think it was known that they were printed; and, I think, I was then informed that a Friend went to Jonathan Evans, and told him, if they did publish them, that there would be counter-extracts taken from the same authors, which would be published,—and it was supposed that that had alarmed Jonathan Evans, and might have been the cause of their delay until they got the sanction of the Yearly Meeting.

Q. From whom did you get that information?

A. I think, I got it from more than one. Isaac T. Hopper was one that told me; but he was not the person that went to Jonathan, I think. Q. You have stated, that it was feared that there was a design to impose the extracts on the society as a creed; was any such design expressed on the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings, or by any of those who approbated the extracts?

A. No, I think not. Jonathan Evans and his party understood their business much better than that, to let their design appear on the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings. But the great body of society was fully awake to their interests and religious privileges, and rights of private judgment, to be imposed upon in that way, without their so expressing their design.

Q. Were there any other facts or circumstances than those you have mentioned, from which you ascertained that such was their design?

A. There were some circumstances in relation to the manner in which that document was got up in the Meeting for Sufferings, which I have heard by some means or other.

Counsel. I ask for the witness's knowledge of any other facts or cir cumstances, &c.

Witness. As I was not in that meeting, I cannot speak from my own knowledge of any other facts or circumstances, than those mentioned; I can only speak from hearsay and common report. I have been informed by at least two of the members of the Meeting for Sufferings, that that document was introduced rather in an unusual, or perhaps, a voluntary way, by Jonathan Evans: and perhaps it was first considered in a forenoon sitting, I think, of that meeting. There were many Friends opposed to it; and continued their opposition until they apprehended the subject was put by, and apparently it appeared to be put by, at that time; but it was brought forward at a subsequent sitting, and seemed to be urged with such strong efforts, as made them believe that their opposition would be of no avail, or no regard paid to their sentiments. There seemed to be a determination of the few zealous advocates for it, to carry it over the heads of all that were opposed to it; and, therefore, they let them take their own way.

Q. Who were the members of the Meeting for Sufferings, that gave you this information?

A. I think, I have had it from Abraham Lower, and John Comly; and perhaps some others, I don't remember to name now.

Q. According to the information which you have obtained, how many of the Meeting for Sufferings objected to the extracts?

A. I cannot remember that I ever heard the number spoken of, but there was a considerable number.

Q. In drawing up the answers to the queries in the Quarterly Meeting, has it not always been the practice to conform the answers to the reports brought up from the subordinate meetings?

A. Yes; it has generally been the case; and where there are a number

of reports to form a general answer from, it is generally believed right for to form that answer, as nearly as may be, to correspond with the comprised views expressed in the particular answers.

Q. When ministers are travelling with the concurrence of their meetings, and their certificates are read in meetings for discipline which they attend, is it not considered, such ministers are embodied with the meeting, and have the privilege of taking part in the business that may come before it?

A. It is considered that they have the privilege of exercising their gift, and of expressing their sentiments on subjects that may come before the meeting. But, I think, it would not be considered that they were so embodied with the meeting, as to be appointed to certain services as members of that particular meeting.

Adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

Thursday morning, December 23d, 1830, at 10 o'clock. Crossexamination of the same witness continued. Present the same as before. Q. They may take a part in the business of the meeting, then; but are not eligible to certain appointments, as members are?

A. Yes, as I understand it. They are not eligible to certain appointments, as members, but excepting that, they may take a part in the business of the meeting; so far as is consistent with the concern that they may have on their minds.

Q. In the select Yearly Meeting of 1827, did not William Jackson distinctly propose, that a committee should be appointed to visit the subordinate meetings?

A. I did understand him at the time, and I believe he was so understood by many other Friends, as confining his proposition of appointing a committee to visit the Quarterly and Preparative Meetings of ministers and elders of Philadelphia, from whence the complaint came. There was a number of other Friends spoke to it, as I have stated in my testimony in chief, who seemed to think that the visit ought to be general; and I think, after very considerable opposition was made to it, I think the visit was confined to that Quarter, as I at first understood the proposition to be made. I expressed myself that I had no objections to a committee being appointed to visit that Quarter; for I was very well satisfied that they stood more in need of help, and the care of the Yearly Meeting, than any other Quarterly Meeting belonging to the Yearly Meeting. And by appointing a committee to extend care to that Quarterly Meeting, of course the members of that Quarterly Meeting would be excluded from such an appointment; and therefore, would not have the liberty of being judges in their own case. This, I discovered, was soon seen by those active members in Philadelphia, and hence they saw the necessity of urging the committee to be more general.

I think that William Jackson said something afterwards; I cannot remember what it was; but I think 'tis altogether likely that he then consented that this committee should be appointed to visit the subordinate meetings generally.

Q. I wish the witness to state the precise language used by William Jackson upon that occasion, as nearly he can recollect it?

A. I cannot pretend to state the exact terms that he made use of; but I know, from the impression it made upon my mind at the time, that his views appeared to be confined to Philadelphia Quarter; or otherwise VOL. II.-14

I should not have made the remark that I did, with regard to such an appointment. I think I gave some rather fuller account, in my testimony in chief, of what he said, but it seems now to have gone from me. I cannot recollect the exact terms he used in making his proposition. I am willing my testimony in chief should be referred to, as it is there given as correctly as I could recollect it.

Q. You say that the design of that committee was well understood,will you please to state what that design was?

A. From the state that the society was then in, and the measures that had been pursued by the Orthodox party for some years previous, to carry their measures into operation, by endeavouring, in many of their meetings, when they had the power so to do, to get in officers, such as clerks and overseers, to suit their purposes, it was very evident that they were endeavouring to form a party, and that they would proceed to the dismemberment and disownment, as they had done it in a few instances previous to this period, of those whom they believed were opposed to them; it had been commonly reported, that there must be a separa tion, and that this was the manner in which they intended to bring about the separation, by strengthening their bands in this way; added to this, the great flood of accusation, and in many instances declamation, that was poured upon Friends from the galleries, more particularly by the English ministers that were then in this country; yet many of their own were not excluded from having a part in this kind of declamation-that, taking all circumstances into view, I believe there was no doubt left on the minds of Friends, after this attempt to appoint that committee, evidently for a party purpose, but that they were determined to "rule or rend the society," as I have heretofore stated.

Q. Did any of those who were in favour of the appointment of that committee, state that to be the design?

A. No. They understood their business better than that. The society was wide enough awake to discover their design, without them telling it. Q. Did the minute of their appointment state any such design.?

A. No, it did not. The minute of their appointment, as I have before shown, contained the names of all that were appointed on that committee, and all of that party called Orthodox-and a great portion of them taken out of Philadelphia, where the seat of the disorder seemed to lay, by the report which was brought forward to the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders; and where it was well known they had scarcely been able to transact the business of the Quarterly Meeting, with any tolerable degree of reputation, for several years previous to that period. Q. Were any names refused that were offered?

A. I don't recollect that there were. They had the naming of the committee all themselves: as Friends could not unite with it, they took no part in the nomination, that I recollect.

Q. What was the proportion of the committee out of Philadelphia? A. I do not recollect without referring to the minute I have got, I think; but I believe it was five or six. [The witness looks at his memorandum, and says further:] There was Samuel Bettle, Jonathan Evans, Thomas Wistar, Jane Bettle, Mary Wistar, and Mary Morton, six in all, I believe, that were in Philadelphia. And of those that were out of Philadelphia, the number was nine. They were William Jackson, Hinchman Haines, William Newbold, Joseph Whitall, William Allin

son, Sarah Cresson, Hannah Whitall, Elizabeth Reeve, and Elizabeth Allinson.

Q. What was the tenor of that minute?

A. I have no objection to making an exhibit of it.

Counsel. I ask the witness to give the tenor of it, and he may do it as he pleases.

Witness. Then I will make an exhibit of it, and let it be copied by the examiner.

The paper was handed forward by the witness, and is in the following words:

"At a Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders, held in Philadelphia, the 14th of Fourth-month, 1827: The meeting being brought under an exercise respecting the ministry, it was after solid consideration concluded to appoint a committee, to visit as way may open, the several Quarterly and Preparative Meetings of ministers and elders, and through the strength which may be vouchsafed by the blessed head of the church, to extend such advice and assistance as may conduce to the health of the body, and the benefit of the individual members; to which service following Friends are named, viz: Samuel Bettle, William Jackson, Jonathan Evans, Thomas Wistar, Hinchman Haines, William Newbold, Joseph Whitall, William Allinson, Sarah Cresson, Jane Bettle, Hannah Whitall, Elizabeth Reeve, Mary Wistar, Elizabeth Allinson, Mary Morton. And the said Quarterly and Preparative Meetings are desired to accommodate this committee, in such manner and at such times as may aid them in the fulfilment of the duty devolved upon them. Extract from the minutes. Jonathan Evans, clerk."

Q. What purpose had those you call the Orthodox party, so far as their purpose could be ascertained by their acts, but to check the promulgation of doctrines which they considered unsound, and at variance with the religious doctrines held by the Society of Friends?

A. Well, their purpose, I suppose, was best known to themselves. But from what had been discovered in their conduct, and the measures pursued by them for a long time previous, it was very evident they were making many charges of unsoundness, &c. on a large portion of the society, which the society would by no means admit as true or well founded. And, therefore, it was very evident their purpose was to produce a separation in this way. But they were too late getting their machinery to work, and the great body of society got a year ahead of them; and, therefore, their proceedings in attempting to disown Friends were harmless, and had no effect.

Q. Was there any measure of theirs, and of which you complain, that had not some reference to the suppression of doctrine which they alleged to be unsound?

A. I think there was in a variety of instances. I don't see what reference the rejection of the representatives from the southern Quarter could have to do with that, unless they construed it in that way themselves. They had taken up, I think, and disowned several individuals in Philadelphia, on some sham complaints, in which I don't remember that they particularly had reference to unsoundness in that way: and which were in several instances reinstated by the Quarterly Meeting.

Q. What were the charges against those individuals, in what you call these "sham proceedings?"

A. I cannot undertake to give exactly the charges, as I have no docu

ments that I know of, within my reach, that would enable me to give the charges correctly. But if I remember right, there was a case or two in Pine street meeting, two perhaps, founded on the expression of some sentiments the individuals had uttered in the meeting. One, I think, was principally something that was expressed in opposition to Jonathan Evans' views; I cannot remember the subject. Another was perhaps expressing some doubts about the correctness of a report made by a committee on some subject. But then I cannot state what those subjects were. I think they were not in relation to doctrines, from the best of my recollection.

Q. What was the report of the committee, for attempting to impugn the correctness of which, the member was dealt with?

A. As I have said before, I cannot remember the subject; and, therefore, can say no more about it; I was not present, and have this only from common report.

Q. How then can you be certain that it had no reference to doctrine? A. Those are my impressions, from the best recollection I have, of hearing of the circumstances at that time.

Q. You say that after the appointment of that committee on Seventhday morning, those whom you call Friends, "were led to consider what steps would be best to take in the tried and conflicting state of society;" when was the first consultation they had on the subject?

A. Individuals who might be together, as they usually are at the time of the Yearly Meeting, I have no doubt frequently conversed with one another on these afflicting and trying circumstances. But I think, as I before stated in my testimony in chief, that the first conference was held on Fourth-day evening, when some fifteen or twenty Friends got together.

Q. Is there any thing unusual in the circumstance of superior meetings appointing committees for the advice and assistance of their subordinate meetings?

A. No. It was not an unprecedented thing in society, for a Yearly Meeting to appoint a committee. But I don't recollect of any instance where the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders had, previous to that period, appointed such a committee; and in the former harmonious times of the society, before party measures had disturbed its quiet and peace, such committees appointed in the unity and being sanctioned by the body at large, would have been gratefully received in the subordinate meetings. But in this case, as it was evidently of a party character, and no reason to expect that they would go in the spirit of restoring love, they were not so received, by many of the subordinate meetings. And the fruits they brought forth, evidently showed that their labours were calculated to "divide in Jacob and to scatter in Israel."

Q. You have spoken of a conference meeting held by John Comly, which you attended. Will you state when and where it was held?

A. John Comly was passing through Darby, and I heard he was to be at John Hunt's. I accordingly went there; as I have frequently done, and continue to do when strangers are there. When I got there, I found there were some few other Friends in the neighbourhood, also there. There were also, I think, some women Friends that belonged to the western Quarterly Meeting there, who had then just finished a visit to the families of our meeting. John Comly then took this opportunity of opening some of his views to us, in relation to the distressed state the