Merchant.Come hither, child, 't is time to go to rest.Juan.Signor, I will not leave my mother here,To go with any one.Mother.Alas! my child, thou art no longer mine,But his who bought thee.Juan.What! then, have you, mother,Forsaken me?Mother.O Heavens! how cruel are ye!Merchant.Come, hasten, boy.Juan.Will you go with me, brother?Francisco.I cannot, Juan; 't is not in my power;May Heaven protect you, Juan!Mother.Oh, my child,My joy and my delight, God won't forget thee!Juan.O father! mother! whither will they bear meAway from you?Mother.Permit me, worthy Signor,To speak a moment in my infant's ear?Grant me this small contentment; very soonI shall know nought but grief.Merchant.What you would saySay now; to-night is the last time.Mother.To-nightIs the first time my heart e'er felt such grief.Juan.Pray keep me with you, mother, for I know notWhither he'd carry me.Mother.Alas! poor child,Fortune forsook thee even at thy birth.The heavens are overcast, the elementsAre turbid, and the very sea and windsAre all combined against me.Thou, my child,Know'st not the dark misfortunes into whichThou art so early plunged, but happilyLackest the power to comprehend thy fate.What I would crave of thee, my life, since IMust never more be blessed with seeing thee,Is that thou never, never wilt forgetTo say, as thou wert wont, thyAve Mary;For that bright queen of goodness, grace, and virtueCan loosen all thy bonds and give thee freedom.Aydar.Behold the wicked Christian, how she counselsHer innocent child! You wish, then, that your childShould, like yourself, continue still in error.Juan.O mother, mother, may I not remain?And must these Moors, then, carry me away?Mother.With thee, my child, they rob me of my treasures.Juan.Oh, I am much afraid!Mother.'Tis I, my child,Who ought to fear at seeing thee depart.Thou wilt forget thy God, me, and thyself.What else can I expect from thee, abandonedAt such a tender age amongst a peopleFull of deceit and all iniquity?Crier.Silence, you villanous woman! if you would notHave your head pay for what your tongue has done.[151]
Merchant.Come hither, child, 't is time to go to rest.Juan.Signor, I will not leave my mother here,To go with any one.Mother.Alas! my child, thou art no longer mine,But his who bought thee.Juan.What! then, have you, mother,Forsaken me?Mother.O Heavens! how cruel are ye!Merchant.Come, hasten, boy.Juan.Will you go with me, brother?Francisco.I cannot, Juan; 't is not in my power;May Heaven protect you, Juan!Mother.Oh, my child,My joy and my delight, God won't forget thee!Juan.O father! mother! whither will they bear meAway from you?Mother.Permit me, worthy Signor,To speak a moment in my infant's ear?Grant me this small contentment; very soonI shall know nought but grief.Merchant.What you would saySay now; to-night is the last time.Mother.To-nightIs the first time my heart e'er felt such grief.Juan.Pray keep me with you, mother, for I know notWhither he'd carry me.Mother.Alas! poor child,Fortune forsook thee even at thy birth.The heavens are overcast, the elementsAre turbid, and the very sea and windsAre all combined against me.Thou, my child,Know'st not the dark misfortunes into whichThou art so early plunged, but happilyLackest the power to comprehend thy fate.What I would crave of thee, my life, since IMust never more be blessed with seeing thee,Is that thou never, never wilt forgetTo say, as thou wert wont, thyAve Mary;For that bright queen of goodness, grace, and virtueCan loosen all thy bonds and give thee freedom.Aydar.Behold the wicked Christian, how she counselsHer innocent child! You wish, then, that your childShould, like yourself, continue still in error.Juan.O mother, mother, may I not remain?And must these Moors, then, carry me away?Mother.With thee, my child, they rob me of my treasures.Juan.Oh, I am much afraid!Mother.'Tis I, my child,Who ought to fear at seeing thee depart.Thou wilt forget thy God, me, and thyself.What else can I expect from thee, abandonedAt such a tender age amongst a peopleFull of deceit and all iniquity?Crier.Silence, you villanous woman! if you would notHave your head pay for what your tongue has done.[151]
Merchant.
Come hither, child, 't is time to go to rest.
Juan.
Signor, I will not leave my mother here,To go with any one.
Mother.
Alas! my child, thou art no longer mine,But his who bought thee.
Juan.
What! then, have you, mother,Forsaken me?
Mother.
O Heavens! how cruel are ye!
Merchant.
Come, hasten, boy.
Juan.
Will you go with me, brother?
Francisco.
I cannot, Juan; 't is not in my power;May Heaven protect you, Juan!
Mother.
Oh, my child,My joy and my delight, God won't forget thee!
Juan.
O father! mother! whither will they bear meAway from you?
Mother.
Permit me, worthy Signor,To speak a moment in my infant's ear?Grant me this small contentment; very soonI shall know nought but grief.
Merchant.
What you would saySay now; to-night is the last time.
Mother.
To-nightIs the first time my heart e'er felt such grief.
Juan.
Pray keep me with you, mother, for I know notWhither he'd carry me.
Mother.
Alas! poor child,Fortune forsook thee even at thy birth.
The heavens are overcast, the elementsAre turbid, and the very sea and windsAre all combined against me.Thou, my child,Know'st not the dark misfortunes into whichThou art so early plunged, but happilyLackest the power to comprehend thy fate.What I would crave of thee, my life, since IMust never more be blessed with seeing thee,Is that thou never, never wilt forgetTo say, as thou wert wont, thyAve Mary;For that bright queen of goodness, grace, and virtueCan loosen all thy bonds and give thee freedom.
Aydar.
Behold the wicked Christian, how she counselsHer innocent child! You wish, then, that your childShould, like yourself, continue still in error.
Juan.
O mother, mother, may I not remain?And must these Moors, then, carry me away?
Mother.
With thee, my child, they rob me of my treasures.
Juan.
Oh, I am much afraid!
Mother.
'Tis I, my child,Who ought to fear at seeing thee depart.Thou wilt forget thy God, me, and thyself.What else can I expect from thee, abandonedAt such a tender age amongst a peopleFull of deceit and all iniquity?
Crier.
Silence, you villanous woman! if you would notHave your head pay for what your tongue has done.[151]
From such a scene we gladly turn away, while, in the sincerity of our hearts, we give our sympathies to the unhappy sufferers. Fain would we avert their fate; fain would we destroy the system of bondage that has made them wretched and their masters cruel. And yet we must not judge with harshness the Algerine slave-owner, who, reared in a religion of slavery, learned to regard Christians "guilty of a skin not colored like his own" as lawful prey, and found sanctions for his conduct in the injunctions of the Koran, the custom of his country, and the instinctive dictates of an imagined self-interest. It is, then, the "peculiar institution" which we are aroused to execrate, rather than the Algerine slave-masters glorying in its influence, nor perceiving their foul disfigurement.
There is reason to believe that the sufferings of white slaves were not often greater than is the natural incident of slavery. An important authority presents this point in an interesting light. It is that of General Eaton, for some time consul of the United States at Tunis, and conqueror of Derne. In a letter to his wife, dated at Tunis, April 6, 1799, and written amidst opportunities of observation such as few have possessed, he briefly describes the condition of this unhappy class, illustrating it by a comparison less flattering to our country than to Barbary. "Many of the Christian slaves," he says, "have died of grief, and the others linger out a life less tolerable than death. Alas! remorse seizes my whole soul, when I reflect that this is, indeed, but a copy of the very barbarity which my eyeshave seen in my own native country. And yet we boast of liberty and national justice. How frequently, in the Southern States of my own country, have I seen weeping mothers leading the guiltless infants to the sales with as deep anguish as if they led them to the slaughter, and yet felt my bosom tranquil in the view of these aggressions upon defenceless humanity! But when I see the same enormities practised upon beings whose complexion and blood claim kindred with my own, I curse the perpetrators, and weep over the wretched victims of their rapacity.Indeed, truth and justice demand from me the confession, that the Christian slaves among the barbarians of Africa are treated with more humanity than the African slaves among the professing Christians of civilized America.And yet here sensibility bleeds at every pore for the wretches whom fate has doomed to slavery."[152]These words are explicit, although more terrible for us than for the Barbary States.
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 orbranding-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 ofredemption. 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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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 thanthe 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.
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!
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 wasgentle 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.
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 bitterdraught; 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 aspireAbove his brethren, to himself assumingAuthority usurped, from God not given!He gave us only over beast, fish, fowlDominion absolute; that right we holdBy his donation; but man over menHe made not lord, such title to himselfReserving, human left from human free."[170]
"O execrable son, so to aspireAbove his brethren, to himself assumingAuthority usurped, from God not given!He gave us only over beast, fish, fowlDominion absolute; that right we holdBy his donation; but man over menHe made not lord, such title to himselfReserving, human left from human free."[170]
"O execrable son, so to aspireAbove his brethren, to himself assumingAuthority usurped, from God not given!He gave us only over beast, fish, fowlDominion absolute; that right we holdBy his donation; but man over menHe made not lord, such title to himselfReserving, human left from human free."[170]
"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]
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]
It is well, then, that it has passed away. The Barbary States seem less barbarous, when we no longer discern this cruel oppression.
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 allfellow-Christians, without distinction ofnation, 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.
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.
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 Separateand 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]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 theJahrbücher der Gefängnisskunde und Besserungs-anstalten(Annals of Prisons and Houses of Correction), where the Reports of our Society were canvassed with great severity.[176]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.
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 Separateand 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]
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 theJahrbücher der Gefängnisskunde und Besserungs-anstalten(Annals of Prisons and Houses of Correction), where the Reports of our Society were canvassed with great severity.[176]
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, andthe 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 farextempore? What we sanction should beipsissima 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 bedesirable to investigate the great subject ofPauperism, and that ofCriminal 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."
"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 farextempore? What we sanction should beipsissima 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 bedesirable to investigate the great subject ofPauperism, and that ofCriminal 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 lightof 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."
"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.
This Report, when offered to the Society, was first opposed on grounds ofform. 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:—