This Dr. Gibbons made no answer. is but a specimen of a hundred similar attacks, to which I replied after the same fashion; gradually fighting my way, I think, to considerable respect. At all events, after the first two years, we were treated with much more consideration than at the outset, by the press and by the pulpit of the more liberal sects, Unitarian and Universalist, and more especially by the Hicksite Quakers. Some of the New York dailies were bitter enough, refusing even our paid advertisements; others, hitting us from time to time, did it good-naturedly: among these last, M. M. Noah, then conducting the Inquirer. Major Noah (as he was usually called) was a man of infinite humor, and I used to enjoy his jokes even when made at my expense. He said of my father, commencing operations in Indiana: "Robert Owen, the Scotch philanthropist, has been putting his property at New Harmony into common stock; he ought to be put into the stocks himself for his folly." When some country editor came out against him thus: "We can't endure Noah for two reasons: first, we hate his politics; secondly, he spells Enquirer with an I"- the major replied: "Any man who would put out his neighbor's iï's (eyes) ought to forfeit all ee's (ease) for the rest of his life." We had other heresies which brought us reproach, aside from those of a theological character. We advocated the abolition of imprisonment for debt and of capital punishment; equality for women, social, pecuniary, and political; equality of civil rights for all persons without distinction of color, and the 1 Free Enquirer, vol. ii. pp. 134, 135. They got out the paper in five days of the week, right of every man to testify in a court of justice without inquiry made as to his religious creed. Above all, we urged the importance of a national system of education, free from sectarian teachings, with industrial schools where the children of the poor might be taught farming or a trade, and obtain, without charge, support as well as education. This last brought upon us the imputation of favoring communism and holding agrarian views; quite unjustly, however, for I had taken pains to say: "We propose no equalization but that which an equal system of national education will gradually effect." As to the province of the general government as distinct from that of the States, I had then, like most foreigners, no very exact idea of the distinction. Financially our enterprise was so far a success that it ultimately paid all expenses, including those of our household, with a trifle over. This was due to very strict economy, for we had but a thousand paying subscribers, at three dollars a year: in those early days, however, deemed a fair subscription list. We leased, at four hundred and forty dollars a year, from Richard Riker, then recorder of the city, a commodious mansion and grounds on the banks of the East River, some half mile southeast of Yorkville. There we lived and there our paper was handsomely printed by three lads who had been trained in the New Harmony printing-office. They boarded with us, and we paid them a dollar a week each.2 We bought a small church in Broome Street, near the Bowery, for seven thousand dollars, and converted it into what we (somewhat ambitiously) called "The Hall of Science;" adding business offices in front. In this hall we had lectures and debates every Sunday, and sometimes on week-days; admission, ten cents. It paid interest and expenses, leaving the offices free of rent. We carried on also a small business in liberal books; our sales reaching two thousand dollars a year. and we paid them for extra work, when they did any. We lived in the most frugal manner, giving up tea and coffee, and using little animal food; were supplied with milk from a couple of good cows, and vegetables from our garden. We kept two horses and a light city carriage; had two female servants, and a stout boy who attended to the stable and garden. I have now before me a minute account which I kept of our expenses. Including paper (upwards of five hundred a year), printing, expenses of house, stable, and office, rent, etc., our total expenditure was but three thousand one hundred a year when Miss Wright and her sister were with us, and after they went, twenty-seven hundred dollars only. I was my own proof-reader, rode on horseback to and from the city (ten miles) daily, and my only assistant in the office was an excellent young man of fifteen, Augustus Matsell, to whom we paid two dollars a week. I was occupied fully twelve hours a day; and, having a vigorous constitution, my health was unimpaired. Though it was a somewhat hard and self-denying life, my recollections would prompt me to say that I was bright and cheerful through it all, but for a letter of mine which recently came to my hands, written to a European friend in the autumn of 1830, in which, alluding to the death of my sister Anne, I wrote: "It is customary to lament the dead; I lament the survivors. If, indeed, the world were what it ought to be, we might sorrow for those who go; for from how much of enjoyment would they be cut off! But as it is, one must be very favorably and independently situated, to render it certain that death is a loss and not a gain. I myself am thus situated, so that these reflections have no special application in my own case. From nature or education, or both, I derived a lightness of heart which few circumstances can depress." These are cheerless views of human 1 Some of the items sound strangely to-day: Flour five dollars a barrel, horse feed two dollars a week each, butter sixteen cents a pound, and 80 on. 2 John Stuart Mill, in his Autobiography, says life quite different from any which I take now in old age. Can a skeptic, with vision restricted to this world and regarding our existence here as a finality, not as a novitiate, ever obtain assurance (except perhaps during the heyday of a prosperous youth) that life, with its lights so often overshadowed, is a gift worth having at all?2 I think that Frances Wright, less light-hearted than I, took a still gloomier view of the world as it is. Our deepest feelings are wont to crop out in genuine poetry; and Miss Wright, though it is not generally known, was a poet. I have read many of her fugitive pieces in manuscript, but she was never willing to have them issued in a volume. Some of these possessed, I think, considerable merit; as witness the following lines: But oh! with all thy pains thou hast a charm That nought may match within this vale below; E'en for the pangs thou giv'st thou hast a balm. And renderest sweet the bitterness of woe: Thy breath ethereal, thy kindling glow, Thy visions bright, thy raptures wild and high, He that has felt, oh, would he e'er forego? No! in thy glistening tear, thy bursting sigh. Though fraught with woe, there is a thrill of ecstasy. of his father, James Mill, who was a skeptic in religion but a man of the strictest moral principle: "He thought human life a poor thing at best, after the freshness of youth and of unsatisfied curiosity had gone by."— Anter. Ed. p. 48. IV. And art thou flown, thou high, celestial Power? Yet stoop to guide my wildered fancy's reign! Turn thee once more, and wake thy ancient strain! No joys that earth can yield I love like thine; Nay, more than earth's best joys I love thy pain And could I say I would thy smile resign? No; while this bosom beats, oh still, great gift, be mine! These verses indicate the writer's ambitious aspirations, her self-estimate, and the restless and desponding moods to which, though not habitually sad, she was subject. In middle life, however, Frances Wright's ambition took the form of zealous endeavor to aid her suf fering fellow-creatures. When the experiment at Nashoba proved a failure, and it became evident that the slaves there, instead of working out their freedom, were bringing the institution, year by year, into debt, she still resolved that the hopes with which she had inspired them should not be disappointed. She left New York for her Tennessee plantation in the autumn of 1829, and was absent six months, engaged in carrying out her final intentions regarding them. I have in my possession the manifest of the brig—appropriately enough it was the John Quincy Adams, of Boston -in which the little colony was conveyed to Hayti. It shows that by that act, thirteen adults and eighteen children, thirty-one souls in all, liberated from slavery, were transported to a land of freedom. I have also the letter of the President of Hayti (Boyer), dated June 15, 1829, in which, after eulogizing Miss Wright's philanthropic intentions, he offers, to all persons of African blood whom she may bring to the island, an assured asylum; adding that they will be placed, as "cultivators,' on land belonging to kind and trustworthy persons, where they will find homes, and receive what the law in such cases guarantees to all Haytien citizens, half the proceeds of their 1 "Comme cultivateurs, ils seront placés sur les habitations, dont les propriétaires, connus sous des rapports de sagesse et de justice, leur prodigueront tcus les soins que necessiteront leur situation, et labor; all which he faithfully carried out. Miss Wright herself accompanied these people and saw them satisfactorily settled. The experiment thus brought to a close cost her some sixteen thousand dollars; more than half her property. M. Phiquepal d'Arusmont, of whom I have already spoken as a teacher at New Harmony, escorted Miss Wright to Hayti; and when she returned, I learned that they were engaged to be married. Soon after, she left for France accompanied by her younger sister: and there, next year, two misfortunes happened to her: the one her marriage, the other her sister's death. That lady, inferior in talent to Frances, but unassuming, amiable, and temperate in her views, exercised a most salutary influence over her. The sisters, early left orphans and without near relatives, had spent their lives together and were devoted to each other. When I heard of the death of the younger, Mrs. Hemans's touching lines rushed to my mind: "Ye were but two; and, when thy spirit passed, Woe to the one the last! " In that sister Miss Wright lost her good angel. In her husband (gifted with a certain enthusiasm which had its attraction) she found, from the first, an unwise, hasty, fanciful counselor, and ultimately a suspicious and headstrong man. His influence was of injurious effect, alike on her character and on her happiness; and certain claims made by him on her property finally brought about a separation. Whether there ever was a legal divorce I do not know. I saw but little of Madame d'Arusmont after her marriage, and lost sight of her altogether in the latter years of her life. The "Fanny Wright" of Free Enquirer days-her self-sacrificing philanthropy overlooked, or reproached as rank abolitionism — attained notoriety not only in virtue of her theological leur accorderont, suivant la loi qui guarantit et protège tous les citoyens, la moitié du produit de leur travaux." heresy, verging nearer to materialism than mine, but also because of her expressed opinion that, in a wiser and purer future, men and women would need no laws to restrict and make constant their affections. I shared this opinion, as a theory; but I think she was not sufficiently careful explicitly to declare, as I did: "I have never recommended, and am not prepared to defend, any sudden abolition of the marriage law in the present depraved state of society. That great and immediate benefit would result from giving to married women independent rights of property, I am convinced; and I think such a change in the old Gothic antiquated statutes regarding baron and feme will soon be made in this country."1 We were both strongly opposed to indissoluble marriage; favoring divorce for cruel treatment and for hopeless unsuitability; 2 and adducing, in proof that this merciful provision was of virtuous tendency, the domestic morals of Catholic France and Spain and Italy, where marriage was a sacrament binding for life, which no secular law could reach. My present opinions remain the same as those expressed, in detail, on that subject in a correspondence with Horace Greeley (comprised in five letters each), originally published in March and April of 1860, in The New York Daily Tribune; afterwards in a pamphlet which had a very wide circulation. Greeley undoubtedly persisted in holding to his opinion then expressed, that marriage was no marriage if it could be severed by divorce; for, several years afterwards, he called on me, in his hurried way, one morning before early breakfast, earnestly asking me if I could not possibly supply him with a copy of that 1 Free Enquirer, vol. ii. p. 200. 2 Here is a specimen of the arguments by which then fortified my position: "The household sovereign little thinks, when he issues capricious commands, exacts grievous service, or employs tyrannical language, that George Washington's example will justify domestic disobedience. Yet are not all women 'endowed with unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'? Are not governments (matrimonial and national) instituted among men to secure these rights'? Do not marriages as well as governments derive their just powers from the con pamphlet, to be reprinted in the appendix to his Recollections of a Busy Life. I told him I had no copy remaining, but should do my very best to get one for him. I did so, and it appeared as he proposed; as much, I am quite sure, to my satisfaction as to his. An additional cause of the harsh feeling toward Miss Wright which was felt, especially by the orthodox public, was the somewhat bitter manner in which she was wont to speak of what, like my father, she used to call the "priesthood." Her public lectures, of which she gave many throughout the country, East and West, usually attracted large crowds, thousands sometimes going away unable to find even standing-room. In one of these, she spoke of the clergy as 66 a class of men whom no one, not absolutely bent on self-martyrdom, would wish to have for enemies; but whom no honest man ever had ever could have - for friends." So sweeping a censure would place me, with all my heresies, in the category of the dishonest; seeing that I have found, throughout my life, nearly as fair a proportion of friends in the clerical profession as in any other calling. I myself lectured, not only statedly at our hall on Sundays, but also in many of the principal towns and cities of the northern and northwestern States. I met, during my travels, with many amusing incidents, one of which occurs to me. The stage-coach was then the usual mode of transit even on the chief routes; and familiar conversation with chance companions was more common there than it is now in rail-cars. On one occasion I sat next to an old lady of grave sent' of the contracting parties? Whenever any marriage (be it of a king to his subjects or a husband to his wife) becomes destructive of these ends,' is it not right that it should be dissolved? Has not all experience shown' that women (and subjects) are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed ? ' And is not the abolition of these forms often right, desirable, a virtuous wish? Is not divorce, is not revolution, a virtuous act, when kings and husbands play the despot?"- Free Enquirer, vol. iv. p. 141. and anxious aspect. She expressed great interest in the state of my soul. Then she asked me: "Are you going to our great city of Boston?" "Yes." "Great cities," she added, "offer great temptations; and there are many heretics in Boston. Are your religious opinions made up? Unwilling to offend, I replied, in general terms, that I was a searcher after truth. "What church do you propose to attend?" "I shall probably visit more than one." "But you have a preference, I suppose?" Thus pressed to the wall, I confessed that I hoped to hear Dr. Channing. "Dr. Channing!" she repeated, "Dr. Channing! I fear-I greatly fear, young sir, that you are one of the moral sort of men!" "I hope so, madam," I answered quietly. "I should be sorry to believe that I was not." Some of the passengers smiled, but my reply evidently horrified the good dame. She lifted up her eyes to heaven; and, probably regarding the case as hopeless, relapsed into silence. My lectures were well attended, commonly listened to with deep attention; in the case of a few audiences, interrupted by applause. On one occasion only did I meet with anything like violent opposition. It was at Cincinnati, where the authorities had granted me the use of the court house. I lectured there twice. During the first lecture, a member of an orthodox church rose, indignantly denied some statement I had made, and called on the audience to put me down. The audience resented the interruption by loud cries of "Out with him!" and I had to interfere, to prevent his expulsion. Next day the court house could not contain half the crowd that assembled, for opposition was expected. I took the precaution to obtain two moderators, Mr. Gazlay and Mr. Dorfeuil, proprietor of a large museum containing an elaborate collection of natural curiosities and scientific specimens. But I was suffered to close what I had to say without interruption, except that, while I was speaking, a stone, thrown from without, crashed through the casement of a window near by, and fell pretty close to.. where I stood. Next morning I visited the museum; and Mr. Dorfeuil showed me, among-his geological specimens, one a little larger than a man's fist, which a friend of his had picked up in the court house the evening before, and which now bore the quaint and pithy label: THIS ARGUMENT was introduced through a window of the Cincinnati court house, in an attempt to put down Robert Dale Owen, while delivering there an address on Religion, March 6, 1832. In addition to lecturing and the editorship of the Free Enquirer, I contrived, within the four years during which that paper appeared, to do a good deal of extra work. I wrote and published a duodecimo volume of seventy or eighty pages, entitled: Moral Physiology; or, A Brief and Plain Treatise on the Population Question. In this little work I took ground against the theory of Malthus that the checks of vice and misery are necessary to prevent the world from being overpeopled. It had a circulation, in this country and in England, of fifty or sixty thousand copies. I also engaged in a debate touching The Existence of God and the Authenticity of the Bible, with the Rev. Origen Bacheler. This extended to ten papers each; which were published, first in the Free Enquirer, and afterwards in two volumes, which had a fair circulation. But the heaviest work I undertook was in connection with an evening paper, called The New York Daily Sentinel, commenced in February, 1830, by a few enterprising journeymen printers, in the interest of what was called the "Working Men's Party." They were |