A. I did not hear it, nor any intimation like it.

Q. Was not that alleged, or assented to, by some other persons in the Yearly Meeting, and in consequence, the objection to his report dropped?

A. I don't know what is meant by some others.

Counsel. I mean by any other persons.

Witness. It was asserted by Aaron Eastburn, and a partial statement made by him respecting the proceedings of the representatives. I then rose myself, and made a full statement of all the facts that occurred to me at that time. I believe there was no person contradicted me belonging to Bucks Quarterly Meeting; if there was, I do not recollect it. Joseph Whitall, who said he was one of the Yearly Meeting's committee, contradicted me, and made use of considerable harsh expressions. On the question being again referred to, and stated to the witness, he states that he had misapprehended the question, in relation to having heard it "said in the meeting, that John Cox was authorized to make the report he did," that he supposed the question to refer to Bucks Quarterly Meeting-and now, on finding that it was the Yearly Meeting of 1827, that was named, he says, that I heard it so expressed by a number, perhaps as many as three or four. As I have gone through the circumstances of that Yearly Meeting as far as my recollection will serve me, I shall refer in my further answers to those already made.

Q. Did not John Cox himself state, in reply to you, that he understood the conclusion reported by him had been come to by the representatives, and that he had not before heard of any such conclusion as an adjourned meeting?

A. It strikes me that John Cox said something, but I could not undertake to say, that he made any reply to those who contradicted his first report.

Q. Did I understand you just now, in explaining the reason why you misapprehended my question, to say, that your hearing is not good?

Witness. Yes, I said so; but I was not through with my answer respecting John Cox. I believe, as soon as there was a contradiction of John Cox, that a scene of confusion ensued that would prevent a person of John Cox's manners from being distinctly heard by me, where I then

sat.

Q. Before Abraham Lower and Marden Wilson went to the table, in the meeting of representatives, had not John Cox been requested to make that report by a number of the representatives?

A. There had some three or four persons of those representatives who wished the decision to go by weight, directed John Cox to do so: but from the circumstance of his going to the table, I am led to believe that he did not consider that he was instructed by the representatives then convened.

Q. Was that request limited to three or four, or made by three or four only?

A. There might possibly have been twenty; although I do not know that I recollect of more than three or four who gave him such instructions: and I believe that the attempt made to instruct John Cox to report, was previous to the proposition for the representatives to divide on each side of the passage. And when the attempt was made, it was opposed on the ground as before stated, in part, that John Comly was duly on nomination.

Q. Are you confident that John Cox heard your proposition for an adjourned meeting?

A. Yes, I am positive.

Q. Were you acquainted with him?

A. No; I never saw him before that day, to my knowledge. From John Cox's conduct, as I before stated, throughout the whole scene of confusion that took place, and that not knowing or observing that he gave any decision on the subject, seeing him at the table, I drew near him, hoping through him that there might a reconciliation take place; after which the circumstance which I have already related before, took place.

Q. Did he assent to your proposition for an adjournment?

A. Yes, he did: I have already stated that before.

Q. Were you present during the whole of that sitting of the representatives?

A. I have already answered that question.

Counsel. You will be good enough to answer it again.

A. I was.

Q. Did you not leave the room during the time?

A. I believe I was not out of the house from the time I entered it in the morning, till the people burst in upon us by the opening of the door by some within: if I was, it has slipped my recollection.

Q. What was John Cox doing at the table when you went to him? A. I believe the old man was sitting on some of the upper seats; and the first I observed of him, he was standing in the passage that led up to the first gallery; that is, after those persons had fled from the house who had threatened to do so. He was not doing any thing, as I know of, unless he was talking to some person near him. He was the first person I spoke to when I went near the table; and I was unacquainted, I believe, with any that was then at the table, as far as I can recollect. Q. Was there any body within hearing of what passed between you at the table?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. That I cannot tell: as I before said, I was unacquainted with any present, to the best of my recollection.

Q. Was it the table at which the clerk usually sat during the meeting that this took place?

A. I cannot answer the question as asked; but it was the table, to the best of my recollection, that was on the left hand of the passage that divides the gallery.

Q. Was John Cox one of the fifteen or twenty of which you spoke, who went to the table with Lower and Wilson?

A. He was one of that number which was around the table, that I referred to.

Q. Did he go with them?

A. That is more than I can tell: I have stated that I observed him standing there, and went to him-that number collecting around the table, situated as that was, could not be very close to it.

Q. Did he continue at the table until they were interrupted by persons coming in?

A. If I am not mistaken, I left him in the house, if not in the situation

I found him; as I left it as quick as possible after I understood there was something like a conclusion come to.

Q. When John Comly was proposed to the meeting of representatives, was it not stated, that as Samuel Bettle had for many years acceptably served the meeting as clerk, it should be first settled whether any change should be made, before other names were proposed?

A. I think the representatives sat from some little time after twelve o'clock, till likely after three. that there was nothing done; at other times there were attempts madé At times there was so much confusion, on both sides, each endeavouring to convince his opponent of the propriety of the course that he or they were endeavouring to pursue: and I think I recollect a great deal of praise being bestowed on Samuel Bettle for the faithful services he had performed: the remainder part of the question I do not recollect. These observations respecting his services was made as a reason why he should again be nominated as clerk. I don't recollect hearing any charges preferred against him, which were calculated to injure him in the least degree. But the reason given by those who were in favour of John Comly, or one of the reasons at least was, that he had served the meeting so long, that they thought it right to nominate another in his place.

Q. By whom was it agreed to take the sense of the meeting on the nomination of John Comly first?

A. A great majority, or nine-tenths of the representatives, perhaps, were strangers to me; for I do not think that I knew more than half of those, or two-thirds, that were representatives from Bucks Quarter, so as to have called them by name. Thomas Carey, Marden Wilson and myself agreed, in conjunction, as I But I recollect that Abraham Lower, thought, with a great majority of the representatives present; at least I know that the question was put on the nomination of John Comly first; and I do not believe, to the best of my recollection, that there was any question at all taken on the nomination of Samuel Bettle.

Q. Did all the representatives present, express themselves in favour of one or the other of the candidates?

A. It is a question I could not answer, as it was impossible to ascertain. Hence, the proposition to divide on either side of the passage, and the proposition to go to the table and take down the names, was resorted to, or made.

Q. By whom was that proposition made?

A. It was made by Abraham Lower, one or the other of them, and perhaps both; and by myself; and if I am not mistaken, by some three or four other persons, but I do not recollect.

Q. Were they all those who were friendly to the appointment of John Comly, who made or assented to that proposition?

A. That I cannot say.

Q. Were not these propositions opposed entirely on the ground, that they were contrary to the usages and principles of the society, and that it would be an innovation upon the rules adopted in all their former proceedings?

A. There were objections made to that purport, if not word by word. But I do not think that it was the entire ground taken by those who opposed it: though I cannot recollect what was said on the subject. But my present impression is, that the ostensible object of the opposition was, to prevent John Comly being placed on nomination.

Q. In answer to these objections, was any instance given of either the Yearly Meeting or the representatives ever having settled any question that came up before them, by a division of numbers?

A. There was an abundance of contradiction on both sides on that subject. My recollection will not serve me, so as to relate any part of it.

Q. Was the contradiction on that subject, one which arose from the allegation of any instances in which the Yearly Meeting had settled questions by majorities, or did it arise from the friends of John Comly claiming that that was a case which it was proper should be settled in that way?

A. From the confused state of the representatives, and the violence with which a number of them appeared to act, and the agitation produced on my own mind, I think, I cannot give a relation respecting it at present.

Q. You have then no recollection of any former instance of the kind being given?

A. I don't recollect that I have. The arguments then made use of, generally speaking, on either side, with some trivial exceptions, have not recurred to my mind since.

Q. Did you count those who were friendly to the nomination of John Comly?

A. If I did, it has slipped my recollection.

Q. Do you know of what number the whole body consisted?

A. I can't positively say that I do. Although I may have been informed, I have not been governed by any information received, but merely by appearance of the company then collected.

the

Q. A great majority of whom were strangers to you, and expressed no opinion upon the subject?

A. I think I have not said so.

Q. Did they then express an opinion?

A. I have before stated, that when the question was put, whether John Comly's name should be carried forward to be placed on nomination, as clerk of the Yearly Meeting, the approbation or assent of near two-thirds of the persons present was given in favour of it. That it was mere opinion, as I had no certain criterion by which I could judge; hence the proposition of a division, and the taking down the names.

Q. Do you mean two-thirds of the whole body?

A. I mean so. I believe there had none left the room at that time. Q. Who was it, that stated that the weightier part of the meeting were opposed to the nomination of John Comly?

A. I think there were some four or five of them; they were all strangers to me, that spoke on the subject, except one, Aaron Eastburn. The names of any of the rest, that is, that I inquired so as to recollect them now, were Thomas Stewardson, Thomas Wistar. I perfectly recollect the name and countenance of Thomas Wistar; the old man was violent in his manners. I rose to make some observations, and stood pretty much to one side, where he could not immediately see me without turning; he turned round as though with a design to look me out of counte nance; and in his zeal was chewing his quid of tobacco, or some other thing that he had in his mouth, not being acquainted with him, I supposed that he was making mouths at me; hence I made particular inquiry as to his name; I would not be understood, that I now think he VOL. II.-3

was doing any thing with that view. He is the only person that I now particularly recollect of that number, except Eastburn.

Q. Are you confident that you have as correct a recollection of the language used by him on that occasion, as you have of the faces that he made?

A. No, I am confident I have not. For the circumstance was novel to me; and from things that occurred, my feelings were in such a state, that I was ready to draw unfavourable conclusions on things then passing, which from cool deliberation and a desire to feel charitable towards my fellow man, I think matters of no consequence at all now, although I may perfectly recollect them.

Q. Do you give the words you stated, to have been used by Thomas Wistar, as the words used by him on that occasion, or as the result of the impressions received by you under the circumstances which you have stated?

A. I give them as the words used by Thomas Wistar, as far as I know now, in reply to any question asked, and if in examining the statement, and question, and answers, there should be any thing from an improper understanding inserted therein, I hold myself bound to cor

rect it.

Adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

Wednesday morning, Dec. 8th, 1830, at 10 o'clock. Cross-examination of Cephas Ross continued. Present as before.

Question by Mr. Sloan. Do you give the expressions stated to have been made use of by Thomas Stewardson, in the same way?

Witness. If the counsel will please to qualify that question, so as to let me understand where.

Counsel. I refer to the occasion spoken of by you, in your examination in chief, when you state that he charged you with falsehood, &c.

A. Yes, I do give the expressions in the same way. When I say that those were the expressions of Thomas Stewardson, I wish to be understood, that some person, who appeared as a representative, and had rather acted a violent part when that body was convened, made use of those expressions as related. I, on inquiry, from the best description I could make of the man, of where he sat among the representatives, was informed it was Thomas Stewardson. I did not know the man, and should not now, if I were to see him.

Q. When Thomas Wistar spoke of the proceedings, as being outrageous and disgraceful, was it in allusion to the proceedings in that body of representatives, in reference to the attempt made to decide the question by the majority?

A. I do not recollect that he had any allusion to any thing else.

Q. After the report of John Cox to the Yearly Meeting, and the discussion which followed, how was Samuel Bettle nominated for clerk, and by whom?

A. His name was mentioned by some person unknown to me, as far as I now recollect. But how, or in what manner, it was expressed or introduced, I cannot say. I before observed, in some answer I have made to the questions, or in my statements, that it produced an unparalleled confusion, in a religious community at least, with one or two exceptions, that has ever come within my knowledge. And I will further state, that I believe it would be very difficult for any person to digest the