brother Thomas, who was a little way off, I think, and told him what I had said, at which they both got pretty warm. After I left him, and before he left the yard, another elder of that meeting, as he afterwards told me himself, took an opportunity with him, on the subject of his communication; but what passed between them, I do not know, only that this elder was very much dissatisfied with what was said in the meeting. I did not feel entirely satisfied myself with the manner of my speaking to him. I believe it was the only time that I can recollect, that I had felt any warmth on an occasion of that kind; and I mentioned to this elder that had last spoke to him, that I thought I should feel better satisfied, to make some apology to William Evans for the manner of my speaking to him, but I could not take back any of the force of it. But his reply was, "he would not have me to do any such thing; that he had not got half as much as he deserved." I, however, some time, not long after, met William Evans in the street, and spoke to him with a view of stopping him, in order to have some conversation on the subject, but he would not stop, nor take any notice of me; and seldom since, when he meets with me. I therefore thought I had done all that was necessary on my part and as the Orthodox, in one of their anonymous publications, which was generally called "Evans's Pamphlet," have held up this circumstance to public view, to the injury of my character, I am now glad they have elicited this opportunity of a full explanation of the subject. Q. Was the elder, of whom you have last spoken, one of those whom you call Friends? A. Yes. Very few of the members of that meeting but what were so, and remain to be. Q. Were you, at the time referred to, a member of Byberry meeting, or of the meeting to which William Evans belonged? A. No, I was not. But I heard what he had to say myself. I did not depend on the report of Comfort, or Bell, or Whitall, for things that they had heard at a hundred miles distance. Q. Did Thomas Griswold inform you of what transpired in the pri vate interview between Jonathan Evans and himself? A. I am not so certain. But my impression is, that we had a conversation on the subject. He passed through our neighbourhood on his way home, and I was in company with him; and the subject had become very much known. Thomas Griswold was very much hurt, cast down, and discouraged; and, I believe, made the best of his way home pretty soon. Q. In giving the information which he did give you, did he state that Jonathan Evans had "severely reprimanded him?" A. As I have stated before, I cannot be certain as to the conversation that passed between Thomas Griswold and me; but if he did not tell me so, I certainly heard it from others, who had had conversation with him. It is now several years since, and it is impossible to recollect exactly what passed. Q. If Jonathan Evans was dissatisfied with any thing Thomas Griswold had said, was he not discharging his duty as an elder, according to gospel order, in thus privately expressing his uneasiness to him? A. He certainly had a right, as an officer of the meeting, to impart his uneasiness, if he felt any. But the manner of doing it, and the nature of the subject which he was finding fault with, as it is understood Thomas was holding up the doctrine of the necessity of love and unity, it seemed to be rather a singular kind of complaint, that such doctrine as that should not be admissible among Friends-this, I believe, was what gave the uneasiness to Thomas Griswold, of which he complained. Q. Do you know that it was the preaching of love and unity which occasioned the uneasiness of Jonathan Evans, and led to the interview between them? A. I don't recollect that I have ever heard of any other charge that Jonathan made against him at that time-as to my own knowledge, I do not know. Q. When an elder thus privately admonishes a minister, is it consistent with the order of society, for such minister to report what passed, to other persons? A. I don't recollect that there is any discipline to prohibit a minister, when he thinks himself aggrieved, from communicating it to some of his friends. You have the discipline, I must refer you to that. Q. We speak of the usages and order of the society, and not of the discipline? A. I can't say how far this usage has been exercised; but, I believe, it has very frequently been done; and I have frequently myself heard eminent ministers in the society, relate circumstances where the elders have spoke to them on certain occasions, without any intention of hurting the standing of the elders, or any implied breach of order. Q. The question is, would it be consistent with the order of society? A. As I know of no positive discipline in the case, and have stated what I do know of circumstances of that kind, I shall not undertake to say whether it is consistent or not consistent with the order of society. Q. Was what you have stated, the settled practice of the society, previous to their being any differences in the society? A. I cannot say, as to any settled practice. That depended very much I believe on the disposition of ministers as they felt a liberty to communicate with their friends; and I have known instances of it within my recollection long previous to the late disturbances that have occurred. Q. About what time was it that you first heard of the existence of such a minute as that you have read from the extracts of 1761.-(Exhi-bit D.) A. I was about to state when I made an exhibit of that minute, that the first I saw of that identical paper was at Joseph Turner's, which I think was last Fifth-month, when I was down at the southern Quarter; but I had seen the minute in print, that part of it which relates to the "Meeting for Sufferings," long previous to that: I think it was published in the Berean, if I remember right, and perhaps too in the "Friend, or Advocate of Truth." I am not certain as regards the latter; some time, not a great while, after the circumstances happened, of the Meeting for Sufferings rejecting the representatives from the southern Quarter, I cannot say how long after. Q. Had you ever heard of the existence of the minute before the circumstance to which you allude, occurred? A. No, I think I had not. It was discovered among some old meeting papers, as I have understood, after that period. If it had have been known, or discovered in that Quarter, previous to the southern Quarterly Meeting, which the committee from the Meeting for Sufferings attended, I think it probable it would have been produced at that meet ing, to refute the ingenious arguments that were then made to induce the southern Quarter to believe that the Meeting for Sufferings was a permanent body; although without that minute they had sufficient discipline to support them in the liberties they had taken to change their representatives in the Meeting for Sufferings. Q. How long before the change made by the southern Quarter in its representatives in the Meeting for Sufferings, did you know that such a measure was contemplated, and that you were to be one of the new nomination? A. I did not know that I was to be one of the nomination previous to the Quarterly Meeting, when the nomination was made. And I do not recollect that I had any certain knowledge of the fact, until I received the minute soon afterwards. I had not been down at that Quarter, never but once in my life, previous to that period, and had not a great deal of intercourse with any of the members of it. There were two or three that came up to the Yearly Meeting, that I had some intimacy with. With regard to the other part of the question, I have no certain knowledge. I remember once, some considerable time before, I think it was, but can't fix the date, one of the members of that Quarter, that I met with in Philadelphia, was mentioning to me, that one of their representatives had a wish to be released, and I think he inquired of me, if I could think of a suitable person in Philadelphia, that I could recommend to serve them in that appointment; and I think I mentioned to him, that I thought Doctor Joseph Parrish was a well qualified person for that ser vice. But this, I think, must have been some considerable time before this general revision of their representatives was contemplated or acted upon. I cannot recollect when I first knew that the change was contemplated; or that I knew it at all before it was made. Q. Have you stated all that you know or recollect on that subject? A. I think I have. I think its altogether possible I may have heard some dissatisfaction expressed, or at least that it had been expressed by some of the members of that Quarter, with regard to two of their representatives in Philadelphia, who had taken an active part in the measures that were carried on in Philadelphia, by the elders, against Elias Hicks; contrary to the judgment of the great body, and nearly all the active members of the southern Quarterly Meeting, who had come forward with their names subscribed to a certificate that went to lay waste the charges of Comfort and Bell respecting Elias Hicks' services at that Quarter. Q. Had you not previously had conversation with Abraham Lower on the expediency of the proposed change? A. I can't recollect any conversation that passed between Abraham Lower and me on the subject; but I think its more than probable I had heard Abraham converse on the subject. It had become a thing so notorious, the conduct of those elders, that for a time it seemed to be a very general subject of conversation. I think I now recollect hearing Abraham say, that he had a wish to be released from being a member or representative from that Quarter; that he had but little satisfaction in the Meeting for Sufferings in the way that things were carried on at that time, or something to that import, and he thought he should go down to that Quarter, and request to be released. Adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. Wednesday morning, December 22nd, 1830, at 10 o'clock. Crossexamination of the same witness continued. Present the same as yesterday. Question by Mr. Brown. Previous to the change being made by the Southern Quarter, had you no reason to expect that you would be one of the new nomination? Answer. I don't know that I had any reason to expect it. I know I was not seeking of the office, and I think no Friend of that Quarter had told me that they had any view of appointing me as their representative. Q. Without your having sought the office, you may have had some reason to expect to be on the new nomination; it may have been intimated to you by some one. Was or was not that the case? A. I don't recollect any conversation that passed between me and any member of that Quarter on the subject, that could give me any reason to expect it. Q. Had you any reason to expect it? A. Well, I told you all I could recollect; and as to any reasons which might sway a person's mind, I don't think we have any thing to do with that subject at all. Q. I understand the witness then to answer the question negatively; that he had no reason to expect he would be on the new nomination? A. Yes; and I will further add, that if I had been told by a member of that Quarter, that they had a view of appointing me to that service, I think there would have been no impropriety in it at all: and I should have been willing to have told you all that passed. Q. What was the cause of the dissatisfaction with Caleb Peirce and Isaac Lloyd, and which occasioned their being displaced from the Meeting for Sufferings? A. I have never understood any other cause than the one that has been already stated; which was, their uniting in this combination of elders in support of the charges made by Comfort and Bell against Elias Hicks, for some things that they reported he had delivered at the southern Quarter; and which the members of that Quarter generally justified him in, by signing a certificate to that effect. I believe that as Caleb Peirce and Isaac Lloyd were directly in opposition to the views of that Quarter, they could not consistently continue them as their representatives in the Meeting for Sufferings. They therefore exercised their rights and privileges in making the change they did. Q. Was Isaac Lloyd at that time a member of what you call the Philadelphia combination of elders? A. At the time this combination of elders was formed, in 1822, Isaac Lloyd, I believe, did not approve of their proceedings; and as I have before stated, he stood as the friend of Elias Hicks, and went with him to the meeting of the elders. But at some period between that time and 1826, when he was released by the southern Quarter, he had changed his views with regard to Elias Hicks, as was evident in the opposition he made to him in Pine street meeting, before spoken of. It had been known, perhaps, for some year or two before that circumstance took place, that Isaac Lloyd had been supporting the views of the elders against Elias Hicks; and therefore I think it might justly be said that he was one of that combination. Q. How was that support manifested? A. I gathered it from common repute: it was pretty generally known at that time of day how individuals in conspicuous stations in the society stood. Q. I understand you to say that it was the common reputation that Isaac Lloyd supported the views of the elders: my question was, how, and in what manner, by what acts or proceedings on his part was that support manifested? A. I don't know that I can recollect or recognise any public act, previous to the one in Pine street meeting, which we have spoken of: but common report justified what I have stated; that he had become warmly opposed to Elias Hicks. Q. Previous to 1826, had you ever known any Quarterly Meeting to make a change of its representatives in the Meeting for Sufferings, except in cases of death, resignation, or neglect of duty? A. I have not had any means of knowing from any historical facts, as I was not a member of the Meeting for Sufferings; but there was one circumstance which I heard of, that I think occurred not a great while previous to that time. Enoch Lewis, who resided in the western Quarterly Meeting, was a representative from that Quarter to the Meeting for Sufferings: he removed his situation to Wilmington; and I think I was informed, that on his leaving that Quarter he did not request to be released, but rather informed the meeting that he was going away: but it did not follow of course that he could not serve them in that appointment, or something to that import, which convinced many of the members of that Quarter, as I have heard several of them since say, that he did not wish to be released, but was rather desirous to retain his seat in the Meeting for Sufferings. They, however, took up the subject subsequently, and did release him, and appoint another in his stead. And I have heard that when the minute of the new appointment came forward to the Meeting for Sufferings, Jonathan Evans expressed much regret at the releasement of Enoch Lewis. I don't know that I can give any other instance that has come to my knowledge, of that kind; but I suppose the western Quarterly Meeting considered it in the same light that they had the right to release one of their representatives, or to release their representatives without their request. Q. In the instance which you have given, the suggestion on which the western Quarter acted in releasing Enoch Lewis, came from himself? A. I never understood, either then or since, that he requested to be released. Counsel. So I understood; but he suggested that he was about to re move. Witness. Yes; he informed them that he was about to remove; and from what he then expressed, they received the impression that he was still willing to serve them in that capacity: and as he was coming nearer to Philadelphia, it would render it still more convenient for him to attend to that duty. Q. Was it in reference to the situation he held as representative in that Quarter in the Meeting for Sufferings, that Enoch Lewis made the communication to which you have alluded, to the Quarter, of his intending to remove, or having removed? A. As I was not at that Quarter, I cannot say whether it was in reference to that circumstance altogether, or whether he might have been under some other appointments in the Quarter. He was an active mem |