Hannah Barnard, Quaker: trial in America, 1801

Hannah Barnard: Return to America

Her earlier trial in London

Timeline

Hudson Quakers today

Writings on Hudson Quakers

After her trial in London, Hannah Barnard stayed for a month with a friend before returning to her home in Hudson, New York. This was more than enough time for J.G. Bevan to send details of her trial and sentence to Friends in Hudson. It had been read publicly at the Meeting in Barnard's absence. Even before the London judgement there had been trans-Atlantic communication, some of it deliberately seeking to impugn Barnard, not least because of her sustained opposition to war. On 30 August 1801 she set sail from Gravesend and arrived in New York on November 1, a 63-day passage.

On 24 November 1801 she attended the Women’s Monthly Meeting of Hudson. She had returned with a commendatory certificate from Ireland although not from England. She already knew that the accusation from England had been read in the Monthly Meeting and asked to have it read again as she did not have a copy.

Hudson Friends Meeting House from 1828 

(From Hudson Friends site, with links to other historical papers.)

Eight Friends visited that same evening. The minutes from the London Meeting were read to her. She sought to explain and defend herself. In support of her case, she told her visitors that she had recently come across a highly commended pamphlet by Anthony Benezet which made very much the arguments against war that she had made. 

Her visitors said their only task was to examine her on the various points of the charges against her (p28). She complained of the injustice of it. They agreed to meet the following day but instead decided they were not competent to address the issues and so passed responsibility back to the Monthly Meeting. She claimed the right to be fully heard and no-one dissented (p.29). The Monthly Meeting (22/12/1801) agreed to continue the investigation (pp.30-31).

The following day (December 23) discussion continued, though at a more cautious and careful pace. There were two representatives of the Monthly Meeting and one, John Hull, from New York. They listened (p.33).

Barnard defended herself by appealing to the views of approved Quaker authors through George Fox and William Penn to a book approved and published in England in 1798, the year she had landed in Falmouth. She suggested her accusers might “put their sentiments into writing, either as a Committee, or in a Monthly, (/p.34) Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting capacity;” If she could with integrity sign them, she would and, if not, she would say why not.

One, John Alsop, pointed out that they did not know what her papers contained. There was a repeat of a previous stand-off: she wanted to read her paper to them, they wanted to read and study it elsewhere. 

Eventually she read the Monthly Meeting’s conclusions and her notice of appeal and other papers. The reading took three-and-a-half hours in the afternoon of March 23rd and it continued, morning  and afternoon, on the 24th and 25th (the modern Christmas had not yet been invented). It is not surprising that her interrogators did not absorb all she had to offer.

At the sixth and final meeting, her visitors sought to address Barnard’s beliefs on the incarnation, and on “the one offering, which the apostle spoke of, when he said, that Christ through the eternal Spirit, offered himself to God.”  (p.38, referring to Hebrews 9:14). This was a door to discussion on the Trinity and she sidestepped it:

“I replied, … that such interrogations savoured of suspicion; and that, if they ever intended to erect themselves into some sort of tribunal or inquisition, they ought to have done it before they gave me their certificate; …” (ibid.)

Her questioner, Thomas Comstock, said he thought his question was relevant and tried again. She told him she had answered it before, and suggested she might read her previous answer again. Faced with that possibility, he relented. She pointed out that her views had not changed during her trip abroad. “And I then reminded him, before the Committee, of the full, and frequent opportunities he had, before I left America, of hearing me declare my sentiments, …” (Ibid.)

Although it was late in the day she persisted, comparing her views with those of Robert Barclay. Her questioners retired, with Barnard at least expecting to continue the conference.

Instead, on December 25th, 

“... four of the Committee, namely John Alsop, Hannah Jenkins, Sylvanus Gardner, and Elihu Bunker, called on me to say, the Committee desired I would not think of attempting any thing in a public manner at present “(p.39)

She was taken aback at this suspension and silencing. 

“I did not at first rightly understand them and thought they alluded to printing my sentiments. But I soon found, it was speaking as a minister. I then candidly told them I could not enter into any positive engagements in that respect; for though I considered that they had shut up my way by receiving, and openly reading those minutes of accusation, and that I apprehended for many months past, that my line of religious labour was turned into another channel, with which I was content; yet I was not sure how long it might remain so.

    "That I desired never to feel myself so far bound, by the mandates of any man, or set of men, as to neglect a faithful declaration of my sentiments, either in a public, or private manner, when I really believed it my religious duty: for it appeared to me that the apostolic sentiment, was as sound at present as when it was formerly uttered, viz.- ‘Whether it be right in the sight of God, to obey men, rather than God, judge ye.’ ” (pp39/40) 

Her silencing was confirmed at the Hudson Monthly Meeting of the 26th of January 1802. She was, she told her judges, “utterly dissatisfied”. The sentence implied a crime but gave no reason. She was given no opportunity to complain. “... no person" she said "in their sober senses, could feel satisfied, with such treatment.” (p.40) She would appeal to the next Quarterly Meeting. And she still had not had sight of the papers from England, nor the minutes of the Hudson meetings.

She appealed to the Monthly Meeting (26 January 1802), to which the visiting committee had reported.  The meeting was unconvinced by her answers: “... she does not clear up the matters of charge, against her, to our satisfaction, so far, as to unite in a belief, that  it will be best for the Meeting, to leave her at liberty, to speak as a minister of our Society.”(p.42, iio)  Signed by the committee of ten. 

On the 30th January Elihu Bunker and Job Webb gave her a copy of the papers sent from the Devonshire House Monthly Meeting in London, but not all of them. She asserted that she had not finished giving her evidence although the committee had already made their report and disbanded (p.43). 

There were dirty tricks and intimations of insecurity amongst her questioners. 

A report “of a young man [Frederick Smith] having made a public confession, of the pernicious effects of my sentiments upon him” had reached Hudson, even before she had returned from her travels (p.43). She called on one John Alsop, accusing him of “gross injustice”. He parried that she wanted “to fix the character of backbiting, and spread evil reports upon him.” She told him that she “considered it fully fixed upon him, by his own acknowledgement.” (p.45)

There was an anonymous and malicious attack on her morality: a wholly confected account was circulated implying that she had been intimate with Elijah Seale. His written denial also denied that he had “pretty greedily swallowed her sentiments.”(pp.45-46) The carnality of the one charge infected the other.

The Quarterly Meeting met at Standford, February 13th 1802, and the Minute of the Hudson Monthly Meeting was read. It  transpired that no offence had been specified. In which case, Barnard said, “the restraint and implied censure was null in itself,”(p.47). Nonetheless the Meeting appointed a committee to pursue the question. Before she left she stated what her defence would be: that she was “fully supported, and justified in, by the printed works of approved authors in the Society, … [including] “... Robert Barclay, and Anthony Benezet, …” (ibid.) She also decided it was expedient to take her own minutes as the meeting proceeded. (p.49). 

Barnard outlined her case for an appeal. She argued that her views were justified by “the printed works of approved authors in the Society.” She had not been given the opportunity to defend herself at the Monthly Meeting “on account of the irregularity of the proceedings,” (p.51) and she invited the committee to consider “how it would make the Society appear, if they should be convicted of having condemned me, for only republishing their own approved doctrines.”(ibid.) And when she had given the Monthly Meeting her lengthy papers, they were returned to her unread. 

She concluded that the committee “... had neither discipline, nor prescriptive usage, at present, in the Society in Europe, or America, to justify making me an offender, for any thing I had said, on either of the points of charge; for I was able to make it appear, to any number of competent /p.53 impartial  judges, that I had, in fact, only republished the printed doctrines of the Society.”

She claimed a right to a full hearing, and also that she should determine which papers to present to her judges.

Small things silted up. She was chided because her daughter, an adult, chose to attend the church. She was accused of telling someone, without stating who, that Jesus "was but a man, only our elder brother". She couldn't recall saying it but asked, where's the crime? (pp.60-61). 

A delegation from the Monthly Meeting visited Barnard on the same day it met (March 23, 1802).  She was not contrite and told them “I … deny the authority of the Monthly Meeting, to make this appointment; and consequently, am not free to hold any conference with you, as its Committee.” (p62). The Monthly Meeting consequently disowned her and, two days later, the Quarterly Meeting endorsed the decision of the Monthly and denied her right to appeal to the Yearly Meeting (p.64).

Sentence

She wrote to the Yearly Meeting nonetheless. It was futile. On 22 June 1802 she was sent formal notice of her offence and sentence (p.67, paragraphs added):

“Whereas Hannah Barnard, of the city of Hudson, in the State of New York, having been a favoured member, and acknowledged minister amongst us, the people called Quakers, endowed with talents and qualifications, for services in the church of Christ; and, had she continued to experience, a humble abiding under the influence of the precious principle of light and grace, in her own heart, which would have preserved her in that humility meekness and self-denial that beautifies, and ever should adorn, a minister of Christ, and in a conduct consistent with the dignity of our profession, she might, have been eminently useful; but unhappily, by giving way to an aspiring exalted mind, she hath so far become clouded in her understanding, and led away by the spirit of delusion, as to call in question, the authenticity of various parts, of the scriptures of truth, both of the Old and New Testament, which in common with other professors of faith in Christ, we have always acknowIedged to be of divine authority, and most surely believed in by us; particularly, she does not unite with the Society in acknowJedging the truth of that part which relates to the miraculous conception and miracles of Christ.

 That she hath not only imbibed these erroneous, and dangerous sentiments, but is assiduous in disseminating them, amongst others. 

Hence it evidently /(p.68) appears, that she is not one with us, in principle nor in practice: and having had abundant labour bestowed upon her, by friends in a private way, as well as by divers meetings in Great Britain, in order to convince her, of the dangerous tendency of the sentiments she entertains, and, if possible, to avert the evils which appeared to await her; but all their endeavours proved unavailing, she still continuing to promote the ideas she had formed, and strenuously defend the ground she had taken; and although we deeply lament her sorrowful declension, from the unerring standard, the Spirit of Truth; yet, apprehending, we have done our duty, in the extension of our care, and best endeavours under the influence (we trust) of pure love, and unfeigned desires, for her welfare, and recovery; and there appearing, at present, no prospect of advantage to result, from further forbearance, or labour. 

We therefore, for the support of our christian testimony, and in order that, as a religious body, we may acquit ourselves with propriety, as in the sight of that Being who is perfect in all his ways, by bearing our testimony against a spirit of infidelity, which appears evidently to have gained, too great an ascendancy in the present day, hereby testify, that we can no longer hold religious fellowship, with the said Hannah Barnard; but disown her, from being any longer a member of our Society, until by attending to the convicting operation of the spirit of truth, in her own mind, she may become sensible of her deviations, and evince a change of heart, and sentiment, and manifest a disposition, to become reconciled to us.” 

Signed on behalf and by direction, of the Monthly Meeting of Hudson, held the 22nd day of the 6th month, 1802. 

By TIDDEMAN HULL Clerk 

  HANNAH JENKINS Clerk of the Women's Meeting

The terms of disownment

The dominant factor in Hannah Barnard’s condemnation was, I believe, the judgement of JG Bevan in London. The sentence suggests other threads contributed, not least her independence of thought, her refusal (or Inability) to disguise her intelligence, and her confidence in her own judgement over an uncritical acceptance of the opinions of others, howsoever revered or dominant. 

Barnard was too big for the community which had hitherto nurtured her. Her independence of mind was a latent threat to the established and comfortable order of local Quakers. It seems unlikely that this implicit threat was suddenly realised because of her journeys in the British Isles. More probably the London judgement brought to a head pre-existing anxieties and became the catalyst that eased and legitimated, and displaced responsibility for, expulsion in Hudson. 

The alternative, accepting the judgement of the meeting, would have meant subordination of her identity and her “talents and qualifications” to the smaller vision of her judges.

==============

The sentence must have come as a blow, but it did not stop her. She went on to organise a Peace Society which, in time,  overshadowed the Hudson Meeting of Friends. 

She died in 1828