The parties to the deed are Jonathan Bowerman and John Bull of the one part; and Jonathan Clarke, Daniel Haight, and Gilbert Dorland, trustees of the West Lake Monthly Meeting of Friends, appointed by the said Monthly Meeting to secure the titles of meeting house lots and burying grounds, of the other part. Bowerman and Bull in consideration of £15, grant, &c., to Clarke, Haight, and Dorland, and to their successors, in trust for said Monthly Meeting, six acres of land, being parts of lots 9 and 10 in the 2nd concession of the military tract in the township of Hallowell, Midland District and province of Upper Canada, "to have and to hold said parcel of land hereby granted unto the aforesaid trustees of said Monthly Meeting for the time being, and for their successors in trust as said meeting shall from time to time see cause to appoint, for the only use and benefit of said meeting."

We are told that the grantors Bowerman and Bull, although they jointly conveyed the six acres, had no joint estate in any part of them, but that Bowerman owned lot 10 and Bull owned lot 9, three acres of each lot going to make up the six acres.

Another deed was made by Bowerman, dated 14th December, 1835, conveying the three acres of lot 10 to Jonathan Clarke and Gilbert Dorland, trustees of the West Lake Monthly Meeting of Friends (called Quakers), appointed by said meeting to secure the titles of meeting house lots and burying grounds, and to their successors, in trust for said meeting so long as the members constituting it shall remain and be from time to time continued in religious unity with the Yearly Meeting of Friends (called Quakers) as now established in London, Old England, and no longer; habendum unto the aforesaid trustees of the said Monthly Meeting, and to their successors in trust for the time being as said meeting shall from time to time see cause to appoint, for the only use behoof and benefit of the said Monthly Meeting.

The deed then, after reciting the deed of 1821, and referring to the act of 1828, 9 Geo. IV., ch. 2, which 71-VOL. XII A.R.

authorized conveyances to trustees for certain religious societies, including Quakers, in a corporate character, of lands not exceeding five acres (a restriction which was removed in 1840 by 3rd Vict. ch. 73), proceeded in words which I prefer to read at length in place of attempting to express their effect by any technical terms known to con veyancers: He the said Jonathan Bowerman in order to fulfil and realize his said original contract with said Monthly Meeting in a state of perpetuity doth hereby for him, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, establish and confirm unto the said trustees herein first named in trust for said meeting the full right of inheritance forever as aforesaid in a state of legal reversion. That is to say, that this indenture shall be valid in law and remain in full force and virtue by retaining the full and lawful possession and occupation of the said demised premises to the Monthly Meeting as aforesaid, and to come in full force perpetuity, and right of inheritance at the precise juncture and instant of time in which the last surviving trustee shall die to wit: the aforesaid Daniel Haight, Gilbert Dorland, and Jonathan Clarke, as acting trustees to said original deed. And the said Jonathan Bowerman doth hereby for him, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever warrant and defend in peaceable right of inheritance, the within mentioned premises to the said trustees of said meeting, and to their successors in trust as aforesaid, subject to the foregoing clause of unity with the yearly meeting in London, and in violation whereof this deed to be null and void."

By the deed of 1821 the legal estate in the land was only vested for life in the trustees; and although one object of the deed of 1835 seems to have been to enlarge the estate in the three acres of lot 10 into a fee simple, it may be doubted whether such an estate was created in the trustees either as individuals or as a corporate body authorised by the act of 1828. That however is immaterial at present, the important question being who are the cestuis que trustent, or the beneficiaries described in the deeds. If we can settle that question, it matters little who may be the trustees, whether the heirs of the grantors, or some one representing by inheritance or succession the grantees named in the deeds.

But though the deed may not have been framed so as to constitute a corporate body under the act of 1828, the reference which it makes to that act is significant as identifying the meeting with the body of Quakers named in the act itself.

Bowerman, of course, could not by his own act in 1835, add to or alter the trusts of the deed of 1821. The reference to the London Yearly Meeting may or may not have been regarded as such an addition or alteration. When we remember that the meetings in Canada were subordinate to the New York Yearly Meeting, and not to that of London, it will appear not improbable that this reference was inserted in consequence of the separation that had taken place in America, in 1828, between the Hicksite and Orthodox Quakers, and that it may have been intended to explain and fix, and not to vary, the trusts of the earlier deeds.

However this may be, the second deed was accepted by the Monthly Meeting, and we may safely assume was prepared at its instance. The timely and careful inspection of titles of meeting houses, burying grounds, and other estates which have been vested in trustees for the benefit of the society or of any of its meetings, is recommended to the attention of Quarterly and Monthly Meetings by the Book of Discipline of the New York Yearly Meeting which was in force when both of these deeds were made; and in both deeds the trustees are described as appointed by the meeting to secure the titles of meeting houses, lots, and burying grounds. Our task is to indentify if we can the West Lake Monthly Meeting of Friends which is the beneficiary under both deeds; and if the reference in the deed of 1835 to the London Yearly Meeting helps us to do that, it will in my judgment serve the purpose for which it was introduced into the deed.

Referring to the book printed in 1826, containing the Discipline of the New York Yearly Meeting revised and adopted in 1810, we find it stated that "for the more regular and effectual support of the order of the Society,

besides the usual meetings for the purpose of Divine Worship, others for the exercise of our discipline are instituted, subordinate to each other, as First-Preparative Meetings, which commonly consist of the members of a meeting for worship; Secondly-Monthly Meetings, which generally consist of several preparative meetings; Thirdly

Quarterly Meetings, consisting of several monthly meetings; and Fourthly-The Yearly Meeting, consisting of all the quarterly meetings." It is also laid down that " No Quarterly Meeting is to be set up or discontinued but by the Yearly Meeting; no Monthly Meeting but by the Quarterly; no Preparative Meeting, or a Meeting for Worship, but by the Monthly Meeting with the approbation of the Quarterly Meeting; and if at any time the Yearly Meeting be dissatisfied with the proceedings of any of the said meetings, or a Quarterly Meeting with the proceedings of any of its Monthly Meetings, or a Monthly Meeting with the proceedings of any of its Preparative Meetings, they are to render a full and clear account when required."

Again we find a system of appeals provided from the Monthly Meeting by which a member may have been disowned to the Quarterly Meeting, and thence to the Yearly Meeting whose decision is declared to be final.

These appeals are on matters of faith and doctrine as well as on whatever other ground has been acted on by the Monthly Meeting. I do not find this laid down in so many words in these New York books, but it is covered by the general provisions; and in the English books where more details of procedure are arranged, special reference is made to appeals on matters of faith and doctrine. It happens also to be shewn by the minutes of the Monthly Meeting to which the defendants now belong, in which we find testimonies of disownment of several persons for having taken an active part and identified themselves with those who preach doctrines and adopt practices inconsistent with the principles of the Society of Friends, and where persons are appointed to inform the erring friends of their disownment and of their right to appeal.

The place of the West Lake Monthly Meeting in the system and polity of the Society is thus clearly shewn.

In this respect the Monthly Meeting to which the plaintiffs adhere is the identical organisation described in the deeds for whose use the property is to be held.

In 1821 and 1835 it was a subordinate member of the section of the Society of Friends of which the New York Yearly Meeting was the head. The establishment in 1867 of the Canada Yearly Meeting, with the assent of the Yearly Meetings of New York and other places, made the section smaller, but left the position of the West Lake Monthly Meeting unaltered as a meeting immediately subordinate to and forming part of the West Lake Quarterly Meeting and subject to the jurisdiction of an independent Yearly Meeting. Its position in the organised system was unchanged and has never been changed. In that respect the description in the deeds "West Lake Monthly Meeting of Friends" is applicable to-day in the same sense as when the deeds were executed.

But it is contended for the defendants that the identity of the present meeting with the meeting described in the deeds has been lost by reason of departures from the principles which governed the society at the time the trust was created, in the conduct of Divine Worship and other matters of discipline and practice, as well as on points of faith and doctrine.

The real object of attack is necessarily the Yearly Meeting, although the occasion arises in a contest concerning the property of a Monthly Meeting.

If the Canada Yearly Meeting, constituted in 1867, and which is on all hands admitted to have at that time truly represented the Society of Friends, is still to be regarded as belonging to that society, it cannot be asserted that any one of the subordinate meetings which continue their connection with it is not a meeting of the same society.

The books called Books of Discipline issued by the authority of the Yearly Meetings are taken to be the exponents of the opinions held and practices authorised or enjoined by the meetings; and the defendants rely, mainly if not altogether, on variances between the disci