Q. Is the discipline a hedge which encompasses the whole society, and to which its meetings, as well as its members, must submit, and be governed by?

A. It is a hedge about the society, when acting in "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," and has preserved it in a remarkable degree, from the early establishment of the society, down to the period that has been under review.

Q. Is there any other body in the society which has the power to annul, or in any way alter, the provisions of that discipline, except the Yearly Meeting?

A. None-and for that reason Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting having violated the discipline, and persisting in that violation; having denied the common privileges, the common rights of the society by those arbitrary acts, absolved, as every reasonable man must conclude, I think, Green street from any obligation to continue with them-for every arbitrary violation of the discipline, forced upon the members of society, is, in effect, making discipline.

Q. By the discipline, is a Quarterly Meeting accountable to any other authority than the Yearly Meeting?

A. All the power of the society naturally and really does exist in the individual members of the society; and if these should agree among themselves that a Quarterly Meeting is under a wrong influence, destructive to the peace and harmony of society, frustrating the ends of its institution, these agreeing in their Monthly Meeting that such was the case, that the Quarterly Meeting, say for instance, being governed by a faction, that the Monthly Meeting must have a natural right to carry its complaint to the Yearly Meeting. If when it comes to the Yearly Meeting, it finds that body disorganized by the same faction, and disqualified, acknowledged so by its active members, for entering into the consideration of matters brought up to it from the subordinate meetings in the society, it then becomes the duty of every rightly concerned member of society, to take reasonable means, such as shall be the result of the power of conviction of the influence of the spirit of Christ, or the truth operating upon them, to resolve themselves (if they should be as that Yearly Meeting of 1827 was) into a meeting for conference, and there deliberate, and ascertain to the best of their understandings, what is the will of the adorable head of the church in such an extremity.

Q. If the Yearly Meeting should decide that the faction was in the Monthly, and not in the Quarterly Meeting, would the Monthly Meeting be bound to submit to its decision by the discipline?

A. If the Yearly Meeting was in unity, all but that Monthly Meeting, then of course the discipline would be binding upon that Monthly Meeting; but if it should be found, as it has been found in the case of Green street Monthly Meeting, that upwards of eighteen thousand Friends were united with that Monthly Meeting, against about seven thousand Orthodox, then the Monthly Meeting being sustained by the component parts of the Yearly Meeting, it is, and I think, must be concluded by every reasonable man, a legitimate branch of the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, and their opponents must inevitably, however odious the term may be to them, be separatists from the society-and all their arts, their caucusses, their scurrilous pamphlets, the declarations by Yearly Meetings, purporting to be such, cannot, in my apprehension or belief, cannot avoid the designation which the term imports.

Q. In speaking of the violent measures pursued by those whom you call Orthodox, you spoke of William Stevenson having been told to "sit down." Had not William Stevenson, when the clerk read a minute relative to a visit of George Jones, and Ann his wife, in the character of ministers of the society, publicly declared in the meeting, that they had no evidence that Ann Jones was the wife of George Jones; and was it not for this outrage upon the feelings of the meeting, that he was told to sit down?

A. When the clerk of that meeting made a record of George and Ann Jones being there in that character, instead of reciting, I think was the circumstance, the precise language of the certificate, remarked, as I think I understood, in that departure from the usual form, that there was no evidence in the certificate to that amount-not that he doubted any such thing-but it was his way. I take it, or understood it, of noticing that unusual course, and meant no stigma upon George or Ann Jonesbut that was not the only case in which William Stevenson was told to sit down. I think I noticed Joseph Sansom one day with his cane in his hand, and in an unhandsome manner, while William was expressing himself on the subject matter, I don't know what it was, before the meeting, he was told to "sit down" several times.

Q. Was not the certificate for "George Jones and Ann his wife," and the minute made by the clerk, in accordance with it?

A. I can't remember; but I think it was for "George and Ann Jones," or else there would have been no point in William Stevenson's observa-" tions; for certainly he never meant to stigmatize her, as was attempted to be inferred.

Adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Wednesday morning, November 24, 1830, at 10 o'clock. Cross-examination of Abraham Lower continued. Present as before, except Mr. Sloan.

Question by Mr. Brown, on the part of Hendrickson. You have stated that the most prominent cause of the separation spoken of, was the public disrespect or opposition manifested by the members of the Pine street Monthly Meeting, by the agency and influence of Jonathan Evans in closing the men's meeting, whilst Elias Hicks was engaged in the women's meeting. How did Jonathan Evans exercise that agency and influence, and what was its character?

Answer. I was not there. What knowledge I have of it, is derived from common report: but one thing I am persuaded of, from my own observation, that in getting up or promoting such measures of an odious character, he was generally cunning enough to work by agents; and in this instance, I think I understood that Benjamin Kite, a member of another Monthly Meeting, was there, and acted in that case, whom I should have supposed, and do suppose, would not have dared to have acted contrary to what would have been agreeable to Jonathan Evans, and the party generally, or that portion of them in that meeting, who, with the activity of his sons, were enabled against a larger number than was arrayed on their side, to carry their measures; having the clerk with them and under their control, as they were mostly provided with that advantage, and which was a great engine of oppression.

Q. Do I understand you to say, that Benjamin Kite was the person who closed the Monthly Meeting upon that occasion?

A. I did not mean to say so, and I think I did not.

Q. Had not that Monthly Meeting finished its business, before it was so closed?

A. I say again, I was not there. I think it probable that they had closed their business, and notwithstanding, it was deemed exceedingly indecorous and disrespectful to the individual, to be thus treated: and so Samuel Bettle must have considered it, when he told me of his having remonstrated with Jonathan Evans on account of his conduct on that occasion; and that his son, Jonathan Evans's son, was treated with disrespect on account of his, Jonathan's, conduct on that occasion. There was an apprehension, and has been, and now is, in the minds of a number of persons, that Jonathan Evans was exceedingly chagrined at, or on account of, the services or ministry of Elias Hicks on that occasion. That as Elias Hicks was, and remained to be, to the close of his useful life, one of the most powerful advocates for the rights of humanity in vindicating the cause of the poor, deeply afflicted, and suffering children of Africa and their descendants, especially in this country; I understood he was so engaged at that meeting. He came over the circumstance, if I have been rightly informed, of some of the advocates among the elder rank, having failed to maintain or to continue in the maintenance of a testimony against the use of the produce of the labour of slaves; and which he, I apprehend, as he was accustomed to do, went on to show that the consumer of such produce was as bad as the slave holder; that as Jonathan Evans had borne a faithful testimony against the use of such produce in common with his, then, or just previously Friend and coadjutor in that righteous cause, and had then abandoned that testimony which he had borne, as he, Jonathan Evans, had told me himself for twenty-two years; finding, what must have been exceedingly mortifying to a man of his great pretensions to distinction, to find by the clear and cogent reasoning and illustrations of Elias Hicks, that there was a man who stood above him! A greater man than himself!—And this too, if what I have heard one of his children should say, drawing a comparison between him, Jonathan, and Elias Hicks, "does thee think that Elias Hicks is a greater man than my father?"-But under the circumstances, I have every reason to be satisfied in my own mind, that hence arose an envious disposition, and which led his fertile genius to make use of such agents in promoting those feelings under plausible pretences, to decry and by any means of that nature, the reputation and dignified standing of that servant of God, and most excellent minister of the gospel of Christ. But then, as it would ruin any man's cause in such circumstances to come out openly, so I think he would of course have too much sagacity to do so, and thus render himself vulnerable and odious in the sight of honest men.

Q. You have said that you did not mean to be understood as saying, that Benjamin Kite was the person who closed the Monthly Meeting upon the occasion alluded to, did you mean to say that Benjamin Kite was the person from whom the proposition came to adjourn that meeting?

A. I did not mean to say so: though it might have been so, for aught I know, not being there; but I can conceive that would have been easily possible if it had been so; if Benjamin Kite should have sat just before Jonathan Evans, for Jonathan in a low tone of voice to have suggested the idea, so that Benjamin might have heard it. For I think he would VOL. I.-52

not have dared to have made such a proposition without some intimation from that quarter, leading to that point.

Q. Could Jonathan Evans have closed the meeting himself, unless the other members had consented to it?

A. I don't know what he could have done then, but I remember a circumstance that I heard occurred some time afterwards; that while he was going on

Mr. Brown. If the witness will indulge me one minute,-hearsay testimony, when given under that character, is not admissible in this examination, and I must object to hearsay testimony; but whatever may be given as matter of common reputation, may be related.

Witness. It was a matter of this description that I am about to allude to. It was a notorious circumstance.

Counsel. The reason why the name of Jonathan Evans was used in my question, is, because the witness had used his name as connected with a prominent cause of the separation in the society. The real object of my question is, whether, according to the discipline and usages of the society, an individual member could close or adjourn the Monthly Meeting without the assent of the other members?

Witness. The circumstance I was going to mention is this-While Jonathan Evans was making a speech near the close of a meeting, that those present generally rose and left the meeting while he was thus engaged; but the breaking up of meetings of discipline is by common consent after the clerk has read the minutes, or if it is stated that there is no further business, or a practice obtains in some places of a clerk reading a short minute, stating that the meeting concluded. When I say by common consent, if there is nothing appears proper to engage the attention of the meeting; no intimation of that kind, as in cases of meetings for worship, the ministers and elders, if there are such present, mostly give each other the right hand of fellowship; shaking hands, and the meeting then generally disperses.

Q. Is there any obligation under the discipline for a meeting to continue in session after the business is finished, merely because a person happened to be in the women's meeting; and has not a Monthly Meeting a right to adjourn whenever it thinks proper?

A. I know of no such obligation in the discipline and a Monthly Meeting may adjourn whenever it can unite to do so. But, as before stated, it appeared by Samuel Bettle's remonstrances with Jonathan Evans, on that occasion, that it had given offence, no doubt, grounded on the consideration of its being uncourteous, indecorous, and as a slight upon Elias Hicks.

Q. Has it not several times happened, that the men's Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia has broken up, while a minister from it was in the women's Yearly Meeting?

A. I think such cases have occurred.

Q. Is it not extraordinary and unusual, that the circumstance of a Monthly Meeting closing its session after it had finished its business, and while Elias Hicks was engaged in the women's meeting, should give such concern, uneasiness, and dissatisfaction to a large part of the society, extending even to Ohio, as to form the most prominent cause of the separation in the society, as stated in your examination in chief?

A. I say that as Samuel Bettle is a very great disciplinarian, a very intelligent man, of close and keen observation; a man of general infor

mation, with regard to the customs and order of society, that it was evident to me, in the account he gave of his remonstrating with Jonathan Evans on that account, that he did not think it was an extraordinary circumstance to be offended at, by the society generally, and I am of the same opinion. And as respects his (Jonathan Evans's) son's being treated with disrespect in Ohio, as I said before, or wished to have said, if I did not I don't know where it was he was treated with disrespect; Samuel Bettle's words were, I think, "his son," or "thy son, treated with disrespect when abroad, on that account, referring, as I understood, to his, Jonathan's, agency and influence, in breaking up the meeting at that time.

was

Q. You have spoken of a conference of several Friends, of whom you were one, at the close of the Meeting for Sufferings, about Eighth or Ninth-month, 1822. Was there any other cause of uneasiness with Elias Hicks alleged in that conference, than the unsound doctrines he was said to promulgate?

A. There was, as I before stated, a charge, or something in the form of accusation, against Elias Hicks, about his sending some books to a person in the western country, from which I endeavoured, if I recollect right, to vindicate him from any blame on that account.

Q. What book was that you allude to, which Elias Hicks was alleged to have procured to send to the westward?

A. I understood that his correspondent desired him to send on to him a work called The Celestial Magnet, of which work I have no-not much acquaintance, and when I saw a number of it, I had no disposition to cultivate much acquaintance with it. And yet I hold with the apostle in judging, proving all things" that are lawful, and innocent so to prove, and hold fast that which is good.

Q. Why was the procuring and sending that book to the westward by Elias Hicks objected to upon that occasion?

A. As Jonathan Evans did not, to my recollection say, I suppose you can judge as well as myself.

Q. Was no reason given by Jonathan Evans for his objecting to that book?

A. If there was, I don't recollect it.

Q. To procure a book and send it to a friend to the westward, was certainly no offence, standing alone and unconnected with other things -but I understand it was made a charge against Elias Hicks?

A. That was the nature of the communication, if I understood it, uttered on the occasion; or else I should not have undertaken to state the circumstances, as I before related, that it was what any person would do for his correspondent, or what any bookseller would do.

Counsel. I understood the witness to say, that the procuring and sending that book to the westward by Elias Hicks, was at that conference objected as an offence of Elias Hicks. How could this be, unless the contents of that book were referred to? To procure and send a book, innocent in its nature, by one person to another, cannot be an offence. A. It might be an offence, if the individual preferring the charge for so doing, against an individual of a spotless character, it might traduce him, if the work, of which he might be entirely ignorant of the contents, should have contained sentiments at variance with the accuser, or those who were then to judge of that communication. I was about to say, that some of the best books, I suppose, that ever have been written by the mem