nard Snowdon before them, which has been fully represented by Abraham Lower in the previous testimony, that that Quarter had forwarded this case, I think, on their reports to the Yearly Meeting; that Samuel Bettle had been a warm party man in the case; and then stood, I think, as one of the committee of that Quarter, to represent the case to the Yearly Meeting, or to a committee of the Yearly Meeting, if such should be appointed. There was also another case, I think, of considerable importance to society, that was coming up, or came up in the report from that Quarter; I think from what I can understand from the nature of the case, that the party which had for some time very much governed the proceedings in that Quarter, had found out the discipline respecting appeals, did not altogether answer their purpose; they had taken up some of their members in the city, a few of them, on what was considered very flimsy charges, and had procured their disownment from the Monthly Meeting. They had appealed to the Quarterly Meeting, and having the right guaranteed by the discipline of objecting to such as might be appointed on a committee to determine their case, as they thought might not be disposed to give them a fair trial; and exercising this right, they were reinstated by the Quarterly Meeting, and restored again to membership. This subject, therefore, of appeals, was got up in Philadelphia Quarter, and carried forward to the Yearly Meeting, from what I have understood, very much out of the unity, and principally by that portion of society which were called Orthodox. There were strong reasons to object to Samuel Bettle as acting as the organ of the meeting that year. I don't wish to be understood that all this was stated in the Yearly Meeting; but being acquainted with the circumstances from common report myself, as I said before, I think an attempt was made by some Friend or Friends, perhaps more than one, to give some explanations on these points. I think I remember one Friend, who, in attempting to offer reasons of this kind, was peremptorily ordered down; and Thomas Kite I believe it was, a member, and in the station of a minister, at Arch street meeting, called upon the overseers to take notice of him. There were several others that spoke, I don't undertake to name. think I remember John Cox, though a man generally of great moderation and exemplary conduct, was so far taken off his guard, under the excitement that prevailed in the meeting, that he made use of some harsh expressions to this Friend that was speaking, for which, greatly to his credit, I think he made some apology in the next sitting, the next morning. The meeting proceeded on that afternoon-I don't remember particularly what took place. I think I recollect that John Comly went to the table as assistant clerk, with very considerable reluctance, and acted that afternoon. The next morning, I believe, John Comly did not take his seat at the table at the opening of the meeting, as usual; but soon after the meeting was opened, he got up and made a very forcible appeal to the Yearly Meeting, which I should be very happy to be able to place upon this record; but my recollection will not serve me at present to give more than an outline of it. I think he regretted the state and dilemma into which the Yearly Meeting appeared to be brought-that there were two parties, evidently two parties, that appeared to be irreconcilable to each other, and therefore not qualified to proceed in the weighty concerns of a Yearly Meeting, under those trying circumstances; and proposed that the Yearly Meeting might adjourn; and

I

Friends endeavour to get cool and quiet in their minds, and that possibly they might be favoured to come together at some other time, and be more in the harmony. I think he expressed, that he could scarcely feel easy to act as the organ of the meeting, at the table, as assistant clerk, under those circumstances. There were a number of other Friends that seemed to unite with the views of John Comly, as perhaps the best thing that could be done in this trying and afflicting state of things. I think Abraham Lower spoke on the subject, and attempted to give some account of the party measure that had been taken in the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders, in the appointment of that committee that I have before spoken of, and for which he was severely rebuked by some of the opposite party. Joseph Foulke, I think, had something to say on the subject. Dr. Joseph Parrish also made a very impressive appeal to the Yearly Meeting, respecting the trials and difficulties that seemed to be prevalent; and perhaps there were some others-I don't now recollect to name. The proposition, however, of John Comly, to adjourn the meeting, was strenuously opposed by those who were favourable to Samuel Bettle acting as clerk, and they seemed determined to proceed on with the business, which they did. And although John Comly had expressed his uneasiness at acting as assistant clerk, at the request of some of his friends, and perhaps some of the other party also-I am not sure about that-he submitted again to go to the table, although it was objected to by many of his friends, and perhaps a considerable number; but I don't seem to have a clear recollection about that.

The business of the Yearly Meeting was proceeded in, and the usual subjects that occupy that body, such as considering the state of society, from the answers to the queries that are brought up from the different Quarterly Meetings in their reports-the reading of the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings-reading reports from the committee who stood charged with the civilization of the Indians-and the report from the committee of Westown school-and some other matters which occupied the meeting through the week, which it is not necessary to mentionI can't recollect all. But when the reports were taken, or the subjects contained in the reports from the different Quarterly Meetings, which were considered as new matter, such as the account from the southern Quarter, respecting the Meeting for Sufferings rejecting their representatives-and an application, I think, from Bucks Quarter, respecting the manner of choosing representatives to constitute the Meeting for Sufferings; together with these two cases that came up from Philadelphia Quarter, which I have before mentioned. They were all put by, and not acted upon, except the matter in relation to Leonard Snowdon's case, which, if I remember right, was returned to the Quarterly Meeting.

It seemed to be pretty generally understood, that the Yearly Meeting was not in a qualified state, owing to the interruptions to the harmony that had taken place, to enter upon the investigation, or more properly, the consideration of these subjects. I recollect, however, that some of the members of the southern Quarter appeared to be dissatisfied, that they were not likely to receive any redress of grievances, as they apprehended-and Joseph Turner, I think, undertook to give some explanation of the matter that had come up on their reports, but he was inter

rupted, and desired to stop: the impression on my mind is, by Samuel Bettle himself. I am not, however, certain about it.

There was one matter before the Yearly Meeting which was of a humane and benevolent character, that Friends, perhaps of both parties, were pretty much united in. That was, to raise a sum of money to assist Friends in North Carolina, perhaps, in procuring the freedom, or getting some of the oppressed Africans transported to places where they were likely to be better taken care of. At the last sitting of the Yearly Meeting, although many trying circumstances had occurred through the week, there was a proposal then made, which perhaps was the most so of any that had occurred, except it might be the appointment of the clerk, and the manner in which it took place.

A proposition was brought from the women's meeting, I think stated by them, to have been opened by Ann Jones, an English minister then among them, to appoint a committee to visit the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, constituting the Yearly Meeting; and proposing to menFriends, that they should consider the subject of appointing a committee to unite with them. This called forth great deal of excitement, as was naturally to be expected, in the state in which society was then, and from the party measures that seemed to have been pursued, both in that meeting, and in the meeting of ministers and elders; and great op position was made to it. Even some few of the Orthodox party them. selves, at first, did not appear to approve it. But there were others of that party, that strenuously urged the propriety of such a committee being appointed; and as they seemed to understand one another pretty well, apparently, they pretty soon united in urging the measure. It was, however, strongly opposed by much the larger part of the meeting; I cannot undertake to state the proportions, but I should think myself safe in saying two-thirds of it, of those that spoke. But it seemed all of no avail, there seemed to be a determination in the few, to govern the many, and, to make use of the words of Abraham Lower, "either to rule or to rend the society," and having a clerk at the table, subject entirely to the dictates of his own party; he made a minute, and took down the names of the committee that were offered to him; whose names I have not a list of, but as far as my recollection serves, I think, Jonathan Evans, Samuel Bettle, Thomas Wistar, Thomas Stewardson, (perhaps,) Joseph Whitall, Benjamin Cooper, Hinchman Haines, Christopher Healy, (I think,) and several others, amounting to more than a dozen, I believe, in all; and all of them of those called the Orthodox party, and a considerable number of them, the same that were appointed in the meeting of ministers and elders on a similar committee. No Friend, I believe, undertook to mention a name, as it was evidently a strong party measure, that the great body of the Yearly Meeting had no unity with. I believe this was the last, or nearly the last act of the meeting that year. Friends were exceedingly tried,-a great portion of the Yearly Meeting: but they had no hope left for redress from that body, under its then existing circumstances. The clerk made a minute adjourning the meeting as usual, to meet again the next year; "if the Lord permit," was, perhaps, about the conclusion of it.

Q. Did the party that assumed to rule in that Yearly Meeting, then and before violate the usage of the society to come to its conclusions in the unanimity?

A. I think they had done so in a great variety of instances. The ques

tion is a very broad one. It would lead me to go over the ground that I have already travelled over to recite the various instances, in a great degree. In the circumstance of the opposition and hostile disposition that was manifested towards some valuable ministers, without going further back than the period when the attack was made upon Elias Hicks by the combination of elders, which evidently divided Friends in the meetings of Philadelphia, into two parties, at that period, or in a great degree so. The measures that were pursued by those who might be termed the dominant party, though in many instances not the largest party, was a great interruption to the peace and harmony of society, and prevented meetings from coming to their conclusions in the unity. Their conduct towards Priscilla Hunt, in Philadelphia, was another cause of division of sentiment: and without going into particular matters, I may just name some circumstances. That of the Meeting for Sufferings, attempting, in what was considered an insidious way, to force something upon the Yearly Meeting in the form of what was called a creed. This circumstance occurred in 1823. The great opposition that was after this manifested to Elias Hicks, when on a visit here in 1826, also had a tendency still more to divide, and to cause divisions in society. The conduct of the members of the Meeting for Sufferings, in rejecting the representatives from the southern Quarter, was another prominent exciting cause. And these causes, that for a considerable time, perhaps, were confined to the city, or at least pretty much so, at length spread into some of the country meetings. It was evident that a party was rising up, that were disposed to excite jealousies; promulgate false reports about individuals, tending to injure their standing, religious standing, I mean to be understood, of some of our valuable ministers, who were opposed to the measures that had been carried on in Philadelphia,(ministers and other Friends, I should say,) by the dominant party there, against Elias Hicks. There was also a want of common sociability, and the social intercourse of Friends was interrupted by it, in many instances. And this disposition seemed to be generally growing more and more prevalent, until the Yearly Meeting of 1827.

Q. Was that disposition excited by letters and pamphlets, circulated by that party, to prejudice the minds of Friends and the public?

1. I think that was very much,the case, from what I have understood. The Friend who had travelled with Priscilla Hunt, I recollect, through New York state and Upper Canada, the summer following her first visit to Philadelphia, informed me that many letters had been written, into some of those remote parts, to prejudice the minds of Friends against er. There were also some pamphlets, I don't recollect what to call them; the letter of Thomas Eddy was one that got into print, though, I believe, not designed by the author to be spread in so public a way, from what I have understood, but to be circulated more privately, which letter was calculated to lay waste the religious standing of Elias Hicks, and one or two other Friends who were, I think, named in it, were also implicated. I think there was a large book, or pamphlet, printed about that period, previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, that was said to be much of the same nature, I don't know the title of it, for I never read it. Q. Has the Orthodox party, since its separation, pursued the plan by Issuing documents in meeting capacities, of unjustly prejudicing the public mind against Friends?

A. I think they have, in a very eminent degree, as every impartial VOL. II-8

man must be convinced, who has read their publications of that nature. Perhaps the first of these official documents was issued by the Meeting for Sufferings, soon after the Yearly Meeting, or at least in the course of that summer of 1827. I have not read it lately-I don't know that I have these two years but I was satisfied then that it contained charges that were altogether unfounded, and a great deal of misrepresentation of our motives and views, or the motives and views of Friends, I should say. Their next official document I recollect of that kind, [I ought to have said, that that document from the Meeting for Sufferings was signed by Jonathan Evans as clerk, to make it official,] as I before said, their next document of that kind was issued by their Yearly Meeting in the spring of 1828, and signed by Samuel Bettle as clerk, which also contained charges that I have considered entirely unfounded, and calculated to destroy the religious standing of that part of the society of Friends, to whom it seemed to be applied as a christian people. I think I recollect seeing some account, either in an epistle, or some document that came from the Yearly Meeting of London, that the Meeting for Sufferings in London had received a letter, I think from the Meeting for Sufferings in Philadelphia, giving also a very injurious account of that part of the Society of Friends, who now compose the great body of the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania, and its adjacent parts.

Adjourned until to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.

Tuesday morning, December 14, 1830, at 10 o'clock. Examination of Halliday Jackson continued. Present the same as yesterday.

Question by Mr. Price. Did the great body of Friends, in consequence of the violation of the harmony and principles of the society, by a party, proceed to hold the Yearly Meeting, independently of that party?

A. They did so proceed. The various disorders that I have before stated, and violations of the order and discipline of the society, previous to the Yearly Meeting of 1827, had produced in the minds of many Friends a strong impression that the conflicting parties could not much longer harmonize together in a Yearly Meeting capacity. It had been generally understood, that some of the leaders of those called the Orthodox party, had made declarations that there must be a separation. For instance, Thomas Wistar in the Quarterly Meeting of Philadelphia, as stated by Abraham Lower, had made this public declaration. Join Comly, whose mind was very deeply affected with the scenes and discrders that had occurred previous to that time, seemed to be impresse with the belief, that society could scarcely be saved from ruin, in any other way than by dividing from this dominant party, who plainly showed by their conduct, that they were determined to rule, and to have the government of the church. John Comly, therefore, in some interviews with some of his friends, previous to that Yearly Meeting held in 1827, had opened a prospect of this kind. Although he has been charged by our Orthodox friends, in some of their perhaps anonymous pamphlets, of travelling about, and holding, I think, forty caucus meetings, I think, as they called them, of that kind. I have heard him say myself, that he he never had more than four or five that could be called any thing like conferences on the subject; and those when he met with a few Friends together, while he was travelling on other concerns. In one of those, and one only, I was present, and perhaps six or eight other Friends, be