If there is any thing personally offensive in the question, it must rest solely on me; and as I never saw him, nor never heard of him until within the present week, I can scarcely suppose, that with the explanation I have made, he will attribute to me any such motive.

Question by counsel. Did John Cox, in his address to the meeting of representatives, or in the Yearly Meeting, make any distinction between the parties to whom he addressed that discourse?

A. The exercise referred to in a former answer, was immediately following some observations made by a number of those who were in favour of Samuel Bettle, and myself,-therefore, I considered them for us, and for us only. When I speak of this exhortation, I have reference to the committee of representatives; I do not now recollect of distinctly hearing him in the meeting of that body, which some style a Yearly Meeting.

Q. In answer to a question put to you relative to the origin of the causes of the separation by the opposite counsel, in the re-examination, you have spoken of the proceedings of the body who styled themselves the Yearly Meeting's committee, at several places; were they not all after the Yearly Meeting of Fourth-month, 1827?

A. I know of no Yearly Meeting's committee prior to Fourth-month, 1827; and I am decidedly of the opinion, and I must confess that a considerable proportion of my energies were brought forth, under the impression that that committee's appointment was designed to sow the seeds of dissention among the Society of Friends,-I was led to this conclusion from their conduct; in no one instance, as I recollect of, did I discover any thing like a disposition to reconcile the parties.

Q. Had there never before that period, been a committee appointed by the Yearly Meeting, to visit the subordinate meetings similar to that committee?

A. I cannot say that there was: but there is one thing I know, that we had ministers of peace travelling amongst us; and whether they belonged to any committee or not, I do not recollect.

Q. Were you present at the Yearly Meeting of 1827, when that committee was appointed, or had you left?

A. I have no recollection of that, or any other committee being appointed, in Fourth-month, 1827, at present.

Q. I think you have stated that you did not attend the sitting of Seventh-day?

A. I did state so.

Q. You have also stated, that the address spoken of by you, was prepared by a meeting at which you were present?

A. I answer, that I stated that I attended a conference which issued an address.

Q. By whom was that address signed?

A. I will refer you to the document,-I cannot recollect who it was signed by.

Admitted by the parties, both complainant and defendants, and their counsel, that the address or document, to which the witness now refers, is the same which is made an exhibit in this cause, and marked No. and which is not now here to show the witness.

Q. Was not that address then agreed upon by you previous to the appointment of this committee, whose proceedings you complain of? A. I have stated, I knew of the appointment of no committee.

Q. Was it not agreed upon before you left the Yearly Meeting?

A. It was agreed to issue an address previous to my leaving the city of Philadelphia; but whether before I left the Arch street house for the last time or not, I cannot say.

Q. In what capacity did you attend that meeting at Salem, in New Jersey, of which you have spoken?

A. In the capacity of a member of a committee appointed by the Yearly Meeting in Tenth-month, 1827.

Q. Was not that the reason assigned by those who objected to your being officially received or heard, for their objections, that the meeting whose committee you profess to be, not being a regular meeting of the society, you could not be received as its committee in any meeting of the society?

A. There might possibly have been something said relating to that circumstance, but as for reason, I do not believe it entered within the pale of their conduct that day.

CEPHAS Ross.

And further this affirmant saith not. Affirmed as aforesaid, and subscribed this ninth day of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, at the house of William Ridgway, in Camden, in the county of Gloucester, New Jersey, before me, J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner.

Adjourned until half past nine o'clock to-morrow morning.

Friday morning, December 10, 1830, at ten o'clock. Examinations continued. Present the same as yesterday.

HALLIDAY JACKSON, of Delaware county, Pennsylvania, a witness pro-s duced on the part of the complainant, and Stacy Decow, one of the defendants, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed, according to law, on his solemn affirmation declareth and saith, as follows, viz.

Question by Mr. Price. What is your age?

Answer. I am in my sixtieth year, turned of fifty-nine.

Q. Are you a member of the Society of Friends?

A. I am, by birthright; and my parents before me were such.

Q. How long have you taken a part in the proceedings of the meetings of that society?

A. I have been more or less active in the meetings of discipline, for more than thirty years, perhaps near thirty-five. I have served in most of the offices in the Society of Friends, with very few exceptions.

Q. Have you been in the station of an elder, and if so, how long? A. I have been under that appointment, since the year 1815. I think some time in that year, my appointment was made.

Q. Within your knowledge, have certain individuals in the city of Philadelphia, been in the habit of exercising a control in respect to the ministry, not warranted by the discipline of the society?

A. They have long been reputed to have done so. Not being a citizen of Philadelphia, I can only speak from common report, until some occurrences which have taken place within the last seven or eight years. I am at a loss to fix any period, when this disposition first discovered itself. I am, however, induced to believe from the information I have received from some other Friends, that it principally originated in what was called a "Second-day morning meeting of ministers and elders,"

which had been held, I suppose, for a long time, in the city of Philadelphia, by the members of the meeting of ministers and elders who resided in the city. From what I can learn of the history of this meeting, it was a self-constituted meeting; I suppose set up by common consent of the parties composing it, unauthorized by the discipline of the society, and not accountable to any superior meeting that I could ever understand. In this meeting, I have understood from some who were members of it, that if a ministering Friend in the city had a prospect of performing a religious visit, it had become a common practice to open it when collected in that meeting to their friends. Hence there was a judgment given on the subject of the concern; if it was there united with, it was then very well, and the Friend was at liberty to open it to the Monthly Meeting, which last was the only legitimate body to judge, and decide in such concerns. If it was not united with in that meeting, the Friend, of course, was discouraged, or perhaps would hardly have sufficient strength to open it to the Monthly Meeting. I am also induced to believe, that if any in the course of their ministry in the city meetings had given any uneasiness in the exercise of their gift, they were there in this public manner brought to some account. And I don't know that I can give any instance of strangers, but I am induced to believe, that when strangers came to the city, if they had given any dissatisfaction in the public meetings, they were there also called to an account. Hence it become a common saying, and almost proverbial, that strange ministering Friends who came to Philadelphia, "must pass through the mill." I think about the year 1806, the time this book of discipline was revised, (the witness having the book of discipline exhibited, No. 13, in his hand,) one of the members of the Meeting for Sufferings, or who was afterwards a member, informed me that this Second-day morning's meeting of ministers and elders came under consideration, and it was found that there was no discipline to support its continuance. Many valuable Friends became uneasy lest it should have an undue influence in society, and be productive of fruits that would not give general satisfaction. It was, therefore, discontinued, I think, for some time. And I believe never since resumed. There was some time after that a proposition came forward, from Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting to the Yearly Meeting, I cannot recollect the year, but it was not long after it had been discontinued, requesting the Yearly Meeting, I think, to consider the propriety of establishing such a meeting by discipline, or to that amount, I can't remember the expressions. As is usual in such cases, the subject was referred to a large committee; I was one of that committee myself. There were strenuous efforts made by a few individuals, I think, principally in the city, to recommend the establishment of such a meeting; but it did not meet the general view of Friends from country meetings, and it was negatived, or put by; and I think in substance reported to the Yearly Meeting, that way did not open to establish such a meeting. The committee could not see the advantages it would be of to society. Perhaps it may be right to add, as it may have some bearing in the course of this examination, on the part that some individuals have taken in the late scenes of confusion, that I am not certain that there was more than two or three of those who are now members of the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders residing in Philadelphia, that were active members in that meeting at that time. Being married in Philadelphia, in the year 1801, at Pine street meeting, and being pretty well acquainted with the

members of that meeting, I believe Jonathan Evans was there in the station of an elder, and an active Friend in the society. I think Ellis Yarnall, and perhaps Leonard Snowdon, were also active members of the meeting of ministers and elders, though I am not so certain about Leonard Snowdon.

Q. Notwithstanding the dissolution of the meeting you have been speaking of, have the elders of the city, within your knowledge, continued to exercise such unauthorized power to interrupt travelling ministers, and if so, state the instances?

A. I have heard of a number of instances. It is a good many years ago; I cannot fix the date, but I remember to have heard that Daniel Haverlin, from the state of New York, coming under a prospect of a religious concern, to visit the families, I think, of Pine street Monthly Meeting; perhaps two or three; twice, if not at three different times, I am not certain as to that, his prospect was set aside, and he was not permitted to proceed in his visit; after opening his prospect, I suppose, to the Monthly Meeting, some of the leading members of the Monthly Meeting were opposed to it: and I believe he never accomplished the visit. He had at different times, I think, been in Philadelphia, and one of the last times that he was through this part of the country, that I remember, he was at our meeting at Darby; I cannot remember the year. I was in company with him in the afternoon, and I think he expressed that he felt very much tried to pass through Philadelphia, and would be willing to get around it, if he could. Whether he did come through the city or not, I cannot say. Samuel Livzely also came to Philadelphia, at several different times, under a prospect of visiting the families of Arch street, (or Mulberry,) Monthly Meeting; the Monthly Meeting of Philadelphia it is called. His prospect was also put by, or rejected, as I have understood by common report, and from himself. There were also some women Friends that I have heard of, who came under similar prospects, and who were also rejected, whose names I do not remember. Perhaps it was one woman Friend and companion, I am not certain that there was more than one woman Friend that was a minister. These circumstances have induced me to believe, that there was a disposition growing up in some of the leading members of the society in Philadelphia, and who had very much the control of the business of the Monthly Meetings, who were assuming a standing, or arrogating to themselves the right to judge of the concerns of other Monthly Meetings. For I think, so far as my knowledge has extended within the Monthly Meetings that I have been a member of, when any Friend, ministering Friend, came to visit us, in gospel love, either in a meeting capacity, or in visiting families, the meetings have never undertaken to control their prospects.

[The question is again read to the witness, at his request, when he further answers.] Well, there are other instances: there was a Thomas Grisell, from the state of Ohio, a very worthy, innocent Friend, not largely gifted in the ministry: he came to Philadelphia, and, I think, attended Pine street meeting. I understood he was led to speak in that meeting, a good deal on the subject of love and unity. He was afterwards, as I understood, and I think he informed me himself, as he went through our parts on his return, severely reprimanded by Jonathan Evans. I cannot give the particulars, but I think the substance was, that Jonathan informed him that it was not a time to preach that kind

of doctrine, or something to that import. Being a diffident, humble minded man, it had such an effect to discourage him, that I think he made the best of his way home pretty soon after, without performing all he had in prospect. I was well acquainted with the man: I had travelled a good deal with him to a number of the meetings in this state, (New Jersey) and also in Pennsylvania; and I was very sensible, that from his diffident and backward disposition, he much more required the sympathy and encouragement of elders, than to be discouraged, and treated in the manner that he was, by Jonathan Evans.

There was the next instance that occurs to my mind (though it was perhaps previous to the circumstance last related) was the circumstance of Priscilla Hunt, a worthy ministering Friend, who came from the state of Indiana, and who at that time was a widow: I think she arrived in this neighbourhood about the latter end of the year 1822, or some time in that fall, I can't say as to the month: the first meeting she attended in the city was Pine street meeting. After the close of her testimony, as common reports say, I was not at the meeting, but I believe it has never been contradicted, William Evans made some public opposition to some part of her testimony. In the course of her visit at that time, there were some other marks of hostility shown towards her. After spending some weeks in the neighbourhood of Philadelphia, and in the meetings adjacent, and the Quarterly Meetings, she went to the northward, (having first attended the Yearly Meeting in the spring of 1823,) through the state of New York into Upper Canada; afterwards into New England; and after visiting, I think, all the meetings belonging to the Yearly Meetings of New York and New England, in the summer following she returned again to Philadelphia. She then had a desire to have a meeting at each of the meeting houses of Friends, principally with the members of their own particular meetings, and such others as attended Friends' meetings. Application was made to the elders (perhaps) at each place, and overseers, to have such meetings appointed. At Pine street I understood there was considerable opposition made to the request by Jonathan Evans, and I think one or two of his sons, if I have been rightly informed: the meeting, however, was obtained without their consent. I think two of the elders of that meeting and a number of other Friends were strongly in favour of it. Meetings were also had at the other four meeting houses in the city; but that at Arch street was obtained much in the same way. I myself, with a companion of Priscilla Hunt, who was then travelling with her, applied to Caleb Peirce, one of the elders of that meeting, and made application to have such a meeting appointed. He informed us, that their general practice was, on such occasions, for the elders to have an interview with the Friend making such request, and to feel after their concern. We informed him that we saw no necessity for that: she was travelling in the order of society, with a certificate expressive of the unity and concurrence of her friends at home; and all we wanted was for him to have the notice spread for the meeting, and enjoined it upon him to do so. He informed us that he should consult Friends on the subject, but gave us no assurance of the meeting being appointed. I understood they had a conference that evening on the subject; the elders, perhaps, and overseers, and perhaps some others of that meeting; considerable opposition was made to the appointment of the meeting, I think by himself, and perhaps by Thomas Stewardson, another elder of that meeting. They were, however, over