to get their eyes opened, and find that they have been mistaken respecting us. The misrepresentation respecting us, which continues to be exercised by letter writing and otherwise, has promoted a spirit of inquiry, that I have no doubt will finally be an advantage to us.

Q. Do the meetings within the limits of, and held in subordination to, those Yearly Meetings, either receive from or grant to the meetings held in subordination to the meeting held in Green and Cherry streets, and acknowledging it as a Yearly Meeting, certificates of membership in cases of removal?

A. My knowledge in that respect is very limited. But I apprehend they have stopped that communication; I have not known of any circumstance of a certificate being requested of latter time, from any meeting within the limits of our Yearly Meeting to any of those Yearly Meetings that have been alluded to; neither do I know of any instance of latter time, when a certificate has been received from any of those Yearly Meetings, by any of ours.

Q. Is it not a matter of general repute, that those meetings do continue their correspondence with the meeting which has been continued to be held in Arch street, at the usual time, since 1827, and that they acknowledge it as the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends of Pennsylvania, &c.?

A. I have never attended the Yearly Meeting at Arch street since the year 1827. But I suppose that to be the case. From a pamphlet which they have lately issued, called the testimony of the Society of Friends on the continent of America, it appears that they have formed a kind of creed of their own, for they had been long wanting one.

Q. Has there been a division in the Yearly Meeting of Ohio?

A. Yes. There has been a division in the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, and also of Indiana.

Q. Where was that meeting held before the division?

A. It was held at Mount Pleasant.

Q. The correspondence then, to which you have alluded, has been with but one branch of that meeting?

A. Yes. It has been with that part of it, which we acknowledge as the Society of Friends. Not with the Orthodox part of it, of course. Q. Has the meeting held by those with whom you correspond, ever been recognised as a Yearly Meeting of the society by the undivided Yearly Meetings before alluded to?

A. I can't tell any thing about that, as I have never attended a Yearly Meeting in Ohio since the separation.

Q. Do the other branch of that meeting still hold meetings at the same time and place they did before the separation, and claim to be the Yearly Meeting of Ohio?

A. I have understood they do hold the Yearly Meeting at the same time and place.

Q. By general reputation?

A. Yes.

Q. By general reputation, do not all the Yearly Meetings spoken of continue to correspond with them and acknowledge them as the Yearly Meeting of Ohio?

A. I have no general repute on that subject. But I have no doubt that all the Orthodox Yearly Meetings correspond with them, and that they call themselves the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends; but

I was going to add to my former answer, that from the best information I can obtain, they are only about one-half of the number that constituted that Yearly Meeting, previous to the separation.

Q. Where was the Indiana Yearly Meeting held before the separation? A. I never attended that Yearly Meeting. But it was held I believe at Richmond, but I rather think the name of the place is called White

water.

Q. Is the meeting with which you correspond held there?

A. No. It is held at Miami, near Waynesville.

Q. Is that in Indiana?

A. No. It is in the state of Ohio; it is near the line; and not far from Indiana.

Q. Has that meeting since it passed into Ohio, ever been recognised or corresponded with as a Yearly Meeting of Friends in Indiana, by the Yearly Meetings spoken of?

A. I have no knowledge on that subject; as I never have attended a Yearly Meeting there; but I have no expectations that they have ever been acknowledged or corresponded with by any of those Orthodox Yearly Meetings spoken of. The Yearly Meeting of Indiana, called Indiana, was composed partly of Friends living in the state of Indiana, and partly by Friends living in Ohio, and perhaps the largest part, though I am not certain of that. When the separation took place in that Yearly Meeting, the Orthodox party proved to be the largest in numbers; as we find in almost every instance, the further our Friends in other Yearly Meetings are situated from Philadelphia, the more they have become prejudiced against us; as our Orthodox Friends have had a greater opportunity of misrepresenting us, and they, further out of reach of getting correct information. Hence Friends in Indiana being in the minority, have acted as the Orthodox Friends in New York and Baltimore have done, by removing or holding their Yearly Meeting at a different place from where it had formerly held. And the Miami meeting house being the largest and most commodious house, and most convenient for the purpose, they agreed to hold it there.

Q. Did they do as those whom you call Orthodox did in Baltimore and New York, proclaim their intention to continue the meeting at another place, in the meeting, at the time of their withdrawal, and meet and continue the sittings of the Yearly Meeting in pursuance of such declaration at the time and place appointed, or was that meeting at Miami originated by a few individuals, members of one of the Quarters of that Yearly Meeting, after its adjournment, to meet again at the usual time and place?

A. From what I have understood of the first Yearly Meeting that was held at Waynesville, in Miami meeting house, it was agreed to be held by an association of several of the Quarters, and perhaps of some of the Monthly Meetings that were component parts of other Quarters. At the Yearly Meeting held previous, I think in the fall of 1827, after the separation had taken place in the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania, our Orthodox Friends sounded the alarm, both in Ohio and Indiana; and for aught I know, to the uttermost parts of the earth. A host of Friends went down from Ohio Yearly Meeting, as I have been informed, accompanied by some of the English Friends then in America, and sounded the alarm in Indiana Yearly Meeting; and they got up something in that Yearly Meeting, by way of a creed, as was then understood by Friends,

called, I think, "a Testimony and Epistle of Advice," which they sent down among their subordinate meetings, and perhaps appointed a com mittee I think they did, to enforce its observance upon their subordinate meetings. It gave great dissatisfaction to a large portion of the mem bers of that Yearly Meeting, and hence began the work of separation within its limits; and the Orthodox began the work of disowning after the example of their Philadelphia brethren; and to make short of it, this work was progressing, until the approaching time of the Yearly Meeting to be held the next year, when Friends, seeing the conflict that must unavoidably ensue, if the two parties met together again in a Yearly Meeting capacity: and therefore they took into consideration the propriety of meeting separate and apart from those that they considered their Orthodox oppressors: and in that way the Yearly Meeting of Friends came to be held at Miami.

Q. Is this the "Testimony and Epistle of Advice" issued by Indiana Yearly Meeting, alluded to in your previous answer?

[The witness is shown a pamphlet of eighty-three pages, entitled, "Epistles and Testimonies issued by the Yearly Meeting of Friends," &c. 1828; on examining which he answers,] I wont undertake to say, but it appears to be such, and issued by the Yearly Meeting under the names of the clerks, whose names I saw to a document of that kind.

The "Testimony and Epistle of Advice," is contained on pages 65 and to 72 inclusive, and is contained between the words "Testimony J. J. Foster," and "Epistle J. J. Foster."

The said pamphlet is offered in evidence on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, and marked Exhibit 44.

The witness further answers, And for a full and able review of this Testimony and Epistle of Advice, I would refer those who wish to read. it, to the "Berean," I can't tell what volume; or to the last year's volume of the "Friend, or Advocate of Truth,” in which it will be found.

Q. You have spoken of several instances in which Bartholomew Wistar was engaged in reading certain statements within the limits of the Ohio Yearly Meeting: can you state to me what those statements were, or furnish a copy of the paper from which they were read?

Witness. The statements that he read there, or the statements made to me?

Counsel. The statements that he read there.

A. No; I cannot furnish a copy of those statements, for I never saw them; but I received a letter from a Friend in Ohio, dated Ninth-month, 1827, which gave me an account of his reading those statements and accounts that I have alluded to; which letter I have at home: the Friend mentioned in the letter, that he thought it beneath the dignity of Eliza beth's station to encourage the writing of such letters by reading and giving publicity to them.

Q. You have not seen either the paper read by Bartholomew Wistar or a copy of it; nor can you give its contents?

A. No, I have not seen it: the Friend who wrote to me, informed m that they were going to be at a meeting in his neighbourhood the nex day that he intended to try to procure copy of the letter that he had read respecting the conversation with Elias Hicks; and if he did, h should write to Elias Hicks on the subject, for he had always considere him as one of the pillars in the church. But whether he ever procure that copy or not, I cannot tell.

Q. Was Elias Hicks in religious unity with your society until the time of his death?

A. We always considered him so.

Q. Did not your meeting make a minute approbatory of his services among you on his visit to it in 1828?

A. Yes, I think they did so: I am not so positive about the Yearly Meeting, as it had been the former custom to make such minute in the meeting for ministers and elders: I remember it was done in that meeting, and with my own name to it as clerk of that meeting; and I rather think it was done in the Yearly Meeting also.

Q. In the aggregate of numbers which you have given of those who you call Orthodox, and Friends, respectively, what part do you state. from your own knowledge?

A. As to any actual enumeration, I could not state from my own personal knowledge, any further than of the members of our own Monthly Meeting; being on a committee of that Monthly Meeting, to make out a list of the numbers as accurate as we could on both sides. But from a paper which I now hold in my hand, and which is taken from official accounts, which I have seen from all the Monthly Meetings composing our Yearly Meeting, except two or three which I excepted before in my testimony in chief, I can give the relative numbers in each Quarter.

Mr. Sloan. The question having been answered, I do not call for fur-` ther statements from any paper which may have been put into the witness's hands by other persons.

Q. Is the paper referred to made out by the parties mutually, or exclusively prepared by those whom you call Friends?

A. It is prepared by those that I call Friends: but the numbers in five of the Quarters, as I stated before, I think, were taken under a commission, I think, issued by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

Saturday morning, 5th March, 1831, ten o'clock. Cross-examination of Halliday Jackson continued. Present the same as yesterday. Question. Is there any thing in the discipline prescribing the number of members that shall be required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, in a meeting for discipline?

A. I don't know any clause of discipline requiring such a thing. You have the discipline, and I must refer you to that.

Q. Is there any thing in the usages and practices of the society requiring any thing of the kind?

A. The usages and practices of society, in the former harmonious times of it, were to transact their business, and come to their conclusions, as much in the unity as was practicable.

Q. At the times appointed for holding meetings for discipline, did those who attended such meetings, proceed to transact the business of the meeting without reference to the numbers assembled?

A. I think that has generally been the case: as far as my knowledge extends: but I think, I have known some instances of some important matters being postponed on account of the absence of a number of Friends from the meeting.

Q. In those cases, would not the meeting, if they had thought proper, have had a right to proceed to transact the business?

A. Yes. They would so.

Q. If a majority of the members of a Monthly Meeting should violate the discipline, in any respect, as for instance, denying the Christian religion, taking up arms, taking oaths, or any such practices prohibited by the discipline, would not the minority of the meeting, be bound by the discipline to disown them, if, after having extended proper care to them, they could not be convinced of their error, and would not such disownments be valid?

A. I have never known such a case occurring in society. We acknowledge ourselves bound by the discipline, and where open violations of it take place, it ought to be put in practice. But we are not to suppose cases that never existed: and if there is a division of sentiment in a Monthly Meeting, respecting any particular case of such violation, I think it would be right for the minority to submit to the judgment of the majority, whether the discipline was violated or not, or otherwise in such case of difficulty apply to the Quarterly Meeting for advice and assistance.

Q. If an individual member be guilty of such violation of the discipline, is not the meeting required, by the discipline, to disown him, if he persists in his error?

A. I have stated that the members of the society are bound by the discipline; and where it is the judgment of the Monthly Meeting, that a member has violated the discipline, they would be bound to put it in practice.

Q. Is there any thing in the discipline limiting the extent to which it shall be administered towards refractory members of the meeting? A. The discipline is to be administered in the spirit of restoring love, in order if practicable to reclaim the individual from the error of his ways; and there is no limitation that I know of, that draws any line how long this indulgence, or labour of love, shall be extended. I refer you again to the discipline.

Q. My question was intended to relate to the numbers of persons? A. I have answered that before, as to numbers, I think. I know of no limitation as to the number specified in the discipline. But brotherly condescension is required.

Q. You have spoken of cases in which if there were a division of sentiment in the Monthly Meeting, the minority, you thought, ought to postpone their opinion to the majority: have your society ever recog nised the principle of deciding by majorities?

A. I think they have recognised it, in this way, that in the former harmonious times of society, it was never the practice or usage of society, to carry any measure or subject of importance, where it was evident in a meeting, that the majority of the meeting was opposed to ithence, brotherly condescension, christian forbearance, was to be exercised, until Friends could become more united in their determination of the subject.

Q. In those days to which you have alluded, was no more weight or influence attached to the sentiments of the aged, experienced, and con sistent members of the society, who had for a long series of years de voted themselves to the administration of its discipline, than to those of the young and inexperienced members, who had but recently taker a part in the concerns of the meeting?

A. That depended very much upon the place that the sentiments o the speakers had in the minds of the people. If it carried its own evi