First Day.

Camden, New Jersey, October 7, 1852.
10 o'clock, A. M.

This being the day, the hour and the place designated by the Presiding Bishop, in conformity with the provisions of Canon III. of 1844, for the assembling of the Bishops to form a Court for the trial of the Rt. Rev. George Washington Doane, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the Diocese of New Jersey, on a Presentment made by the Rt. Rev. William Meade, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia; the Rt. Rev. Charles Pettit McIlvaine, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Ohio, and the Rt. Rev. George Burgess, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Maine, there appeared the Rt. Rev. John Henry Hopkins, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont; the Rt. Rev. Benjamin Bosworth Smith, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky; the Rt. Rev. Jackson Kemper, D. D., Missionary Bishop of Wisconsin and Iowa; the Rt. Rev. Samuel Allen McCoskry, D. D., D. C. L., Bishop of the Diocese of Michigan; the Rt. Rev. William Heathcote De Lancey, D. D., D. C. L., Bishop of the Diocese of Western New York; the Rt. Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland; the Rt. Rev. Alfred Lee, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware; the Rt. Rev. John Johns, D. D., Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia; the Rt. Rev. Manton Eastburn, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts; the Rt. Rev. Carlton Chase, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire; the Rt. Rev. Alonzo Potter, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania; the Rt. Rev. George Upfold, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Indiana; the Rt. Rev. William Green, [1/2] D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of Mississippi; the Rt. Rev. Francis Huger Rutledge, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Florida, together with the Bishops making the Presentment, and the Bishop Respondent.

The Meeting was opened by Morning Prayer, conducted by the Bishop of Vermont.

At the conclusion of Morning Prayer all persons present, with the exception of the Bishops, retired.

On motion of the Bishop of Maryland, the Bishop of Vermont (being the Senior Bishop present) was called to the chair.

On motion, the Bishop of Florida was requested to act as Secretary, pro tempore.

The Bishops then went into an election by ballot for President of the Court; which resulted in the election of the Bishop of Vermont.

An election was next made, by ballot, of a Clerk; which resulted in the election of the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, D. D., D. C. L., Secretary of the House of Bishops, and Provisional Bishop elect of the Diocese of New York.

The Clerk was authorized to appoint an Assistant, subject to the approval of the Court; whereupon he designated the Rev. John Henry Hopkins, junr., Deacon, of the Diocese of New York; who was approved by the Court.

The Bishop of Vermont read the following communication:

“To the Court of Bishops assembled at Camden, New Jersey, on the 7th of October, A. D. 1852.

"Right Reverend and Beloved Brethren,

“We are assembled on an occasion which is, beyond all others, the most painful and afflicting to every member of the Church of Christ, and especially to her Chief Pastors, on whom, as the responsible agents, the task of discipline depends, in its highest earthly form of administration. And, therefore, it seems the more incumbent on each of us, not to cast an unequal burden on the rest, by shrinking [2/3] from his own share of this unwelcome task, through the love of ease, or dread of censure, or any other selfish motive; but to come forward in our place, in humble and firm reliance on the help of God, and deliver our judgment as in His sight, without fear, favour or affection. So important, in the primitive ages, was the performance of this work, that a punctual attendance on the Provincial Councils, held twice a year for the purposes of discipline, was enjoined on every Bishop, under the penalty of suspension for neglect. And assuredly, it is no less obligatory on us, although we are not liable to the same punishment for delinquency by any express Canon of our own; because the duty resting upon us is precisely the same in principle, and we are bound to perform it on the same high grounds of regard for the rights of an accused Brother, of respect for the privileges of our own ministerial Order, and of reverence for the majesty of those sacred laws which guard the purity of the priesthood in the Church of God.

“Such, then, is clearly the general rule. And yet, like all other general rules, it ought to have its exceptions, and when any of those exceptions can be pleaded, a Bishop should be excused from his attendance as a Member of the Court. The party accused has no right of challenge, because we do not sit here as jurymen, but as judges, ex officio; and hence, like the House of Lords in England, or the Senators in the United States, the work of judgment belongs to our very Office, and no other men can be called on to discharge our duty, if we should be set aside. But still, even as judges, it seems reasonable that we should apply to ourselves the rules which govern in the case of other judges, who are forbidden to try a cause if they be nearly related to the party, or have any personal interest in the result, or even if they have been previously employed as counsel in the case, since these are all admitted reasons for doubting their impartiality. I presume, therefore, that under similar circumstances, any Bishop would be justified in excepting to himself, and I doubt not that you would all agree to decide that his excuse would be satisfactory.

“There is, however, another ground which has appeared to my mind entitled to take rank with these, although I am not prepared to say that I can claim on its behalf any positive precedent. And it is on this that I rest my own request to be allowed to decline the seat of judgment on the present occasion. Some twenty years ago, when our accused brother and myself were Presbyters in the Diocese of Massachusetts, there was a serious difficulty between us. I [3/4] have no intention to enter into the details of the matter, nor do I ask you to say whether he or I were in the wrong, because I do not stand here to enter the slightest complaint against him on account of the transaction, nor am I conscious of any bias whatever as regards the present case, unless it be that of sympathy on his behalf, and a desire that his course may be vindicated to the satisfaction of the whole Church, after due investigation. But yet, when I learned that a Presentment had been made, and I reflected upon the duty which I, as one of his judges, might be called on to perform, this old and almost forgotten difficulty rose to my memory, and I could not feel satisfied that I should be acting with due delicacy and consideration for him, if I did not decline to act as one of his judges, so far as my own individual opinion was concerned; and thus give him the benefit of the right of challenge, by challenging myself.

“On this ground, therefore, I request to be excused from attending the Court as one of its Members. I have put my application into writing, in order that it may appear on the Record, with the decision thereupon, and I tender it in person, as a point of respect towards the Court, and as a proof that I consider it the solemn duty of every Bishop to answer to his name on the canonical summons of the Church, unless hindered by the act of Providence; and to submit the validity of his excuse for withdrawing, to the judgment of his Brethren.

(Signed) "John H. Hopkins,
“Bishop of Vermont."

Whereupon, on motion of the Bishop of Wisconsin and Iowa it was

Ordered, That the Bishop of Vermont be not excused.

The Bishop of Mississippi, on behalf of the Respondent, expressed the full assent and wish of the latter, that the Bishop of Vermont should be a Member of the Court.

The Bishop of Pennsylvania offered the following Preamble and Resolution, which were unanimously adopted:

The Bishops assembled as an Ecclesiastical Court at Camden, New Jersey, October 7, 1852, cannot meet without expressing their profound sensibility at the deep bereavement which the Church has very recently sustained in the loss of three of her oldest and most experienced Bishops. They desire to record their affectionate veneration for their memories, with their lively sense of the affliction [4/5] which has thus been brought upon their respective dioceses and families, and of the pointed and most impressive admonition thus addressed by Providence to each one of their surviving Brethren in the Episcopate, urging them to greater zeal and devotion in the discharge of their private and public duties.

Resolved, That a copy of this Minute be transmitted to each of the afflicted families, with assurances of the sympathy felt for them by the members of this body.

On motion of the Bishop of Maryland, it was

Ordered, That when this Court adjourns, it will adjourn to meet to-morrow morning, at 11 o'clock, A. M., in Burlington, in the City Hall. Pending the discussion previous to the adoption of this order, the following communication was read:

“The undersigned respectfully, but earnestly, requests, that the Court of Bishops will adjourn to Burlington: on the ground that his witnesses are, with scarcely an exception, there; and that they are persons, whose duties and occupations require them to be there, so that he would be deprived of the testimony of many of them, and subjected to great expense, in regard to such as may attend. He represents, also, the great personal inconvenience, to himself, of being withdrawn from his home; his family being in affliction, and requiring his presence. And he submits, that, as his transactions were there, he may claim to be tried in their presence, who, for twenty years, have known his daily life.

“He farther adds, that convenient accommodations will be provided, for the Court; and, that invitations, to all its members, have been given, by families residing in Burlington, who will cheerfully and cordially receive and entertain them.

(Signed) “G. W. Doane,
"Bishop of New Jersey.

"Camden, October 7, 1852."

The following communication, addressed to the Presiding Bishop in the Court, was read:

"New Jersey, October 7, 1852.

“To the Right Reverend, The Presiding Bishop, in the Court assembled for the trial of Bishop Doane.

"Right Rev. and Dear Sir,

“The Committee appointed by the Diocese of New Jersey to appear before you, touching the presentment and trial of Bishop [5/6] Doane, respectfully ask, that before any action shall be had, they be allowed to read the ‘written representation on behalf of that Diocese, setting forth its legal and canonical position and rights,’ which they have prepared. The Convention of New Jersey asks to be heard.

(Signed) "Saml. L. Southard,
“Chairman.

“By order of the Committee."

On motion of the Bishop of Michigan, it was

Ordered, That the above communication be laid upon the table for consideration to-morrow.

On motion, the Court adjourned.

Second Day.

Burlington, October 8, 1852.
11 o'clock, A.M.

The Court met, pursuant to adjournment.

Present, as yesterday; with the exception of the Bishop of Mississippi.

The Session was opened with the reading of the Litany, and other prayers, by the Bishop of Kentucky.

The Minutes of the meeting of yesterday were read, and, after amendment, were approved.

The communication from a Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey was called up; when the Bishop of Western New York moved the following order:

Ordered, That the request of the Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey be complied with.

Whereupon, the Bishop of Pennsylvania offered, as a substitute, the following:

Whereas, Any question touching the rights and interests of the Diocese of New Jersey can, with more propriety, be entertained at a later stage of these proceedings, and any facts which it has to communicate can then be received without irregularity: therefore,

[7] Ordered, That the request be not granted.

The Ayes and Noes being called for, the substitute was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes: The Bishops of Vermont, Kentucky, Delaware, Assistant of Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Florida:—7.

Noes: The Bishops of Wisconsin and Iowa, Michigan, Western New York, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Indiana:—6.

The Bishop of Western New York offered the following order:

Ordered, That when the Presentment to be tried shall have been read, before proceeding farther, the Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey be allowed to read before the Court the written representation on behalf of the Diocese, setting forth its legal and canonical rights, which they have prepared.

The Ayes and Noes being called for, the Order was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes: The Bishops of Wisconsin and Iowa, Michigan, Western New York, Maryland, New Hampshire, Indiana, and Florida:—7.

Noes: The Bishops of Vermont, Kentucky, Delaware, Assistant of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania:—6.

The Bishop of Mississippi, having been prevented from attending earlier by disappointment in regard to a conveyance, appeared and took his seat.

Ordered, That, when this Court adjourns, it will adjourn to meet to-morrow morning at half-past ten o'clock.

The Court then adjourned.

Third Day.

Burlington, October 9, 1852.
10 1/2 o'clock, A. M.

The Court met, pursuant to adjournment.

Present, as yesterday.

The Session was opened with the Litany and prayers, by the President.

The Minutes of yesterday were read and approved.

[8] The Bishop Respondent gave notice that, at the proper time, he shall make request that the doors of the Court be opened to the public.

On motion of the Bishop of Maryland,

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to ascertain and report whether this Court is duly constituted in conformity with the Canon.

The President appointed the Bishops of Michigan, Delaware, and New Hampshire as the Committee.

"Whereupon, the Committee retired, and subsequently offered the following Report:

“The Committee appointed to ascertain whether the provisions of the Canon, under which the Court has been summoned, have been complied with, beg leave to report:—

“That, owing to the death of the Presiding Bishop, they have no farther evidence before them than is already in the possession of the Court; and ask to be discharged.

(Signed)
"Saml. A. McCoskry.
"A. Lee.
"Carlton Chase."

On motion of the Bishop of Michigan,

Ordered, That the Committee be discharged.

On motion of the Bishop of Western New York,

Ordered, That the Presenting Bishops and the Bishop Respondent be asked whether they are ready to proceed to the trial.

Whereupon, the Presenting Bishops replied that they are ready.

The Bishop Respondent replied that he is ready to hear the Presentment read.

The Bishop of Maryland asked leave to place on the record the following statement; and it was

Ordered, That leave be granted.

"The undersigned, dissenting from the order of the Court to call on the Presenting Bishops and the Bishop Respondent, in order to proceeding with the trial, desires to put on record, before proceeding to the trial of the Presentment now just read, his opinion and belief that, by reason of sundry material informalities in the call of this Court, and, more especially, by reason of the entire absence of any [8/9] evidence that the Canon has been duly and truly observed in the call of this Court, the Bishops now assembled are incompetent to proceed to the trial of the Presentment, and that whatever may be done by them in the premises will be irregular, null, void, and of no consequence.

(Signed) “William Rollinson Whittingham,
"Bishop of Maryland.

“Burlington, New Jersey, Oct. 9th, 1852."

The Presenting Bishops produced their Presentment, which was read by the Clerk, as follows:

“To the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

“The undersigned, that is to say, the Rt. Rev. William Meade, D. D., Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Virginia; the Rt. Rev. Charles Pettit McIlvaine, D. D., Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Ohio; and the Rt. Rev. George Burgess, Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Maine; having had complaint made to us by four respectable laymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New Jersey, all of whom are Communicants and Vestrymen of their respective parishes, touching the conduct of the Rt. Rev. George Washington Doane, D. D., Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of New Jersey, and having examined into the same, with the evidence which has been laid before us, in virtue of the authority reposed in us by the Canons of the said Church, do present to our Brother Bishops, the said George Washington Doane, as guilty of crime and immorality, in the matters and things hereinafter more particularly set forth, thereby setting an evil and pernicious example to the Clergy and Laity of the said Church, to the great and grievous injury of the said Church, and in violation of his high duties as Bishop in the same, and of the solemn vows which he pronounced at his consecration; and we do solemnly demand a trial of the said George Washington Doane, pursuant to the provisions of the Canons of the General Convention of the said Church, in such case made and provided.

"Specification 1. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, during the whole or a very large part of the period in which he has held and exercised his said office of Bishop, has habitually incurred numerous and large debts, far beyond any actual or probable means possessed or reasonably anticipated by him, of ever [9/10] repaying said debts; the aggregate of said debts being not less than two hundred and eighty thousand dollars, and probably amounting to three hundred thousand dollars, at the date of his assignment in March, 1849, when the value of the entire property and estate of the said George W. Doane, according to a valuation made by himself under oath, did not amount to more than a comparatively small part of the debts so actually incurred; a large amount of these debts, viz., the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, being a lien upon the real estate held by the said George W. Doane, which lien largely exceeded the actual value of the said real estate, while the only means possessed by him for the payment of about two hundred thousand dollars was his personal property, which, according to a valuation thereof made by him, the said George W. Doane, under oath, amounted only to the sum of seventeen thousand four hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty cents.

“Specification 2. That he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in a pamphlet, printed and published in February, 1852, entitled 'The Protest and Appeal of George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey,' etc., in answer to certain allegations concerning the large amount of his debts, and the inadequacy of his means to the discharge of the same, professes and declares, that the money so borrowed and the debts so incurred by him, were borrowed and incurred 'in his venture for Christian education in the two institutions' of St. Mary's Hall and Burlington College, and thus in the cause and service of God: whereas in truth not only could the appropriation of moneys so obtained to the establishment and support of those institutions constitute no proper or sufficient justification of acts so placing in jeopardy the property of others, to the great injury of the cause of Religion; but the said assertion is without foundation in fact, as all the sums shown to have been expended on or about such institutions would not equal a moiety of said debts.

“Specification 3. That on or about the 30th of April, 1846, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, did present a subscription paper for the building of a new church in Burlington to Horace Binney, Esq., for the purpose of obtaining the name of said Binney to said paper, and after said Binney had refused to said George W. Doane, to sign his name or to allow his name to be signed to said paper, as promising to pay any money to the said object, he, the said

George W. Doane, in the Diocese of New Jersey, did, without the knowledge of said Binney, write the name of said Binney on said paper as the subscriber of one thousand dollars, and that said George W. Doane presented or caused to be presented said paper, with said name thereon, to sundry persons for their subscriptions.

“Specification 4. That he, the said George W. Doane, after writing the name of said Binney as aforesaid, and obtaining subscriptions subsequently to the amount of more than thirteen thousand dollars for the building of said church, did, on the 28th day of May, 1847, in the Diocese of New Jersey, write in a letter to Thos. Milnor, Secretary of the Vestry of St. Mary's Church, Burlington, the following statement, viz.: 'Let me here say, that in procuring a subscription of more than $13,000 no man or woman put in a single word of condition or the slightest claim for equivalent, unless Mr. Binney so makes out his case;' which statement was untrue in this, namely, that several of the subscriptions which made up the said amount were conditional, and were known so to be by the said George W. Doane at the time of writing said letter.

“Specification 5. That, at various times during the years 1846, 1847 and 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, the said George W. Doane, then being Bishop as aforesaid, by false assertions and pretences, and under solemn assurances of repayment and of security against all loss, prevailed upon Michael Hayes, a citizen of the county of Burlington, to endorse notes to a large amount; and having procured from said Hayes several of such endorsements to notes without date, thereby preventing said Hayes from identifying said notes when they fell due, and falsely representing to said Hayes the amount of the responsibilities which he, the said Hayes, had incurred, the said George W. Doane procured from said Hayes divers other additional notes, securities, or endorsements, upon the false pretext and under the false representation that such additional notes, securities or endorsements were required and should be used merely in renewal of the other previous notes or securities, whereon said Hayes was then responsible, and then "about to come to maturity, and that no increase of previous responsibility would be incurred; and having induced and prevailed upon said Hayes to give such additional endorsements, did, in violation of said promises and assurances and in fraud of said Hayes, fail and omit to apply such additional notes, or some of them, to the purposes for which they [11/12] were given, and on the contrary did employ them for the purpose of raising more money, thus increasing ultimately the responsibilities of said Hayes nearly threefold, without his knowledge or consent.

“Specification 6. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the year 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, falsely representing, by himself and his authorized agents, that if he could obtain a loan of fifty thousand dollars, it would enable him to relieve himself from, and to pay the whole of his floating debt, and that he would so appropriate said money, applied to Michael Hayes aforesaid, for a subscription of two thousand dollars to said loan, and procured the same, and afterwards a further subscription of one thousand dollars, on the positive assurance that, from said fund thus procured on loan, the entire debt of said Hayes by his endorsements should be paid, and he exonerated from all responsibility; and having thus prevailed upon said Hayes to pay said amount of three thousand dollars, he, the said George W. Doane, regardless of said promise and assurance, did neglect and omit to apply any portion of said money so obtained to the liquidation or payment of the debt due to said Hayes, or to the exoneration of said Hayes from his responsibilities as endorser as aforesaid.

“Specification 7. That he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, so being indebted on the promissory notes so endorsed, as in the preceding specifications, by said Michael Hayes, in or about the month of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, in the Diocese of New Jersey, procured and consented that his wife, Mrs. Eliza G. Doane, should enter into an agreement with said Michael Hayes, by which it was in substance agreed, that he the said Hayes should compromise upon such terms as he could, with the holders of such notes, and should be repaid to the extent of a moiety of what he should thus pay, in annual instalments of $1000 each, with interest, out of the income payable to the said Eliza G. Doane by the Trustees of her late husband in Boston; and should for that purpose receive a power of attorney from said Eliza G. Doane, authorizing and directing said Trustees to make such payments; and said compromise having been effected, and said power of attorney executed and delivered, said George W. Doane requested said Hayes not to send said power to Boston, promising that he would himself pay said [12/13] annual instalments of $1000 and interest; but said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having paid the first of said instalments, which fell due in January, 1850, has not paid the second or any part thereof; but on the contrary, when told by said Hayes that he would complain to the Convention of the Diocese, he, the said George W. Doane, answered said Hayes, that if he took that course he would get nothing, for that he, the said George W. Doane, would put himself on his defence; and said Hayes, on sending his said power to Boston, has not been able to procure any other or further payment under said agreement, on the ground that another party, a son of said Eliza G. Doane by her former husband, had presented an order from her, under which he claimed payment from said Trustees of the whole or part of the sum claimed by said Hayes, so that, in fact, said Hayes has not been relieved from his heavy responsibilities.

“Specification 8. That he, the said George W. Doane, so being Bishop as aforesaid, in the years 1846,1847 and 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, prevailed upon and induced Joseph Deacon, of the County of Burlington, to endorse sundry notes of him, the said George W. Doane, under false representations and pretences of his ability to meet said notes when they should respectively fall due, when at the time the said George W. Doane was hopelessly insolvent; and the said George W. Doane, when some of the said notes were about falling due, prevailed upon said Deacon to endorse other notes, under the assurance that they would only be used for the purpose of renewing notes already given, and obtained such endorsements of notes without date; when in fact said George W. Doane, in violation of his promises and assurances, not only failed and neglected to provide for said notes as they respectively fell due, but on the contrary, instead of applying said notes so given for the single purpose of renewing others, applied them in whole or in part to other purposes, leaving the notes so to have been renewed still outstanding, and largely augmenting the responsibilities of said Deacon, without his knowledge or consent, and greatly to the injury of his worldly estate.

"Specification 9. That said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the year 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, falsely representing in person and by his authorized agents, that if he could obtain a loan of $50,000, it would enable him to pay off the whole [13/14] of his floating debt, including said responsibilities of said Joseph Deacon, and that the money thus procured should be thus appropriated, induced said Deacon to subscribe $2000 as a part of said $50,000, and subsequently $1000; which said sum of $3000 was paid by said Deacon, confiding in said assurances and promises, and he, the said George W. Doane, having thus procured said sum of $3000, in violation of his said promises, never appropriated said sum or any part thereof to relieve said Deacon from his said responsibilities, nor has he ever repaid, or secured the repayment of, the same or any part thereof.

“Specification 10. That in or about the years 1846, 1847 and 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, he, the said George W. Doane, being Bishop as aforesaid, did, when he must have known that his affairs were inextricably embarrassed, borrow of the Rev. Reuben J. Germain, a Presbyter of the said Diocese of New Jersey and then principal of St. Mary's Hall in Burlington, an institution under the control of said George W. Doane, and said Reuben J. Germain then being Treasurer of the Diocesan Convention of New Jersey, sums of money belonging to said Convention, and in the hands or under the control of said Germain, Treasurer as aforesaid, without giving any security for the repayment of said money so loaned, other than the personal obligations of the said George W. Doane, which he very well knew to be no adequate security; the said Germain also not having given any security for the faithful performance of his duty as Treasurer as aforesaid, and it being his duty to invest said money only on undoubted security; and the said Germain, as Treasurer as aforesaid, having in order to procure said moneys so loaned, as aforesaid, or a part of the same, at the instance of the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, sold out or obtained payment of good mortgages, stocks, or other securities belonging to said Convention, and in his hands as Treasurer as aforesaid; none of which loans, acts, or proceedings were for several years made known to said Convention, to which said property and money rightfully belonged; nor was such debt, so contracted, stated in the list of the debts of said George W. Doane, attached to his deed of assignment and attested by his oath, nor did they ever come to the knowledge of the said Convention, until brought out at its meeting in May, 1849, by specific and urgent interrogatories.

"Specification 11. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop as [14/15] aforesaid, in the attempt to obtain the aforesaid loan of $50,000, as contained in Specifications 6 and 9, did, in the Diocese of New Jersey, represent, and induce his agents to represent, to several persons to whom application was made for assistance towards said loan, namely, Michael Hayes, Joseph Deacon, Sarah C. Robardet, John Black, John Irick, Matthew McHenry, and J. J. Spencer, that it would be a perfectly safe investment on good security, when he well knew that the only security that could be given was upon property already under heavy mortgages approaching nearly to its whole value, and when, in fact, no other security has been given, and the value of the security given to half the subscribers to the loan, was diminished by one half, since the other subscribers were only creditors who funded a portion of their debts in said loan, in the hope of so securing the rest.

“Specification 12. That in October, 1848, he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the Diocese of New Jersey, being then, as he must have well known, utterly insolvent, borrowed of the Rev. Alfred Stubbs, then Presbyter of the said Diocese of New Jersey, and Treasurer of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge and Piety, an association of members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in said Diocese, the sum of $1000, belonging to the said Society, and in the hands of said Stubbs as Treasurer, and which it was the bounden duty of the said Stubbs to invest on undoubted security, and did promise that he would without delay give satisfactory security for the repayment of said loan; whereas, the said George W. Doane, in neglect and violation of his said promise, did give no other security than his own judgment bond, which was not satisfactory to said Stubbs, and could only be made available in certain contingencies, and was thus no effectual security, and in fact did not prove available; which money so loaned was not, so late as the 24th of February, 1852, either repaid or secured.

“Specification 13. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having for a long period purchased groceries of Thomas Dutton, of Burlington, New Jersey, for the use of his own family and that of St. Mary's Hall, and that of his Mother, and having also given his notes to said Dutton for groceries furnished to the families of the teachers connected with St. Mary's Hall and Burlington College, did from time to time promise payment of the account of the said Dutton and of said notes, but utterly failed to keep such [15/16] promises, so that the said Dutton, being in declining health and possessed of but small property, was deeply distressed and declared his utter want of confidence in the word of the said George W. Doane, and at the time of his death, just before the said Doane made his assignment to his creditors, did leave his family in impaired circumstances through the misconduct of the said George W. Doane, and to the great dishonour of Religion and his high office in the Church of God.

“Specification 14. That in the year 1847 or 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, he borrowed of Mr. Page, of the City of Burlington, who was at that time a clerk in the store of Thomas Dutton, the sum of $500, which he afterwards repeatedly promised, but has ever since wholly neglected to pay, and which debt he did not mention in his attested list of debts as aforesaid.

“Specification 15. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in violation of his solemn obligation as a minister of the Church of God, to 'forsake and set aside, as much as he might, all worldly cares and studies,' did not only entangle himself in a vast and unnecessary accumulation of worldly transactions, but, to the great dishonour of his office as a Bishop, and relying on the confidence of others in his official character and station, did attempt to create and preserve a fictitious credit by drawing checks and counter checks on various Banks, viz., the Bank of Princeton, the Mechanics' Bank of Burlington, the Morris County Bank, the People's Bank of Paterson, &c, in the Diocese of New Jersey, and transmitting the same from one Bank to another, in a manner esteemed disreputable and unallowable among merchants and other men of business, so that his transactions of such kind, in the single Bank of Princeton, amounted, in less than two years, to wit, from January 1st, 1847, to October 14th, 1848, to $138,000.

“Specification 16. That, during the period between the years 1847 and 1849, in the Diocese of New Jersey, he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, repeatedly drew and delivered, in payment of moneys which he owed, or, as good and available, many checks or drafts on the Mechanics' Bank of Burlington, on the Bank of North America in Philadelphia, and other Banks, for sums of money, when at the times said checks or drafts were given, he had either no funds to his credit in said Banks, or to an amount [16/17] insufficient to meet said checks or drafts when presented for payment, and which said checks, or some of them, still remain unpaid and unsatisfied. Several of said checks were by said George W. Doane drawn in favour of or delivered to Michael Hayes, others to Joseph Deacon, and others to Mrs. C. Lippincott, one to Charles Woolman, one to Wm. B. Price, and others to Cash or Bearer. He also drew a cheek on said Mechanics' Bank of Burlington for the sum of $2200 and transmitted the same to the Princeton Bank, in payment of a debt due by him to said last-mentioned Bank, when there were no funds in said Mechanics' Bank to his credit at the time said check was drawn or was presented for payment. And the said George W. Doane persisted in drawing such checks or drafts after he had been informed by an officer of said Mechanics' Bank that the practice was irregular and must not be continued. He also, on the 3d day of March, A. D. 1843, drew a promissory note, payable to Wiley & Putnam, booksellers in the City of New York, for the sum of $197 93 cents, payable at the Bank of North America in Philadelphia, when the said George W. Doane kept no account in said Bank, and provided no funds for the payment of the said promissory note when the same arrived at maturity, but suffered the same to be protested.

“Specification 17. That in repeated instances, and on several occasions, during the years 1847, 1848 and 1849, in the Diocese of New Jersey, he abused the confidence reposed in his sacred office by false promises and deceptive practices, used for the purpose of obtaining money, credit and property; among other instances, in the following, viz: He induced by such means, a young man named Wm. B. Price, who had provided funds to meet a business engagement of his own, to loan to him the sum of $450, or other large sum, by solemnly assuring said Price that he would return the same in time to enable said Price to meet his engagement; and said George W. Doane did give said Price a check on the Mechanics' Bank of Burlington for the amount so borrowed, which check when presented at said Bank was refused payment on the ground of there being no funds in said Bank to the credit of said Doane. He prevailed upon Sarah C. Robardet to loan to him the sum of $3000 by a solemn promise to give her, as security for repayment, a mortgage upon property worth $6000, and instead thereof gave her a mortgage upon property not intrinsically worth that sum, and which, as ascertained afterwards by said Sarah C. Robardet, was at the time said mortgage [17/18] was given subject to a prior incumbrance of $2500, which said prior incumbrance has been since only partially removed.

“He, the said George W. Doane, being largely indebted to Mrs. C. Lippincott, a lady asserted by him in his pamphlet, entitled 'Bishop Doane's Protest,' &c, to be 'connected by marriage with his family,' and to have been 'for many years as one of his family,' and to whom he had given security for the moneys due her by him, did, in violation of the special claim on his protection arising out of said domestic relations, induce her to place said security in his hands under his promise to return the same, which promise he has wholly neglected to perform, but has used the property on which said security was given her, to secure some other creditor or creditors.

“He, the said George W. Doane, did make or represent that he had made, a collection in the parish of St. Mary's Church, Burlington, for the purchase of books for a parish library, or other such object, and did obtain from Herman Hooker, bookseller in Philadelphia, a number of books for said object, to the amount of about $70, which amount, though earnestly applied for by said Hooker, has never been paid, and was not mentioned on the list of debts sworn to by said George W. Doane.

“Specification 18. That he, the said George W. Doane, so being Bishop as aforesaid, on the 29th day of March, A. D. 1849, in the Diocese of New Jersey, made an affidavit before John Bodgers, Master in Chancery, which was appended to a paper or document purporting to be 'An Inventory of the Estate Real and Personal of George W. Doane, of the City and County of Burlington, assigned to Garret S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertsen, for the benefit of his creditors, together with a list of his creditors and the amount of their respective claims,' and immediately following what purported to be an 'inventory of estate,' in which said affidavit he did, in due form of law, ‘being duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God,' depose and say that the above was 'a true and perfect inventory of all his real and personal property, together with the value thereof, as near as he could ascertain,' whereas, in truth and in fact the said inventory did not set forth the true and actual value of very many articles of property therein enumerated, as near as said George W. Doane could ascertain; and in particular, said document did not truly set forth the value of the several articles of furniture and household goods and other articles in Burlington [18/19] College, St. Mary's Hall, and his house at Riverside, but stated and set forth the said articles, or many of them, at values known by said George W. Doane at the date of said affidavit to be below the true value of such articles, and in each of the said particulars the said document was grossly false and erroneous, within the knowledge or the means of knowledge of the said George W. Doane at the date of such affidavit.

“Specification 19. That he, said George W. Doane, so being Bishop as aforesaid, on the 29th day of March, 1849, in the Diocese of New Jersey, made an affidavit before John Rodgers, Master in Chancery, which was appended to a paper or document, being that part of the document mentioned in the preceding specification, which purported to be a 'List of Creditors' of said George W. Doane, in which said affidavit the said George W. Doane, having been duly sworn according to law, did depose and say that 'the above' (meaning said list of creditors) was 'a true, full and perfect list of all his creditors, with the amounts severally due to them, as far as he hath been able to ascertain, according to the best of his knowledge;' whereas, in truth and in fact, as was well known to said George W. Doane, the same was not 'a true, full and perfect list of his creditors and of the amounts respectively due to them;' but, on the contrary, was deficient in many particulars, among others in the following, viz.:

"It did not set forth as among his creditors the names of the several parties and persons following, to whom he was then indebted, and who should have been included in said list.

“It did not set forth the name of the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, or of the Treasurer of said Convention, to whom he perfectly well knew that he was indebted in a sum exceeding $7000;

“It did not set forth the name of the People's Bank at Paterson, to which he was indebted in the sum of $250;

“It did not set forth the name of the Trenton Banking Company, to which he was then a debtor to the amount of $800, or other large sum;

“It did not set forth the name of the Princeton Bank, to which he was then indebted to the amount of $1077, or other large sum;

“It did not set forth the name of the Bucks County Bank, to which he was indebted to the amount of $1000, or other large sum;

[20] “It did not set forth the name of the Morris County Bank, to which he was then indebted to the amount of $650, or other large sum;

“It did not set forth the name of the Camden Bank, or that of the Medford Bank, to each of which said Banks he was largely indebted;

“It did not set forth the name of H. E. Cleaveland, to whom he well knew that he owed about $15,000;

“It did not set forth the name of William Chester, to whom he knew that he owed $800;

“It did not set forth the name of Sarah Robardet, to whom he well knew that he was indebted in the sum of $3000;

“It did not set forth the name of George Zantzinger, wine-merchant, to whom he was indebted in the sum of $1200, or other large amount;

“It did not set forth the name of Mr. Page, of Burlington, to whom he was indebted in the sum of $500, or other large amount;

“It did not set forth the name of Herman Hooker, to whom he was indebted in the sum of $70, or other considerable sum;

“It did not set forth the name of Gideon Humphrey, of Burlington, to whom he was indebted in the sum of $3000;

“It did not set forth the name of Isaac B. Parker, and others in trust, to whom he was indebted in the sum of $50,000;

“It did not set forth the fact that there were outstanding checks, drawn by him on the Mechanics' Bank at Burlington, and then in. the hands of various persons to him unknown.

“And the said list was deficient in setting forth the amounts severally due to the creditors named, amongst others in the following particulars, viz.:

“It is set forth that Michael Hayes was a creditor to the amount of $17,500, whereas said Hayes was at that time a creditor to the amount of $29,000;

“It is set forth that Joseph Deacon was a creditor in the sum of $23,450, whereas said Deacon was then a creditor to the amount of about $30,000;

“He, the said George W. Doane, in the particulars set forth in this specification, manifestly showing a sinful disregard for the sacred character and solemn obligations of an oath.

“Specification 20. That the said George W. Doane, while engaged during several years in transactions largely involving the pecuniary interests of many persons, as well as his own honour and [20/21] the honour and interests of the Church of Christ, and being under the strongest obligations to a proportionate accuracy and fidelity, yet kept no true and accurate account of his checks, endorsed notes, or other notes, debts, or engagements, and adopted no regular system of book-keeping at the institutions under his control; and, according to his own statement, had no accounts whatever which would enable him to preserve an acquaintance with the real state of his affairs.

“Specification 21. That the said George W. Doane, at the sale of his personal effects in 1849, in the Diocese of New Jersey, for the benefit of his creditors, acquiesced in the sale of the said effects or a portion of them, and especially of his valuable library, at a price much below their real value, and without such due and proper exposure for sale as would have made them yield the largest amount to his creditors; and afterwards received the same for his own use and benefit; in violation of his obligation to be in all things an example of strict justice and self-denying integrity.

“Specification 22. That he, the said George W. Doane, in the several particulars herein before mentioned, employed his high office of Bishop, and the confiding trust reposed in him in consequence thereof, in practising deception upon Presbyters over whom he exercised power and influence in the Diocese of New Jersey, to wit, the Rev. Alfred Stubbs, the Rev. Reuben J. Germain, and the Rev. John D. Ogilby, D. D., and upon women connected with his own pastoral charge, to wit, Mrs. C. Lippincott, Mrs. S. C. Robardet, Mrs. A. C. Winslow, and others upon whom such influence might operate.

“Specification 23. That when an attempt was made in the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey in the month of May, 1849, by one of his Presbyters, to wit, the Rev. Henry B. Sherman, to obtain information as to the securities of the Episcopal Fund belonging to said Convention, he, the said George W. Doane, endeavoured to intimidate said Presbyter, and to deter him from the performance of his duty and the exercise of his rights: and when Michael Hayes, a short time previous to the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, in the year 1851, in the City of Burlington, intimated to him, the said George W. Doane, his intention to bring matters at issue between them before the Convention of the Diocese [21/22] of New Jersey, the said George W. Doane endeavoured to deter him from so doing, by threatening that if he did so, he, the said George W. Doane, would put himself on his defence, and he, the said Hayes, would get nothing; and when Joseph Deacon, on a certain occasion in the year 1849, threatened to go before the Grand Jury of Burlington County to enter complaint against him, he endeavoured to intimidate said Deacon, and to deter him from so doing by threats of personal violence accompanied with menacing gestures and manifestations of great anger, and said to him, the said Deacon, ‘If you do so, I'll kill you, I'll kill you!' the said Deacon being a very aged man, and at the time alone with said George W. Doane in an apartment of his house at Riverside.

“Specification 24. That he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the Diocese of New Jersey, has violated his trust as guardian of the young child of the late Rev. Benjamin D. Winslow, by employing, for his own purposes, money, the property of said child, which came into his hands as such guardian, and not at all securing its repayment.

“Specification 25. That he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, prevailed upon Wm. H. Carse, then in his employ at Burlington, as gardener, to loan to him the sum of $519 13 cents, and to borrow from a friend the further sum of about $590 for the use of said George W. Doane; and notwithstanding his repeated promises of repayment, he utterly neglected and failed to perform the same for a long period, until compelled to compromise and settle the matter by the reproachful and menacing letters of said Carse's wife.

"Specification 26. That he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the Diocese of New Jersey, notwithstanding he has been for years in a state of utter insolvency, has nevertheless continued to indulge in unnecessary and unbecoming expensiveness of living, inconsistent with strict integrity, and especially with the proper example of a Bishop in the Church of God, while he knew that many of his creditors were suffering for the want of money which he owed them, and which he had induced them to trust in his hands on account of their confidence in his ability to pay, and in his representations and promises.

“Specification 27. That he, the said George W. Doane, Bishop [22/23] as aforesaid, in his pamphlet before mentioned, published in February, 1852, and entitled 'The Protest and Appeal of George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey,' in the Diocese of New Jersey, having deliberately and with solemn appeal to Almighty God, declared his 'perfect and entire innocence and integrity as to all and singular the charges made against him,' has asserted what is entirely false, and made representations which were adapted greatly to mislead the public mind, among others in the following particulars, viz.:

“He avers that his debt was 'not personal to himself,' when the whole of the same was contracted solely on his own responsibility, and under no necessity or obligation, and when a large part of the same was connected with no public or ecclesiastical object.

“He says that 'the Treasurer of the Convention lent him his uninvested funds temporarily on his notes,' when the said loans had been, and had been intended to be, as permanent as any others.

“He says that 'the Treasurer had a precedent for this, before the Episcopate of the undersigned,' when no real precedent for transactions like this had existed.

“He states that 'there were several Banks in New Jersey at which special friends of the undersigned and of his work were influential as Presidents and Cashiers—on which he was permitted to draw short drafts, from time to time, to be discounted and placed to his credit,' and that ‘at their maturity they were duly met,' whereas no such permission had been given him.

“He asserts that 'Michael Hayes has acknowledged, as can be proved, that he declared under oath before the Grand Jury in August, 1850, that he had no cause of complaint against the undersigned,' whereas the said Michael Hayes has made no such declaration.

“He asserts, in reference to the transaction alleged in the 1st Specification of the 8th Charge against him, as given in the said pamphlet, that 'there was no refusal of a check on the Burlington Bank.'

“He asserts that ‘he continued to enjoy, uninterrupted and undiminished, the confidence of his Convention, the confidence of his Diocese, the confidence of the Trustees and patrons of the College and of the Hall, the confidence of his friends, and the confidence of the community;' 'when he well knew that the confidence of the community and of many individuals in his Diocese was much diminished.

[24] “He asserts that ‘no charges have been brought against him by any respectable or responsible person,' when such charges were contained in a pamphlet published by the Rector of a respectable parish in his Diocese, with the unanimous approval of the Wardens and Vestrymen of the same.

“He asserts that he was the bearer of a letter from the former Treasurer of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge and Piety, to the Rev. Mr. Stubbs, containing the funds which he afterwards borrowed from said Stubbs; when, in fact, the said funds were carefully delivered by the said Treasurer to the said Stubbs in person.

"He avers that in all his transactions 'nothing was ever done but in good faith.'

“He avers that 'for twelve years nearly he kept all his large and various engagements.'

“He asserts that the investment of the funds of the Convention in his notes 'was considered safe,' and 'has been perfectly secured.'

“He asserts that ‘a memorandum of the debt due to the Convention was sent in to Mr. Aertsen, though, as it proved, too late to be included in the list' of his debts; when it was in his power to have inserted it at any moment prior to taking the oath subscribed to said list.

“He states that the 'only ground' of the 'allegation' which he denominates 'false,' that he drew checks on the Burlington Bank when he had no money in said Bank, ‘was his habit of making his account good every day at three o'clock,' and that ‘provision was made to meet his checks daily until the sickness occurred;' whereas he well knew that they had often been left without funds to meet them at said hour, and that many have never been paid.

“He denies entirely having made any pretence that notes endorsed for him by Michael Hayes were to renew notes which had been previously endorsed by said Hayes.

“He states that' Mrs. C. Lippincott was most intimately acquainted with the business risks and relations of the undersigned,' and acted, in lending him the funds, ‘with the fullest intelligence and most perfect freedom;' when, according to his own statement, neither he nor any other person was intimately acquainted with the actual condition of his affairs, so as to act in connection with them with the fullest intelligence.

“He affirms, with reference to the proceedings of the Grand Jury of the County of Burlington, that' it was through no influence of his [24/25] direct or indirect, nor with his privity, that any thing was done or not done, considered or reconsidered;' when it was indeed through his personal persuasion and his efforts to arrange compromises with two of his creditors, that such proceedings were dropped.

“Specification 28. That the said George W. Doane, being indebted to the Camden Bank on the 25th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1848, in the Diocese of New Jersey, upon a promissory note drawn payable to Joseph Deacon for the sum of $1000, which said promissory note was protested; and a suit having been subsequently prosecuted on said note against the said endorser, Joseph Deacon, and a judgment obtained for the amount of said note, together with interest and costs; the said Bank, at the request of said Joseph Deacon and George W. Doane, or one of them, on the 7th day of December, A. D. 1849, agreed that the Bank should relinquish their judgment against the said Joseph Deacon if he would pay the sum of $750, and the said George W. Doane would agree to pay the balance, and the said George W. Doane did thereupon agree to pay the sum of $286 14 cents if the Bank would give him time; and the Bank agreed that the said George W. Doane should fix upon such time for payment as would suit him, and draw his notes accordingly, and the said George W. Doane thereupon agreed to pay the same in four instalments, and drew four notes, having an interval of several months between the time of payment, and amounting, in the aggregate, to the sum of $286 24 cents; that the said notes, as they respectively arrived at maturity, were unpaid, but were renewed from time to time until the 9th of November, A. D. 1850, and were protested for non-payment, and the amount of discount and interest and protest increased the aggregate amount of said notes to the amount of $316 32 cents, and that the said promissory note still remains unpaid.

“Specification 29. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, on or about the 5th day of Jane, A. d. 1850, in the Diocese of New Jersey, being indebted to the Camden Bank upon a promissory note endorsed by Michael Hayes for the sum of $100, and being unable to pay the said note when it arrived at maturity, applied to the Cashier of said Camden Bank, and requested him not to protest the same, assuring him that if he would not protest said note he, the said George W. Doane, soon after his return home, would send to said Cashier the money to pay the said note, or would [25/26] send him a new note for the same with Michael Hayes's endorsement; and that the said Cashier, relying upon the said promise of the said Bishop Doane, did not protest said note, and by his omission so to do, the said Camden Bank lost the security of the said endorser on said note, who was abundantly able to pay the same. And that the said George W. Doane, disregarding his promise and assurance aforesaid, wholly neglected to send the money for the payment of said note, or to send a new note for the same with Michael Hayes's endorsement, though frequently requested so to do, and that said note still remains unpaid.

“Specification 30. That the said George W. Doane, Bishop of New Jersey, for many years past, and particularly between the years 1845 and 1852, was in the habit of obtaining much larger supplies of intoxicating drinks for the use of his table than was becoming or proper in a minister of the Gospel, and of contracting large debts for the same; and was also, during the same period of time, in the habit of using intoxicating liquors in such quantity as to be unduly excited thereby, to the great grief of the friends of the Church and the dishonour of his High and Holy Office.

“And that the said George W. Doane, on or about the 10th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1851, on board the steamboat Trenton, then running between the City of Philadelphia and the City of Burlington, in the Diocese of New Jersey, was in a state of intoxication.

“And that the said George W. Doane, in or about the month of November, in the year of our Lord 1847, in the Borough of Bordentown, in the Diocese of New Jersey, was intoxicated.

“Specification 31. And that the said George W. Doane, at various times during the years 1846, 1847, 1848 and 1849, in the Diocese of New Jersey, well knowing that Joseph Deacon was an old man, and occasionally fond of drinking intoxicating drinks, and also knowing that the family of said Joseph Deacon were averse to said Joseph Deacon's endorsing for said George W. Doane, and that the said Joseph Deacon had declared his unwillingness to continue to endorse for him, did go to the house of said Joseph Deacon, and there drink cider-brandy with the said Joseph Deacon, and after he had drunk with said Joseph Deacon, did persuade the said Joseph Deacon to endorse more notes for the said George W. Doane, and sometimes the said George W. Doane did ask the [26/27] said Joseph Deacon for some of said brandy, and did sometimes invite the said Joseph Deacon to go out of doors with him, and did sit or lie in the shade of a tree and drink cider-brandy with the said Joseph Deacon until he had persuaded him to endorse more notes for him, after said Joseph Deacon had expressed a determination not to endorse any more notes for said George W. Doane.

“William Meade, D. D.,
“Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Ch. in Virginia.

“Charles Pettit McIlvaine, D. D.,
"Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Ch. in Ohio.

“George Burgess, D. D.,
"Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Ch. in Maine.

"July 22, 1852."

On motion of the Bishop of Indiana,

Ordered, That the Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey be now admitted. Whereupon they appeared and read as follows:

“To the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, assembled upon the Presentment of the Right Reverend George W. Doane, Bishop of the Diocese of New Jersey.

"Right Reverend Fathers,

“The Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, at an adjourned meeting held at the City of Newark, on the 14th day of July last, to receive, and act upon, the Report of the Committee appointed at the Annual Convention, held on the last Wednesday in May preceding, 'to make a full investigation of all the charges which had been preferred against the Bishop,' adopted the following resolution, viz.:

“Resolved, That a Committee of four clergymen and three laymen be appointed, by ballot, to lay the Report of the Committee, and the accompanying evidence, before the Court appointed for the trial of the Bishop of this Diocese; and that such Committee present a written representation, on behalf of this Convention, setting forth its legal and canonical position and rights, and earnestly and respectfully urging the Right Rev. Bishops, to consider whether (apart from all abstract questions of power) it will be wise, or just, or for the Peace of God's Church, to proceed further upon the charges laid before them.

“The undersigned were appointed the Committee under this [27/28] resolution. They have annexed hereto the Report, and evidence referred to therein.

“In the further discharge of the duty assigned to them the Committee are conscious of the serious responsibility they have assumed, and the deep importance of the subject they are instructed to discuss. A large majority of the representatives of the Clergy and Laity of New Jersey have declared that such grave and momentous rights of the Diocese are involved in this presentment, as to demand that they be stated to your body.

“To you, then, as bearing the chief office in the Holy Apostolic Church—to you, as constituting the highest and most solemn tribunal now known to our branch of that Church, we, your brethren in faith and hope, address, on behalf of the Diocese of New Jersey, this its earnest and dutiful representation.

“We would first call your attention to a statement of the action of the Conventions upon this subject.

“In the year 1849, at a Convention of the Diocese, then assembled, a resolution was offered for the appointment of a Committee to investigate the truth of various reports, alleged to prevail, impeaching the honesty and truth of the Bishop of the Diocese.

“The only reason suggested for the adoption of this resolution, was, that rumours existed affecting his character, and that they had been embodied in an anonymous article in a public print.

“The Convention refused to act upon such a ground;—refused to treat the fame of the Bishop, and peace of the Diocese, as matters of such light moment, as to place them at the mercy of every idle report of ignorance or enmity.

“But it was then distinctly avowed by those who most strongly opposed the resolution, that they would urge the Convention to act, whenever any responsible persons would affix their names to written charges involving criminality.

“Two succeeding Annual Conventions of this Diocese were held without a renewal of the subject. The Churchmen of New Jersey had a right to suppose that the intent to institute a canonical inquiry was abandoned.

“On the 17th of March, 1852, a Special Convention was held. It was called to consider and express its judgment upon the subject of a letter addressed by three Right Reverend Prelates to the Bishop of the Diocese. Restricted by the terms of the call, and a Canon of the Church in this Diocese, to action upon this definite matter, the Convention could go no further than to declare its continued [28/29] confidence in the uprightness of the Bishop, and 'to affirm, on behalf of the Convention of the Diocese, that it had ever been ready to investigate charges duly made and presented.'

"It is unquestionable that the Conventions were not called upon by any provision of any law, to institute an inquiry until the allegations were presented in a formal, definite shape. It is undeniable, that to have volunteered such an inquiry without that prerequisite, would have been unjust, unprecedented and unbecoming. It is equally clear, that when charges, duly attested and vouched for, were exhibited, the duty became manifest and imperative. They were called to perform it, as well for the redemption of their plighted faith, as for the fulfilment of their canonical obligation. At that Special Convention, held on the 17th March, 1852, when that body were thus shut up from the consideration of all matters but the one which had been mentioned in the call, a solemn pledge was given that an investigation should be had. The Annual Convention was to assemble on the 26th of May, when they would have an opportunity to redeem the pledge. Yet, it is worthy of remark, that that pledge was not regarded; and that before the time for the assembling of Convention, action was taken to procure a trial. We feel that herein a wrong was done to the Diocese of which she may well complain.

“In this connection we may also refer to the language of the first letter which was addressed by the three Presenting Bishops to Bishop Doane. They say, with justice, and in strict accordance with, the meaning of the Canons, and the spirit of all ancient law, that ‘it is only when a Diocesan Convention refuses to institute inquiry, (which the Convention of New Jersey has never done,) or neglects to do it for too long a period, they can be expected to interfere. Now, the only period which elapsed, after the charges were first brought to the knowledge of the Convention in such a form that they could entertain them, till the investigation was begun, was, from the Special Convention in March to the Annual Convention in May! Could the case then have arisen, in which, because of our 'too long neglect,' others were called on to interfere? It is evident that it had not, and the Diocese is so far without fault.

“In accordance with their duty and their pledge, the Convention which assembled on the 26th May, having learned from the Address of their Diocesan that charges were preferred against him, not only in the paper which was sent originally with the first letter, to which we have referred, but in a second paper, which purported to be a [29/30] Presentment of Bishop Doane, did promptly adopt, among other acts, the following preamble and resolution:

“Whereas, The exhibition of charges, in a paper signed by three Bishops of the Church, justifies this Convention, consistently with its avowed principles, to proceed in the matter, and furnishes the first and only occasion on which any Convention of New Jersey has had the opportunity of exercising its solemn duty and clear right, under the Canon for the trial of Bishops, to investigate, in the first instance, accusations against the Bishop;

“And whereas, This Convention, while it reaffirms the entire confidence in the purity and integrity of the Bishop, which it has heretofore declared, is conscious of the grievous wrong and ill consequences of keeping such charges hanging over him and the Diocese: therefore,

“Resolved, That a Committee of seven lay members of this Convention be appointed, by ballot, on open nomination, to make a full investigation of all the charges contained in the aforesaid paper; that the Committee proceed with diligence in the discharge of its duty, and that it report to an adjourned meeting of this Convention.

“The Report of this Committee was presented to the Convention of the Diocese on the 14th of July last, was accepted, and resolutions were adopted, of which the following are copies:

“Resolved, That the result of the investigation and the evidence now laid before the Convention renew and strengthen the confidence heretofore expressed in the integrity of the Bishop of this Diocese, and in our opinion, fully exculpate him from any charge of crime or immorality made against him.

“Resolved, That the Convention of New Jersey has now fulfilled the duty which previous Conventions have expressed their readiness to fulfil, of making a full, searching and honest inquiry into any allegations against the Bishop when formally brought before it upon definite charges; and we appeal to the Church at large to ratify our declaration that it has been performed faithfully and in the fear of God.

“The resolution first herein stated, and under which we address you, was also then passed.

“We have presented this historical detail of the action of the Conventions of New Jersey as essential to understand the views we will now offer as to her legal and canonical rights and position.

[31] "We submit to you, as a clear proposition, that these proceedings of the Convention were, under the Canon for the trial of a Bishop, entirely and strictly legal.

"The power conferred upon a Convention to present, involves the authority to make every necessary investigation, in order to guide the judgment and conscience of the members to a right decision. This investigation, thus inherently within its province, may be conducted by a delegation from the body as well as by that body at large. The results and the acts of such subsidiary Committee become by adoption those of the Convention; and the decision and judgment of the latter are entitled to the same weight as if every piece of evidence had been heard and every act of the Committee had before it.

"Now, Canon III. of 1844 secures to the Convention of the Diocese to which the accused Bishop belongs, the right to make presentment whenever the Convention shall determine by a two-thirds vote of each Order that their Bishop has committed any of the offences named in the Canon and should be put upon his trial thereon.

“This law of the Church has two objects in view. First, to grant the power of presentment to the Diocese; Second, to guard and control that power, so as to prevent hasty, partial or doubtful presentment. To these objects we desire particularly to call the attention of this Court. The mode and manner, the time when, by whose authority, and under what facts and circumstances, a free man may be put upon trial for crime, lie at the foundation of all just laws affecting life, liberty and character. All free governments guard this initiatory point in criminal proceedings with scrupulous care. They will not place the lowest citizen under the ordeal of trial until he be solemnly charged with guilt by responsible legal authority. Any thing short of this would be but to sport with the lives and character of their people, making a trial but a cruel experiment upon the innocence of the accused. There have been times, both in Church and in State, when this important principle was disregarded; when, upon the mere rumour or suspicion of crime, men were suddenly brought to trial and compelled to pass through the inquisition of fire and water to prove by the quantity of endurance the strength and virtue of their character—times, when, instead of the diligent inquiry and the true presentment, rumour, allegation or public opinion constituted the grounds upon which the accused was forced to undergo the expense, the hazards and the contumely of a public trial. To guard against [31/32] enormities such as these, the Canon to which we have referred was enacted. Its provisions protect alike the character of the Bishop, the rights of the Diocese, and the peace and purity of the Church at large. Under this law of the Church the Diocese of New Jersey has acted. It has performed the duty imposed upon it as the Presenting Body. It has investigated the charges. It has considered the question of presentment, and it has pronounced its judgment thereon. The legal effect of these proceedings is, that the Presenting Body, the Diocese, has adjudicated upon the question of presentment, and determined that there is no cause to present the Bishop for trial upon any of the charges which were preferred against him at that time.

“The Diocese of New Jersey having thus discharged this high official duty in obedience to a Canon of the Church, and in a matter involving the good name of the Bishop and the integrity of her members, now claims that her action and judgment in the premises should be received with that full faith and credit which the law gives to proceedings of a Court acting upon matter legally submitted to its discretion and judgment. That the Diocese of New Jersey has the right to ask for this confidence in its proceedings, will be granted, when it is considered what importance is given to these proceedings by the law of the Church.

“How, and by whom, a Bishop is to be presented for trial, is no idle ceremony—no mere form to get a party into Court. It is a procedure involving high duties and deep responsibilities. The Presenters are not common informers; they are the Church of the Diocese; the Laity and the Clergy, in public Convention assembled; representing every parish, and speaking for every member of the Church. The Bishop is the party to be presented for trial. His character, his virtues and his vices, are the subjects to be investigated; and the Church at large, its purity and character, to be affected by the result. To this Body, thus constituted and thus acting, the law of the Church has intrusted the important duty of presenting a Bishop for trial. Again, the Canon in conferring the power to present, gives to each Diocese the right to determine for itself the question of presentment or no presentment, upon the charges made. No other body in the Church can deprive the Diocese of this right or control its exercise; neither can the diligence or the honesty of the Diocese, in this present matter, be questioned, for the purpose of nullifying its legal procedures. "The law has clothed us with the right of presentment, and [32/33] intrusted us with the duty of performing it. We have exercised this right, and we have performed the duty.

“We have performed it in obedience to the law of the Church, and according to its pure spirit and meaning; and we now claim that our action in the matter should be respected. In our judgment, it is the obvious intention of the Canon to make the Convention the leading and controlling Presenting Power. For weighty reasons, the Diocese is placed between its Bishop and the bar of this Court. The way to the trial is through the Convention. True, there is another path to this Court pointed out in the Canon, designed, it may be, for cases of heresy; but it is on all sides confessed, that it should only be taken from necessity. The plainly marked course—the guides, the precautions and the directions—pointed out by the law, most clearly indicate which of these two ways to trial should have the preference in the first instance. But, when it is shown, as it has been in this case, that the way to presentment through the Diocese has been free to all responsible accusers of the Bishop, and the doors of the Convention thrown open for the reception of their charges; that such of those charges as were then made, have, in fact, been received and investigated; and that the Convention has solemnly determined that their Bishop ought not, on those charges, to be put upon trial; the prior rights of the Convention can no longer be questioned, without impeaching the legality and purity of its proceedings.

“But, in vindicating the legality of these proceedings, we need not assert an exclusive jurisdiction in a Convention, to present upon charges of the nature of those in question. We need not even insist upon the theory that the right resides primarily in that Body; and that it is only in case of its neglect or unfaithfulness, that the right of three Bishops arises. Cogent as are the reasons in support of this doctrine, it is not necessary for the case we would present to you that it should be adopted; we only ask now (as touching the charges which have been examined) a recognition of the principle of a concurrent jurisdiction in three Bishops and a Convention. We have never heard of a construction of the Canon which gives a primary right to three Bishops to present; unless, therefore, the primary right exist in a Convention, (as there is great reason to conclude it does,) it must be concurrent.

“Now, it cannot be said that the presentment previously made by the Bishops interposes a bar to the exercise of this right, which, at least, is concurrent. No action had been taken under that [33/34] presentment, except the summons to the Bishops of the Church to attend at the time and place mentioned. No Court was in existence when these proceedings were instituted, prosecuted or concluded. No Court could exist, until seven Bishops had assembled. We know of no analogy in civil proceedings which would prohibit this action of the Convention, until, at least, a Court was instituted before which an issue could be joined and a trial had.

“The Record of the Committee of Inquiry which we have laid before you, will speak far better than any language of our own, of the labour, the fidelity, the solicitude for truth with which the investigation was conducted, and cannot but entitle it to your confidence and respect.

"Before a tribunal thus sanctioned by the Canon, thus within the scope of the legislation of the Church—open to every accuser, courting every source of information, invoking every witness to attend it—before this legitimate and impartial tribunal have these charges been sifted and pronounced unfounded. And solemnly and deliberately has the Convention of the Diocese, the Grand Inquest of the Church therein, passed upon them, pronouncing them false or frivolous; and in the fear of God and true allegiance to his Church, declaring that there is no ground for a presentment upon these or any of these allegations.

“What is there to abate the effect of this decision? Not that some witnesses, though called upon, have declined to testify. Their silence, if not proving their inability to inculpate, at least supplies no warrant for a further inquiry. Not that the parties on whose statements this presentment was made have refused to attempt their corroboration. We claim here the benefit of the rule of law and justice, that when a party has had full opportunity, in a competent tribunal, to sustain his allegations, and neglects it, he shall be thereafter precluded. And we submit it to you and to the decision of impartial men in the Church every where, that the lay accusers by whom these charges were made, and who were not only invited to appear, but were offered by the Committee the largest liberty of cross-examining those whose testimony should be taken, (even if they doubted sincerely the legality or power of such a Committee,) were bound to appear, to help in the discovery of the truth; and in the hope that his character might be cleared, they should have felt constrained to appear by the law of charity. It was not pretended that if they had gone before the Committee they would have thereby surrendered their right to appear in this Court. No harm could [34/35] then have resulted from their obeying the summons; and their attendance might have resulted in the clearing away of their doubts, and the removing of prejudice from their minds.

“Nor can it with reason be said that the investigation so made, was but partial, and that the effect was thereby abated. We maintain the reverse. The Presentment contained all the charges. Even more were included, no doubt, than they ever expected to prove. Every count in an indictment is seldom sustained. And these charges were not made under oath! Their authors were not responsible in the eye of the law. They might, they even now may, refuse to appear, and yet that Presentment which contained all the matter that in this Court they could be permitted to prove was treated by the Committee as if every charge had been sworn to, and would be sworn to again; and they were met by more than assertions, such as the Presentments contain—by testimony which was carefully taken, and every witness put upon oath! They confronted mere declarations with the oaths of unimpeachable, responsible men! We maintain that, in treating these charges exactly as if they were sworn to when the accusers refused to appear and be sworn, and they had no assurance that any accuser but one would ever consent to be sworn, was doing more than justice required—was showing partiality to the accusers; that, by the rule of the Gospel, the charges might have been promptly dismissed, when no man appeared to condemn him; and that wrong, if wrong has been any where done, has been done to the accused.

“And as to the Right Reverend Presenters, it is most true that the Canon unavoidably treats them as parties, and regards them in some measure as contestants; but it is the true construction of that Canon—it is the demand of justice as well as the dictate of charity, to assume that they are seeking for truth and not for victory; and that your conviction that this Presentment should be dismissed will be hailed with satisfaction by them.

“We claim, then, and submit, that the refusal of the Convention of New Jersey to present the Bishop, after this open and fair investigation into the truth of these charges, is equivalent to a dismissal of a Presentment by a lawful court.

“We mean not to defend this position upon grounds essential to make it, in a civil tribunal, a perfect plea in bar. We mean to rest it upon the great truth of law and equity, that one full, free and honest inquiry into charges involving fame or rights, is sufficient to meet the demands of public justice or of private complaint. Of [35/36] this high truth the pica in bar, with its technicality, is but a narrowed exposition and proof.

“There is one answer, and we believe there is but one, to be offered against the validity and force of this decision of the Convention.

“It is, that this conclusion has been obtained by indirect and improper influences, from a Committee and Convention determined to exculpate the Bishop, and resolved to refuse an honest hearing to his accusers.

“We boldly meet and repel this imputation. We beg you to look upon the names of the large body of Clergymen, faithful and devoted ministers of God, whom it condemns. We ask you to consider the long list of honoured Laymen of New Jersey whom it brands. We point you proudly to the list of that Committee—to the names, which every where among us, and as far as they are known, are pledges of intelligence, of honour, of uprightness and of truth, by which it is adorned!

“We insist there is no other alternative, between declaring that this action of the Convention has been true and righteous, or stamping the reputation of these men with an indelible mark of unsurpassed infamy. And we cannot, since only this alternative remains, since the rejection by this Court of their proceedings must involve this imputation on us all—we cannot, we ought not, in duty to the Diocese we represent, refrain from the comparison of the number of complainants, and of the members of both Orders of Convention by whom these proceedings have been instituted, and by whom they are approved. Surely, where the odds are so tremendous, as the records of the Conventions show, and the majority are living in the full communion of the Church, and are beyond the taint of a reproach, sincerity, impartiality and truth are quite as likely to be found among the many as to be appropriated by the few! Allowing for the weakness and the ignorance of some, there still must be some virtue among them all. We press one thought with earnestness: it is, that, while you may allow the accusers to have been misled by other men, if the alternative shall be adopted that these proceedings were designed to screen the guilty from the punishment he merited, there is no escape for us, for the Convention, for the Committee of Investigation, for 'the Church of the Living God' in our State!

“They came indeed to this inquiry with a deep sense of the gratitude due to the Bishop for diffusing the blessings of religious education. They came with a strong desire that he might pass through [36/37] the ordeal unharmed. We will not insult your Christian hearts by the supposition that this wish is not as ardent in your own bosoms as in theirs. But if this feeling be a disqualification for doing justice, then you must confine the circle of his judges to the ignorant or the unfriendly.

“But, after all that has been done, the cry of some is that he should be tried, and tried upon the very charges that have been investigated and are found to be untrue. Apart from its injustice, there is no advantage we can see. The charges (or at least all those to which we now refer) can only at the most be backed by those who make them under oath; and the testimony on the part of the accused is already taken under oath, disproving by witnesses as unimpeachable, and by dates, and facts, and circumstantial evidence (which never lies) the charges which are made.

“The cry of some is, 'Let him be tried! Let him clear himself of these charges of crime and immorality, and purge the Church of the odium they cast upon it!'

“Those who believe, without investigation, that our Bishop is guilty of these charges, should listen to these cries. Those who love litigation and relish the bitter strifes of a public prosecution will be moved by them and long for the trial of a Bishop.

“The morbid sentiment of the age may yearn for the exciting performance; and bigotry and fanaticism, jealousy and malice may be gratified by seeing a man put upon the rack of trial for the purpose of satisfying public opinion. But the Diocese of New Jersey cannot permit itself to be moved by such influences. We cannot present our Bishop upon those charges, because we have found them to be untrue. We cannot consent to his trial upon them, because we are satisfied of his innocence. We believe that presentments and indictments are intended for the guilty, not for the innocent; and although they do not always lead to conviction and punishment, they seldom fail to leave a stigma on the character of the accused. But there are other and higher considerations than personal injustice to our Bishop as a man, which make it the duty of the Diocese of New Jersey to protest against this trial. The accused is our Bishop, our Father in the Church, connected by all those holy and sacred ties by which God and the Church have bound us together. His character and his reputation for good or for evil must reflect upon the Diocese.

“For nearly twenty years his walk and conversation have been familiar to us. We know his virtues, and are not blind to his [37/38] faults. We respect him as a man. We love him as our Bishop. To relations so paternal, to knowledge so intimate and associations so sacred and responsible, the Church has wisely intrusted, in cases of presentment, as well the character of her Bishops as the rights of her respective Dioceses over which they preside. Under these legitimate and sacred influences the Diocese of New Jersey has examined the charges brought against her Bishop and found them to be untrue. Our confidence in him is unabated and his usefulness among us undiminished; and we appear before this Court to-day to say to you and to the Church, that the Diocese of New Jersey has justly, fairly and legally examined into this matter, and 'finds no fault in this man touching those things whereof they accuse him.' And yet again, if the question is asked, why the Convention of New Jersey, with a faith so firm in the purity of the Bishop, seek to arrest the proceedings of this Presentment, we reply that they have the rights of the Diocese to sustain, and the character of its Clergy and Laity to defend. Placed by the Church as watchmen and guardians of the purity and peace of the Diocese, with at least equal power and closer personal solicitude, their duty in this case has never been neglected; their duty has been earnestly met at the first moment when conscience or law permitted them to act. The Diocese of New Jersey has searched into these accusations. The Diocese of New Jersey has pronounced a verdict of acquittal and now stands before you to plead that verdict in all its canonical force and its moral weight; to present it as the expression of her deep and heartfelt conviction that enough has been done, so far as concerns the charges that have been examined, to meet every claim of law or truth, and that for you to proceed with a trial would be unjust to the Bishop, injurious to the Church at large and degrading to herself.

“Right Reverend Fathers,

“So much the undersigned submit, in the discharge of their important duty, touching those accusations which the presentment, as originally made, contained. We are informed officially that another paper, which is called 'a new Presentment' of our Bishop, has been served upon him, and that the Court have had another summons to assemble at the same time and place, and at a given hour.

“We will not speak of our surprise. We will not raise the question why was this new paper served. We will not stop to ask when [38/39] it was served. We care not even to insist, as well we might, that the serving of the new Presentment is a practical abandonment of the charges in the old. We will not urge that the renewal of these charges in the new Presentment, after the investigation they have had, with only the change of some expressions, the omission of some instance or the addition of some case, (by which sameness of the papers is not altered,) and the appending of some other charges, which must have been well known to the accusers when the first Presentment was prepared, looks like an effort to avoid the difficulty, that the Diocese of New Jersey has investigated and adjudicated upon them. We will not dwell upon the fact that the renewal of those charges after the investigation that was had, is a direct impeachment of the fairness with which the investigation was conducted, or of the right of the Diocese of the accused to institute examination.

“We will not ask, after the argument that has been made, whether this change in the Presentment is canonical—is usual—is legal. We will not ask what Court this is; the one to try the Bishop of New Jersey on the old Presentment, or the Court to try him on the new. We will not ask whether both Presentments shall be tried; or, if but one, which shall be heard: or, if a man is to be twice tried (which is to be the case if both the Courts assemble, and the Presentments are both heard) for the identical offences: or, if abandoning the old specifications, which are the greater portion of the new, a Court has liberty to try a part and leave a part untried. And we forbear all comment on the nature of this movement, and on the disrespect which has been paid by the originators of these charges to the most solemn action of an independent Diocese of members of the Church of God.

“What has been read to you, touching the first Presentment, applies to all the charges in the new which are identical with those examined; and forms (together with testimony which was taken, and which we have the honour to supply for your inspection) our answer to those charges, whether in the old or in the new; and the verdict of the Convention of New Jersey, as regards those things which at that time had been preferred. The change in the mere style of the Presentment cannot revive the crime which was alleged, nor destroy the value of the refutation.

“And, (as respects whatever there is new,) in the name of New Jersey, in the name of its Diocesan Convention, as representatives of its collective people, and its piety and wisdom, we ask and claim [39/40] that you forbear to enter on this trial at the instance of Bishop Doane's accusers, until the Diocese now summoned to assemble in Convention, shall have had the opportunity to do its duty in the full investigation of the latest charges, as well as of the first. We take it that the object is the discovery of truth, and that this is of more moment than the process by which it is obtained. No rights are to be sacrificed by the adjournment of the Court; but rights essential to the liberty of Christian freemen must be disregarded if our claim shall not be heard. We hope that every one of you would willingly be spared the painful duty of the trial of a Brother.

“We make this claim respecting whatsoever may be new in the Presentment on the following grounds:

“If the interpretation of the Canon, which harmonizes with the dictates of sound wisdom and with the spirit of all ancient laws, shall be allowed, that to the Diocese belongs the right of primary investigations in questions of morality, though not, perhaps, so strictly in instances of heresy, our claim is good. It is as sound concerning the new charges as the old. Upon this theory, the refusal to allow the Diocese the opportunity will be tantamount to the rejection of her claim, and the disregarding of her past investigation, and of the verdict she has given.

“We claim it on the ground that it has been conceded by the Presenting Bishops in their letter. If when the charges in the old Presentment were first made, they felt that only when the Diocese refused, or else delayed 'too long,' or else imperfectly performed the duty of investigation, they could be called upon to interfere, it is as true of all that has been added now. No time has yet been given! Respecting these new matters, it cannot be pretended that the Diocese has been unwilling, or procrastinating, or unfair. Give her the opportunity, and test her character. See if she will refuse, delay or deal unfairly. She claims it at your hands.

“Lastly, the case is one. In point of time the alleged offences are not new; they were known to have been alleged before, by those by whom they are preferred: and with the substance, and nearly all the words, of the first charges, they make up the paper to which we now refer, and upon which they ask to have the Bishop tried. They can only be considered as a part of the same case. We have, the Diocese already has, taken the case in hand. The Diocese alone, then, should complete it. The Convention has been called. We pledge you that the Churchmen of New Jersey will recognise the duty, and will address themselves to its discharge.

[41] “Right Reverend Fathers,

“We have done with our argument; almost with our appeal.

“Fathers,

“The eye of God is on us: the God of truth, of patience, and of charity!

“Fathers,

“We have no other aim than that of justice; no other object than the promotion of religion. In the course which we pursue, we are mindful of your liberty, and are not forgetful of God's glory.

"Fathers,

“We recognise your Office in the Church, your dignity, your worth and your responsibility. And until the voice of that Convention which is summoned can be heard, with profound respect and reverence, and in the name of the Diocese of New Jersey which we are called to represent, we ask you to forbear.

“God grant you grace and wisdom so to act, that the rights of all may be respected, and that Christian love and peace may be preserved.

“Saml. L. Southard. “Harry Finch.

“James A. Williams. “Charles W. Rankin.

"Elias B. D. Ogden. "Daniel B. Ryall.

"J. W. Miller.

“Camden, New Jersey, 7 October, 1852."

On motion of the Assistant Bishop of Virginia,

Ordered, That the Presenting Bishops have leave to make a written reply to the statement from the Diocese of New Jersey, and that, for this purpose, they be permitted to have access to this Document.

On motion of the Bishop of Maryland,

Ordered, That the Document presented by the Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey, containing statements to which allusion was made in the Address just read, be laid upon the table of the Court.

Ordered, That, when this Court adjourns, it will adjourn to meet on Monday, at 11 o'clock, A. M.

The Court then adjourned.

Fourth Day.

Burlington, October 11, 1852.
11 o'clock, A.M.

The Court met, pursuant to adjournment. Present, as at the last session.

The Session was opened with the Litany and prayers, by the President.

The Minutes of the last session were read and approved.

Ordered, That when the Court adjourns this day, it will adjourn at 3 o'clock, p. m.

Ordered, That the Court will hereafter hold two sessions daily, viz., from 10 1/2 o'clock, A. M., till 1 1/2 o'clock, P. M.; and from 3 o'clock, till 5 1/2 o'clock, P. M.

On motion of the Bishop of Western New York,

1. Ordered, That no Member of the Court shall make more than one argument or statement of views on any question, except by permission of the Court.

2. Ordered, That, in deciding all questions before the Court, the opinion of the Members shall be given in the order of seniority, after the President shall have given his opinion.

The Presenting Bishops read their Statement, in reply to that of the Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey.

"To the Right Reverend the Bishops constituting the present Court.

“Brethren,

“The undersigned, who have appeared before you in the most painful and responsible position of Presenters of our Brother, the Bishop of New Jersey, for a trial before you, feeling ourselves called upon, by all the imperative considerations of solemn duty to God and His Church which moved us to that act, to place on your record a reply to the argument which you have permitted a Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey to present, would now respectfully solicit your attention thereto.

“But first allow us to say that we deeply realize the very painful [42/43] relation to this Court, in which our presentment has placed of necessity, our Brother, the Respondent in this case; and we feel the duty, and will endeavour most truly to fulfil it, of treating the subject in hand in as much abstraction from him personally, and his feelings, as its just argument will permit. We think we know enough of our own hearts to be enabled confidently to say that we entertain no other than the kindest feelings towards him; that beyond our official duty as Bishops and Presenters, we have no interest enlisted in the further prosecution of this issue; that to see him cleared, by a faithful sifting of evidence, according to the mode prescribed by the Church, from the charges we have felt constrained to bring, so that he and the honour of the Church may be vindicated in the eyes of all well-judging men, would be to us the same matter of joy and thankfulness, that it would be to all of you; and consequently that if, in the course of our present argument, we should seem to be led to the expression of thought, or the use of words, more painful to the feelings of the Respondent than the merits of the subject demand, or the law of kindness would allow, it is our mistake, not our design; it is against, not in accordance with our aim and effort. With these preliminary remarks, we beg to place before the Court some considerations, exhibiting the exceeding seriousness, the grave responsibility, the critical importance of the duty to which you are now called, in deciding upon the question before you. When the request was made to you that the Committee, representing the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, might be permitted to appear at your bar, and present a written argument having for its declared object the persuading the Judges in this case to adopt a certain interpretation of the law under which alone they sit, in order that they might be induced to dismiss without trial the charges we have brought at so great a sacrifice of personal feeling, and under so solemn a sense of duty to the Church, we felt ourselves called on to resist such request by all the means canonically within our reach. We urged that to admit them and their argument was against the provisions of the law under which this Court is constituted, and by which it must proceed; that no parties are known to that law, and consequently none can lawfully appear at this bar, but the Judges, the Presenters, and the Respondent; that the admission of any other to influence in any way your decisions, would be as inconsistent with the rules and usages of Courts of analogous jurisdiction, and with the fundamental principles of jurisprudence, as with the terms and provisions of our [43/44] Canon law, and would therefore institute a precedent of the most dangerous character to the future discipline of the Church. But our objections were overruled. We submitted respectfully to the authority of the Court. The Committee was admitted. They presented and read a document previously printed. It is material at this stage of our remarks that the Court should bear in mind, that a part of the argument of the Committee rests upon the fact of a new Presentment having been made after the Convention of New Jersey, by its representatives, had investigated the charges contained in a former Presentment; that the determining consideration which led us to make that new Presentment was the doubt, to say the least, resting upon the legality of the act of our late venerable Presiding Bishop, postponing the trial of the former from the time first appointed, to a later day, and thus making doubtful the legality of a Court assembled on that day. The Committee place much of their objections upon the ground, that this Presentment is a new one. The Court will please also to bear in mind, that not only was the postponement of the former Presentment so entirely against our wishes and convictions as Presenters, that we have never ceased to complain of it; not only was it so contrary to the convenience and arrangements of the Bishops, that several who could and would have attended the trial at the first appointed time, are not and cannot be in attendance now; but, although it was stated by the late Presiding Bishop in his notice of the postponement, that several Bishops were represented to him as desiring the postponement, we are nevertheless assured in writing under the hand of the late lamented Bishop of Ehode Island, that, when it was proposed that the Bishops (of whom he was one) assembled in New York to send delegates to England, 'should unite in a request to the Senior Bishop to postpone the trial,' in order that Bishops might go and yet attend it—’an examination of the Canon satisfied many of them that in so doing he would transcend his power, and that accordingly the delegates elect announced their purpose not to leave the country under such circumstances.' 'If, however,' (said Bishop Henshaw,) 'Bishop Doane assented to the postponement, under the peculiar circumstances, I cannot believe he would object to the trial proceeding on the ground of this technical difficulty.' The Presenters have felt themselves bound to call the attention of the Court to these particulars, lest they should be held under responsibility for the new Presentment beyond what they are willing to acknowledge.

[45] “It is said by the Committee of the Convention of New Jersey respecting the new charges contained in this Presentment, that 'they were known to have been alleged before by those by whom they are preferred.'

"It is not only true that the Presenters had heard of the alleged offences during the preparation of the first Presentment, but that they had actually determined on introducing two of them, those touching pecuniary delinquency. The omission of these was accidental. The others were also under consideration, but were omitted for want of time to make sufficient inquiry and be assured of proper witnesses. This deficiency being supplied before the second Presentment was adopted, the lost charges were inserted; and the Presentment thus completed was sent with all possible expedition to the Presiding Bishop. Unexpected delays in preparing the necessary copies to be sent to the other Bishops, and in the mail itself, were the only causes known to us through which it failed to reach its final destination until the evening on which it was served upon the Respondent.

“The step which you are now called to adopt, (if you listen to the prayer of the Committee of the Convention of New Jersey,) is one which, in our humble view, should not be taken till after the most solemn consideration of what is justly expected of this Court, under the vows of your consecration as Bishops, for the sustaining the discipline, the vindication of the purity, and consequently the protection of the light of this Church, as a city set on a hill in the midst of a gainsaying world, nor then without the most imperative and certain convictions of positive obligation. The question is whether, after you have assembled here from various and distant parts, on a canonical call to try a Presentment made undeniably in strict accordance with the letter of the law, and involving charges so numerous and so heavy against one of your own order—on whose vindication, his own usefulness and the Church's honour so much depends—you will, on the plea of a party unknown to the law under which you sit, decline all investigation of those charges, suffer them to stand in all their naked awfulness, untried and thus unalleviatcd; going out to all the world against a Brother Bishop with their perpetual testimony, going down to all generations, a blot so dark—not only upon the reputation of a single Bishop, but upon the good name of our whole ministry and our whole Church. Let it not be answered that these charges have been tried by a Committee of the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey. Investigated to a certain extent, and [45/46] in a certain way, we grant they have been, but tried they have not been. Does this Church acknowledge any thing as the trial of a Bishop except it be before one single tribunal, and that the very one now assembled? Does this Church acknowledge any thing as a trial of a Bishop, except under the single law by which this Court is constituted, and according to its mode of investigation? Is it competent to any Diocese to set up its own tribunal for the examination of charges against a Bishop, and then claim that its examinations shall have the weight and place and force of a trial by the only Court known to the Church for such an office, as if the one could possibly stand as a satisfactory substitute for the other? Can an investigation pretend to approximate to the dignity and sufficiency, though confessedly without the form, of such a trial as your Canon demands, which by its own professions was entirely ex parte—at which not only could there be no cross-examination of witnesses, at which not only did almost every witness relied on by the Presenters refuse to attend, because they knew it was not the tribunal required by the Church—but at which by positive resolution of the Convention of New Jersey, the motion to notify the presenting Bishops, and allow them to attend the investigation by their Attorney to cross-examine witnesses, and produce rebutting testimony, was rejected? [See Journal of the 59th Annual Convention of New Jersey, page 22.] Are the ends of a regularly constituted judicial tribunal, under the law of our whole Church, and alone depended on by our whole Church, to be thus satisfactorily attained? Should a Christian Bishop lying under the weight of such charges as these before you, and yet conscious of innocence, desire them to be allowed to remain so untried, (a desire which we understand the present Respondent pointedly to disclaim,) we should exceedingly wonder. How any Christian Bishop, conscious of innocence, could help demanding, in justice to himself, that every impediment to his trial not absolutely insurmountable should be overleaped, in order that he might have the privilege of being confronted face to face with the testimony against him, we do not understand. That the Convention of a Bishop so presented on such charges, and one professing the greatest affection for their Bishop, the greatest zeal for his reputation and happiness and usefulness, and above all the most entire confidence in his innocence, in the impossibility of the charges being sustained by evidence, should be so earnest to set aside this canonical trial so looked to and waited for by the whole Church, and to set it aside mainly on the ground of certain views entertained by them, and [46/47] perhaps no where else, concerning their position and rights: yea, that they should say in so many words, ‘we cannot consent to his trial, because we are satisfied of his innocence,' is, we confess, to us a matter of the deepest astonishment. We should have supposed that it would have been a far more friendly expression towards their Bishop, to have said, ‘we cannot consent to his trial not taking place, because we are satisfied of his innocence.’ But we would respectfully submit that the Diocese is not the only, nor the most important Ecclesiastical Body, that has a deep interest, and that expects its interests to be considered in the decision now before you. There is a body of Clergy and a body of Laity constituting the Protestant Episcopal Church in this whole land, the Church under whose authority and law you are now sitting, that is now compassing you about as a great cloud of witnesses, and looking most earnestly upon your every act and movement, realizing how critically the dignity of its laws, the character of its discipline, the purity of its morals, the reputation of its ministry, the honour of the Gospel, are now dependent not only on your decision of the present question, but, if it be not carried, your further doings at every step of the progress of this case.

“As for ourselves, the Presenters, we have no personal interests at stake which your determination, in deference to the claim and urgency of the Committee of the Convention of New Jersey not to try this present issue, would not most amply sustain. If the case is so clear and the charges are so incapable of proof as that Committee declares, then as far as we are personally concerned, under the heavy responsibility we have assumed, it is far better for us that you grant their request. For we venture to assure you that, in that case, we should feel perfectly confident that in the eyes of the Church in general, and of all people, the bare design of the Committee so urgently pressed on such grounds would be our vindication and praise.

“But we appear not here for ourselves. We represent, as you also represent, Right Reverend Brethren, all that great cloud of witnesses, the whole Church, which is now solemnly waiting upon your deliberations. That is the great party in this case which remains to be heard. If under the present motion the trial of the Respondent be dismissed, our trial before that tribunal is ended. We are perfectly confident in its verdict to our clearance.

“But allow us, Right Reverend Brethren, most respectfully to remind you that then your trial at that great tribunal begins. [47/48] The Church must be satisfied. Whether you will have fulfilled your consecration vows 'to diligently exercise such discipline as by the authority of God's Word and the order of this Church is committed to you,' will then be tried. That you will well and conscientiously consider the position in which you are therefore now placed and the critical pass to which you have now arrived, we freely trust. We proceed to show that the Committee of the Convention of New Jersey have presented no reason which can shield this Court from the strong dissatisfaction which the refusal to proceed with the trial now pending must occasion.

"The Presenting Bishops cannot adequately express the surprise and mortification with which they behold the peaceful and orderly conduct of a judicial tribunal in a solemn investigation invaded and interrupted by the presentation of the strange and unusual remonstrance and appeal of the Committee of the Convention of New Jersey. For the first time in the annals of American jurisprudence has the course of justice been subjected to the direct influence of a legislative body. Against the introduction of this influence we have hitherto opposed our sternest remonstrances. These have proved unavailing, and now we are compelled to meet and expose the perversions of fact and the distortions of law, behind and beneath which that Committee have assailed the freedom and independence of your judicial character. However much we deplore the ill example of the precedent, we are far from regretting the opportunity it affords us to present to this Court a full narrative of the efforts to procure and to evade a judicial investigation of the crimes laid to the charge of the Respondent. The legal result contemplated by the remonstrance of the Convention, is a discontinuance of all further proceedings on this Presentment. They ask that the Court refuse to try those specifications of the Presentment which have been investigated by the Convention, because the presentment now pending was found only after the Convention had acted upon them. They propose a like dismission of the charges not investigated by the Convention, on the faith of its pledge to investigate them hereafter. The Presenting Bishops presume that this future investigation will be a repetition of the past: and that past investigation has not so conciliated their confidence or respect, as to induce them willingly to commit the purity of the Episcopate to such an ordeal under such auspices. They invoke the solemn attention of the Court while they retrace the course of events touching the attempts to procure a trial of the charges against the accused, [48/49] which the Committee have undertaken to narrate, but which they have very imperfectly and inaccurately represented.

"At the Convention of 1849 a resolution was offered reciting the requisition of the Scriptures, that a Bishop should be of good report of them that are without, and reciting also, that public rumour, as well as newspaper publications, had made serious charges against the Bishop, and creating a Committee to make such investigations as should establish the innocence or justify the presentment of the accused; and that resolution was, after full debate and discussion, lost by a unanimous negative.

“The fact of the newspaper publications, and of the prevalence of the public rumours alleged, was notorious. They were not denied or disputed; but admitting their existence, the Convention refused to institute an inquiry as to their truth or falsehood.

“The Committee have informed us as to the reasons of this refusal—and they throw some light on the chances of holding the Bishop of New Jersey to a due responsibility through his Convention.

"We are told 'they refused to treat the fame of the Bishop and peace of the Diocese as matters of such light moment, as to place them at the mercy of every idle report of ignorance or enmity.'

"But the Convention did not even take the trouble to inquire whether these public rumours were idle reports of ignorance or enmity, or the reverberating echoes of the voice of truth.

“Whether true or false, malignant, or urged in good faith, they made the Bishop of evil report among them that were without. The Bible required him to be not merely blameless in fad, but to be of good report. The evil report was, therefore, the very thing to be avoided, cleared up, and dispelled; yet that task the Convention refused to attempt, contenting itself with its own preconceived confidence in his purity.

“The Convention were as unmindful of the Canons of the Church as of the precepts of the New Testament, when they refused to regard prevailing reports and imputations on the character of the Bishop as adequate reasons, not for trying the Bishop, but for inquiring into their origin, so as to dispel or confirm them. The XXXVIIth Canon of 1838, makes it the duty of the Bishop, if a minister 'be accused by public rumour of crimes and offences,' to see that inquiry be instituted as to the truth of such public rumour. The analogy should compel a Convention, whose Bishop is accused by public rumour, to inquire as to the truth of such public rumour. The character of a Bishop is quite as delicate, much more important, [49/50] not less likely to be assailed, and more powerful in example for evil or good. It should therefore be guarded with even greater care than that of the presbyter; but to refuse inquiry is not to protect, but to expose it to the tongue of calumny.

"Nor is it true that the Convention of 1849 gave any assurance that a suitable investigation would follow upon the presentation of charges by responsible names; for the declarations in debate, of a few of its prominent members, bound nobody but themselves.

“The Convention therefore left on the character of the Bishop, clouds which, while most seriously darkening his good name, have cast their shadow over the whole Church.

“The statement of the Committee, that ‘two succeeding Annual Conventions were held without a renewal of the subject,' if true in the letter, is not accurate in spirit and substance.

“At the following Convention of 1850, an effort on the part of some members of the Convention, to obtain satisfaction as to the security of the Episcopal Fund, then in the hands of the Bishop, under the circumstances detailed in the 10th Specification, was frustrated by the abrupt adjournment of the Convention. The purpose of the adjournment may be conjectured, with no little certainty, from a similar transaction of the following year.

“Before the meeting of the Convention of 1851, Michael Hayes, one of the chief creditors of the Bishop, and one who had been specially injured, had publicly declared his intention to complain in a definite shape to that Convention. It was widely known that he had prepared a formal affidavit for the purpose, and the Bishop had been apprised by him of his intention. The friends of the Bishop, in the Convention, knew that Mr. Halsted stood prepared to bring the matter to the attention of that body. The Convention, under these circumstances, met in May, 1851, and on the first day of its session, contrary to its usage, and after Mr. Halsted was known to have retired for the day, hurried over its indispensable business; pushed its work so far into the evening as to crowd out the religious services appointed for that season; omitted the examination of the Treasurer's accounts, which could not be passed on the first day of the Convention, and abruptly adjourned sine die, late in the evening. So anxious were they to avoid meeting the charges of Michael Hayes, now among the most serious that are urged against the Bishop. Such were the circumstances under which the 'two succeeding Conventions were held without a renewal of the subject.’

[51] “Nor was Michael Hayes the only accus