A. It does so appear.

Q. Does it appear also to have been the practice of that meeting formerly to retain the possession of the title deeds of its subordinate meetings, by the following minute made of the report of a committee, appointed to settle the accounts of the treasurer of the meeting lately deceased, to wit: "That there is also in the hands of said executors, of our friend Caleb Raper, the following deeds, &c.;" and then reciting a list of the title papers to the several subordinate meetings, which the Quarterly Meeting dispose of, as follows, viz: "This meeting appoints Joshua Raper their treasurer; and desires the executors of our friend Caleb Raper, will deliver the above stock, with all the deeds and papers now in their hands unto said treasurer, and his receipt shall be their sufficient discharge." This committee having been appointed to give an account of what papers, &c. were lodged in his hands."-[Burlington Quarterly Meeting records, Exhibit 39, Ninth-month, 1745.]

A. It does appear from the record to have been the practice of that meeting so to do.

Q. Did you attend the Monthly Meetings in Philadelphia, at which Daniel Haviland and Samuel Livezey made proposals of visiting the families of those meetings; and if so, state what took place?

A. I did attend those Monthly Meetings when those individuals made proposals for visiting the families composing them. Those proposals were voluntarily submitted by them to the Monthly Meetings respectively, for their decision, according to the established usage of the society in the city of Philadelphia. There was no expression in either meeting, I think, approving of their proceeding in the proposed visit, as a religious concern. On one occasion, while Samuel Livezey's prospect was under consideration, two or three Friends expressed that they could welcome him to their houses; to which reply was made, that probably every Friend in the meeting could say the same; but that the business of the Monthly Meeting was, to decide upon the proposed visit, as a religious concern. Whatever might have been the feelings of Daniel Haviland, at the time his prospect was put by, I am satisfied that he entertained no unkind feelings towards Friends in Philadelphia, in consequence of it. I was well acquainted with him for several years before his death, and several times in his company. He always spoke with great affection and regard of Friends in Philadelphia, and especially some of the elders of that city. This was the case in a conversation I had with him shortly before his decease. He continued to the close of life, to be opposed to the unsound doctrines of Elias Hicks, and a minister in unity with the Society of Friends. Samuel Livezey joined in the separation, and has been disowned.

Q. Were you present at the Pine street Monthly Meeting, Philadelphia, in 1823, when a proposal was made for a new nomination of overseers?

A. I was there at that time, and in 1820 and 1826, when similar proposals were made.

Q. By whom were they made?

A. They were made in all those instances, as well as in all others which have occurred within my recollection, which extends to about twenty years, by the overseers themselves, in conformity with the direction of the discipline, "that a committee be appointed at least once

in three years, or as much oftener as the occasion may require, to consider the propriety of changing the overseers," etc.

Q. Were you there when that meeting adjourned whilst Elias Hicks was in the women's apartment?

A. I was present on that occasion.

Q. What occurred in that meeting in relation to the adjournment? A. After the men's meeting had sat a long time, Elias Hicks made a proposal to visit the women's meeting, and obtained consent to do so.

[NOON.]

Soon after he went into the women's apartment, the men's meeting came to a decision, without a dissenting voice, that it had proceeded as far in the transaction of its business, as it would be proper to go at that sitting. The business was accordingly suspended, and the meeting sat a considerable time in silence, waiting for the return of Elias Hicks.Isaac W. Morris then observed, that as the meeting had finished its busi ness for the day, he thought it unnecessary that so many Friends should be detained, merely to wait for the return of Elias Hicks into the men's meeting, and proposed that "the meeting should close." Many Friends expressed their approbation of this, when John Hunt, of Darby, said that he thought it might be considered to be intended as a slight on Elias Hicks, if the meeting should adjourn; to which it was replied, that no such inference could justly be drawn, inasmuch as the men's Yearly Meeting had several times adjourned, while ministers from it were engaged in a visit to the women's apartment. Three or four of the members of Pine street meeting, at first seemed to coincide with John Hunt's views; but after this explanation, no further objection was made, and the meeting did accordingly close.

Q. Can you state the causes which led to the displacing of Leonard Snowdon from his station, by Green street Monthly Meeting, and the proceedings had with regard to it?

A. In order to give a correct view of the causes which led to that displacement, it will be necessary to advert to some circumstances which preceded it. In the year 1822, Elias Hicks obtained a certificate to pay a visit to some of the meetings within the limits of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, and in some other parts. Previous to that period, the minds of many Friends had been much concerned, in consequence of his promulgating sentiments different from, and repugnant to, those held by the religious Society of Friends. A part of a letter which he had written to William B. Irish, in which he rejected the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, as a vulgar error, had been printed by his friends, and widely circulated: and an essay entitled "Wisdom justified of her children," written by him, had been disseminated in manuscript. These, together with his public preaching and private conversation, afforded strong evidence that his views on doctrinal subjects, and those of an important and fundamental character, were such as did not accord with the acknowledged principles of the society. His new views, as they were termed, had become a subject. of general conversation among the members of the society; and under such circumstances, the prospect of his paying a visit to the meetings of Friends, in the character of a minister, could not but be a source of painful concern to those who were sincerely desirous for the preservation of sound Christian doctrines in the society. As his certificate

embraced a visit, not only to the meetings in the city of Philadelphia, but also to the families composing two of them; it was to be expected that the elders in that city, on whom devolved, by the discipline and usages of the society, not only the especial oversight of the ministry, but also a care for promoting the welfare of all the members, would feel deeply exercised at the prospect of such a visit, and the consequences which must necessarily ensue from the promulgation of antichristian principles. A short time previous to his arrival in the city, he attended the southern Quarterly Meeting; and at the public meeting for worship then held, he delivered some sentiments which were very objectionable. Ezra Comfort and Isaiah Bell, who were present at that meeting, were much concerned at the opinions which he delivered; and Ezra Comfort thought it would be right for him to have an interview with Elias Hicks in relation to it. Soon after that meeting was over, he set out on his way home, agreeably to a conclusion he had previously

come to.

On his way home he passed through the city of Philadelphia, and mentioned to some of the elders of that city, his wish to have such an interview; and as Elias Hicks was expected to be in the city in the course of a few days, he desired them to inform him of his wish, and make an early arrangement for their meeting. Two of the elders accordingly called upon Elias Hicks, informed him of the dissatisfaction of Ezra Comfort, and of his wish to have an interview with him. Elias Hicks, however, declined meeting him in that opportunity, as well as a subsequent one. The apprehensions of Friends that he was determined to persist in the promulgation of his unsound opinions, were thus strongly confirmed; and as he was about entering upon his proposed family visit, the elders of Philadelphia believed it incumbent upon them to examine further into the matter, and, if possible, to arrest the evil consequences which must result from the dissemination of his views. They accordingly requested him to give them a private opportunity, in conformity with the established usage of the society, in cases where subjects relating to the ministry are to be discussed. He at first refused; but at the solicitation of some of his friends, at length consented to the interview, and fixed the time and place for it. When the elders accordingly met, they found a large number of persons assembled from the country, as well as the city, some of whom were neither ministers nor elders. They did not think it proper, of course, to enter upon the discussion of those subjects in a promiscuous assembly, and withdrew. The only course which then remained for them was, to make him acquainted by letter with the exercise and concern which his alleged principles had occasioned them. They accordingly addressed him a letter dated Twelfthmonth 19th, 1822, signed by ten of their number; and on receiving his reply, they again addressed him, under date of First-month 4th, 1823. These two letters I offer as exhibits; they are marked by me A and B, in this paper: [the witness having the paper in his hand.]

Mr. Price. If they are not the originals, I object to them; and I also require the whole correspondence between them, in the case.

Witness. They are not the originals, as I presume they are in the possession of the heirs of Elias Hicks; but these are correct copies of those which were addressed to him. If the counsel wishes the whole correspondence in the case, and will produce the originals addressed to Elias Hicks, I will ask to have them marked exhibits.

VOL. II.-48

Mr. Price. The counsel presumes the witness has more ready access to letters addressed to the elders: the counsel and his clients have as little control over, or interest in those in the possession of the heirs of Elias Hicks, as of those in the possession of the elders: but if a part is undertaken to be produced, he thinks it at least fair that the whole correspondence should be.

Witness. The witness might retort the reply of the counsel, as regards the control over the letters addressed to Elias Hicks, with as much propriety as that reply was addressed to him. He has no disposition to conceal any part of the correspondence; but as the production of those two letters from the elders were necessary, in order to reply to the question put to him some time back, and as the production of the others was not necessary for that purpose, he therefore copied only the former.

These two letters were signed by Leonard Snowdon and Joseph Scattergood, who were elders in Green street Monthly Meeting. Elias Hicks proceeded in the prosecution of his visit to the families of that meeting; and notwithstanding the uneasiness which it was well known many Friends in the city of Philadelphia felt with the doctrines he promulgated, that Monthly Meeting made a minute expressive of its unity with his services. The circumstance of those two elders having signed the letters referred to, was construed into an offence by the members of Green street meeting, who were favourable to Elias Hicks' views. They were accordingly repeatedly visited by the overseers on that account.

In Sixth-month, 1824, Joseph Scattergood died. At the Preparative Meeting of Green street in Eighth-month following, one of the overseers who had been engaged in visiting Leonard Snowdon in consequence of his dissent from the principles of Elias Hicks, being clerk of the Preparative Meeting, read a charge against Leonard Snowdon in substance as follows: "Leonard Snowdon hath been visited by the overseers for joining with others, and at other times, out of gospel order, accusing an approved minister of holding and disseminating doctrines very different from those held by our religious society, without substantial foundation, and contrary to our united judgment previously expressed; there by defaming his character, and manifesting disunity with the Monthly Meeting." After some discussion it was concluded to modify this, so as to read in substance, that Leonard Snowdon had been visited by the overseers for manifesting such a degree of disunity, that in their sense he had lost his service as an elder." This minute was forwarded to the Monthly Meeting, and entered on its minutes, with the addition "that he was accordingly released."

Q. How was this subject first introduced to the notice of the Quar terly Meeting of ministers and elders in Philadelphia?

A. From an examination of the minutes of that meeting, it appears, that at a Quarterly Meeting of ministers and elders, held the 3d of Fifthmonth, 1823, an application was made by the Preparative Meeting of ministers and elders at Green street, for its advice and assistance in a case of difficulty. The minute of the Preparative Meeting I have carefully copied from the original report of that meeting to the Quarterly Meeting, and which is marked by me C, in this paper which I have in my hand. The Quarterly Meeting, on receiving this application, referred it for consideration at its next meeting, at which it appointed a committee of men and women Friends to sit with the members of the select Preparative Meeting at Green street, and extend such brotherly advice

and assistance as they might be qualified for. This committee was continued, from time to time, until Tenth-month, 1824, when they made a report to the Quarterly Meeting, which was entered on its minutes. All the minutes of the select Quarterly Meeting in relation to that subject, I have carefully copied from the record; they are marked by me D and F, in these papers. The report of the committee to which I have alluded, and which is marked by me E, informed the select Quarterly Meeting that the Monthly Meeting of Green street had taken up the case: on receiving which information, the select Quarterly Meeting suspended all proceedings in the case, and transmitted it to the Quarterly Meeting for discipline, by a minute which I have copied from the original paper sent to the Quarterly Meeting for discipline, and which is marked by me F, in these papers.

Q. Did the Monthly Meeting proceed to a final result in the case? A. Yes, they did.

Q. What was it?

A. They displaced Leonard Snowdon from his station as an elder, by a minute, declaring him to be in such a degree of disunity, as that he had lost his service; and after this minute was made, application was made to the Monthly Meeting by a Friend, on behalf of Leonard Snowdon, for a copy of it: which they declined giving him.

Q. Was he entitled to a copy?

A. He certainly was,-a record being made against him, injurious to his religious reputation, and in his absence, he certainly had a right to ask for and receive a copy of that record.

Q. Did he appeal from that decision to the Quarterly Meeting?

A. Apprehending that the discipline had been violated by the Monthly Meeting, in making that record against him, without appointing any Committee to inquire into its correctness or to extend brotherly labour for his restoration to unity, if he had been in error, agreeably to the discipline and usages of the society, and being thus virtually placed by that meeting, in some degree, in the character of a disowned person, he appealed to the Quarterly Meeting for that redress, and that respect of his religious rights, which the Monthly Meeting had failed to grant him. His appeal to the Quarterly Meeting was in writing, a copy of which I have made out and carefully compared: it is marked by me G, in these papers.

Q. When the appeal came before the Quarterly Meeting, were the members of Green street Monthly Meeting present, and did they speak frequently to the case?

A. Notwithstanding it is the established usage of the society, that in any meeting to which an appeal comes, the members of the meeting appealed against are not to interfere in the case, yet from the first introduction of the appeal of Leonard Snowdon, into the Quarterly Meeting of Philadelphia, a number of the members of Green street Monthly Meeting were the most frequent speakers on the occasion, and they not only strenuously opposed his appeal being heard, but made many high charges against him, calculated, if true, to have destroyed his religious reputation.

Q. How was the case finally disposed of?

A. The subject was first entered on the minutes of Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting, in Eleventh-month, 1824; it was referred from that to the next Quarterly Meeting: at that Quarterly Meeting, held Second