powered by numbers who were in favour of it, and the meeting was appointed. At the other meetings there was but little opposition made: none at Green street, nor at Twelfth street, I think, as I recollect. There was some hesitation, and some delay, and a good deal of caution used at the north meeting before she was admitted. She accomplished her visit in these parts, I believe, to almost universal satisfaction, with a few exceptions in the city, and returned home; having, as she informed me herself, visited all the meetings that were then established, (that is, while she was engaged on the visit,) meetings of Friends, I mean, on the continent of America; except, perhaps, three or four in the western part of Pennsylvania, which she expected to take in her way home, and I believe did so.

As we are now about the period of the opposition made to Elias Hicks, among the instances referred to in the question, it may be proper to state, that in the year 1819, Elias Hicks, on his return, I think, from a visit to the Ohio Yearly Meeting, was at our meeting at Darby; I think a Monthly Meeting, if my recollection serves. The next day he came to Philadelphia, and attended the Monthly Meeting at Pine street. Myself and several other Friends from Darby were there. Elias was much engaged in the public meeting previous to entering upon the business of the Monthly Meeting, in the exercise of his gift in the ministry. I cannot undertake at this remote period to recite much of his testimony, but I think he was led to speak pretty close doctrine to some who might have stood as rulers or leaders among the people: and if I remember right, he drew some comparisons, that they were going round and round, as it were, like the children of Israel, and not advancing forward; and called on the young people in a very affectionate manner, not to rest in the traditions of the fathers, or something that implied that, but to go forward and to advance the work of reformation. In the meeting for discipline, or perhaps in both that and the foregoing meeting, he was led to speak on a subject that was very near and dear to his heart-that of the oppressed Africans. He had long borne a faithful testimony against the use of the produce of slave labour; and he spoke pretty closely on that subject, and seemed, I think, to point out, or imply, that there were some who had not stood faithful in the maintenance of this testimony, which they had at some former period supported; and that they were rather taking a retrograde course. After he had relieved his mind apparently among the men, or in the men's side of the house, he expressed a concern that he felt to visit the women Friends in their apartment. I think the first that spoke to it was Jonathan Evans, if I recollect right. He expressed some disapprobation of it; I do not remember his words. But there were a large number of other Friends that expressed their full unity with his being left at liberty. Isaac Lloyd among the rest, who was an elder of that meeting, and Isaac was named to accompany him into the women's apartment. They had not been long in the women's apartment, I think, when a proposition was made by Jonathan Evans to adjourn the meeting; although the business of the meeting was not gone through with; neither was it late in the day, not more than usual dinner time. Jonathan alleged that they were not qualified, he thought, to proceed on with the business, and said that it had been a very trying or painful meeting to him, or something to that amount. There were several Friends, I think, a number, that expressed their disapprobation of adjourning the meeting, while Elias was engaged in the women's end,

as an unprecedented circumstance. There were among these, I remem ber, William Wharton, who pretty strongly objected to it. John Hunt of Darby was also there, and expressed his disapprobation to it, as a thing unusual; and there were a considerable number of others that I don't now so recollect as to name them; there were, however, a few individuals that coincided with Jonathan's proposition, among whom, I think, were one or two of his sons, and a few others, and Jonathan himself seemed to urge the measure further, and finally they adjourned the meeting. Several of us remained at the door, after that the meeting was adjourned. I expressed my surprise at the time, and regret, to several individuals, that such a circumstance had happened, as it would inevitably be considered as an act of open hostility, or opposition to Elias Hicks.

Elias was a considerable time in the women's meeting, engaged in his gospel labours amongst them, after this adjournment took place, as we could hear his voice in the yard, outside of the house. When he came from the women's apartment, he said he was very much surprised at the circumstance, but he picked up his great coat, and observed, "it was very kind they had left his coat for him." Isaac Lloyd also seemed very much tried, and hurt, with the conduct of the meeting, in so adjourning. Several of us dined with Elias that day, I think at Samuel R. Fisher's; and Elias seemed to be a good deal hurt with the conduct of the meeting; and asked the company that were present, if that was the way they served strangers when they came to visit them? This circumstance created a great excitement among Friends generally, who came to the knowledge of it, as it was considered a very unusual and unprecedented thing in the Monthly Meeting, and a mark of great disrespect and public hostility to that eminent and dignified minister of the gospel of Christ, who, in his former visits, as well as at that time, had been universally approved and admired, wherever he had travelled in this part of the country; as was fully evinced by the unusually large congregations that assembled at his meetings. I think the next visit that he paid to Philadelphia and these parts, was near the close of the year 1822. I was at Baltimore Yearly Meeting that fall, and Elias Hicks was then in attendance, with a number of other strangers. I had, previously to my leaving home, just heard something of the report that Joseph Whitall had circulated in Philadelphia, respecting some things that he had heard Elias Hicks say at the time of the Yearly Meeting of New York, in the previous spring.

[NOON.]

Hearing the account that had been circulated by Joseph Whitall from one of my neighbours, suggested in a friendly way by a person entirely friendly to Elias Hicks, it gave me some concern and uneasiness on the subject. I had had a great esteem for Joseph Whitall, and I believe it was mutual between us. I took an early opportunity with Elias Hicks, after going to Baltimore. I called on him at his lodgings, I think, early in the morning, and informed him that I wished to have a little conversation with him. He told me that we would walk up into his chamber where he lodged, and we did so. I then mentioned to him what I had heard of the report which was then spreading in Philadelphia, and the neighbourhood of it. I don't recollect that I mentioned the particulars of the charges that Joseph Whitall had alleged against him; but he in

formed me that he was surprised that his friends in Philadelphia should be carried away with such tales. He gave me such explanations of the conversation that took place between him and Joseph Whitall, as fully satisfied my mind on the subject, and amounted to a denial of the charges, and the manner in which this conversation had been represented. I think he mentioned that there was a Friend in New York that had long been endeavouring to injure his character by spreading false reports, Thomas Eddy by name, and who perhaps at that time had written a certain letter, which has been alluded to in the course of this examination, some copies of which I think had been sent on to Baltimore, if I am not mistaken. I am not however certain of this, or whether he had then himself received a copy or not. We had a good deal of friendly conversation together; finding the openness and candour of the man, I was entirely satisfied, as to any impressions which the spreading of this report had had upon my mind. I made some apologies to him for the freedom I had used with him, being a young man to what he was; but he expressed much satisfaction that I had taken that liberty; and his esteem, I believe, for me, was rather increased by it. He attended through the various sittings of that Yearly Meeting, and had much religious service, both in their public meetings which were held during the sessions of the Yearly Meeting, and also in the meetings for discipline. I think it was in the last sitting of the Yearly Meeting that an ancient Friend and minister, Evan Thomas, as well esteemed perhaps as any Friend then living in that Yearly Meeting, expressed his great satisfaction with the religious services of the strangers that had åttended that Yearly Meeting, among whom was included Elias Hicks, who had been the most engaged of any of the strangers that there attended in religious service. I returned home from that Yearly Meeting; Elias Hicks, I believe, paid a visit to the southern Quarter, and to some of the meetings of it. On his return from there, he was at our meeting, I think, at Darby; and I think he spent two nights, if I remember right, in Darby, or the neighbourhood; and one of the evenings I was with him, when he produced this letter, to which I have alluded, of Thomas Eddy's; and, I think, requested me to read it to the company, (for there were a considerable number of Friends present.) He made his remarks upon it, as it was read; and, I think, pronounced it to be false charges, in the general, I cannot remember particularly. I think it was the next day he came to the city, with a prospect of some religious service in Philadelphia; among the rest, I believe, was that of visiting the families of Green street Monthly Meeting, which visit he performed.

I was at the Monthly Meeting of Green street when he had nearly accomplished his visit, perhaps it was reported so that he expected to finish that afternoon visiting the families of that meeting. The meeting gave him an endorsement, or minute, I don't recollect which, (it was wrote on his certificate,) expressive of their great unity and satisfaction with his visit and religious labours amongst them; I think to the best of my recollection, without a dissenting voice. There was a remark made by some Friend, to alter the minute, to put a word in it, or something, when Leonard Snowdon remarked, that he thought it would do; and it so passed without any alteration. I wish to be understood as giving the substance of the minute, I cannot pretend to give the exact words. It was during this visit, and while he was engaged in the service of visiting the families of that Monthly Meeting, that a number of the elders. VOL. II.-6

in Philadelphia, apparently, had combined together, and made strong efforts to arrest his progress in the further prosecution of his visit at that time. As I was not present in any of their interviews, I don't wish to go into the particulars that took place, as I have them only from information, and can only say that the conduct of a part of the elders in Philadelphia towards Elias Hicks, created a great excitement in the society at large: and there was a very general disapprobation of their unwarrantable proceedings, manifested by a very large portion of the society.

I think Elias paid another visit to these parts, about the fall of the year 1824, if I remember right, near the close of the year; and again, perhaps, in 1826. I think it was at that time, in 1826, that he attended most, or all of the meetings in Philadelphia, when there was public opposition made to him. In the meetings where I was present, Pine street was the first, I think. At the close of his testimony, which was a very solemn and impressive one, I think, (and which was fully evinced by the solemnity of feeling that was generally prevalent over the meeting,) Jonathan Evans got up and had considerable to say, evidently in opposition to Elias Hicks. He was followed by Isaac Lloyd, another elder of that meeting, who made some few expressions amounting to the same thing. This created a great excitement and sensation in the meeting; and a very general disapprobation of their conduct was evidently manifested. In the afternoon of the same day, he attended western district meeting, where there was an unusually large assemblage of people collected; the house was filled, and the yard around it was nearly filled, I think, and many hundreds went away for want of room, as it was thought by many, and I saw large companies going away.

Elias was largely engaged in the exercise of his gift in that meeting, and although the house was so exceedingly crowded that many were standing wherever they could get room to stand, yet the meeting was solemn and quiet, whilst Elias was thus engaged. As soon as he sat down, Thomas Wistar, one of the elders of that meeting, arose and expressed the same kind of opposition, or at least, of the same nature that had been manifested by Jonathan Evans and Isaac Lloyd, in the forenoon meeting. It produced a great excitement in the meeting, and a general indignation was manifested, more especially by the youth, I think, in the galleries, and principally, I think, by them,-some of whom cried out to Thomas Wistar to "sit down." I think Elias spoke mildly to the people and endeavoured to quiet them, and requested them to "hear what the Friend had to say." The meeting, at length, got quiet. Willet Hicks from New York, was there, and had a short testimony that seemed to be impressive on the meeting. The meeting then closed pretty much in the quiet; as much so, as could be expected after such a degree of excitement. Elias, the next day, I think, had a meeting in the country, at Merion, if I remember right. He returned to the city, and I think, was at the north meeting the day following, when opposition was again made to him, by a woman-elder of that meeting, I think; and what might be called an opposition sermon, I think, if sermon it could be called, was then and there preached by Othniel Alsop. There was a very general disapprobation manifested in that meeting by a considerable portion of the members, more particularly among the younger class, by their making some unseemly noises with their feet, perhaps, in order to prevent the opposition that was making to Elias Hicks. Elias

again quieted the people, by requesting them to keep quiet, and silence, and hear what the Friends had to say; telling them, "that it was a privilege the members of society had, to speak one by one, in order that all might be edified." I think he returned home soon after this meeting: and I don't remember any other particulars at present, respecting his visit at that time. [The question is again read to the witness, at his request, when he further answers,] I cannot be particular as to the time, or the year; but John Mott, a valuable minister of the state of New York, at some time previous to 1827, I think it was, attended the meeting at Arch street; I think it was Monthly Meeting day, from what I have understood, and some account he gave me himself, I think, of that meeting; he was treated in a very (as I thought) unbecoming manner. I think I understood, he had treated a good deal upon love and unity. (which are very necessary things among Friends,) and during the sitting of the Monthly Meeting which took place, there was some hostility, rather of a personal character, manifested towards him, and to the subject of his communications, I think, by Thomas Wistar, and perhaps Jonathan Evans, who were there at that meeting, though not members of it; and also by Edward Bettle, who distinguished himself on that occasion; so much so, that it brought out Doctor Joseph Parrish in the expression of a very forcible remonstrance against their conduct. Joseph Parrish was a member of that meeting. When I spoke of hostility, I meant it to apply to his communication and services, and not to him as a man. There was a Friend attended the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, I think, in the spring of 1825, or 26, I cannot be sure which, but am inclined to think it was the latter; Nicholas Brown, from Upper Canada, and a member of New York Yearly Meeting, a minister I mean; he attended the meeting in Pine street, perhaps it was on First-day preceding the sittings of the Yearly Meeting; what the subject of his testimony was there, I don't know that I ever became acquainted with; but he told me himself, I think, that "if ever he had been favoured with a true sense of the state of a meeting, he thought he was in that meeting;" and I inferred from that, that he had been led to communicate some close doctrine.

I think on Second-day evening I walked the street with him, and we saw Jonathan Evans walking before, or perhaps standing. He was at Samuel Bettle's door at the time. He asked me who that man was, or that Friend? I told him it was Jonathan Evans. He said he had attacked him very severely; and made some charges against him, of preaching doctrine that or at least of saying some things, that he had not said that day. I do not recollect the particular matters that Jonathan had charged him with, or I should relate them. But it was very evident that he felt himself very much hurt at Jonathan's conduct towards him; and I think Jonathan and him had an interview together, with several other Friends present, who were selected on the occasion, some time during the sittings of the Yearly Meeting, or at its close. As this is from hearsay, I cannot tell what took place; but I understood that he was not yet satisfied, and Jonathan denied some of the charges that he had first made against him.

During the sittings of the Yearly Meeting, he, Nicholas Brown, opened a prospect of visiting the women's meeting. There were some objections made to it, I think, by Jonathan Evans, and one or two more; and though a large number of Friends expressed their consent and ap