The Meeting for Sufferings, took a similar step, as regards the property belonging to the Yearly Meeting; as by a copy of a minute of that meeting, which I now offer as an exhibit, will appear.

The copy referred to by the witness is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and is marked Exhibit Y. [See Appendix.]

The witness proceeds-This minute now exhibited was handed to a number of those considered the most influential characters which had separated from us, in the city of New York, and also sent to many of the like description in different parts of our Yearly Meeting. No notice, however, was taken of it, in any official way, to us. A minute, however, or an epistle, directed to the Quarterly, Monthly, and Preparative Meetings of Friends, within the limits of the Yearly Meeting of New York, and signed by Samuel Parsons, by direction and on behalf of the Meeting for Sufferings, held in New York, the 22nd of Tenth-month, 1828, in which is contained this concluding paragraph; after many other excellent observations relating to their peculiar situation, the paragraph is as follows, viz: "And thus will you be restrained from even desiring to purchase ease by a sacrifice of principle, and compromise in relation to property, with those whom we cannot admit to be of our religious faith and communion; by which your hands would be greatly weakened in the exercise of the discipline of the society." [The paragraph thus quoted, is read by the witness from a printed paper.]

Mr. Brown. I would prefer that that paper be marked as an exhibit.
Witness. I have no objection.

The paper is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked Exhibit Z. [See Appendix,]

Witness proceeds-Thus it appears by an official document that they meant to make no compromise as regards property.

Q. It would seem, from the extract given, that they intended disownments of Friends; did their separate meetings assume to disown the greater bodies of Friends?

A. I may answer, simply, yes.

Q. Were such disownments regarded by the Society of Friends, as of any effect to disown Friends from the society?

A. We considered it as an assumption of authority that we could not acknowledge; and consequently, all their acts in this way were null and void, as it respects our religious or civil rights.

Q. Where Friends have been in possession of the property, have they in any instance denied to those who have separated, the right to bury

their dead?

A. I believe not. On the contrary every facility has been offered them for that purpose: in confirmation of which, I offer as an exhibit, a circular addressed to the members of the separate meeting, held in Henry street, in the city of New York, signed by Samuel Willits as clerk to the funeral committee, appointed by the Monthly Meeting of

New York.

The circular spoken of is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked Exhibit A 2. [See Appendix.] Q. Was there ever occasion for the relatives of a deceased person in the city of New York, to prepare a grave in the burial ground of another society, under any just apprehension that the gates of Friends" ground would not be opened?

A. No; I should say. I may also add that the sexton has directions from the funeral committee to open the gates for the interment of their dead, without any application from them: and as they will in no case make the application, the sexton has been advised to proceed every morning to the burial ground to see if any grave has been opened; so that he may be prepared to open the gates when the funeral procession arrives at the yard. Those who have separated from us have a sexton of their own, who has a key to a small gate as I have understood, by which he can have access at all times to open a grave. I have not heard of any difficulty in any part of our Yearly Meeting, as it respects the interment of their dead.

Q. Has any meeting of the Society of Friends within the limits of New York Yearly Meeting, authorized the commencement of a suit at law, against those who have separated?

A. I know of none.

Q. Have they recommended the contrary?

A. They have, as it respects a suit commenced by an individual in Purchase Quarter, for the recovery of some property held in trust, for a school fund, I think it is: which is contrary to the express advice of the Meeting for Sufferings. I may add, that myself and another individual went up expressly to the Monthly Meeting of Purchase, to persuade, or endeavour to persuade, that individual to withdraw that suit. He appeared at the time to consent so to do; but I understood afterwards it was prosecuted at law.

Q. With what result?

A. The result was a verdict in his favour, as I understood.

Q. On what principle?

Mr. Brown. I would suggest to the counsel on the other side, whether it is right to call upon the witness to state orally the principle of a legal decision. I think it altogether incompetent, and if taken, I wish my objection recorded.

Mr. Price. We will go on; if it is not testimony, of course, it will go for nothing,-of this the chancellor will decide.

Mr. Price again puts the question

The witness proceeds-I have never seen any official document of that decision; of course, my testimony on that subject is mere hearsay, yet I believe an official document can be obtained, and exhibited hereafter. Q. Was there any other male minister belonging to Jericho Monthly Meeting opposed to Elias Hicks, than Thomas Willis?

A. I believe there was no other male minister belonging to that meeting. The idea I meant to convey is, that there were no other male ministers belonging to that meeting than those two, Elias Hicks and Thomas Willis.-I believe I must correct that, by stating, that there was a minister, I think, belonging to Bethpage Preparative Meeting, which was a branch of that Monthly Meeting, who I have reason to believe was in full unity with Elias Hicks.

Q. Had Thomas Willis given public evidences of unfriendly feeling towards Elias Hicks?

A. I don't know of any; without it is his dissenting to his having a minute as a travelling minister in one or two instances. There is another circumstance may be mentioned, which is generally considered as a breach of faith upon the part of Thomas Willis, in suffering copies of letters to be taken of a private correspondence between Elias Hicks and VOL. II.-34

himself, after it had been agreed that those letters should be given up to each party that wrote them.

Q. Was Elias Hicks less faithful in the discharge of apprehended duty and the maintenance of the testimonies of the Society of Friends, in the latter part of his life, than he had been previously?

A. I never discovered but that he was as fully devoted and dedicated to do the will of God (I may say) in the latter part of his life, as at any former period.

Q. Is there any discipline or usage of the society warranting a combination of the elders of five Monthly Meetings, officially to treat with a minister travelling in the order of the society, for alleged unsoundness, in another Quarterly or Yearly Meeting?

A. I know of no such discipline that would warrant any combination of the kind alluded to.

Q. Or usage?

A. Well, I have no objection to usage being put in; I know of none. Q. Is the Morning Meeting of London organized under, or recognised by, the discipline of the London Yearly Meeting?

A. I believe the Morning Meeting of ministers and elders have certain defined powers granted them by the Yearly Meeting of London.

Q. Is there any parallel between the case of the London Morning's Meeting declining to grant its permission to a minister to travel under its sanction abroad, and advising a return home, and the case of a voluntary association of the elders of five Monthly Meetings in Philadelphia, to stop a minister travelling in the regular order of the society for unsoundness alleged to have occurred within his own Yearly Meeting before he obtained his certificates to travel?

A. I think there is not. I can give my reasons why I think so, if its

necessary.

Q. Do so.

A. The Morning Meeting of ministers and elders in London is a regularly organized body, who have powers given them in certain cases to grant certificates to travelling Friends: the other appears to be an assumption of power not given them by the Yearly Meeting, or any superior meeting.

Q. Has the discipline of the New York Yearly Meeting reversed the gospel order, so as to authorize the complaint to the church, before a private opportunity had with the party complained of?

A. I think not; although a different construction has been put upon their discipline. And I offer as an exhibit those two paragraphs, or I will read from "discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in New York, for the state of New York, and parts adjacent," page 24, under the head, Meetings of Ministers and Elders, the following, which is the part I alluded to, as having had different constructions put upon it, viz: "As the occasion of our religious meetings is solemn, a care should be maintained to guard against every thing tending to disorder or interruption-none are to oppose in a religious meeting a Friend when publicly speaking, whether he be a recommended minister or not, whilst in unity as a member, nor in time of prayer keep on the hat, or show any remarkable dislike; but should any Friend have objections to what is delivered, he is to speak to the individual privately, previous to which, it is advised that the dissatisfaction be communicated to one or more of the elders for advice and assistance. When meetings are disturbed by

improper communications, it should be the care of the ministers and elders to take suitable opportunities with the person who has given cause for concern, and to extend advice and counsel as may appear necessary; and if he continue to disturb our meetings for worship, he should be further admonished; and provided the desired effect be not produced, the case should be laid before the Preparative Meeting of ministers and elders, that further care may be extended; but should the Friend still persist therein, this meeting ought to lay it before a Monthly Meeting for discipline, which should proceed to treat with and disown him, if it appeared to be necessary."

Q. When it is advised that the dissatisfaction be communicated to one or more of the elders for advice and assistance, is it that the private opportunity recommended may be taken with such advice or assistance, or is that communication to the elders to be considered as a complaint to the church, as a ground of treatment with a minister?

A. Not at all. That clause in the discipline, I believe, was designed to discourage young and inexperienced Friends from treating with ministers, or finding fault with them, without taking the advice of some judicious elder.

Q. Has it been the practice of the society to set up and lay down meetings with the mutual consent of the meetings concerned?

A. Yearly Meetings I consider entirely independent of each other; and it is probable they may differ, as it respects this question. I know of no such rule in the Yearly Meeting of which I am a member.

Q. I speak of meetings subordinate to Yearly Meetings; whether it has been the practice for such meetings to proceed in such a measure with the harmonious consent of all concerned?

A. As far as my knowledge extends, I believe that to have been the practice of society.

Q. Have you ever known of a case in which a Monthly Meeting has been attempted to be laid down without its own consent?

A. I have not, by any meeting now conducted, in what I consider the regular order of society.

Q. Is the subordination of meetings in the society understood to vest in the superior meeting an arbitrary control in this respect?

A. I think not.

Q. Does the subordination in any instance extend to give the superior meeting a controlling power over the property of the inferior meeting?

A. I do not think they have-it does not, as I apprehend.

[NOON.]

Q. Whatever the different degrees of influence which members may exert in the society, has any one any greater interest or share than another in the property?

A. I should think they derived no additional interest from any influence, or office, or station, which they may hold in society.

Q. You have said that Yearly Meetings are independent of each other; does each Yearly Meeting make its own discipline, and govern all its proceedings according to its own will, subject only to the great head of the church?

A. Them are my impressions.

Q. Has the London Yearly Meeting any peculiar or paramount authority over other Yearly Meetings?

A. I believe not, except that that of Dublin may be considered in some respects subordinate.

Q. Has the Society of Friends always been especially careful to conduct and preserve the proceedings of their meetings, subject to the spiritual head of the church, in exclusion of a temporal accountability? A. What is meant by temporal accountability? To whom?

Q. To the exclusion of an exercise of an authority over them by the civil tribunals or legislatures of the country?

Witness. I find it difficult to comprehend what is the meaning of the question.

Q. Has not their objection to the acceptance of corporate privileges been on the ground that it would beget a legal accountability to temporal tribunals, in concerns over which they acknowledge Christ alone as their head?

A. In respect to the first part of the query, I believe that the society in some places have accepted of incorporations, or corporate powers; with respect to the second, they do so acknowledge Christ to be the head in all cases.

Q. Is the authority with which members speak to be judged of by the meeting they address?

A. I should think so.

Q. Is there any other means of control in the meetings of the society than by the force of conviction?

A. That ought to be the governing principle in all cases.

Q. Is it the duty of a clerk to record what after discussion becomes to be the sense of the meeting, through the force of conviction wrought upon it?

A. I believe it to be the duty of the clerk to propose to the meeting a minute of what he considers to be the sense and judgment of the meeting; and if united with by the meeting, it is then placed on record.

Q. How long have you acted in the station of clerk in the various meetings of the society?

A. I believe I have acted in that capacity in one meeting or other, for upwards of thirty years, with scarcely any intermission during that time. Q. Since what age have you attended and taken a concern in the meetings of discipline of the society?

A. I think I may answer that question: from about thirty to thirty-five years of age, as to taking a concern: I may have been under appointments previous to that time.

Q. In what parts of the world have you had opportunities of witnessing the proceedings of meetings of the Society of Friends?

A. My opportunities have been chiefly confined to my own Yearly Meeting in New York.

Q. Are you in attendance here in pursuance of a requisition of a subpœna served upon you?

A. I received such a document previous to my coming here.

Q. From having been in England, or from other sources of informa tion, can you give an idea of the number of Friends in Great Britain and Ireland?

A. I have heard the number estimated, from some that I considered