The Slaveholder Abroad; or, Buck's Visit, with His Master, to England
Ebenezer Starnes
Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1860



London, April 22d, 1854.

  DEAR MAJOR:—I have said that the savage nature of Englishmen manifests itself also in their treatment of lunatics and prisoners, and other persons in a helpless and unprotected condition. I have said so, because this conclusion has been forced upon me by circumstances which have been brought to my attention during the last several years. A few reported facts will bring you to the same conclusion, I have not a doubt. Heart-rending facts some of these are; but after reading what you have of the manner in which helpless women and children, and even servants, are treated in this country, your nerves will undergo less of a trial by reason of what I shall now submit to you.

  I should premise, that the treatment of lunatics and insane persons, by keepers, assistants, &c., in this country, has of late attracted the attention of the press, and of Parliament, because of the outcry which has been raised on account of the enormous evil; and something has been or will be done, probably, in some places, to ameliorate the condition of these unfortunates. But all this only proves that the fierce and brutal nature of the people, from among whom these keepers and assistants come, has made it necessary that there should be this special intervention of power for the protection of their victims. No such intervention is needed in our country.


  The following extract will give you an idea of the sort of violence to which these persons seem to be subjected in this country:


  The inquest on the body of Moses James Barnes, late a pauper lunatic, at Dr. Armstrong's (or Peckham House Lunatic Asylum) was on Thursday resumed and concluded. The inquiry was, for the purpose of ascertaining the manner in which the wounds had been inflicted. Mr. Under-sheriff Law, who is also solicitor to the Commissioners of Lunacy, attended, as on the former occasion, to watch the proceedings, as did also Mr. Bennett, the assistant clerk to the board of guardians of Clerkenwell, to which parish the deceased legally belonged. According to the evidence adduced, the deceased 'seemed to be going off—getting very thin, as if he was in a decline;' but his death at the time when it did occur was caused by violence. His arm was found to be broken and bruised, and there were other injuries. The attendant stated that he did not know how they occurred. He was told that the lunatic said it was he (the attendant) who had done these injuries to him. The attendant's reply was, 'It is quite false.' It was proposed to examine a patient, Donnelly, who was rational in common conversation, but labored under certain fancies and delusions, and was a decided lunatic. It was stated that his account agreed with that of other patients; but the coroner being told that Donnelly could not be considered a responsible agent if he violated the law, would not allow his evidence to be received. The medical evidence attributed the death to violence most distinctly; and the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against some person or persons unknown."—Observer, Jan. 23, 1851.

  It is true that it was not rendered certain by these proceedings that this unhappy man received the injuries by which he died from his "attendant;" but that he came to his death by violence at the hands of some one having charge of him, seems to be evident from the verdict.

  About this time, public attention was repeatedly called to the treatment of lunatics in Bethlehem Hospital, and other places, and I met with the following among other statements:



  'On the 20th of September last,' writes Serjeant Henry Stewart, late color-serjeant 50th Infantry, 'I went as an attendant to Bethlehem Hospital. The patients that I attended were all located in the basement. I continued in that service only till the 8th of October, when I left in disgust for other employment. I was there, therefore, only eighteen days, but in that short space of time I witnessed acts so inhuman, and cruelty so great, that I conceive it my duty to lay an account of what I saw before the public.

  'I believe it was on the day after I entered the hospital that one of the patients, James Brown, a jeweller, who was in the dining-room, had taken a piece of bread belonging to another patient. He was in the act of eating it, when an attendant seized him by the throat, and squeezed it so tightly as to strangle him, forcing him to disgorge the bread he was in the act of swallowing. Keeping hold of him by the throat, he dragged the patient into the passage, and threw him down violently on the ground, and there left him.

* * * * * * * * * *

  'Another patient, named Barling, formerly an Independent minister at Upway, Dorsetshire, was in the dining-room with others who were at dinner. Barling stood up and said he could not get his dinner comfortably there. The same attendant as last mentioned instantly seized him, threw him down, dragged him along the passage to the airing ground, the poor man resisting all the time, and at the end of the passage threw him down on the mat, opened the door, and then threw him outside on the pavement, going out with him. I saw Barling shortly afterwards. He could not walk then, but could only limp, leaning on some one else.

* * * * * * * * * *

  The next case calling for notice relates to a patient named Bechnell, formerly an omnibus proprietor. The patients who were in the west airing-ground were ordered in to dinner. Madison refused to go, and then Bechnell refused also. I took charge of Madison, and was taking him from the yard, when I turned round and saw another attendant in the act of striking Bechnell on the side of the head. Bechnell fell with his head on the floor. He fell as if lifeless. I went on towards the dining-room, and turned round again, when I saw him sitting up, and the keeper standing over and apparently assisting him.


I then proceeded into the dining-room, and immediately afterwards Bechnell was brought in by the keeper, who said he had fallen down in a fit and cut his head. Bechnell was then taken to the doctor and had his head dressed. The doctor did not ask me how it happened that Bechnell's head had been broken.

  'The above cases occurred between the 20th and 27th September, as nearly as I can recollect.'

* * * * * * * * * *

  'The concluding case I have to mention refers to Mr. Barling, the independent minister, a victim on another occasion already stated. While I and another attendant were engaged with other patients in the basement, Barling got into the bath-room. While going into the bath-room, my companion saw Barling with a little piece of soap in his hand, which he had purloined. Barling crouched down, and apparently expecting to be struck, threw his hands over his head to save himself. The keeper struck him with his fist on the back of the left jaw, the force of the blow being such as to break off one of the patient's front teeth, which I have now in my possession. Having given him this blow, he followed it up by a kick, and then left him. Signed, HENRY STEWART, late Color-serjeant of 50th Regiment.'"—Observer, Nov. 17th, 1851.

  It was not far from this time, too, I believe, that a commission was appointed by Parliament for the purpose of investigating such charges against this hospital; and if I had time and room to furnish you with the evidence which was taken before that Committee, you would bow your head in sorrow for the suffering which was thus brought to light, and in shame for those who so long and systematically inflicted it. I can afford room only for a few of the facts which were brought out at one of the sittings of the Commission, and which are reported by the "Observer;" but they will be sufficient to show you how such things are managed in this country.


  We this week resume our extracts from the evidence laid before the Commissioners of Lunacy, relative to the discipline, management, and treatment of patients in the Bethlehem Hospital. We refer our readers particularly to the evidence of the


surgeon who attended Miss Hyson, and which fully bears out the comments we felt it our duty to make in the Observer of Sunday last. Every step that has been made in the progress of the investigation has only still further exposed the mismanagement and reckless disregard of the health and feelings of the unhappy victims of this fearful system, which has grown up and gone on so long unchecked in the very heart of the metropolis:

  Mr. Taylor's explanation.—On the 17th of July, 1851, Mr. Charles Taylor, surgeon, of 4 Bethell place, Camberwell, was called before the commissioners and examined. He stated that he had been in the habit of attending Miss Hannah Hyson for some time previously to her admission into Bethlehem. He had been in close attendance upon her for three weeks before that time. She was naturally thin, but was not greatly emaciated; she had the average amount of health and strength for an invalid.

* * * * * * * * * *

  She went into Bethlehem on the 4th of April, and he saw her again after she had come out on the 18th. She struck him as being very much altered in appearance, and very emaciated; she was very much thinner than when she went in, and 'her bones were almost projecting through her skin.' Her mind was much less wandering; but her countenance was very anxious and dejected, and she looked miserable altogether. She had no paralysis, but squinted a little, which was not the case before she went in. She was laboring under diarrhoea. He did not examine her person, and could not say whether there were any wounds. He saw her face, but forgets whether he noticed the marks that evening or not. Believes it was that evening or the next morning her mother said, 'Oh! Mr. Taylor, my girl has been terribly ill-treated, and I wish you to look at her,' and he then particularly examined her body all over, and had a written account of it somewhere. There was, to the best of his memory, 'a place' or mark on the upper lip, and one on her cheek also. The witness then, in answer to a variety of questions, detailed the various marks and wounds upon the patient's body, on the ankles, knees, hips, elbows, &c. She died on the morning of the 22d, four days after leaving the hospital, and 'we' examined the body. By 'we' he meant Dr. Wood, the resident apothecary of the hospital, his partner Mr. Crisp, and himself. The immediate cause of her sinking was diarrhoea and want of food. She did not refuse her food after


she came out. Witness said to her, 'Hannah, now you must take what I tell you;' she said she would, and she did.


  Mrs. Elizabeth Whittingham, of Albert terrace, Ball's Pond, Islington, deposed that she had a daughter named Mary Isabella, a patient in Bethlehem Hospital. Her health at the time was delicate—she had had inflammation of the throat and cough, and had fallen away in flesh. She had no marks or bruises on her body when she went in. She was violent and high, but not to do any mischief. She went into the hospital on the 9th of January, and it was two months before she could see her. On the first occasion it was before the proper time, and they would not allow her to see her daughter. Some of her friends also went, but were refused. Afterwards, at the proper time, when she went, the nurse said she could not see her. Witness said, 'Cannot see her! I must see her; I am her mother.' The nurse said, 'I cannot help that—you cannot see her.' About a fortnight after that she went again and saw her. She appeared to be in great distress, and cried bitterly. Witness entreated her not to do so, and she said, 'I cannot help it; I cry all night.' She said, 'Look at my fingers' (one of them was very much swollen); and when witness inquired the cause, she said it was one of the nurses, and she also showed her bruises all down the side; but witness had not the opportunity of seeing any more. When asked why she did not complain to Dr. Wood, the poor creature said it is of no use complaining to Dr. Wood. While they were talking, Dr. Wood happened to come up, and the mother showed the bruised hand and the marks on her side, and he showed the swelled hand to one of the nurses, and asked, 'How is this?' The nurse said, 'Oh, that is an old affair.' The joint of the finger was very much swollen. The name of the nurse was Elizabeth. Her daughter told her that it was not that nurse who had given her the bruises, but that Elizabeth used to beat her with the keys. The bruises were not caused by her tumbling about, but she at one time had the misfortune to fall and hurt her hip, and the least push or blow given her by the nurses would throw her down. Her daughter slept for three months in the basement story—she said she never slept on anything but the bare straw, and no night clothes whatever. Witness had no opportunity of examining her bed and bedding, as she was not admitted into the place where her


daughter slept. The patient was dressed, for the occasion, and brought up to the gallery—her hair was very bad, and nearly all cut away, and they took her brushes and combs from her. No reason was given for placing her in the basement story. Her daughter was subject to delusions. In about a month the mother saw her again, and she then appeared much the same, and wanted very much to come home. Her mind then appeared to be better. Dr. Wood said he thought she was going on pretty well. Every time the poor girl saw her mother she complained of ill-treatment, and the mother and friends unfortunately thought it was one of her delusions. On the second visit she complained that, being awake all night, she overslept herself, and the nurse came and dragged her by the hair of her head to make her get up, and shook her so violently that it brought on a violent fit of coughing. On another occasion her face appeared very much swollen with constantly crying. The patient was discharged cured on the 7th of June. Before she left, she said she would certainly make a complaint when she went before the committee, but Mr. Hunter begged she would not, as Elizabeth, the nurse, had a mother to keep, and the poor girl, being a feeling young person, agreed not to make the complaint. The matron stood beside the patient when she went before the committee, so that she could not say anything. She had since gone to her relatives in Somersetshire, in the hope that change of air might further benefit her. Among other things which she told her mother after she left the hospital was that on one occasion she was going to take a bath—whether she did not do it properly or not could not be ascertained, but no less than three of the nurses forced her in again, and ill treated her very much, and she begged never to be put in a bath again. She also complained of their calling her most shocking names, and of very bad language being used towards her.


  Mr. John Ogle Else, surgeon, of Albany road, Camberwell, was called in to see Miss Anne Morley, the patient whose case was referred to last week with the initials of A. M., under the head of 'Peine forte et dure.' He was called in on the 28th of December, 1850, at her father's residence, Jessamine Cottage, Park street, Camberwell. He had previously, on the 6th of October, signed a certificate for her admission into Bethle-


hem. She was then in a very impaired state of bodily health, and appeared to be suffering from a description of low fever. He did not apprehend but that she might be restored both mentally and bodily, but on the second occasion, after she came out, he did not think that she would live twenty-four hours. She complained of having sores on her side, but be did not examine her. Her health was so precarious that he endeavored to dissuade her family from sending her to Northamptonshire, believing that she would not survive the journey.

  P. R. Nesbit, M. D., deposed to having received Miss Morley into his asylum at Northampton, on the 29th of December. She was then in an extremely feeble condition. She was bed-ridden, and had various sores all over her body. . . . Dr. Nesbitt, in his letter to the commissioners, said the sores and abrasions were evidently the consequences of neglect—that the patient uniformly complained of the treatment to which she was subjected in Bethlehem Hospital—that she had nothing but straw to lie on, and there was no attempt to interpose any kind of protection between her body and the straw—that it hurt her much, and she had no clothes even to cover her. She described her whole treatment to be harsh and coarse, and the recollection of it to inspire her with horror—that the nurses were in the habit of giving her nicknames derived either from the color of her skin or from her habits, and that they treated her like a brute. He adds that the patient is remarkable for truthfulness. The whole of the evidence brought forward in corroboration of the statements made by the patients themselves is remarkably coherent and consistent, and establishes a most revolting system of inhumanity and cruelty. The matter is little mended when we take the evidence on the other side brought forward in defence of the institution.

  The editor from whose paper the above extracts are taken, comments as follows:


  The publication of the evidence taken before the Commissioners of inquiry in the case of Bethlehem Hospital continues to attract the most profound and painful attention on the part of the public. A complete abstract of this evidence will be found in another part of the Observer. In the meanwhile,


however, the attention of the reader may with propriety be pointed to the important facts in that publication.

  Miss Ann Morley—the patient whose case was alluded to last week in this journal as A. M.—had, it would seem, a narrow escape with her life from the 'tender mercies' dispensed in the 'incurable' ward of this establishment. She went in ill, no doubt; but not so ill as to cause her previous medical attendant to despair of her restoration to health, bodily and mental; when she left, however, the same medical man, according to his own solemn statement, did not expect she would live twenty-four hours, such was her reduced condition.

  It will scarcely add to the public horror at the system so long and so cruelly pursued in Bethlehem Hospital, to state that the wretched patients—female patients more especially—were beaten—beaten, too, with the keys of their ward, by the nurse-tenders.

  Miss Isabella Whittingham, another patient, who has also luckily escaped with her life, had one side covered with bruises, and was moreover nearly scalped by the nurse-tenders dragging her out by the hair of her head. Of course, when such brutality was practised, decency of deportment would not be observed, and therefore it will not surprise the public that filthy names and bad language were constantly in the mouth of the subordinate authorities, to whose 'tender mercies' the poor patients in the 'incurable,' or more properly speaking, 'condemned' ward, were consigned."—Observer, Oct. 11th, 1852.

  But the exposures made by this proceeding, and the report of the Committee, could not change the nature of Englishmen. I continued, therefore, to meet with similar complaints. Take, for example, the following extract, which formed part of an article in which the editor, after detailing a case of cruelty of another description, goes on to say,

  "The other case we find reported in the Durham Advertiser. It occurred at Quarter Sessions, and, as tending to show that at other lunatic asylums besides the Bethlehem, the practice of gross cruelty towards insane persons still exists, should not be lost sight of by those who do not think that diseases of the mind are to be cured by sufferings inflicted on the body. The Commissioners, we notice with pleasure, are on the alert, and it was in consequence of a communication from them that the


matter became the subject of inquiry. As the accusation runs, the proprietor of the Dunston Asylum has horsewhipped one of his patients, and (on the ground that he used them to bite him with) has caused the extraction of some of his teeth. The horsewhipping does not appear to be denied, the tooth-drawing responsibility seems possibly to lie with the dentist, and not with the accused. Here, therefore, the matter lies; a report is sent to the Commissioners; the license of Mr. Wilkinson, against whom this misconduct is charged, is suspended; and the public waits for the result. We trust that it will be satisfactory, and that if the vindication of the accused be not sufficient, his punishment will be certain."—The Leader, April 16th, 1853.

  Again I found Sir B. Hall calling the attention of Parliament to the treatment of female lunatics at Bethlehem, and to an alleged fact, which, if true, is excessively disgraceful and painful.


  Sir B. Hall said it was stated that female lunatics in this hospital were disgracefully treated; that young girls were made to stand quite naked whilst they were washed with a mop, and then sent shivering to their cells, in the month of March. This institution possessed £20,000 a-year, and was chiefly under the management of the Corporation of London. The corporation had met yesterday, and after despatching the Jew question, had proceeded to Bethlehem [laughter]. Mr. Gilpin moved to make stringent inquiries into the treatment of the patients, but the motion was withdrawn. He wished to know what had been done to prevent the recurrence of such abuses as those described by the Lunacy Commissioners?

  Mr. Fitzroy was not aware that the report alluded to would be laid upon the table; but a bill now in the Lords, introduced by Lord St. Leonard's, and which he believed would be passed, would place Bethlehem Hospital on the same footing as other similar establishments [hear]."—Observer, March, 1853.

  I must pass on to other matter, and bring to your attention the inhumanity with which the poor in workhouses, and prisoners in the jails, are treated in this country. I select first from among others the following extract:



  On Thursday evening, a public meeting of the inhabitants of Lewisham and the neighborhood was held at the Bull Inn, to take into consideration allegations which have been freely circulated, of great inhumanity to the poor on the part of the officials of Lewisham workhouse. Mr. Brown, a former guardian of the poor in the Lewisham Union, having been called to the chair, expressed the deep regret he felt that it should be necessary to call such a meeting, but the circumstances which had transpired rendered it impossible for the rate-payers to be silent any longer. When he held the office of a guardian; he found great reason to complain of the master's accounts, in which he detected great discrepancies. He sought hard to obtain an official inquiry into the matter, but the master being allowed to amend his accounts, all further discussion was stifled.

  Mr. Day said his attention was directed in August last to the case of a man named Cooke, then an inmate of the Lewisham Union. The details of the case were of so harrowing a character that he sought to have a conversation with him, but an application he made to the ibaster for that purpose was peremptorily refused. He then applied to the chairman of the Board of Guardians, but received no answer. He had understood that Cooke had been confined to the house for nine consecutive months, without being allowed to cross the threshold of the door.

  Cooke, the pauper alluded to, was introduced. He appeared to be in an infirm state of health, was suffering from the loss of one of his eyes, and was about 26 or 27 years of age. He said he had held a subordinate situation in connexion with the Shooter's-hill district Post office, but his health having failed him, he was compelled to seek admission into the Lewisham Workhouse. He had received much ill-treatment from the master, without having been able to obtain any protection from the Board of Guardians. During the time he was an inmate of the house, which extended over a considerable time, from illness, he had witnessed cruelties of the most revolting character. On one occasion, a pauper named Ferris, a man between 80 and 85 years of age, had a trifling dispute with the master, the old man having asked for a short leave of absence from the house. The master struck him a violent blow with his fist, and


then with another blow struck him down in the yard. Ferris was unable to assist himself, and eventually a man was sent to remove him from the yard. As the old man was being removed, the master said, 'You are a d—d old rascal, and I wish I had served you worse.' Ferris was taken to the infirmary, and a man was appointed to watch him night and day, because he was unable, without help, to get in and out of bed. On another occasion the master knocked a poor old woman, 70 years of age, down half a flight of stairs. A poor boy named Day was admitted into the house, having received severe injuries on his legs from the kick of a horse. The boy's thighs having been injured, the hospital surgeons had made two great incisions, and the consequence was he was unable to move about without a crutch. The master ordered him to go to work, and the boy, having expressed his inability to do so, the master knocked the crutch from under his arm, and then struck him over the head with it, immediately afterwards striking him in the face with his fist. The following morning the master called him (Cooke) into the office, and requested him to have nothing to do with the boy, but Cooke replied that the assault was of such a brutal character that he should state it to the guardians. For this he was taken before the guardians, and turned out of the house, although in a state of serious illness. Leaving the house he fell senseless on the road, and was conveyed by a police-officer to the residence of a neighboring surgeon, and thence back to the Union-house. The master refused to admit him, and he was drawn about in a cart for three or four hours, unable to obtain any assistance. He was again taken to the workhouse, at the door of which he was met by the master, who told the driver to back him into the ditch and leave him there, and he would take the consequences. He was in the workhouse ten weeks at that time. No one was allowed to speak to him. Water was given to him once only for the purpose of washing himself, and the bandages he placed round his legs, which were sore, he; had to wash in his own urine. (Great sensation.) He was not allowed to go to any place of worship, although he appealed to the Board of Guardians for permission. Cooke was closely questioned as to the accuracy of his statements, but his testimony was unshaken.

  Many cases of a character similar to those already detailed were given by paupers in person, and by gentlemen who had become acquainted with them. It was unanimously agreed


that the circumstances which had been laid before the meeting should be represented to the Poor-law Board, and a sub-committee for that purpose was appointed. It was also agreed that, if necessary, a petition should be presented to Parliament. A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the proceedings, which did not terminate until a very late hour at night."—Weekly Dispatch, Feb. 6th, 1853.

  During the past year considerable excitement was created by reports of shocking cruelty practised on prisoners in the jail at Birmingham. You will find the subject alluded to in the following extract:


  In consequence of rumors that cruelties had been practised in the borough jail of Birmingham, Lord Palmerston ordered an inquiry by Mr. Perry, the prison inspector. About three months ago one Andrews, a youth, hung himself in his cell, making a third case of suicide, besides several attempts at suicide, made since Lieutenant Austen, R. N. (the present governor), succeeded Captain Maconochie two years ago."—Observer, July 4th, 1853.

  In pursuance of the order thus given by the Home Secretary, a report was made in May last, by the inspector, Mr. Perry, which disclosed a system of shocking cruelty and oppression practised in this jail. To this, the visiting justices replied, denying most, or all, of the charges; and these proceedings, it seems, lead to the appointment of a commission for the purpose of investigating the subject. That inquiry developed facts which serve to authorize all that I have said in relation to this matter. I cannot afford room for the report made by this commission, but will give you the substance of. it condensed into an editorial article of the Observer.


  The inquiry into the illegal and cruel proceedings that have taken place from time to time within the last three years, in


Birmingham jail, has now terminated; and a few remarks upon the subject may not, therefore, be inappropriate. The evidence adduced before the commissioners showed in the clearest manner a continuous system of wanton and unlawful restrictions—of barbarous punisments. It showed penal labor outrageously disproportioned to the bodily powers of those on whom it was imposed—and it showed prison allowances reduced, for the most trivial offences, below the minimum required for, the maintenance of health and strength—which, with at least the acquiescence of the visiting justices, has been allowed to aggravate the sentences judicially pronounced on convicted offenders.

  The governor of the prison, who was practically placed upon his defence in the course of the inquiry, confined his answers in substance to the bare allegation that he was no worse than others—that he had only followed in the wake of his immediate predecessor. But he made several admissions of a nature calculated to vitiate his defence—among others that he had, twelve months after his predecessor's departure, inserted in the book which, according to the regulations, ought to form a daily journal of all punishments inflicted in the prison, entries of punishments alleged to have been inflicted by that officer, which, as far as he knew, might or might not be facts. This tampering with the records of the prison, however, bad as it was, is not the worst feature of the case against him, as based upon his own admission. For instance, he was in the habit of sentencing prisoners to bread and water for prison offences, without first hearing what they had to say in their own defence—a notorious violation both of English law and of natural equity. It was his practice to prevent prisoners committed for trial from corresponding with their friends—which is also wholly illegal. Prisoners convicted for the second time he habitually detained until the evening of the day on which their sentences expired, instead of discharging them, as the law requires, at the earliest possible hour in the morning. He punished the prisoners for speaking to one another in the yard, which he had no right whatever to do. And lastly, he systematically abstained from recording the punishments which he inflicted. The latter practice no doubt was demanded by the nature of the punishment inflicted by him on the prisoner; for, contrary to law, as well as to morals, he 'weighted' the crank on which they worked to the extent of no less than ten thousand I revolutions in a single day; and not alone this, but he


compelled his victims to carry on their work long after dark, leaving them to guess when they had accomplished their task; though, while thus employed, they were each, in the opinion of an engineer who was examined, doing more than twice the work which ought to have been exacted from an able-bodied man, while they received no food (a one pound loaf of bread and water) until ten o'clock at night, 'having then been without sustenance the whole day.' Very often, too, after long deprivation of food, they were compelled to suffer the punishment of the strait-jacket, with the attendant collar and straps.

  The result of this system of torture, for such it was and nothing else, was a chronic tendency to suicide on the part of the prisoners; a state of mind perfectly comprehensible in the presence of death by lingering torture—torture inflicted, too, not in the open light of day, by responsible administrators of the law, but in the darkness and secrecy of the crank cell.

  But though the governor was decidedly the gravest offender in this terrible case of cruelty and oppression towards the prisoners, he was not alone to blame; for magistrates and officers of every grade connected with the prison were equally cruel, or when not actually so, were most culpably indifferent to the sufferings inflicted on those whom it was their duty to protect as well as to keep in safe custody."—Observer, September 19th, 1853.

  Believe me, dear Major, Yr. obdt. servt. and cousin,



Pineville, Georgia, U. S. of America.