and state, as nearly as you can, the proportion of male and female adults, and of minors?

A. I at some period made a calculation, knowing all the members, and to the best of my recollection, we stood fifty-four to eleven male adults. As to the females, I have not a knowledge; although an estimate was taken, at the time of this enumeration, of them also, I have at present no recollection of the numbers. An enumeration was also taken of the number of the minors, which I do not recollect at this time.

Q. Can you state the number on each side, in the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings; if you can, do so, and state the number and proportion of male and female adults and minors?

A. I have before stated, that to the best of my recollection, that there was near five-sixths Friends and one-sixth Orthodox, or a little more. This is the whole number, minors and all. I cannot answer the question further, as I do not recollect.

Q. How many undecided persons, or neutrals, were there?

A. I cannot recollect the exact number; but do recollect that it was very small.

Q. In this estimate, were minors placed with their parents?

A. I believe they were, in every instance; although we had information from good authority, that there was a number of children that had expressed that necessity alone compelled them to attend the Orthodox meeting.

Q. Did you take the estimates in the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings yourself?

A. I have before stated the number of names taken down by myself, and that was entirely within the limits of my own Preparative Meeting. Q. Your knowledge, then, of the relative proportions in the other meetings, is derived from the information of others?

A. Yes.

Q. You have spoken of disownments made by the society which you call Orthodox-has a person against whom one of these testimonies has been issued, any right of membership in the Yearly Meeting held in Arch street, Philadelphia, or in any of those Yearly Meetings of the Society of Friends, in which a separation has not taken place?

A. I believe, that in no one instance, since I have been before this court, have I heard this subject of disownment introduced. If I have, it has slipped my recollection. And as to the Yearly Meeting spoken of, held in Arch street, Philadelphia, I have no knowledge-or if there is such a meeting held, I know nothing of its regulations, nor of what liberties is granted by other Yearly Meetings referred to, to the members of the Yearly Meeting which I consider myself a member of.

Q. Has it been always the usage of the Society of Friends to confine their meetings of discipline to their own members?

A. As far as my knowledge extends, there has been a general disposition prevailing with that society to do so.

Q. Would it not be considered out of order to proceed with the transaction of their business, unless the meeting was so select?

A. I cannot answer for the society generally, knowing that there have been sometimes instances of persons so sitting who were not members. Q. With the knowledge and approbation of the meeting?

A. That I cannot say, yea or nay.

Q. You have stated, that those you call Orthodox have changed the

places of holding some of their meetings within the limits of Bucks Quarter,-in all those cases, have not those persons who are in unity with you, and profess to be members of the meeting annually held in Green and Cherry streets, been in the possession of the houses, and declined to withdraw, or permit them to proceed in the transaction of their business, as members of the Society of Friends?

A. It is a question that takes a very broad ground. I am a member of Plumstead Preparative Meeting, a branch of Buckingham Monthly Meeting. Some time in the year 1827, after the confusion which took place in Fourth-month, at Arch street meeting house, and after the confusion which was produced by a committee sent from that meeting at Arch street, in the Quarterly Meeting of Friends held at Falls, there were several persons, not members of the Preparative Meeting of which I am a member, attended said meeting at one of its sittings. One of those strangers demanded the table of that Preparative Meeting's clerk, to hold a Preparative Meeting-the table was refused. I think, at the next Preparative Meeting they again appeared. I do not recollect that they again demanded the table or not; but they offered a minute that had been ushered from some of their meetings, to be read. Every proposition made by them, as far as I now recollect, was rejected, as an intrusion upon the regular proceedings of that meeting. They withdrew; and I don't know as they offered any thing afterwards of that nature. With them, left us, or left the meeting, a number of members, to the amount I believe of seven or eight, one of which was an elder, who previously had declared, in one of our meetings, that he considered himself the delegated shepherd over it. Whether before or after, I do not recollect; but I think after the first demand of the table of our clerk, the same demand was made in our Monthly Meeting, and was rejected; notwithstanding there was a considerable number who were not members of Friends' Meeting, nor were not connected, in no way, with either party, then convened. They proceeded, and held a Monthly Meeting. Their proceedings was remonstrated against, without effect. When they had retired, Friends held their Monthly Meeting in the usual order of society. As for what took place at other Monthly Meetings, I have no knowledge but from hearsay.

Q. Were these proceedings all, after you had determined to hold that meeting in Tenth-month, and the Bucks Quarter became a party to that proceeding?

A. I cannot positively say that they all were; but I think probably they were.

Q. In the address which you have spoken of as having been issued by one of those meetings for conference, is it not set forth as one of the primary causes for a separation, that "doctrines held by one part of the society, which we" (meaning that portion of it then assembled) "believe to be sound and edifying, are pronounced by the other part," (alluding to that part which you have since styled Orthodox) "to be unsound and spurious?"

A. As to the address referred to, I think it is three years, if not more, since I have read it: and from the question asked, it appears to me that the counsel is more conversant with that document than I am; therefore I shall refer him to it.

Q. Will you state what were the doctrines referred to by that meeting of conference, about which the society differed in their views?

A. To end the questions of this nature, I will merely state, that I do not feel free to answer any question touching on doctrinal points.

The cross-examination of the witness being now read over to him, he explains as follows:

When I was asked on Tuesday last, "whether the book of discipline is the standard by which the regularity or irregularity of a proceeding in the society is to be judged," I must have misunderstood the question, as I was under the impression that the word faith was in the question. My further answer to that question, and to the next one following it, is, that the Society of Friends uniformly refer to the book of discipline, when any difficulty occurs in the transacting the business of a meeting, in the meetings of which I am a member: further, I have no knowledge.

[NOON.]

And the said Cephas Ross being again examined in chief on the part of the said complainant, and Stacy Decow, further saith:

Question by Mr. Price. Although you did not know most of the persons in the meeting of representatives, have you any doubts as to the conduct and actions of those who opposed the nomination of John Comly?

A. Supposing the question to have reference to the manner in which they opposed that nomination, my opinion is, that far the greater number acted under the influence of excitement produced by the nomination of John Comly.

Q. Was that conduct such as to entitle them to a concession of that weight and influence they appeared to claim?

A. I thought to the reverse: when I spoke that I thought to the reverse: I do not mean all those who opposed the nomination, but those who were the most active in that opposition.

Q. Was it the contrast between the conduct of those who were the most active in that opposition and that of John Cox, that induced you to approach and converse with him, upon the matters you have related? A. I have before observed, that all the conduct of John Cox, both in the representative committee and in the sittings following, were marked with the most peculiar piety: and I, perhaps for the first time since I have been before this court, it strikes me that while the confusion prevailed among the representatives, John Cox did in a very tender manner, exhort us to moderation. Those, I believe, were the strongest inducements for me to approach him.

Q. When you say, "exhorted us," do you mean of both parties? A. I don't know, as I include any one of those friendly to the nomination of John Comly, except myself.

Q. You have been asked, on the cross-examination, if the proceedings which have eventuated in the separation of the society, originated in those conferences at Green street: I would ask you whether, according to your observation, such proceedings did not originate on the part of the party called since Orthodox, and its committees?

A. I have answered already so much on that subject, that I hardly know how to go much further: I can say, that I believe that the committee which attended the meetings throughout the country, was the greatest cause of the division among us. I attended one meeting myself in New Jersey, after one of this committee had misrepresented, as I conceived, the Monthly Meeting of which I am a member, and preferred

some charges against me personally: I asked liberty of that meeting to reply: I believe seven or eight persons rose and objected; and, according to my impression, I heard odds of twenty voices that granted me the liberty. I then attempted to proceed, when nearly all, or quite all, of those seven or eight stood up on their feet, or was standing, and peremptorily ordered me down. I remarked that I had received the liberty of the meeting. They still continued hallooing at me to sit down. At last, one who I believe is a minister, told me that if I did not sit down, they would appoint four persons to carry me out, and send for a constable, and take me before authority, and fine me ten dollars. A number of scenes of a similar nature, though not to the same extent, have grown out of the proceedings, or under the influence of that committee, according to my judgment.

Q. Is it what was called the "Yearly Meeting's committee," that you last referred to?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the individual that threatened to have you carried before authority and fined; and where was it?

A. Joseph Whitall is the person alluded to; and the circumstance took place at Salem, in this state.

Q. According to your own observation, do your meetings appear to be attended by a proportion of numbers, equal to that stated to be about the result of the count, taken by yourself and others within Bucks Quarter?

A. I have attended very few meetings, besides the particular meetings of which I am a member, except the Quarterly Meetings, which last, I think, I have pretty regularly attended ever since the year 1827. Those Quarterly Meetings are held at the time and place at which they have been held for many years and according to my observation, as to my own meetings, had it not been for the enumeration spoken of, I should not have thought that one-sixth had left us. And the Quarterly Meetings generally, in appearance, are nearly as large, if not quite, as when both parties formerly met together.

And being again cross-examined on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, this affirmant further saith, as follows:

Question. Have you very generally attended the Quarterly Meetings, since 1827, of your Quarter?

Answer. I have.

Q. Do you know whether there are not many others like yourself, who have become attendants upon the Quarterly Meetings since 1827, who were not before in the habit of doing so?

A. I attended the Quarterly Meetings pretty generally, for some time previous to the year 1827, with the exception of those meetings referred to, held in the winter, in a former answer. Notwithstanding, I have no doubt that there is a number who attend those meetings, that were not in strict attendance previous to that date. But I have no idea that that number is equal to one-fourth of the Orthodox which have left the meeting.

Q. Have you always been in full unity with the society?

A. I have always, when exercising any opinion on the subject, approved of them as a religious community.

Q. Have they always approved of you and your proceedings, or have

you been subject to the order of their discipline, and that unity been interrupted, previous to the year 1827?

A. I, like other young members in my youthful days, was guilty of many improprieties, but I am blessed with being able to say, that there has never nothing extremely disgraceful that has occurred, which has subjected me to be brought before that religious community. In the year 1796, I think it was better than thirty-four years ago, I married a woman not in membership with Friends, and of course not according to the order of the society, for which circumstance I afterwards became reconciled with Friends.

Counsel. I wish the witness distinctly to understand, that my question was not intended to imply any disgraceful act upon his part, or in any way to impeach his moral character: it was intended only (as he had been called here to testify to matters relating to the proceedings of a society, who, from their peculiar organization, and confining their business transactions very much, if not exclusively, to their own members, and but little known to the community at large, so far as respects the administration of their discipline, and more especially to the tribunal in which this cause will be decided) to ascertain how far opinions entertained by him, on matters which must depend on opinions only, were entitled to weight; apprehending that in this point of view, very much must depend upon the fact, as to whether the witness had or had not been in the habit, for a long series of years, of regularly attending the meetings for discipline of the society.

The witness proceeds. In the year 1798, after receiving a certificate from the Monthly Meeting of New York, being assailed by a man who valued himself as a bully in the neighbourhood, I fought him; for which I made an honest acknowledgment and condemnation to my Monthly Meeting. That, I think, was thirty-two years ago last Seventh-month, (or July.) Nineteen years ago last Fifth-month, I think, having lost my former wife, I married another who was in unity with Friends, but was not a member. In reply to some remarks made since the question was put to me, and in justification of the pressing anxiety I had to make the present statement, I will observe that those circumstances here related, have been circulated in private circles, as I suppose, with a view to injure my reputation. And in further reply to the last observations, I will state, that near five and twenty years, if not quite, I have been what would be called a middling steady attender at Friends' meetings; and that, except that part of the time, while I was under the notice of Friends for my last breach, in marrying, and I think for ten years previous to 1827, I might with propriety be called a steady attender; and I owe my promotion, in the business of Preparative and Monthly Meetings, almost, if not quite all, to the members of that then meeting who are now considered Orthodox.

Counsel. As the witness has persisted, notwithstanding the explanation of my views, in spreading upon the record these matters of private history, I can only understand it as having been done for effect. As an act of justice therefore to the party whom I represent, I feel it my duty to say, that neither from them nor from any other source, had I a knowledge of the facts of which he has thought proper to speak. My question was one, growing, as I conceived, out of the previous examination. The witness himself having stated, that he had never been under any appointment of the Quarterly Meeting, until his appointment in 1827. VOL. II.-5