relation to periodical appointment of elders; my impression is, that that was the subject. And I am inclined to think, that John Comly was not favourable to such a change in the discipline, but, no doubt, was submissive to what appeared to be the general views of Friends, and would act accordingly. One of those from Philadelphia Quarter was in relation to Leonard Snowdon's case, as was well understood, and in which Samuel Bettle had taken an active part; and perhaps then stood on a committee of that Quarter, to represent the case to such committee as might be appointed in the Yearly Meeting on the subject. The other case was in regard to appeals, which had been got up in Philadelphia Quarter, by that party with whom Samuel Bettle had identified himself, and was carried forward to the Yearly Meeting, if I have been rightly informed, contrary to the views of a large portion of that Quarterly Meeting. These things were generally known in society, previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, and it was not at all to be marvelled at, that a great portion of the members of the society were desirous of a change in the clerk.

Q. Was John Comly decidedly opposed to the Abington proposition? A. I did not attend that Quarterly Meeting when that subject was before it; and cannot say what he might have expressed in that meeting on the subject; but from the sentiments I have heard him express since, I believe he was not fully persuaded in his own mind, that such a change in the discipline would be profitable.

Q. If, to have taken a part in any subject that was to come before the Yearly Meeting for decision, will disqualify a person for being clerk of that meeting, on the ground of partiality, would not the objection have equal force, whether the individual advocated or opposed the proposed measure?

A. That would depend very much upon the part which the individual had acted. In the former harmonious times of society, although there might be diversities of sentiments on particular subjects, there was generally a condescension or acquiescence on one part or the other in the disposition of those subjects. And therefore there were no important subjects carried forward to the Yearly Meeting, unless this unity and harmony, in a good degree, prevailed; therefore, individual sentiments that might have been offered, not altogether in agreement with the measures that were finally resulted by the meeting, would not be considered as disqualifying an individual, even to serve on a committee in the Yearly Meeting, when those subjects were resulted there. But in the case of Samuel Bettle, it was very different. Here was a strong party formed in Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting-he had warmly espoused the cause of Leonard Snowdon.

The question was again read to the witness, when he further answers: I do not think it would make any difference whether he advocated or opposed the measure, provided he showed himself a warm partisan. As to the choice of a clerk, I should now say that it ought to rest upon the choice of the people generally.

Adjourned until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock.

Friday morning, December 24th, 1830, at 10 o'clock. Cross-examination of the same witness continued. Present the same as before. Question by Mr. Brown. Were the facts and circumstances which you

have detailed, as objections to the appointment of Samuel Bettle as clerk of the Yearly Meeting in 1827, urged as objections against him in the meeting of the body of representatives of that year?

A. I was not one of the representatives in that year; and, therefore, I cannot say what objections were made in that body to Samuel Bettle being nominated as clerk; but it seems to be an impression on my mind, that I have heard some of the circumstances that I have brought into view, were urged as objections; especially the active part he had taken in the affairs of Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting. I think I have heard this mentioned, but by whom, I cannot say.

Counsel. The question is confined to the meeting of the representatives.

Witness. I mean the answer to be confined to that meeting also.

Q. Was any objection made to Samuel Bettle, as clerk of the Yearly Meeting in 1826, either at the meeting of the body of the representatives of that year, or in the general Yearly Meeting?

A. I do not recollect that there was. It seems to me, too, that I am under the impression, that there were some remarks made about it of that matter, though I am not certain; I mean in the Yearly Meeting at large, at some period previous to 1827. As it respects the representatives, I think I was on the appointment, either in 1825 or '26, I cannot be certain which; and I had been on previous to that period at different times, when Samuel Bettle's name was proposed for that service, and I had always observed, that it was mentioned very quick after the representatives got together; and, generally, by some Friend in the city. I think, at one time, either in 1825 or '26, it was mentioned before all the representatives could have got into the house to take their seats; for which precipitancy, in mentioning a name so quick, I think, John Cox, if I am not mistaken, gave a very salutary rebuke: and as it was mentioned quick, it was generally united with very quick, by a number of those persons who seemed to direct the councils of society in a great measure. But I do remember, on one occasion, there were some objections made to it, and some proposal, to consider of the propriety of a change; but that was overruled, without a great deal being said on the subject; and, I think, it was submitted to and agreed, that his name should be carried forward.

Counsel. The question related to the year 1826, and to the meeting of representatives, or general Yearly Meeting of that year; do I understand the answer, as relating to that period?

A. I have not a distinct recollection which year it was; but, I think, it was either 1825 or '26. I am rather inclined to think it was the latter, but I will not be certain.

Q. Who made the objection?

A. I think Abraham Lower was the one that first mentioned the circumstance. I don't know that it could properly be called an objection. He called the attention of the representatives, to consider of the propriety of a change.

Q. On what ground?

A. I can't recollect that he gave any particular reasons for it; perhaps he might have stated, that Samuel had been a number of years under That appointment, and it might be profitable to change. I think there was no other name mentioned.

Q. Were the views of Abraham Lower, upon that occasion, supported by any other person?

A. I have not a clear recollection; but, I think, there was some other person or persons that seemed rather to coincide with Abraham's views of the subject.

Q. Can you name them?

A. I cannot recollect.

Q. Can you recollect their number?

A. No, I cannot. I have a faint recollection of the circumstance, and have stated as far as I can relate matters of fact.

Q. You have stated, as one reason, why Samuel Bettle ought not to have been appointed clerk of the Yearly Meeting in 1827, that he had had a certain duty assigned to him in relation to the case of Leonard Snowdon, in the performance of which duty, he had taken an active part; had not the case of Leonard Snowdon arisen before the year 1826? A. Yes, I think it had, some considerable time before: and had very much agitated the Quarterly Meeting, for several Quarters, but was not till the year previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, agreed to be laid before the Yearly Meeting; or rather to ask the Yearly Meeting's advice on the subject of difficulty.

Q. Would not an endeavour, on the part of an individual, to produce a separation in the Society of Friends before the Yearly Meeting of 1827, by holding conferences to prepare the minds of members of the society for such an object, have been as great a disqualification for the office of clerk of that meeting, as for an individual to have taken an active part in the discussion of a subject that was coming regularly before the Yearly Meeting from one of the Quarters?

A. It appears to me that that would depend very much upon the nature of the endeavour the individual might have made. Under the then existing state of things in the society, I consider the Society of Friends were a little circumstanced, if we may draw the comparison, as the people of the United States, or the American colonies, as they were then called, perhaps, were placed in previous to the revolutionary war, and considered they had a right to confer together, for the general good, and to seek for some means to become emancipated from the British yoke; and therefore, I think, it was a privilege that the society had, to confer toge ther on the existing state of things, and even to devise means which they might apprehend would tend to the general good. But I think, there would be a difference between a person seeking relief in this way, and a person who had been actively engaged in producing those measures that had brought society into this distressed situation, in which they were then placed.

Q. If the expression of John Comly's sentiments, in an irregular meeting, constituted no disqualification for the clerkship, why should the expression of his sentiments on a subject in a regular meeting of the society, disqualify Samuel Bettle from the clerkship?

A. I don't know any irregular meeting that John Comly had had, and therefore, there is no parallel in the case.

Counsel. Let the question then apply to the conference meeting spo ken of by the witness.

A. I considered it nothing more than a friendly interview, that John Comly and a few of his friends had together: I believe more by accident than any previous arrangement made for it. [The question is again

read and explained to the witness, when he further answers,] I think there is a wide difference in the two cases. John Comly was extremely desirous of saving the society from anarchy and ruin, and would, if he had even been appointed to the service of clerk at that time, used his utmost endeavours, as far as his influence might extend, to have preserved, or at least, to have endeavoured to have brought the society into harmony and concord. In the other case, as I have already stated in a number of instances, Samuel Bettle had been actively engaged in promoting those measures, that went to produce, and finally did produce, a separation in the society, by rending the bonds of our religious union asunder.

Q. In that conference, or that assemblage of Friends at John Hunt's, by whatever name the witness may think it ought to be designated, was the situation of Green street Monthly Meeting discussed, or alluded to, and if so, state all that occurred respecting it?

A. I don't seem to have any recollection of that subject being discussed: though I think from that being a very prominent circumstance in the Philadelphia Quarter, its very likely it might have been a subject of conversation. It was well known that there was a great hostility in Philadelphia Quarter towards the Monthly Meeting of Green street; and I recollect now having heard, that after the releasement of Leonard Snowdon and the other elder, perhaps from their stations as elders in the society, that William Evans should have said, that that Monthly Meeting "should be laid down."

Q. When, and to whom did William Evans say that?

A. I cannot remember, who I heard it from; it was a circumstance that was then frequently talked about.

Q. Try to recollect whether any thing was said at that conference, with respect to Green street Monthly Meeting detaching itself from Philadelphia Quarter, and joining itself to Abington Quarter?

A. I have no recollection of that subject being mentioned at all, neither do I think it could have been; for I have no recollection of the subject being mentioned, till after the Yearly Meeting of 1827.

Q. Did you attend any other friendly conference, such as that held at John Hunt's, either at Wilmington, or any other place, in company with John Comly, at any time previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827?

A. No. I did not any thing that could be construed in that way. Some time previous to that, John Comly had visited some of the meetings within the compass of the Quarter that I was a member of, and I was with him, at a number of the meetings, I think, as I have very frequently been with other ministers who have travelled in our parts; and there would be frequently a number of Friends together, at Friends' houses, as is usual on such occasions. But I never remember to have heard him mention, or even hint at, any of the views which he opened to us, in that interview at John Hunt's.

Q. In any of those visits was the subject of the clerkship of the Yearly Meeting alluded to?

A. I have no recollection that it ever was: and yet its quite a possible case, that there might have been conversation among Friends on that subject.

Q. Was there any other subject mentioned, besides what you have before stated, at the interview at John Hunt's, connected with the existing difficulty in the society; and if so, state what it was?

A. I have no recollection of any thing that I can pretend to relate, more fully than what I have already done. I wish it was in my power to give fully and clearly every thing, and every sentiment that passed in that interview: I should have no objections they were published to the world.

Q. Was there not for some time previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, among the leading men on your side, a distinct understanding, that if John Comly was not appointed clerk, there was to be a separation from those you call Orthodox?

A. No. I know of no such understanding. Nor I never was in any council or consultation on that subject, previous to the time I have mentioned.

Q. When you say that John Comly held but four or five of those conferences, prior to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, do you mean to be understood that those were the only occasions on which he consulted with his friends on the proposed separation from those you call Orthodox?

A. As I was not constantly with John Comly, and but seldom with him about that time, its impossible for me to say what communications he might have had with his friends on these subjects. I have mentioned the one I was present at, and all I can remember distinctly about it. But as John Comly was charged in some of those anonymous pamphlets, especially the one that was known by the name of "Evans' Pamphlet," and if I am not mistaken, subsequently in some of a more official character, of holding forty of those caucus meetings, as they chose to denomi nate them, I inquired particularly of John Comly afterwards about it; and it was then, I think, he informed me that he could not recollect of more than five or six at furthest of those kind of interviews which he had at Darby; and which he had no desire at all that they should be in

secret.

Q. You understood John Comly then to say, that those five or six occasions, were the only ones, on which John Comly had mentioned to Friends, the subject of a separation in the society?

A. No, I don't wish to be understood so. I cannot tell what he might individually have mentioned to Friends. But that these were the few instances, in which those interviews could be considered any thing like a conference.

Q. Were the views of John Comly generally united with, by those you call Friends?

A. I cannot answer for society generally. I can only answer for the interview when I was present.

Counsel. I wish the witness to answer as far as his knowledge or information extends.

A. I cannot say as to that, only as I have already stated, as far as I had knowledge of the circumstance. But I rather think Friends, generally, were circumstanced as I was myself, looking forward towards that Yearly Meeting, for bringing about a state of things that would afford some redress. As it regarded a separation, I think it was a thing entirely undetermined upon, until about the middle of the week on which the Yearly Meeting was held.

Q. Prior to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, do you not recollect saying to one or more Friends, "that a revolution was about to take place in the society, and that the power would pass into other hands than it was then in?"