previous next
[95] practically ended the discussion, and no subsequent effort was made in Massachusetts to enlist public sentiment in behalf of the Pennsylvania system. The controversy did not disturb the personal relations of Sumner and Gray, and the latter's pamphlet was the occasion of friendly correspondence between them.1

The debate had been followed by European penologists, particularly by those who had officially visited the American prisons. Tocqueville wrote Sumner from his chateau in Normandy, August 6, a letter in which he expressed his surprise and regret that the Society, which had made him a member, and which enjoyed a European reputation, had refused to adopt resolutions which, while disclaiming the advocacy of the Auburn or of any other system, committed it to the impartial study and treatment of all systems. Regretting that it had become the champion of the Auburn system, and the systematic adversary of the separate system, he said:—

I need not inform you that at the present day in Europe discussion and experience have, on the contrary, led almost all persons of intelligence to adopt the separate system, and to reject the Auburn system. Most of the governments of the Old World have declared themselves more or less in this way, not hastily, but after serious inquiry and long debate.2

Sumner, in his reply, September 15, wrote:—

The discussions which have recently taken place in Boston on the subject of prison discipline have been the means of diffusing much information and awakening an interest which will be productive of good. Everything relating to it is now read with avidity. the government of our Society is in the hands of a few persons who are strongly prejudiced against change. I think, however, that its course will now be altered. Mr. Dwight, the secretary, has become insane,—whether incurably so, I do not know. The New York Society promises great usefulness. . . .I cherish a lively recollection of my brief intercourse with you in Paris.

An international prison congress was held this year at Brussels. Sumner, in letters from Europe, was urged to attend, but was unable to do so. His brother George, however, was present, and acquitted himself well in the debates, showing in

1 The pamphlet was approved in articles in the North American Review for January, 1848, and in the Christian Examiner for February of the same year. Its positions were contested by a work published in Philadelphia by F. A. Packard.

2 Works, vol. i. p. 530. Contrary to Tocqueville's expectations, the separate system lost ground with the decline of interest in the discussion. See his remarks to Sumner in Paris, April 13, 1857, post, chap. XLI.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Places (automatically extracted)

View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.

Sort places alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a place to search for it in this document.
Department de Ville de Paris (France) (2)
Normandy (France) (1)
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (1)
Europe (1)
Brussels (Belgium) (1)

Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Bradford Sumner (5)
M. Tocqueville (2)
F. A. Packard (1)
Francis C. Gray (1)
Edmund Dwight (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
April 13th, 1857 AD (1)
January, 1848 AD (1)
September 15th (1)
August 6th (1)
February (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: