Note 20 — Chapter III
Reading edition
The “Conventicle Act” so called, first passed in 1664, was renewed at the above time (1670), with increased rigour. The penalties were £5, or three months to the house of correction, for the first offence of attending a conventicle, if above sixteen years of age; £10, or six months, for the second; transportation for seven years for the third, with sequestration of estate, or distraint for the charges; and five years’ SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES, by contract between the sheriff and a purchaser, on being sent abroad, in defect of property to distrain upon; or out of which to pay £100 as a liberating fine. This fine to be repeated, and £100 added as oft as he should offend afterwards, or transportation, &c. (with death for returning), and the forfeiture of his life-interest in his estate.
Conventicles to be broken up by an armed force, under the direction of lieutenants of counties, sheriffs, &c. Even a femme covert could not escape; but must be redeemed by her husband, at the price of £40; or go to prison, or be transported with him. Nor could a peer of the realm: he must be fined £10 for the first offence, £20 for the second, and for the third, be tried by his peers. The fines to be levied by distress, by warrant of any two justices, or a chief magistrate.
The force of this Act was directed against the Quakers, by inserting, in the latter part of it, three sections, which brought their refusal to take an oath under its full penalties; and they suffered dreadfully through it! In the streets, or where they met to assert their religious rights, they were dragooned; in court they had oaths tendered, and were convicted under this Act upon their refusal.
“This Act,” says Besse, “was forthwith put into a rigorous execution, and many hungry informers [for the sake of their third of the penalties] made it their business to live upon the spoil and ruin of conscientious people.” Friends were great sufferers thereby, of the nature of which the reader may have some idea by reference to “Sufferings under the Conventicle Act;” Select Miscellanies, vol. iii., pp. 220-245.