probation, he did not incline to perform the visit, and said "he would let it rest upon them.'

I don't know that I recollect any more instances of strangers.

It was very evident, for several years previous to 1827, that there was what might be called a spirit of hostility in some of the elders and some of the leading members of the city of Philadelphia, against some of our, I consider it, some of our most eminent ministers in our own Yearly Meeting; and more especially against those who did not, nor could not, approve of the proceedings of the elders, against Elias Hicks.

Q. Have you heard Samuel Bettle express his unity with Elias Hicks, since the accusations were first made against him by the elders and others?

A. Since the circumstance I first related, of Elias attending Pine street meeting, I have heard Samuel Bettle express his full unity with Elias Hicks. In the fall of 1820, Samuel Bettle, William Newbold, and myself, went out on a visit to the Indians, in the western part of the state of New York, and very frequently on that journey Samuel Bettle expressed his satisfaction with the acquaintance he had got with Elias Hicks, at the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, in 1819, the year before this took place. I think he told me, that he never had met with a man in his life that he had a higher esteem for, from the acquaintance that he had got with him, than he had for Elias Hicks. They had attended that Yearly Meeting together-had lodged at the same house, and I think in the same room-that they had frequent conversations together, which Samuel appeared to be pleased himself, I thought, in entertaining us with. He, Elias, was frequently the subject of conversation on that journey, and I think on every occasion Samuel expressed or manifested his full unity and satisfaction in being with him. I think that year, the Yearly Meeting of Ohio had the subject of revising their discipline before them. They attended their committees together, and I remember he expressed, that he thought Elias was much in his place, and very useful in that Yearly Meeting.

I think I recollect his stating, on one occasion, that himself and Elias did not altogether unite upon some matter that was agitated in the Yearly Meeting; but I heard of no dissatisfaction that he expressed, in any way, respecting the services or doctrines of Elias Hicks, at that Yearly Meeting.

On Elias's return from that Yearly Meeting, was the time he attended Pine street meeting, before spoken of; and after that meeting, he was at Samuel's house, and Samuel entertained him kindly, and treated him as a friend ought to treat another. And I think at one time he expressed to me, Samuel did, that he had no unity with the conduct of Pine street Monthly Meeting, in adjourning their meeting while Elias was in the women's end.

Q. Have you heard William Jackson express his unity with Elias Hicks, since the irregular proceedings of the elders in Philadelphia, towards Elias?

A. Yes, I have, in very full terms. About the close of the year 1823, or within a few days of that time, I was with Edward Hicks, on a visit to the meetings of Friends within the limits of the Western Quarterly Meeting, or at least to some of the meetings. We were at William Jackson's meeting, or the meeting he belonged to-went home with him, and dined; and in the course of conversation, he told us he wanted to

inquire of us about two Friends, that lived somewhere above Philadelphia, that had been down to the southern Quarter, at the time Elias Hicks attended there, and had spread some reports about him after their return. He said he had understood they were under dealing for their conduct. We told him they were then disowned by the Monthly Meeting to which they belonged, and had appealed to their Quarterly Meeting. Why, he said, with some surprise, that they had done very wrong-that they ought to have acknowledged their fault to the Monthly Meeting, for thus violating the good order of society. He then informed us, that when he had been last up at Philadelphia, I think attending the Yearly Meeting, he had heard a good deal of whispering about Elias Hicks; but he said he had known him a long time, I think more than forty years he had married his wife on Long Island, and lived there many years, and he had always loved him, and always had unity with him. And when Elias Hicks was passing through their part of the country, on his way to Baltimore Yearly Meeting, in the fall of 1822, he had sent William and his wife word to meet him at London Grove Meeting, or a request for them to meet him there. They went to that meeting, and although, I think were his words, "I had always been satisfied with him before, I never was more so than I was at that meeting." He came home with William, and stayed all night at his house. Elias pursued his journey to Baltimore Yearly Meeting, and I don't learn that he had any opportunity with Elias, either by personal interview, or hearing him in public, from that time until I understood he had changed his sentiments respecting him, after attending the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia the next spring, I think.

Q. Where is it understood by common repute, that William Jackson made his home in Philadelphia, during the Yearly Meeting that he underwent a change of sentiment, in respect to Elias Hicks?

A. I think he lodged at Samuel Bettle's that year, if I am not mistaken. I wont be positive about it; but I called in there, I think, several times, during the Yearly Meeting, with a view of seeing my kinsman William Jackson. (I think it was that year.) I remember, however, a Friend in my neighbourhood, where William Jackson frequently stopped and lodged on his way to the Yearly Meeting, I think mentioned that he had some conversation with William Jackson about Elias Hicks, previous to his going to the city; and perhaps he gave him some caution against being carried away by the reports, that were then in circulation, at which William seemed rather surprised that any body should think that he could think unfavourably of Elias Hicks. But on his (William's) return from that Yearly Meeting, it was frequently reported that William had changed his views in regard to Elias Hicks. I had no conversation with him myself, on the subject, after the time I have mentioned at his own house, I think, that I can recollect.

Q. Were you appointed a representative from the southern Quarter, to the Meeting for Sufferings in 1826, and if so, state the circumstances? At the close of the witnesses answer this afternoon, to the question put before noon, and which he was engaged in answering at noon, and before any other question was put to the witness, Mr. Sloan alleged that an urgent business required his absence for the remainder of the day and to-morrow; and the examination was continued by consent of the parties and counsel in his absence.

Adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.

Saturday morning, Dec. 11, 1830, at 9 o'clock. Examination of Halliday Jackson, continued.

[Witness in answer to the question proposed last evening, proceeds.] -I was so appointed, as appears by a minute of that Quarter, dated the 30th of Eighth-month, 1826. I received a copy of the minute from that Quarter, some time soon after, by which it appeared that Joseph Parrish, John Wilson Moore, and myself, were chosen by that Quarter to represent them in the Meeting for Sufferings. Abraham Lower's name was also contained in the minute, as continuing a representative of that Quarter. Under which appointment he had stood for several years previous to that time. Having each of us received a copy of this minute, we attended the Meeting for Sufferings, if my recollection serves me, in Ninth-month following the appointment. Our minutes, or at least one or two of them, which contained all the names, was laid on the clerk's table. Jonathan Evans, who was then clerk of the Meeting for Sufferings, read an opening minute, and I think called over the names of the members of that meeting as they stood on the list, I suppose. I think he then read one of the minutes we had laid on the table, and then he picked up a paper that lay on the table, apparently as though he did not know what it contained, but observed, that perhaps, it had some reference to the subject then before the meeting, and I think he, himself, or some other Friend, might have been nominated to go out and examine it previous to its being read. I think four Friends were named, who withdrew with the paper, and when they returned they proposed its being read. It was read accordingly, and appeared to be a letter from Caleb Peirce and Isaac Lloyd, who had stood previous to that for some time as represen tatives for the southern Quarter, in the Meeting for Sufferings. Hearing the paper but once read, I cannot undertake to state the particulars, but I think the amount of it was, a kind of remonstrance against the proceedings of the southern Quarter, in releasing them from their appointment as representatives from that Quarter. This unusual and I expect altogether unprecedented circumstance as it regarded a remonstrance of that kind, brought on a considerable discussion. There were a number of Friends who expressed considerable uneasiness, or alarm, at the liberty that the southern Quarter had taken in releasing those two representatives without their consent, or their requesting them so to do. I think there were several, if my recollection is right, Samuel Bettle was one of the prominent ones, Thomas Stewardson, Thomas Wistar, perhaps Jonathan Evans and Joseph Whitall, and some others, whose names I cannot now remember, seemed to express considerable alarm, lest this precedent which the southern Quarter had set, should go to produce an unsettlement in that meeting, or revolution in the organization of it; something to that amount. Some of them tried to make it appear that the Meeting for Sufferings was a permanent body; that the representatives from the different Quarters, could not be changed without their own request, except in cases of delinquency, which is provided for in the discipline. There were a number of Friends on the other side of the question, more especially from the country meetings, that were in favour of receiving the representation from the southern Quarter, as then made by the minute that I have alluded to. There was then a proposition made to nominate a few Friends to take the matter under consideration and report to a future meeting, without any thing specifically pointed out. They were so named, I think, to the number of seven or

eight, perhaps more. We then made an attempt to withdraw, I mean the three that were new members, but we were requested to remain that sitting, and we did so.

I think in Twelfth-month again John Wilson Moore and myself attended the Meeting for Sufferings, which was the time to which the meeting had adjourned, as we considered ourselves legally authorized to have a seat in that meeting, in the order of discipline. After the opening minute was read by Jonathan Evans, and the names called over as usual, from the old list, the clerk got up and stated that there were two of the members who had produced minutes at the former meeting, present, and he thought it was improper for them to remain, until the matter was settled between that meeting and the southern Quarter, or something to that amount. After remonstrating against their conduct as unauthorized by discipline, and informing them that according to the trust that the southern Quarter had reposed in us, we should feel it our duty to give that Quarter official information of the subject, or the manner in which we had been received; and requested the Meeting for Sufferings so far to comply with the discipline as to state the case fairly on their minutes, in order that it might come before the Yearly Meeting in an official way. We then withdrew; and on conferring with Doctor Joseph Parrish, we all three united in forwarding a letter to the southern Quarter, with our names signed to it. It was, however, thought best, after understanding that the Meeting for Sufferings had appointed a committee to visit the southern Quarter on the subject, that some one of us should also attend that Quarter. It fell to my lot to do so, and I attended that Quarter in the latter end of Second-month following, then held at Little Creek. I there met with Samuel Bettle, Philip Price, and John Cooke, who appeared to be a part of the committee that were named to attend that Quarter by the Meeting for Sufferings. The letter that was written and signed by the other two and myself, was read by the clerk of the Quarterly Meeting, I think, after the usual business of the meeting was gone through. Samuel Bettle then produced a minute, purporting to be a minute from the Meeting for Sufferings: as I heard it but once read, and it is so long since, I cannot give the particulars of it, but I think it purported to be a kind of request that that Quarter should perhaps nominate some Friends to confer with them on the subject. The Quarterly Meeting, however, I think it may be said, that all, perhaps, nearly all those who are in the habit of speaking in meetings, came out unanimously against going into any measure to reconsider their proceedings in their appointment of representatives. They strenuously and manfully asserted their rights as a Quarterly Meeting, agreeably to discipline, to choose such members to represent them in the Meeting for Sufferings as they were satisfied with: and such, they said, they had chosen. The committee that were there used a great many arguments, which I cannot now undertake to recite particularly; but the amount of it was to induce that Quarter to go into a reconsideration of the subject, and to nominate a few Friends to confer with them, in order, as they said, that the thing might be amicably settled. I think Samuel Bettle displayed, in a very eminent manner, his wonted ingenuity and ability in his endeavours to convince the members of that Quarter that the Meeting for Sufferings was a permanent body, and not subject to be changed in that way, except in cases of delinquency, which I have already stated are provided for in the discipline. It was all, however, of

no avail, as to making any impression on the meeting, and the meeting unitedly agreed to make a statement on their minutes of the circumstances of the case, and forward it in their report to the Yearly Meeting, in order to have their grievances redressed by that body. It was so forwarded to the Yearly Meeting in 1827, and was there put by, with some other important matters, without any determination in the case. I think this circumstance of the Meeting for Sufferings assuming the power to reject the representation of a Quarterly Meeting, produced as great a sensation throughout the society, as perhaps any other circumstance that occurred previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827. Friends were beginning to be alarmed that the rights of Quarterly Meetings should be thus invaded by a body acting only as a committee of the Yearly Meeting, and having no such powers guaranteed to them by the discipline.

Q. By the constitution of the Meeting for Sufferings, had the Quarterly Meetings the right to change their representatives therein? Witness. Is there a book of discipline here? [The Discipline Exhibit, No. 13, was handed the witness.] Shall I read from it?

Counsel. Yes, if there is any thing relating to it.

Witness reads from page 54:-"In order that this Yearly Meeting, with its several branches, might be properly represented in the interims thereof, on emergent occasions, a meeting was instituted anno domini 1756, by the name of 'The Meeting for Sufferings,' which it was agreed should consist of twelve Friends, appointed by the Yearly Meeting, living in or near Philadelphia, for the convenience of getting soon together; and also of four Friends, chosen out of each of the Quarterly Meetings, who were directed to meet together in Philadelphia forthwith, for the regulation of its future meetings, which are subject to the following rules." One of which is, (page 55.) "In case of the decease of any Friend or Friends, nominated either by the Yearly Meeting or Quarterly Meetings, or of their declining, or neglecting, their attendance for the space of twelve months, the Meeting for Sufferings, if it be thought expedient, may choose others in his or their stead, to serve till the time of the next Yearly Meeting, or till the places of those who have represented the Quarterly Meetings shall be supplied by new appointments." From which I infer, that the Quarters have a full right to choose their own members; and in the very nature and constitution of things, the body that has a right to choose has also a right to remove at their pleasure. By a minute of the Yearly Meeting, which appears to be dated in Ninth-month, 1761-[The witness produced an ancient manuscript, and was proceeding to speak or read from it, when, at the suggestion of Joseph Hendrickson, in the absence of his counsel, it was admitted by the counsel of the complainant, and Stacy Decow, that no advantage should be taken of the absence of the opposing counsel, in reference to reading, or offering in evidence, the paper in question; and that any proper objection to the same, if any shall be made, shall be considered as made at this time, and in its proper place.]

The witness proceeds,-I will give what knowledge I have of the authenticity of this paper. I think I first saw it, this paper that I hold in my hands, in Joseph Turner's house, who is a member of the southern Quarterly Meeting, and who informed me-[Mr. Price interrupts the witness, and requests him to speak of his knowledge of the handwriting, or of the usages of the society in reference to the authenticity of such a paper.] It appears to be "Extracts from the Minutes of the Yearly