should be said to conflict with the discipline of the prison.’
His exhortations rendered the prisoners more docile, and stimulated them to exertion by keeping hope alive in their hearts.
On such occasions, I have been told that a large portion of his unhappy audience were frequently moved to tears; and the warmth of their grateful feelings was often manifested by eagerly pressing forward to shake hands with him, whenever they received permission to do so. The friendly counsel he gave on such occasions sometimes produced a permanent effect on their characters.
In a letter to his daughter Susan, he says: ‘One of these poor fellows attacked the life of the keeper, and I soon after had a private interview with him. He received what I said kindly, but declared that he could not govern his temper.
He said he had no ill — will toward the keeper; that what he did was done in a gust of passion, and he could not help it. I tried to convince him that he had power to control his temper, if he would only exercise it. A year and a half afterward, on First Day, after meeting, he asked permission to speak to me. He then told me he was convinced that what I had said to him was true; for he had not given way to anger since I talked to him on the subject.
He showed me many certificates from the keepers, all testifying to his good conduct.
I hardly ever saw a man more changed than he is.’