It is deemed proper to state, that the testimony of the witnesses on this trial was put down in their own words, and read and approved by them before it was finally recorded.

I do hereby certify, that I have compared the following printed "Record of the Proceedings of a Board of Clergy, canonically constituted for the purpose of trying the truth of certain charges contained in a presentment made to the Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, against the Rev. John Ireland," with the original record, signed by the Clergy constituting the Board; and also with the written copy of the said record, certified by the President and Secretary; and find this printed record a true: copy of the original record and of the certified copy, with the exception of the following errata:

Page 6, last line, for "monies as aforesaid," read money as aforesaid.

Page 7, line 18, for "testimony," read evidence.

Page 7, line 22, for "29th," read 28th.

Page 7, line 2d of note, for "1809,"' read 1802.

Page 8, line 29, for "monies as aforesaid," read money as aforesaid.

Page 12, line 9th from bottom, for "Cornell," read Cornwell.

Page 13, line 4, for "25," read 24.

Page 13, line 6, after "he," read never.

Page 13, line 9, before "book," read Church.

Page 17, line 19, for "monies as aforesaid," read money as aforesaid.

Page 17, line 11th from bottom, before "books," read Church.

Page 18, lines 23 and 21, for "certifying," read rectifying.

And also wherever the word "court"' occurs in the original record and the certified copy, the word Board is substituted in this printed record, being the canonical word.

BENJAMIN MOORE,
Bishop of Prot. Episc. Church in the State of New-York.

New-York, Sept. 14, 1810.

THE following commission from the Bishop was read:

To the Rev. Abraham Beach, John Henry Hobart, Isaac Wilkins, Elias Cooper, and William Harris, Presbyters.

BRETHREN,

The enclosed presentment has been made to me, and you are constituted a Board for trying the accused person; you will, therefore, take the matter into your serious consideration, and when you shall come to a decision communicate the same to me, together with the sentence which, in your opinion, should be pronounced.

BENJAMIN MOORE, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York.

The above named Clergy, canonically constituted a board for the trying the truth of certain charges contained in the presentment made to the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, against the Rev. John Ireland, a Presbyter of his Diocese, appeared, viz. the Rev. Abraham Beach, the Rev. Isaac Wilkins, the Rev. Elias Cooper, the Rev. William Harris, the Rev. John Henry Hobart, Presbyters.

The Rev. Abraham Beach was appointed President; and the Rev. John H. Hobart was directed to record the proceedings and the evidence.

The Board agreed to the following rules of proceeding:

1. The Board shall appoint a President; and also a suitable person to keep a record of their proceedings, and of the evidence exhibited.

2. The Board shall, at every sitting, be opened by the following office of devotion, canonically approved by the Bishop.

[4] Office of Devotion.

Collect for Ash-Wednesday.

Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all those who are penitent; create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for the seventh Sunday after Trinity.

Lord of all power and might, who art the Author and Giver of all good things, graft in our hearts the love of thy name, in-crease in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for the second Sunday after Trinity.

O Lord, who never failest to help and govern those whom thou dost bring up in thy steadfast fear and love; keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for the fifth Sunday after Trinity.

Grant, O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for St. John Baptist's Day.

Almighty God, by whose providence thy servant John Baptist was wonderfully born, and sent to prepare the way for thy Son our Saviour by preaching repentance; make us so to follow his doctrine and holy life, that we may truly repent according to his preaching; and after his example constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth's sake, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Second Collect for Good Friday.

Almighty and everlasting God, by whose spirit the whole body of the Church is governed and sanctified; receive our supplications and prayers which we offer before thee for all estates of men in thy holy Church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and ministry, may truly and godly serve thee, through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

And then the following Collect.

Almighty and everlasting God, who by thy Holy Spirit didst, preside in the council of the blessed Apostles, and hast promised, through thy Son Jesus Christ, to be with thy Church to the end of the world; give thy grace to all Bishops and other Ministers, that they may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy sacraments: especially, we beseech thee to be with the authority of [4/5] thy Church now assembled for the administration of that portion of its discipline duly committed to them. Save us from all error, ignorance, pride and prejudice. Endue us with wisdom, prudence, and firmness to preserve the purity of that Ministry which thou, by thy blessed Son, hast instituted, and the honour and welfare of that Church, which thou hast purchased by his death and passion. May we so administer justice as to forget not mercy; and be so merciful as not to depart from justice, nor betray the sacred trust committed to us. And do thou, Almighty God, so enlighten the minds and rule the hearts of all persons concerned in the work now before us, that, acting as in thy fear and presence, we may be led into truth, and directed to secure the ends of justice and the holy interests of the Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Our Father, &c.

The grace of our Lord, &c.

3. The commission of the Bishop, by which the Board is constituted, the Canons relative to the trial of Clergymen, and the rules of the Board, shall then be read.

4. It shall then be put to the option of the person presented, to have the trial conducted in the presence of the persons presenting and the witnesses only, or in the presence also of any of the Clergy of the Church who may choose to attend, and such other persons as the Board and himself may select.

5. All persons being excluded but those admitted according to the foregoing rule, the presentment shall then be read. After which the charges shall be severally read, and the person accused be required to answer to each of them.

6. Those charges, the truth of which it shall be necessary to investigate, shall then be taken up, and the Board shall proceed to try the truth of them, according to the Canons. The persons presenting, and then the person accused, to have the privilege of examining the witnesses, under the direction of the Board.

7. At the request of any one of the Clergy sitting as judges, the proceedings shall be suspended, and the Board cleared of all persons for a reasonable time, in order to permit the Board to deliberate and decide upon any point before them.

8. After the investigation of the charges, the person presented shall have liberty to offer observations relative to the business before the Board.

9. The person presented not appearing, the Board shall, as directed by the Canons, proceed, as aforesaid, to try the truth of the charges.

10. The Board, having come to a decision on the charge or charges respectively, shall, as directed by the Canons, communicate the same, with the sentence which, in their opinion, should be pronounced, and a Copy of the record of their proceedings, to the Bishop; which shall not be divulged until his determination is made known.

[6] Agreeably to the 2d rule, the sitting of the Board was opened by an office of devotion, approved of for the purpose by the Bishop.

The following presentment was read. May it please the Bishop,

By the 31st Canon of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, adopted in General Convention, held in the year of our Lord 1804, and set forth by said Convention held in the year 1808, it is provided, that "every Minister shall be amenable for any offences committed by him in any Diocese, to the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese in which he resides." And by the 1st Canon of the Church in this State, passed in Convention, held in October, 1802, it is declared, that "every trial of a Clergyman in this Church for misbehaviour shall be on presentment made to the Bishop by the Convention, by the Vestry of the parish to which a Clergyman belongs, or by three or more Presbyters of the Church."

In virtue of the authority conveyed as aforesaid, and according to the mode thereby prescribed, we, the undersigned, Presbyters of the Church, acting under an awful sense of our duty as Christians and as Clergymen, and considering of how high importance it is to the prosperity of religion and of the Church, that the character of its Ministers be preserved inviolate and un-impeached, or that unworthy Ministers be prevented from exercising the duties of that sacred function, present to you, that charges of a very serious and immoral nature are alleged against the Rev. John Ireland, now residing in the town of Brooklyn, in this State; and we therefore request that an ecclesiastical court may be summoned, to inquire into the said charges, agreeably to the 2d canon of this Church, passed in Convention, held in October, 1802.

In order to constitute specific grounds of investigation and inquiry, we present to you,

1st. That the said Rev. John Ireland stands charged with having been in the habit, while in the exercise of the ecclesiastical functions, of loaning money on usurious interest.

2d. We present unto you, that the said Rev. John Ireland did, upon relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, behave towards the Vestry of St. Ann's Church in a manner derogatory to the character of a Christian Minister, and unbecoming a Pastor taking leave of his Flock.

3d. We present unto you, that the said Rev. John Ireland, after relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, as aforesaid, refused to deliver up to the Vestry, though frequently solicited, the communion plate, the Church books, and the communion money; and that, after he did deliver up the plate, upon the settlement of another Clergyman in said Church and congregation, he still refused to deliver up the books and monies as aforesaid, until the [6/7] said Clergyman should be regularly and canonically instituted, when he promised it should be done; that since the said Clergyman hath been regularly and canonically instituted, he, the said Rev. John Ireland, has still retained the books and money as aforesaid, contrary to the wish and request of the Vestry of St Ann's, he still promising, from time to time, that their request should be complied with, which promise he has never yet fulfilled.

4th. We present unto you, that the said Rev. John Ireland did, some time of the month of October last, assail with indecent language, and in a hostile manner, one of the Vestry of St Ann's Church, to wit, Mr. Samuel Sacket; that he challenged the said Mr. Sacket to fight, and did actually make an attempt to treat him with violence; in consequence of which conduct, he, the said Rev. John Ireland was, to the disgrace of the clerical profession, bound over to keep the peace.

These charges severally, we are led to believe, can be substantiated by sufficient testimony; and we request that he, the said Rev. John Ireland, may be condemned or acquitted, according as they shall or shall not appear to be founded in truth.

In testimony whereof we have hereunto signed our names, in New-York, this 29th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1809.

Signed, JOHN BOWDEN.

CAVE JONES. THOMAS LYELL. THOMAS Y. HOW.

And also the Canons of the Church relative to the trial of Clergymen.

Canons of the Church in the State of New-York, passed in Convention,

CANON I. Of presentments.--Every trial of a Clergyman in this Church for misbehaviour shall be on presentment made to the Bishop by the Convention, by the Vestry of the Parish to which a Clergyman belongs, or by three or more Presbyters of the Church. In every presentment the charge or charges shall be distinctly specified.

CANON II. Of the trial of a Clergyman.--For the trial of a Clergyman, the Bishop shall nominate eight Presbyters, out of whom the person accused may choose five; or if he neglect or refuse to do this, the Bishop shall appoint five; who shall be constituted a board for trying the accused person. The Bishop shall appoint the time and place of trial, of both which at least a month's notice Shall he given to the party accused; and should he neglect or refuse to attend, the trial shall proceed. The board thus constituted, or any three of them, shall examine fully the charges alleged, and keep a minute and accurate record of the testimony of witnesses, and of every question and proceeding that comes before them. No charge shall be substantiated on a testimony of less than two witnesses. On the examination of any witness, should the accused party require it, an oath or affirmation shall be administered by a magistrate. In all questions, a majority of the whole board shall be necessary to a decision. The board having come to a decision on the charge or charges respectively, shall communicate this decision to the Bishop; and also, in case they have found the accused person guilty, the sentence which in their opinion should be pronounced. A certified copy of the record of their proceedings shall be laid before the Bishop, and his judgment in the case is to be final.

CANON III. Of the sentence to be pronounced on a Clergyman found guilty of misbehaviour.--This sentence may be admonition, suspension, or degradation from the Ministry, or excommunication, and shall be pronounced by the Bishop only in convocation.

[8] The Clergy who signed the above presentment appeared; and also the person presented--the Rev. John Ireland.

Agreeably to the 4th rule, it was put to the option of the person presented to have the trial conducted in the presence of the persons presenting and the witnesses only, or in the presence also of any of the Clergy of the Church who may choose to attend, and such other persons as the Board and himself may select. The Rev. Mr. Ireland declining to make any choice in the business, the Board resolved that any of the Clergy of the Church might attend the trial.

The first charge in the presentment was then read, as follows:

1st. That the said Rev. John Ireland stands charged with having been in the habit, while in the exercise of the ecclesiastical functions, of loaning money on usurious interest.

To this charge the Rev. Mr. Ireland made no plea.

The 2d charge was then read as follows:

2d. That the said Rev. John Ireland did, upon relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, behave towards the Vestry of St. Ann's Church in a manner derogatory to the character of a Christian Minister, and unbecoming a Pastor taking leave of his Flock.

To this charge the Rev. Mr. Ireland plead not guilty.

The third charge was then read as follows:

3d. That the said Rev. John Ireland, after relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, as aforesaid, refused to deliver up to the Vestry, though frequently solicited, the communion plate, the Church books, and the communion money; and that after he did deliver up the plate, upon the settlement of another Clergyman in said Church and congregation, he still refused to deliver up the books and monies as aforesaid, until the said Clergyman should be regularly and canonically instituted, when he promised it should be done; that since the said Clergyman hath been regularly and canonically instituted, he, the said John Ireland, has still retained the books and money as aforesaid, contrary to the wish and request of the Vestry of St. Ann's, he still promising, from time to time, that their request should be complied with, which promise he has never yet fulfilled.

To this charge the Rev. Mr. Ireland plead not guilty.

The 4th charge was then read as follows:

4th. That the said Rev. John Ireland did, some time of the month of October last, assail with indecent language, and in a hostile manner, one of the Vestry of St. Ann's Church, to wit, Mr. Samuel Sacket; that he challenged the said Mr. Sacket [8/9] to fight, and did actually make an attempt to treat him with violence; in consequence of which conduct, he, the said Rev. John Ireland was, to the disgrace of the clerical profession, bound over to keep the peace.

To this charge the Rev. Mr. Ireland plead not guilty.

The first charge was then read as follows: "That the said Rev. John Ireland stands charged with having been in the habit, while in the exercise of the ecclesiastical functions, of loaning money on usurious interest;" and the following witnesses called by the presenters were examined.

Mr. Samuel Sacket examined by the presenters.

Q. Do you know of the Rev. Mr. Ireland's having loaned money on usurious interest, that is, for more than 7 per cent. per annum?

A. I know that to be a fact.

The Rev. Mr. Ireland had no questions to put to this witness.

Mr. James B. Clarke examined by the presenters.

Q. Do you know any thing of Mr. Ireland's having been engaged in usurious practices.

A. I don't know from my own personal knowledge.

Q. Are you not so far acquainted with circumstances as to leave no doubt upon your mind that Mr. Ireland has taken usurious interest?

The question was objected to.

Agreeably to the 6th rule, at the request of one of the members, the Board was cleared--and the Board then resolved--That they would hear the answers to all questions relative to the charges made by the presenters, reserving to themselves the right in their final decision on each charge, to determine concerning the admissibility of any evidence given.

A. I have no doubt in my mind, from circumstances, that Mr. Ireland has taken usurious interest.

Q. Can you name any circumstances which would prove the fact?

A. I have heard it from several persons of credibility.

Q. What are the circumstances which have formed an un-doubted opinion in your mind that Mr. Ireland has taken usurious interest?

A. I cannot conceive any stronger answer to this question than that given to the preceding question.

Q. Did the persons who gave you this information say that they knew that Mr. Ireland had loaned money on usurious interest?

A. I know two persons who have said that they paid Mr. Ire-land usurious interest.

Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Ireland's name on usurious paper?

A. I have never seen paper of this description.

Q. Have you seen Mr. Ireland's name to any paper which, in [9/10] your mind, tends to establish the fact of his taking usurious interest?

A. I have seen Mr. Ireland's name to two or three notes which I have been told have been discounted at more than legal interest?

Q. Have you seen any papers whatsover that convinced you, or led you to the opinion that Mr. Ireland has taken usurious interest?

A. I have never seen any papers which could convince me; but, combined with other circumstances, I have seen papers that would lead me to believe that Mr. Ireland has taken usurious interest.

Q. Does the fact of usury usually or generally appear on papers which pass in usurious transactions?

A. It does not.

Mr. Ireland had no question to put to the witness.

Mr. John Cornell examined by the presenters.

At the request of one of the members of the Board, the Board was cleared of all persons, and the Board resolved, That the examination of witnesses should be conducted by questions so put to the witnesses, that each question and answer may be minutely recorded.

Q. What do you know upon this subject?

A. All that I know is that Mr. Jackson said he was sorry Mr. Ireland did so much in the paper way. I said I had never heard this before. I questioned Mr. Sacket. Mr. Sacket showed me his book, where the fact of usurious interest appeared. A meeting of the Vestry was called. Mr. Sands and Mr. Sacket both inquired of me--Have you never heard this fact before?

Q. Have you never heard any person say that Mr. Ireland received usurious interest?

A. No; except the case of Mr. Sacket.

Q. Were you not before this occurrence the warm friend and advocate of Mr. Ireland's continuance in St. Ann's Church?

A. Yes; I was.

Q. Did not the circumstances which took place at the time referred to induce you to oppose Mr. Ireland's continuance?

A. Yes.

Q. Was not a committee of the Vestry appointed to wait on Mr. Ireland on the subject of his taking usurious interest?

A. Yes; one person, Mr. Malcolm, was appointed.

Q. What was Mr. Malcolm's report?

A. I do not recollect the report particularly, but must refer to Mr. Hodge, one of the Wardens.

Mr. Ireland questioned the witness.

Q. Was not this subsequent to my resignation of the Rectorship?

[11] A. Yes; we had received your letter of resignation.

Q. Was not this letter of resignation conditional?

A. I cannot say.

Q. By the presenters. After Mr. Ireland's letter of resignation did you not wish and make efforts to retain him, till you were acquainted with the facts above stated?

A. Yes.

Mr. Ireland examined the witness.

Q. Did you see in Mr. Sacket's books any evidence of my having transactions with him of an usurious nature?

A. Yes, Sir, he showed me entries of notes discounted.

Q. Did you examine those entries?

A. I looked at them; and from what he had told m before, my opinion of the fact was confirmed.

Q. Could you say, under oath, that the transaction in Mr. Sacket's book was an usurious one.

A. Yes; from the representation made I believed the transaction an usurious one: I examined the book so far as to satisfy me.

Q. By the presenters. What further do you know?

A. The Vestry met--I reported what I had heard, and my objections to renewing Mr. Ireland's call. It appeared from what Mr. Malcolm said that the charge of Mr. Ireland's usurious transactions was correct. And the Vestry were all satisfied of this. And, in consequence, we accepted Mr. Ireland's resignation.

Robert Hodge examined by the presenters.

Q. Relate what you know on this subject.

A. Some debts of the Church were to be discharged--it was proposed to sell some lots. Mr. Ireland did not object then, but afterwards wrote a letter of resignation. The members of the Vestry met--Mr. Ireland not present. A letter was written to Mr. Ireland begging him not to resign, and the Vestry would withdraw the proposal of selling the lots. Mr. Ireland wrote a harsh letter--Vestry resolved to write a conciliatory letter. Before the letter was sent Mr. Cornell called on me and told me there must be a Vestry meeting, to consider some charges of usurious transactions against Mr. Ireland. The Vestry as be-fore met, and cleared themselves of having loaned money on usury. Question was put--whether any present had paid Mr. Ireland usurious interest. Mr. Malcolm and Mr. Jackson replied that they had, to their sorrow; or something to that purpose. Vestry concluded, in consequence of these facts, to accept Mr. Ireland's resignation, and to assign as a reason (if he asked) his taking usurious interest. Mr. Ireland treated the committee who waited on him civilly. They did not toil Mr. Ireland the real cause. At a meeting of the Vestry as before, Mr. Malcolm undertook to tell him the real cause; and the [11/12] Vestry requested him to do so. Mr. Malcolm reported that Mr. Ireland thought little of the matter.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Sacket's books?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see any papers conveying the idea of Mr. Ireland's usurious transactions?

A. No.

Q. To Mr. Cornell. Did not Mr. Malcolm report to the members of the Vestry severally, that Mr. Ireland said he would not relinquish the practice of usury?

A. Yes; I understood so from the other members.

Same question to Mr. Hodge.

A. Yes; I understood so from the other members.

Q. By the Board to Mr. Hodge and Mr. Cornell and the other members of the Vestry present--seven out of ten present. Did Mr. Malcolm report this to you?

A. No.

The 2d charge was then read as follows:

"That the said Rev. John Ireland did, upon relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, behave towards the Vestry of St. Ann's Church in a manner derogatory to the character of a Christian Minister, and unbecoming a Pastor taking leave of his Flock."

Samuel Sacket, the clerk of the Vestry of St. Ann's Church, Brooklyn, produced the records of the Vestry, and letter to and from Mr. Ireland, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Mr. Hodge--testifies relative to money alluded to in the letter of October 24, 1808--Found a balance in Mr. Van Nostrandt's books of money due to the Church. It was resolved in Vestry, that this money should be put into Mr. Ireland's hands--supposed that when Mr. Ireland left the Church there was money in his hands. Mr. Ireland never gave any account of expenditures of Church money to the Vestry. Vote passed in Vestry to call on Mr. Ireland for communion plate, Church books, and Church money. He received the committee civilly, but refused to give up the money and Church books, till the new Rector, Mr. Feltus, was instituted--persisted in not giving them up--believes they never have been given up.

Examined by the presenters.

Q. You and Mr. Cornell, as a committee of the Vestry, waited on Mr. Ireland, to receive the Church books, communion plate, and Church money. What answer did he give you?

A. He gave up the communion plate readily; but refused to give up the others.

Q. When the resolution of the Vestry was exhibited to Mr. Ireland, did he not charge you with demanding money which he had never received?

A. Mr. Ireland said he was charged by us with having money [17/18] which he had never received--told him we only wanted the money he had in his possession.

Q. When the Vestry received the letter from Mr. Ireland, of October 25, 1808, containing severe accusations against the Vestry, or individuals of the Vestry--what did they understand by a demand from him of money which he had received?

A. It was a mistake of from ten to twelve dollars of burial money. We asked him only for the money which he had in his hands--did not know how much it was--had never examined the book.

A note of Mr. Ireland was produced to the Board for 100 dollars, with interest, and an acknowledgment of having received 85 dollars from Mr. Van Nostrandt, for the use of poor communicants.

Q. Did not Mr. Ireland write these letters to the Vestry for their conduct in presenting to him a copy of a resolution contained in their minutes of 26th August, 1807?

A. To the best of my knowledge he did.

Q. How long after did you discover the mistake of the ten or twelve dollars of burial money?

A. It was discovered soon after; and at a Vestry meeting a year after, the mistake was rectified.

Q. Was not Mr. Ireland, soon after the mistake was discover-ed, made acquainted with the mistake?

A. To the best of my knowledge he was.

Q. Did he admit that he had money in his hands belonging to the Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Ireland point out the mistake?

A. He did not, that I know of.

Q. When the 2d resolution, correcting the mistake of the 1st, was passed, was not Mr. Ireland made acquainted with the Vestry's having rectified the mistake?

A. I did not acquaint him; but have no doubt he was.

The Board adjourned at near 5 o'clock, P. M. until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Friday, April 7, 1809, 10 o'clock, A.M.

The sitting of the Board was opened with the office of devotion.

Present as yesterday.

The 2d charge under consideration.

Robert Hodge, witness, in continuation, was examined by the presenters.

Q. At the time the mistake, relative to the burial money, was discovered, was Mr. Ireland absent?

A. I cannot particularly say--Mr. Ireland went away to South-Carolina without giving up the money.

Q. Between the time of waiting upon him with the first resolution and the Vestry's passing the 2d resolution, was not Mr. Ireland absent?

[14] A. I do not know that he was.

Mr. Ireland acknowledged to the Board, that the first resolution of the Vestry was presented to him before his departure to South-Carolina. He went to South-Carolina the 1st of December, 1807, and returned the beginning of May, 1808.

The minutes of the Vestry were produced, from which it appeared that the resolution correcting the mistake of the first re-solution was passed 27th June, 1808.

Mr. Hodge, in continuation.

Q. When the committee waited on Mr. Ireland for the money which he had in his hands, did he point out any error in the resolution of the Vestry authorising this demand?

A. He did not point out any error in the resolution.

Mr. Ireland was asked if he had any questions to ask of the witness, and replied that he had not.

William Cornwall examined by the presenters.

Q. When you waited on Mr. Ireland in company with Mr. Hodge, did he say you had charged him with having money which he had not received?

A. I do not recollect that he did. He refused to give up the money in his hands--said we had as much right to demand his side-board from him; but that he would deliver up the money to the Rector when he was instituted. He pointed out no mistake in the resolution of the Vestry. I do not recollect that he said oily thing about the burial money.

Mr. Ireland questioned the witness.

Q. Did I not distinctly say that the communion plate should be given up, and that the communion money should be given up to my successor, as the only person authorised to give me a receipt--and that I stated that the Vestry must know I had never received any burial money? and whether it was not to the burial money I referred when I refused the demand?

A. I do not recollect that you did.

Mr. Hodge again examined.

Q. By the presenters. Did Mr. Ireland say any thing about the burial money when you waited on him?

A. He did not.

James B. Clarke examined by the presenters.

Q. What do you know about the mistake in the resolution, the correction of it, and Mr. Ireland's knowledge of the correction?

A. In June, 1808, Mr. I. Cornell and myself were appointed to wait on Mr. Ireland to adjust some business with him, as appears by the minutes of the Vestry of June 6th, 1808. Considerable conversation took place. Mr. Cornell said to Mr. Ireland the Vestry wished to be liberal; to pay all balances; settle all business with him. Mr. Ireland introduced the subject of the communion and the burial money; said he would show the impropriety of burial money being charged to him; went on to say [14/15] how improper it was, and got warm. Mr. Ireland and Mr. Cornell had conversation on the subject. Mr. Ireland insisted on the impropriety of the charge; Mr. Cornell said he had no intention to do wrong, and was sorry that Mr. Ireland had not pointed out the mistake to him. Mr. Ireland said the matter was kept up against him still. I said the mistake should be rectified; and made a motion to this effect in the Vestry, which was passed June 27, 1808. I waited on Mr. Ireland a few days after, and settled his demand for some monies. Nothing passed between us on the subject of the books and communion money, being interrupted by company. I informed him of the resolution of the Vestry of June 27, 1808, rectifying the mistake as to the burial money; after which the letters of Mr. Ireland deemed offensive were written. A little previous to these letters being written, Mr. Ireland told me that until a copy of the resolution was given to him of the demand of the burial money being a mistake, he would not give up the property of the Church in his hands. When at the previous conversation I told Mr. Ireland of the resolution rectifying the mistake being passed, Mr. Ireland did not ask me for a copy of it. Before the conversation was closed company came in.

Mr. Ireland had no questions to ask of this witness.

Mr. Sacket was examined by the presenters.

Q. Did not Mr. Ireland, in a public company, shortly after the resolution of the Vestry of August 26, 1807, charge you with, giving an order upon him for money which he had never received?

A. I gave to the committee a copy of the resolution of the Vestry, demanding the property of the Church in his hands. Mr. Ireland charged me, in a public company, with having given an order on him for money which he had never received; which I denied. But when Mr. Ireland explained himself, I told him that I had given a copy of the resolution of the Vestry; but from the manner of his address to me, I did not understand what he-meant. He asked me repeatedly if I knew personally that the money was paid to him. As I had before stated the circum-stance that it was so understood by the Vestry, I now answered. Yes. Mr. Ireland then told me--you lie, and that more than once. Mr. Ireland, in this conversation, said nothing about the burial money. After Mr. Ireland told me I lyed, I told him that he had Church money in his hands, which he ought to give up.

Q. Did you not understand, and also the Vestry, that the letters of Mr. Ireland of October, 1808, deemed offensive, were grounded solely on the demand of the Vestry on him for burial money?

A. Yes; I believe this was the sole cause.

Mr. James B. Clarke was called, at the request of Mr. Ireland, and questioned by him.

[16] Q. Have you heard of the conversation which passed between myself and Mr. Sacket from your brother?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you relate what your brother said?

A. My brother expressed himself, that words had passed between Mr. Ireland and Mr. Sacket, in a public company, at Mr. Barfs, and that Mr. Ireland had given Mr. Sacket the lye. I have heard the same repeatedly from others. My brother was present at this conversation. But the impression on my mind was that Mr. Ireland had said--It is a lye.

It was stated to the Board by the presenters, that Mr. Richard M. Malcolm, an important witness, was in this city; and they requested the Board to send to him a request for his attendance. The Board accordingly ordered their President to send to Mr. Malcolm the following letter.

R. M. Malcolm, Esq.

Sir,

By order of a Board of Clergy, constituted an Ecclesiastical Court to try a presentment made against the Rev. John Ireland, I have to request your attendance as a witness, in the Vestry-room of Trinity Church, this afternoon at 3 o'clock. I am, respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

AB. BEACH, President

April 7, 1809.

The Board adjourned at 2 o'clock, to 3 o'clock, P. M.

3 o'clock P. M.

The Board met as in the forenoon.

R. M. Malcolm, Esq. attended.

The 2d charge was then read, and Mr. Malcolm examined by the presenters.

Q. Relate the conversation which took place at Mr. Barfs between Mr. Ireland and Mr. Sacket some time after the 26th August, 1807.

A. I do not recollect expressions in particular. Some warm expressions took place. The subject of dispute was the Church money--flat contradictions between them. Very shortly after the conversation began I left them, and retired to another part of the room, in consequence of the warm conversation which took place. I do not recollect who began it; thought the conversation an improper one; heard very little of it; retired and expressed to some of the company, that I thought the conversation an improper one--do not recollect that I heard afterwards that Mr. Ireland had given Mr. Sacket the lye.

Mr. Ireland had no questions to ask of this witness.

The first charge was then taken up to receive the evidence of Mr. Malcolm concerning it; who was examined by the presenters.

Q. Are you, from your personal knowledge, satisfied that Mr. Ireland has loaned money on usurious interest?

[17] A. Yes.

Q. What passed between you and Mr. Ireland when you called on him, at the request of the Vestry, to converse with him on the subject of his usurious practices?

A. Mr. Ireland justified these practices by a variety of arguments; said he had made no secret of his taking usurious interest, and should not relinquish the practice.

Q. Did you acquaint him with your being authorised by the Vestry to converse with him on the subject?

A. Yes.

Mr. Ireland had no questions to ask of this witness. The Board took up the 3d charge, which was read as follows: "That the said Rev. John Ireland, after relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, as aforesaid, refused to deliver up to the Vestry, though frequently solicited, the communion plate, the Church books, and the communion money; and that, after he did deliver up the plate, upon the settlement of another Clergyman in said Church and congregation, he still refused to deliver up the books and monies as aforesaid, until the said Clergyman should be regularly and canonically instituted, when he promised it should be done; that since the said Clergyman hath been regularly and canonically instituted, he, the said John Ireland, has still retained the books and money as aforesaid, contrary to the wish and request of the Vestry of St. Ann's, he still promising, from time to time, that their request should be complied with, which promise he has never yet fulfilled."

The Board, at the request of the presenters, resolved to apply to this charge whatever part of the foregoing evidence might be relevant thereto.

Robert Hodge was examined by the presenters.

Q. Has Mr. Ireland delivered up the Church books and money, according to his promise, since the Rector has been instituted?

A. To the best of my knowledge he has not. The minutes of the Vestry of Nov. 7, 1808, were produced, from which it appeared, that application had been made to the Rev. Mr. Ireland since the institution of the present Rector to deliver up the books and money in his possession; and that he had refused until he had received satisfaction from the Vestry respecting a business on which he had written to them.

James B. Clarke was called, who testified to the correctness of the minutes; and also, that since the institution of the present Rector, he had twice conversed with Mr. Ireland, urging him to deliver up the Church property; and staling to him the first conversation that he (Mr. C.) was authorized by the Vestry to make this application, and to receive the Church property. In one of these conversations I stated to Mr. Ireland, that I must make report to the Vestry. Mr. Ireland stated to me, that he [17/18] had offered the Church property to Mr. Feltus, the present Rector. Mr. Feltus stated to me, that he was not instituted when the tender was made to him; that he understood there was some difficulty relative to the business; and that he thought it proper the settlement should be made with the Vestry. After this tender to Mr. Feltus I made application to Mr. Ireland as before mentioned. I do not know that since Mr. Feltus's institution Mr. Ireland has made him any tender of the property.

Mr. Ireland, in the above examination, questioned Mr. Clarke. Mr. John Cornell stated, that when he waited on Mr. Ireland with Mr. Clarke shortly after the 6th June, 13C8; Mr. Ireland thought he was ill used, in reference to the demands made on him, particularly with respect to the burial money. I told him no person wished to injure him, and that he was to blame for not showing the error to me when I passed by every day. I advised him to settle amicably with Mr. Clarke, who was appointed with me a committee for the purpose. Mr. Sacket examined by the presenters.

Q. Do you consider that the terms of commendation which Mr. Ireland uses in his offensive letter to the Vestry, relative to one of their number, refer to you?

A. Yes; I do. I suggested to the Vestry, after Mr. Ireland's sailing for Carolina, the propriety of passing a resolution, certifying the mistake relative to the burial money. The Vestry deemed it unimportant then, and did not pass the resolution, but acknowledged the mistake. I think that the Vestry had passed the resolution rectifying the mistake before I had made the acknowledgment of it lo which Mr. Ireland alludes.

Q. Do you consider that the commendation before referred to relates solely to the acknowledgment made by you in October. 1S08, in adjusting differences between yourself and Mr. Ireland

A. Yes. At this adjustment I stated to Mr. Ireland that in his absence I had proposed to the Vestry to rectify the mistake relative to the burial money.

Mr. Ireland had no questions to put to the witness.

The 4th charge was taken up and read, as follows:

"That the said Rev. John Ireland did, some time of the month of October last, assail with indecent language, and in a hostile manner, one of the Vestry of St. Ann's Church, to wit, Mr. Samuel Sacket; that he challenged the said Mr. Sacket to fight, and did actually make an attempt to treat him with violence; in consequence of which conduct, he, the said Rev. John Ireland was, to the disgrace of the clerical profession, bound over to keep the peace."

Samuel Sacket examined by the presenters. Q. State what you know relative to this charge? A. I have never directly or indirectly urged the affair between Mr. Ireland and myself since the adjustment, to his [18/19] disadvantage. I was invited last autumn to spend the evening at Mr. Barfs. Mr. Ireland was there. When I understood he was there, I wished to retire; was pressed by Mr. Barf to enter; accordingly did. Mr. Ireland said it was disagreeable to him to be in the room with me. I offered to retire, and said that if I had injured him I would render him any satisfaction in my power. Mr. Ireland followed me to the door, and inquired what I meant by rendering him satisfaction. I answer-ed, that I was ready to give him any compensation that impartial persons might adjudge. Mr. Ireland followed me to the stoop, and said, You, Sam Sacket, are a scoundrel, or a dirty scoundrel, I will whip you--or words to that effect. I replied, Mr. Ireland, I cannot think you are in earnest. He declared, he was. He repeated the above words; and told me, if I would go behind the house, he would beat me or fight me. I told him, I did not wish to fight him. He then desired me to lay my stick down. I accordingly threw my stick on the ground. I found it impossible to get rid of Mr. Ireland, he was so strenuous for attacking me. I told him, that if I could not avoid fighting him, if he would bring some gentleman out of the house, I would endeavour to stand my ground, or to fight him. Mr. Ireland went in, as I presumed, for this purpose. I followed him, and saw him go to Mr. Barf and whisper to him. I saw no gentleman was coming out, and retired for the purpose of going home. Mr. Ireland followed me, and repeated pretty much the former opprobrious words, and threatened to fight or beat me in the yard. I suppose the conversation between us was pretty loud, and brought Mr. Barf into the yard. Mr. Ireland persisted in his intention of fighting me. During the whole of his injurious language I used no other language that could be deemed improper, but saying once to him, You, John Ireland, in immediate reply to his saying--You, Sam Sacket, are a dirty scoundrel. I was then near the front gate leading into the road, Mr. Barf between Mr. Ireland and myself, when Mr. Ireland made up towards me with considerable warmth, and threatened, as I think, with uplifted arm, to strike me. Mr. Barf said to him, If you do strike him, it shall be over my shoulder. I then made the best of my way out of the yard into the road. I felt pretty warm, and re-plied to Mr. Ireland--that I was out in the road and would abide by the consequences if he chose to come out; and said, the road was free to both of us. Mr. Ireland did not come out, and I retired to my house in the neighbourhood.

Q. Did not Mr. Ireland make an attempt to come into the road, and was prevented by Mr. Barf?

A. I was told by Mr. Barf that he did, and that he prevented him.

Q. Did not Mr. Ireland use a great deal of opprobrious language to you?

[20] A. Yes; he repeated the words, You dirty scoundrel, a number of times.

Q. What ensued in consequence of this attack of Mr. Ireland upon you?

A. I consulted with my neighbours; told them there was no end to these attacks; and, after a few days mature deliberation I made application to a magistrate to have Mr. Ireland bound over to keep the peace. The magistrate informed me this was done.

Q. Had you ever any difference, any disagreeable altercation with Mr. Ireland previously to his first conversation with you at Mr. Barfs relative to the demand of the Vestry upon him for the Church property in his hands?

A. No; we were always good neighbours. I know no other cause of difference.

Mr. Ireland had no question to ask this witness.

The Presenters stated, that Mr. Barf and Mr. Barber, who were present at this affray, had left Brooklyn, and could not be procured as witnesses.

James B. Clarke stated, that he was present at Mr. Sacket's, on his way to Mr. Barfs, and Mr. Sacket gave him an account of what had happened, which account corresponded, to the best of his recollection, with the account given by Mr. Sacket--went to Mr. Barfs--heard few circumstances there--found Mr. Ireland there--would not think, from the appearance of the company, that any thing had happened. Mr. Ireland shortly after retired. Mr. Barf said Mr. Ireland told him, he might now send for Mr. Sacket; Mr. Barf said lie thought that would be an insult to Mr. Sacket; and in answer to an inquiry what had taken place, stated that Mr. Ireland and Mr. Sacket had a quarrel, that Mr. Ireland had driven Mr. Sacket away, or words to that effect. It was observed to him, that the driving Mr. Sacket from his house was an insult to him. Mr. Barber or Mr. Barf said he did not go out of the room, for he was in hopes Mr. Sacket would have flogged Mr. Ireland. I never heard that Mr. Sacket had been the aggressor in this business. It was admitted both by Mr. Ireland and Mr. Sacket, in my presence, that Mr. Ireland had been bound over to keep the peace.

Mr. Ireland had no questions to put to the witness.

Robert Hodge examined by the Presenters.

Q. Was it not a matter of public notoriety at Brooklyn, that Mr. Ireland had abused Mr. Sacket?

A. I have been in the habit of considering that Mr. Sacket, in this matter, bad been abused by Mr. Ireland. This was the current opinion at Brooklyn.

William Cornwell testified that he understood the same with Mr. Hodge, from report.

[21] The Board expressed their approbation of the patient and respectful attendance of the witnesses.

The Board called on Mr. Ireland, to know whether he thought proper to exercise the privilege of offering any observations on the business before them, and was ready for this purpose.

Mr. Ireland was then heard at length in his defence.

The Board adjourned at 9 o'clock P. M. until 10 o'clock Saturday morning.

Saturday, April 8, 1809, 10 o'clock A. M.

The Board met. Present as yesterday.

The Rev. Mr. Ireland and the Presenters attended.

The Board resolved that only one of the Presenters should be heard in support of the presentment.

The Rev. Mr. How accordingly addressed the Board in support of the presentment.

The Rev. Mr. Ireland was then permitted to address the Board again in his defence.

The Board expressed to the Rev. Mr. Ireland their approbation of his prompt and respectful attendance upon them.

The Rev. Mr. Ireland expressed to the Board his sensibility to the uniform disposition which he had discovered in them to do him justice.

The Board expressed to the Presenters their approbation of their conduct and motives in introducing and conducting the business before the Board.

The Board adjourned until the first Monday in May next, at 10 o'clock A. M. in the Vestry-Room of Trinity Church.

Monday, May 1, 1809.

The Board met agreeably to adjournment. Present, the Rev. Abraham Beach, the Rev. Isaac Wilkins, the Rev. Elias Cooper. the Rev. William Harris, the Rev. J. H. Hobart.

The proceedings of the past sittings of the Board, and the record of the evidence were then read and considered.

The first charge was then read as follows:

"That the said Rev. John Ireland stands charged with having been in the habit, while in the exercise of the ecclesiastical functions, of loaning money on usurious interest."

And the question being put severally to the members of the Board, they decided unanimously, that, from the evidence before them, this charge was established.

The second charge was then read as follows:

"That the said Rev. John Ireland did, upon relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, behave towards the Vestry of St. Ann's [21/22] Church in a manner derogatory to the character of a Christian Minister, and unbecoming a Pastor taking leave of his Flock."

And the question being put severally to the members of the Board, they decided unanimously, that, from the evidence before them, this charge was not established.

The third charge was then read as follows:

"That, the said Rev. John Ireland, after relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, as aforesaid, refused to deliver up to the Vestry, though frequently solicited, the communion plate, the Church books, and the communion money; and that, after he did deliver up the plate, upon the settlement of another Clergyman in said Church and congregation, he still refused to deliver up the books and money as aforesaid, until the said Clergyman should be regularly and canonically instituted, when he promised it should be done; that since the said Clergyman hath been regularly and canonically instituted, he, the said John Ireland, has still retained the books and money as aforesaid, contrary to the wish and request of the Vestry of St. Ann's, he still promising, from time to time, that their request should be complied with, which promise he has never yet fulfilled."

And the question being put severally to the members of the Board, they were unanimously of opinion, that, from the evidence before them, this charge was established, with the exception of the communion plate.

The fourth charge was then read as follows:

"That the said Rev. John Ireland did, some time of the month of October last, assail with indecent language, and in a hostile manner, one of the Vestry of St. Ann's Church, to wit, Mr. Samuel Sacket; that he challenged the said Mr. Sacket to fight, and did actually make an attempt to treat him with violence: in consequence of which conduct, he, the said Rev. John Ireland was, to the disgrace of the clerical profession, bound over to keep the peace."

And the hoard unanimously decided, that, from the positive evidence of one of the witnesses, and the strong circumstantial testimony of other witnesses, this charge, on the principles of the Canon relative to the trial of a Clergyman, was established.

The question was then severally put to the members of the Board--What sentence should it be recommended to the Bishop to pronounce on the Rev. John Ireland?

The Rev. Isaac Wilkins answered--degradation.

The Rev. Elias Cooper answered--degradation.

The Rev. William Harris answered--suspension.

The Rev. J. H. Hobart answered--degradation.

The Rev. Abraham Beach, the President, also gave his opinion in favour of degradation.

Resolved, That a copy of the above judgment of the Board, [22/23] and of the proceedings and evidence, be certified by the President and the Secretary, and laid before the Bishop, agreeably to the second Canon of the Convention of the Church in this State of 1802.

The above is signed as a true record by the members of the Board.

ABRAHAM BEACH.
ISAAC WILKINS.
ELIAS COOPER.
WILLIAM HARRIS.
J. H. HOBART.

Project Canterbury