Such is the conspicuous fellowship of the two Pitts and the Macaulays, father and son, although most unlike in circumstances of life and the services which have secured this common foothold of immortality. In each case, the father, even with the fame of Lord Chatham, has new glory from the son. The resting-places of the two Pitts are known at once on entering the Abbey. Hereafter, the stranger, who has stood with grateful admiration before the grave of the younger Macaulay, will seek with reverent step the simple tribute to his father, the Abolitionist, mindful that the love of Human Freedom in which the son was cradled and schooled gave to his character some of its best features, and to his career of authorship its earliest triumph.

My purpose is simply to introduce this new-found testimony against Slavery, and not to dwell on the life or character of the author. If I followed a hint from

Nobody can forget that

him, the way would be open. in one of his most magnificent essays he has availed himself of the interest, transient it may have been, created by a newly discovered prose work of Milton, and has reminded his readers that the dexterous Capuchins never choose to preach on the life and miracles of a Saint till they have awakened the devotional feelings of their auditors by exhibiting some relic of him,a thread of his garment, a lock of his hair, or a drop of his blood. Here, indeed, is a relic of Macaulay; but I venture no further.

CHARLES SUMNER.

STATUE OF HORACE MANN.

LETTER TO DR. SAMUEL G. HOWE, MARCH 5, 1860.

FROM the public papers of the time.

Μ

SENATE CHAMBER, March 5, 1860.

MY Dving in earnest for a public statue to

DEAR HOWE, -I am glad to know that you

are

Horace Mann.

Absence, and not indifference, is my excuse for not associating myself at first with this purpose. Though tardily, I do it now most sincerely, and with my whole heart. I send you for it one hundred dollars; but you will please not to measure my interest in this tribute to a public benefactor by the sum which I contribute. Were I able, it would be ten times. as large. If each person in Massachusetts who has been benefited by the vast and generous labors of Horace Mann, - each person who hates Intemperance, and who hates Slavery, each person who loves Education, and who loves humane efforts for the prisoner, the poor, and the insane, - should contribute a mite only, then his statue would be of gold. Why not at once appeal to good men, and insist upon organization throughout the Commonwealth, reaching into every School District, so that all may have an opportunity to contribute? Pray do this, and if

I can serve you any way about it, command me, and believe me,

Always yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

P. S. Mr. Seward, who is not a Massachusetts man, asks me to put his name down for fifty dollars. I enclose his subscription.

· USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN IMPRISONING A CITIZEN.

TWO SPEECHES, ON THE IMPRISONMENT OF THADDEUS HYATT FOR REFUSING TO TESTIFY IN THE HARPER'S FERRY INVESTIGATION, IN THE SENATE, MARCH 12 AND JUNE 15, 1860.

On his return to the Senate, at the opening of Congress, December 5, 1859, Mr. Sumner encountered the agitation arising from the famous attempt of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. Though warned to enter slowly into the full responsibilities of his position, he was constantly moved by incidents arising from this agitation.

On the first day of the session, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, moved the appointment of a committee "to inquire into the facts attending the late invasion and seizure of the armory and arsenal of the United States at Harper's Ferry, in Virginia, by a band of armed men," and the long resolution concluded with " power to send for persons and papers." The Committee was appointed, with Mr. Mason as chairman, and, in the course of its duties, summoned John Brown, Jr., of Kansas, and F. B. Sanborn and James Redpath, of Massachusetts, who severally failed to appear. Thaddeus Hyatt, of New York, appeared, but refused to testify. Thereupon Mr. Mason reported from his committee the following resolution.

"Whereas Thaddeus Hyatt, appearing at the bar of the Senate, in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of the 6th of March, instant, was required, by order of the Senate then made, to answer the following questions, under oath and in writing: 1st, What excuse have you for not appearing before the select committee of the Senate, in pursuance of the summons served on you on the 24th day of January, 1860? 2d, Are you now ready to appear before said committee, and answer such proper questions as shall be put to you by said committee?' time to answer the same being given until the 9th day of March following: And whereas, on the said last-named day, the said Thaddeus Hyatt, again appearing, in like custody, at the bar of the Senate, presented

a paper, accompanied by an affidavit, which he stated was his answer to said questions; and it appearing, upon examination thereof, that said Thaddeus Hyatt has assigned no sufficient excuse in answer to the question first aforesaid, and in answer to said second question has not declared himself ready to appear and answer before said committee of the Senate, as set forth in said question, and has not purged himself of the contempt with which he stands charged: Therefore,

"Be it resolved, That the said Thaddeus Hyatt be committed by the Sergeant-at-Arms to the common jail of the District of Columbia, to be kept in close custody until he shall signify his willingness to answer the questions propounded to him by the Senate; and for the commitment and detention of the said Thaddeus Hyatt this resolution shall be a sufficient warrant.

"Resolved, That, whenever the officer having the said Thaddeus Hyatt in custody shall be informed by said Hyatt that he is ready and willing to answer the questions aforesaid, it shall be the duty of such officer to deliver the said Thaddeus Hyatt over to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, whose duty it shall be again to bring him before the bar of the Senate, when so directed by the Senate."

On the question upon its passage, March 12, 1860, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

MR

R. PRESIDENT,- It is related in English parliamentary history, that, on a certain occasion, when the House of Commons was about ordering the commitment of a somewhat too famous witness to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Speaker interfered by volunteering to say, that "the House ought to pause before they came to a decision upon a point in which the liberty of the subject was so materially concerned." 1 That same question is now before us. We are to pass on the liberty of a citizen.

Pardon me, if I say that such a question cannot at any time be trivial. But it has an unaccustomed magnitude on this occasion, because the case is novel in this body; so that what you now do, besides involving the liberty of the gentleman at the bar, will estab

1 Case of the witness Mrs. Clarke, in the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, February 7, 1809: Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XII. col. 436.