pointment of their clerk, previous to the notice being given of the conference, of which you have spoken?

A. Nearly the whole proceedings, previous, had been a scene of confusion.

Q. What other question had occupied the attention of the meeting, previous to that notice?

A. That I do not recollect.

Q. Had there been any thing else before the meeting?

A. I cannot say. I do not recollect any thing else that had taken place that day, except what I have already stated.

Q. When was the first notice given for the meeting of conference of which you have spoken?

[NOON.]

A. It was on Second-day evening, immediately after the adjournment of the Yearly Meeting, that I received the first notice. I think it was then.

Q. Did not those persons who had been friendly to the appointment of John Comly as clerk, take a part in the subsequent proceedings of that meeting?

A. I have before stated that those who disapproved of the measures pursued by the few, most generally withdrew from the business transacted, except in two or three instances.

Q. When did they withdraw?

A. Perhaps I might have answered, by saying, that generally, they took no part in the business of the meeting, except in the instance referred to just now. I would observe, this rests on opinion, as the people were generally strangers to me.

Q. Did they not take an active part in discussing the report of the Westown school committee, and propose new nominations?

A. A few might have done so, but I think that number was but few. Q. Did they not take part in the discussion respecting a memorial proposed for Richard Jordan?

A. Pretty much, I imagine, in proportion as they did on the other subject.

Q. Was any discrimination made between them and others, in the appointment of committees ?

A. That I cannot say.

Q. Were not a number of them appointed on the committee to settle the treasurer's accounts?

A. I think I have no knowledge on that subject.

Q. How was it, as to the committee to prepare the epistles?

A. To obviate further inquiry, I will say, that I have no recollection, or particular recollection, concerning who was, or who was not, appointed, on any of the committees that were named.

Q. Was the clerk of the Bucks Quarter at the time you were appointed a representative, one of those in favour of appointing John Comly as clerk?

A. If my recollection serves me, he was a representative from that Quarter, and was in favour of appointing John Comly.

Q. So far as your knowledge extends, are all those persons who were friendly to the appointment of John Comly, and who took part in these meetings of conference of which you have spoken, now in unity with the

society of which you are a member, and which you call the Society of Friends?

A. I do not recollect an exception.

Q. Did the proceedings which have eventuated in the separation of the society originate in those conferences?

A. I imagine, no part of them; if they did, I did not know it. I did not consider it so.

Q. Did you not at one of those meetings come to the conclusion, that a separation was necessary, and issue an address to that effect?

A. My recollection is not sufficiently perfect to relate the conclusions then come to, but I shall refer to that address itself, which, I believe, contains them.

Q. Was that address approved by that meeting, and its publication sanctioned by it?

A. I think I knew of none who disapproved of it.

Q. Was it issued as the united sentiment of those who had thus convened?

A. I cannot answer the question in a better way than by referring to the address itself. I imagine the paper itself will state so; I know nothing to the contrary.

Q. In the Yearly Meeting of 1827, did John Comly propose, that the subjects brought up from Abington and Bucks Quarters, relative to the appointment of elders and members of the Meeting for Sufferings, should be dismissed from the further consideration of that meeting?

A. I cannot positively say, whether he did or did not.

Q. Did any other person?

A. My recollection of the business transacted at that time, or at least after John Comly took his seat as the assistant clerk, is so imperfect, that I should hardly be safe in answering the question.

Q. Did you not urge the meeting yourself, to take up that subject, as a means of promoting harmony in the society?

A. If I spoke to any thing that might be called business, that came before the meeting in its then state, it has slipped my recollection.

Q. Have you ever been a representative of Bucks Quarter to the Yearly Meeting, since 1827?

A. I have, once or twice.

Q. Did you attend?

A. I did.

Q. At the same time of the year, and same place, that you did in 1827? A. No.

Q. When did you attend?

A. The first meeting I attended, was some time in Tenth-month fol lowing that attempt which was made to hold one in Fourth-month previous, which was held in a shed, to the best of my recollection, that was erected near Green street meeting house.

Q. Did the meeting of Fourth-month adjourn to that time and place? A. I did not know where those adjourned to, who pretended to hold a meeting in that month.

Q. Did you not understand by common repute, that that meeting adjourned to meet at the same time and place the next year?

A. I think I never heard any thing on the subject any how, or respecting it at all, previous to this meeting referred to in Tenth-month. VOL. II.-4

Was it not matter of general repute, that it did convene at the same time and place next year.

A. It would be difficult for me to tell what was the general repute. if there had nothing on the subject come to my knowledge.

Q. By what authority was the meeting which you attended at Green street in Tenth-month, convened?

A. Through all the proceedings of Friends, relative to that meeting, I believe, without an exception, there was printed communications, at the preceding meeting, setting forth the object of meeting at the next; and I believe there are now public documents, fully developing every movement and object relative to that meeting, and from my incapacity to give a satisfactory statement, I shall be under the necessity of referring to them.

Q. Will you furnish me with the public documents you have referred to, and I have no objection to take them as a part of your answer? A. I have not got them here, nor any of them.

Q. Was there not another general meeting held in Philadelphia, after the adjournment of the Yearly Meeting of 1827, by those who had been friendly to the appointment of John Comly, and before the meeting of which you have spoken held by them in Tenth-month?

A. I think that question wants some modification.

Counsel. Well, modify your answer so as to meet it.

Witness. As to the friends of John Comly, I know nothing of them, in connexion with this meeting spoken of; but I know there was a meeting held in Sixth-month; a meeting of Friends I should have said, and designed to say; preparatory to this meeting referred to, in Tenth-month following, and that their proceedings were published-owing to my indisposition, I think, I am not enabled to give a full relation thereof. Q. Did you attend it?

A. I did.

Q. By what authority was that meeting convened?

A. I think it was convened in consequence of an invitation being published to the members of the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, etc. giving a general invitation to them, to then meet and consult together.

Q. How was that invitation published?

A. Indeed I cannot tell at present.

Q. Was it in any newspaper, or other publication circulating generally through society?

A. I think it was in pamphlet form.

Q. Did that pamphlet contain the address, agreed upon in Fourthmonth?

A. I think all the proceedings of Fourth-month were contained in that pamphlet, to the best of my recollection.

Q. The conclusion then to convene this meeting in Sixth-month, was come to in Fourth-month, and these invitations published accordingly?

A. That is my present impression.

Q. Were these invitations issued to those who accorded in sentiment with the address issued by, and the proceedings of, the meetings for conference in Fourth-month?

A. There was an address issued to all who considered themselves members of the Friends' Society, belonging to the Yearly Meeting afore

said, in Fourth-month, I believe, to meet in Sixth-month, to hold a general conference on the state of society.

Q. Were the proceedings of these meetings for conference brought before, or in any way made known to, the Yearly Meeting of 1827, at any time during its sessions, to your knowledge?

A. A great majority of Friends, in my opinion, have never considered the meeting spoken of, as a meeting regularly held; hence no communication was made to it on that subject, that ever came within my knowledge?

Q. Were the invitations to the meeting to be held in Tenth-month, also addressed to all who composed the society, or to those only who were friendly to your views?

A. I am not capable of giving a full answer to that question. But shall refer to the document published containing the proceedings of that meeting.

Q. Have that portion of the society of which you have spoken, as having held these several meetings during the year 1827, established a meeting which they call a Yearly Meeting in Green and Cherry streets, Philadelphia?

A. From the recommendation issued to the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, composing the Pennsylvania Yearly Meeting, &c. the Quarterly Meeting, of which I am now, and long have been, a member, appointed four representatives, (at their Quarterly Meeting of Eighthmonth, 1827,) from each Monthly Meeting composing that Quarter, to meet in Tenth-month in Philadelphia, to hold a meeting in conjunction with those from other Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, which I think was denominated a Yearly Meeting.

Q. By what body was that recommendation issued?

A. By the meeting which was held in Sixth-month.

Q. Is that meeting of which you have spoken as a Yearly Meeting, in correspondence with the Yearly Meeting of London, or of any of the Yearly Meetings on this continent, in which a division of the society has not taken place, including New England, Virginia, and North Carolina?

A. I did not attend the last Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia; therefore, am not able to give any information on the subject.

Q. Has it ever been recognised by any of them?

A. I cannot give any information on the subject.

Q. Since 1827, have those persons who attend the meeting of Green and Cherry streets, attended the Yearly Meeting held in Arch street, Philadelphia, or been acknowledged by it as having a right so to do? A. I know nothing on the subject, so as to give an answer.

Q. Upon what principles was the enumeration of the members of Bucks Quarter taken?

A. There were persons who were acquainted with those who had left the different Preparative and Monthly Meetings, who were called upon to take down their names, who accordingly did so; and also the names of those that still continued in membership.

Q. Were those persons who made the estimate, on your side of the question?

A. Of course, as we had no control over the others.

Adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Thursday, December 9th, 1830, at 10 o'clock, A. M. Cross-examination of Cephas Ross continued. Present as before.

Question by Mr. Sloan. In the enumeration spoken of, did you count all as being attached to your party, who did not leave the several meetings?

Answer. We took down all, whose sentiments we considered ourselves sufficiently acquainted with, for so doing, and some that were either by connexion or otherwise who was with us, we took down as doubtful, or undetermined-neutral.

Q. Did you mark all as neutral, who had not expressed a decided opinion, one way or the other?

A. All the adults, without any exception, as far as I know.

Q. Did you hear these expressions of opinion from the different individuals themselves at the time, or take it from general understanding as to their sentiments?

A. The greater portion of the names which were taken down, if not all, by myself, I think I had heard express their sentiments on the subject previous to, or at the time of so taking down their names. what was done by others, I cannot state.

Q. How did you ascertain their sentiments?

As to

A. By their approving or disapproving of the conduct of those called Orthodox.

Q. Was not the usual interrogatory put to them, whether they wished to continue members of the Society of Friends, or something to that effect?

A. That interrogation was never put to any, to my knowledge.

Q. Had all these persons, who were thus applied to, been present at the Yearly Meeting of 1827, and witnessed the proceedings of that meeting?

A. I know of no persons being applied to for a sentiment on the subject; but the knowledge I had received, grew out of accidental conversations that I had had with them in private circles, or expressions made in our public meetings. It is my opinion, that it never has been the practice for one-fourth of the number, or not more than one-fourth, of the Quarterly Meeting of which I am a member, including those who are now styled Orthodox, to attend at any Yearly Meeting, since my recollection.

Q. Was this estimate made after the report of the representatives to Bucks Quarter, in Eighth-month, 1827?

A. If my recollection serves me, it was made in the latter part of the year 1829, or beginning of the year '30. Although there might have been an estimation made previous to that time, that is, previous to 1829; but at no time, I believe, in the year 1827.

Q. How many of these names did you take, from your individual knowledge of their sentiments?

A. As I am speaking of the adults only at present, and am not certain as to the exact number, I should say the probability was, that I took down the names of from twelve to twenty.

Q. If I understand you, you placed the names of those who disapproved of the proceedings of those you style Orthodox, on your side? A. Those who had expressed themselves to that effect, only, as I have before related.

Q. How many were there in your Preparative Meeting on each side;