A. There was not, I think; if there was any place mentioned to retire to, I have no recollection of it, at present. Q. Did they, by appointing a clerk, or in any other way, organize themselves as a Preparative Meeting, before they adjourned? A. No, they did not, I think. Q. Had there any disorderly proceedings taken place in that Preparative Meeting, or was it alleged that any obnoxious person was present to drive them off? A. I don't know that I can recollect exactly what was said at that time by them; but I think there was no person there that they particularly objected to, except myself, as clerk of that meeting. They inquired either of the meeting, or of me particularly, I am not sure which, whether I was the regular clerk of that meeting: I think I informed the meeting that I had been regularly appointed as clerk; and considered myself then acting for Chesterfield Preparative Meeting. They however did not appear to be satisfied with that answer, and made some other objections, I don't recollect exactly the words; but finding that it was the general sense of that meeting, that I should act in the capacity of clerk, they left the meeting without making any adjournment, or mi nute. Q. Had not you been appointed the regular clerk? A. Yes, I had been appointed the regular clerk. A. I was first appointed clerk of that meeting, I think, in the year 1808. I continued, perhaps, without a reappointment, but as to that I am not certain, until the year 1813. I then moved from that meeting to Burlington: and when I returned and became a member of that meeting again in 1815, when I moved back to it; and in 1827 I was again appointed clerk, and reappointed in 1828, and continued clerk until I was succeeded by Josiah Gaskill in 1829. Q. You have not answered whether 'any disorderly proceedings had taken place in that meeting? A. I know of no disorderly proceedings, only by those who styled themselves Orthodox leaving the meeting, as I apprehend, in a disorderly way. Q. After they went away, did not the meeting continue its business in the usual order of the society? A. Yes, I think so. Q. Has it continued to do so ever since, and at the usual place and times? A. It has. Q. Is it usual to appoint the clerk of a Preparative Meeting for at least the period of a year? A. It has been usual of latter years, in that meeting, to appoint a clerk annually. Q. Has the Preparative Meeting for which you were clerk, in 1827, ever since continued to appoint trustees of the school fund, as it had usually done before? A. They have continued to do so. Q. Have those trustees continued to discharge their duties as formerly? A. I believe they have, for any thing that I know; I have never heard no complaints against them. Q. Has it been usual for Chesterfield Preparative Meeting to manage and control that school fund, without the interference or control of any other meeting? A. Yes, they have never thought it their duty to apply for directions to any other meeting, excepting one or two cases; there was a minute sent up to the Monthly Meeting, with respect to a division, perhaps, of the fund, with one or two of the other Preparative Meetings. The Monthly Meeting in them cases, I think, decided that they had no power to make any division. Q. Was Stacy Decow duly appointed successor to Joseph Hendrickson, as treasurer of the school fund? A. Stacy Decow was appointed treasurer of the school fund by the Preparative Meeting, in First-month, 1828, I think. Q. When representatives are appointed in the Quarterly Meetings to the Yearly Meeting, are they usually appointed out of the respective Monthly Meetings? A. I believe that is the usual practice. Q. In fact, then, every Monthly Meeting is represented in the Yearly Meeting by its own members? A. Yes, I believe that to have been the design of the discipline; as near as circumstances would allow. Q. Is the principal object of appointing representatives, in order to secure the certain attendance of some of the members of each Monthly or Quarterly Meeting, and the transmission to the superior meetings of the necessary minutes and papers? A. Yes, I believe that to be the principal object of the society. Q. Whether appointed a representative or not, has not every member an equal right to attend the superior meetings, and take part in their proceedings? A. We have no prohibition to any of our members attending the general Quarterly and Yearly Meetings. Q. When there, is it not usual for them to take part in the proceedings of the meeting? A. It is so. Q. Are the following the provisions of the discipline, in respect to the appointment of representatives, viz: "It is agreed that a suitable number of men and women be appointed in each Monthly Meeting, to attend the service of the Quarterly Meeting, with such reports in writ ing, signed by their clerks, as may be given them in charge: also, that at least four of each sex be appointed in each Quarterly Meeting, to attend the Yearly Meeting. And it is earnestly advised and desired, that all Friends who submit to these, or any other services of society, may be punctual in their attendance thereon; or if prevented by sickness, or any other unavoidable occurrence, that they be careful to send information thereof; also, that those who are under appointments to meetings, do not withdraw therefrom before the conclusion, without obtaining the meeting's consent?"-[Read from pages 33-4, of Discip. Exh. No. 13.] A. Yes; they are so. Q. Though it is agreed in that discipline, that representatives be sent as therein mentioned, is there any positive prohibition against Monthly Meetings sending representatives to the Yearly Meeting? A. I do not recollect that there is any prohibition pointed out by the discipline to that effect. Q. Are you generally acquainted with the members, or with those who were members of Chesterfield Preparative Meeting in First-month, 1828 and if so, will you furnish as correct a list of those members as your information will afford of each party? A. I am generally acquainted with the members of that Preparative Meeting, and I have a list of the members of both parties, which I apprehend is nearly, or quite correct; made out for the time of the separation. I am personally acquainted, or was personally acquainted, I think, with all these persons, except two; they two, I believe to have been members of Chesterfield Preparative Meeting at that time. The list produced by the witness, is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked Exhibit N 2. Q. Were the sides taken by those who were members of Chesterfield Preparative Meeting in First-month, 1828, matters of general notoriety from their attendance at the different meetings, or otherwise? A. It was a matter of fact, that they were so. Q. Was the insertion of the names of William Careslake and wife, and a few others, in the former list, [D 2,] owing to its having been made out for a recent period, instead of that of the separation? A. That was the case. Q. Have you reason to believe that the name of Sarah Chapman was on the list originally made, and that it was omitted by mistake in transcription? A. I have no doubt but what it was a mistake of that kind; and not any intention in those who made it out. Q. Have you any information about the list of original subscribers to the school fund and their descendants, to enable you to speak as to the correctness of the list exhibited? [K 2.] A. I believe this list to be nearly, or quite correct. And being cross-examined on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, he further saith, viz: Question by Mr. Sloan. How did it appear that the clerk was unwilling to record the sense of the meeting at the meeting spoken of by you in Ninth-month, 1827? A. It appeared to me that he was unwilling, because it was the general voice of the meeting that he should do so, in the case of a certificate applied for to Green street, and he did not do it. Q. Were there not those present who objected to the granting of that certificate? A. There were objections made to granting the certificate, by a few individuals; but as I have said, the general voice of the meeting was in favour of it. Q. Did you count the voices for and against it? A. I did not count the voices; and there was no occasion for that: it was very evident that it was the general voice of the meeting that a certificate should be granted, without going to that trouble. Q. Have you ever adopted the principle of deciding questions in your meetings for discipline, by an enumeration of the members for or against a measure? A. It never has been a practice in transacting business in our society. to decide against majorities. Q. I did not ask for a negative: I asked for an affirmative answer, whether it had or had not adopted the principle of deciding questions by an enumeration of the members, for or against a measure? A. I have always apprehended, since I have had any knowledge of transacting business of our society, that where the general sense of the members present, for or against any measure, that that was to be the decision. Q. Who is to collect that sense? A. Where there is a clerk to minute down matters that come before a meeting, I believe it to be his duty to take what he apprehends to be the sense, on a minute, and when that is read, if the generality of the members present should think that it is not the general sense, it is the clerk's duty to alter it and make it so. Q. Of those who were in favour of granting that certificate, were there not some who had not been in the habit of taking any part in your meetings for discipline ? A. I can't say but there were: it is very possible that there might have been some that gave their voices in that case, that don't always, in every case: but I do not think that there were any spoke to that case, but what have frequently spoken on other matters. Q. Was it not publicly stated in that meeting, that Green street Monthly Meeting had been laid down by its Quarter, and that that Monthly Meeting therefore, did not exist, and that no certificate could regularly be directed to it? A. I believe it was stated in that meeting by one individual perhaps, I don't know whether by more, that that was the case-but there were other members in that meeting, who, I apprehend, knew the state of Green street Monthly Meeting, as well as those who made objections to granting the certificate. And it appeared to be the sense of the generality of the meeting, that Green street Monthly Meeting had not been laid down in the regular order of society, therefore Chesterfield Monthly Meeting was at liberty to send a certificate to it. Q. Was the fact that Green street Monthly Meeting had been laid down by Philadelphia Quarter, questioned or denied, or was the only matter in controversy, as to whether it had been laid down in the regular order of society? A. I believe it was not disputed, but what it had been laid down in the order, that some undertook to state in our meeting; but inasmuch as the meeting considered it not laid down in the order pointed out by the discipline, that it could not be legally laid down, and therefore was in existence as it had been theretofore. Q. Would it not be a violation of discipline to grant a certificate to a meeting which had been laid down in the order of society? A. I apprehend it would. Q. Does your discipline prescribe the mode of redress for an inferior meeting, which conceives itself aggrieved by the decision of its superior, by giving it the right of an appeal? A. I am not certain whether the discipline points out any mode of procedure in that respect. [NOON.] Q. Has it not been understood, that the right of appeal exists with respect to meetings as well as to individuals; and has not that been the usage of the society? A. I do not know of any instance wherein it has been necessary for a Monthly Meeting to appeal. A Monthly Meeting, in certain cases, may ask advice or assistance of the Quarterly Meeting, of which it is a constituent branch. Q. When you say that the clerk was unwilling to record the sense of the meeting, do you mean to say that he was unwilling to record the sense of the meeting, as you apprehended it to be? A. Yes, as I apprehended it to be. Q. Did not some person propose an adjournment of the meeting? A. I don't know that I can tell exactly what passed at that time; but I do not recollect that there was any regular proposition made for an adjournment. Q. Before Jediah Middleton took his seat at the table, had a minute of adjournment been made and read by David Clark, the acting clerk? A. I rather think there was something read to that effect, somewhere about that time. Q. When you say that it was the sense of the meeting that Jediah Middleton should act as clerk, do you mean the whole meeting, or that portion of it who remained to prepare the certificate? A. I mean that portion of it that remained for that purpose, and for other purposes of the Monthly Meeting. Q. Was it against the sense of those who withdrew in pursuance of that minute? A. The object of those who withdrew, I can't positively point out; but suppose it was, that they did not think it proper that that certificate spoken of should be prepared and sent to Green street. Q. For what other purposes did you remain? A. We remained in general to maintain the order, and transact the regular business, as far as it was in our power so to do, of Chesterfield Monthly Meeting. Q. What business did you do to maintain the order and discipline of the society, besides granting that certificate? A. Perhaps my memory will not serve me to state all the business that was done at that time; but I think there was a committee appointed to name some person to act as clerk, and one to assist him. Q. Was any other business done but the appointment of the committee to prepare that certificate, and the one to bring forward a name for clerk, and the proposition that was made to appoint representatives to the Yearly Meeting, which was to be held in Green street the next month? A. As the minutes of that meeting are here, they can speak for themselves better than I can, as to the business that was transacted. It would be better than my memory. Q. Is there any thing in the discipline, authorizing a Monthly Meeting to appoint representatives to a Yearly Meeting? A. I don't know that the present discipline contains any provisions for that to be done; but under the existing state of society at that time, it appeared to that meeting best so to do. And I can produce copies, I believe, of minutes from other meetings wherein that has been done some years past. Q. How many years past? A. In the early stage of society, perhaps in the year 1684, or some |