Something Relating to the Bill for small Tithes: Humbly Presented to the Consideration of the Parliament, in behalf of the People called Quakers,  
WHEREAS by Two Acts passed in the 7th and 8th of William the 3●● Provision is therein made, For the more Easy Recovery of Tithes, C●●●ch-Rates, etc. for the value of Ten Pounds and under: Whereby we Humbly Conceive, Our Ease, as well as the Prosecutors, was intended; and not an Addition to the Extremity of our former Sufferings.  

I. Nevertheless, some Persons have proceeded, by Process out of the Exchequer to Sequestration, on the Defendants Estates, both Real and Personal.  
II. And also by Process out of the Common Pleas, to Treble Damages.  
III. And in the Ecclesiastical Courts to Excommunication and Imprisonment.   
Whereof a few of the many Instances that might be given, do here follow.  
Norfolk, Richard Allen of Stifky, sued in the Exchequer, to a Sequestration by William Harmar, had his Goods seized, valued at more than Fourscore Pounds, for 1 l. 15 s. Tithes decreed by the Court.  
There is also a Sequestration gone down against Richard Case, at the Suit of Henry Meriton of Norfolk, for 13 s. Tithes; and hath already brought in a Bill of Costs, of Suit, of 20 l. 15 s. 8 d. and a 2d Bill is expected, when the Sequestration is Executed, and all this for 13 s. Tithes.  
Norfolk, Henry Wake had his Goods taken to the value of 2 l. 6 s. 6 d. for two Years Tithes, by Thomas Thurlin of Gaywood, who left one Year's Tithe of 1 l. 4 s. unseized; and for that hath Sued the said Wake to a Sequestration; and hath already delivered in a Bill of 21 l. 9 s. Costs of Suit; and a Subsequent Bill is expected; and all this for Twenty Four Shillings decreed for Tithes.  
Cumberland, John Taylor, of Holm-Cultrum, sued in the Exchequer to a Sequestration, had his Corn and Cattle seized, to the value of 44 l. 18 s. For Twenty Five Shillings Eight Pence, for Tithe demanded.  
Thomas Drape of the same, prosecuted to a Sequestration, had his Goods seized to the value of 50 l. for 4 l. 10 s. 1 d. for Tithes demanded.  
Hampshire, Alexander Moor of Fordingbridge, sued in the Exchequer to a Sequestration, by John Hall Clerk, the Prosecutor brought in two Bills of Costs of Suit, amounting to 119 l. 12 s. 10 d. and hath actually seized and sold to the value of 87 l. 16 s. 11 d. for 6 l. 15 s 11 d. demanded.  
Worcester, William Zankey of Arely, was sued for 9 l. and treble damages being recovered against him, had his Goods seized to the value of 34 l.  
Daniel Tipper of the same, was sued for 8 l. and treble damages being recovered against him, had his Goods seized to the value of 30 l. viz. all his Cows, all his Horses, all his Sheep but One.  
The said Zankey and Tipper, both at the same time, Prosecuted for small Tithes in the Spiritual Courts; thereby to have their Bodies in Prison, as well as to take their Goods; and were actually Imprisoned thereupon, by the Writ, De Excommunicato Capiendo.  
Kent, John Love of Canterbury, for Fifty odd Shillings Sued by Humphrey Brailsford of Canterbury, and by process from the Exchequer imprisoned, being a poor Man, and a Lastmaker, and hath a sickly Wife, and four small Children, whose Maintenance depends upon his Labour.  
Surry. Nat. Owen of Coulsdon, had his Corn taken away in kind, for the Years 93, 94, and 95, by Timothy Turner, Rector of the said Place. But for the Years 1696. and 1697. the said Rector stopped 4 l. 11 s. for the Poor's Rate; yet is Suing him in the Exchequer, in order to a Sequestration.  
Essex. John Bayly of Keldon, Bricklayer, prosecuted before the Justices, on account of small Tithes: Yet the Prosecutor declined the Determination of the Justices, by the late Acts, for the more Easy Recovery of Tithes, and hath since proceeded in the Exchequer, in order to a Sequestration of his Estate.  
It's therefore Humbly Proposed to your Consideration, whether it is not needful, for Prevention of such Ruinous Proceedings, for the future, to put a stop to the like Severities, by Restraining the Prosecutors to such Methods as are agreeable to the Title and Intention of the said Acts.  
The like Restriction being provided in the 22, 23 of Car. II. Chap. 15. Sect. 14. in Relation to the City of London.