to a conclusion. It then becomes the duty of the clerk to record such as the decision of the meeting. It is not presumed that in the clerk is necessarily the infallibility of judgment, but that this is the rather possessed by the meeting; and when expressed, it becomes his duty to record it.

I would make some further remarks with regard to the rights of membership of our Orthodox Friends. I would add, that we consider that they have sufficiently separated themselves from the Society of Friends to release us from any responsibility with regard to them. We have been willing to hope, that in time they would see their error; and the door being still open, that they would return again, or at least many of them, to the bosom of the society.

The counsel for Joseph Hendrickson having rested the cross-examination, and the counsel for the complainant and Stacy Decow, alleging that he has no further questions to ask, and the witness having closed his explanations and additional statements, the testimony of the said Charles Stokes is now closed. CHARLES STOKES.

Affirmed as aforesaid, and subscribed this twenty-third day of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-one, at the house of William Ridgway, in Camden, in the county of Gloucester, before me, J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner in Chancery.

JOHN BARROW, of the city of New York, a witness produced on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, alleging himself to be con scientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed ac cording to law, on his solemn affirmation, declareth and saith: Question by Mr. Price. What is your age?

A. Sixty-four.

Q. Are you a member of the Society of Friends?

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you been so?

A. I had a birthright in the society, my parents both being members. Q. Has there been a separation or secession from the New York Yearly Meeting, within your knowledge; and if so, by whom?

A. There have a number of those called Orthodox who have left the society or Yearly Meeting, of which I am a member.

Q. When?

A. In the year 1828, I think.

Q. Did the greater number of members and representatives of that body continue together, and hold the Yearly Meeting in the usual manner?

A. I may answer, in short, they did.

Q. Has that same Yearly Meeting been annually held ever since as usual?

A. It has, in the same house, and time of holding it.

Q. Did the clerk secede with those called Orthodox, in 1828?

A. I consider that he did, by leaving the meeting.

Q. Did the meeting concur in the minute that he read before, or as he left the house?

A. The meeting, in consequence of the disturbance, I believe, did not understand what the minute contained; they could not hear it.

Q. On that occasion, did Elias Hicks call upon the meeting to hear the minute, or that it should prevent his reading it?

Sharr

A. He distinctly requested the meeting to hear the minute; and then they could judge of its contents, whether it was an adjournment or not. Q. Had the clerk assured the meeting that it was not a minute of adjourment?

A. All I heard on that subject was, Elias Hicks remarked that the çlerk said it was not a minute of adjournment.

Q. Did the clerk explain to the meeting, that it was a minute continuing the sitting elsewhere?

A. I heard no such explanation.

Q. Did the meeting understand that he was making a minute, characterizing Friends from Pennsylvania as separatists, and disorderly intruders, and agree to any such minute?

A. I cannot answer that question. As I before observed, the noise was so great, that it was impossible where I sat to hear what the minute did contain.

Q. Did those who separated seem to understand its import?
A. It was my impression they did, at least many of them.

Q. Did they retire voluntarily, or were they expelled by physical force?

A. They retired voluntarily, and no physical force was made use of, that I observed. I saw nothing like it and I sat in a situation that I think I should have observed it, if any such thing had occurred.

Q. From what you observed, did the clerk seem prepared to act impartially for the meeting at large, or for those that separated only? A. My impression was, that he did not act limpartially; that he did not act as the servant of the meeting; or what appeared to me to be the prevailing sense of the meeting at that time.

Q. When the difficulty was raised by Thomas Shillitoe, in respect to Friends from Pennsylvania having seats in the meeting, was it not proposed as a means of avoiding any difficulty, that Friends of both parties from Pennsylvania should be permitted to sit?

A. There was such a proposition made by an individual of that meeting.

Q. Was it usual for foreigners to be the first to interfere in a matter of that importance?

A. I think not.

Q. Had it been usual for the clerk of that Yearly Meeting to bring a blank book instead of the minutes?

A. It has always been the practice, I think I may say during the forty years that I have been a member of that Yearly Meeting, and it was my practice, when acting in that capacity, always to bring the book of minutes, and the reports from the Quarterly Meetings, to the meeting during its first sitting.

Q. When clerk of that and other meetings of the Society of Friends, have you, or not, found it to be your duty to take and record what appeared to be the prevailing sense of the meeting?

A. I always considered it my duty so to do.

Q. Was the under story of the house occupied by the Yearly Meeting spoken of, in charge of the regular committee who had the care of the property?

A. I believe it was.

Q. From what you had seen, in the select meeting of ministers and elders, held immediately before that Yearly Meeting, or elsewhere, was

it, or not, apparent, that a separation was intended by the party that did secede?

A. As an individual, I thought there was sufficient evidence, by what occurred in the select meeting previous to the Yearly Meeting of discipline, that such was their intention.

Q. What proceedings had occurred in that meeting of an unusual character?

A. They had made the same objections to individuals sitting in that meeting, that occurred in the meeting for discipline. And there appeared to me an evident determination on their part to carry that point, or divide the society.

Q. What took place in respect to the appointment of the clerk of that select meeting?

A. The usual minute was made at the close of the first sitting of that meeting, calling on the representatives to stop at the rise of it, to consider of, and propose the name of a Friend to serve as clerk, to the afternoon sitting of that meeting. On the opening of that meeting, one of the representatives informed the meeting, that they had agreed to propose John Barrow as clerk, the present year. Soon after which, another of the representatives signified that that was not the choice, or the one agreed to be proposed by them; this occasioned considerable observation on the part of individuals, both claiming to be a majority of the representatives. As there appeared to be no choice on the part of the representatives, it became the duty of the meeting to appoint one for that sitting; but there was a very great diversity of sentiment, and no decision could be come to, in the unity. I wish to confine myself to matters of fact, and what I know myself, and not to state what I have learned from hearsay-I don't wish to do that—I mean as to what took place with the representatives.

Counsel. We have admitted in this examination, of what is matter of general repute; if what the witness has in his mind is of that character, it can be given.

Witness. I was not one of the representatives; but understood from several of that body, that immediately upon their sitting down to consider of a clerk, and before they could have been considered as well settled into a quiet, a Friend stood up, and proposed the name of Joseph Bowne, to serve the meeting that year as clerk. This was immediately acceded to by a considerable number. There were a number, however, that objected to it; but the Friend who first proposed the name of Joseph Bowne, remarked that the representatives were agreed, and proposed that they should immediately withdraw. This, as I understood, was not satisfactory to the greater number, and they were not disposed to submit to it. They kept their seats, and agreed, after the others had left, as I understood, that one of their number should propose my name, which was done as before mentioned, at the opening of the meeting. give this merely as evidence of a preconcerted plan.

Q. Who had stood in the appointment of clerk to that meeting, from the previous year?

A. I stood as clerk for the previous year, and for a number of years previous thereto.

Q. What was the result in that meeting, of the conflicting nominations?

A. The result was, that no conclusion was come to, at that sitting,

further than that a minute was made, that the clerk then at the table should continue until the meeting was united in the appointment of one; that is to be understood, as until the next sitting of the meeting. At the next sitting, which, if I remember right, was on Fifth-day following; I am not quite clear whether Fourth or Fifth-day, but think it was Fifth-day following; it appeared that in the meeting for discipline those who are generally denominated Orthodox Friends, had left the meeting, and had met separately at another house, called the "medical college.' Soon after the opening minute was read, of the select meeting, it was proposed by a member, that that party, as before denominated, should retire to a remote corner of that house, of the room where we sat; a number accordingly went there, and as I understood, made a minute concluding to meet in the basement story of that house, in Rose street. According to my impressions, especially when we take into consideration that there was a considerable number from other Yearly Meetings on this conti nent, and in Europe, or England, (England most properly,) there was the largest proportion who kept their seats, and staid behind, of the members of our particular Yearly Meeting.

Q. While the diversity of sentiment prevailed at the previous sitting, as to the choice of clerk, you did not feel yourself authorized to make a minute continuing the old clerks for another year?

A. I did not.

Q. After the separation of those who withdrew, whom did the meeting agree upon for their clerk?

A. They appointed myself to that service.

Q. You have spoken of the fact of the separation from the Yearly and select meetings of New York; what were the prominent causes which led to that result?

A. The prominent cause, I believe, which led to the separation at that time, or at least the only one that was mentioned at the meeting, was, that there was a number present who had been disowned as they alleged, that were then sitting in the meeting.

Q. They, the Orthodox party do you mean?

A. Yes. This, however, was not sustained or conceded to by the general voice of the meeting. They were invited by individuals to keep their seats; that according to the usual order and practice of that meeting, the epistles would be read from the different Yearly Meetings; and it being well known that the separation had taken place in Pennsylvania, the question of the right of those members to keep their seats who had been objected to, would be determined, by the acceptance or rejection of epistles from what was understood was called two Yearly Meetings, one composed of the Orthodox, and the other of Friends. But they were not disposed to wait for this, and separated, or left the meeting house. Q. Had the meeting been furnished with any official evidence satisfactory to itself, of the facts alleged by the Orthodox party?

A. I believe I may safely answer that in the negative.
Adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Thursday morning, 24th March, 10 o'clock, A. M. John Barrow, continued. Present as before.

Examination of

Question by Mr. Price. Did the New York Yearly Meeting, of 1828, receive and answer the epistle from the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania, &c. held on the second Second-day of Fourth-month?

A. They received two epistles, one from the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in Green street; another from the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, which I expect was held in Arch street. They were both read in the meeting, and a committee appointed as is usual in such cases, to prepare answers. If my memory serves me correctly, the epistle from the Yearly Meeting held in Green street, was only answered: yet I am not quite clear in my recollection as to this fact, whether the other was answered or not; whether they did not take some notice of it and prepare a short answer; but I rather think not.

Q. Have the Yearly Meeting of New York, and that of Pennsylvania, &c. held at Green and Cherry streets, continued since to correspond? A. They have.

Q. Were those persons, whose names were rejected in the Westbury Quarter, as representatives to the Yearly Meeting of New York, of 1828, in disunity with their meeting, on account of proceedings adverse to the order and harmony of the society, which had previously claimed the attention of their Monthly and Quarterly Meeting?

A. I believe that was the ground of the objections which were made to their appointment.

Q. Are Friends in general the greater in number in the meetings composing the New York Yearly Meeting?

A. They are, I believe, with a few exceptions.

Q. Can you give the aggregate numbers of the respective parties within that Yearly Meeting limits?

A. Perhaps it may be right to state, that in the year 1828 or '9, the Meeting for Sufferings sent a circular to all the Monthly Meetings composing the Yearly Meeting, requesting them to appoint committees in each meeting, to examine carefully the number of Friends composing each Monthly Meeting; designating the number of Friends, the number that had separated, and held separate meetings, and also those who remained neutral: the result of which was sent down to the Meeting for Sufferings, and signed officially by the clerk of each Monthly Meeting; a copy of which result I here exhibit.

The witness produces the statement referred to, which is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and is marked by me Exhibit X. [See Appendix.]

The witness continues his answer-Perhaps it may not be improper to remark, that there is no return from two or three of the Monthly Meetings; there may be more possibly than two or three, but I rather think that is the extent.

Q. Although Friends have generally been the greater in number, have they been willing to obey the dictates of natural justice, and offer to those who separated a proportionate share of the property.

A. In the Monthly Meeting of New York, the day on which a considerable number separated and left the meeting, a proposition was made by an individual to the Monthly Meeting, observing that although they had separated and left the society, he thought they were in justice and equity entitled to a share of the property, according to the numbers. This sentiment was united with by the meeting, unanimously, so far as any sentiments were expressed, and a committee was appointed to hold themselves in readiness to confer with those who had so separated and left the meeting, on the subject, a copy of which minute I shall beg leave to offer as an exhibit at a future time; I have it not with me at present.