Haywood is in Kentucky. Brother Bingham is a burning and shining light, flinging its rays over the Rocky Mountains, and away off to the Pacific coast; and by-and-by, it will shine to China, when we get the Pacific Railroad, and Chicago is the great centre for the China trade. But I tell you it is true, that in our whole western country, you have not a single Cambridge man between the Alleghanies and this bank of the Mississippi, except Brother Bingham and Brother Howard; and Brother Howard, I believe, is not settled at present, but he is going right to Sheboygan — and a real, grand, good fellow he is. This is not as it should be, and we want to tell you, we Western men, that you will have to help us; that you have got to inspire Cambridge to send us her grand men, to do what they can to cope with this great need throughout the West for these living ministers and living men. And Meadville will have to do better. I am a modest man, and therefore I won't say anything about myself, but I want to say this of the Meadville men; that men like Brother Staples and Brother Camp are doing a good work; but of the thirty-two ministers who are settled throughout our Western country, in the valley of the Mississippi and on the slopes of the Alleghanies, sixteen or seventeen, if not eighteen are men who have come from other parts, and have taken those different churches that they have found needed ministers, and are doing the work of Him that sent them.

Now, can't you give us good men out of New England, and by-and-by we will raise them up in the West. You know we can't raise them all up at once; they have got to grow from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to manhood. When I began at Unity Church, I was very much troubled about the Sunday-school, and I said, "You must send your children to the Sunday-school. We must have a larger school. Ten or a dozen won't do at all." But they came to me and said, "Don't be uneasy about the Sunday-school. You will get a Sunday-school no doubt about that. We send all the children there are in the parish, and just as fast as any more grow up we will send them." It is so, I suppose, through the West. We shall get our Western men after a while, and I feel encouraged and heartened by the information that comes to us of Western men who are coming up to the work. We have been able to send down to Brother Hepworth's school, which I consider to be most hopeful for us in the way of raising up ministers for the work in the West,— we have sent down three good men, who will grow, under that influence, into what is wanted, and we hope to send a good many more, to be fitted to take the places that are opening, and carry on the work.

Now, friends, we want your sympathy. We want you to feel, all the time, that there is something to be seen to, something that ought to be done, and shall be done. We have put the whole business of money into the hands of the Association, and if you want to go to heaven, and feel good when you get there, just put your hands deep into your pockets and help this great missionary work at the West. I tell you, the result will be just as it was in Yorkshire. A missionary who was pleading hard for money to send missionaries to the

heathen, told the people that whatever they gave the Lord in this way, he would give back twice over. Two boys were in the meeting and heard the story, and one said to the other, "suppose we try him." Said the other,"I don't know how it will do, but if thee thinks so I will.” They agreed they would try a sixpence, and they put their sixpence into the contribution box. Sometime during the week, - they were feeling very much disturbed about their sixpence - they thought the missionary had taken them in,—but, sometime during the week, a gentleman called to see them from the town from which they had come, and told them he had lately seen their father, who had done him some little courtesy, for which he would not take anything, and he wanted to give the boys a trifle. So he left five shillings, and went away. As soon as he had gone, one of the boys exclaimed, "Just what he said, only more so! More than we expected." "Oh!" said the other, "I wish we had put in a shilling."

My friends, there is a serious edge to that story; we may not see it yet a while, but the time will come when we shall every one wish we had done more and better, had contributed more generously of the means God has put at our disposal, when we see the mighty harvest that shall come from even our scant sowing. I think I told you once a very touching story that I learned from one of our best and noblest Western men. He says that a long time ago the settlers about Pittsburg observed that every year a man came down into the valley, from away off in the Western wilderness, and went to the various farms and gathered the pomace from the cider mills until he got a stock of it, when he would plunge into the wilderness and be lost for a year. Nobody knew what he was doing, and people thought perhaps the man might be crazy. The Indians called him " big medicine man." That man went up between Pittsburg and Fort Wayne, and wherever he saw a fine, sunny spot, he would be sure to plant some of his pomace, and when the emigrant went there, he found seedling orchards that this crazy man, as he was thought to be, had planted, waiting for him, and bringing forth their fruit year after year. That is what we are trying to do in the West. Help us to plant these orchards, and your children, and those near and dear to you, will go there and find churches planted, and this living grace of God abounding, and the blessing which you give now will come back to you tenfold, besides filling your hearts with joy unspeakable and full of glory.

APPEALS AMONG THE QUAKERS.

"And be these juggling fiends no more believ'd,

That palter with us in a double sense;

That keep the word of promise to our ear,

And break it to our hope."-Macbeth, Act Y., Scene 7.

"BONCŒUR," in his Essay on the "Shyster,” in the June number of

THE FRIEND, furnishes, by way of illustration, what he regards as being a rare, though fair specimen, from the Hicksite Quakers of this City, of the monster he is delineating.

The specimen he exhibits was formed in connection with the exercise of the right of appeal in the church government of the Society of Friends. But more familiarity with its practice in such connection, would have prevented "Boncour" from falling into the error of referring to this, as being an exceptional case, rather than as conforming to their general practice.

The Society of Friends claims to be exceedingly guarded and love-inspiring in its disownments, not intending to punish but to reclaim; and declares among other things, it is the end of discipline in testifying disunity with any, that the subjects of it "may be made sensible that they themselves are the sole cause of their separation from our religious fellowship and communion." Professedly, to guard against any mistakes, when a record of such disunity is made by a Monthly Meeting, the discipline provides that it shall not be final; but that the individual concerned shall be notified thereof, and if dissatisfied, shall thereafter, within a specified time, have the right to appeal to superior Meetings.

Appeals, however, among us, are exceedingly infrequent, (which is more than can be said of resignations of membership,) as there is now evidently more willingness manifested to get out of the society, than there is to enter or to stay in it.

There have, perhaps, been eight or ten appeals which have reached the Yearly Meeting, within the last fifty years; and the results of these would indicate that the privilege of appealing, as it has been conducted, is but a shyster one; and as it was with the negro, in Judge Taney's opinion, with reference to the white man, so it is with appeilants, in regard to the superior meeting, the former having no rights which the Yearly Meeting is bound to respect. Appeal proceedings, so far as we now remember, or have been able on inquiry to learn, having always resulted, when brought before the Yearly Meeting, adversely to the appellant.

It will hardly be claimed, at this day, that all these cases ought so to have resulted.

Subsequent events have shown, that in the case of Hannah Barnard, for instance, the judgment was an unrighteons and iniquitous one. But to come nearer to our own time, and to scenes in which some of the principal actors are still living, we will point to the case of Isaac. T. Hopper.

One of his committee, (John J. Merritt, who, perhaps, did more than any other of them, to promote his disownment,) has since found it necessary to assure the family of Isaac, and also to declare publicly, that he now sees it was all wrong, and that the judgment rendered, possibly through his action, should have been reversed. So confirmed is the general sentiment of the Society to this effect, that a History of Friends, recently published by Samuel M. Janney, (an acknowledged authority and minister among them,) contains a memoir of Isaac T. Hopper, in which an account is given of his reception into membership by the Society, an approving allusion to his services in it, and an expression of confidence in the happy close of his eventful life. But not one word about his having been disowned by our Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. Thus omitting the very proceeding, which, in such a connection, was the most important of all others, as it was this which would most fully incorporate him into the history of the Society of Friends. The book may have been written to sell, and the narrative of these proceedings was, perhaps, regarded as being too painful or reproachful to the Society to be recorded in any history of it which was designed to find purchasers among Friends, and for this, or some other reason, was entirely ignored, if not forgotten, by this faithful historian.

And again, those of us who witnessed the effects of a resort, by Charles Marriott, to this proffered means of self-protection from wrong-doing,—the right of appeal,-will not be surprised by a reference to it, as having been the occasion of the premature realization by him, of the posthumous rewards. of a well spent life. His sensitive nature, after meeting the fate which awaited all others who have sought redress in such an appeal, withered under its inflictions, and the occurring of his death, as it did shortly afterward, might well be ascribed to a broken heart.

After such a succession of disappointments, we trust, if further appeals are made, they will be to develop the deformities of the system, and not to obtain relief from any supposed mis-judgment in the exercise of discipline.

The case of John S. Roberts, is another which is unmistakably reproachful to the Society. He was disowned by the Yearly Meeting, on an appeal from its subordinate meetings, for allowing a piano to remain and be used in his house. If allowing this was wicked, more aggravated cases had at that time long existed, and since, without any change of discipline, they have become so common as to be unnoticed, and might be numbered by the hundred.

But it is not needful to seek in even the recently past, for these shyster indications. There is a case which is now being nursed by the Yearly Meeting of New York, which shows that these characteristics of appeals are still the distinguishing features of them.

We refer to that of Daniel H. Sutton, and believe that a brief history of it, before and since it reached the Yearly Meeting, would be of interest to most readers of THE FRIEND.

When about ten years of age, Daniel went with his parents from Westchester County, N. Y., to reside in Fairfax County, Virginia, and remained there seven years. During the latter part of this time he was employed in distributing young trees for Chalkley Gillingham, a nursery-man, near Mount Vernon. In 1860, he came to Brooklyn to reside, and before the family became settled, he .ost the guardianship of a judicious mother, through her death, which occurred at the house of John J. Merritt. Soon afterward the war broke out, and reading of the troubles, amid the scenes with which he was so familiar, so awakened his patriotism, that while still in the eighteenth year o his age, he volunteered for the aid of his bleeding country. He was ordered to the home of his boyhood, where his knowledge, of what to our folks was an obscure locality, made him especially useful as a guide or scout, to which duties he was mostly assigned. In less than two years he was twice wounded, the last time disabled, and for this cause was honorably discharged. He afterwards lived about two years in Brooklyn, and then removed to Chicago, where he now resides.

Without any effort to convince him of his having erred; in twelfth month, 1866, he then being a man, though a very young one, was disowned by the Monthly Meeting of New York, for having been a soidier while he was a boy!

It seemed to him that this proceeding was not in accordance with the discipline, and he appealed to the Quarterly Meeting, requesting his relative, and the friend of his departed mother, John J. Merritt, on account of the remoteness of his own residence, to represent him before that meeting.

The Quarterly Meeting permitted him to appear by a representative, and made a minute to that effect; but its committee declined so to hear him; and at a meeting, at which bout one-half of those appointed to the duty were in attendance, they proceeded with one side of the case, and delegated one of their number to sign a report on behalf of the committee, in favor of confirming the judgment of the subordinate meeting.

The report conveyed the impression, that it declared the judgment of the whole committee, instead of the mere opinion of but one-half of them. On being informed of the facts, the Quarterly Meeting returned the report to the committee, with instructions to give the case further attention.

The committee again met, and again refused to hear any thing from Daniel's representative, which was not in writing, and addressed by Daniel himself, directly to themselves; thus shutting out most of the explanation which would have been made to them. The renewed adverse report was at this time confirmed by the Quarterly Meeting, perhaps because the clerk precipitately proceeded to other business, without allowing time for deliberation, or the expression of adverse sentiment, if, through the explanation of the then existing facts, which was again made by John J. Merritt, any such existed. Daniel H. Sutton hereupon gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Yearly Meeting. His appeal was prepared and placed in the hands of the