other valuable minister, were both very uneasy with this meeting, lest it should grow up into something that would produce an evil in the society.

Q. You have stated that about the year 1806, the subject of the Second-day morning meeting was brought before the Yearly Meeting; was it not brought before that body by the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings of Philadelphia, and at the request of the Second-day morning meeting itself?

A. I think in my testimony in chief, if I remember right, my impres sion was, and what I stated, that I had received from a member of the Meeting for Sufferings, or one who was engaged in the revision of the discipline, that it was some how or another got hold of by that body; and my impression was that it had been discontinued before this application was made by the Quarterly Meeting of Philadelphia, to have it established by discipline. If any application was afterwards made by the meeting of ministers and elders, it has escaped my recollection; and being twenty-four years ago, it is not to be marvelled at.

Q. The application I allude to, was the one made previous to its being laid down, and by which the subject was first introduced into the Yearly Meeting?

A. I have not a distinct recollection of the manner in which it was brought forward, only that it was from the Quarterly Meeting of Philadelphia, and to have it established by discipline. As to the circumstance of its being brought before the Yearly Meeting previous to that application, I cannot certainly recollect, though I seem to have a glim mering recollection that there was something on that subject; but I cannot be certain about it.

Q. Was it alleged in the Yearly Meeting as a reason why the Secondday morning meeting should be discontinued, that its existence was inconsistent with the discipline?

A. I don't recollect what was expressed in the Yearly Meeting on the subject, but I recollect there was a committee appointed, as I have before stated, to take the subject into consideration; and that myself and Jacob Lindley were on that committee: and that although there were pretty strenuous efforts made and arguments used by a number of the Friends in the city, to have such a meeting established, yet it could not be united with. I think, if my recollection serves me, Friends from the country very generally disapproved of a measure of that kind. I don't and can't have a distinct recollection of any particular sentiments that were advanced in that committee.

Q. Will you name those individuals who made those strenuous efforts for re-establishing that meeting?

A. I don't think I have a distinct recollection of the names of those individuals: I remember particularly Thomas Scattergood was one who was an advocate for it, I think.

Q. Were those persons who made those strenuous efforts on the committee?

A. They were present in the committee, and I expect they were members of it: and I was going to state, that it is usual in the Yearly Meeting, on these subjects that relate to matters of discipline, to appoint a certain number of Friends out of each of the Quarters: I do not recollect how many were appointed on this committee, but I think it probable there might be three or four taken out of each Quarter: and the number might

be larger, as a large number is appointed on important occasions. And as this subject particularly related to Philadelphia, it is a probable case that there might have been some additional Friends named in Philadelphia Quarter, or otherwise, liberty given for Friends who felt a concern to attend with that committee; which is not an unusual thing in the Yearly Meeting.

Q. Can you now recollect any other person than Thomas Scattergood, as being on that committee from the city, or as having used those "strenuous efforts?"

A. I cannot undertake to name individuals; the thing seems to have gone from my recollection who they were; but I remember after the committee broke up, that Jacob Lindley and myself walked to our lodgings together, or at least to my lodging; and I think we had some conversation on the subject of the efforts that were made by some individuals to have this meeting established.

Q. You have stated that certain ministers had concerns before one or more of the Monthly Meetings of Philadelphia, to visit the families composing them: was not the object in laying those concerns before the respective meetings, to have their unity and concurrence to proceed therein?

A. Whatever the object of individuals might be, I cannot say: I may state from my own knowledge, that it has not been an unusual practice with Friends who had a prospect of this kind, to attend at the time of the Monthly Meeting and produce a minute of the concurrence and unity of their Friends at home, as an introduction to a visit of this kind; and I think in most of the instances with which I have been acquainted, such Friends have been encouraged to proceed in their visit; and frequently a Friend or two named to accompany them, and assist them in performing the visit. But I think there have been frequent instances of Friends proceeding on such a visit without their first laying their prospect before the Monthly Meeting, which they had a concern to visit. Neither do I consider it necessary in the order of society, that a Friend should be obliged to take the sense of a Monthly Meeting that he was not a member of, in a concern of this kind, when he had the consent of his own Monthly Meeting, which I consider the only legitimate body to judge of his concern, expressed by a minute or certificate.

Q. When an individual lays such a concern before a Monthly Meeting, has it no option whether its families shall receive such a visit or not? A. I don't know of any discipline in the case, as it regards the conduct of the Monthly Meeting; but I should suppose, that if there were some, or a considerable part, of the members of that Monthly Meeting were desirous of having such a visit in their families, the Monthly Meeting would have no right to reject such a visit. I consider it very much in the light of other concerns of ministering Friends to visit the meetings of Friends wherever their prospects lead them, and where they have liberty so to do. It would certainly very much protract their visit, or impede the progress of their religious concerns, if it was considered obligatory to first have the consent of the Monthly Meeting within whose limits they were about to perform such a visit.

Q. If no individual expresses such a desire, may the Monthly Meeting reject the visit?

A. I have never known an instance of that kind: I suppose that if every member in the Monthly Meeting expressed their objections to a

Friend thus proceeding, scarcely any Friend would persist in the prosecution of his concern. I know of no discipline in the case, and I cannot undertake to make discipline.

Q. Is there any discipline obliging a Monthly Meeting under such circumstances to sanction the visit?

A. I will read from the book of discipline, page 39. [The witness reads the rule or paragraph under the head of "Family Visits."] I don't recollect any other discipline in relation to family visits, at present. Q. Was not the putting by of those concerns to which the witness has alluded, the united act of the Monthly Meetings to which they were so submitted?

A. As I was not at any of those Monthly Meetings, I can only speak from common repute. I have, however, understood from that source, that these concerns were put by, principally by a few prominent individuals in those meetings. I think I have heard it stated, perhaps the last visit that Daniel Haverland attempted to perform to the families of Pine street, Jonathan Evans was one of the individuals who, perhaps, threw discouragements in the way. And at the Monthly Meeting, when Samuel Livezely had a prospect of performing a similar visit, the elders of that meeting, and if I recollect right, Samuel Bettle, were prominent persons in putting it by.

Q. Did any one in the meeting object to their so being put by?

A. As I was not there, I cannot answer as to that positively, but my impression is, that there were a number in those meetings who would have been willing to have received such a visit from those individuals. Q. Did they express that willingness in the meeting?

A. As I was not there, I cannot say how far there was an expression of that kind.

Q. You have stated that some opposition was made to Priscilla Hunt, by William Evans,-had not Priscilla Hunt asserted in that meeting, that "reason was the star which led to Christ," and did not the alleged opposition consist in the expression of these words, after she had done speaking and sat down, "these are not the doctrines of our religious society," "we never did profess that reason led to Christ?"

A. As I stated, I suppose, in my testimony in chief, that I was not at that meeting, I will therefore not undertake to state, either what Priscilla Hunt had said, or what William Evans had said in reply to her; but merely state the circumstance which took place, as being out of the order of society.

Adjourned until 3 o'clock, P. M.

Three o'clock, P. M.

[NOON.]

The witness continues his answer: And to show which, I will read, and wish it placed on record, the following paragraph of the discipline, from page 63. "As the occasion of our religious meeting is solemn, a care should be maintained to guard against any thing that would tend to disorder or confusion therein. When any think they have aught against what is publicly delivered, they should speak to the party privately and orderly; and if any shall oppose a ministering Friend, in his or her preaching or exhortation, or keep on the hat, or show any remarkable dislike to such, when engaged in prayer, let them be speedily admonished, in such manner as may be requisite; unless the person

against whom the uneasiness is expressed has been disowned by a Monthly Meeting, or his or her public appearances disapproved by the elders."

This being the first meeting, I believe, that Priscilla Hunt had attended in the city of Philadelphia, no such disapprobation could have been expressed to her by the elders of that meeting. And I think she informed me herself, that no disapprobation had ever been expressed to her by any elder in Pennsylvania, previous to this circumstance.

Q. Had not Priscilla Hunt been previously treated with, by the elders in North Carolina, Indiana, and New Jersey, and in Ohio, for the unsoundness of her doctrines?

A. Never, to my knowledge. Except, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Mount Pleasant, I think she informed me, that Elisha Bates, though I apprehend he was not an elder, and one or two others, whose names I cannot recollect, had made some accusations of some kind against her, whether for unsoundness of doctrine, or what, I do not remember. And I think I remember to have heard, that there was some little difficulty arose between her and her father-in-law, Nathan Hunt, in North Carolina, about a matter of property, in relation to her husband's estate, who was then deceased. When Jeremiah Hubbard was here from North Carolina, and who appeared to be well acquainted with the circumstances of the case, I made some inquiry of him, respecting it, and he informed me that he had been instrumental in settling the difference between them, and he thought there was no blame whatever to be attached to Priscilla, or words to that effect. This, I think, was some time in the year 1823 perhaps; or while Priscilla was travelling to the northward or eastward.

Q. You have alluded to a conversation with herself on the subject,in that conversation, or at any other time, did you learn from her that she had been treated with, by elders in Indiana or New Jersey?

A. I never remember of her telling me any such thing. She was a remarkably cautious woman, as to saying any thing about herself, or what others might have said of her.

Q. Was she not under dealing in her own select Quarterly Meeting, for unsoundness of doctrine, before she left home to perform that visit? A. Never, to my knowledge. And I think the circumstance of her having certificates of the unity of her Monthly and Quarterly Meeting with her, affords sufficient evidence, that that could not have been the

case.

Q. You have spoken of a letter from Thomas Eddy, which Elias. Hicks requested you to read, in a company at Darby,-was not that letter clandestinely obtained, without the consent or knowledge of the owner, and printed and published by Thomas M'Clintock, and others of your party?

A. I cannot tell how it was obtained. It seems the owner of it was not very careful of it, if he did not intend it to be published; and the first I saw of it was in print, and the copy that Elias Hicks had in his possession, and requested me to read. Thomas M'Clintock never told me that he had got it printed, and I don't know the fact. It is altogether a possible case, that he might have had some hand in it; and if he had, if I recollect, it was in compliance with the wish of the author, that a few copies might be printed, "if it was thought it would be more serviceable," or something to that import.

Q. What parts of that letter from Thomas Eddy did Elias Hicks al lege to be untrue, and to what subjects did they relate?

A. I cannot now particularly remember; it is a good may years since. But I think he pronounced it to be generally untrue, or misrepresenta tion.

Q. Did they relate to the doctrines held by Elias Hicks?

A. As I cannot remember the particular subjects, I will not under take to specify them. But, as I suppose there were many charges made by Thomas Eddy, in regard to doctrine, it is probable some of them might have been of that nature.

Q. You have spoken of some opposition being made to Elias Hicks' preaching, at Pine street meeting in 1826,-did he not, in that meeting, deliver some sentiments, which many Friends considered very unsound and objectionable?

A. As that testimony has been printed, and perhaps made an Exhibit in this examination, (I don't know how that is,) I must refer you to that, the counsel and his clients, I mean, to draw their own conclusions, respecting the soundness of his doctrine.

Counsel. I have not put the question whether those doctrines were sound; but, whether there were not some Friends who considered them, on that occasion, unsound and objectionable?

Witness. From the nature of this question, it appears to me, to be calculated to go into the subject of doctrines, and matters of faith, which has heretofore been protested against by the counsel on the part of Friends; and it will, therefore, subject me to the necessity of making the same protest. [The question was again read to the witness, when he further answers,] I can answer as far as I know, that I never heard a Friend in my life say, that they were unsound, (that I have conversed with,) unless what Jonathan Evans and Isaac Lloyd expressed in that meeting might be construed to imply unsoundness.

Q. Did you never hear that those doctrines were so considered unsound by many Friends?

A. Why, I have heard a great deal said, to be sure, and seen a great deal in print, in regard to the charges this combination of elders in Philadelphia have made against Elias Hicks; but then it was considered by the great body of society, that their charges were unfounded.

Q. Did you not know that the Monthly Meeting of Pine street, drew up an official representation of what they considered unsound doctrines preached by Elias Hicks on that occasion, and forwarded it to the Monthly Meeting, of which he was a member?

A. I never attended Pine street Monthly Meeting, I think, to my recollection, when any subject of the kind was before it; but I think, I have heard that some statement of that kind was got up by a dominant party in that meeting, by no means united with by the meeting at large, and perhaps forwarded to the Monthly Meeting of Jericho; but I think I understood, and was informed perhaps by a letter, from a Friend of Jericho, that they would take no notice of it there; as they had the testimony in print, and had had the opportunity of judging of it for themselves; they could predicate no charges of unsoundness against Elias Hicks from that testimony: that he was so fully approved and so fully united with, by the Monthly Meeting of which he was a member, that they were fully satisfied with him; except it might be two or three individuals, one of whom, I think, Thomas Willis, has been here in the