[NOON.]

A. According to my recollection of an enumeration which was made, and the statement given in the testimony, under a commission issuing out of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Mr. Price. I wish the witness to state from his own knowledge. Witness. I mentioned that circumstance merely as going to show the grounds which I had for the opinion which I expected to express.

Mr. Price. You will please to state what you did, in conjunction with those associated with you for the same object; that is, to ascertain the relative numbers.

Witness. Andrew C. Ridgway, Jediah Middleton, Anthony Sharp, and myself, were engaged to make a statement of the number of members who were considered as having attached themselves to the Orthodox party; and also of the number who remained with Friends, within the limits of that Quarterly Meeting

Mr. Brown. I, of course, cannot object to the witness stating what took place within his own knowledge; but I do object, and wish it distinctly noted, to his relating what was done by others, with whom he was associated, unless he was himself present and acting with them, or their acts personally known to him.

Mr. Price. I want the answer of the witness according to the facts. Witness proceeds. According to the statement thus made, I think there were eight hundred of the former, or Orthodox party, and one thousand and forty-nine Friends.

Q. From your own observations, in attending Burlington Quarterly Meeting, since the Orthodox left it, what proportion of the former members continue to sustain it?

A. Judging from my recollection of the size, or the numbers who attended the Quarterly Meeting formerly, previous to the separation, and the numbers who have attended since that time, I think it would be safe to say, that from two-thirds to three-fourths as many attend since, as before; and sometimes I have thought that the meeting did not fall far short of being as large as I have seen it before the separation.

Q. Was the committee of which Samuel Emlen, Samuel Craft and others were members, to visit the Monthly and Preparative Meetings, appointed by Burlington Quarterly Meeting?

ed.

A. I have no recollection of any such committee having been appoint

Q. Have you regularly attended that Quarterly Meeting since the separation?

A. I have regularly attended it.

Q. Did you attend the Yearly Meeting in Fourth-month, 1827; and if so, when a Friend was about to state to the meeting the disqualified situation of Samuel Bettle, to act as its clerk, was the meeting deprived of that communication, and in what way?

A. I attended the Yearly Meeting in Fourth-month, 1827, with the exception of part of the last sitting. At the close of the first sitting, on Second-day morning, the representatives were requested to stop at the rise of the sitting, to consider of a suitable person to serve the meeting as clerk, and one to assist him. On the coming together of the meeting in the afternoon, it was stated to the meeting, that the representatives had not agreed upon any person to propose as its clerk. There were different views then taken, with regard to the proper course to pursue: VOL. II.-27

by some it was thought that Samuel Bettle, who had been the clerk, must continue to act as the clerk of the meeting; others, and some of whom, I believe, were of the representatives, thought the subject had better be again referred to them, to the body of representatives; especially as it was alleged by some of them, that they had not had sufficient time; and it was thought, that if they were allowed a sufficient time, they would be enabled to report the name of a suitable person to serve in that station. This was objected to, and the appointment of the clerk by the meeting was insisted upon. The subject thus appeared to be before the meeting for its consideration, where the members were understood to have equal rights, and the same interests; and as the appointment now appeared likely to devolve upon the meeting, it became necessary that the merits and qualifications of the person nominated, should be canvassed, in order that the meeting might judge of his fitness. Under impressions, as I apprehend, of this kind, a Friend arose and commenc ed, as I understood it, to show to the meeting why Samuel Bettle was not a suitable person for that station; he had not proceeded far, however, yet far enough to enable those who heard him, to judge of the nature of what he was about to communicate, when several Friends in the upper seats, who were considered of the Orthodox party, were on their feet at the same time, and rebuked the Friend that was about to communicate his views, for attempting, thus prematurely, to disclose circumstances which they alleged would be likely to come before the Yearly Meeting for its consideration, in a manner, for severity and unkindness, which, I think, I have never witnessed in any assembly either civil or religious: so violent was the character of this rebuke, that under the force of it, the Friend took his seat. This circumstance, I have but very little doubt, had the effect, as it was calculated to have, to prevent members of that Yearly Meeting from exercising their just rights. Soon after this, Samuel Bettle, who was at the table, recorded himself as clerk of the meeting, contrary, as I apprehend, to the wishes of much the larger part of it. After this again, and when it would seem that the point had been gained, of appointing their clerk, one of those Friends who had joined in the rebuke which I have before mentioned, arose, and in a very unqualified manner, made an acknowledgment for his indecorous conduct in that case. On the morning of the next day, another of those Friends, who had also been engaged in that unkind affair, also made an acknowledgment of the same character. This unkind and uncourteous behaviour, especially when it came from such men as were engaged in it, had a tendency, as I apprehend, to prevent others from an expression of their sentiments, lest they might receive similar treatment; as well as it did prevent the Friend from communicating any thing further upon the subject: and the meeting was not put in possession of what, it appeared, he designed to communicate.

Q. Has it since been generally understood, that the matters of difficulty, between Green street Monthly Meeting and the Philadelphia Quar ter, and between the Meeting for Sufferings and the southern Quarter, in which Samuel Bettle had taken a zealous part, were to come before that Yearly Meeting for decision?

A. I think it has been so understood.

Q. From the knowledge you have of the character of a Yearly Meeting, have all the members who have arrived at years of discretion, a right to be present, and take part in its proceedings?

A. As regards natural rights, I have never supposed that there was any distinction.

Q. As to spiritual qualification, is the meeting the only competent judge, of its presence, and of the weight of sentiments delivered? A. That is according to my view of the subject.

Q. Is there any higher body in the society known, than a Yearly Meeting?

A. There never has been any higher authority, than that of a Yearly Meeting.

Q. Does it make its own discipline, govern its own proceedings, and is it the final tribunal of appeal in the society?

A. Those questions I may answer in the affirmative.

Q. Are Yearly Meetings, for all disciplinary purposes, independent bodies?

A. Such has always been my opinion. I might add, as a proof that I am correct in that opinion, I think, when new Yearly Meetings have been established, no assent has been required, except of the members immediately concerned. An attempt was made within my recollection (the precise time I do not now remember,) to establish something in the character of a federal head, to the Yearly Meetings, on this continent: but which was not agreed to; leaving, as I apprehend, the respective Yearly Meetings in the possession of their independence.

Q. When the other Yearly Meetings commence a correspondence with a new Yearly Meeting, if it is an acknowledgment of any thing, would it be of its independence as a body, or of its dependence?

A. From what knowledge I have of the epistolary correspondence that has been carried on between the different Yearly Meetings, as far as the question of dependence or independence is involved, it goes most fully to recognise the latter.

Q. So far as you have observed, have Friends, since separation, been willing to settle the difference in regard to property, with their opponents, according to the ancient, just, and gospel order of Friends?

A. I am not aware of a single exception among Friends. In many, if not most cases, overtures have been made, having for their object such an adjustment.

Q In your particular meeting, have you done so; and if so, can you exhibit here the nature of it?

A. In the Monthly Meeting, of which I am a member, an overture of the character mentioned has been made, but not apprehending that it would be wanted on this examination, I did not bring it with me, but can either produce it at another time, or can give its character from recollection. In the Preparative Meeting, of which I am a member, previously to the separation of our Orthodox Friends, and when we were in a Preparative Meeting capacity together, and it appearing likely that difficulties would increase upon us, a proposition was made, and tenderly urged, that a committee should be appointed to take the state of that meeting into consideration, and see if some way might not open to arrange those things, which might, probably, if left as they then were, produce unkind feelings in the neighbourhood, and unnecessarily interrupt the harmony which had so remarkably characterized that neighbourhood and meeting. This proposition was urged by Friends, and resisted by the Orthodox party in that meeting. The school property belonging to that Preparative Meeting was likely also to produce increased difficul

ty among the members constituting it, in consequence of the separation before alluded to; in order to prevent which, the trustees of Friends who had charge of such property, principally, very early made overtures to those Friends who were among the Orthodox, and who also claimed to have the control of it. A copy of the overture I have in my pocket, and if it is thought proper I can exhibit it.

The witness producing the paper further says, this is the original agreed upon by the trustees.

The paper is now offered in evidence, on the part of the complainant, and Stacy Decow, and marked Exhibit W.-[See Appendix.]

it.

Q. Was that overture acceded to by those to whom it was sent? A. We never received any official information from them in regard to All the private information which we received, went to show that they would do nothing in the case. Although I believe some of their members thought our propositions very reasonable and just.

Q. Were you or they the majority of the meeting?

A. As regards the meeting collectively, I think there is not much difference; as regards the male members, I think the majority is on their side.

Q. Were you, or they, in possession of the school property?

A. We were in possession of the school property, with a very small exception.

Q. So far as you have had opportunity of observing, have the disownments of the Orthodox party appeared to be in the spirit of restoring love of the discipline, or with the view of arrogating the name, rights, and property of the society?

A. It is difficult to say, what might have been the feelings of our Or thodox Friends under such very extraordinary circumstances; but if we are at liberty to judge of their feelings by their conduct, and of the fruits which their very ridiculous proceedings produced, I should be inclined to think, there had been but very little of the spirit of restoring love; and when we take into consideration their own individual declarations about the time of their pretending thus to deal, in connexion with the known fact of their having retained several lawyers, under whose direction it was supposed that they were acting, the conclusion seems almost irresistible, that the property belonging to the society was the principal thing that they were aiming at. When I speak as I do upon the last question, I should be very sorry to be understood, as intending to include all who are in connexion with the Orthodox party. There are many men among them, with whom I am acquainted, for whose justice and liberality I have a very great regard; and whom, I am grateful, that I can still place upon the list of my Friends, and who by no means join in this crusade after property; and who also entirely disapprove of the course which their Orthodox brethren have taken in regard to it.

And being cross-examined on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, the witness further saith.

Question by Mr. Brown. Does not the discipline of the Society of Friends forbid the attendance at its meetings for discipline, of persons who are either under dealing or disowned?

A. I am not aware that the discipline goes to the extent to forbid; but it does contemplate that persons thus circumstanced, shall not be present at meetings for discipline.

Q. Was it the practice, within your knowledge, previous to the separation, for persons thus circumstanced, to attend such meetings?

A. It was not the practice of latter times; although I think it was formerly: I say it was not the practice of latter times, in meetings where I was acquainted, for such persons to sit, either before or since the separation. Q. Would it be consistent with the order of society, for a meeting for discipline to proceed with its business, if such persons should obtrude themselves into it, and persist in sitting there?

A. I think such a case as that is not provided for in the discipline; and such a case, I think, I never witnessed in a meeting that I attended. I therefore am unable to say what course would be pursued in a case of that kind; but I give it as my opinion, that it would not be according to the order of society to have such persons present.

Q. Would it not be contrary to the usage of the society?

A. With regard to usage, as I said before, I never witnessed such a case, and therefore can say but little as to the usage. I believe, however, that instances have occurred where such persons have refused to withdraw, and they have been taken out of the meeting; but I never knew, I think, an instance of a meeting adjourning, neither did I ever hear of such an instance, until very lately, because of the presence of such persons.

Q. If the discipline discountenances the attendance of such persons at a meeting for discipline, would not a meeting that suffered them to sit whilst proceeding with its business, thereby sanction a violation of that discipline?

A. Inasmuch as there is no discipline directing how a meeting shall proceed in a case of that kind, if a meeting were so to act as named in the question, I do not conceive that it would violate the discipline, as regarded the meeting; but the individual who thus intruded himself, not being a member, would act in violation of the discipline.

Q. Does not the discipline say that persons under dealing or disowned, are not to be permitted to sit in meetings for discipline?

A. If the discipline does so state, it is worded somewhat differently from what was my recollection or apprehension of that part of it.

The discipline, [Exhibit No. 13,] is shown the witness-when he says: on a reference to the discipline, I find that such is the language which it holds; and should, therefore, in answer to the question previously put, be of the mind, that meetings for discipline could not sanction the continuance of persons in that situation.

Q. If a large number of such persons were present, who, after they were requested to withdraw, still persisted in remaining, would it be most consistent with the pacific principles of Friends to remove them by force, or for the meeting to adjourn to a time and place, where it would be select?

A. I think where proper labour had been taken, by naming individuals who have no right to a seat, and requesting them to withdraw, if they could not be prevailed upon to do so, in such cases as are mentioned in the question, I should think it most in accordance with the pacific principles of the society to adjourn the meeting.

Adjourned until to-morrow morning, ten o'clock.

Wednesday morning, 16th, 1831, ten o'clock. Cross-examination of Charles Stokes continued. Present as before.