A. I have a list of the original subscribers, to the school fund of Chesterfield Preparative Meeting. This is a copy of the list of original subscribers, and a list of the number of those that were living at the time of the division, and the number of the children of each party of those of them that were deceased: with the amount of the money subscribed by each one.

The paper spoken of, is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked by me Exhibit K 2.-[See Appendix.]

Q. Are all subscriptions or payments for the meetings of the Society of Friends entirely voluntary on the part of the members?

A. Yes.

On reading over the testimony, the witness adds, I would wish further to correct my answer, this forenoon, relative to the separation from Chesterfield Preparative Meeting. I do not think there was any thing said about adjourning; they said they could not countenance such proceedings," and then went off and left us.

And the said Josiah Gaskill being cross-examined on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, further saith, viz:

Question by Mr. Sloan. How long previous to the separation spoken. of, had you been a diligent attendant, and actively engaged in the administration of the duties of meetings for discipline?

A. I am sure I can't tell; it was a number of years.

Q. When did the separation in the Burlington Quarter take place? A. I think it was in Eleventh-month, 1827.

Q. Did you at the time make any computation of the numbers of those who adjourned and left the meeting house, and those who remained, respectively, at the time of that adjournment?

A. I did not count either; but from what staid in the meeting and returned after they had adjourned, there was no doubt on my mind, but what there was somewhere near two-thirds left.

Q. At the Monthly Meeting of Chesterfield, held in Ninth-month, was not the meeting informed by a respectable Friend, that he had himself been present at the Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting of which Green street was a member, when that meeting had been laid down as a Monthly Meeting, by its Quarter?

A. There was something said by a Friend on that subject; and there was something said by another Friend, if I remember right, with respect to its being attached to Abington Quarter: and Friends being fully satisfied that no Quarterly Meeting could lay down a Monthly Meeting without its consent, and was well satisfied that Philadelphia Quarter had never the consent of Green street, or the Friends of Green street Monthly Meeting, to lay it down, therefore it could not be done.

Q. Under the discipline of the society, is not a Monthly Meeting subordinate to the Quarterly Meeting, of which it is a member, and accountable to it for the regularity of its proceedings in the order of society? A. In the peace and harmony of the society, Monthly Meetings according to my apprehension, are in some measure, subordinate to Quarterly Meetings.

Q. Is there any case mentioned, or prescribed by the discipline in which that subordination should cease?

A. I don't know that there is. Discipline, or whether discipline was VOL. II.-37

formed, I have no idea that they who formed it, ever thought of guarding against such proceedings as have been in the society since 1827.

Q. If an inferior meeting conceives itself to be aggrieved by the decision of its superior meeting, touching its proceedings, does not the discipline prescribe the mode of redress, by giving an appeal from such decisions?

A. I don't know that I know the words of the discipline; but if I understand it, it leaves it at its option to appeal or not to appeal.

Q. Under the discipline then, if the right of appeal is not exercised, is not the inferior meeting to submit to the decision of the superior? A. As I stated before, in the harmonious state of society, it would be considered so.

Q. Was it stated, or pretended, in the meeting alluded to, at Chesterfield, that Green street Monthly Meeting had been united to Abington Quarter, with the consent and approbation of the Philadelphia Quarter to which it had been attached?

A. I don't think there was any thing said about that; and as I stated, I don't know that my recollection is correct, with respect to that being the time that it was mentioned that Green street Monthly Meeting was attached to Abington Quarter: if it was, I have no recollection of any thing being stated, with respect to the consent of Philadelphia Quarter.

Q. Would it be regular, under the discipline, to grant a certificate to a Monthly Meeting, which had been regularly laid down by its Quar

ter?

A. I think not.

Q. Under the discipline, has one Quarterly or Monthly Meeting, a right to review the proceedings of another Quarterly or Monthly Meeting, and to affirm or annul decisions come to by them?

A. I don't think they have.

Q. What other business was transacted at the meeting spoken of, after Jediah Middleton was called to the table, besides the minute alluded to?

A. I think there was a committee appointed to think of and bring forward the name of some Friend to serve that meeting as clerk, and also one to assist him. I don't recollect of any other. There was a committee also appointed to prepare the certificate of the member to Green street.

Q. Had the period for which David Clark had been appointed clerk, expired?

A. No, I don't apprehend it had. It was not on that ground that it was necessary to appoint a new one; but because he certainly did neglect to take the sense of very much the largest part of the meeting, and it was very evident that he was willing to serve a very small number that was present, in preference.

Q. Whose duty is it to collect the sense of the meeting.

A. I think it is the duty of the clerk, to collect the sense of the meeting: and I also do think, that it is a privilege that the meeting has to judge, whether he takes the right sense of the meeting or the wrong. Q. Is not that sense to be gathered under the discipline and order of society?

A. Yes, where the discipline is called in question; but at that meeting, if I am not mistaken, if not that, it was one very near it, the discipline

was requested to be read by several Friends; but it was refused, and held back, if my recollection serves me right, by the voice of one or two Friends; and not suffered to be read.

Q. Was that in the Monthly Meeting?

A. Well, I can't say for certain; it was either that or one very near it. I cannot say for certain, whether it was in the Monthly or in the Preparative Meeting.

Q. In a case where there appeared to be a diversity of sentiment, and the clerk was persuaded that a measure advocated by one party was subversive of the discipline, and the other in conformity with it, which would it be his duty to record as the sense of the meeting?

A. I have no doubt, if the clerk stood entirely off from all parties, that he would take the sense of the majority for the sense of the meeting. I have saw it more than once, or heard it repeated by clerks, where there had been cases brought before Monthly Meetings, and that Friends did not appear to all think just alike, that he has stated that he was at a loss to get the sense of the meeting, and wished Friends to express their sentiments, and which ever way the larger part of the meeting went, the smaller part always gave up, and it was recorded in that way, until this unhappy division took place; and which I do believe is the duty and the only way for a clerk to decide.

The question is again read to the witness, when he further answersHe certainly ought to decide as he thought was right; that is a liberty that the clerk has.

Q. Has the Society of Friends ever adopted the rule of deciding by an enumeration of numbers?

A. No. There is no rule in the society to that import, that I ever heard of.

Q. Has it been the usage of the society to consider all its members entitled to equal weight in their deliberations in meetings for discipline? A. As respects the weight, I don't know any method of weighing it; but every member has equal right and equal privilege to a voice in the society.

Q. Until recently has it been the usage for all the members of the society to take an active part in the meetings for discipline?

A. No: nor neither is it now, by a great ways. But I have frequently heard elderly Friends request young Friends to speak to the business of the meeting; that their voices would be of great strength; till very lately they have been requested or told that they had better not speak to the business, or words to that effect.

Q. By young Friends do you mean to speak generally of all who were entitled to a right of membership, or those only whose serious deportment, and diligent attendance on meetings for discipline, gave evidence of their being duly impressed with a proper sense of the duty they were called upon to perform?

A. I should suppose from what I have heard addressed to the young people on that subject, alluded to those that felt a concern, or had a mind, that they would like to open to the meeting.

Q. Before Jediah Middleton was called to the table, had David Clark resigned his station as clerk?

Wednesday morning, March 30th, 10 o'clock. Cross-examination of Josiah Gaskill continued. Present as before.

Mr. Sloan. We now call on the opposite counsel, to produce the minutes of the Chesterfield Monthly Meeting.

Mr. Price. The book is here, and we now produce it, in obedience to the call of the counsel.

The said book of minutes is offered in evidence on the part of the -complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked Exhibit I. 2.

Question by Mr. Sloan. When Jediah Middleton was called to the table in Ninth-month, was he requested to take the table merely for the purpose of making that minute, or was he appointed generally as clerk of the meeting?

A. I consider that he was appointed as clerk for the meeting, on this account of David's not acting for the meeting.

Q. For what period was he appointed?

A. Until there could be another one appointed; or he reappointed, according to the order or custom of the meeting, I took it.

Q. Had David Clark, previous to that time, served the meeting acceptably as their clerk?

A. I don't recollect of any objections being made to him, neither before nor at that time; only that he wouldn't or didn't act for the meeting.

Q. Did the meeting unite in making the request of him so to do?

A. I don't know that I can recollect the particulars that passed in the meeting; but there was a large number that expressed their wish that the committee should be appointed to prepare this certificate to the Monthly Meeting of Green street; and I think not more than two or three that seemed to say any thing against it. And it was stated by some Friends, that if he could not serve the meeting, that there had better be some one appointed in his stead, which was done.

Q. Were not a large proportion of those who advocated the appointment of the committee, persons who had not previously been in the habit of taking a part in the meetings for discipline?

A. I think not.

Q. Is there any thing in the discipline of the society, authorizing a meeting to displace their clerk during his term of office, unless he has been guilty of some infraction of the discipline, which has brought him under the censure of the meeting?

A. As to that, you have the discipline-that can better explain it, than I feel myself able to do.

Q. Have you ever before known an instance of a meeting appointing a clerk, in the presence of an acting clerk at the table, and thus supplanting him without any previous care being extended to him?

A. I don't think I ever did; nor neither did I ever know an instance where it was necessary to do so before..

Q. You say that this application had been made in Eighth-month, and was withdrawn; and that it was renewed in Ninth-month,-what were the peculiar circumstances of that case, which made it necessary to take so decided a step at that time?

Witness. In Ninth-month is thee alluding to?

Counsel. Yes.

A. For my part, I supposed that there had been time enough given for the meeting to come to a conclusion, whether to grant the certificate

or not. And the Friend applying for the certificate was desirous that his son should have one to the Monthly Meeting at Green street.

Q. Was the application for a minor?

A. Yes, if I am not mistaken.

Q. Was David Clark dealt with by that meeting, or in any way called to account by it, for his proceedings on that day?

A. I don't recollect that he was, any further than he was released from his office, and two other Friends with myself were appointed to call on him for the books and papers belonging to that meeting, which he declined giving up at that time.

Q. Did he ever do it?

A. No, he has not yet.

Q. Did he not assign as a reason for not doing so, that he had been appointed clerk of that meeting for a term then unexpired?

A. No, he made no such observations, according to my recollection. Q. What reason did he assign?

A. There was very little passed. We met him on the road as we were going to his house: he stated that he was in a great hurry to get to Trenton on some business; but if we wished him to go back to the house, I think he said he was willing to go. But as he appeared to be in a hurry, we thought we could do our errand with him where we met him, and stated what it was; and I think he replied that we could not have them. There was something more said with respect to the society, but I think nothing more with respect to the books; and we parted. Q. Did not he tell you that your proceedings had been in violation of the discipline?

A. I don't recollect them words.

Q. I am not asking you for precise words; I am asking for the substance of his answer?

A. That was, that we could not have them.

Q. Did the committee who were appointed on the subject of the clerk, call upon David Clark between the meetings of Ninth and Tenth-months, to know whether he intended to continue his services, or obtain any information from him as to the course he had taken?

A. As to what the committee done, I do not know, as respects that. Q. Were they appointed for that purpose, or was the sole object of their appointment to name a person for clerk?

A. The minute of their appointment will show that. For my own part, I do suppose it was to propose the name of a suitable Friend to serve the meeting as clerk, and one to assist him, and no further. Q. Were you one of that committee?

A. The minute will show that; for my part, I don't recollect.

Q. Why is it that your recollection avails you as to the committee appointed in Tenth-month, on the same subject, and not as to the Ninth

month?

A. Because I have had reference to one, since I have had to the other. Q. Do I understand you then, that in speaking of these proceedings, you speak from a reference to the minutes, and not from your recollection of them as they occurred at the time?

A. This is in one particular case-instance that I happened to open the book this morning and saw that minute, which brought to my remembrance the conversation that took place with us and David; and I could state the place also if it was necessary.