Q. I alluded particularly to the committee, at the time of making the report to the meeting; did any of them dissent from the report?

A. There was no dissent in relation to the correctness of the report; but in the course of the discussion, John Comly did in some indirect manner, the form of which I do not now recollect, coincide with the little opposition that was made to it, by the few who spoke on the occasion. Q. By the discussion spoken of, in respect to that report, do you mean the discussion as to whether the extracts should, or should not be published in the manner alluded to?

A. I have already stated that in the afternoon the report was adopted, I think, without a dissenting voice. It was in the morning, the difficulty was made by three or four, and that had relation to forwarding the whole report, as it was prepared; I think there was no objection made by any one, to the simple disavowal of the essays.

Q. Were you present in the Meeting for Sufferings, at the presentation of a minute from the southern Quarterly Meeting in 1826, purporting to be a minute of the appointment of new representatives in that meeting?

A. I was present on that occasion.

Q. Will you state what took place, and how it was disposed of?

A. It is well known that Bucks Quarterly Meeting transmitted a minute to the Yearly Meeting of 1825, proposing that a rule of discipline should be formed, directing that all important appointments þe made for a limited time. Abraham Lower, though not a member of that Quarterly Meeting, explained the words important appointments, to allude to elders, and members of the Meeting for Sufferings. The way did not open to make any change in the discipline, and the subject was dismissed. When the minute of the southern Quarter, appointing new representatives, was produced in the Meeting for Sufferings, and difficulties were stated in the way of its acceptance, Abraham Lower informed the meeting that he had attended that Quarter in Fifth-month, and being an advocate for limited appointments, he had conscientiously called the attention of that meeting to a revision of its representatives. He acknowledged that he had originated the subject there, though he must have known of the recent decision of the Yearly Meeting. It appeared to many very much like an attempt to accomplish an object by contrivance, which he and others had failed to effect in the regular order of the society in the Yearly Meeting. The Meeting for Sufferings, aware of the nature of its constitutional powers, thought it best to act deliberately in the case, and verbally appointed a few Friends to consider the subject, and report what course it should appear to them proper for the meeting to pursue. They suggested to the meeting, whether it would not be expedient, and tend to the harmonious resulting of the subject, to appoint a committee to confer with the Quarterly Meeting, or a committee thereof, if such should be appointed. John Cox, Samuel Bettle, Thomas Wistar, William Newbold, John Tatum, were appointed a committee at that sitting for that purpose, and John Cook and Philip Price, added at the next meeting. In compliance with this appointment, several of them attended the succeeding southern Quarterly Meeting, with their minute; but the Quarterly Meeting did not enter into any conference with the committee on the subject. They produc ed a report which is contained in this paper, which with the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings in connexion with that subject, is by me

marked B. These minutes were copied by myself, and carefully com pared.

The said copy is offered in evidence on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, and marked Exhibit No. 47. [See Appendix.]

Q. Did you attend the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders in 1827, and were you present at the appointment of a committee to visit the subordinate meetings; if so, please to state the proceedings that took place?

A. I was present on that occasion. In their reply to the second query, which asks, "Are ministers sound in word and doctrine, and careful to minister in the ability which God gives?" the Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting stated some exception: and also, that persons had been travelling amongst them, promulgating sentiments tending to lay waste a belief in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The clerk, whose business it is to prepare a summary of the replies from the different Quarters, had incorporated this exception and statement in the general answer. Some objection was made to it in the meeting, but it was decided that the answer should stand as prepared. With this conclusion, William Jackson expressed his concurrence, and asked whether it was to go no further? whether it would not be proper, either by epistolary advice, or the appointment of a committee, to render assistance to the constituent meetings? The latter suggestion took hold of the meeting; and after some time spent upon it, it resulted in the appointment of such a committee; to which, however, some objection was expressed by a number of the members: but as the meeting deliberately weighed the whole concern, it was settled in the manner as stated. A copy of the minute made on the occasion is contained on this paper, and marked C. which I copied from the original record. On Fourth-day morning, early after the opening of the meeting, John Comly rose and expressed a desire that that conclusion might be reconsidered; several Friends objected to opening the subject, which they considered to have been settled: the meeting, however, did go into a reconsideration of it; and it was, I thought, the evident and solid conclusion of the meeting, upon a large expression of sentiment, that the measure was a right one. I thought John Comly himself, at the time, was convinced that it was the decision of the meeting, as he rose soon after the subject was dismissed, and bid the meeting an affectionate farewell.

[NOON.]

Q. Were you a representative in the Yearly Meeting of 1827?

A. I was appointed by Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting, one of its representatives to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, and attended it accordingly. The paper last referred to by the witness this forenoon, marked C. by him, was offered in evidence on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, and marked Exhibit No. 48.

Q. What was the number of representatives that year?

A. The whole number appointed was 163: Philadelphia Quarter, 24; Abington, 28; Bucks, 24; Concord, 12; Caln, 8; Western, 15; Southern, 15; Burlington, 9; Haddonfield, 10; Salem, 10; Shrewsbury and Rahway, 8; who, on being called, the minute of the Yearly Meeting says, nearly all present.

Q. Did Abington, Bucks, and the southern Quarter, increase their representatives that year?

A. They did so; Abington, for the four preceding years, had three times appointed 13, and once 14 representatives; in 1827 it appointed 28. In each of the preceding four years, Bucks had appointed 12 representatives; in 1827 the number was increased to 24. In the same term the southern Quarterly Meeting had three times appointed 10 representatives, and one year only 8; in 1827 the number was increased

to 15.

Q. Were you present in the meeting of the representatives, at their conference respecting the appointment of clerk; and if so, will you please to state what took place on the subject of the nomination to be made to the Yearly Meeting?

A. The representatives were directed by minute, as usual, to confer together at the rising of the first sitting of the Yearly Meeting, respecting a clerk and an assistant to serve the meeting that year. They had scarcely assembled before John Comly was nominated by one of them, for clerk; and another proposed that Samuel Bettle should be continued in that station. As it is customary in the first place to decide upon the expediency of releasing the existing clerk, the previous nomination of another was objected to until that point should be decided. Some of the representatives, however, seemed determined that John Comly should be nominated, whilst others expressed themselves in favour of continuing Samuel Bettle: a number, I think, expressed no sentiment either way. Besides not being prepared to release Samuel Bettle, there were insuperable objections to the nomination of John Comly. Some of the representatives had been pretty fully informed that he had been holding private meetings in different parts of the Yearly Meeting; the object of which was reputed to be, to prepare the way for a separation in the society. I had heard of several of those meetings; one at least at Wilmington, and another at Darby, and I think some at other places. On meeting with John Bunting at Weston school but a few weeks before the Yearly Meeting, I made inquiry of him in presence of a number of the school committee, whether the report was true, that such a meeting had been held at Darby: he said that John had had a number of Friends there together, most of them, I think, members of that meeting, and perhaps two who were not. I asked him what the object of the meeting was: he said they had been discussing the divided state of the society. I then inquired whether they intended to separate from Friends at the approaching Yearly Meeting: he replied, "that will depend upon circumstances." I asked him then the question in general terms, whether they did not design to separate from Friends: he said he would not answer the question. Reports, as I stated before, of the nature and object of these private meetings, very much spread, and formed a conscientious objection in the minds of Friends, who wished the preservation of the society, to the nomination of John Comly for clerk of the Yearly Meeting, independent of the persuasion that Samuel Bettle's services had not ceased. Abraham Lower, who was very active in behalf of John Comly, pretty early in the meeting of representatives, called upon John Watson to go to the table and draw up a report proposing him for clerk. John did not seem disposed to obey his summons, and did not comply with it. Perceiving the impracticability of carrying his point, while all the represen tatives partook in a joint deliberation, he attempted to divide them, by proposing that those who were in favour of John Comly should draw to the back part of the meeting house, and there prepare a report; he accordingly

took a few steps towards the aisle, and from six to ten rose with him. This was the first open attempt at producing a separation amongst Friends, that I have any knowledge of. The measure, however, was protested against as a departure from the principles by which the society professes to be governed in its deliberations and decisions. Several of the Quarterly Meetings had made an unprecedented increase in their numbers, and this proposal of Abraham Lower's seemed to indicate a design to overrule the representatives of other Quarters, by numbers. It created feelings of much concern, to discover an attempt at management and contrivance to accomplish an object in the manner in which civil and political associations transact their concerns. Several Friends reprobated it in strong terms; and whether from the opposition to it, or disappointment at the smallness of the number of those who rose in unison with it, they resumed their seats. Abraham seemed very much excited at finding that the representatives were neither to be led nor driven into his views, and reflected upon his opponents as the few who wished to rule over the many. Cephas Ross also became excited on the occasion; and I thought conducted himself in a way not very becoming the occasion. He seemed to be heated with the notion, which has been industriously spread in our society, that others wished to domineer over them; and in a very irreverent manner, and without any direct provocation, he said he "had his commission from God, and would resign it to no man." I was shocked with the use of the sacred name, in the manner he expressed it, which to me, at the time, seemed to amount to profanity, and I believe many others had similar feelings. John Cox rose and remarked, that "there was a degree of decency and respect due to one another on all occasions, both in civil and religious society, and it ought to be observed;" with some other appropriate remarks disapprobatory of such conduct, and which I thought at the time, had he any feeling, must have come home closely. It had been evident for a considerable time, there was no probability that the representatives could unite in releasing Samuel Bettle, and it was proposed that John Cox should report to the meeting, that " way did not open to release him.' Some of the representatives rejected this proposal, as I think they said way did open in their minds to release him. After a considerable interchange of sentiments, it was suggested that the report should be modified, and John Cox authorized to state to the Yearly Meeting, that "the representatives could not unite, or had not united in offering any name." Those in favour of Samuel Bettle preferred the first form proposed, but seeing there was no probability that it would be acceded to, yielded their judgments, and many of those who preferred John Comly, expressed their concurrence with it. Abraham Lower perceiving that the number of those originally favouring his views was falling off, said "my Friends you don't know what you are doing; if that report is made, Samuel Bettle will be clerk." We had now sat a long time; much had been said; and it appearing there was no proposition in which the representatives could so generally unite, it was generally acquiesced in; and the representatives broke up their sitting with the clear understanding, that John Cox was to report to the Yearly Meeting, that they "could not unite in offering any name."

Q. Did any of the representatives leave the house before that conclusion was come to?

A. No one that I observed, except Cephas Ross. He was absent,

I think, from twenty minutes to half an hour; he returned with a large Dutch cake in his hand, which he sat eating in front of the representatives.

Q. Was it agreed by the representatives to take their sense in the first place, whether the name of John Comly should be reported to the Yearly Meeting?

A. There was no such agreement whatever.

Q. Did those who spoke in favour of continuing Samuel Bettle, claim to be the weightier part of the representatives, and therefore insist that they ought to govern the decision?

A. They did not make any such claim, nor insist upon governing in the decision. They exercised their right in speaking their sentiments, and without referring to weight, had a much better ground for proposing the continuance of a clerk, who had been theretofore appointed in the unity, and served the meeting acceptably, than those had, who advocated a person engaged in devising measures to revolutionize the society.

Q. Was Abraham Lower denied the right of being heard on that occasion, or ordered to "sit down," by Thomas Wistar?

A. He was not denied the right of speaking on the occasion; nor was he ordered by Thomas Wistar, or any one else to "sit down," that I have any recollection of. He occupied, I think it may be said, much more time in speaking than any one else; and considerable objection was made to some of his sentiments. It is possible in consequence of his speaking so frequently, he may have been requested to allow others an opportunity to express their sentiments; but there was no attempt made to prevent him or any one else from exercising the right of speaking

there.

Q. Was Marden Wilson appointed to act as clerk for the representatives?

A. He was not.

Q. Did he go to the table, and if so, when, and by whose authority? A. He, nor no one else went to the table, that I observed, during the sitting of the representatives. If he went there at all, he had no authority from them to do so.

Q. Did John Cox go to the table during the sitting of the represen tatives?

A. He did not go there during the sitting of the representatives; just as the representatives were breaking up, I observed three or four persons at the clerk's table, and as John Cox, and two or three Friends passed me on their way to the south-west door, I requested them to stop till I inquired what was doing there. They did so; when I got to the table, I found a person writing whom I did not know; I asked the question, what they were about, but he kept on writing without making any reply, and in about one minute after I reached the table, I saw the south-east door opening, which I understand was opened by one of the representatives going out; the meeting immediately began to convene, and those at the table hastily left it. Had John Cox have come up into the gallery to the table, I think I must have met him as I was coming down. I believe he did not go there until he came to take his seat in the Yearly Meeting.

Q. Which table was it?