means to allude to any thing besides what he has before stated, I wish

him to state it.

A. I believe that I have before stated that another cause of dissatisfaction on the part of Mount Holly Monthly Meeting with the proceedings had in the Quarterly Meeting, was, that they were not permitted to have any representatives in the Yearly Meeting of 1827.

Q. Did the Quarterly Meeting refuse that particular Monthly Meeting the privilege of having representatives?

A. They were refused in the manner stated in an answer to a former question.

Q. I understand you now to say then, that the cause of offence was the undesigned omission of the clerk to take the names of particular persons, as you have mentioned?

Á. I refer for a further explanation, to my former answers upon that subject.

Q. Does not the discipline direct, that "when a Quarterly Meeting is dissatisfied with the proceedings of any of its Monthly Meetings, they [the Monthly Meetings,] are with meekness and readiness to render an account thereof when required?"

A. I think it does. Please to read the question again. [It is read, when he further says,] I think it does require that they ought to do so. Q. Was the Quarterly Meeting of which you are now a member, represented in the meeting held at Green street in Tenth-month, 1827? A. As a Quarterly Meeting, I think it was not.

Q. When was it first represented in the Meeting which you call a Yearly Meeting, held in Green and Cherry streets?

Witness. I suppose the counsel alludes to the Yearly Meeting held on the second Second-day of Fourth-month.

Counsel. I allude to the Meeting which you call a Yearly Meeting, and which is held in Green and Cherry streets, Philadelphia, and which is held, I think, at the time you have now stated; and I ask, when was the meeting which you call the Burlington Quarterly Meeting, first represented in it?

A. Representatives were appointed by Burlington Quarterly Meeting, to attend that Yearly Meeting which was held in the year 1828.

Q. The answer does not state the time of their appointment, but only the Yearly Meeting they were appointed to attend: I wish him to state the time of their appointment?

A. They were appointed in the Quarterly Meeting at the usual time of holding said Quarterly Meeting, immediately preceding the Yearly Meeting; but that time I cannot precisely state.

Q. After the separation of which you have spoken, in Eleventh-month, 1827, did your Quarterly Meeting consider itself as a constituent branch of the Yearly Meeting held at Arch street, Philadelphia, on the third Second-day of Fourth-month?

A. The Quarterly Meeting considered itself a constituent branch of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, which had been held some years previously at the Arch street house, on the third Second-day of Fourthmonth; but which, owing to the circumstances which had grown out of the unsettled and divided state of society, it was concluded should be held on the second Second-day of Fourth-month.

Q. When was that conclusion come to?

A. That conclusion was come to, as I have understood, not being

present there myself, by Friends who assembled from the different parts of the Yearly Meeting, sometime in Tenth-month, preceding, in the capacity of a Yearly Meeting, seeking to restore again the society to its wonted harmony, and in the enjoyment of its just rights, which had been interrupted and infringed in many instances previously to that time. Q. Did not the Yearly Meeting of Fourth-month, 1827, conclude to meet at the usual time next year?

A. A minute which I saw, purporting to have been made in the Yearly Meeting, so stated, on condition that "the Lord should permit." I was not present at the close of that assembly, and therefore can say nothing as to my certain knowledge; but admitting that such an adjournment did take place, it is evident that it was a contingent one, and not positive. Q. Is not that the usual form of the minute of adjournment of the Yearly Meeting, and upon your view of it, might not every adjournment of any preceding Yearly Meeting be said to be equally contingent?

A. I apprehend that the minute alluded to was much in the usual form, but that it was not used for form merely, but that it was intended to mean what it stated: and that were the same causes to operate at any time that did at that time, the same results might ensue.

Q. I consider you then as expressing your belief that all adjournments of the Yearly Meeting in the usual form, are considered by you as contingent, in the sense in which you have explained it?

A. I wish that to be qualified by my last answer. There is another thing, however, while upon this subject, which it may not be improper to remark, as invalidating the proceedings of that Yearly Meeting; but which, I apprehend, have been already sufficiently detailed, in the course of this examination; which is, the general character of that Yearly Meeting. Q. Did what you call Burlington Quarterly Meeting, send representatives to the Yearly Meeting held at Arch street, Philadelphia, on the third Second-day of Fourth-month, 1828?

A. They appointed but one set of representatives, I think; and I presume they did not attend any such meeting as alluded to in the question. Q. They were not appointed to attend such meeting?

A. I suppose not.

Counsel. If the witness can do so, I wish him to answer the question positively.

A. I answered it as positively as I could; I cannot tell exactly what the minute stated.

Q. You have characterized the elders of Philadelphia as an "unlawful combination:" will you please to state what law they have violated?

Witness. Will the examiner please to turn to the answer where I used terms referred to in the question? [The witness is referred to two of his former answers, and the same are read to him; and the last question, at his request, is again read to him, when he answers,] If the counsel will confine himself to the language made use of by me, there would not be the same danger of my statements being misrepresented; and I could the more readily answer.

Counsel. In what have I gone beyond your own language?

Witness. The difference is, that in the question put to me, I am represented as characterizing them as an "unlawful combination," whereas in my former answer I was relating the views and statements of others. [The former answer referred to by the witness, so far as it relates to this subject, is in the following words: "This opinion was, however,

controverted, on the ground that it would be very improper for Burlington Quarterly Meeting, so far to countenance proceedings which had grown out of an unlawful combination of the elders, and certain other persons, in the city of Philadelphia, who were seeking," &c.; and also the following: "In the Quarterly Meeting of Burlington, held in Secondmonth 1827, a member of the meeting for ministers and elders, and one also who was considered as uniting with the proceedings that grew out of the unlawful combination of elders in the city of Philadelphia, represented," &c.]

The witness proceeds,-But in answer to the question, as to what law they have violated, I must speak only from information derived from other sources than my own personal knowledge; and from those I draw the conclusion, that the law of gospel order, as laid down in the discipline, pages 29 and 30, had been violated by the manner in which reports, to the disadvantage of a minister travelling in the order of society and on a religious account, had been entertained by them, and made the ground for them to act upon.

Q. From what you have said, the ministers and elders and other persons in the city of Philadelphia, stand accused of "seeking to violate the rights of Monthly Meetings, and jeopardize the rights of members;" do you allude to the endeavours of the elders and others to arrest the promulgation of what they consided anti-christian doctrine?

A. If the counsel or his advisers think it right to include the ministers with the elders and certain other persons, as being more correct than the statement which I made, as they may have a better means of knowing than myself, I am willing there to leave it.

Counsel. If I used the word ministers, I did so inadvertently and unintentionally; let the word ministers be stricken out, the question in all other respects, stand as it does.

Witness. [Again referring to his former answers,] I intended to make no allusion myself, but was only speaking of the views which were taken in the Quarterly Meeting of Burlington, held in Eleventh-month, 1827. But I can observe further in answer to the question, what I suppose is the understanding upon this subject; that it was not for any proceedings had, sanctioned by the discipline, to prevent the spread of anti-christian doctrines; but it was because of the violations of the discipline in the manner alluded to in my former answer.

Q. Are those the only violations to which you alluded?

A. There may have been many violations which have not come to my knowledge, personally: a sufficient number of which, as I should apprehend, had been given by Abraham Lower in particular, under this examination.

Q. Do you mean to adopt as your own, the statements of Abraham Lower?

A. I am rather surprised at this question; especially as I had previously stated that I had no personal knowledge of these matters.

Counsel. I cannot see why the witness should feel this surprise, if I have understood him correctly in supposing, that his own course was governed by those views which were thus reported to him by others. Witness. There is a difference, I conceive, between giving credit to reports so as to allow them to have an influence upon conduct, and giving in testimony, under an affirmation, those reports as facts. Although

I have no doubt but that the statements made by Abraham Lower, are substantially correct.

Q. Am I to understand that what you have said in respect to an "unlawful combination" of elders and other persons in the city of Philadel phia, and with respect to their seeking to violate the rights of Monthly Meetings, and jeopardize the rights of members, was derived from hearsay, and that you have no actual personal knowledge of the truth of any part of it?

A. With regard to Monthly Meetings having their rights jeopardized by the persons alluded to, and their influence, I don't know that I had any actual personal knowledge, within the city of Philadeldhia; but as regards the rights of individuals, members of the society, I think what I have stated with regard to the Yearly Meeting, and what took place in it in Fourth-month, 1827, may be a sufficient answer to that branch of the question.

Q. That is, it contains all your knowledge as to that branch of it? A. If it be confined to the city of Philadelphia, I don't know that I need go much further; although I have been under the impression at different times in the Yearly Meetings, held in different years, that there was something like a spirit of proscription which had manifested itself on the part of the same class of men before alluded to.

Q. Who was the minister to whom you illude in a former answer, concerning whom the elders of Philadelphia entertained reports?

A. His name was Elias Hicks.

Q. You have stated, that at the time of the separation in Burlington Quarter, a Friend, who stood high in the confidence of that meeting, made a proposition,-who was that Friend?

A. John Cox.

Q. You have stated that he proposed "the question should be taken,” are you satisfied that you have given the words used by him upon that occasion?

Witness. [Referring to memorandums in his possession, and to his former answer.] I think I have given the words verbatim, or nearly so. Q. By the expressions he used, did you understand him to mean any thing more than that the meeting should consider the subject, and express its opinion upon it?

A. I suppose that he meant that the expression of the meeting should govern in the case. And I also suppose that he expected it would be on the other side of the question, and in favour of an adjournment: if so, in this he was disappointed; and, contrary to any thing that I had ever known to take place in a Quarterly Meeting, and contrary to what had been considered the established usage of society, (which required that when any new proposition was made to a meeting, in order to adopt it, the general concurrence of the meeting was requisite,) an attempt was made, under these circumstances, still to adjourn the Quarterly Meeting.

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

Friday morning, March 18, 10 o'clock. Cross-examination of Charles Stokes continued.

Q. In the Quarterly Meeting of Burlington, to which you allude, was there any decision unitedly come to by the meeting, to continue its sit

ting and transact its business, while the persons remained whose presence was objected to?

A. I don't know that I can answer that question better than by referring to the account which I gave of that Quarterly Meeting, in a former answer. It appears a division took place upon this question.

Q. The question I put is a plain one; yea or nay?

A. I thought the answer as plain; but if I can give a more specific one by using the word yea, or nay, I shall adopt the latter.

Q. The question is then answered in the negative?

Witness. Please to read the question again. [It is read, and the answer so far, when he further answers:] The question is answered in the negative, as regards the whole number met in that Quarterly Meeting being united in continuing the business of it, as then circumstanced; but as regards the members from Green street being present, I think the fact is as I stated it in my former answer, that no person objected to, was named in the meeting; the meeting, therefore, had no means of knowing that any such persons were present.

Q. Did not the Quarterly Meeting of women Friends adjourn to the same time and place, in conformity with the minute made by its clerk? A. I think not.

Q. Was there no adjournment took place in the women's meeting? A. I believe some of the women went home; but whether they even attempted to make an adjournment, as was the case in the men's meeting, I don't remember to have understood.

Q. Do you know that a minute of adjournment of the women's meeting was not made by its clerk upon that occasion? You may take latitude in answering this question, and speak from your own knowledge, or from common reputation.

A. I was not in the women's meeting; it would, therefore, be difficult to prove such a negative. I think I have no knowledge from common reputation. I think it the most probable that such might have been the case, that such a minute was made.

Q. From general repute, do you not know that those whom you call Orthodox did accordingly meet at the time and place adjourned to, for the purpose of holding Burlington Quarterly Meeting?

A. I have understood that they did meet; and held what they called Burlington Quarterly Meeting.

Q. They claim, then, to be the Burlington Quarterly Meeting,-have they not, so far as you know by general repute, held that meeting at the usual time, since that period?

A. Yes, I believe they have; but not at the usual place at all times. The Quarterly Meeting of Burlington was formerly held alternately at Burlington and Chesterfield-since the separation, there appeared to be something like a disposition of compromise or accommodation, as well on the part of our Orthodox Friends, for which I wish them to have all the credit that is their due, as well as on the side of Friends; and to prevent an interference with each other, Friends have, since that time, continued their Quarterly Meeting at Chesterfield only, and our Orthodox Friends have contiued their's at the city of Burlington only.

Q. You state that the committee, of which Samuel Emlen and Samuel Craft were members, was not appointed by Burlington Quarter,-do you mean to confine that observation to the Quarterly Meeting to which you belong?

VOL. II.-30