Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1851-10-25
II Z B UGL f /.
Yearly Meeting Of Friends.

FmExB MAzrUs: In the Bugle Of 18th Of
9th month lsst, Iobscrve communication, pur.
porting 20 be an account Of the late Yearly
Meeting Of ffr;cnds--tsrmed Hicksites-relative
20 certain difficulties which have for sometime
existed in that body. Some Of the statements
which appear to require passing notice. After
giving statement Of the prcliminaries attend
and their ndjournments to New Brighton and
New Lisbon, the writer goes on to remark =
Accordingly two meetings were held, and two
reports. with two set of Representatives were
sent up to the Yearly Meeting; When it COM
menced its regular business, by reading the
reports and calling the Representatives, 1t de-
clined reading those from the two parties in
Salem Quarter. and referred them TO the Repre-
Sentatives from the other Quarters, who were
to determine which of the two Reports, and
which of the Representatives should be received.
A meeting of the Representatives took place
the report from the New Brighton faction was
read, and its Representatives called upon to
make good their cause. They acknowledged
that they had proceeded irregularly, and had no
apology for so doing, but to separate from their
brethren. Tho New Lisbon report was read,
and its Representatives made their statements,
but II was Of no avail. The tribunal which was
to try the case, had evidently prejudged it,
Now the case was simply this At the Yearly
Meeting before this last-that body required of
Salem Monthly Meeting Zone of its minor
branches) to cxpunge from its minutes the name
of a certain individual, and return him his cer-
tifcate, as having been received contrary to the
order of Society. This tho ruling part of that
Meeting refused to do-thereforc the New
Brighton faction as they are termed, felt it their
duty-in good faith to the Yearly Meeting to
separate themselves from them. Which was
done accordingly, (hough not exactly as has
been stated) but in qnict and orderly manner.
Under such circumstances then, it was not to
have been expected, but that tho meeting would
receive their report and exclude the other. The
charge then of the Committee being prcjudged,
(although true in itself comes with an i'll
grace, when it is thus shown that the Yearly
Meeting itself, stood in the same position. In
point Of fact, it was almost moro than could
have been reasonably anticipated, that toe Year
ly Meeting would so much as have given them
hearing. And now will leave it for the rea-
der to judge, of the propriety of the spirit
manifested in the following remarks-that, " In
the tribunals OF state it is necessary to have
impartial judges but in ecclesiastical affairs es-
pccially among Quakers when abolition is to be
tried, the more one sided and the longer preju-
diced tho better received by the church." But
if the writer considers such sarcasm, in keeping
with the system of reform in which he is enga-
ged, then have nothing further to say. Again
the writer observes The Meeting adopted the
Report, and after being repeatedly called upon,
to define the position of the New Lisbon party,
it was concluded that they might sit that meet
ing in silence, with kind Of tacit understand
ing that their case would afterwards be provided
for. Now if have been correctly informed,
the meeting took no further action whatever in
the case-hoping that those friends might YET
see the error into which they have been led
and return again to the bosom of society.
now come to the concluding paragraph of that
article, in which the writer exclaims with q
great deal of emphasis: "Thus were they de-
lpriyed of their rights, and for what-simply fol
attending Anti-Slavery Meetings, and sympa-
,thising with abolitionists and abolition move
,ments-and urging the society up to higher
stand in the cause of freedom. And last, and
not least, the inconsistency Of voting for and
sustaining a slaveholding and military govern
ment." This assertion has been SO repeatedly
made, that no doubt the writer and his friends
believe it to be true. will therefore endeavoI
to assign for their consideration, e few of the
principal features, that have finally led to theii
exclusion First and formost then, they have
introduced, and imposed on our meetings, CON-
mppications and individuals, contrary to every
precedent known in society. They have made
members of those who have associated them-
selves with other denominations, with whom
the society does not correspond. Their system
of operations the Society does not approve
And last and not least, they have required as .
condition of Peace in the church. that oul
meeting houses shall be thrown open to indivi'
duals, who sympsthise and act With them