Sir, we talk much, and talk warmly, of political liberty; and well we may, for it is among the chief of public blessings.  But who can enjoy political liberty if he is deprived, permanently, of personal liberty, and the exercise of his own industry and his own faculties?  To those unfortunate individuals, doomed to the everlasting bondage of debt, what is it that we have free institutions of government?  What is it that we have public and popular assemblies?  What is even this Constitution itself to them, in its actual operation, and as we now administer it?  What is its aspect to them, but an aspect of stern, implacable severity? an aspect of refusal, denial, and frowning rebuke? nay, more than that, an aspect not only of austerity and rebuke, but, as they must think it, of plain injustice also, since it will not relieve them, nor suffer others to give them relief?  What love can they feel towards the Constitution of their country, which has taken the power of striking off their bonds from their own paternal State governments, and yet, inexorable to all the cries of justice and of mercy, holds it unexercised in its own fast and unrelenting grasp?  They find themselves bondsmen, because we will not execute the commands of the Constitution; bondsmen to debts they cannot pay, and which all know they cannot pay, and which take away the power of supporting themselves.  Other slaves have masters, charged with the duty of support and protection; but their masters neither clothe, nor feed, nor shelter; they only bind.

But, Sir, the fault is not in the Constitution.  The Constitution is beneficent as well as wise in all its provisions on this subject.  The fault, I must be allowed to say, is in us, who have suffered ourselves quite too long to neglect the duty incumbent upon us.  The time will come, Sir, when we shall look back and wonder at the long delay of this just and salutary measure.  We shall then feel as we now feel when we reflect on that progress of opinion which has already done so much on another connected subject; I mean the abolition of imprisonment for debt.  What should we say at this day, if it were proposed to re-establish arrest and imprisonment for debt, as it existed in most of the States even so late as twenty years ago?  I mean for debt alone, for mere, pure debt, without charge or suspicion of fraud or falsehood.

Sir, it is about that length of time, I think, since you,[1] who now preside over our deliberations, began here your efforts for the abolition of imprisonment for debt; and a better work was never begun in the Capitol.  Ever remembered and ever honored be that noble effort!  You drew the attention of the public to the question, whether, in a civilized and Christian country, debt incurred without fraud, and remaining unpaid without fault, is a crime, and a crime fit to be punished by denying to the offender the enjoyment of the light of heaven, and shutting him up within four walls.  Your own good sense, and that instinct