Q. Your Yearly Meeting then only corresponds with a part of those who formerly composed those Yearly Meetings?

A. We consider that we are corresponding with those Yearly Meetings, without any allusion to parts, or what may have taken place.

Q. Are there not within the limits of those Yearly Meetings, other bodies of men than those with whom you corresponded, who claimed to be the Yearly Meetings of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Ohio, and Indiana, respectively?

A. I cannot speak from any personal knowledge, except Philadelphia; although I have no doubt, by general report, that that is the case.

Q. I have understood you to say, that during the last year, the meeting that you call New York Yearly Meeting, did not correspond with the Yearly Meetings of London, Dublin, Rhode Island, (called New England,) Virginia, or North Carolina-before the separation, did not New York Yearly Meeting correspond with those meetings?

A. I think I stated before, that no epistles from the Yearly Meeting of New York, to those meetings mentioned by the counsel, were prepared and sent last year; although the way is not closed for any further correspondence, that I know of. It is true, the Yearly Meeting of New York had formerly corresponded with all these meetings; and I think it probable, that the way will again open for a resumption of that correspondence.

Q. By formerly, do you not mean before the separation?

A. Yes-before what thou calls a separation.

Q. By general repute, do not those Yearly Meetings correspond with New York Yearly Meeting, held by those you call Orthodox?

A. In making use of that term, I do not do it out of any disrespect; I have a dislike to attach any nick-names to any body, or society of men; but when I have made use of the term, I have merely done so for distinction's sake. Please to repeat the question again. [The question is read to the witness, when he further answers.] I have no hesitation in answering that that is the general report. I have no other means of knowing, as I have not seen their correspondence-but I am willing to answer it in the affirmative.

Q. Have not each of those Yearly Meetings, London, Dublin, Rhode Island, Virginia, and North Carolina, issued declarations, stating that they do not consider those meetings, of which you are a member, as meetings of the Society of Friends?

A. I think I have seen some declarations from some of those meetings, that I have thought contained very unwise and intemperate expressions; which conveyed the conclusion, I think, that is queried after. I charitably impute it to want of information, and to a want of that christian feeling and forbearance, which ought to characterize the profession we are making as Friends.

Q. Did not those Yearly Meetings also declare their disunity with the doctrines held and promulgated by Elias Hicks?

A. I have not a distinct recollection of all the charges. I may remark, as I said before, that I considered that they generally arose from a want of right information; and probably to the influence of certain characters travelling in the ministry, and present when those unkind and uncharitable testimonials were issued by those meetings.

Q. As far as the information of the witness extends, I wish him to

state, whether they did not declare their disunity with the doctrines of Elias Hicks?

Witness. I am now going to answer the question. I think I have a distinct recollection, that in one or two of those declarations, wherein his name was mentioned, coupled with some declarations of that kind. I don't recollect in what way they were put; but if I had them to refer to, I could answer more particularly.

Q. At the time of the separation in the Yearly Meeting of New York, were not those persons who left the house, refused admittance into the basement story of the meeting house?

A. I believe I must say, that I cannot admit that the Yearly Meeting of New York ever have separated; that a certain party who seceded and left the house, and asked, as I understood, for admittance into the basement story, were refused; not considering that they had any right to such a privilege.

Q. You state that the persons whose names were rejected as representatives to the Yearly Meeting, from the Quarterly Meeting of Westbury in 1828, were in disunity with their Monthly and Quarterly Meetings will you please to state who those persons were; and how they had evinced that disunity?

Witness. (Referring to a MS.) It is unpleasant to me to mention names; however, I shall not shrink from it. I believe they were Thomas Hawkeshurst, Samuel Wood, William F. Mott, and John R. Willis. Those individuals had met in a disorderly manner, as I apprehend, at the meeting house in Rose street, had drawn up a remonstrance against the proceedings of the Preparative Meeting held at that house. This remonstrance was presented to the Monthly Meeting of New York. A committee was appointed by that meeting to consider the charges against that Preparative Meeting, and report. They accordingly met, and after a close investigation of the subject, reported to the Monthly Meeting that the charges which these Friends exhibited were groundless and without foundation, which report was sustained and united with as the prevailing sense of that meeting, and so recorded on its minutes. These Friends, however, were still dissatisfied, and appealed from the judgment of the Monthly Meeting to the Quarterly Meeting. The Quarterly Meeting took up the subject, appointed a large committee of judicious Friends, who carefully investigated the charges, as at first exhibited; the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting of New York heard the parties in the case, and finally reported that they had not any just cause of complaint against that meeting. When I gave in my testimony of those Friends being rejected by the Quarterly Meeting, as suitable representatives to represent that body in the Yearly Meeting, I alluded to this circumstance, which, by their own declaration, they had previously expressed their disunity with the Monthly Meeting. If that testimony is not sufficient to substantiate what I have above stated, I can, if necessary, give in evidence the proceedings of the Monthly and Quarterly Meeting, by extracts from those meetings, signed by the clerks respectively.

Q. Were not those four persons you have mentioned known to be opposed to the religious doctrines promulgated by Elias Hicks?

A. They were known to be attached to that party in the society, who were endeavouring to destroy the religious character and standing of that upright and dignified minister of the gospel.

Q. How many persons signed the remonstrance of which you have spoken?

A. Four, whose names I have given.

Q. What were the proceedings of the Preparative Meeting against which they remonstrated?

A. If I am to answer that question, I shall give in evidence the remonstrance alluded to, which will explain what their views and meaning was, better than I can orally.

Counsel. We wish the remonstrance, if the witness has it.

Witness. This is the remonstrance, and the report of the committee: it is, however, coupled with the report of the Monthly Meeting, which cannot well be detached: also, the proceedings and report of the Quar terly Meeting, held the 24th of Fourth-month, 1828. By this it will appear, that at the very time those representatives were named and objected to, the Quarterly Meeting were occupied in considering the appeal and allegations of those Friends.

Mr. Brown. I would remark to the witness, that as he had offered the remonstrance, we have called for it: as respects any other papers, it rests with himself to offer them or not.

Witness. The papers which relate to the same subject, I had rather should go with the remonstrance; I think they ought to go together: the proceedings of the Quarterly Meeting, however, I shall offer as an

exhibit.

The papers referred to by the witness are offered in evidence; and the said remonstrance is marked Exhibit No. 444 on the part of the said Joseph Hendrickson. And the accompanying papers, viz: the Report of the Monthly Meeting's Committee, and Proceedings of the Quarterly Meeting, are offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked by me Exhibits B 2 and C 2 respectively.

Q. The disunity, then, of those four persons, consisted in applying to the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings for advice and assistance, in what they apprehended to be a case of grievance?

A. I think it has never been customary, when any Friends are brought before a meeting for discipline, either as offenders or as remonstrants, that while that case is pending before a meeting, they would be considered properly qualified impartially to represent that meeting in a supe rior meeting.

In reference to the paper purporting to be the proceedings of the Quarterly Meeting, marked as above mentioned Exhibit C 2, the wit ness says, "this is a copy of the minute relating to this case."

Q. When their remonstrance came before the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, were there not a number of Friends in each of those meetings who considered they had good grounds for complaint?

A. I think that is very probable.

Q. As it appears by the remonstrance and minute exhibited, that the difference between the remonstrants and the other members in the Monthly Meeting was not of a personal nature, but had reference to different constructions put upon the discipline, or the manner of its exercise, on the principles you have laid down, were not all the members of New York Monthly Meeting equally ineligible as representatives from Westbury Quarterly Meeting, to the Yearly Meeting?

A. I think not; because a considerable number, or the greatest number,

had submitted to the sense and judgment of the Monthly Meeting: I may add, and therefore were members in full unity with that body.

Q. Was the clerk of the Quarterly Meeting officially informed by any minute, that those four persons were in disunity with their Monthly Meeting?

A. I consider that he was officially informed, by the production of the minute of the Monthly Meeting which is exhibited, and the case then pending before the Quarterly Meeting.

Q. Were their names mentioned in that minute?

A. The proceedings of the Monthly Meeting were presented to the Quarterly Meeting, and of course the remonstrance wherein those names are inserted, by which the clerk and the meeting were fully informed as to the names.

Q. Were those proceedings, including the remonstrance, read in the Quarterly Meeting?

A. I have not a distinct recollection of that circumstance; whether they were read, or only submitted to a committee.

Q. Was it stated in the Quarterly Meeting as the reason for rejecting their names, that those persons were in disunity with their Monthly Meetings, or under their care?

A. I think it was distinctly mentioned by an individual of that meeting, that those persons so situated whose case was then pending, could not be thought suitable to represent that meeting in the Yearly Meeting.

Q. Were the offers made by your party to those you called Orthodox, for an adjustment of the property question, addressed to their meetings as meetings of the religious Society of Friends, or were they addressed to them as persons called Orthodox, and who had separated from the society?

A. No communication of that kind was made to any meeting; because it might be considered as a sort of acknowledgment that they were a regularly organized body. This we could not admit; but always considered them as meetings set up out of the regular order and discipline of the Society of Friends, and that the propositions as respects property, were made to individuals, who were said to compose such meetings; and influential characters therein, as we apprehended.

Q. You do not know then that those propositions ever reached them, when assembled as meetings?

A. Not as meetings. I have no knowledge of any such circumstance. I think, however, the exhibit I made yesterday of an epistle of a Meeting for Sufferings so called, and signed by Samuel Parsons, is conclusive evidence, that those meetings were informed; as they directed that meetings which they considered under their control, should make no compromise with us as regards property.

[NOON.]

Q. Has the meeting to which you now belong given possession or the use of either of the two meeting houses, or other property in the city of New York, to those you call Orthodox?

A. We consider that they are always at liberty to attend those meetings for public worship, for which they were built and designed, whenever they may think proper.

Q. Apart from that, you have given them no possession?
A. No.

Q. Have not those with whom you unite, attempted to disown those whom you call Orthodox in the city of New York?

A. The number of Friends in the city of New York, being very large at the time, about 400 of which seceded from the society, and held a separate meeting; it became necessary, as we thought, on the part of society, to designate distinctly those who were united with us, and those who had seceded. And in order to relieve the Monthly Meeting of New York from any responsibility for the conduct of those who had seceded, it was thought necessary that the overseers should take a list of those members, those who were formerly members; wait upon them, and inquire of them whether they wished to be any longer considered as members of our society. If upon their signifying they had no wish to be so considered, they should report the names of such to the Monthly Meeting. A minute was accordingly made to that effect, intimating that they were no longer considered members of our society. Yet upon their expressing a wish at any time to return, the Yearly Meeting, I think, directed, that no acknowledgment should be exacted from them. Although this step has been taken by the Monthly Meeting of New York, it has not been adopted, as I have understood, or any steps taken in that way, by a great proportion of the Monthly Meetings, constituting that Yearly Meeting.

Q. Was the cause you have assigned the only one for disowning them? A. I believe that to have been the cause, and as far as I have understood, the only cause.

Q. Does the discipline of the Yearly Meeting of the city of New York recognise such a mode of disjoining members from the society?

A. When that discipline was made and concluded on by the Yearly Meeting, no such state of things as now exist, could have been contemplated. But the same power which made the discipline, could at any time alter it, or adapt it to such a state of things, as now exist: and therefore the Yearly Meeting made a minute and sent it down to all the subordinate meetings, giving them liberty, (not enjoining it,) for each Monthly Meeting to act in the way above mentioned, whenever they felt at liberty or disposed so to do.

Q. Was the minute of the Yearly Meeting, to which you have alluded, of a date anterior or subsequent to the act of the New York Monthly Meeting, disowning those members to which you have alluded?

A. I rather think the Monthly Meeting of New York did partially act upon such a minute, anterior to the conclusion of the Yearly Meeting, as above stated: passing no censure upon the Monthly Meeting of New York for acting in the case, where no specific discipline adapted to such a state of things, had been concluded upon by the Yearly Meeting.

Q. Am I to understand then, that at the time of the act of the New York Monthly Meeting disowning those members, there was no discipline of the Yearly Meeting of New York to sanction it?

A. As I remarked before, there was no specific discipline which provided for such a state of things; and, therefore, the Monthly Meeting of New York, in their judicial capacity, apprehended they had a right to act in such a case in the manner they did: subject, however, to be called to an account, by an appeal of members so separated, to the Quarterly or Yearly Meeting, either to set aside or confirm such judgment. And in all cases, the persons to whom this minute of separation was given, were expressly informed of their right to such an appeal.