as to the precise words of their dissatisfaction; but I did learn from a number of their members, that they were dissatisfied with those persons as representatives of the southern Quarterly Meeting in the Meeting for Sufferings.

Q. Had they not regularly attended the Meeting for Sufferings?

A. I think they had. But that could be little satisfaction to the southern Quarterly Meeting, when they found them combined with others in Philadelphia, mostly members of the Meeting for Sufferings, acting in opposition to them. As in the case of Comfort and Bell; encouraging them in the violation of the discipline against defamation and detraction.

Q. Had not Isaac Lloyd been appointed by that Quarterly Meeting about two years before?

A. I don't remember the precise time when he was appointed to that service. But Isaac Lloyd had ranked himself with Friends; had defended Elias Hicks; or disapproved of the conduct of his colleagues, the elders, when they were convened together at that meeting, between Elias Hicks and some of his friends, and the elders. And hence when his, Isaac Lloyd's name, was first proposed as a suitable person to fill that appointment, Jonathan Evans said, "Isaac Lloyd was not initiated into the concerns of society, and was not a suitable person, but he had thought of Ezra Comfort."

Q. Previous to this removal of the representatives of the southern Quarter, do you remember any instance of a Quarterly Meeting displacing its representatives in the Meeting for Sufferings?

A. No. The heads of department in society, those active persons who exercised a very general control of the concerns of society, had not become so corrupted, by perhaps wealth and the insolence of power, as to support the representatives and servants of a Quarterly Meeting in that capacity, against those who had appointed them.

Q. Were not Isaac Lloyd's sentiments of Elias Hicks and his doctrines, changed in consequence of an interview between Elias Hicks at Isaac Lloyd's own house, in which Elias Hicks came out so plainly with his doctrines, as to alarm Isaac Lloyd, and change his opinion respecting Elias?

A. I don't know what changed his opinion. But as my apprehension of him is, that he is not a man of a very strong mind, that 'tis quite as possible, I think, that his change was wrought by his vanity being tickled a little with the idea of being ranked among these great men.

Q. Does not common reputation assign the change in his sentiments, to the cause supposed in the previous question?

A. I never heard of much common reputation about it any how. But I think I have heard some such a story about it. And I have known a number that for want of magnanimity, as I apprehended, to profess and hold their real sentiments, to find some such pretext for their inconsistency, or to profess to have such pretext.

Q. Did the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings defer the new appointment of the southern Quarter, to the consideration and decision of the Yearly Meeting?

A. Well, that matter had gone pretty much from me, but I think that after they were aware that they had exceeded the bounds of their business and duty, and had excited by their arbitrary conduct, the fears and alarm of a large portion of the society, that they did so.

Q. Were not the subjects brought up from Abington and Bucks to the Yearly Meeting in 1827, dismissed on the proposal of John Comly?

A. I hav'nt a distinct recollection that it was so. But when I recollect to have understood, perhaps at the time of the Yearly Meeting, that Samuel Bettle and John Comly had had some conversation on the state and condition of that Yearly Meeting, that the circumstances developed at that meeting of its state and condition, discovered it to be unfit and disqualified to do the business of a Yearly Meeting; that John Comly and Samuel Bettle had, I suppose, as individuals, known to be influential men, Samuel with those who are now known to be, or call themselves Orthodox, and John with the great body of the Society of Friends; that they agreed, that, I suppose, as regarded their influence, that those subjects should not come before the Yearly Meeting. To be a little more definite, that as the Orthodox had forced the clerk upon the meeting against the voice expressed of the larger part of that meeting, it was evident from the course they had pursued, that they had worked a revolution in the society. The representatives of Bucks Quarterly Meeting on their reporting their attendance at Philadelphia, as representatives to the Yearly Meeting for that Quarter; that the business of that meeting was declared by them, or rather that that meeting was declared by them in their report of the service, to have been a disorderly body, I think. And I think, recommended that that Quarterly Meeting should not recognise it as a Yearly Meeting; the report, I think, signed by twenty out of twenty-four representatives; excepting one matter of a benevolent character, the furnishing of three hundred dollars, or some such matter, its quota, however, towards a fund to be raised for the benefit of the blacks in Carolina; and that business to be done in an unofficial way.

Q. When was the Yearly Meeting you belong to opened?

A. The second Second-day in Fourth-month, is the usual time of its meeting.

Counsel. The question refers to when it was first held or opened. Witness. In Tenth-month, 1827.

Q. Do I understand you to say, that since that time, that is, the opening of the meeting in Tenth-month, 1827, it has annually convened on the second Second-day of Fourth-month?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. At Green street meeting house, and at Cherry street house. The men at Green street, and the women at Cherry street.

Q. Was Elias Hicks in unity with the Yearly Meeting you belong to, up to the time of his decease?

A. I think he was.

Q. Did he attend that meeting in Fourth-month, 1828?

A. I am almost always at a loss about dates. I think he did.

Q. Did that meeting make a minute expressive of their satisfaction with his company and services?

A. I think it did. I include his company and services both.

Q. Does the Yearly Meeting you belong to, correspond with the Yearly Meeting of Friends in London, New England, Virginia, or North Carolina?

A. The Yearly Meeting of London does not correspond with the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, &c.-We understand, I think,

by information, perhaps from the clerk of the London Yearly Meeting, communicated to the clerk of our Yearly Meeting, that they decline corresponding with our Yearly Meeting; and I understand, that the reason alleged is, that the Meeting for Sufferings of the Orthodox Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, have so defamed us in their communication to Friends of the London Yearly Meeting, as to induce them to submit our communication or epistles to the examination of perhaps two or three individuals, to report whether such communications are fit to be read in the meeting or not. The meeting, I think, has hence arrived at the conclusion, not to hear those communications read, when those two or three individuals made their report; and the great body of society remain ignorant of us, excepting what is supposed to be detailed out to them by those who are in strict unity with the Orthodox Yearly Meeting here. As to the Friends in New England, they have been, I think, in a lame way some time back, and I have reason to apprehend they are not much better now, and we have no correspondence with them. The Virginia Yearly Meeting, which I think the Orthodox make a spread about, calling it the ancient Yearly Meeting of Virginia, from what information I have of that ancient concern, I am satisfied that it is a very little conceru. I should suppose, from what I have understood, that the whole body of its members together, do not amount to a larger number than the members of Green street Monthly Meeting. Carolina Yearly Meeting does not correspond with us. These men of leisure, these rich men I have spoken of in Philadelphia, were the medium of the communication of the bounty of the great body of Friends to help them and their poor oppressed blacks, out of their trouble, as far as that little bounty would go in such a matter; which, together with a sort of missionary influence, has had, I think, a powerful effect in alienating their minds, by infusing prejudices against us in them.

Q. In your answer to my last question, you have spoken of the “Yearly Meeting of Friends of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, et cetera." Am I to understand you as meaning by those terms, the Yearly Meeting to which you belong, and which is annually held at Green street, Philadelphia, on the second Second-day of Fourth-month?

A. Yes, certainly. A body can't divide against itself. Its members consist, as we understand, of upwards of nineteen thousand, and the Orthodox Yearly Meeting that I have described or mentioned, six thousand some hundreds, may be, and therefore they are justly entitled to be the Yearly Meeting of Friends, which is held at Green street, Philadelphia. Q. Have either of the Yearly Meetings, named in a preceding question, to wit, London, New England, Virginia, and North Carolina, acknowledged your meeting as a Yearly Meeting of Friends?

A. Not in an official way, I believe. The ministers who came out from the Yearly Meeting of London for some years past, had conceived and propagated unfounded prejudices against us; and not only so, but in most of the meetings that we have mentioned, had, as we have understood, been instrumental in raising and spreading those unfounded prejudices against us.

Q. You have spoken of the relative numbers,-of those whom you call Orthodox, and of those whom you call Friends; has there been any accurate account taken?

A. I think there has been on the part of Friends, who, I think, are pretty generally possessed of the records of the Monthly Meetings, to

found that data or estimate upon; and otherwise, where those records have been wanting, other means have been resorted to, to ascertain the fact, as I have understood. For instance, I'll just recite a case or two,It became a subject of care in the Monthly Meeting of Byberry, a branch. of Abington Quarterly Meeting, when, I think, it was reported by their committee, that twenty-four twenty-fifth parts of that Monthly Meeting were Friends. That Green street Monthly Meeting consisted Fourthmonth 26, 1827, of six hundred and twenty-eight Friends, and ninetyeight Orthodox, as near as could then be ascertained.

Q. Upon what principles was the account taken?

A. I think at Byberry, four of their members separated themselves, being heads of families, built a meeting house, and held a separate meeting. And at Green street, the list of members was examined, I think I have been informed, and the minutes of the Monthly Meeting examined, and the observation of those who inspected into the matter, directed to those who had separated from the meeting, and had gone to north meeting among the Orthodox.

Q. When you spoke of the relative numbers, I understood you to refer to the whole Yearly Meeting, and in answer to my question as to the principles upon which the count was taken, you have particularized only two Monthly Meetings,-I wish you to take up the different Monthly Meetings composing the several Quarters subordinate to the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, and state the numbers of each party in each Monthly Meeting, and upon what principles the count or census was taken?

A. I am not in possession of minute information, to give that detail; but I have no doubt it can be furnished by some other witness that may be called, some months hence, if I should be released.

Q. Am I to understand then, that when speaking of the relative numbers, you did not speak from actual knowledge, but from hearsay?

A. I do understand it that that is the result; as no one individual could be presumed to arrive at the personal knowledge of it himself, it must of consequence be considered the result of research and inquiry of the different persons in the different Monthly Meetings combined together.

Counsel. The witness has stated in a general way his understanding of the relative numbers,-I wish to know from him, what part of their relative numbers he knows of his own knowledge, and what part of such general result he has derived from hearsay, or from sources out of his own knowledge?

A. Well, I have never myself inspected into the count of the Monthly Meeting of Green street; neither of the Monthly Meeting of Byberry. I am not certain, I say, whether the account I have is official, or whether it is what might be deemed an unofficial authentic account.

Q. Does this count include the members of the Society of Friends in the city of Philadelphia?

A. I think it does.

Q. How were the sentiments of the members of the society ascertained?

A. Generally by their attending our meetings. For those who were associated with the Orthodox, are prohibited from attending our meetings, under pain of disownment, I think.

Q. Can you state the total number on each side, in the city of Philadelphia.

A. I think it would not be safe for me to venture at it, with my limited recollection, or information.

Q. On which side did you count the children, of those members who did not attend your meetings?

A. Certainly the children would be counted with their parents; that was the rule; and I should be very much ashamed if it was otherwise, unless the children were of sufficient years, and judged for themselves, and came to our meetings, as was the case in some instances.

Q. Does not the discipline require, that offenders should be dealt with and disowned, if they cannot be reclaimed?

A. Yes.

Q. Has your society disowned any of those you call Orthodox in the city of Philadelphia ?

A. Not that I know of, for their orthodoxy.

Q. For any other cause?

A. I have no recollection of our meeting in Philadelphia interfering in that way, with any that are not acknowledged members of our meetings, distinguished some how or other from the Orthodox.

Q. Does not a member of the Society of Friends always remain a member of the society until he be disowned ?

A. It is so considered.

Q. Were not those persons you call Orthodox, in the city of Philadelphia, members of the Society of Friends?

A. They remain as members of the Society of Friends, and of our particular Monthly Meeting. I mean those who have ceased to meet together with us, in our meetings for worship and discipline-but are not counted as our members in our census. I cannot speak particularly about the Monthly Meeting of Friends held at Cherry street, but I have no doubt in my mind, but that they are all exclusively Friends-and mostly, I should apprehend, such as have been disowned by the Orthodox for attending our meetings, or one paltry pretext or other.

Adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

And it is agreed between the parties, both complainant and defendants, and their counsel respectively, that the cross-examination of Abraham Lower, the present witness, be postponed until Friday morning next, at 10 o'clock, at the request of the witness, and to enable him to attend to an important and interesting domestic concern; and that the said crossexamination shall be resumed at the time aforesaid, and thence continued until closed. And it is also in like manner agreed, that another witness on the part of the complainant, and Stacy Decow, one of the defendants, shall commence his testimony to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock, and be proceeded in through the day, as usual; and that if not closed on the same day, the further examination of the said witness shall be postponed, to make way for the further cross-examination of the said Abraham Lower, and shall be resumed immediately after the closing of the said cross-examination.

And I do certify, that this agreement was made before the adjournment, entered as above. J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner.