Q. Are these meetings, in all instances, by minorities of the whole bodies of what had previously constituted the meetings?

A. I believe so, in every instance.

Q. Do those of the larger division acknowledge them as regular meetings?

A. They may acknowledge them as regular Orthodox meetings, but not as regular meetings of Friends.

[The testimony being read over to the witnes she explains]-When relating the transactions of the body of representatives, in relation to the nomination of a clerk, and when speaking of the proposition made for some person to go to the table and take down the names of those who were in favour of John Comly, after Abraham Lower had been ordered down by Thomas Wistar, I should have said, that the proposition went so far as to the drawing up of a report on the subject.

Again, in my answer to the last question but two, respecting the meetings of the Orthodox party, I should have said further, that in the one instance, where they have sustained meetings at the usual place, but varied the time, they have also varied the place as regards their meetings for worship on First-day; as they hold that meeting somewhere else.

And again, whenever I have spoken of the meetings of the Orthodox party, and of their proceedings in such meetings, I have spoken from report, and not from my own knowledge or observation.

And the said Cephas Ross being cross-examined on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, further affirms, as follows, viz:

Question by Mr. Sloan. How long prior to the year 1827, had you been in the habit of attending the meetings for discipline of the society, and taking an active part in their proceedings?

Answer. I think I commenced taking an active part, about seven or eight years previous to that date.

Q. Had you been under any appointment of the Quarterly Meeting, before you were sent as a representative to the Yearly Meeting of that year?

A. I think I had.

Q. When, and on what occasions?

A. Why, that I can't recollect. I was appointed a representative from the Monthly Meeting to the Quarterly Meeting previous to that date.

Q. My question was not whether you had been under appointment to the Quarterly Meeting, but whether you had ever been appointed by the Quarterly Meeting?

A. That I cannot recollect.

Q. For what reason were the representatives to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, increased, by the Bucks Quarter?

A. There was a proposition got up in Bucks Quarterly Meeting to alter the discipline relative to the reappointment of the members of the Meeting for Sufferings, I think, and elders; so as to make it obligatory on the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings to appoint them at limited periods, or to renew the appointment of them at limited periods. It was considered a subject of great interest to the society. This increase of representatives was proposed. It was strenuously objected to on the account of those meetings already having that power. The advocates VOL. II.-2

of the measure contended, that through delicacy, members of those bodies' were continued till they had become an incumbrance on the society; and should there be a rule of discipline, made as it is in the case of clerks, so as to make it obligatory on those meetings, that that delicacy would be removed. This is the only reason I heard assigned by Friends. Q. How was the increase of representatives intended to promote that object?

A. That's a question I never understood.

Q. In transacting the general business of the Yearly Meeting, have the representatives any higher, or greater authority than any other serious Friends who take a part in it?

A. I know of no particular duty especially assigned them, but that of their appointing the clerk and his assistant.

Q. You have stated that at the time of the appointment of their representatives, you did not hear that it was with a view to produce a change of the clerk; did you hear that at any other time, before that Yearly Meeting assembled?

A. Never.

Q. Did I understand you, that prior to that time, Bucks Quarter had sent three representatives, from each Monthly Meeting?

A. As far as my knowledge extends it did so.

Q. How far does that knowledge extend?

A. Why that I cannot tell; any farther than that they had done so before.

Q. From your own knowledge, will you undertake to say, that they had ever before that time sent three representatives from each Monthly Meeting?

A. The Quarterly Meeting, previous to the Yearly Meeting in each year, was held in Second-month, when the roads were extremely bad, most generally; my situation was such, that I had no convenient way to get to that meeting without going on foot; and I am not certain that I ever attended more than one or two Quarterly Meetings at that place, previous to the year spoken of,-at those meetings I have no recollection of the transaction of business whatever. But I think from the former minutes of the Quarterly Meeting being read at the next Quarter following, I have no recollection of any other impression than that there were three representatives.

Q. Did you mean to say, that you have a recollection that by those minutes three had been appointed previously?

A. No; I mean to say that it has always been my impression that that was the number; and I don't recollect any thing to the contrary ever being said by any of those who now stand opposed to us. But do know that they have since the division admitted that number; some of them have.

Q. By whom, and when was that admission made?

A. There were two persons at my house; one of the name of Charles Shaw, and the other John Michenor, had a conversation on the proceedings of the Yearly Meeting of 1827, and the appointment of the representatives preceding that meeting,-the same charge was alleged by them; I reasoned with them as to the impropriety of such a charge, and they eventually, one or both of them, acknowledged their error; I don't know any further in answer to the question.

Q. Do you state the nature of the proposition made by that Quarter

to the Yearly Meeting, relative to the Meeting for Sufferings, and elders, as the impressions received by you, of their character, or as being the propositions that were made to the Yearly Meeting?

A. Of the proposition from Bucks Quarter, relative to elders, I have already stated the discussion that took place in the Quarterly Meeting. Q. Of how many Monthly Meetings did Bucks Quarter consist? A. Six, I believe.

Q. Why did a portion of those representatives decline signing the report to the Quarter of which you have spoken?

A. I know not. The only reason which I heard assigned was, from the one who since has joined Friends, (or who has not left them,) and was, that he felt tried to act in any way.

Q. Were the other three who declined signing it, present at the time that report was drawn?

A. They were not, neither of the four was there.

Q. Had they any notice of the meeting of representatives that made that report?

A. It was stated at our meeting that they all had notice.

Q. I ask you a plain question,-had they, to your knowledge, any notice of it?

A. Not to my personal knowledge.

Q. When it was stated in the Quarterly Meeting that these Friends had had notice of the preparation of that report, did they deny that they had had any such notice?

A. I have no recollection that it was stated in the Quarterly Meeting that they had notice; I spoke of the meeting of the representatives.

Q. Did they deny that they had had any such notice, when the report was produced to the Quarterly Meeting?

A. I do not recollect that they did, or did not; but they upbraided them, the representatives who had signed it, with stating falsehoods in it; and were joined by an Orthodox preacher by the name of Stephen Grellet: who ran into very great extremes in denouncing the representatives who had signed it; charging them with telling that which was false, and cautioning the young men, Friends, members, against being deceived by such an instrument of writing.

Q. Did you ever hear those three persons admit that they had been consulted on the subject of that report?

A. I have already answered that question. I never heard them speak on the subject to my recollection, that is, the three,-because I have very strong doubts, that while this subject was in agitation, that either of them would have spoken to me on any occasion, without an absolute necessity of doing so, after the Quarterly Meeting of Fifth-month, 1827, until perhaps within a year or eighteen months.

Q. When was it that the other person declined acting on the subject; before or after making the report?

A. I know of nothing of my own knowledge. He had a brother who was a member of the same committee, or who was one of the representatives, who stated at the time the representatives met to draw their report, that his brother declined attending, owing to the tried state of his mind, as I before stated.

Q. Was that report drawn at that meeting, or had it been previously prepared?

A. If I am not mistaken, there were two reports offered for the consi

deration of the representatives then convened; on account of some scruples expressed at signing it, there were some alterations made in one of them, or a new one drawn, I am not certain which, which was signed as before stated.

Q. By whom were those reports drawn?

A. I cannot recollect.

Q. Will you refer me to that article of the discipline of the society under which you acted and derived your authority in making that report? A. No; I refer thee to the report itself.

Q. My question was, will you refer me, &c.?

A. I refer you to the discipline, and you may compare it with what I

have stated.

Q. Is there any thing in that discipline authorizing a Quarterly Meeting or its representatives, to review and condemn the proceedings of the Yearly Meeting?

A. I refer to the discipline itself.

Q. The witness will not now understand me as asking him to refer me to any particular part of the discipline, I ask only whether there is any thing in the discipline authorizing such a proceeding?

A. I think I have no answer to make, but to refer the gentleman to the book itself to draw his own conclusions.

Q. Is it to be found in this article of the discipline, to wit,-[The counsel reads from the discipline exhibited, page 31,] "The connexion and subordination of our meetings for discipline are thus-Preparative Meetings are accountable to the Monthly; Monthly to the Quarterly; and the Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting," and the subsequent parts of that article, giving to each superior meeting a controlling power over its inferior?

A. As I had no notice of being called upon for to expound the discipline, or any other book, I am not prepared to answer the question; and therefore shall leave the task for those who are, is all the answer that I am able to make to that question.

Q. Was any such authority under the discipline shown, or pretended by those who made that report, at the time of making it?

A. I do not recollect.

Q. Was it not insisted in the Quarterly Meeting that the report was unauthorized by, and a violation of, the discipline and order of the society?

A. I cannot answer the question either way, positively. There was so much said, and all the ingenuity of the individuals, who were in attendance, racked to impede the progress of the business of the Quarterly Meeting-that it might or might not be so.

Q. Had you ever before known an instance in which a Quarter had exercised the right of denouncing the proceedings of its Yearly Meeting, in the regular order of the society?

A. No-nor I never have yet known of such an instance.

Q. What was the substance of that report?.

A, I have not the report here. But I think I have already stated its general tenor, in answering a question put by the adverse counsel.

Q. Did you not state, in answer to that question, that the represen tatives reported the proceedings of that Yearly Meeting to have been "irregular and disorderly, and without validity," or that twenty out of twenty-four had done so?

[The former question alluded to, was read to the witness at his request, when he says,] the substance of my answer was, that there was something to that effect drawn up and signed.

Q. Had you ever before known such a report to be made by the representatives of a Quarter?

A. I do not recollect.

Q. Under the discipline and usages of the society, would not such a report be considered as a gross violation of the respect owed by an inferior to its superior meeting, and subject it to the censure of its supe rior?

A. I shall refer thee to the book of discipline, and to the proceedings in Bucks Quarter, previously stated.

Q. Am I to understand the witness, that the book of discipline is the standard by which the regularity, or irregularity, of a proceeding in the society is to be judged?

A. I would wish the counsel to understand me, in all cases where the discipline is called in question, that I have no other course to pursue than to recommend him to that book, to draw his own conclusion.

Q. I ask you whether the discipline is the standard to which the society have always held themselves bound to submit, and to be governed by its provisions?

A. It is a question that I don't think I am bound to answer, in any shape whatever.

Q. Do you refuse to answer, whether the society have or have not considered themselves bound by the provisions contained in that discipline?

A. I refuse to answer any questions, which shall rest on the opinion of others, respecting any religious community. I have my own opinions, but they are mine; and, I think, that there is no law, either religious or civil, that has any just right to draw them from me.

Q. Do you refuse to answer my question?

A. I have answered, I believe.

Q. Is that your only answer?

A. It is my only answer.

[NOON.]

Q. Were all the representatives appointed by the Bucks Quarter to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, in favour of appointing John Comly as clerk, except the three named?

A. I believe they were.

Q. Were you familiar with the usual order and course of proceeding pursued by the Yearly Meeting, at the time you were sent as a representative for that year, and for what length of time had you been so?

A. I have before stated, that it was the first Yearly Meeting I ever attended in Philadelphia. I had, in my early part of life, attended three Yearly Meetings in New York; but, of course, could have very little knowledge of the practice in those meetings, more than what I received from information.

Q. Did not John Comfort, one of those who had been in favour of John Comly, state, in reply to you, that John Cox had been instructed by the representatives to make the report he did?

A. There are two John Comforts.

Counsel. I speak of John Comfort, of the manor.