Q. Were not all the others certainly members of that meeting? A. Yes, they were. Edith Lamb is deceased, and at what time I do not certainly recollect; I have apprehended that it was before the separation.

Q. Have any of those persons attended your meetings as members since the separation, or are they not with those you call Orthodox?

A. I believe Edith Lamb was not considered Orthodox; I apprehend the others were.

Q. Are the names of any of these persons on that list you have produced?

A. I believe they are not: it has been an oversight; they having been out of sight for some time, is the cause of their being forgotten. Q. How far from the meeting house does Sarah Thorn live? A. Not over a quarter of a mile, I suppose.

Q. Was the list containing the apportionment of the school fund, Exhibit K 2, made out by you, and do you speak from your own personal knowledge of its correctness, or from the information of others?

A. I believe I stated, that I thought it nearly or quite correct; and when I examined it, I thought it to be so; it was not made out by myself.

Q. How many of those persons named on that list, as living at the time of the separation, were members of the Chesterfield Preparative Meeting?

A. I do not know.

The counsel rest the cross-examination.

And the said James Brown being re-examined in chief, further saith: Question by Mr. Price. Did Edith Lamb go with the Orthodox at the time of the separation?

A. Edith Lamb was an aged infirm woman, and very seldom went to meeting any where, in latter years.

Q. Did Sarah Thorn?

A. Sarah Thorn at the time of the separation was decidedly with Friends.

Q. But I suppose has since joined the Orthodox?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you make the result on each side according to your dotting the names on the list of the members over forty? and of the males only?

Witness. [Looking over the paper.] There are twenty-five that are of forty or upwards, on the side of Friends, and nine of the like with the Orthodox.

Q. When the Orthodox left the Preparative Meeting, was it proposed to the meeting that it should adjourn to Mathew Forsyth's, or was Mathew Forsyth only asked by those who wished the use of his house, for the use of it?

A. The question was merely asked whether they might be admitted into his house; and they made no minute of adjournment.

Q. Which seems most like setting up a new meeting; for the body to continue to transact its business in the usual order, or the going off of a small number to a private house in another township?

A. A small number going off in that way, appeared to me, and still appears, most like setting up a new meeting.

Q. Yet the few who went off from the Monthly Meeting, and set up a meeting in a private house, in another township, undertook to disown the greater body of the Monthly Meeting, who continued to do their business at the usual time and place, in the usual order of society?

A. Yes they undertook to disown us; the greater part of the meeting?

Q. Does not a Preparative Meeting transact other business than that which is prepared for the Monthly Meeting?

A. It has other business to transact besides that which necessarily claims the attention of the Monthly Meeting.

Q. Does it not manage exclusively its own monied concerns?

A. I think it does.

Q. Does Chesterfield Preparative Meeting hold its property by virtue of any charter or act of incorporation?

A. I think not.

Q. Does any subscription list, or title deed, by which its property is evidenced, contain any condition that it shall hold its property only in case of subordination to a Yearly Meeting, that shall be held in Arch street on the third Second-day of Fourth-month?

A. No.

Q. Is the subordination of the meetings of the society a subordination for disciplinary purposes, and according to the discipline? A. I think it is, if I understand the question.

And being again cross-examined on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, he further saith:

Question. Is not the property of that meeting held in trust for the use of Chesterfield Preparative Meeting of the Society of Friends?

Answer. It is so held by trustees.

Q. If a member is disowned, does he not forfeit all his rights in the property of the society, as well as his rights to religious communion with them?

A. Perhaps I am not correct in my views on that subject; but I recollect one circumstance, wherein a person who had been appointed trustee to some of the property belonging to Chesterfield Monthly Meeting, had been disowned by that meeting, and afterwards called upon to sign away his trust to another, when others were appointed by the meeting. From that circumstance, I have apprehended that they held the right of trust until they signed it away-but I am not sure whether that is cor JAMES BROWN. Affirmed as aforesaid, and subscribed at the inn of William Ridgway, in Camden, in the county of Gloucester, this first day of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-one.

rect.

J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner.

The counsel for the complainant and Stacy Decow, here rest the examination of witnesses on their part.

Adjourned until Tuesday morning next, at 10 o'clock.

Tuesday morning, April 5th, 1831, at 10 o'clock. The parties and counsel attended, the same as at the last continuance.

In pursuance of the agreement entered into by the parties and their counsel on the 25th of December last, Joseph Hendrickson now pro

ceeds to the examination of such further witnesses on his part as is deemed necessary.

Mr. Sloan. Before I proceed to call a witness, I think it necessary to apprize the counsel for the opposite side, that in consequence of the notices served upon us, requiring the production of the records of the Meeting for Sufferings, and of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, an application has been made, and earnestly urged to those persons who have them in charge, either to attend this examination, with the books, or to entrust them to our care, that we might produce them in obedience to the call. We have received for answer, however, that after mature deliberation, they do not feel themselves at liberty to comply with our request, inasmuch as the books have been confided to their care for safe keeping only by those meetings, and without any authority to remove them from their respective places of deposit. They conceive, therefore, that the removal of the books, for the purpose of exhibiting them as evidence in a cause pending in another state, and which might, of necessity, require their production in the court, or before its officers, at periods when they might perhaps be absolutely required by those meetings, independent of all casualties which might occur to records of such long standing, so voluminous, and of such immense importance and interest to the society, would be a violation of the trust reposed in them. Notwithstanding this determination, however, they are perfectly willing that the parties in this cause shall have the benefit of any information to be derived from them. And they have authorized us to say, that free access may be had to the records by either party, or his counsel, for the purpose of testing the correctness of extracts already made, and the making any additional extracts that they may desire.

Mr. Price. I wish to know whether that privilege will extend to any disinterested person, who may be sent there to make extracts for the purpose of giving them here in evidence?

Mr. Sloan. The Society of Friends, as I understand it, have never been accustomed to either transact their business in the presence of those who are not members, or to submit the minutes of their proceedings in any way to their inspection. If I understand the views of those who have charge of these records, they do not wish to depart from this rule, farther than shall be absolutely necessary to afford the parties in this cause a fair opportunity of obtaining any thing from the records which may be considered essential to their interests. I do not therefore understand from them, that they are willing to throw open these books to the inspection of any one who may present himself, claiming to do so for the purpose of collecting testimony in this cause. But I do understand them, that they are perfectly willing to afford every facility to the parties in this cause, their counsel, or any acknowledged member of the Society of Friends for obtaining such testimony. And that if either party, or the counsel of either party, on examining any of those records, shall discover minutes that are thought proper to be exhibited, or referred to in the course of the examination, they will be permitted to make copies, which will be certified to be correct copies, or if it is thought necessary, they will be permitted to compare them with the original, with any disinterested witness they may think proper to produce, for the purpose of proving their correctness before the Examiner. Or. that if the parties, or counsel, prefer having the records examined by a third person, they will be permitted so to do, provided they shall select

one who shall be entitled so to do, from his right of membership in the society.

Mr. Price. Am I to understand that such person must be a member of the Yearly Meeting held in Arch street, or of a meeting connected with that meeting?

Mr. Sloan. You are to understand that the society whose records they are, or rather that the agents of that society, in whose possession the records are, are unwilling to violate the trust reposed in them by the society, by submitting these records to the indiscriminate examination of persons not members of that society. But that in furtherance of justice between the respective parties in this cause, they are willing to depart from the usual rule of the society, so far as it may be necessary to do so, and that therefore, either yourself, your associate counsel,or your clients, Thomas L. Shotwell or Stacy Decow, will at all times be allowed free access to the records, and be permitted, at your pleasure, to examine all or any of the minutes contained in them; and that any thing you may find therein recorded, will, as I have before stated, be permitted to be transcribed and certified, or proved by any witness that you shall introduce for that purpose, whether he should be a member of that society or not.

Mr. Price. Will copies of the minutes certified by the person having the records in charge, be received as evidence in this cause? Mr. Sloan. Yes.

WILLIAM EVANS, of Philadelphia, a witness produced on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation, declareth and saith:

Question by Mr. Sloan. Are you a member of the Society of Friends? A. I am, and always have been.

Q. What is your age?

A. I am in the forty-fourth year of my age.

Q. Have you for a long time taken part in the administration of their discipline, and been engaged in the ministry in the society?

A. I have taken part in the discipline of the society for twenty years, and have been acknowledged a minister, I think, about nine years.

Q. Were you a member of, and present in the Meeting for Sufferings, during its proceedings relative to a controversy at Wilmington, in 1822? If so, please to relate what took place.

A. I was a member at that time, and present on that occasion. The controversy alluded to, was respecting the doctrines of Friends, conducted by two persons, under the assumed names of Paul and Amicus. The former writing against, and the latter professing to defend the society, and appearing to write in its behalf. The manner in which the controversy was conducted appeared to implicate, in some measure, the reputation of Friends, and the subject was consequently introduced into the Meeting for Sufferings, by reading parts of some of the essays. A committee was appointed on the subject, consisting of John Cox, Jonathan Evans, Samuel P. Griffitts, John Comly, Samuel Bettle, Thomas Wistar, and Thomas Stewardson. They produced to a subsequent meeting, a written report, consisting of a disavowal of those essays, and also of some extracts from the writings of George Fox, William Penn, Robert Barclay, Richard Claridge, and of the Declaration of Friends in

1693. This report was adopted by the meeting, and that part which disclaims any connexion with the writer of the essays, was directed to be transmitted to the printer, for insertion in the volume of those essays, then about to be printed. A copy of the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings on the subject, with the exception of the extracts, is contained in this paper marked A by me. Those minutes have been correctly transcribed by myself from the original record.

The said copy of the minutes is offered in evidence on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, and marked by me Exhibit No. 46. [See Appendix.]

Q. I perceive by this minute, that it is incomplete, referring to something which followed. Do those extracts of which you have spoken, from the writings of primitive Friends, and which have been exhibited in this cause, follow immediately after the extract you have made, and complete the record?

A. They do so: and my reason for not copying them, was, that I understood they had already been exhibited in this cause. [The witness refers to Exhibit No. 12, as the extracts alluded to.]

Q. I interrupted you in your answer to my former question, for the purpose of calling your attention to this minute,-have you any thing further to add relative to the proceedings of that meeting?

A. I stated in the forepart, that only a portion of the report was directed to be transmitted to the printer; the cause of which was this:some of the members apprehended that it would be attaching more importance to the essays of Paul and Amicus, to transmit those extracts, than an anonymous controversy deserved; and the meeting, on deliberately weighing the whole subject, came to the conclusion simply to disavow the essays.

Samuel P. Griffitts then rose and remarked, that it would be a pity those excellent and valuable extracts should be lost, and proposed that they should be printed in pamphlet form, for distribution amongst our own members: and this was adopted, I think, without one dissenting voice; and the committee on books was directed to have them printed and distributed.

Q. Was that the reason why the report was divided?

A. That was the reason.

Q. Was the clerk directed by the meeting to place the whole report upon the minutes?

A. He was directed to do so by the meeting: of which I have a clear and distinct recollection. This is the simple history of the origin and object of those extracts, which have been contemptuously denominated a creed.

Q. Was there any difference of opinion between the members of the committee appointed on that subject, or any disapprobation expressed? A. I was not a member of the committee, and of course, can only say of what I have been informed by one of that committee, that there was no difference of opinion in the committee in reference to the report. In the Meeting for Sufferings, some hesitation was manifested by three or four members in the morning sitting; but in the afternoon it was very harmoniously adopted;-indeed the solemnity which prevailed on that occasion, at the reading of the sacred truths contained in those extracts, seemed to shut out all doubt respecting the measure then adopted. VOL. II.-42