A. There is but one "religious Society of Friends," and of that I am a member.

Q. Do you know how the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia was originally set up?

A. A number of Friends held what they called a general meeting, in the city of Burlington, and apprehending that benefit would arise from the establishment of a Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the adjacent settlements of Friends, they wrote to the Yearly Meeting of New England, and to the meeting in the state of Maryland, for their approbation and consent; on receiving which, the Yearly Meeting was established, and opened a correspondence with the Yearly Meeting in London, and those in America.

Q. Well, did they set it up themselves?

A. If they had set it up themselves, there would have been no occasion of asking the approbation and consent of other meetings.

Q. Was it set up by other meetings?

A. It was set up with the approbation and consent of the other meetings.

Q. Set up by whom?

A. Set up by the religious Society of Friends.

Q. Does the witness mean by the religious Society of Friends, those who were to compose the Yearly Meeting?

A. I mean all those who gave their approbation and consent to the establishment of the said Yearly Meeting; and recognised it as a part of their religious community, by epistolary intercourse with it.

Q. Did the Yearly Meetings of New England and Maryland appoint committees to superintend its being set up, or do any thing more than open a friendly correspondence with it?

A. Friends from within the limits of both those Yearly Meetings, attended the Yearly Meeting, and produced an epistle from Maryland, expressive of their approbation of setting up such a meeting.

Q. Did they come as an authorized committee, to set it up according to the manner testified of in respect to setting up the Ohio Yearly Meeting from that of Baltimore?

A. They came as a committee, or as individuals authorized by the meetings which appointed them; but whether the practice of the society, as regards the institution of Yearly Meetings, was precisely similar to its established usage since, I am unable to say, inasmuch as the increase of the society, and various collateral circumstances, might concur to produce such changes as should most contribute to the benefit of the whole.

Q. Did not those persons attend after the Yearly Meeting was set up? A. They may have attended many times after the Yearly Meeting was set up; but the attendance to which I alluded was at the time the Yearly Meeting was organized.

Q. The Yearly Meeting then was agreed to be set up, and the Friends had actually convened, before any visiters or epistle were received from the neighbouring Yearly Meetings?

A. I have already stated that a general meeting was held, in which it was believed that it would be expedient that a Yearly Meeting should be established for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the adjacent settle'ments of Friends, provided it met the approbation of the society; and that means were taken to ascertain whether that approbation would be

given. They must of course meet again as a general meeting, in order to ascertain the result of those measures, and that approbation being obtained, the meeting was then, and not till then, established as a Yearly Meeting of the religious Society of Friends

Q. Does the witness know whether there was any such proviso as that referred to by him, expressed by minute or otherwise, of the first general meeting?

A. The very circumstances of the case clearly point it out, else why would they ask the approbation of any body but themselves?

Q. Has the witness had access to the minutes of the Yearly Meeting of its earliest date, and since?

A. I have; but have not read them for some time, and state what I do from recollection.

Q. In whose possession are they?

A. In possession of the person appointed by the Yearly Meeting to take charge of its records.

Q. Who is that person?

A. He is my father, Jonathan Evans.

Q. Did the framers of the discipline of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting seem to consider that Friends all over the world were a unit, in respect to discipline or property, where in the part quoted by you, it is said, "meetings of discipline are established for the more regular and effectual support of this order of the society," and of the Yearly Meeting which comprises the whole?

A. I am really unable to see the application of the extract made by the counsel to the subject which he refers to; if he means the words "the Yearly Meeting which comprises the whole," means, comprises the whole society, he must either quote from a different book of discipline than that used by the religious Society of Friends, or he must have overlooked the note which is appended to those very words which says, “in the society there are seven such Yearly Meetings, to wit: one in Great Britain, and six on the American continent," which was the number in existence at the time the book of discipline was printed.

Counsel. I used the witness's own quotation, which had no note appended to it, as quoted: and what I mean, is, whenever the book of discipline which he quotes from, uses the words "the society," whether it does not mean within the limits of the Yearly Meeting that framed and established that discipline?

Witness. No it does not-it alludes to the views of the society at large on the subject of church government, and the quotation made by the counsel is not in the same words, as that made by me; the first mem ber of it being changed, and a line near the beginning and a line at the end joined together, leaving out all the intermediate part, so that it would seem that the last line referred to "the society," instead of the subordinate meetings, to which it immediately refers, and with which it is connected.

The counsel says he did not mean to quote, but to make a reference to the witness's own quotation.

Q. When the discipline, from which the witness quotes, says under the head of "meeting houses," "it.is recommended to Quarterly and Monthly Meetings to make timely and careful inspection into the situation of the titles of meeting houses, burial grounds, and other estates which have been vested in trustees, and by them held for the use and

benefit of the society at large, or of any of these meetings;" has it ever been the practice, or understanding of the society, evinced by its practice, that the property was held for any other use than that of this Yearly Meeting, at large?

A. Undoubtedly it has: for although each particular property is held for the benefit, in the first place, of the meeting where it is situated, yet if the society there should become extinct, as it is held for the use of the religious Society of Friends, it must go to that society, wherever situated; and as an illustration, I can state from general repute, that the Society of Friends, in the island of Barbadoes, being reduced to one man, he sold the property, and accounted for the proceeds to the Yearly Meeting of London, under whose care that portion of the society had formerly been. Q. Did he, or the Yearly Meeting of London, convey away the title to that property?

A. The title to the property could only be conveyed away by the trustees in whom it was vested, or by some other legally authorized persons.

Q. Was he the trustee, or other legally authorized person?

A. I am unable to state who was the trustee, or who the legally authorized person; whether it was he, or any other person, does not change the fact of the property being considered as belonging to the religious Society of Friends.

Q. Did he not, when the meeting was reduced to two, disown his brother member; sell the property; pocket the proceeds, and for a long time hold them, as claiming a right to them?

A. There is a general reputation that he did for some cause declare, that the other person who claimed to be a member, was not sach; and if he retained the proceeds in his pocket for a long time, it is a strong evidence of the fact, that the property belonged to the society, inasmuch as he did eventually pay it into their hands.

Q. Was he not visited by concerned Friends when he came to this country, and required to pay it over, as a means of retaining his membership?

A. I have no knowledge or general reputation of any such fact: but if it be the case, it is a still stronger evidence than even the former, that it was the general and received opinion in the religious society of Friends, that property so circumstanced, did belong to the society; and that a person refusing to act in conformity with that understanding, would be disowned for it.

Q. What was done with the rents or proceeds of the extinct Lancaster meeting?

A. They were appropriated, by the consent of the Meeting for Sufferings, which is the representative body of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, towards defraying the expense for erecting meeting houses at Columbia and East Caln.

Q. Were those the next contiguous places of Friends' settlements? A. I believe not; though they were in the vicinity, that is, within a few miles of Lancaster.

Q. When you speak of the property of a meeting which had become extinct going to some other meeting of the society, do you speak of what Friends have agreed to in the case, or of what is provided for by discipline, or been decided by the law of the land?

A. I speak of the facts as they have occurred.

Q. Has the right of escheat ever been contested between the civil government and the Society of Friends in such case?

A. I presume not; inasmuch as I know of no state where the Society of Friends formerly existed and held property, and afterwards became entirely extinct.

Q. Is it not always the case, that each Preparative, Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meeting of the society, has had its own separate property held by its own trustees?

A. I believe in most of those meetings there has been property held by trustees, for the use of the respective meetings of the religious Society of Friends.

Q. Has it not been the usage for each meeting, for which property is held, to appoint its own trustees, direct the use or application of the property, and sale of it, when occasion required?

A. It has not always been done by each meeting; the property belonging to, or held for the use of, some Preparative Meetings, has been held by trustees, appointed by the Monthly Meeting to which such Preparative belonged.

Q. In such case, did the Monthly and Preparative Meetings occupy or use the same property?

A. In one case at least, if not more, they did not.

Q. What case was that?

A. Chester Monthly Meeting, Pennsylvania, appointed the trustees who hold the meeting house at Chester.

Q. Where property is held in trust for the use of a Monthly Meeting, has it not been usual for such Monthly Meeting to direct exclusively as to the use and disposition of the property?

A. So long as that Monthly Meeting existed, it has usually been the case; but not without some exceptions.

Q. Has a Yearly or Quarterly Meeting ever disposed of the property of the subordinate Quarterly or Monthly Meeting, without the consent of the latter?

A. It has directed the Monthly Meeting to make a disposition of its property, different from what it had done; and because it did not comply with that direction, the Quarterly Meeting to which it was subordinate, laid it down.

Q. What disposition of its property had that Monthly Meeting made, that caused it to be laid down?

A. It had applied to the legislature, and procured an act vesting the property in trustees for its use, and subject to its exclusive direction. The Yearly Meeting directed it to apply to the legislature for an act, placing the property on the same footing on which it stood before the first act was passed: it did so apply, but under such circumstances as that the legislature did not grant the law; and the Quarterly Meeting, apprehending that the Monthly Meeting had not complied with the spirit of the Yearly Meeting's direction, dissolved the Monthly Meeting, and laid it down.

Q. Did not the act first procured, go to exclude the neighbouring Monthly Meeting from the right of burial, contrary to the trusts that attached to the property?

A. I do not understand that it went to exclude them entirely from the right of burial, but to place the property under the exclusive control of the Monthly Meeting first spoken of. This Monthly Meeting, however,

contended that the law was in conformity with the original trust: the Yearly and Quarterly Meeting thought otherwise, and as the Monthly Meeting maintained its own opinion, they laid it down.

Q. Had not the Quarterly Meeting required an account from that Monthly Meeting before it proceeded to lay it down? Witness. An account of what?

Counsel. Of the acts complained of, and for which it was laid down, according to the express provision of the discipline.

A. I am unable to state whether there was such a requisition made or not: there was a committee appointed in the Quarterly Meeting to attend the Monthly Meeting; but I believe it was to labour with it, to induce it to comply with the direction of the Yearly Meeting.

Q. Did the Quarterly Meeting undertake to lay down the Monthly Meeting of itself, before the matter of difficulty was referred by it for the decision of the Yearly Meeting?

A. Soon after the difficulty arose, the Quarterly Meeting referred the subject to the Yearly Meeting: and the Yearly Meeting, after giving its judgment in the case, advised that if the Monthly Meeting did not comply therewith, the Quarterly Meeting should exercise its authority in laying it down.

Q. It was laid down then, in pursuance of the decision of the Yearly Meeting, to which the matter had been referred by the Quarterly Meeting, of which the Monthly Meeting was a constituent part?

A. It was laid down by the advice of the Yearly Meeting, communicated to the Quarterly Meeting, to exercise the authority which it possessed over its subordinate meetings; and in all the proceedings I have never heard that the authority of the Quarterly Meeting to lay down a refractory Monthly Meeting was questioned.

Q. Did not that Monthly Meeting consent to its own discontinuance, by its own recorded minute?

A. A large number of the members of that meeting, rather than lose their right in the Society of Friends, did submit to the authority of the Quarterly Meeting, and thereby recognised their meeting as subordinate to it: but others, who refused to submit to the advice of the Quarterly Meeting, were disowned therefor.

Q. Did the meeting agree to its discontinuance as a Monthly Meeting by minute?

A. I presume they did; inasmuch as if they had not, they must have shared the fate of those who persisted in their obstinacy.

Q. Did the Preparative Meeting which occupied the same property which the Monthly Meeting had done, continue to enjoy it, or did it pass over to the other Monthly Meeting.

A. The Preparative Meeting continued to meet there, as it had before done. I am not acquainted with any transfer in the case, the Preparative Meeting being still continued after the laying down of the Monthly Meeting, as a meeting of the religious Society of Friends.

Q. The case of which we have been speaking I suppose to be that of the Baltimore Monthly Meeting for the eastern district.

A. It is that to which I allude.

Q. Does the witness know of any case of a Monthly Meeting's being laid down by a Quarterly Meeting, and its members being attached to another Monthly Meeting, in which the property has gone over to the latter, without the members have carried the right, by going also?