'g government has no right to bring the laws of God and man into competition: and that there exists no authority in any department thereof to cancel, abridge, restrain or modify, the liberty of conscience. When this declaration was solemnly made, the last time by the people of this state, and reciprocated by the whole union, the Society of Friends were exempt by law, as well as by their constitutional privileges, both from militia duty and personal service in war. Did not the law which afterwards subjected under heavy penalties to all the requisitions of the military system, abridge liberty of conscience which had been thus solemnly guaranteed? and if it did, ought not an evidence of the fact and an appeal to the justice of their country, to be sufficient to restore them to their rights? The fact is undeniable, the appeal is made, and its success perhaps, ought not to be doubted. But, in the mean time, the subject is variously canvassed, and many objections and difficulties are thrown in the way. We have referred, in our memorial, to the rights of conscience as a natural and constitutional privilege-but we are told that the liberty of conscience is an abstract principle, and as such, is not to be relied on in particular cases? What is an abstract principle? Is it some remote uninteresting truth, which may be indifferently remembered or forgotten? or is it some proposition to which the understanding assents, but which is still to be tested by experience? Now it cannot be supposed that the men selected by the