os of some
new poem of Mr. Longfellow's, "What a club we are! I like to indulge in
a little _mutual_." The developments of later years made some changes in
these relations. When the Boston public became strongly divided on the
slavery question, Hillard and Felton were less pronounced in their views
than the others, while Longfellow, Sumner, and Dr. Howe remained united
in opinion and in feeling. Hillard, who possessed more scholarship and
literary taste than Sumner, could never understand the reason of the
high position which the latter in time attained. He remained a Webster
Whig, to use the language of those days, while Sumner was elected to
Webster's seat in the Senate. Felton was a man of very genial
temperament, devoted to the duties of his Greek professorship and to
kindred studies. He was by nature averse to strife, and the encounters
of the political arena had little attraction for him. The five always
remained friends and well-wishers. They became much absorbed in the
cares and business of public and private life, and the club as such
ceased to be spoken of.

In the days of their great intimacy, a certain grotesqueness of taste in
Sumner made him the object of some good-natured banter on the part of
the other "Mutuals." It was related that on a certain Fourth of July he
had given his office boy, Ben, a small gratuity, and had advised him to
pass the day at Mount Auburn, where he would be able to enjoy quiet and
profitable meditation. Felton was especially merry over this incident;
but he, in turn, furnished occasion for laughter when on a visit to New
York, in company with the same friends. A man-servant whom they had
brought with them was ordered to carry Felton's valise to the Astor
House. This was before the days of the baggage express. The man arrived
late in the day, breathless with fatigue, and when questioned replied,
"Faith! I went to all the _oyster_ houses in Broadway before I could
find yees."

I little thought when I first knew Mr. Sumner that his most intimate
friend was destined to become my own companion for life. Charles Sumner
was a man of great qualities and of small defects. His blemishes, which
were easily discerned, were temperamental rather than moral. He had not
the sort of imagination which enables a man to enter easily into the
feelings of others, and this deficiency on his part sometimes resulted
in unnecessary rudeness.

His father, Sheriff Sumner, had been accounted the most polit