Committee, and RUSH R. SHIPPEN, FIELDER ISRAEL, FANNY B. AMES, SARAH ANN HEALD and MARY T. IVINS, were named. SIMON BERNARD, THOMAS T. CHILD, MARTHA CHAMBERS, OLIVIA SHEPARD and CHARLES G. AMES were afterward added. A memorial notice of PETER WILSON, (written by OLIVER JOHNSON) was read and adopted.

F. ISRAEL spoke a few words in memory of EPHRAIM DEACON, late of Wilmington, as a friend who was always present at this meeting, and in loving sympathy with its principles, till "his deathday became his birth-day to the nearer and higher life."

Then all hearts were moved by hearing RUSH R. SHIPPEN pronounce the name of CHARLES SUMNER, and by the reading of Whittier's Poetical Tribute to his memory and his merits. (See cover.)

CHARLES G. AMES said a few words concerning the services of Sumner, and the lessons of his life and death.

We next listened to a letter from OLIVER JOHNSON-for many years the Clerk, right hand and voice of this meeting. The letter produced a deep feeling and called forth remarks from several.

OLIVIA SHEPARD, of Vineland, testified to the service rendered by this organization to herself and others who had not been able to attend its meetings. It had helped to improve the spirit and methods of many other societies, especially those in the interest of reform, and had compelled attention to many important questions affecting human welfare.

RUSH R. SHIPPEN said that a society like this, occupying high moral ground, is like a public clock, regulated by astronomical observations, by which people are able to correct their private watches.

ISAAC MENDENHALL regretted that anything in OLIVER JOHNSON's letter should seem like a reflection on those who had felt free to rejoin the Society of Friends.

SIMON BERNARD thought membership in any other society wholly consistent with fidelity to this.

ISAAC MENDENHALL said there had been a forward movement on the part of their old associates in the Society of Friends.

CHANDLER DARLINGTON thought those who stepped out of that Society, to move a few steps ahead, now found many at their side who then seemed to be left behind.

THOMAS P. GALVIN, of Germantown, thought it a matter to rejoice in, if all parties could honestly meet on high ground.

FIELDER ISRAEL thought the fears expressed in the letter might not be wholly groundless, as there is always a tendency to get tired of moral warfare.

RUTH ANNA WAY saw a true reconciliation in the conduct of the Longwood Friends and those of the Kennett Meeting.

It was agreed to call up OLIVER JOHNSON's letter hereafter for further consideration.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Committee reported that the Treasurer had received during the year $199.29, of which $7.56 remains in hand.

The same Committee recommended CHARLES G. AMES and RACHEL ANNA LAMBORN for Clerks, and AARON MENDENHALL for Treasurer; to which the meeting agreed.

Two rules of order were adopted, to govern the discussion of all propositions brought before the meeting. 1st. That each speaker be limited to ten minutes, unless the time be extended (without debate) by the meeting: 2d. That no one should speak a second time on any matter, so long as any others may wish the floor.

RUSH R. SHIPPEN, of Boston, (Secretary of the American Unitarian Association,) then came forward and gave an address of great earnestness, freshness and illumination; his leading thoughts being that "the world is what we make it," and that divine inspiration, helping us to make it what it ought to be, is a perpetual fact, to which all the past and all the present testify and contribute.

The Business Committee now presented a Testimony on "Religion," the reading of which produced a deep impression. After brief silence,

J. B. HARRISON, of Montclair, N. J., rose to say the Testimony came home to him as a living word. "If we could each personally adopt it and live it, we should be mightily helped. I have part of it in my heart, and mean to get the whole."

LEWIS MARSHALL could accept it all; thought we felt in it, what we must always know is truth; namely, the call to "do our best." MARY E. TILLOTTSON, of Vineland, was glad of such a word in favor of practical goodness.

CHANDLER DARLINGTON was not sure the Testimony contained the highest truth now expressible. He would rest more emphasis on making the most of ourselves—our bodies and minds.

SAMUEL MARSHALL hardly thought the Testimony intelligible in that part which speaks of Jesus. Why must he be named at all, except in deference to tradition? The claims of the New Testament are exaggerated; and the current teaching concerning Christ is a superstition and obstruction.

MARY IVINS found great satisfaction in the Testimony-a satisfaction she felt unable to express.

CHANDLER DARLINGTON thought the reference to Christianity contained so much assumption, that it might as well be omitted.

NICHOLAS E. BOYD, (of Portland, Me.,) thought there might be no harm in allowing that some good had come out of Nazareth, Why should the name of Jesus affect us like a red rag?

J. B. HARRISON thought neither truth nor goodness would suffer from any fair investigation of the person and work of Jesus, or of the claims of the Bible. As the years go on, we shall doubtless come to use the word 'Christian' less; but chiefly from our shame at falling so far below the pattern.

OLIVIA SHEPARD asked, "Would it be morally safe for us to follow in all matters the example of Jesus?" She did not feel sure. "And why should that particular name be distinguished?"

R. R. SHIPPEN rejoiced that dissent had brought us to look squarely in the face of the subject.

In other remarks, the idea was brought out that our debt to Jesus is very real and very large; that true Christianity might be something very different from what is commonly taught for it; and that the reference to it in the Testimony was so worded as to imply and respect differences of opinion. By agreement, the Testimony was laid over. (See proceedings of Third day, afternoon.)

The Committee offered a Testimony on "Treatment of Hired Men and Women," which caused a lively discussion of some length. MR. BALDWIN declared it "one-sided. It piles all the duties and all the blame on employers."

T. P. GALVIN sympathized deeply with the laborer, who is certainly placed at great disadvantage; but argued few of his class care for the interest of the employer.

MARY IVINS said the Testimony does not bear on the controversy between labor and capital, but on the evil of caste, which is as bad for employer as for employee.

REBECCA FUSSELL [widow of Dr. Benjamin Fussell, herself lately arrived from a sojourn in the South]: "Sympathy is the

word; our hired men and women need sympathy." ["And courtesy," added a voice.]

FANNY B. AMES spoke of the strength of the class feeling, even among people who mean to be kind and just. It is easy to be kind to the cultivated and accomplished; but how about the coarse, ignorant, superstitious? Have they no claim? Admit that servants are unfaithful, false and selfish: This question remains, what are our duties? We are not bound to make of them intimate friends and bosom companions; but we are bound to furnish a personal atmosphere in which aspiration is possible and in which virtue can grow. All avenues to improvement must be kept open to all men and women.

The discussion took a very spicy, colloquial turn, some speakers giving amusing accounts of their experience with hired men and women; others volunteering advice on the point how to get along with them.

The Testimony was unanimously adopted.

SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

The Business Committee reported a Testimony on the "Political Equality of Women."

MARY E. TILLOTTSON thought there could be no question or hesitation as to the truth and timeliness of it. Discussion seemed needless, as the Testimony was clear and incontrovertible.

R. R. SHIPPEN thought there was great use in considering and reconsidering principles and questions of right. We all need educating. Many things that now seem plain as day to us were once doubtful, or not thought of. He was himself an ordained minister before he ever heard of "rights of women." He gave large credit to the agitation which has compelled unwilling attention and created wider standing-room for woman.

T. P. GALVIN spoke for intelligent suffrage; thought women less prepared at present for political duties than men are. The obvious evils attending ignorant suffrage in the South should make us cautious about extending the process. Two wrongs can't make a right.

CHANDLER DARLINGTON thought justice itself would be sacrificed, if a discrimination were made between the intelligent and

ignorant in such a way as to leave the ignorant in the power of the intelligent, with no means of self-protection.

N. E. BOYD thought the rightful line between voters and nonvoters could not be drawn at sex. He called especial attention to the closing words of the Testimony. Let women study public affairs and duties. What if the young man should say, "I will give no thought to politics till I am 21."

MARY E. TILLOTSON quoted Sumner as having said, in substance, Take all I have said “of the negro, and apply it to woman.”

R. R. SHIPPEN put in a word for widening suffrage as the surest way to secure to all classes the means of self-protection. In addressing prisoners, he had found moral power in the appeal, "You have broken a law you helped to make." Without universal suffrage, the cultivated class would soon cease to care for universal education.

T. P. GALVIN was for compulsory education, and saw no safety in suffrage without it.

J. B. HARRISON said, suffrage is not good in itself; nor is a republic. There must be intelligence and character. What could Hottentots do with a republic?

OLIVIA SHEPARD saw the path of safety in right teaching for the children.

CHARLES G. AMES thought the failure of French experiments in republican governments owing to the fact that the minds of the people were pre-occupied with theories inherited from generations of despotism. The same poison is in our blood, so far as we act from the notion that one class has more rights than another. Masculine suffrage, which distress and suppresses one-half the people, violates the republican principle as truly as does the French method by which the party in power always suppresses the free speech and free press of the opposition.

The Testimony was unanimously adopted.

R. R. SHIPPEN presented, for the Committee, a Testimony on "Capital and Labor."

CHARLES G. AMES spoke of human selfishness as exhibited both by capital and labor, blinding each to the rights of the other, and leading to endless misunderstandings. No adjustment can ever come without mutual consultation.

N. E. BOYD quoted Emerson's saying to this effect: "Every man watches that his neighbor shall not cheat him. By and by he learns