Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

Such testimony would seem to furnish a decisive standard by which to determine the character of White Slavery. But there are other considerations and authorities. One of these is the influence of religion on these barbarians. Travellers remark the kind treatment bestowed by Mahometans upon slaves.[153] The lash rarely, if ever, lacerates the back of the female; the knife or branding-iron is not employed upon any human being to mark him as property of his fellow-man. Nor is the slave doomed, as in other countries, where the Christian religion is professed, to unconditional and perpetual service, without prospect of _redemption_. Hope, the last friend of misfortune, may brighten his captivity. He is not so walled up by inhuman institutions as to be inaccessible to freedom. "And unto such of your slaves," says the Koran, in words worthy of adoption in the legislation of Christian countries, "as desire a written instrument allowing them to redeem themselves on paying a certain sum, write one, if ye know good in them, and give them of the riches of God which he hath given you."[154] Thus from the Koran, which ordains slavery, come lessons of benignity to the slave; and one of the most touching stories in Mahometanism is of the generosity of Ali, the companion of the Prophet, who, after fasting for three days, gave his whole provision to a captive not more famished than himself.[155]

[153] Wilson's Travels, p. 93. Noah's Travels, p. 302. Shaler's
Sketches of Algiers, p. 77. Edinburgh Review, Vol. XXXVIII. p. 403.
Quarterly Review, Vol. XV. p. 168.

[154] Sale's Koran, Chap. XXIV. Vol. II. p. 194.--The right of
redemption was recognized by the Hindoo laws. (Halhed's Code, Chap.
VIII. §2.) It was unknown in the British West Indies while slavery
existed there. (Stephen on West India Slavery, Vol. I. p. 378.) It
is also unknown in the Slave States of our country.

[155] Sale's Koran, Chap. LXXVI. Vol. II. p. 474, note.

Such precepts and examples had their influence in Algiers. It is evident, from the history of the country, that the prejudice of race did not so far prevail as to stamp upon slaves and their descendants any indelible mark of exclusion from power and influence. It often happened that they attained to great posts in the state. The seat of the Deys was filled more than once by humble captives who had tugged for years at the oar.[156]

[156] Haedo, Historia de Argel. p. 122. Quarterly Review, Vol. XV.
pp. 169, 172. Shaler's Sketches of Algiers, p. 77. Short Account
of Algiers, pp. 22, 25.--It seems to have been supposed, that,
according to the Koran, the condition of slavery ceased when the
party became a Mussulman. (Penny Cyclopædia: Art. _Slavery_.
Noah's Travels, p. 302. Shaler's Sketches, p. 60.) In point of
fact, freedom generally followed conversion; but I do not find any
injunction on the subject in the Koran.

APOLOGIES FOR WHITE SLAVERY.

Nor do we feel, from the narratives of captives and of travellers, that the condition of the white slave was rigorous beyond the ordinary lot of slavery. "The Captive's Story" in Don Quixote fails to impress the reader with any peculiar horror of the life from which he escaped. It is often said that the sufferings of Cervantes were among the most severe which even Algiers could inflict.[157] But they did not repress the gayety of his temper; and we learn that in the building where he was confined there was a chapel or oratory in which mass was celebrated, the sacrament administered, and sermons regularly preached by captive priests. Nor was this all. The pleasures of the theatre were enjoyed by these slaves; and the farces of Lope de Rueda, a favorite Spanish dramatist of the time, served, in actual representation, to cheer this house of bondage.[158]

[157] "_De los peores que en Argel auia._"--Haedo, Historia de
Argel, p. 85. Navarrete, Vida de Cervantes, p. 361.

[158] Roscoe, Life of Cervantes, pp. 303, 304. Cervantes, Baños de
Argel.

The experience of the devoted Portuguese ecclesiastic, Father Thomas, illustrates this lot. A slave in Morocco, he was able to minister to his fellow-slaves, and to compose a work on the Passion of Jesus Christ, much admired for its unction, and translated into various tongues. Liberated at last through the intervention of the Portuguese government, he chose to remain behind, notwithstanding the solicitations of relatives at home, that he might continue to instruct and console the unhappy men, his late companions in bonds.[159]

[159] Biographie Universelle (Michaud): Art. _Thomas de Jesus_.
Digby's Broad Stone of Honor, _Tancredus_, § 9, p. 181.

Even the story of St. Vincent de Paul, so brutally sold in the public square, is not without gleam of light. He was bought by a fisherman, who was soon constrained to get rid of him, "having nothing so contrary except the sea." He then passed into the hands of an old man, whom he pleasantly describes as a chemical doctor, a sovereign extractor of quintessences, very humane and kind, who had labored for the space of fifty years in search of the philosopher's stone. "He loved me very much," says the fugitive slave, "and pleased himself by discoursing to me of alchemy, and then of his religion, to which he made every effort to draw me, promising me abundant riches and all his learning." On the death of this master he passed to a nephew, by whom he was sold to still another person, a renegade from Nice, who took him to the mountains, where the country was extremely hot and desert. The Turkish wife of the latter, becoming interested in him, and curious to know his manner of living at home, came to see him every day at his work in the fields, and listened with delight to the slave, away from his country and the churches of his religion, as he sang the psalm of the children of Israel in a foreign land: "By the rivers of Babylon there we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion."[160] Here is a touch of romance, which is all the more interesting when we consider the great life in which it occurs.

[160] Biographie Universelle: Art. _Vincent de Paul_.

The kindness of these slave-masters often appears. The English merchant, Abraham Brown, whose sale at Sallee has been already described, confesses, that, after he was carried home, his wounds were tenderly washed and dressed by his master's wife, and, "indeed, the whole family gave him comfortable words." He was furnished with a mat to lie on, "and some three or four days after provided with a shirt, such a one as it was, a pair of shoes, and an old doublet." His servile toils troubled him less than "being commanded by a negro man, who had been a long time in his patron's house a freeman, at whose beck and command he was obliged to be obedient for the doing of the least about the house or mill"; and he concludes his lament on this degradation as follows: "Thus I, who had commanded many men in several parts of the world, must now be commanded by a negro, who, with his two country-women in the house, scorned to drink out of the water-pot I drank of, whereby I was despised of the despised people of the world."[161] Here the free negro played the part so often played by the white overseer in our own country.

[161] Memoirs, MS.

At a later day we are instructed by another authentic picture. Captain Braithwaite, who accompanied the British Legation to Morocco in 1727, on a generous mission of liberation, after describing their comfortable condition, adds: "I am sure we saw several captives who lived much better in Barbary than ever they did in their own country.... Whatever money in charity was ever sent them by their friends in Europe was their own, unless they defrauded one another, which has happened much oftener than by the Moors. In short, the captives have a much greater property than the Moors in what they get, several of them being rich, and many have carried considerable sums out of the country, to the truth of which we are all witnesses. Several captives keep their mules, and some their servants; and yet this is called insupportable slavery among Turks and Moors. But we found this, as well as many other things in this country, strangely misrepresented."[162] Listening to such words, I seem to hear the apologies for slavery among ourselves.

[162] Braithwaite's Revolutions in Morocco, p. 353.

Candor compels the admission that these authorities--which, with those who do not place freedom above all price, seem to take the sting from slavery--are not without support from other sources. Colonel Keatinge, who, as member of a diplomatic mission from England, visited Morocco in 1785, says of this evil there, that "it is very slightly inflicted," and "as to any labor undergone, it does not deserve the name";[163] while Mr. Lempriere, who was in the same country not long afterwards, adds: "To the disgrace of Europe, the Moors treat their slaves with humanity."[164] In Tripoli, we are told, by a person for ten years resident, that the same gentleness prevailed. "It is a great alleviation to our feelings on their account," says the writer, speaking of the slaves, "to see them easy and well-dressed; and so far from wearing chains, as captives do in most other places, they are here perfectly at liberty."[165] We have already seen the testimony of General Eaton with regard to slavery in Tunis; while Mr. Noah, one of his successors in the consulate of the United States at that place, says: "In Tunis, from my observation, the slaves are not severely treated; and many of them have made money."[166] And Mr. Shaler, speaking of the chief seat of Christian slavery, says: "In short, there were slaves who left Algiers with regret."[167] How singularly present apologies for our slavery echo these voices from the Barbary States!

[163] Keatinge's Travels, p. 250. Quarterly Review, Vol. XV. p.
146. See also Chénier's Present State of Morocco, Vol. I. p. 192,
Vol. II. p. 369.

[164] Lempriere's Tour, p. 29O. See also pp.3, 147, 190, 279.

[165] Narrative of a Ten Years' Residence at Tripoli, p. 241.

[166] Travels, p. 368.

[167] Sketches of Algiers, p. 77.

A French writer of more recent date asserts, with some vehemence, and with the authority of an eye-witness, that the white slaves at Algiers were not exposed to the miseries which they represented. I do not know that he vindicates their slavery, but, like Captain Braithwaite, he evidently regards many of them as better off than they would be at home. According to him, they were well clad and well fed, _much better than free Christians there_,--precisely as it is said that our slaves are much better off than free negroes. The youngest and most comely were taken as pages by the Dey. Others were employed in the barracks; others in the galleys: but even here there was a chapel, as in the time of Cervantes, for the free exercise of the Christian religion. Those who happened to be artisans, as carpenters, locksmiths, and calkers, were let to the owners of vessels; others were employed on the public works; while others still were allowed the privilege of keeping a shop, where their profits were sometimes so large as to enable them at the end of a year to purchase their ransom. But these were often known to become indifferent to freedom, preferring Algiers to their own country. Slaves of private persons were sometimes employed in the family of their master, where their treatment necessarily depended much upon his character. If he was gentle and humane, their lot was fortunate; they were regarded as children of the house. If he was harsh and selfish, then the iron of slavery did indeed enter their souls. Many were bought to be sold again for profit into distant parts of the country, where they were doomed to exhausting labor; in which event their condition was most grievous. But special care was bestowed upon those who became ill,--not so much, it is said, from humanity as through fear of losing them.[168] This whole story seems to be told of us, rather than of others.

[168] Histoire d'Alger: Description de ce Royaume, etc., de ses
Forces de Terre et de Mer, Moeurs et Costumes des Habitans, de
Mores, des Arabes, des Juifs, des Chrétiens, de ses Lois, etc.
(Paris, 1830), Chap. XXVII.

HATEFUL CHARACTER.

Whatever deductions may be made from familiar stories of White Slavery,--allowing that it was mitigated by the genial influence of Mahometanism,--that the captives were well clad and well fed, much better than free Christians there,--that they were permitted opportunities of Christian worship,--that they were often treated with lenity and affectionate care,--that they were sometimes advanced to posts of responsibility and honor,--and that they were known, in contentment or stolidity, to become indifferent to freedom,--still the institution or custom is hardly less hateful. Slavery, in all its forms, even under mildest influences, is a wrong and a curse. No accidental gentleness of the master can make it otherwise. Against it reason, experience, the heart of man, all cry out. "Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, Slavery, still thou art a bitter draught; and though thousands in all ages have been made to drink of thee, thou art no less bitter on that account."[169] Algerine Slavery was a violation of the Law of Nature and of God. It was a usurpation of rights not granted to man.

"O execrable son, so to aspire
Above his brethren, to himself assuming
Authority usurped, from God not given!
He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl
Dominion absolute; that right we hold
By his donation; but man over men
He made not lord, such title to himself
Reserving, human left from human free."[170]

[169] Sterne, Sentimental Journey: _The Passport: The Hotel at
Paris_.

[170] Paradise Lost, Book XII. 64-71.

Such a God-defying relation could not fail to accumulate disaster upon all in any way parties to it; for injustice and wrong are fatal alike to doer and sufferer. Notoriously in Algiers it exerted a most pernicious influence on master as well as slave. The slave was crushed and degraded, his intelligence abased, even his love of freedom extinguished. The master, accustomed from childhood to revolting inequalities of condition, was exalted into a mood of unconscious arrogance and self-confidence inconsistent with the virtues of a pure and upright character. Unlimited power is apt to stretch towards license; and the wives and daughters of white slaves were often pressed to be the concubines of Algerine masters.[171]

[171] Noah's Travels, pp. 248, 253. Quarterly Review, Vol. XV.
p. 168.--Among the concubines of a prince of Morocco were two
slaves of the age of fifteen, one English and the other French.
(Lempriere's Tour, p. 147.) The fate of "one Mrs. Shaw, an Irish
woman," is given in words hardly polite enough to be quoted. She
was swept into the harem of Muley Ismael, who "forced her to turn
Moor; ... but soon after, having taken a dislike to her, he gave
her to a soldier."--Braithwaite's Morocco, p. 191

It is well, then, that it has passed away. The Barbary States seem less barbarous, when we no longer discern this cruel oppression.

BLACK SLAVERY REMAINS.

The story of slavery in the Barbary States is not yet all told. While they received white slaves from sea, captured by corsairs, they also, time immemorial, imported black slaves out of the South. Over the vast, illimitable sea of sand, absorbing their southern border, traversed by camels, those "ships of the desert," were brought these unfortunate beings, as merchandise, with gold-dust and ivory, doomed often to insufferable torment, while cruel thirst parched the lips, and tears vainly moistened the eyes. They also were ravished from home, and, like their white brethren from the North, compelled to taste of slavery.

In numbers they far exceeded their white peers. But for long years no pen or voice pleaded their cause; nor did the Christian nations, professing a religion which teaches universal humanity without respect of persons, and sends the precious sympathies of neighborhood to all who suffer, even at the farthest pole, ever interfere in their behalf. The navy of Great Britain, by the throat of its artillery, argued the freedom of all _fellow-Christians_, without distinction of _nation_, but heeded not the slavery of others, brethren in bonds, Mahometans or idolaters, children of the same Father in heaven. Lord Exmouth did but half his work. Confining the stipulation to the abolition of Christian slavery, this Abolitionist made a discrimination, which, whether founded on religion or color, was selfish and unchristian. Here, again, we notice the same inconsistency which appeared in Charles the Fifth, and has constantly recurred throughout the history of this outrage. Forgetful of the Brotherhood of Man, Christian powers deem the slavery of blacks just and proper, while the slavery of whites is branded unjust and sinful.

As the British fleet proudly sailed from the harbor of Algiers, bearing its emancipated white slaves, and the express stipulation that Christian slavery was abolished there forever, it left behind in bondage large numbers of blacks, distributed throughout the Barbary States. Neglected thus by exclusive and unchristian Christendom, it is pleasant to know that their lot is not always unhappy. In Morocco negroes are still detained as slaves; but the prejudice of color seems not to prevail. They have been called "the grand cavaliers of this part of Barbary."[172] They often become the chief magistrates and rulers of cities.[173] They have constituted the body-guard of emperors, and, on one occasion at least, exercised the prerogative of Prætorian Cohort, in dethroning their master.[174] If negro slavery still exists here, it has little of the degradation it entails elsewhere. Into Algiers France has carried the benign principle of law, which assures freedom to all beneath its influence. And now we are cheered by the glad tidings, that the Bey of Tunis, "for the glory of God, and to distinguish man from the brute creation," has decreed the total abolition of human slavery throughout his dominions.

[172] Braithwaite's Morocco, p. 350. See also Quarterly Review,
Vol. XV. p. 168.

[173] Braithwaite, p. 222.

[174] Ibid., p. 381.

Turn, then, with hope and confidence to the Barbary States! Virtues and charities do not come singly. There is among them a common bond, stronger than that of science or knowledge. Let one find admission, and a goodly troop will follow. Nor is it unreasonable to anticipate other improvements in states which have renounced a long-cherished system of White Slavery, while they have done much to abolish or mitigate the slavery of others not white, and to overcome the inhuman prejudice of color. The Christian nations of Europe first declared, and practically enforced within their own European dominions, the vital truth of freedom, that man cannot hold property in his brother-man. Algiers and Tunis, like Saul of Tarsus, are turned from the path of persecution, and now receive the same faith. Algiers and Tunis help to plead the cause of Freedom. Such a cause is in sacred fellowship with all those principles which promote the Progress of Man. And who can tell that this despised portion of the globe is not destined to yet another restoration? It was here in Northern Africa that civilization was first nursed, that commerce early spread her white wings, that Christianity was taught by the honeyed lips of Augustine. All these are returning to their ancient home. Civilization, commerce, and Christianity once more shed benignant influence upon the land to which they have long been strangers. New health and vigor animate its exertions. Like its own giant Antæus, whose tomb is placed by tradition among the hillsides of Algiers, it has been often felled to earth, but now rises, with renewed strength, to gain yet nobler victories.

RIVAL SYSTEMS OF PRISON DISCIPLINE.

SPEECH BEFORE THE BOSTON PRISON DISCIPLINE SOCIETY, AT THE TREMONT
TEMPLE, JUNE 18, 1847.

At the anniversary of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, in Park
Street Church, May 27, 1845, Mr. Sumner was present, in company
with his friend, Dr. S.G. Howe. Listening to the Annual Report,
they were painfully impressed by its tone, and especially by the
injustice done to excellent persons in Philadelphia, sustaining
what was known as the Pennsylvania System. Without being an
advocate of this system, or committing himself to it in any way,
Mr. Sumner thought that it ought to be fairly considered, and
that there should be no harsh imputations upon its supporters.
With the encouragement of Dr. Howe, he came forward, and, in a
few unpremeditated remarks, sought to point out the error of the
Report, and concluded with a motion for a select committee to
review and modify it, with power to visit Philadelphia in the name
of the Society, and ascertain on the spot the true character of
the system so strongly condemned. The motion prevailed, and the
President, who was the Rev. Dr. Wayland, appointed Dr. S.G. Howe,
Mr. Sumner, Hon. S.A. Eliot, Hon. Horace Mann, Dr. Walter Channing,
Rev. Louis Dwight, Hon. George T. Bigelow, and Hon. J.W. Edmonds of
New York, as the committee. This was the beginning of a prolonged
controversy, little anticipated when Mr. Sumner first came forward,
where feeling was displayed beyond what seemed natural to such a
question.

The day after this meeting, Mr. Sumner received a friendly letter
from the President of the Society, thanking him for the remarks he
had made, and encouraging him to persevere. This letter will be
found in the speech preserved in this volume.

The Committee visited Philadelphia, where they were received
with honor and kindness by the gentlemen interested in Prison
Discipline, and examined the Penitentiary with every opportunity
that could be desired. An elaborate Report was prepared by Dr.
Howe. How this failed to be adopted as the Report of the Committee,
and to be embodied in the Annual Report of the Society, is narrated
in the speech below. It was afterwards published as a pamphlet,
entitled "An Essay on Separate and Congregate Systems of Prison
Discipline, being a Report made to the Boston Prison Discipline
Society," and is, beyond question, a most important contribution to
the science of Prison Discipline. The proper treatment of criminals
is here considered with singular power and sympathetic humanity.

Disappointed in the effort to obtain a candid hearing through
a Report, the subject was presented again at the anniversary
of the Society, May 26, 1846. Mr. Sumner made a speech of some
length, published in the newspapers, concluding with a motion for
the appointment of a committee to examine and review the former
printed Report of the Society, also the course of the Society, and
to consider if its action could in any way be varied or amended,
so that its usefulness might be extended. Mr. Sumner, George S.
Hillard, Esq., Bradford Sumner, Esq., Dr. Walter Channing, Rev.
Louis Dwight, and President Wayland were appointed the committee,
it being understood that they would not report before the next
annual meeting.

Meanwhile the controversy widened in its sphere, embracing
newspapers, and extending to Europe, where it excited uncommon
interest. The "Law Reporter," an important law journal, edited by
Peleg W. Chandler, Esq., thus referred to the late meeting, and to
Mr. Sumner's speech on the occasion.

"Mr. Sumner proceeded, in a strain of great eloquence and power,
to condemn the course which the Society had pursued in past years,
illustrating his points by facts which are by no means creditable
to the Society, averring, among other things, that the statements
contained in the Annual Reports had been pronounced false by public
reports in this country and in Europe, and that a letter from the
Hon. William Jay, an honorary Vice-President of the Society, and
also a letter from Dr. Bell, a corresponding member, in favor of
the Separate System, had both never been read to the Society, nor
published."[175]

[175] Law Reporter, July, 1846, Vol. IX. p. 98.

At the same time the Law Reporter translated and published a
German article by Dr. Varrentrapp, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, which
appeared originally in the _Jahrbücher der Gefängnisskunde und
Besserungs-anstalten_ (Annals of Prisons and Houses of Correction),
where the Reports of our Society were canvassed with great
severity.[176]

[176] Ibid., p. 99.

Mr. Sumner's speech was reprinted at Liverpool in a pamphlet.
Letters from England, France, and Germany attested the concern
in those countries. Among the eminent persons who watched the
discussion was M. de Tocqueville, whose letter on the subject will
be found at the end of the speech below. At home it called forth an
able pamphlet by Hon. Francis C. Gray, entitled "Prison Discipline
in America," which took ground against the Pennsylvania System.

At the succeeding anniversary, May 25, 1847, Mr. Sumner, for
himself and two of his associates on the Committee, (Dr. Wayland
and Mr. Hillard,) presented a Report, which was printed in the
newspapers. Its character will be interred from the Resolutions
with which it concluded.

"_Resolved_, That the object of our Society is to promote the
improvement of public prisons.

"_Resolved_, That our Society is not, and ought not to be
considered, the pledged advocate of the Auburn System of Prison
Discipline, or of any other system now in existence,--and that its
Reports should set forth, with strict impartiality, the merits and
demerits of any and all systems.

"_Resolved_, That we recognize the Directors of the Eastern
Penitentiary of Pennsylvania as sincere, conscientious, and
philanthropic fellow-laborers in the great cause of Prison
Discipline.

"_Resolved_, That, if any expressions of disrespect have appeared
in our Reports, or been uttered at any of our public meetings,
which have justly given pain to our brethren, our Society sincerely
regrets them.

"_Resolved_, That our Society should strive, by increased action on
the part of its officers and of its individual members, to extend
its usefulness.

"_Resolved_, That the Board of Managers be requested to organize
a new system of action for the Society, which shall enlist the
coöperation of its individual members."

The adoption of these Resolutions being opposed, the meeting was
adjourned for their consideration till the evening of May 28th,
when Mr. Sumner supported them in a speech of some length, which
will be found in the newspapers. Other meetings followed, by
adjournment, on the evenings of June 2d, 4th, 9th, 11th, 16th,
18th, and 23d. These were all at the Tremont Temple, and were
attended by large and most intelligent audiences, evincing at
times a good deal of feeling. They were presided over by Hon.
Theodore Lyman, a Vice-President of the Society. The Resolutions
were supported by Dr. Howe, Mr. Hillard, Rev. Francis Parkman,
and Henry H. Fuller, Esq. They were opposed by Hon. S.A. Eliot
(the Treasurer of the Society), Rev. Louis Dwight (the Secretary),
Hon. Francis C. Gray, Bradford Sumner, Esq., Rev. George Allen,
Dr. Walter Channing, and J. Thomas Stevenson, Esq. On the evening
of June 18th, Mr. Sumner took the floor and reviewed the whole
debate. Other speeches by him are omitted. This is given at length,
as opening the main points of controversy, and especially the
principles involved.

Mr. President,--As Chairman of the Committee whose Report and Resolutions are now under consideration, it becomes my duty to review and to close this debate. The reapers have been many, and the sickles keen; but the field is ample, and the harvest abundant; so that, even at this late period, I may hope to be no superfluous gleaner.

Before entering upon our labor, let us refresh ourselves by the contemplation of the unquestioned good accruing from these protracted meetings. All will feel how well it is for our Society that its attention is at last turned in upon itself, and that it is led to that self-examination enjoined upon every good man, with a view to future usefulness. All, too, will feel, whatever may be the immediate vote on the question before us, that this discussion has excited an unwonted interest in behalf of those who are in prison, and that under its influences a sacred sympathy has vibrated from heart to heart. Thus much for the unquestioned good.

Mr. President, I approach this discussion with regret, feeling that I must say some things which I would gladly leave unsaid. I shall not, however, decline the duty which is cast upon me. In its performance I hope to be pardoned, if I speak frankly and freely; I trust it will be gently and kindly. I will borrow from the honorable Treasurer, with his permission, something of his frankness, without his temper. As I propose to adduce facts, I shall be grateful to any gentleman who will correct me where I seem to be wrong. For such a purpose I will cheerfully yield the floor, even to the Treasurer, though his sense of justice did not suffer him, while on the floor, to give me an opportunity of correcting a misstatement he made of what I said on a former occasion.

Let me begin by a reference--which I would rather avoid--to myself and my personal relations to this inquiry. I was brought up at the feet of our Society. My earliest recollection of anything like the cause to which it is devoted does not extend beyond the period of its origin. My early partialities were in favor of its course, and of the system of Prison Discipline it has advocated. I had read its Reports, and circulated them at home and abroad, and felt grateful to their author. Other studies, and some acquaintance with the elaborate labors by which the science of Prison Discipline has been advanced in Europe, led me first to doubt the action of our Society, and finally to the conviction that it was not candid and just, particularly in the treatment of the Pennsylvania System. With this impression, I attended the anniversary of 1845, where I listened to what seemed a discreditable Report from the Board of Managers, in which this system was treated ignorantly, ungenerously, and unjustly, while the officer of our Society whose duty it was to read the Report, in words which fell from him while reading it, seemed to impeach the veracity of the Inspectors of the Penitentiary at Philadelphia. In concurrence with a friend on my right [Dr. HOWE], I was emboldened to ask a reference of the Report to a select committee, with power to review and modify it, and to visit Philadelphia, in order to ascertain on the spot the true character of the system of Prison Discipline there practised, _and to incorporate a report of their proceedings in the next Annual Report of the Society_. What I said was of the moment. I spoke in behalf of the absent, and, in a certain sense, as the representative of the unrepresented, believing that gross injustice was done to them and to their system. My aim was to recall the Society to that candor and justice which self-respect, to say nothing of its Christian professions, seemed to require.

Here let me indulge in a reminiscence. It is the custom to open our meetings with prayer. By the records of our Society it appears that at its earliest anniversary, as long ago as 1826, this service was performed by an eminent clergyman, the deserved favorite of his own denomination, and much respected by all others. This public profession of interest in the cause was followed by other manifestations of it. He became a manager of our Society. Subsequently, yielding to the call of the University at Providence, he left Boston and became President of that important seat of learning. His labors were not restricted to academic duties. By his pen, and the wide influence of his remarkable character, he was felt in various fields of labor throughout the country. His interest in Prison Discipline was constant, and in 1843 he was chosen President of our Society. Placing him at its head, we justly honored one of our earliest and most distinguished friends. He was in the chair on the anniversary to which I have referred. His sense of the injustice to the gentlemen of Philadelphia was great. As the most authentic expression of his opinions on that occasion, influencing, as they have, the subsequent proceedings of those who seek a change in the course of our Society, I read a letter from him, written on the evening of that anniversary.

"PROVIDENCE, May 27, 1845.

"MY DEAR SUMNER,--I cannot resist the impulse to thank
you again for your remarks this morning. I had resolved, before
you rose, to return home and immediately resign office in the
Society; for I could not allow my influence, though ever so small,
to be used for the purpose of (as it seemed to me) vilifying the
intentions of good and honorable men. I cannot perceive how we can,
with any show of propriety, use language, in respect to absent
gentlemen, which, in the ordinary intercourse of society, would be
just cause of irreconcilable variance. I agree with you entirely
as to the object of the Society. It is to improve the discipline
of prisons, and it should hail, as fellow-laborers, all who are
honestly engaged in the same cause. The cause requires the trial
of various experiments, and our business is to collect, in good
faith, and with catholic liberality, the results of all, that
so, by the comparison of results, the best end may be attained.
I thank you over and over again for coming forward so nobly in
defence of the absent, and for placing the object of the Society
on its true basis, instead of allowing it to be a mere antagonist
to the gentlemen at Philadelphia. In all this, of course, I mean
no unkindness to any one. I only feel that by looking at an object
steadily and earnestly in only one light we are all liable to lose
sight of its wider relations.

"I am, so far as I see, in favor of the Auburn System; but I want
to know something of all of the systems, and am, I trust, anxious
to learn the facts. I wrote an article in the North American
Review, some time since, on the subject. I am inclined to the same
view still. But this is no reason why I should disparage the labor
of others.

"You seem interested in this matter, and I feel rejoiced at it. I
cannot but hope that good will come of it. Let me suggest a few
things, by way of indication, that may possibly be improved.

"1. Is it wise to have our Annual Reports so far _extempore_? What
we sanction should be _ipsissima verba_. Our character as men is
involved in what we hear and order to be published.

"2. It seems to me that our expenditure should be used with great
attention to results. The statistics which we have are important,
but I doubt whether they always bear so closely on our object as
they might. Why would it not be desirable to investigate the
great subject of _Pauperism_, and that of _Criminal Law_, which,
together, do almost the whole work of filling our prisons?

"3. Do the Executive Committee really take these subjects in hand,
and give direction to the labors of the Society? They have a very
responsible situation, and cannot discharge it by simply auditing
bills. Can they not be induced to labor earnestly in this matter?

"4. It seems that John Augustus, a poor man, has done much. We
praise him. This is well. Can we not take means for following his
example?

"These things have occurred to me, and I know that you will pardon
me for suggesting them. I believe that there is here a field for
doing great good. When I think of the good which Miss Dix, alone
and unaided, has done, I cannot but believe that we might do more.
To the gentlemen of your profession we specially look for aid in
this matter. Can you labor in any philanthropic object with better
prospect of success? Excuse my freedom. I have no right to set you
or any one else at work. I am ashamed to be president of a society
for which I do so little, and will gladly remove myself out of the
way, and have earnestly desired to do so. I, however, hold myself
ready to do anything that may be in my power to advance the cause
in which we are engaged.

"I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
"F. WAYLAND.

"C. SUMNER, Esq."

The committee appointed under the Resolution examined the Report of the Managers, and visited Philadelphia. A Report prepared by their chairman, Dr. Howe, was made a Minority Report by the votes of the Treasurer and Secretary, officers of the Society, and both of them, as appears from the records, involved in the authorship of the original Report which gave occasion to the inquiry, and therefore, it would seem, in the light of propriety, if not of parliamentary rules, hardly competent to sit on the committee. It was next proposed that the Report, although by a minority, should, in pursuance of the instruction in the original Resolution, "be incorporated in the next Annual Report." This, it appears from the records, was submitted to the Board of Managers, May 7, 1846, where it was opposed by the Treasurer. On May 21st it was referred to a meeting of the whole Society, convened at the dwelling-house of the Secretary: for our association dilates at times to dimensions ample as this large audience, and then again shrinks, if need be, to the narrow space occupied by its Secretary. At this meeting, on motion of the Treasurer, still another impediment was thrown in the way of printing the Report, in pursuance of the original Resolution. At the business meeting of the Society, May 25th, on the day preceding the anniversary, I made still another ineffectual attempt to have this Report appear among the transactions of the Society. This was followed by a Resolution, on motion of Mr. Nathaniel Willis, a near connection of the Secretary, as follows:--

"_Voted_, That it is not expedient to discuss the subject at the
anniversary meeting."

It was at the anniversary meeting, however, that I was determined to discuss the subject, being assured, that, in the presence of a wakeful public, the will of one or two individuals could not control the course of the Society. Accordingly I took the floor and proceeded to speak, when I was strangely encountered by the Secretary, who ejaculated: "Mr. President, the annual meeting was interrupted in this manner last year; there are gentlemen present who are invited by the Committee of Arrangements to address us." On this remarkable fragment of a speech I made no comment at the time. I shall make none now; but I cannot forbear quoting the words of the able editor of the Law Reporter with regard to it. "It would seem," he says, "that the addresses at the public meetings of this Society are all cut and dried beforehand, made to order,--a fact that might as well have been kept back, under the circumstances, for the credit of all concerned."[177] Notwithstanding this interference, I proceeded to expose the prejudiced and partisan course of the Society, and its consequent loss of credit, concluding with a motion for a committee to consider its past conduct, and the best means of extending its usefulness. The motion, though opposed at the time, was adopted. It is the Report of that committee which is now before you.

[177] Law Reporter, July, 1846, Vol. IX. p. 98.

This Report, when offered to the Society, was first opposed on grounds of _form_. It is now opposed on other grounds, hardly more pertinent, though not of form only. Thus at every step have honest efforts to elevate the character of the Society, and to extend its usefulness, been encountered by opposition. Under the auspices of the Treasurer and Secretary, the Society shrinks from examination and inquiry. Like the sensitive leaf, it closes at the touch. Nay, more: it repels all endeavor to wake it to new life. It seems to have adopted, as its guardian motto, that remarkable epitaph which for more than two centuries has preserved from examination and intrusion the sacred remains of the greatest master of our tongue:--

"Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here!
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones!"

The Boston Prison Discipline Society is not William Shakespeare; nor is it yet dead. But the maledictions of the epitaph have fallen upon those of us undertaking to "move its bones."

The Treasurer has impeached our motives. Sir, I impeach no man's motives; but I do submit, that, if the motives of any person are drawn in question, it cannot be those of gentlemen originating this inquiry, but rather of those few whose pride of opinion is intertwined with the whole course of the Society. Again, it is said that we are "intruders." That was the word. Is your predecessor, Sir, the Rev. Dr. Wayland, who is one of the authors of the report, an intruder? Are the gentlemen sustaining the Report in this debate intruders? Are we not all members of this Society, and as such bound to exertion, according to our abilities, in carrying forward its objects? Who shall call us intruders? Sir, I apply this term to no man, and to no set of men; but I cannot forbear saying, that, if its injurious suggestion be applicable to anybody, it cannot be to those honestly striving to elevate the character of the Society, and to extend its usefulness, but rather to those who meet these efforts with constant opposition, and declare, as has been done in this debate, that "it is the policy of the Society to act by one man only." It is also insinuated that one of the gentlemen supporting the Report, a valued friend of mine, has shown undue confidence in his own opinions: I do not remember the word employed. Sir, his modest character and services, which have been gratefully recognized in both hemispheres, and his intimate acquaintance with the subject, entitle him to speak with firmness. I do not charge the gentleman who dealt this insinuation with vanity or self-esteem, though it did seem to me that it came with ill grace from one who in the course of a short speech contrived to announce himself as Treasurer of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, next as Treasurer of Harvard College, and, not content with this, told us that he had once been a member of the City Government, and a Senator of the Commonwealth! I will not follow these personalities further. I allude to them with regret. They are a part of the poisoned ingredients--"eye of newt and toe of frog"--which the Treasurer has dropped into the caldron of this debate.

* * * * *

I now pass to the question. The Report and the accompanying Resolutions present three principal points: _first_, the duty and pledge on our part of candor and impartiality between the different systems of Prison Discipline; _secondly_, the duty of offering some expression of regret to our brethren in Philadelphia on account of the past; _thirdly_, the duty of our officers to make increased exertions, particularly by enlisting the coöperation of individual members.

To these several propositions we have had various replies, occupying no inconsiderable time. We have listened to the humane sentiments of my friend on the left [Dr. WALTER CHANNING], to the inappropriate twice-told statistics of my other friend [Mr. F.C. GRAY], to the labored argument of my professional brother [Mr. BRADFORD SUMNER], to the two addresses of the reverend gentleman from Worcester [Rev. GEORGE ALLEN]. Let me say, that I have many sympathies with this gentleman. With admiration and delight I have recently read a production of his, entitled "Resistance to Slavery Every Man's Duty." Here his own powers answered to the grandeur of his cause. If he has failed in the present debate, it cannot be from lack of ability or from shortness of time. Lastly, we have been made partakers of that singular utterance from our Treasurer, which abounded so largely in the excellence that Byron found in Mitford, the historian of Greece, and which he said should characterize all good historians,--"wrath and partiality."

It is my purpose to consider and sustain the positions of the Report and Resolutions, and, in the course of my remarks, to repel the objections raised against them. In doing this, I shall confine myself to the topics which occupied the attention of the Committee. This will lead me to put aside one suggestion, of an irrelevant character, introduced into this debate by a friend not of the Committee: I refer to the charge of Sectarianism. This did not enter into the deliberations of the Committee, and formed no part of the Report. If there be in the past course of the Society any ground for this charge,--and on this I express no opinion,--it will doubtless find a corrective in what has been said here. As I do not ask your acceptance of the Report and Resolutions on this ground, so I appeal to your candor in their behalf irrespectively of any considerations arising from the introduction of this topic.

I.

The first point for consideration is the duty and pledge on our part of candor and impartiality between the different systems of Prison Discipline. Here I might, perhaps, content myself with a bare enumeration of these systems, and ask the Society if they are so fully convinced with regard to the comparative merits of each as to embrace one, and to reject, absolutely, all the others. For instance, I mention four different systems. _First_, that of Pennsylvania, so much discussed, the principal feature of which is separation of prisoners from each other both by day and night, with labor in cells. _Secondly_, that of Auburn, where the prisoners are in separate cells by night, but labor in common workshops, in _enforced silence_, by day. _Thirdly_, a system compounded of these two, according to which certain prisoners are treated as at Auburn, and certain others as in Pennsylvania,--sometimes called the Mixed System, and sometimes that of Lausanne, from the circumstance that here, in Switzerland,--interesting to us as the place where Gibbon wrote his great history,--there is a prison of this character. _Fourthly_, there is still another system,--or, perhaps, absence of system,--which is followed at Munich, and is called after Obermaier, the benevolent head of the prison in that place, who has rejected the separate cell of Pennsylvania by day, and also the corporal punishment and enforced silence of Auburn. Our own prison at Charlestown, also marked by absence of system, seems to me not unlike that of Obermaier. A similar benevolence emanates from the head of each of these institutions.

In each and all of these systems there is, doubtless, much that we should hesitate to condemn, and which it becomes us, as honest inquirers, to examine carefully and seek to comprehend. Calling upon our Society for a pledge of candor and impartiality, it will not be disguised that there are special reasons from its past course. Properly to appreciate this course, and to understand the unfortunate position of ungenerous antagonism to the Pennsylvania System which we now occupy, it will be necessary to consider the origin and true character of that system. This will lead to some minuteness of historical detail.

* * * * *

Turning our eyes to the condition of prisons during the last century, we perceive that scarcely a single ray of humanity had then penetrated their dreary confines. Idleness, debauchery, blasphemy, brutality, squalor, disease, wretchedness, mingled in them as in a hateful sty. All the unfortunate children of crime, the hardened felon, whose soul was blotted by continual guilt, and the youthful victim, who had just yielded to temptation, but whose countenance still mantled with the blush of virtue, and whose soul had not lost all its original brightness, were crowded together, without separation or classification, in one promiscuous, fermenting mass of wickedness, with scanty food and raiment, with few or no means of cleanliness, a miserable prey to the contagion of disease, and the worse contagion of vice and sin. The abject social degradation of the ancient Britons, in the picture drawn by Julius Cæsar, excites our wonder to a less degree than the well-authenticated condition of the poor prisoners in the polished annals of George the Third.

Of all the circumstances which conspired to produce this wretchedness, it cannot be doubted that the promiscuous commingling of the prisoners in one animal herd was the most to be deplored. This evil arrested general attention. In France it enkindled the burning eloquence of Mirabeau, as in England it inspired the heavenly charity of Howard. It was felt not only in Europe, but here in our own country. Nay, it still continues, the scandal of this age and place, in the present jail of Boston!

In the effort to escape from this evil, persons with best intentions, but by a not unnatural error, rushed to the opposite extreme. It was proposed to _separate_ prisoners from each other by a system of _absolute solitude_, without labor, books, or solace of any kind. This was actually done in Maine, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Without referring particularly to other States, I ask you to follow the course of things in Pennsylvania. In 1818 a law was passed authorizing the building of a penitentiary at Pittsburg "on the principle of solitary confinement of the convicts," and "provided always that the principle of the solitary confinement of the prisoners be preserved and maintained." In 1821 another law was passed authorizing the same at Philadelphia. Both of these prisons were conceived in a system of _solitude without labor_.

As such, they were justly obnoxious to criticism and censure. Thanks to the good men who interfered to arrest this design! Thanks to our Secretary, whose early energies were rightly directed to this end! The soul shrinks with horror from the cell of constant and unoccupied solitude, as repugnant to unceasing yearnings in the nature of man. The "leads" of Venice, the cruel cages of state prisoners, inspire us with indignation against that heartless republic. The terrors of the Bastile, whether revealed in the pictured page of Victor Hugo, or in the grave descriptions of dungeons where toads and rats made their home, contain nothing to fill us with such dread as the unbroken solitude which was the lot of many of its victims. Lafayette--whose own experience at Olmütz should not be forgotten--has furnished his testimony of its melancholy influence, as apparent in the condition of those who suddenly came forth, on the morning which dawned upon the destruction of that gloomy prison. Almost in our own time their sufferings have been revived in the Austrian dungeons of Spielberg; and Silvio Pellico has left to the literature of mankind the record of horrors filling the perpetual solitude of his cell, which he vainly strove to relieve by crying out to the iron bars of his window, to the hills in the distance, and to the birds which sported with freedom in the air.

A system of absolute solitude excludes every rational idea of health, improvement, or reformation. It is an engine of cruelty and tyranny kindred to the iron boot, the thumb-screw, the iron glove, and other terrible instruments of a vengeance-loving government. It hardens, abases, or overthrows the intellect and character. Such a punishment is justly rejected in a Christian age, learning to temper justice with mercy, and to regard the reformation of the offender among its essential aims.

Under the pressure of these arguments, in those States where this system had been adopted the subject was reconsidered. The discussion was affected materially by the opinions of two remarkable men,--William Roscoe, and Lafayette. The former is cherished as the elegant historian of Lorenzo de' Medici and Leo X.; though, perhaps, he should be more justly dear for those labors which crowned the close of his life, in the fields of humanity. Lafayette--on his visit, in 1825, to the country which had been the scene of his youthful devotion--was induced, by a letter from Roscoe, to interest himself in Prison Discipline. He did not surrender himself merely to the blandishments of that unparalleled triumph,--a more than royal progress, forming one of the most touching incidents in history,--when in advanced years he received the gratitude of the giant republic whose feeble infancy he had helped to cradle and protect. From his correspondence it appears that he strove, by conversation in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and particularly in Pennsylvania, to influence public opinion on the subject of Prisons, and most especially against the system of _solitary confinement_, which he justly likened to the Bastile. His own opinions, and those of Roscoe, were widely circulated, and were quoted in official documents. Their precise influence it is impossible to calculate. The system so abhorrent to our feelings, after brief experiment, was discarded in those States where it had been in operation; and in New York, that of Auburn, consisting of solitude by night with labor in common by day, was confirmed, to the great joy of Roscoe, who feared that it might yield to that of absolute solitude, which had been tried there in 1822.