Handbook of Optomechanical

Engineering Ahmad
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-optomechanical-engineering-ahmad/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Handbook of Image Engineering Zhang

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-image-engineering-
zhang/

Control Applications for Biomedical Engineering Systems

1st Edition Ahmad Taher Azar (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/control-applications-for-
biomedical-engineering-systems-1st-edition-ahmad-taher-azar-
editor/

Database Engineering Engineering Handbook P.K. Ghosh

https://textbookfull.com/product/database-engineering-
engineering-handbook-p-k-ghosh/

Handbook of Environmental Engineering 3rd Edition Myer

Kutz

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-environmental-
engineering-3rd-edition-myer-kutz/
Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering Manhar R Dhanak

https://textbookfull.com/product/springer-handbook-of-ocean-
engineering-manhar-r-dhanak/

Handbook of Fod Engineering 3rd Edition Dennis R.

Heldman

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-fod-engineering-3rd-
edition-dennis-r-heldman/

The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering 3rd Edition

John H. Cushman

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-handbook-of-groundwater-
engineering-3rd-edition-john-h-cushman/

The Gypsum Construction Handbook Rsmeans Engineering

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-gypsum-construction-
handbook-rsmeans-engineering/

The Biomedical Engineering Handbook Third Edition 3

Volume Set Biomedical Engineering Fundamentals The
Biomedical Engineering Handbook Fourth Edition Joseph
D. Bronzino
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-biomedical-engineering-
handbook-third-edition-3-volume-set-biomedical-engineering-
fundamentals-the-biomedical-engineering-handbook-fourth-edition-
Electrical Engineering Ahmad

SECOND EDITION
SECOND EDITION

Handbook of
Handbook of

Optomechanical Engineering
Optomechanical Engineering
Optomechanical Engineering continues to play a key role in the design
and development of major state of the art optical systems for space,
military and medical applications. Most notable systems developed over Optomechanical
Engineering
the past decade include James Webb Space Telescope, cameras for Mars
rovers, sensors and seekers for ballistic missile defense, and lasers
systems for cosmetic surgery and industrial applications. The performance

Handbook of
of such diversified optical systems depends on the selection of proper
materials for optical elements and support structures, suitable design of
optical mounts, and selection of correct fabrication methods to ensure long
term stability at an affordable cost.

The second edition of Handbook of Optomechanical Engineering

encompasses state of the art practical techniques that have been used
successfully to produce many sophisticated optical systems over the past
15 years. This handbook is the result of collaboration of many well-known
subject matter experts, who have successful track records of developing
world’s most sophisticated optical systems for space, military and industri-
al applications. In this handbook, these experts have generously shared
their insights and practical knowledge in their areas of expertise for the
benefit of young and less experienced optomechanical and optical
engineers. This handbook is a single comprehensive collection of the latest
optomechanical design and fabrication techniques that are scattered over
hundreds of professional scholarly articles and papers published in profes-
sional society journals and conference proceedings.

Edited by

K28796
SECOND
EDITION
Anees Ahmad
ISBN-13: 978-1-4987-6148-2
90000

9 781498 761482
Handbook of Optomechanical
Engineering
2nd Edition
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Handbook of Optomechanical
Engineering
2nd Edition

Edited by
Anees Ahmad
MATLAB ® is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc. and is used with permission. The MathWorks does not warrant the accu-
racy of the text or exercises in this book. This book’s use or discussion of MATLAB ® software or related products does not
constitute endorsement or sponsorship by The MathWorks of a particular pedagogical approach or particular use of the
MATLAB ® software.

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2017 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-6148-2 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to
publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materi-
als or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material
reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained.
If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in
any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, micro-
filming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www​
.­copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-
8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that
have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi-
cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
 In Memory of

The late Paul R. Yoder Jr. who was a great mentor and an outstanding
teacher and who introduced me to the art and science of Optomechanical
Engineering at Perkin Elmer Corporation, Danbury, Connecticut in 1980.
http://taylorandfrancis.com
 Dedication

This book would not have been possible without the strong encouragement
and full support of my lovely wife Rukhsana and my two very dear
daughters Iram and Rabia. They have always been a true source
of inspiration for all my professional accomplishments and humble
contributions to the practice of Optomechanical Engineering.
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................................xi
Preface............................................................................................................................................ xiii
Editor................................................................................................................................................ xv
Contributors....................................................................................................................................xvii

Chapter 1 Optomechanical Engineering Basics............................................................................ 1

Robert Parks, Ron Willey, and Frédéric Lamontagne

Chapter 2 Optomechanical Design Principles............................................................................. 29

Daniel Vukobratovich

Chapter 3 Materials for Optical Systems..................................................................................... 53

Trent Newswander and Roger A. Paquin

Chapter 4 Mirror Materials.......................................................................................................... 91

Trent Newswander and Roger A. Paquin

Chapter 5 Plastic Optics............................................................................................................. 137

Michael Schaub

Chapter 6 Lightweight Mirror Design....................................................................................... 173

Daniel Vukobratovich

Chapter 7 Optomechanical Tolerancing and Error Budgets......................................................207

Frédéric Lamontagne

Chapter 8 Optical Mounts: Lenses, Windows, Small Mirrors, and Prisms............................... 269
Paul R. Yoder Jr. and Frédéric Lamontagne

Chapter 9 Adjustment Mechanisms........................................................................................... 337

Anees Ahmad

Chapter 10 Analysis and Design of Flexures............................................................................... 385

Alson E. Hatheway

Chapter 11 Optomechanical Constraint Equations...................................................................... 411

Alson E. Hatheway

ix
x Contents

Chapter 12 Structural Analysis of Optics.................................................................................... 443

Victor Genberg and Keith Doyle

Chapter 13 Thermal Analysis of Optics...................................................................................... 491

Keith Doyle and Victor Genberg

Chapter 14 Fabrication Methods.................................................................................................. 515

Darell Engelhaupt, John Schaefer, and Anees Ahmad

Index............................................................................................................................................... 547
Foreword
Optomechanical engineering is essential for the design of optical systems used in everyday life.
There are many textbooks on optics and many textbooks on mechanical engineering, but few text-
books on the combination of optics and mechanics, and there are few universities that teach courses
on optomechanical design. Unfortunately, it is impossible to design and build a high-quality optical
system, whether it be a camera assembly for a smart phone, the James Webb Space telescope, the
optical system for a military system, or the cameras for planetary exploratory missions, without
truly understanding the relationship between the optics and the mechanics.
To build a high-quality optical system, it is important to understand the properties of the mate-
rials used to make the optics, whether it is glass, metal, plastic, low-expansion material, or mate-
rial for lightweight optics. Thermal and structural analyses of the optics are extremely important.
Mounts for holding the optics to within the required tolerances without distorting the optics are
essential. The design of flexures used to control the location of the optical elements is very impor-
tant. Understanding analytic methods for predicting changes in the position, orientation, and size
of an image is important. So how do we learn both the necessary optical design and the necessary
mechanical design to design and build a high-quality optomechanical system?
Most optomechanical engineers start their career by getting a good technical background in
optics or mechanical engineering, and then through on-the-job training, they become high-quality
optomechanical engineers. They learn from colleagues; they learn by making mistakes; and most
importantly, they learn from books such as this handbook on optomechanical engineering that
can tremendously help in giving the optical or mechanical engineers the information they need to
design a good optomechanical system. This handbook covers all key optomechanical engineering
topics such as International Organization for Standardization standards, material selection criteria,
tolerancing, design of lens and mirror mounts and adjustment mechanisms, fabrication and heat
treatment methods for long-term stability, etc. All chapters have been authored by the subject matter
experts with highly successful track records of developing sophisticated optical systems for space,
military, and medical applications.

James C. Wyant
Professor Emeritus of Optical Sciences
Founding Dean of the College of Optical Sciences
University of Arizona
SPIE Past President
OSA Past President

xi
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Preface
The discipline of optomechanical engineering continues to play a key role in the design and devel-
opment of sophisticated optical systems for space, military, and commercial applications. Such
systems include the James Webb telescope, high-resolution cameras for Mars rovers and other plan-
etary missions; seekers and sensors for ballistic missile interceptors; and laser systems for surgical
and cosmetic procedures such as hair and tattoo removal.
This second edition of Handbook of Optomechanical Engineering is the result of collabora-
tion of many subject-matter experts from top optical engineering organizations across the United
States and Canada. We have attempted to cover the latest optomechanical engineering knowledge,
practice, and art that has been developed over the last 15 years at the leading optical engineering
organizations across the world. All original chapters in the first editions have been extensively
updated in this second edition. Moreover, four new chapters have been added in this edition: plastic
optics (Chapter 5), optomechanical tolerancing and error budgets (Chapter 7), analysis and design
of flexures (Chapter 10), and optomechanical constraint equations (Chapter 11). Plastic optics are
increasingly being used in commercial and military applications. The chapter on plastic optics
covers the materials, fabrication, and optomechanical design aspects of refractive and diffractive
optical elements.
The new chapter on optomechanical tolerancing and error budgets addresses the important topic
of tolerancing of optical elements and mechanical components. This chapter describes the toleranc-
ing process and methods to consolidate optical and optomechanical tolerance analyses and covers
the interaction between lenses and mounts in terms of manufacturing errors. Also described is the
optomechanical statistical tolerancing method and guidelines to efficiently allocate tolerances for
achieving the desired performance requirements while minimizing the manufacturing costs.
The chapter on analysis and design of flexures covers important kinematic and kinetic aspects
of flexure design for many types of flexures that are commonly used to control the position and ori-
entation of optical elements. Equations for quantifying permissible kinetic loads and for designing
the structural members to meet the permissible load requirements are presented in this chapter. The
limitations of elastic theory as applicable to flexures are also discussed.
The chapter on the optomechanical constraint equations covers the analytic methods to predict
changes to the position, orientation, and size of the image of an optical system. Changes in these
image properties may be caused by manufacturing tolerances, elastic structural deformations, or
changes in operating temperature acting either independently or collectively. These equations may
be used by an optomechanical engineer to ensure acceptable optical system performance of the as-
built configuration in stressing service environments.
Many peers and colleagues have provided invaluable advice and ideas to ensure this new edi-
tion of the book. Provides detailed coverage of the latest optomechanical design practices. The
authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the advice, support, and contributions of Tony Hull
of New Mexico State University, Antoine Leys of Schott AG, Huub Janssen of Janssen Precision
Engineering, and Richard Juergens and David Markason of Raytheon Missile Systems. Hopefully,
this book will inspire the next generation of optomechanical engineers to enhance the practice of
optomechanical engineering with new ideas and inventions.

Anees Ahmad
Editor

xiii
xiv Preface

MATLAB® is a registered trademark of The MathWorks, Inc. For product information, please
contact

The MathWorks, Inc.

3 Apple Hill Drive
Natick, MA 01760-2098 USA
Tel: 508 647 7000
Fax: 508-647-7001
E-mail: info@mathworks.com
Web: www.mathworks.com
Editor
Dr. Anees Ahmad is a senior principal systems engineer at Raytheon
Missile Systems and an adjunct professor at the College of Optical Sciences,
University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. Dr. Ahmad has extensive and
diversified experience in various engineering disciplines at Fortune 100 aero-
space companies (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies).
His expertise includes the system design and development of electro-optical
(EO) imaging sensors and seekers for space and military applications, remote
sensing imagers, telescopes and visible and infrared (IR) detectors, and focal
plane arrays. Dr. Ahmad has led the successful development and deployment
of several visible, mid-wave IR and long-wavelength IR sensors, seekers, and
cameras at Raytheon Missile Systems since 1997.
Dr. Ahmad’s research interests include affordable advanced EO systems and solid-state lasers
for space, medical, chemical sensing, and astronomy applications. He also teaches graduate- and
senior-level optical engineering courses at the College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona.
He has five US patents in various areas of optical and optomechanical engineering and over 60 publi-
cations in refereed journals and SPIE Proceedings, including several invited papers. He is a member
of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) and the Optical Society (OSA) and
serves as member of the program committee and session chair of SPIE optomechanical engineering
conferences. He obtained his PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of Houston, Texas.

xv
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Contributors
Dr. Keith Doyle has over 29 years of experience in the field of optomechanical
engineering specializing in optomechanics, design optimization, and multi­
disciplinary modeling of high-performance optical systems. He is currently
a group leader in the Engineering Division at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Lincoln Laboratory. His group supports the development of
an array of prototype systems including a variety of novel optical systems
in support of national security. His team provides expertise in optomechan­
ics, advanced materials, thermal management, aerodynamics, integrated
analysis, and environmental testing. He previously served as the vice presi­
dent of Sigmadyne, Inc., a senior systems engineer at Optical Research
Associates, and a structures engineer at Itek Optical Systems. Dr. Doyle is a Society of Photo-
Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Fellow, a recipient of the SPIE Technical Achievement
Award (2015), and an active participant in SPIE symposia. He teaches short courses on optome­
chanics, finite element analysis, and integrated modeling; has authored or coauthored over 40 tech­
nical papers; is a coauthor of the SPIE textbook Integrated Optomechanical Analysis; and is an
adjunct professor at the College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. He
earned his PhD degree from the University of Arizona in engineering mechanics with a minor in
optical sciences in 1993 and his BS degree from Swarthmore College in 1988.

Darell Engelhaupt has been a senior research scientist at the Center for
Applied Optics, University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and is now
retired. He has over 35 years of experience in manufacturing of unique
precision components and optical devices. As a member of technical staff
at Martin Marietta, Engelhaupt was the laboratory manager for their elec­
trochemistry and plating development activities. This was followed by his
position as a program manager at Bell Aerospace, followed by his long-
term position at UAH. In this capacity, he developed innovative new pro­
cesses and process control methods for the fabrication of optical and other
precision components. Engelhaupt’s work includes studies of the hydrogen
permeability of metals, ultrahigh-strength electrodeposited alloys, plating instrumentation devel­
opment and electrochemical methods, electroformed optics, X-ray mirror fabrication, nonreflec­
tive coatings, unique engineering materials, and manufacturing methods. He has authored or
coauthored more than 35 peer-reviewed papers and presentations. He is the inventor or coinven­
tor on 25 patents. He has been a member of SPIE and is currently a member of the National
Association Surface Finishing and The Electrochemical Society. He earned a BS in general engi­
neering/physics from the University of Missouri and attended graduate school at the University
of Kansas.

Dr. Victor Genberg has 45 years of industrial experience in the application

of computer-aided engineering techniques for efficient, high-performance
optical structures. He is currently president of Sigmadyne, Inc., an engineer­
ing consulting firm specializing in the structural analysis and optimization of
optical systems. At Sigmadyne, he is responsible for the continued develop­
ment of the popular SigFit computer program for optomechanical analysis
and design. While at Eastman Kodak, Dr. Genberg was a technical specialist
responsible for the structural analysis of many precision optics and optical
support structures, ranging from large space telescopes and land mapping

xvii
xviii Contributors

satellites to smaller optical systems such as laser communication devices. He was the design engi­
neer responsible for many of the major optical support structures in the University of Rochester
Laboratory for Laser Energetics, a large laser fusion facility. Dr. Genberg has served as adjunct
professor at the University of Rochester for 35 years, teaching courses in optomechanics, mechani­
cal design, vibrations, finite elements, and optimum design. He has over 45 publications in opto­
mechanics including a textbook Integrated Optomechanical Analysis, second edition (SPIE Press,
Bellingham, WA; 2012). Genberg earned his PhD in mechanical engineering from Case Western
Reserve University.

Alson E. Hatheway is chairman (and a cofounder) of the International

Technical Group on Optomechanical Engineering and president of his own
company, Alson E. Hatheway Inc. He has a Bachelor of Science degree
in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
He managed mechanical engineering departments at Xerox Corporation,
Hughes Aircraft Company, and Gould Corporation before opening his own
firm to concentrate on the mechanical design and analysis of optical systems.
He has published over 70 technical papers with several technical societies
(SPIE, OSA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers [ASME], American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [AIAA], American Society for
Precision Engineering [ASPE], and Institute of Environmental Sciences [IES]) and edited 12 vol­
umes of conference proceedings for SPIE.
Hatheway is a fellow in both SPIE and the Optical Society of Southern California, a senior mem­
ber of AIAA, and a life member of ASME. He is listed in Who’s Who in Science and Engineering,
Who’s Who in America, and Who’s Who in the World. He has been a part-time faculty member
at the University of La Vern and taught various industrial tutorials on aspects of optomechanical
engineering.

Frédéric Lamontagne is a senior optomechanical engineer at the National

Optics Institute (INO) in Quebec City, Canada. With over 15 years of profes­
sional experience, he has been involved in several projects for astronomy,
space, military, medical, and commercial applications. His primary field of
interest is optomechanical design and performance analysis of complex opti­
cal systems operating in severe environmental conditions. He specializes in
the design and fabrication of high-precision and high-performance optical
mounts. Over the past few years, Lamontagne has performed a comprehen­
sive study on the interaction between lenses and mounts and on the statistical
methods for optomechanical tolerance analysis. He has authored and coau­
thored 15 technical papers and has 6 awarded and pending patents. He earned his BS in mechanical
engineering from Laval University, Quebec, Canada, in 2002 and has since attended numerous
courses in optomechanics offered by SPIE.

Trent Newswander is a principal multidisciplinary optical–mechanical

engineer at the Utah State University Research Foundation Space Dynamics
Laboratory. He has experience and skills in optical and mechanical engineer­
ing across the complete optical system product development. His experience
is primarily in the design and development of electro-optical imaging sen­
sors for civil space and military applications including precision shortwave
applications and cryogenic infrared sensors. He specializes in the integration
of optical and mechanical engineering including material selection and pro­
cessing and integrated design and analysis. He has nearly 20 years of experi­
ence in the aerospace industry in the field of optomechanics and has authored
Contributors xix

more than a dozen papers and holds three patents. He earned an MS in optical engineering in 2005
and an MS in mechanical engineering in 2003 from the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, as
well as a BS in mechanical engineering in 2000 from Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Roger A. Paquin is a retired materials engineering consultant with over 50

years of experience specializing in materials and processes for dimension­
ally stable optical and precision instrument systems and components. He has
published over 50 papers and book chapters, and taught short courses on
the subject. He most recently supported McCarter Technology as a materials
stabilization specialist. Mr. Paquin is a Fellow of SPIE and a Life Member
of ASM International.

Robert Parks started work at Eastman Kodak Company as an optical engi­

neer and, after two years, joined Itek Corporation as an optical test engineer.
Among other projects, he matched the formats of the six cameras used on the
S-190 Skylab project so images from the different spectral bands would have
micrometer registration at the edge of the field. He then went to Frank Cooke,
Inc., where he learned how to make optics and become familiar with the
tools of an optician. This background gave him the expertise to become the
optical shop manager at the Optical Sciences Center (now College of Optical
Sciences) at the University of Arizona. In this position, he had the oppor­
tunity to write a number of papers on the fabrication and testing based on
the projects performed in the shop. Parks also became involved in optical standards work and, for
nearly 20 years, was one of the US representatives to the ISO 172 Technical Committee for Optics
and Optical Instruments. For two years, he was chairman of Sub-Committee 1 on Fundamental
Optical Standards.
Parks then left the university to begin a consulting career in optical fabrication and testing. One
early job was being hired by the Allen Board of Investigation to help them understand the cause
of the poor image quality of the Hubble Telescope. He was instrumental in locating the presumed
source of the error and helped write and edit the report of the board. In 1992, he started Optical
Perspectives Group, LLC along with Bill Kuhn, where Parks is still active in the company that does
consulting, and designs and makes optical test equipment. Parks is a member of the OSA, a fellow
and past board member of the SPIE, and a member and past president of the AASPE. He earned a
BA and an MA in physics from Ohio Wesleyan University and Williams College, respectively.

John Schaefer is an engineering fellow and technical director of Raytheon’s

EO Innovations division in Richardson, Texas. He has over 30 years of direct
hands-on experience in single-point diamond turning (SPDT) of optical com­
ponents. His expertise includes SPDT concurrent engineering during com­
ponent design phase, bolt-together optical assemblies, noninfluencing SPDT
fixture design, process troubleshooting, and optical and mechanical metrol­
ogy including inspection of aspheric components via Form Talysurf contact
profilometry and holographic interferometry. Additionally, he teaches a four-
hour tutorial on the Fundamentals of Diamond Point Turning at the Annual
Meeting of the ASPE, and he has taught the course at the SPIE Annual
Conference and at OPTiFab.
Over the last several years, Schaefer has helped develop interferometric wavefront alignment
processes and magnetorheological finishing (MRF®) and figure correction process for demand­
ing broadband reflecting imaging systems for airborne reconnaissance and space satellite sensors.
xx Contributors

In 2007, he was invited to present on the “State-of-the-Art in SPDT” at the International Optical
Design Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. He was elected as member, Group Technical
Staff, at Texas Instruments in 1995 and of the board of Directors of the ASPE in 1997. Mr. Schaefer
holds three US patents. He earned his BS in mechanical engineering technology from Southern
Illinois University in 1984.

Dr. Michael Schaub is currently a senior principal optical engineer at

Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona. He is currently engaged
in the development of visible, IR, and laser-based military sensors. He is
also the founder of Schaub Optical LLC, an optical engineering consulting
firm. His interests are the design, production, and testing of optical systems,
with emphasis on manufacturability and cost/performance trades. Mike has
over 20 years of experience in the field of plastic optics. While working at
Donnelly Optics, a precision plastic injection molder, he was involved in the
design and production of a wide variety of high-volume plastic optical sys­
tems, including early cell phone camera lenses. He is a member of SPIE and
OSA and cochairs a biannual conference on molded optics. He has authored a tutorial text on plastic
optic design, coauthored a field guide on molded optics, and teaches half of a short course on the
subject. He has been awarded six patents. He earned a PhD in optical sciences from the Optical
Sciences Center at the University of Arizona, an MSc in engineering science from the University of
Oxford, and a BS in optics from the Institute of Optics at the University of Rochester.

Daniel Vukobratovich is a senior principal multidisciplinary engineer at

Raytheon Systems in Tucson, Arizona, and is an adjunct professor at the
College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona. His primary field of
interest is optomechanical design. He has authored more than 50 papers,
including chapters on optomechanics in the IR/EO Systems Handbook, vol­
ume 4 (1993) and the first edition of the CRC Handbook of Optomechanics
(1997). He has taught short courses in optomechanics in 12 different coun­
tries and consulted for more than 40 companies. He is an SPIE fellow and a
founding member of the SPIE working group on optomechanics. He holds
international patents and received an IR-100 award for work on metal matrix
composite optical materials. He led the development of a series of ultralightweight telescopes
using new materials (metal matrix composites, foam cores) as well as space telescope systems for
the shuttle mission STS-95, Mars Observer, Mars Global Surveyor, and FUSE. With Paul Yoder,
Vukobratovich coauthored a SPIE field guide about binoculars and telescopes and the fourth edition
of OptoMechanical Systems Design.

Ron Willey has over 50 years of experience in optical system and coating
development and production. He is very experienced in practical thin films
design, process development, and the application of industrial design of
experiments methodology. He is the inventor of a robust plasma/ion source
for optical coating applications. He worked in optical instrument develop­
ment and production at Perkinelmer Optoelectronics, Block Associates,
United Aircraft, Martin Marietta, Opto Mechanik, and Hughes and formed
Willey Corporation, which serves a wide variety of clients with consulting,
development, prototypes, and production. He has published many papers on
optical coating design and production. His recent books are Practical Design
of Optical Thin Films, fourth edition (2014) and Practical Production of Optical Thin Films, third
edition (2015). He is a fellow of the Optical Society of America and SPIE and a past director of the
Contributors xxi

Society of Vacuum Coaters. He graduated from the MIT in optical instrumentation and has an MS
from Florida Institute of Technology.

Paul R. Yoder Jr. (BS in physics, Juniata College, Huntingdon,

Pennsylvania, 1947, and MS in physics, Penn State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania, 1950) learned optical design and optomechanical engi­
neering at the US Army’s Frankford Arsenal (1951–1961). He then applied
those skills at Perkin–Elmer Corporation (1961–1986) and served the opti­
cal community as a consultant in optical and optomechanical engineering
­(1986–2006). A fellow of the OSA and SPIE, he has authored chapters on opto­
mechanics in the OSA Handbook of Optics (McGraw Hill, 1995 and 2010),
Handbook of Optomechanical Engineering (CRC Press, 1997), Optical System
Design by Robert E. Fischer, Biljana Tadic-Galeb, and Paul R. Yoder Jr.
(McGraw-Hill, 2008). He also authored Mounting Optics in Optical Instruments (SPIE Press,
2002 and 2008), as well as prior editions of the current work. He has published more than 60 papers,
been awarded 14 US and several foreign patents, and taught more than 75 short courses, all on opti­
cal and optomechanical engineering topics for SPIE, US government agencies, and industry in the
United States, Europe, and Asia.
http://taylorandfrancis.com
 1 Optomechanical
Engineering Basics
Robert Parks, Ron Willey, and Frédéric Lamontagne

CONTENTS
1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 What Is Optomechanics?...............................................................................................2
1.1.2 Role of Optomechanical Design and Its Significance................................................... 2
1.2 Geometric Optics Fundamentals...............................................................................................3
1.2.1 Basic Terminology......................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Graphical Tools in Geometrical Optics and System Layouts........................................ 3
1.2.2.1 Image Position and Magnification..................................................................3
1.2.2.2 Amount of Light through a Lens System........................................................ 6
1.2.3 Additional CAD Techniques for Design and Ray Tracing............................................ 8
1.3 Drawings of Optical Components and Systems........................................................................9
1.3.1 Units of Measurement.................................................................................................... 9
1.3.2 ISO and ANSI Drafting Standards.............................................................................. 10
1.3.2.1 Mechanical Drawing Standards.................................................................... 10
1.3.2.2 Optical Drawing Standards........................................................................... 12
1.4 Dimensional Tolerances and Error Budgets............................................................................ 15
1.4.1 Effect of Tolerances on Cost........................................................................................ 16
1.4.1.1 Interactions of Lenses and Mounts............................................................... 17
1.4.2 Allocation of Tolerances.............................................................................................. 19
1.4.2.1 Assigning Tolerances—An Example............................................................ 20
1.4.3 Current Trends in Tolerancing..................................................................................... 23
1.5 Environmental Effects............................................................................................................. 23
1.5.1 Survivability under Temperature, Vibration, and Shock Loads..................................24
1.5.2 Humidity, Corrosion, Contamination..........................................................................24
1.5.3 Environmental Testing Standards................................................................................ 25
1.5.3.1 ISO 10109:2015—Guidance for the Selection of Environmental Tests.......26
1.5.4 Summary of Environmental Effects............................................................................ 27
References......................................................................................................................................... 27

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This handbook consists of chapters written by authors of considerable experience in the practical
application of optomechanics and covers a broad range of related subjects. In this chapter, we intro­
duce general background information, techniques, and concepts which may be useful to the prac­
titioners of optomechanics. These topics include definitions, fundamentals of geometrical optics,
drawing standards, tolerancing concepts, and environmental effects.

1
2 Handbook of Optomechanical Engineering

1.1.1 What Is Optomechanics?
We will define optomechanics as the science, engineering, and/or art of maintaining the proper
shapes and positions of the functional elements of an optical system so that the system performance
requirements are satisfied.
The issues with the original Hubble Space Telescope (HST) were attributed to an optome-
chanical error in the relative positioning of two mirror surfaces in the null corrector used to test
the primary mirror. Great pains were undoubtedly taken in the design and construction of the
HST, which was a major achievement in the field of optomechanics. Aside from its well-publicized
technical issues, it still is a good example of the application of optomechanics. The shape and
the position of the functional elements such as the primary and secondary mirrors must be main-
tained very precisely in order for the instrument to obtain results not previously achieved. The
repairs made to the HST in 1993 have allowed most of the original scientific goals to be attained
and continues to provide phenomenal images of our universe to this day.
Another example of optomechanics at the other extreme is the pair of eyeglasses that many of us
wear. The frame must hold the lenses such that their principal points and astigmatic correction are
in the right position and orientation with respect to the user’s eyes to within appropriate tolerances.
The frame must also interface with the user’s head in a comfortable and reliable way, and the whole
system must perform and survive in a variety of environments.

1.1.2 Role of Optomechanical Design and Its Significance

The optical design of an optical instrument is often less than half of the design work. The mechani-
cal design of the elements and their support and positioning are also at least as critical. If we look at
the typical astronomical telescope consisting of two or three mirrors, there are many more parts in
the mechanical structure that support and position the mirrors and attempt to do so without distort-
ing the functional surfaces. It can be seen that the mechanical design or the optomechanics plays
a major role in any optical instrument development, particularly where the optics and mechanics
interface.
It can be seen from the examples of the HST and eyeglasses given earlier that optomechanics is
significant to our lives over the whole gamut from the mundane to the sublime. An out-of-tolerance
condition in our glasses can cause us headaches and other discomfort. A similar condition in the
HST caused the scientific community emotional and fiscal pain. On the other hand, proper eye-
glasses enhance our individual abilities and comfort, and a proper HST has expanded our knowl-
edge of the universe. The reader’s own imagination can provide a myriad of other examples of the

Need Develop and

Preliminary Detail design Build, test prove Produce
identified and optical and and analyze production product to
requirements tools and
design analysis prototype meet needs
defined processes

Relative potential impact on product economics

FIGURE 1.1 Overall process to develop and produce a new optical product.
Optomechanical Engineering Basics 3

Detail Tolerance
Optical Detail Mechanical
optical sensitivity
producibility mechanical producibility
design for analysis and
analysis design analysis
performance distribution

Component Equipment
fabrication and process
review review

Optical Materials
coating properties and
review availability

Tools Assembly Maintenance

and and test and servicability
test plates review review

FIGURE 1.2 Detail design and analysis process of an optical product.

role and significance of optomechanical design. These might include adjustable rearview mirrors
in cars or very sophisticated military optical systems for targeting and surveillance applications.
The optical and mechanical designers of instruments have by far the greatest influence on the
ultimate cost and performance of an instrument. All other disciplines, including manufacturing
operations, cannot have as much influence as the designers to change the potential satisfaction of the
user and profitability of the producer. Therefore, once the instrument’s function is satisfied, afford-
ability is of great significance in optomechanical design. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 illustrate these effects
and show some of the typical steps in the process of developing an optical instrument.

1.2 GEOMETRIC OPTICS FUNDAMENTALS

1.2.1 Basic Terminology
In this section, we will discuss some of the more pertinent optical terms and definitions which
are often needed by the optomechanical design engineer. These terms will be highlighted in italic
where they first occur in the following discussion. There are many good texts such as Smith’s study1
for more details, if needed. We will provide some tools and concepts here which are useful for the
designer.

1.2.2 Graphical Tools in Geometrical Optics and System Layouts

1.2.2.1 Image Position and Magnification
In many instances, an assembly of lenses such as a 35 mm camera lens, a telescope, a magnifier,
etc., can be treated as a black box where only three parameters are known about the optical system.
4 Handbook of Optomechanical Engineering

EFL
(effective
focal length)

F1 P1 P2 F2
Front Principal Rear
focal points focal
point point

FIGURE 1.3 The three parameters which define a black box lens: EFL and the two principal points (P1 and P2).

These three parameters are the effective focal length (EFL) and the positions in the box of the front
and rear principal points (P1 and P2). Figure 1.3 illustrates such a black box optical system. We will
assume throughout this discussion that the optical system is rotationally symmetric about the opti-
cal axis which passes through the two principal points and that there is air or a vacuum on both sides
of the lens system. With this information, we can find the position and size or magnification of the
image of any object, which the optical system can image. This is the first major area of concern in
an optical system which the optomechanical designer can easily work out. The second area has to
do with how much light can get through the system as a function of the angle relative to the optical
axis. We will address these issues subsequently.
Everything that we will deal with here is referred to as first-order optics. Departures from the
answers which first-order calculations give are aberrations or deviations from these answers. These
are higher-order effects which lens designers attempt to reduce to practical values in their detail
design processes. We will not discuss aberrations in detail here since they are not something that
the optomechanical design process is expected to improve upon. However, we will briefly introduce
the subject. The famous scientist Hamilton viewed optical aberrations as being of three types. The
first aberration is composed of the effects which cause the image of a sharp point (stigma) object
not to be a sharp point. He referred to this as astigmatism. The second Hamiltonian aberration is
that the image of a flat plane perpendicular to the optical axis is not on a flat plane but on a curved
surface. He called this field curvature. The third is that the mapping from the object plane to the
image plane has distortion. This would make a rectangle look like a pincushion or a barrel. Optical
designers today tend to divide astigmatism into several types called spherical aberration, coma,
astigmatism, and longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberrations. This latter definition is much less
inclusive than Hamilton’s astigmatism. These details are mostly of only academic interest to the
optomechanical design engineer.
The term first-order in optics can be described as simplified equations which are derived by
using only the first terms of the series expansions of the sine of an angle and the coordinates of a
spherical lens surface as shown in the following:

sin a = a − a3 / 3!+ a5 / 5!+ , (1.1)

z = y 2 / 2 R + y 4 /8 R3 + y6 /16 R5 + . (1.2)

In the equation for the sphere, the y is the zonal radius from the intersection of the optical axis
with the surface of the lens, or its vertex. The R is the radius of curvature of the lens surface. The
z is the sagittal distance or height in the direction of the optical axis from the plane containing
Optomechanical Engineering Basics 5

the vertex and which is perpendicular to the optical axis. If we use only the first term to the right
of the equal sign in each case, we have first-order optics. If we include the next term in each case,
we have the basis of third-order optics and the associated aberrations. Seidel worked out the third-
order relations whereby all of the aberrations mentioned earlier can be calculated. The next terms
give fifth-order aberrations, etc. With the availability of computing power in modern times, we find
only first-order and rigorous calculations to be useful; the higher-order aberrations are of mostly
academic value. For our present purposes, no calculations are required; rather only graphical con-
structions based on first-order principles are needed.
With reference to Figure 1.3, we define a plane containing a principal point and perpendicular
to the optical axis as a principal plane. The convention is that light passes in a positive direction
through a lens if it moves from left to right. The first principal plane is the one which the light
reaches first and its principal point is P1. Similarly, the second principal plane and point P2 is where
light reaches after passing the first. When light is dealt with before it reaches the first principal
plane, it is said to be in object space because the object to be imaged is in that space. After the light
has passed through the lens and departed from the second principal plane, it would then be in image
space. The first focal point (F1) is at a distance EFL to the left of P1, and the second focal point (F2)
is EFL to the right of P2 on the optical axis. The focal planes are planes which contain the focal
points and are perpendicular to the optical axis. With only these data, we can construct the position
and size of images formed by any centered optical system. Although we will illustrate this with
simple examples, almost all image-forming systems can be reduced to an effective focal length and
its two principal points and thereby treated by this same technique.
The principles needed for this construction are simple and are illustrated in Figure 1.4. First,
when a ray parallel to the optical axis in object space intersects the first principal plane at a given
height, it will exit the second principal plane at the same height and pass through the second focal
point F2 in image space. Similarly, a ray parallel to the optical axis in image space must first pass
through the first focal point F1. Secondly, any ray passing through the first principal point will exit
from the second principal point in the same direction (parallel to the first ray). These are really the
nodal points, which correspond to the principal points as long as the lens is bounded on both sides
by the same medium (usually air or vacuum).
In Figure 1.4, the image point I of an object point O is found by using the rules mentioned on the
ray from the point O parallel to the axis and the ray from O through F1. The rays through the nodal
points are also shown (dashed) as an alternative or check. These principles can be applied to any

O EFL
Image space

F1 P1 P2 F2

Object space I

FIGURE 1.4 Construction of an image point from a general object point to find the size and position of an
image.
6 Handbook of Optomechanical Engineering

object point. Note that a point on one principal plane is imaged as a unit magnification on the other
principal plane.
There are cases where the principal planes are “crossed” such that the first is to the right of the
second. In such cases, the rays are still traced from the object point to the first principal plane and
emanate from the second plane at the same height. The principal planes may also be outside of the
physical lens system. This is particularly true of some telephoto lenses where, by definition, the lens
system is shorter than its effective focal length. We, therefore, have the simple tools we need to find
the position and size of the image of any object.
For an afocal telescope as a whole, the rules mentioned earlier have no clear meaning since the
focal length is infinite. However, an afocal system can be dealt with when broken into front and rear
sections of finite focal length whose focal planes are coincident.

1.2.2.2 Amount of Light through a Lens System

The amount of light which can get through a lens system at a given angle from the optical axis is
determined by the pupils, apertures, and vignetting. We will neglect the effects of the transmit-
tance of the lenses and reflectance of the mirrors in the system and address only the relative dif-
ference of some angle off axis from the on-axis light. The entrance pupil of a lens is the aperture
viewed from object space which can pass light to the image space. The exit pupil is the aperture
viewed in image space which passes light from object space. Both of these pupils are the images of
the same aperture stop as viewed from object and image space. In a photographic lens, the aper-
ture stop is typically an iris diaphragm, which is of adjustable aperture for light brightness control.
The F-number of a lens is the effective focal length divided by the entrance pupil diameter. The
numerical aperture is another statement of the same quantity where it is 1/(2 × F-number) when
objects are at infinity and in air or vacuum. The greater the numerical aperture, the more light will
pass through the lens.
We will now use a simple lens to illustrate pupils and the use of the previous principles to find an
exit pupil. Figure 1.5 shows a meniscus lens with the aperture stop well in front of the lens and gives
the principal and focal points (known as cardinal points). In this case, the aperture stop is also the
entrance pupil because there are no other lenses in front of it. We want to find by construction
the size and position of the exit pupil, which is the image of this stop. We use the point at the
top of the stop as an object point to find where it is seen in image space. The ray through that
point and the front focal point F1 is extended until it intersects the first principal plane, and then
a line parallel to the optical axis is drawn from that height in the second principal plane and on to
the second focal plane. Note that this line extends from minus to plus infinity, and we will find that
it intersects the next ray on the left of the lens. The next ray is the ray through the stop parallel to
the axis in object space which passes through the second focus F2 in image space. When the image
space ray through F2 is extended backward to the left, it intersects the first ray at the image of the
top of the stop in image space. By symmetry, this gives the position and size of the exit pupil. Even
though it is to the left of the lens, it is still in image space because it is composed of light that has

Image of
stop Aperture
stop P1

F1 F2

P2

FIGURE 1.5 Finding the exit pupil of a system by constructing the image of the aperture stop.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
immense space he at last came to fill in the mind of his country and
the world. He had nothing of the grace and warmth of Peel in debate,
and his speeches were better in print than when listened to,—yet
when he spoke, all eyes were fixed, and all ears attent. Despite all
his ability and power, however, as the defender of the landed
interests of England, his cause was already lost. The increasing
power of the anti-corn law league—the burden of the tax upon bread,
the cry of distress coming from famine-stricken Ireland, and the
adhesion of Peel to the views of Cobden and Bright made the repeal
of the corn laws speedy and certain.
The repeal of the union between England and Ireland was not so
fortunate. It is still, under one name or another, the cherished hope
and inspiration of her sons. It stands little better or stronger than it
did six and thirty years ago, when its greatest advocate, Daniel
O’Connell, welcomed me to Ireland, and to “Conciliation Hall,” and
where I first had a specimen of his truly wondrous eloquence. Until I
heard this man, I had thought that the story of his oratory and power
were greatly exaggerated. I did not see how a man could speak to
twenty or thirty thousand people at one time, and be heard by any
considerable number of them; but the mystery was solved when I
saw his vast person, and heard his musical voice. His eloquence
came down upon the vast assembly like a summer thunder-shower
upon a dusty road. He could stir the multitude at will, to a tempest of
wrath, or reduce it to the silence with which a mother leaves the
cradle-side of her sleeping babe. Such tenderness—such pathos—
such world-embracing love! and, on the other hand, such indignation
—such fiery and thunderous denunciation, and such wit and humor, I
never heard surpassed, if equaled, at home or abroad. He held
Ireland within the grasp of his strong hand, and could lead it
withersoever he would, for Ireland believed in him and loved him, as
she has loved and believed in no leader since. In Dublin, when he
had been absent from that city a few weeks, I saw him followed
through Sackwell street by a multitude of little boys and girls,
shouting in loving accents: “There goes Dan! there goes Dan!” while
he looked at the ragged and shoeless crowd with the kindly air of a
loving parent returning to his gleeful children. He was called “The
Liberator,” and not without cause; for, though he failed to effect the
repeal of the union between England and Ireland, he fought out the
battle of Catholic emancipation, and was clearly the friend of liberty
the world over. In introducing me to an immense audience in
Conciliation Hall, he playfully called me the “Black O’Connell of the
United States;” nor did he let the occasion pass without his usual
word of denunciation of our slave system. O. A. Brownson had then
recently become a Catholic, and taking advantage of his new
Catholic audience, in “Brownson’s Review,” had charged O’Connell
with attacking American institutions. In reply, Mr. O’Connell said: “I
am charged with attacking American institutions, as slavery is called;
I am not ashamed of this attack. My sympathy is not confined to the
narrow limits of my own green Ireland; my spirit walks abroad upon
sea and land, and wherever there is oppression, I hate the
oppressor, and wherever the tyrant rears his head, I will deal my
bolts upon it; and wherever there is sorrow and suffering, there is my
spirit to succor and relieve.” No trans-atlantic statesman bore a
testimony more marked and telling against the crime and curse of
slavery than did Daniel O’Connell. He would shake the hand of no
slaveholder, nor allow himself to be introduced to one, if he knew him
to be such. When the friends of repeal in the Southern States sent
him money with which to carry on his work, he, with ineffable scorn,
refused the bribe, and sent back what he considered the blood-
stained offering, saying he would “never purchase the freedom of
Ireland with the price of slaves.”
It was not long after my seeing Mr. O’Connell that his health
broke down, and his career ended in death. I felt that a great
champion of freedom had fallen, and that the cause of the American
slave, not less than the cause of his country, had met with a great
loss. All the more was this felt when I saw the kind of men who came
to the front when the voice of O’Connell was no longer heard in
Ireland. He was succeeded by the Duffys, Mitchells, Meagher, and
others,—men who loved liberty for themselves and their country, but
were utterly destitute of sympathy with the cause of liberty in
countries other than their own. One of the first utterances of John
Mitchell on reaching this country, from his exile and bondage, was a
wish for a “slave plantation, well stocked with slaves.”
 Besides hearing Cobden, Bright, Peel, Disraeli, O’Connell, Lord
John Russell, and other Parliamentary debaters, it was my good
fortune to hear Lord Brougham when nearly at his best. He was then
a little over sixty, and that for a British statesman is not considered
old; and in his case there were thirty years of life still before him. He
struck me as the most wonderful speaker of them all. How he was
ever reported I cannot imagine. Listening to him was like standing
near the track of a railway train, drawn by a locomotive at the rate of
forty miles an hour. You were riveted to the spot, charmed with the
sublime spectacle of speed and power, but could give no description
of the carriages, nor of the passengers at the windows. There was
so much to see and hear, and so little time left the beholder and
hearer to note particulars, that when this strange man sat down you
felt like one who had hastily passed through the wildering wonders of
a world’s exhibition. On the occasion of my listening to him, his
speech was on the postal relations of England with the outside
world, and he seemed to have a perfect knowledge of the postal
arrangements of every nation in Europe, and, indeed, in the whole
universe. He possessed the great advantage so valuable to a
Parliamentary debater, of being able to make all interruptions serve
the purposes of his thought and speech, and carry on a dialogue
with several persons without interrupting the rapid current of his
reasoning. I had more curiosity to see and hear this man than any
other in England, and he more than fulfilled my expectations.
While in England, I saw few literary celebrities, except William
and Mary Howitt, and Sir John Bowering. I was invited to breakfast
by the latter in company with Wm. Lloyd Garrison, and spent a
delightful morning with him, chiefly as a listener to their conversation.
Sir John was a poet, a statesman, and a diplomat, and had
represented England as minister to China. He was full of interesting
information, and had a charming way of imparting his knowledge.
The conversation was about slavery, and about China, and as my
knowledge was very slender about the “Flowery Kingdom,” and its
people, I was greatly interested in Sir John’s description of the ideas
and manners prevailing among them. According to him, the doctrine
of substitution was carried so far in that country that men sometimes
procured others to suffer even the penalty of death in their stead.
Justice seemed not intent upon the punishment of the actual
criminal, if only somebody was punished when the law was violated.
William and Mary Howitt were among the kindliest people I ever
met. Their interest in America, and their well-known testimonies
against slavery, made me feel much at home with them at their
house in that part of London known as Clapham. Whilst stopping
here, I met the Swedish poet and author—Hans Christian Anderson.
He, like myself, was a guest, spending a few days. I saw but little of
him, though under the same roof. He was singular in his
appearance, and equally singular in his silence. His mind seemed to
me all the while turned inwardly. He walked about the beautiful
garden as one might in a dream. The Howitts had translated his
works into English, and could of course address him in his own
language. Possibly his bad English and my destitution of Swedish,
may account for the fact of our mutual silence, and yet I observed he
was much the same towards every one. Mr. and Mrs. Howitt were
indefatigable writers. Two more industrious and kind-hearted people
did not breathe. With all their literary work, they always had time to
devote to strangers, and to all benevolent efforts, to ameliorate the
condition of the poor and needy. Quakers though they were, they
took deep interest in the Hutchinsons—Judson, John, Asa, and
Abby, who were much at their house during my stay there. Mrs.
Howitt not inaptly styled them a “Band of young apostles.” They sang
for the oppressed and the poor—for liberty and humanity.
Whilst in Edinburgh, so famous for its beauty, its educational
institutions, its literary men, and its history, I had a very intense
desire gratified—and that was to see and converse with George
Combe, the eminent mental philosopher, and author of “Combe’s
Constitution of Man,” a book which had been placed in my hands a
few years before, by Doctor Peleg Clark of Rhode Island, the reading
of which had relieved my path of many shadows. In company with
George Thompson, James N. Buffum, and William L. Garrison, I had
the honor to be invited by Mr. Combe to breakfast, and the occasion
was one of the most delightful I met in dear old Scotland. Of course
in the presence of such men, my part was a very subordinate one. I
was a listener. Mr. Combe did the most of the talking, and did it so
well that nobody felt like interposing a word, except so far as to draw
him on. He discussed the corn laws, and the proposal to reduce the
hours of labor. He looked at all political and social questions through
his peculiar mental science. His manner was remarkably quiet, and
he spoke as not expecting opposition to his views. Phrenology
explained everything to him, from the finite to the infinite. I look back
to the morning spent with this singularly clear-headed man with
much satisfaction.
It would detain the reader too long, and make this volume too
large, to tell of the many kindnesses shown me while abroad, or
even to mention all the great and noteworthy persons who gave me
a friendly hand and a cordial welcome; but there is one other, now
long gone to his rest, of whom a few words must be spoken, and that
one was Thomas Clarkson—the last of the noble line of Englishmen
who inaugurated the anti-slavery movement for England and the
civilized world—the life-long friend and co-worker with Granville
Sharpe, William Wilberforce, Thomas Fowell Buxton, and other
leaders in that great reform which has nearly put an end to slavery in
all parts of the globe. As in the case of George Combe, I went to see
Mr. Clarkson in company with Messrs. Garrison and Thompson.
They had by note advised him of our coming, and had received one
in reply, bidding us welcome. We found the venerable object of our
visit seated at a table, where he had been busily writing a letter to
America against slavery; for, though in his eighty-seventh year, he
continued to write. When we were presented to him, he rose to
receive us. The scene was impressive. It was the meeting of two
centuries. Garrison, Thompson, and myself were young men. After
shaking hands with my two distinguished friends, and giving them
welcome, he took one of my hands in both of his, and, in a tremulous
voice, said, “God bless you, Frederick Douglass! I have given sixty
years of my life to the emancipation of your people, and if I had sixty
years more they should all be given to the same cause.” Our stay
was short with this great-hearted old man. He was feeble, and our
presence greatly excited him, and we left the house with something
of the feeling with which a man takes final leave of a beloved friend
at the edge of the grave.
 Some notion may be formed of the difference in my feelings and
circumstances while abroad, from an extract from one of a series of
letters addressed by me to Mr. Garrison, and published in the
Liberator. It was written on the 1st day of January, 1846.

“My Dear Friend Garrison:

“Up to this time, I have given no direct expression of the
views, feelings, and opinions which I have formed respecting the
character and condition of the people of this land. I have
refrained thus purposely. I wish to speak advisedly, and, in order
to do this, I have waited till, I trust, experience has brought my
opinion to an intelligent maturity. I have been thus careful, not
because I think what I say will have much effect in shaping the
opinions of the world, but because what influence I may
possess, whether little or much, I wish to go in the right direction,
and according to truth. I hardly need say that in speaking of
Ireland, I shall be influenced by no prejudices in favor of
America. I think my circumstances all forbid that. I have no end
to serve, no creed to uphold, no government to defend; and as
to nation, I belong to none. I have no protection at home, or
resting-place abroad. The land of my birth welcomes me to her
shores only as a slave, and spurns with contempt the idea of
treating me differently; so that I am an outcast from the society
of my childhood, and an outlaw in the land of my birth. ‘I am a
stranger with thee and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.’ That
men should be patriotic, is to me perfectly natural; and as a
philosophical fact, I am able to give it an intellectual recognition.
But no further can I go. If ever I had any patriotism, or any
capacity for the feeling, it was whipped out of me long since by
the lash of the American soul-drivers. In thinking of America, I
sometimes find myself admiring her bright blue sky, her grand
old woods, her fertile fields, her beautiful rivers, her mighty
lakes, and star-crowned mountains. But my rapture is soon
checked—my joy is soon turned to mourning. When I remember
that all is cursed with the infernal spirit of slaveholding, robbery,
and wrong; when I remember that with the waters of her noblest
rivers, the tears of my brethren are borne to the ocean,
disregarded and forgotten, and that her most fertile fields drink
daily of the warm blood of my outraged sisters, I am filled with
unutterable loathing, and led to reproach myself that anything
could fall from my lips in praise of such a land. America will not
allow her children to love her. She seems bent on compelling
those who would be her warmest friends, to be her worst
enemies. May God give her repentance before it is too late, is
the ardent prayer of my heart. I will continue to pray, labor, and
wait, believing that she cannot always be insensible to the
dictates of justice, or deaf to the voice of humanity. My
opportunities for learning the character and condition of the
people of this land have been very great. I have traveled from
the Hill of Howth to the Giant’s Causeway, and from the Giant’s
Causeway to Cape Clear. During these travels I have met with
much in the character and condition of the people to approve,
and much to condemn; much that has thrilled me with pleasure,
and much that has filled me with pain. I will not, in this letter,
attempt to give any description of those scenes which give me
pain. This I will do hereafter. I have enough, and more than your
subscribers will be disposed to read at one time, of the bright
side of the picture. I can truly say I have spent some of the
happiest days of my life since landing in this country. I seem to
have undergone a transformation. I live a new life. The warm
and generous coöperation extended to me by the friends of my
despised race; the prompt and liberal manner with which the
press has rendered me its aid; the glorious enthusiasm with
which thousands have flocked to hear the cruel wrongs of my
down-trodden and long-enslaved fellow-countrymen portrayed;
the deep sympathy for the slave, and the strong abhorrence of
the slaveholder everywhere evinced; the cordiality with which
members and ministers of various religious bodies, and of
various shades of religious opinion have embraced me and lent
me their aid; the kind hospitality constantly proffered me by
persons of the highest rank in society; the spirit of freedom that
seems to animate all with whom I come in contact, and the entire
absence of everything that looks like prejudice against me, on
account of the color of my skin, contrasts so strongly with my
long and bitter experience in the United States, that I look with
wonder and amazement on the transition. In the southern part of
the United States, I was a slave—thought of and spoken of as
property; in the language of law, ‘held, taken, reputed, and
adjudged to be a chattel in the hands of my owners and
possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to
all intents, constructions, and purposes, whatsoever.’ (Brev.
Digest., 224.) In the Northern States, a fugitive slave, liable to be
hunted at any moment like a felon, and to be hurled into the
terrible jaws of slavery—doomed by an inveterate prejudice
against color, to insult and outrage on every hand
(Massachusetts out of the question)—denied the privileges and
courtesies common to others in the use of the most humble
means of conveyance—shut out from the cabins on steamboats,
refused admission to respectable hotels, caricatured, scorned,
scoffed, mocked, and maltreated with impunity by any one (no
matter how black his heart), so he has a white skin. But now
behold the change! Eleven days and a half gone, and I have
crossed three thousand miles of perilous deep. Instead of a
democratic government, I am under a monarchial government.
Instead of the bright, blue sky of America, I am covered with the
soft, gray fog of the Emerald Isle. I breathe, and lo! the chattel
becomes a man! I gaze around in vain for one who will question
my equal humanity, claim me as a slave, or offer me an insult. I
employ a cab—I am seated beside white people—I reach the
hotel—I enter the same door—I am shown into the same parlor
—I dine at the same table—and no one is offended. No delicate
nose grows deformed in my presence. I find no difficulty here in
obtaining admission into any place of worship, instruction, or
amusement, on equal terms, with people as white as any I ever
saw in the United States. I meet nothing to remind me of my
complexion. I find myself regarded and treated at every turn with
the kindness and deference paid to white people. When I go to
church I am met by no upturned nose and scornful lip, to tell me
—‘We don’t allow niggers in here.’”
 I remember about two years ago there was in Boston, near the
southwest corner of Boston Common, a menagerie. I had long
desired to see such a collection as I understood was being exhibited
there. Never having had an opportunity while a slave, I resolved to
seize this, and as I approached the entrance to gain admission, I
was told by the door-keeper, in a harsh and contemptuous tone, “We
don’t allow niggers in here.” I also remember attending a revival
meeting in the Rev. Henry Jackson’s meeting-house, at New
Bedford, and going up the broad aisle for a seat, I was met by a
good deacon, who told me, in a pious tone, “We don’t allow niggers
in here.” Soon after my arrival in New Bedford, from the South, I had
a strong desire to attend the lyceum, but was told, “They don’t allow
niggers there.” While passing from New York to Boston on the
steamer Massachusetts, on the night of the 9th of December, 1843,
when chilled almost through with the cold, I went into the cabin to get
a little warm. I was soon touched upon the shoulder, and told, “We
don’t allow niggers in here.” A week or two before leaving the United
States, I had a meeting appointed at Weymouth, the house of that
glorious band of true abolitionists—the Weston family and others. On
attempting to take a seat in the omnibus to that place, I was told by
the driver (and I never shall forget his fiendish hate), “I don’t allow
niggers in here.” Thank heaven for the respite I now enjoy! I had
been in Dublin but a few days when a gentleman of great
respectability kindly offered to conduct me through all the public
buildings of that beautiful city, and soon afterward I was invited by
the lord mayor to dine with him. What a pity there was not some
democratic Christian at the door of his splendid mansion to bark out
at my approach, “They don’t allow niggers in here!” The truth is, the
people here know nothing of the republican negro-hate prevalent in
our glorious land. They measure and esteem men according to their
moral and intellectual worth, and not according to the color of their
skin. Whatever may be said of the aristocracies here, there is none
based on the color of a man’s skin. This species of aristocracy
belongs preëminently to “the land of the free, and the home of the
brave.” I have never found it abroad in any but Americans. It sticks to
them wherever they go. They find it almost as hard to get rid of as to
get rid of their skins.
 The second day after my arrival in Liverpool, in company with my
friend Buffum, and several other friends, I went to Eaton Hall, the
residence of the Marquis of Westminster, one of the most splendid
buildings in England. On approaching the door, I found several of our
American passengers who came out with us in the Cambria, waiting
for admission, as but one party was allowed in the house at a time.
We all had to wait till the company within came out, and of all the
faces expressive of chagrin, those of the Americans were
preëminent. They looked as sour as vinegar, and as bitter as gall,
when they found I was to be admitted on equal terms with
themselves. When the door was opened, I walked in on a footing
with my white fellow-citizens, and, from all I could see, I had as much
attention paid me by the servants who showed us through the house,
as any with a paler skin. As I walked through the building, the
statuary did not fall down, the pictures did not leap from their places,
the doors did not refuse to open, and the servants did not say, “We
don’t allow niggers in here.”
My time and labors while abroad were divided between England,
Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Upon this experience alone I might fill
a volume. Amongst the few incidents which space will permit me to
mention, and one which attracted much attention and provoked
much discussion in America, was a brief statement made by me in
the World’s Temperance Convention, held in Covent Garden theater,
London, August 7, 1846. The United States was largely represented
in this convention by eminent divines, mostly doctors of divinity. They
had come to England for the double purpose of attending the World’s
Evangelical Alliance, and the World’s Temperance Convention. In
the former these ministers were endeavoring to procure
endorsement for the Christian character of slaveholders; and,
naturally enough, they were adverse to the exposure of slaveholding
practices. It was not pleasant to them to see one of the slaves
running at large in England, and telling the other side of the story.
The Rev. Samuel Hanson Cox, D.D., of Brooklyn, N. Y., was
especially disturbed at my presence and speech in the Temperance
Convention. I will give here, first, the reverend gentleman’s version
of the occasion in a letter from him as it appeared in the New York
Evangelist, the organ of his denomination. After a description of the
place (Covent Garden theater) and the speakers, he says:

“They all advocated the same cause, showed a glorious

unity of thought and feeling, and the effect was constantly raised
—the moral scene was superb and glorious—when Frederick
Douglass, the colored abolition agitator and ultraist, came to the
platform, and so spake, à la mode, as to ruin the influence
almost of all that preceded! He lugged in anti-slavery, or
abolition, no doubt prompted to it by some of the politic ones,
who can use him to do what they would not themselves
adventure to do in person. He is supposed to have been well
paid for the abomination.
“What a perversion, an abuse, an iniquity against the law of
reciprocal righteousness, to call thousands together, and get
them, some certain ones, to seem conspicuous and devoted for
one sole and grand object, and then all at once, with obliquity,
open an avalanche on them for some imputed evil or
monstrosity, for which, whatever be the wound or injury inflicted,
they were both too fatigued and hurried with surprise, and too
straightened for time, to be properly prepared. I say it is a streak
of meanness! It is abominable! On this occasion Mr. Douglass
allowed himself to denounce America and all its temperance
societies, together as a grinding community of the enemies of
his people; said evil, with no alloy of good, concerning the whole
of us; was perfectly indiscriminate in his severities; talked of the
American delegates, and to them, as if he had been our school-
master, and we his docile and devoted pupils; and launched his
revengeful missiles at our country without one palliative, and as
if not a Christian or a true anti-slavery man lived in the whole of
the United States. The fact is, the man has been petted, and
flattered, and used, and paid by certain abolitionists, not
unknown to us, of the ne plus ultra stamp, till he forgets himself;
and, though he may gratify his own impulses, and those of old
Adam in others, yet sure I am that all this is just the way to ruin
his own influence, to defeat his own object, and to do mischief—
 not good—to the very cause he professes to love. With the
single exception of one cold-hearted parricide, whose character I
abhor, and whom I will not name, and who has, I fear, no feeling
of true patriotism or piety within him, all the delegates from our
country were together wounded and indignant. No wonder at it. I
write freely. It was not done in a corner. It was inspired, I believe,
from beneath, and not from above. It was adapted to re-kindle
on both sides of the Atlantic the flames of national exasperation
and war. And this is the game which Mr. Frederick Douglass and
his silly patrons are playing in England and in Scotland, and
wherever they can find ‘some mischief still for idle hands to do.’ I
came here his sympathizing friend; I am such no more, as I
know him. My own opinion is increasingly that this spirit must be
exorcised out of England and America before any substantial
good can be effected for the cause of the slave. It is adapted
only to make bad worse, and to inflame the passions of
indignant millions to an incurable resentment. None but an
ignoramus or a madman could think that this way was that of the
inspired apostles of the Son of God. It may gratify the feelings of
a self-deceived and malignant few, but it will do no good in any
direction—least of all to the poor slave! It is short-sighted,
impulsive, partisan, reckless, and tending only to sanguinary
ends. None of this with men of sense and principle.
“We all wanted to reply, but it was too late; the whole theater
seemed taken with the spirit of the Ephesian uproar; they were
furious and boisterous in the extreme, and Mr. Kirk could hardly
obtain a moment, though many were desirous in his behalf to
say a few words, as he did, very calm and properly, that the
cause of temperance was not at all responsible for slavery, and
had no connection with it.”

Now, to show the reader what ground there was for this tirade
from the pen of this eminent divine, and how easily Americans parted
with their candor and self-possession when slavery was mentioned
adversely, I will give here the head and front of my offence. Let it be
borne in mind that this was a world’s convention of the friends of
temperance. It was not an American or a white man’s convention,
but one composed of men of all nations and races; and as such, the
convention had the right to know all about the temperance cause in
every part of the world, and especially to know what hindrances were
interposed in any part of the world, to its progress. I was perfectly in
order in speaking precisely as I did. I was neither an “intruder,” nor
“out of order.” I had been invited and advertised to speak by the
same committee that invited Doctors Beecher, Cox, Patton, Kirk,
Marsh, and others, and my speech was perfectly within the limits of
good order, as the following report will show:

“Mr. Chairman—Ladies and Gentlemen:—

“I am not a delegate to this convention. Those who would
have been most likely to elect me as a delegate, could not,
because they are to-night held in abject slavery in the United
States. Sir, I regret that I cannot fully unite with the American
delegates in their patriotic eulogies of America, and American
temperance societies. I cannot do so for this good reason: there
are at this moment three millions of the American population, by
slavery and prejudice, placed entirely beyond the pale of
American temperance societies. The three million slaves are
completely excluded by slavery, and four hundred thousand free
colored people are almost as completely excluded by an
inveterate prejudice against them, on account of their color.
[Cries of shame! shame!]
“I do not say these things to wound the feelings of the
American delegates. I simply mention them in their presence
and before this audience, that, seeing how you regard this
hatred and neglect of the colored people, they may be inclined
on their return home to enlarge the field of their temperance
operations, and embrace within the scope of their influence, my
long-neglected race. [Great cheering, and some confusion on
the platform.] Sir, to give you some idea of the difficulties and
obstacles in the way of the temperance reformation of the
colored population in the United States, allow me to state a few
facts.
 “About the year 1840, a few intelligent, sober, and
benevolent colored gentlemen in Philadelphia, being acquainted
with the appalling ravages of intemperance among a numerous
class of colored people in that city, and, finding themselves
neglected and excluded from white societies, organized
societies among themselves, appointed committees, sent out
agents, built temperance halls, and were earnestly and
successfully rescuing many from the fangs of intemperance.
“The cause went nobly on till August 1, 1842, the day when
England gave liberty to eight hundred thousand souls in the
West Indies. The colored temperance societies selected this day
to march in procession through the city, in the hope that such a
demonstration would have the effect of bringing others into their
ranks. They formed their procession, unfurled their teetotal
banners, and proceeded to the accomplishment of their purpose.
It was a delightful sight. But, sir, they had not proceeded down
two streets before they were brutally assailed by a ruthless mob;
their banner was torn down, and trampled in the dust, their ranks
broken up, their persons beaten and pelted with stones and
brickbats. One of their churches was burned to the ground, and
their best temperance hall utterly demolished.” [“Shame! shame!
shame!” from the audience—great confusion, and cries of “Sit
down” from the American delegates on the platform.]

In the midst of this commotion, the chairman tapped me on the

shoulder, and whispering, informed me that the fifteen minutes
allotted to each speaker had expired; whereupon the vast audience
simultaneously shouted: “Don’t interrupt!” “don’t dictate!” “go on!” “go
on!” “Douglass!” “Douglass!” This continued several minutes, when I
proceeded as follows: “Kind friends, I beg to assure you that the
chairman has not in the slightest degree sought to alter any
sentiment which I am anxious to express on this occasion. He was
simply reminding me that the time allotted for me to speak had
expired. I do not wish to occupy one moment more than is allotted to
other speakers. Thanking you for your kind indulgence, I will take my
seat.” Proceeding to do so again, there were loud cries of “Go on!”
“go on!” with which I complied for a few moments, but without saying
anything more that particularly related to the colored people of
America. I did not allow the letter of Dr. Cox to go unanswered
through the American journals, but promptly exposed its unfairness.
That letter is too long for insertion here. A part of it was published in
the Evangelist, and in many other papers, both in this country and in
England. Our eminent divine made no rejoinder, and his silence was
regarded at the time as an admission of defeat.
Another interesting circumstance connected with my visit to
England, was the position of the Free Church of Scotland with the
great Doctors Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish at its head.
That church had settled for itself the question which was frequently
asked by the opponents of abolition at home—“What have we to do
with slavery?” by accepting contributions from slaveholders; i. e.,
receiving the price of blood into its treasury, with which to build
churches and pay ministers for preaching the gospel; and worse
than this, when honest John Murray of Bowlein Bay, with William
Smeal, Andrew Paton, Frederick Card, and other sterling anti-slavery
men in Glasgow, denounced the transaction as disgraceful, and
shocking to the religious sentiment of Scotland, this church, through
its leading divines, instead of repenting and seeking to amend the
mistake into which it had fallen, caused that mistake to become a
flagrant sin by undertaking to defend, in the name of God and the
Bible, the principle not only of taking the money of slave-dealers to
build churches and thus extend the gospel, but of holding fellowship
with the traffickers in human flesh. This, the reader will see, brought
up the whole question of slavery, and opened the way to its full
discussion. I have never seen a people more deeply moved than
were the people of Scotland on this very question. Public meeting
succeeded public meeting, speech after speech, pamphlet after
pamphlet, editorial after editorial, sermon after sermon, lashed the
conscientious Scotch people into a perfect furore. “Send back the
money!” was indignantly shouted from Greenock to Edinburgh, and
from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. George Thompson of London, Henry
C. Wright, J. N. Buffum and myself from America, were of course on
the anti-slavery side, and Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish on
the other. Dr. Cunningham was the most powerful debater on the
slavery side of the question, Mr. Thompson the ablest on the anti-
slavery side. A scene occurred between these two men, a parallel to
which I think I have never witnessed before or since. It was caused
by a single exclamation on the part of Mr. Thompson, and was on
this wise:
The general assembly of the Free Church was in progress at
Cannon Mills, Edinburgh. The building would hold twenty-five
hundred persons, and on this occasion was densely packed, notice
having been given that Doctors Cunningham and Candlish would
speak that day in defense of the relations of the Free Church of
Scotland to slavery in America. Messrs. Thompson, Buffum, myself
and a few other anti-slavery friends attended, but sat at such
distance and in such position as not to be observed from the
platform. The excitement was intense, having been greatly increased
by a series of meetings held by myself and friends, in the most
splendid hall in that most beautiful city, just previous to this meeting
of the general assembly. “Send back the money!” in large capitals
stared from every street corner; “Send back the money!” adorned
the broad flags of the pavement; “Send back the money!” was the
chorus of the popular street-song; “Send back the money!” was the
heading of leading editorials in the daily newspapers. This day, at
Cannon Mills, the great doctors of the church were to give an answer
to this loud and stern demand. Men of all parties and sects were
most eager to hear. Something great was expected. The occasion
was great, the men were great, and great speeches were expected
from them.
In addition to the outward pressure there was wavering within.
The conscience of the church itself was not at ease. A dissatisfaction
with the position of the church touching slavery was sensibly
manifest among the members, and something must be done to
counteract this untoward influence. The great Dr. Chalmers was in
feeble health at the time, so his most potent eloquence could not
now be summoned to Cannon Mills, as formerly. He whose voice
had been so powerful as to rend asunder and dash down the granite
walls of the Established Church of Scotland, and to lead a host in
solemn procession from it as from a doomed city, was now old and
enfeebled. Besides he had said his word on this very question, and it
had not silenced the clamor without nor stilled the anxious heavings
within. The occasion was momentous, and felt to be so. The church
was in a perilous condition. A change of some sort must take place,
or she must go to pieces. To stand where she did was impossible.
The whole weight of the matter fell on Cunningham and Candlish. No
shoulders in the church were broader than theirs; and I must say,
badly as I detested the principles laid down and defended by them, I
was compelled to acknowledge the vast mental endowments of the
men.
Cunningham rose, and his rising was the signal for tumultuous
applause. It may be said that this was scarcely in keeping with the
solemnity of the occasion, but to me it served to increase its
grandeur and gravity. The applause, though tumultuous, was not
joyous. It seemed to me, as it thundered up from the vast audience,
like the fall of an immense shaft, flung from shoulders already galled
by its crushing weight. It was like saying “Doctor, we have borne this
burden long enough, and willingly fling it upon you. Since it was you
who brought it upon us, take it now and do what you will with it, for
we are too weary to bear it.”
The Doctor proceeded with his speech—abounding in logic,
learning, and eloquence, and apparently bearing down all opposition;
but at the moment—the fatal moment—when he was just bringing all
his arguments to a point, and that point being that “neither Jesus
Christ nor his holy apostles regarded slaveholding as a sin,” George
Thompson, in a clear, sonorous, but rebuking voice, broke the deep
stillness of the audience, exclaiming “Hear! Hear! Hear!” The effect
of this simple and common exclamation is almost incredible. It was
as if a granite wall had been suddenly flung up against the
advancing current of a mighty river. For a moment speaker and
audience were brought to a dead silence. Both the Doctor and his
hearers seemed appalled by the audacity, as well as the fitness of
the rebuke. At length a shout went up to the cry of “Put him out!”
Happily no one attempted to execute this cowardly order, and the
discourse went on; but not as before. The exclamation of Thompson
must have re-echoed a thousand times in his memory, for the
Doctor, during the remainder of his speech, was utterly unable to
recover from the blow. The deed was done, however; the pillars of
the church—the proud Free Church of Scotland—were committed,
and the humility of repentance was absent. The Free Church held on
to the blood-stained money, and continued to justify itself in its
position.
One good result followed the conduct of the Free Church: it
furnished an occasion for making the people thoroughly acquainted
with the character of slavery and for arraying against it the moral and
religious sentiment of that country; therefore, while we did not
procure the sending back of the money, we were amply justified by
the good which really did result from our labors.
I must add one word in regard to the Evangelical Alliance. This
was an attempt to form a union of all Evangelical Christians
throughout the world, and which held its first session in London, in
the year 1846, at the time of the World’s Temperance Convention
there. Some sixty or seventy ministers from America attended this
convention, the object of some of them being to weave a world-wide
garment with which to clothe evangelical slaveholders; and in this
they partially succeeded. But the question of slavery was too large a
question to be finally disposed of by the Evangelical Alliance, and
from its judgment we appealed to the judgment of the people of
Great Britain, with the happiest effect—this effort of our countrymen
to shield the character of slaveholders serving to open a way to the
British ear for anti-slavery discussion.
I may mention here an incident somewhat amusing and
instructive, as it serves to illustrate how easily Americans could set
aside their notoriously inveterate prejudice against color, when it
stood in the way of their wishes, or when in an atmosphere which
made that prejudice unpopular and unchristian.
At the entrance to the House of Commons I had one day been
conversing for a few moments with Lord Morpeth, and just as I was
parting from him I felt an emphatic push against my arm, and,
looking around, I saw at my elbow Rev. Dr. Kirk of Boston. “Introduce
me to Lord Morpeth,” he said. “Certainly,” said I, and introduced him;
not without remembering, however, that the amiable Doctor would
scarcely have asked such a favor of a colored man at home.
The object of my labors in Great Britain was the concentration of
the moral and religious sentiment of its people against American
slavery. To this end, I visited and lectured in nearly all the large
towns and cities in the United Kingdom, and enjoyed many favorable
opportunities for observation and information. I should like to write a
book on those countries, if for nothing else, to make grateful mention
of the many dear friends whose benevolent actions towards me are
ineffaceably stamped upon my memory, and warmly treasured in my
heart. To these friends, I owe my freedom in the United States.
Mrs. Ellen Richardson, an excellent member of the society of
friends, assisted by her sister-in-law Mrs. Henry Richardson,—a lady
devoted to every good word and work—the friend of the Indian and
the African, conceived the plan of raising a fund to effect my ransom
from slavery. They corresponded with Hon. Walter Forward of
Pennsylvania, and through him, ascertained that Captain Auld would
take one hundred and fifty pounds sterling for me; and this sum they
promptly raised, and paid for my liberation; placing the papers of my
manumission into my hands, before they would tolerate the idea of
my return to this my native land. To this commercial transaction, to
this blood-money I owe my immunity from the operation of the
fugitive slave law of 1793, and also from that of 1850. The whole
affair speaks for itself and needs no comment now that slavery has
ceased to exist in this country, and is not likely ever again to be
revived.
Some of my uncompromising anti-slavery friends in this country
failed to see the wisdom of this commercial transaction, and were
not pleased that I consented to it, even by my silence. They thought
it a violation of anti-slavery principles, conceding the right of property
in man, and a wasteful expenditure of money. For myself, viewing it
simply in the light of a ransom, or as money extorted by a robber,
and my liberty of more value than one hundred and fifty pounds
sterling, I could not see either a violation of the laws of morality or of
economy. It is true I was not in the possession of my claimants, and
could have remained in England, for my friends would have
generously assisted me in establishing myself there. To this I could
not consent. I felt it my duty to labor and suffer with my oppressed
people in my native land. Considering all the circumstances, the
fugitive bill included, I think now as then, that the very best thing was
done in letting Master Hugh have the money, and thus leave me free
to return to my appropriate field of labor. Had I been a private
person, with no relations or duties other than those of a personal and
family nature, I should not have consented to the payment of so
large a sum, for the privilege of living securely under our glorious
republican (?) form of government. I could have lived elsewhere, or
perhaps might have been unobserved even here, but I had become
somewhat notorious, and withal quite as unpopular in some
directions as notorious, and I was therefore much exposed to arrest
A
and capture.

A
The following is a copy of these curious
papers, both of my transfer from Thomas to
Hugh Auld, and from Hugh to myself:
“Know all men, by these presents: That I,
Thomas Auld of Talbot county and state of
Maryland, for and in consideration of the sum of
one hundred dollars, current money, to me paid
by Hugh Auld, of the city of Baltimore, in the said
state, at and before the sealing and delivery of
these presents, the receipt whereof, I the said
Thomas Auld, do hereby acknowledge, have
granted, bargained, and sold, and by these
presents do grant, bargain, and sell unto the said
Hugh Auld, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, one negro man, by the name of
Frederick Bailey—or Douglass as he calls
himself—he is now about twenty-eight years of
age—to have and to hold the said negro man for
life. And I the said Thomas Auld, for myself, my
heirs, executors, and administrators, all and