A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 OP THE 
 
 
 SYSTEM 
 
 OF 
 
 SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 
 
 OP 
 
 PRISONERS 
 
 ! ' 
 
 ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 WITH 
 
 Remarks on the Origin, Progress and Extension of this 
 species of Prison Discipline. 
 
 BY GEORGE W. SMITH. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 Published in 1829 — Republished by order of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating 
 the Miseries of Public Prisotis. 
 
 E. G. Dorsey, Printer, 16 Library Street. 
 
 1833 
 
 H1ST0 
 
 SOCK 
 
 
 »nl 
 
A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SYSTEM 
 
 OF 
 
 SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 PRISONERS 
 
 ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 WITH 
 
 Remarks on the Origin, Progress and Extension of this 
 species of Prison Discipline. 
 
 BV GEORGE W. SMITH. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 Published in 1829— Republished by order of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating 
 the Miseries of Public Prisons. 
 
 E. G. Dorsey, Printer, 16 Library Street. 
 
 1833 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 13, line 17, for “ affected,” read effected. 
 
 Page 25, line 2 of the note, after “ which,” add (w,h the exception of the Penitentiary 
 deparlment.) 
 
 Page 41 and 42, line 1, for “first tried with,” red at first tried with nearly. 
 
 Page 47, line 42, alter “ buildings,” add, — we reuest the reader to observe that we 
 refer to the county prisons of Pennsylvania, when ompared with those of Gloucester- 
 shire. The Penitentiary department of the count prison, in the city of Gloucester, 
 was not superior to the Penitentiary house at Phildelphia, and the discipline of the 
 latter was certainly, in theory, (and, as at first admiistered, in practice also,) superior. 
 See pages 51 and 104. 
 
 Page 48, line 38, after “confinement” read som of them. 
 
 Page 48, line 39, after “others” read neverthelet. 
 
 Page 49, line 11, for “this,” read these. 
 
 Page 50, line 47, after “ Pennsylvania” read unt 1829. Previous to the latter year, 
 the law inflicting solitary confinement was enfored in this state only in a limited 
 and very imperfect degree. Even in Philadelphis minor offenders were very rarely 
 thus punished. In Great Britain t his discipline has>een extensively applied to nearly 
 every class. The more atrocious criminals in thoatter country, are either hanged 
 or transported, and. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following essays w re written in the winter of 1828-9, 
 and published in the Philtdephia Gazette. At that period, a 
 bill was pending in the Legislature of Pennsylvania authoriz- 
 ing the organization of tie penitentiaries for the eastern and 
 western districts of the stae. Two reports had been presented 
 to the Legislature, by twc separate boards of commissioners, 
 which recommended two species of prison discipline at total 
 variance with each other, aid each differing from the mode 
 established by the laws thin in existence. 
 
 The first board had beei appointed by the Governor in pur- 
 suance of a resolution pissed 23d March, 1826, requiring 
 them “to revise the Peial Code of this commonwealth, to 
 suggest what additions, dterations and changes should take 
 place in the system, and toreport a bill to the next Legislature, 
 adapted to , and modelled oi the principle of labour and solitary 
 confinement , together with such suggestions and observations 
 as may be necessary to a p oper determination on the subject.” 
 
 Judge Shaler of Pittsiurg, Judge King and Thomas J. 
 Wharton, Esq. of Philadephia, who were appointed the com- 
 missioners, made avolumncus and highly interesting report, 
 butt, to the surprise of the whole community, and in direct vio- 
 lation of both the letter andipirit of the resolution requiring their 
 report, they recommendel a total change in the long cherished 
 and approved system of Pennsylvania! They had paid but 
 little attention to either tie theory or practice of prison disci- 
 pline, and had been seleited to revise the Penal Code with 
 reference to their legal ittiinments. Inexperience induced 
 them to credit the unfounced allegations respecting the theory, 
 practice and alleged suptriority of a system of prison disci- 
 pline which has been receitly smuggled into the state of New 
 York from Europe; a systen which had been scarcely natu- 
 ralized before its paternit’ was forgotten or concealed, and its 
 discovery claimed as an mt re novelty due to the genius and 
 superior wisdom of our uiassuming sister state. 
 
 The ungracious task <f analysing this report, and the at- 
 tempt to point out some if the statements which we believed 
 to be erroneous, were unleitaken at the request of some re- 
 spectable citizens, who bditved that the effect of the report 
 
might perhaps be prejudicial. The tone of some of our com- 
 ments in the following essays, appears to us at the present 
 time somewhat more harsh than our present tempered zeal, 
 and respect for the writer of this report, would willingly sanc- 
 tion. His errors were those of opinion, not of intention; errors 
 which zeal and inexperience, however united with purity of mo- 
 tive, almost invariably produce. It is possible, that the critic 
 himself may unconsciously illustrate the difficulty of avoiding 
 similar mistakes of omission and commission; neglecting or 
 overlooking such evidence as may be adverse, and selecting 
 or regarding only, such testimonials as may be in unison 
 with preconceived and approved opinions. 
 
 The report of the second board of commissioners, was pre- 
 pared in pursuance of a resolution of the Senate, passed April 
 14 , 1827 . 
 
 The gentlemen who signed this document, were the com- 
 missioners who had been selected to superintend the building 
 of the Eastern Penitentiary; their valuable services were given 
 gratuitously. Many of them had been chosen, not on account 
 of their knowledge of prison discipline, but merely to super- 
 intend the building operations. A majority of them wished to 
 change the existing law in one important particular, viz. to 
 prohibit labour in the solitary cells. In other respects the 
 report was worthy of commendation. T- heir report however, 
 as well as that of the first named commissioners, did not re- 
 ceive the sanction nor even attract the notice of the Legis- 
 lature. At this period, when it was all important to counter- 
 act the effect of erroneous theories and statements on the minds 
 of our Representatives, we thought that a orief but compre- 
 hensive history of the origin, progress, theory and practice of 
 the system of solitary or separate confinement of prisoners, 
 might be not wholly useless. The effort was forthwith made, 
 and the result is exhibited in the present essays. The Phila- 
 delphia Society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons, 
 requested the writer to reprint them in pamphlet form, a re- 
 quest which could not at that time be conveniently complied 
 with. A recent repetition of the request has induced the pre- 
 sent republication of the essays in their original form, (in com- 
 pliance with a desire expressed by several members of the 
 Society,) with but few alterations and some additional notes. 
 
No. I. 
 
 Although much has been written on the subject of the 
 Penitentiary System, we venture to hope that the immense 
 importance of a correct decision by our Legislature on the 
 continuance and perfection of a species of discipline, which 
 has so long formed a conspicuous feature in our Penal Code — 
 will furnish an apology for the publication of the following 
 essays. 
 
 We propose to inquire whether solitary confinement, or 
 rather the confinement of prisoners separate and apart from 
 each other , united with a system of labour and instruction , be 
 expedient in Pennsylvania. 
 
 The prevention of crimes and the reformatio n of criminals in 
 lieu of the vindictive infliction of pain on offenders, are now 
 almost universally acknowledged to be the only legitimate 
 designs which can justify the infliction of human punishment. 
 Policy and humanity equally dictate that punishments should 
 be sufficiently severe to prevent the subjects on whom they 
 are inflicted repeating their offences, and to deter others from 
 following their example. The intentional addition of any fur- 
 ther suffering constitutes cruelty. However obvious this 
 theory of punishments may appear at the present day, its 
 justice has been but recently acknowledged; and in practice 
 it is to this hour almost unknown throughout Christendom. 
 The gratification of vengeance and securing the persons of 
 prisoners, appear to have constituted the only design of im- 
 prisonment until near the conclusion of the last century. The 
 few instances of a contrary species of discipline constitute an 
 exception only to the rule. 
 
 The remuneration to society for the expense of maintain- 
 ing prisoners by the exaction of labour from them, was rarely 
 attempted in any part of Europe — unless we may consider as 
 exceptions, the compulsory employment of prisoners of war 
 among all nations from the remotest periods of antiquity 
 
 1 
 
 V 
 
(which yet exists in some communities,) and the services ex- 
 acted from galley slaves. 
 
 The introduction of labour as an essential element of a 
 general system of prison discipline, may perhaps be justly at- 
 tributed to that spirit of economy which characterizes the 
 legislation of the Dutch. The maintenance of any class in 
 idleness, has never been intentionally practised by this indus- 
 trious and thrifty nation. Hence prisons and wonkhouses 
 have been synonymous terms in Holland from a very remote 
 period : attempts to promote reformation by the religious in- 
 struction of the prisoners appear to have been sometimes 
 made in that country with partial success. In no other part 
 of Europe was this system generally pursued : in few coun- 
 tries was it attempted in any of their prisons; and in Great 
 Britain, it had not even entered into their imaginations. We 
 think it highly probable, that our illustrious founder, William 
 Penn, observed, during his travels in Holland, this striking 
 feature of their policy, and resolved to adopt the measure, 
 when he projected the celebrated code of laws in England, 
 (1682) for the government of this province. In the tenth 
 section it is expressly declared that “all prisons shall be 
 workhouses for felons, vagrants and loose and idle persons.” 
 The Great Law (1682) contains a similar enactment — the 
 stock on which all our subsequent legislation has been grafted. 
 The merit therefore of originality, has been perhaps errone- 
 ously attributed to him. It is however sufficient praise that 
 he had the penetration to perceive and judgment to approve 
 and copy these useful institutions of a foreign land. His fame 
 as a legislator for originality and humanity rests on a sure 
 basis — the abolition of the punishment of death for all crimes 
 but murder, (which exception however is known to have been 
 contrary to his opinion.) From the year 1682 to 1717 labour 
 formed an invariable portion of the punishments of those 
 sentenced to our prisons : at this period our mild Penal Code 
 was finally repealed by Great Britain, which had neither the 
 humanity to adopt it, nor the magnanimity to permit its con- 
 tinuance. The decline of this system, until its final extinction 
 in practice, some years before the revolution, proves the ne- 
 gligence of our ancestors. At some future time we may 
 resume this subject, but our present design will not permit 
 us at present to discuss this interesting portion of our history. 
 
 A few years before the revolution, the Penal Code with its 
 sanguinary enactments, and the abuses existing in prison dis- 
 cipline, began to attract the attention of some of the humane 
 citizens of Philadelphia; they finally formed a Society on 
 the 7th February, 1776, for the purpose of effecting their be- 
 
7 
 
 nevolent designs. This association, which was called ‘ The 
 Philadelphia Society for assisting distressed Prisoners,” after 
 a brief but not useless existence of nineteen months, was dis- 
 solved, or rather suspended, by the capture of Philadelphia in 
 1777. The public mind had been however prepared for the 
 amelioration of the Penal Code, partly by the efforts of the 
 members of this Society; and the first constitution of the 
 State in 1776, ordains in'Chap. 2, Sec. 28, that “ punishments 
 be made in some cases less sanguinary,” and in Sec. 39 punish- 
 ment by “hard labour” in the prisons is substituted. The 
 law remained a dead letter during that memorable period ; 
 and it was not until the year 1786, after the conclusion of 
 peace, that the subject was resumed, and hard labour enf creed; 
 but these efforts were partial and ineffectual. In the follow- 
 ing year, 1787, May 8, some of the surviving members of the 
 Society previously mentioned, and others, reorganized the 
 association under the name of “The Philadelphia Society for 
 alleviating the miseries of public prisons.” This useful and 
 unassuming body is the parent of all the societies which 
 have been since formed for similar purposes in Europe and 
 this country. It has perhaps effected more for the permanent 
 benefit of mankind, than any of the meritorious charities of 
 this city of benevolence. It has the enviable fame of being 
 the first to reduce the humane and philosophic theory of pre- 
 ventive and reforming punishments, by the separate confine- 
 ment and instruction of prisoners, to the unerring test of suc- 
 cessful experiment. 
 
 Before we describe the actual introduction of solitary con- 
 finement, as it is perhaps erroneously styled, into our system 
 of legislation, it may be expedient to make a few observations 
 on the history of this interesting department of prison disci- 
 pline. 
 
 As a means of mere effectual seclusion from society and the 
 prevention of further injury by prisoners during the period of 
 incarceration, and as a mode of inflicting vindictive punish- 
 ment, it has been partially practised in almost every nation 
 from the remotest ages. The Egyptians were accustomed to 
 bury alive in the dark, narrow and secluded cells of some of 
 their vast and secure edifices, which at once served for prisons 
 and for tombs, certain offenders against their laws. These 
 unhappy victims, from the hour when they were immured, 
 until the tedious period when death released them from their 
 lingering misery, never beheld the light of day, never inhail- 
 ed the fresh air of heaven, and never again beheld the face 
 of man, or heard the consoling accents of his voice. Among 
 the Romans, among the nations of the dark ages, among the 
 
8 
 
 modern Italian republics, and in yet later times, solitary con- 
 finement has been occasionally practised as one of the most 
 dreadful means of vindictive punishment — a confinement un- 
 mitigated, absolute, and inhuman : a confinement at the mere 
 mention of which the philanthropist shudders with horror, 
 and the philosophic reformer turns aside with disgust and 
 reprobation. 
 
 The earliest cases of solitary confinement as an intended 
 means of reform, may be discovered in the records of ecclesias- 
 tical history. All who are familiar with the history of mo- 
 nastic and other religious institutions, will recollect numerous 
 instances in which absolute seclusion, and sometimes mere 
 separate confinement, mitigated by the visits of certain mem- 
 bers of the religious orders, have been successfully adopted 
 as a means of reformation for certain classes of offenders. 
 Voluntary seclusion for the same purpose has been frequently 
 adopted as a penance for offences frequently trivial but some- 
 times of peculiar enormity. We are too well aware of the 
 shocking abuses which have characterized ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline, to attempt to bestow any eulogium on a system whose 
 history has been so often written in blood — whose occasional 
 benefits have been so largely counterbalanced by cruelty, 
 tyranny and superstition. Nevertheless it is to Catholic Rome 
 that zee owe the first great reform in Penitentiary discipline. 
 The prison in which it was introduced remained for nearly 
 a century a solitary instance of successful benevolence, ex- 
 tended no further in Rome, where it originated, and unimitat- 
 ed in Christendom ! The Hospital of St. Michael, (founded in 
 Rome 1718 ,) was the first “ house of refuge ” in Europe. Mere 
 workhouses, in which the operatives were felons, had indeed 
 been established in other countries ; and although in a few of 
 them instruction had been attempted, the corrupting inter- 
 course which was permitted day and night ; the mixture of 
 all ages, ranks and sexes, into one corrupting leavened mass 
 of shameless iniquity, rendered the consignment of a juvenile 
 offender to these abodes of sin, a certain sentence of moral 
 death. He who entered their gates a novice in guilt, accom- 
 plished his education in villany : and leaving character, 
 shame, independence, and every incentive to voluntary indus- 
 try and virtue within their walls, departed an adept in 
 crime, ignorant only of his duties, prepared to practice at the 
 expense of society those lessons of vice which its folly had 
 forced on his acquaintance, and almost compelled him to ex- 
 ercise as a profession when discharged. Such was the de- 
 plorable condition of these colleges of crime, as prisons 
 have been too correctly denominated, when this noble insti- 
 
 « 
 
9 
 
 tution of St. Michael was commenced : the foundations 
 were laid on the firm.basis of humanity and sound philosophy. 
 The ureat evils of idleness were prevented by constant la- 
 bour during the day ; classification to a certain extent, and 
 silence, as far as practicable in an assembly, were enforced ; 
 and separate dormitories, or night rooms, for each prisoner, 
 provided : appropriate moral sentiments were inscribed on 
 conspicuous tablets, for the continual inspection of the in- 
 mates ; and above all, religious instruction was administered. 
 
 The scourge was superseded by a discipline mild, steady, 
 vigilant and unyielding. Reformation, and not the infliction 
 of suffering, was the noble intention of this institution. The 
 celebrated maxim of antiquity, which had been allowed to 
 slumber for seventeen hundred years, was now remembered, 
 and for the first time reduced to practice. The inscription 
 on the portal of this asylum in letters of gold contains the sum 
 and substance of the whole system of penal jurisprudence. 
 “ Parum est improbos coercere paena, nisi probos etficias dis- 
 ciplina.” To coerce criminals by punishment will be pro- 
 ductive of but trifling benefit, unless you make them virtu- 
 ous by the discipline. An inscription we would have engraved 
 on the entrance of every prison in Christendom. 
 
 The benevolent Howard visited this institution, and eulogis- 
 ed it in his account of prisons.* Thus was at once affected 
 all that has been subsequently accomplished by those esta- 
 blishments which are supposed to have only a recent origin 
 — the “ houses of refuge,” new only in name. 
 
 The “ Maison de Force ” at Ghent, was an extension of this 
 plan to adults, as well as young persons ; the latter being 
 the sole inmates of the Roman establishment. The structure 
 of the prison at Ghent, permitted a more strict classification ; 
 the whip was for some time used but was subsequently prohi- 
 bited, f 
 
 The prison at Auburn in New York, which has scourged 
 itself into notoriety, has not one particle of originality in any 
 essential feature, as many of its advocates in that state, and 
 elsewhere, attempt to persuade the public. It is a mere ser- 
 vile copy of the prison at Ghent, in which latter however, 
 classification is more practised, and the atrocious cruelty 
 which characterizes Auburn is unknown. J 
 
 * See Eave’s life of Howard, quarto. Article on Roman Prisons. 
 
 t It is singular that in Rome, where few innovations or improvements have been 
 introduced, this great reform occurred during the year when that compound of the 
 genius and benevolence of William Penn, the penal code of Pennsylvania, was re- 
 pealed by the British government! 
 
 1 See Buxton on prison discipline, 1818 — also Howard on prisons, 1784, for an ac- 
 count of this penitentiary. 
 
We shall have occasion hereafter to prove that these pri- 
 sons in which labour, and solitary confinement bv night, are 
 enforced, are superior to those in which that measure had 
 not been adopted — but that great and inseparable defects, 
 render them unworthy of adoption in Pennsylvania. || 
 
 In the year 1779, the celebrated John Howard, (on his re- 
 turn from one of his benevolent tours, in which lie had ex- 
 amined numerous prisons in various parts of Europe,) in con- 
 junction with Sir William Blackstone, the author of the com- 
 mentaries, drew an act which was sanctioned by Parliament, 
 in the preamble of which is the following language : “Where- 
 as, if many offenders convicted of crimes for which transpor- 
 tation has been usually inflicted, were ordered to solitary 
 imprisonment, accompanied by well regulated labour and 
 religious instruction, it might be the means under Provi- 
 dence, not only of deterring others from the commission of 
 like crimes, but also of reforming the individuals,” &c. This 
 plan was not, however, executed at that time, in consequence 
 of the perverseness of one of the individuals who was associated 
 with Howard, as a commissioner for erecting a suitable prison. 
 Howard it is known hastily and injudiciously retired in dis- 
 gust, and this noble experiment was not tried in England 
 until many years had elapsed. Pennsylvania reaped the 
 glory of first testing the correctness of this philosophic theory. 
 
 The Philadelphia Society for alleviating the miseries of 
 public prisons, was the first association which sanctioned the 
 measure, and by a memorial to the Assembly of Pennsylva- 
 nia, presented in the year 1787, (the first year after the re- 
 vival of the society,) represented, that the punishment of 
 criminals by hard labour publicly and disgracefully imposed 
 by the act of 1786, was productive of injury ; and that they 
 were “ fully convinced, that punishment by more private, or 
 even solitary labour, would more successfully tend to reclaim,” 
 &c.; reasons in support of their opinions are also given, and 
 some recommendations, evidently of a temporary nature, re- 
 specting the correction of certain abuses in the prison. The 
 Society on the 14th January, 1788, commenced a correspon- 
 dence with the benevolent Howard, who cordially approved 
 of their design, and gave the sum of £500 for the purpose 
 of founding a similar institution in England. 
 
 On the 20th Nov. 1783, the supreme executive council of 
 this state appointed a committee of their body to confer with 
 a deputation of the society respecting the abuses in prison 
 discipline. We would willingly draw a veil over the horrid 
 
 II In several prisons in Holland the system of labour and separation by night has 
 been practised for half a century. See Howard on prisons, p. 44. 
 
transactions which the Society were the instruments of Pro- 
 vidence in discovering, exposing, and finally in a great meas- 
 ure, preventing. The prison was a perfect pandemonium, 
 rendered only the more conspicuous and revolting, from the 
 contrast with the institutions of wisdom and benevolence 
 which every where surrounded it. It had degenerated even 
 from the imperfect condition of a workhouse, which it had 
 been in the days of Penn, and for some time subsequently. 
 The cruelty, the crimes, the misery and nearly all the abomi- 
 nations which prevailed in the prisons of America and Eu- 
 rope, were the constituent parts of our system. 
 
 In this den of abomination, were mingled in one revolting 
 mass of festering corruption, all the collected elements of 
 contagion ; all ages, colours, and sexes, were forced into one 
 horrid, loathsome communion of depravity. Children com- 
 mitted with their mothers, here first learned to lisp in the 
 strange accents of blasphemy and execration : young, pure 
 and modest females, committed for debt, here learned from 
 the hateful society of abandoned prostitutes, (whose resting 
 places on the floor they were compelled to share) the insidi- 
 ous lessons of seduction. The young apprentice in custody 
 for some venial fault, the tyro in guilt, the unfortunate debtor 
 . — the untried and sometimes guiltless prisoners, the innocent 
 witnesses, detained for their evidence in court against those 
 charged with crimes — were associated with the incorrigible 
 felon, the loathsome victim of disease and vice, and the dis- 
 gusting drunkard, (whose means of intoxication were furnish- 
 ed unblushingly by the jailer !) Idleness, profligacy and 
 widely diffused contamination, were the inevitable results. 
 The frantic yells of bacchanalian revelry; the horrid execra- 
 tions and disgusting obscenities from the lips of profligacy; the 
 frequent infliction of the lash; the clanking of fetters; the 
 w'ild exclamation of the wretch driven frantic by desperation ; 
 the ferocious cries of combatants ; the groans of those wound- 
 ed in the frequent frays, (a common pastime in the prison,) 
 mingled wfith the unpitied moans of the sick, (lying unattend- 
 ed and sometimes destitute of clothes or covering;) the faint 
 but imploring accents for sustenance by the miserable debtor, 
 cut off from all means of self-support, and abandoned to his 
 own resources, or to lingering starvation ; and the continual, 
 although unheeded complaints of the miserable and destitute, 
 formed the discordant sounds heard in the only public abode 
 of misery in Philadelphia, where the voice of hope, of mercy, 
 or religion, never entered. In this nursery of crime, almost 
 every species of profligacy was practised without punishment, 
 and openly taught without any attempt at prevention — sins to 
 
which the purity of Christianity has not attached even a name 
 were nightly perpetrated. 
 
 From this abode of moral contamination and of suffering, a 
 few were released from their misery by the lingering pains of 
 hunger, of cold and neglect; several committed suicide; and 
 the frequent and fatal pestilence — the inevitable consequence 
 of filth and crowded apartments — swept off multitudes, to 
 whom the means of education, as well as the lessons of reli- 
 gion, had never been offered — whose dying hours were unim- 
 proved — whose beds were attended by no merciful minister 
 of the gospel, urging them to repentance — and bearing the 
 blessed hope of mercy and forgiveness. They departed either 
 unheeded, or surrounded by wretches on whom their awful 
 example produced no reform; from whom their sufferings 
 received no compassion, or any alleviation ; the last sigh of 
 the more hardened was breathed out in audacious and shock- 
 ing defiance, whilst brutal indifference, or agonizing despair, 
 marked the dying moments of many of the tenants of the jail 
 of a Christian community. 
 
 Those of our citizens who remember the former condition 
 of the prison in Walnut street, can testify to the correctness 
 of this description : it is no overcharged picture of the fancy. 
 
 The recent period when these abuses prevailed (1788-9) 
 and the notoriety of their exposure, happily render it unne- 
 cessary to repeat the shocking details. We may therefore 
 merely refer our readers to the minutes of the Assembly, of 
 the Society whose efforts we are describing, the “notices” of 
 Mr. Vaux, and to the journals of that period, for more minute 
 information. 
 
 Such was also the condition of the prisons throughout the 
 whole of Christendom, with few exceptions. The prisons of 
 Great Britain, as well as her penal code, were extremely ne- 
 glected. 
 
 It was against this enormous mass of evil, sanctioned by 
 the example of all nations for ages, that the Prison Society 
 commenced their efforts. They encountered, as reformers in 
 all ages must encounter, the opposition of the interested, the 
 prejudices of the ignorant, the doubts of the indolent and 
 cautious, and the general apathy or lukewarmness of the 
 public. They were sneeringly told by those who were wise 
 in their own conceit, the half informed sceptics of that day, 
 that “the system then in use was venerable,” that “it work- 
 ed well;” that “reformation was hopeless;” that “ the lash 
 was the only panacea for moral evil;” that “mercy and pun- 
 ishment were incompatible;” that “the experiment had been 
 tried and failed;” that “well enough contented them;' 1 '* and 
 
finally, that “ these reformers were well meaning visionaries, 
 who were ignorant of human nature (implying doubtless 
 that the sceptics were in possession of that knowledge by in- 
 tuition , which the “ visionaries,” after years of study and of 
 experience, had not acquired.) 
 
 We request our readers to remark the nature of these ob- 
 jections which were then urged against Prison Reform; they 
 are precisely the same which are now urged, by nearly the 
 same class, against the prosecution of the wise and benevolent 
 plans of Penitentiary Discipline, which the same society, after 
 the study and experience of about forty years, still firmly 
 believes, (in conjunction with the great majority of those who 
 have thoroughly studied this momentous subject,) to be 
 necessary for the success and completion of the Penitentiary 
 system. 
 
 The assembly of Pennsylvania, convinced by the arguments 
 of the society, in the year 1789—90, affected a radical change 
 in the discipline of the prison. The convicts were compelled 
 to labour; the sexes were separated; the convicts were sepa- 
 rated from the untried prisoners and debtors ; suitable food 
 and clothing were provided for them ; the introduction of ar- 
 dent spirits was strictly prohibited, and jail fees and garnish ut- 
 terly abolished ; above all, religious instruction, and as far as 
 possible, a classification of the prisoners, were introduced ; con- 
 versation was also restrained. The prisoners at that time not 
 being numerous, these arrangements were practicable in the 
 prison ; which was however far too limited to test the merits 
 of the system of improvements, which the society was anxious 
 to introduce. The Legislature was not at that time prepared 
 to appropriate a sufficient sum of money to construct a new 
 and perfect prison for the purpose of testing the merits of an 
 untried experiment, however flattering might be the pros- 
 pects of success. The friends of the new system were willing 
 to test its merits with the imperfect apparatus which alone 
 was at their disposal. These alterations, in conjunction with 
 some others of a minor description, would alone have pro- 
 duced effects highly beneficial ; and doubtless a portion of the 
 reformation, which most unquestionably was produced by the 
 new system, is attributable to them; but the great object of 
 reform was mainly produced by the celebrated law, enact- 
 ed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, April 5th, 1790, by 
 which separate and solitary confinement was first introduced. 
 In the preamble to that act, it is declared that the previous 
 laws for the punishment of criminals “had failed of success,” 
 “ from the communication with each other not being suffi- 
 ciently restrained within the places of confinement, and it is 
 
 2 
 
hoped that the addition of unremitted solitude to laborious em- 
 ployment, as far as it can be effected, will contribute as much 
 to reform as to deter.” In the 8th section it is ordered that 
 “a suitable number of cells be constructed in the yard of the 
 jail of the said county, each of which cells shall be six feet in 
 width, eight feet in length, and nine feet in height; and the 
 said cells shall be separate from the common yard, by a wall 
 of such height, as, without any unnecessary exclusion of air 
 and light, will prevent all external communication for the pur- 
 pose of confining therein the more hardened and atrocious 
 offenders,” viz: those mentioned in this and a former Act.* 
 
 In Section 10th, “the residue of the said jail shall be ap- 
 propriated to the purposes of confining as well such male 
 convicts sentenced to hard labour, as cannot be accommodated 
 in the said cells, as female convicts sentenced in like manner, 
 persons convicted of capital offences, vagrants, and disorderly 
 persons committed as such, and persons charged with misde- 
 meanors only; all which persons are hereby required to be 
 kept separate and apart from each other as much as the conve- 
 nience of the building will admit,” &c. In Section 13th, 
 “ during which labour the said offenders f shall be kept separate 
 and apart from each other, if the nature of their several em- 
 ployments will admit thereof ; and where the nature of such 
 employment requires two or more to work together, the 
 keeper of the said jail, or one of his deputies, shall, if possi- 
 ble, be constantly present.”J In Section 21st, for certain 
 offences committed within the prison, the jailer is authorized 
 to confine prisoners violating the discipline of the prison in the 
 dark cells, on bread and water, for a short time only; but in 
 the county prisons, the period of inflicting this punishment is 
 unlimited. (Sec. 28.) 
 
 We request our readers to observe that the time during 
 which the “ hardened offenders” are subjected to solitary 
 confinement in this Act, is limited only by the duration of their 
 imprisonment— which in Sec. 8, is stated to befor “ a term of 
 years.” 
 
 Section 28. “ And whereas it may not at present be practi- 
 cable to introduce all the above mentioned regulations into 
 each of the counties of this state, although it is necessary that an 
 uniformity of punishment should as much as possible prevail in 
 allf it was enacted, that in all the other counties the same 
 system should be adopted as much as possible. A per- 
 
 * Thirty cells were built pursuant to this act. 
 
 t Viz: the convicts sentenced in conformity to this Act. 
 
 IThe Legislature evidently intended to place each convict in a separate room, so 
 far as might be practicable ; but as this might not always be possible, a few excep- 
 tions were provided for : that these cases would be few, the provisions in the law 
 make manifest; otherwise a keeper would be required for each room or cell, at an ex- 
 pense which could not have received their sanction. 
 
15 
 
 sonal examination compels us to state, that this law has 
 remained in the county prisons almost a dead letter. Labour, 
 instruction, separate confinement and even classification are 
 almost unknown, and in no solitary instance have they been 
 even moderately attended to. The law had been so long 
 neglected, both in Philadelphia and in the counties, that many 
 are not aware of its existence. 
 
 In the Act of April 22d, 1794, (memorable for the abolition 
 of the punishment of death for all offences, excepting murder 
 in the first degree,) Section 9 — All felons guilty of crimes pre- 
 viously clergyable, “ shall undergo an imprisonment at hard 
 labour and solitary confinement in the jail and penitentiary 
 house* aforesaid, for any time not less than six months, and not 
 more than two years,” “ excepting those cases where some 
 other specific penalty is prescribed by the Act aforesaid, to 
 reform the Penal laws of this state, or by this Act.” 
 
 In Section 10 — Persons convicted of certain crimes, and 
 imprisoned in other Counties than Philadelphia, are to be 
 removed to the jail at that city; and in Sec. 11th, certain 
 convicts are to be subjected to solitary confinement for not 
 less than one twelfth, or not greater than half of the term of 
 their imprisonment, and to be kept on low diet; and as the 
 court may direct. 
 
 In Section 13th, certain offenders are sentenced to “hard 
 labour during life, and shall be confined in the said solitary 
 cells at such times and in such manner as the inspectors shall 
 direct ,” &c.; and in the same section, certain other criminals 
 are “sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for the term of 
 twenty-five years, and shall be confined in the solitary cells 
 aforesaid at the discretion of the said inspectors.” 
 
 In this Act also, solitary confinement is inflicted on certain 
 offenders for the whole period of their imprisonment. 
 
 In the preamble to the Act of April 18th, 1795, it is stated 
 that “certain parts of the said Act,” (the Act above men- 
 tioned of 1790,) “ have, in their operation, evidently dimin- 
 ished the number of crimes and been highly beneficial in 
 reforming offenders,” &c. In Section 1st, the inspectors are 
 authorized “ to separate and class the different prisoners in 
 such manner as they shall judge will best promote the object 
 of their confinement.” 
 
 We may observe that the prisoners were not, in any case, 
 to be confined in the cells without intermission, for they were 
 to “be allowed to walk and air themselves for such stated 
 time as their health may require.” Section 19 of the act of 1790. 
 
 * The term Penitentiary house, which is here used for the first time in our legisla- 
 tion, is taken from the British laws, in which it is invariably employed to designate ex- 
 clusively those prisons in which solitary confinement, united with labour and instruc- 
 tion, constitutes the discipline. 
 
16 
 
 Such was the early legislation of Pennsylvania respecting 
 solitary confinement, &c. The benefits resulting from it in 
 practice fully proved the correctness of this theory— although 
 the architectural defects and subsequent crowded state of the 
 prison, prevented an opportunity of fully experiencing all the 
 benefits which might be derived from it, the repeated pub- 
 lications of the Prison Society, and of the inspectors of the 
 prison, and their memorials to the Legislature in the years 
 1788-94-1800-1-3-13-16-18-19-21-28, &c. bear testimony 
 to the value and efficacy of solitary confinement. It has been 
 repeatedly stated by them that “ reformation in the early 
 period of this system occurred among those who were sub- 
 jected to solitary confinement;! that “reform was in exact 
 proportion to the degree of separation.” We might fill these 
 pages with numerous quotations in support of these state- 
 ments. 
 
 This great prison reformation was not confined to Philadel- 
 phia : the beneficial results were made known by the prison 
 society, and others, to various influential individuals in the 
 adjoining states, and in Europe : the press teemed with des- 
 criptions, comments and eulogies : and finally the Penitentiary 
 system of Pennsylvania was adopted, to an extent, more or 
 less complete and perfect, in several parts of the union. We 
 shall have occasion hereafter to make more minute state- 
 ments on this subject. Pennsylvania has enjoyed the envied 
 fame, the peculiar merit of first leading the way in the great 
 experiment of Penitentiary Reform. The palm had long 
 since been awarded to her by unanimous acclamation, and 
 we regret that it was reserved for some of her own citizens 
 to be the first to attempt the ungracious task of diminishing 
 her reputation, by a strange and ignorant denial of the suc- 
 cess, and even of the existence, of that noble system, of which, 
 until that moment, she had been the admitted founder. 
 
 The records of the prison furnish unanswerable proof in 
 corroboration of our statements respecting the efficacy of 
 separation as a means of reform. In the year 1789, prior to 
 the introduction of solitary confinement, the number of per- 
 sons convicted and imprisoned in this jail was 125. During 
 the first year of the new system in 
 
 1790, 109 
 
 1791, 78 
 
 1792, 63 
 
 1793, 45 
 
 1794, 92 
 
 t See Report of fhe Commissioners of the Penitentiary to the Senate, Jan. 8, 1828 
 p. 3. Sea also Vaux’s Notices, passim. Also, letters to Roscoe, ditto. 
 
17 
 
 Thus whilst the population was increasing, Ike number of 
 t crimes xoas diminishing. The average during the five years 
 from 1790 to 1794 (inclusive) is about 74 only. During the 
 three years previously it was 109. The prison now became 
 crowded in consequence of the selection of this building as a 
 depot for criminals for the whole state. As those who were 
 thus committed, were sentenced for longer periods than the 
 former tenants of the jail, (the importation exceeding the ex- 
 portation,) it became impossible, in the daily increasing 
 crowds, to maintain that rigid discipline, or to practice that 
 separation, or even classification of prisoners, on which the 
 very life of the system depended. Accordingly, a farther 
 examination of the records above mentioned, will show a 
 manifest increase in the number of committals, or that the 
 ebb and flow of crime were exactly in proportion to the de- 
 gree of separation, or intercourse, among the prisoners. From 
 1795 to 99 inclusive, the number of committals was 642, or 
 the average for each year upwards of 126. The average for 
 the five following years was 125; for the ensuing five, it had 
 increased to 171; in the following five it continued to in- 
 crease, the average being now 251 ! In the following five, 
 ending 1820, we observe an alarming increase; the annual 
 average being now 362 !* This increased number of prisoners 
 rendered all partial attempts to enforce separation almost in- 
 effectual ; and the Legislature, yielding to the public opinion, 
 •which had been loudly and frequently expressed, ordered two 
 Penitentiaries to be constructed; the first, (by the Act of 3d 
 March, 1818) at Pittsburg; the second, (by the Act of 20th 
 March, 1821) at Philadelphia; each of them on the plan of 
 strict unremitted solitary confinement, for every convict ad- 
 mitted within their walls; a confinement united with labour 
 and suitable instruction, mitigated by exercise in the open air 
 when necessary, and to be enforced in buildings better adapt- 
 ed to the purpose than any heretofore constructed.! 
 
 * We may observe that the defective discipline was not the sole cause of the in- 
 'Crease of convicts. The criminals who had been driven from the state by the fear 
 ■of the new discipline, were soon induced to return in consequence of the adoption 
 of the Penitentiary system by the adjoining states. The embargo deprived many 
 •reckless persons of employment, and above all, the termination of the war of 1812, 
 13, 14 and 15, inundated our community with hordes of corrupt, lawless, idle despe- 
 radoes. Hence, the sudden and alarming increase of convicts may be easily ex- 
 plained. 
 
 t The act of 1818 owes its existence chiefly to the zeal and efforts of Thomas Brad- 
 ford, jr. and John Bacon, Esqrs. of Philadelphia. The former gentleman repaired 
 to Harrisburg at the instance of the Inspectors of the Walnut Street Prison, and his 
 able efforts attracted the attention and sanction of the Legislature so far as to obtain 
 the act authorizing the construction of two prisons, one at Pittsburg, the other at Phi- 
 ladelphia. The former only has been built in consequence of this act. The latter 
 was built in pursuance of the act of 1821, for which we are indebted to the active 
 exertions of Samuel R. Wood, at Harrisburg, (whither he repaired at the request of 
 
Pennsylvania, by these instances of her wisdom and munifi- 
 cence, almost atones for that unwise, temporising parsimony, 
 which alone prevented a full, complete and unanswerable 
 demonstration (to which even cavil could not apply) of the 
 regenerating efficacy of her system ; a system which has never 
 been abandoned in theory, and which in practice has been 
 persevered in from its origin to the present hour, to an extent 
 limited only by the imperfect plan of the prison in which 
 the system has been commenced. 
 
 As it is generally known at the present time, and for some 
 years recently, that the practical effect of the Philadelphia 
 Penitentiary, as an institution of reform, has been diminished, 
 an inference strongly in support of our argument is obvious; 
 for had the system of separate confinement been uniformly 
 and perfectly practiced, whilst reformation among the con- 
 victs decreased, and crimes increased, it would have presented 
 the powerful argument of experience against our position; 
 but, as we have already stated, and shall hereafter prove, 
 that reformation and the prevention of crimes, were in exact 
 proportion to the degree of separation, the principles of sound 
 inductive philosophy urge us to proceed in continuing the 
 experiment, under more perfect circumstances. 
 
 the Philadelphia Society for alleviating the miseries of Public Prisons.) To the early 
 and well directed labours and intelligence of Mr. Wood, we are mainly indebted for 
 the establishment of the present excellent system of separate confinement, united to 
 labour and instruction. Mr. Bradford was an advocate of solitude without labour ; 
 but we believe that he is a convert to the present system, of which (with the prece- 
 ding exception,) he has been a most zealous advocate and faithful and indefatigable 
 administrator and devisor. The Legislature of Pennsylvania would not, however, 
 change the system of 1790, &c. by abolishing labour in the new prisons above men- 
 tioned, but on the contrary, directed in both acts, that “the principle of solitary con- 
 finement, as the same now is, or may be hereafter established by law,” be adhered to. 
 (Acts of 3d March, 1818, sec. 1, also of 20th of March, 1821.) The system of labour 
 has never been abandoned either by our Legislature, or by the people, or by the 
 “ Philadelphia Society for alleviating the miseries of Public Prisons.” A committee 
 of the Senate of Pennsylvania, many years since, made a report recommending soli- 
 tude without labour. The report was made by a few persons who were not con. 
 versant with the history or practice of prison discipline in this or in other states, or 
 in Europe. Their views were at variance with those of the Legislature. Their re- 
 port was not adopted, but fell still-born from the press, and has been forgotten. The 
 industry of a foreigner who discovered it among the archives of the state, imagined 
 that its visionary and condemned speculations had been sanctioned by the laws of 
 the land. We particularly request attention to the facts above mentioned, in con- 
 sequence of the frequent misstatements respecting our system made in the Reports of 
 the Boston Prison Discipline Society. 
 
 In the third section of the aforesaid act of 1818, it was directed “ that the said Peni- 
 tentiary at Pittsburg shall be constructed on the plan exhibited to the Legislature 
 by the Inspectors of the prison of the city and county of Philadelphia.” This plan 
 exhibited a small yard to each cell for the purpose of exercise, &c. The plan was 
 by no means perfect, but the alterations which the Commissioners illegally ventured 
 to make, so far deteriorated it, that it has recently been expedient to pull down all 
 the cells in the interior and to construct ranges of cells according to the plan of the 
 Eastern Penitentiary, at Philadelphia. 
 
 The progress of our Penitentiary system, and its extension in practice in Pennsyl- 
 vania, and elsewhere, since the period when these essays were first printed, (1829) 
 will be described at the conclusion of this pamphlet. (1833.) 
 
19 
 
 Such has accordingly been the wise resolution of our con- 
 sistent Legislature. Nevertheless we are now seriously asked 
 by several individuals, after all that has been done; after all 
 our preparations have been nearly completed; after nearly 
 all the cost of the requisite apparatus has been incurred; after 
 all the experience in America and Europe, we are actually 
 requested to abandon all our fondly cherished improvements, to 
 retrograde in the science of punishments, by adopting a plan, 
 which, even its advocates admit, produces no reform, and 
 which, as we subsequently will endeavour to prove, must 
 occasion inevitable injury. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 In the last number we endeavoured to trace the history of 
 solitary confinement from its origin to the period of its intro- 
 duction, improvement, and partial suspension, in Pennsylvania. 
 We also alluded to the measures adopted for its revival, per- 
 fection and extension by the zeal of the Prison Society, the 
 Inspectors of the prison, and many of the most benevolent and 
 intelligent citizens of the commonwealth whose labours were 
 crowned with success by the act of 1818 , authorizing the 
 erection of the great western Penitentiary at Pittsburg. In 
 this prison solitary confinement for the whole period of the im- 
 prisonment of every inmate was ordered. The same system 
 was adopted in the Act of 1821 , authorizing the erection of 
 the Eastern Penitentiary at Philadelphia. 
 
 Some difference of opinion prevailed respecting the ex- 
 pediency of continuing the plan of labour which had been 
 establised by law from the earliest commencement of the 
 system of Penitentiary discipline in Pennsylvania. A few in- 
 dividuals alone were desirous to exclude labour in order to 
 increase the severity of the confinement. These persons were 
 conversant with the condition of the Walnut street prison 
 only in the latter and corrupt era of that degenerate institu- 
 tion, when labour almost wholly ceased to be performed in the 
 solitary cells. 
 
 The Inspectors of this prison were not always selected 
 from that portion of our citizens who were familiar with the 
 history or mode of conducting prison discipline. Political par- 
 tisans often obtained this responsible office as a reward for 
 their toils. When this prison became crowded with inmates, 
 it was of course impracticable to enforce the system of sepa- 
 rate labour, not merely in the main edifice but also in the cells. 
 
With the occasional exception of picking oakum and a few simi- 
 lar employments, labour ceased to be performed in them'. 
 Hence, the structure of the cells was altered; the large win- 
 dows originally placed in them, were blocked up, as they were 
 no longer deemed to be necessary. A dim light was now 
 thought to increase the terrors of confinement, and many of 
 the cells ceased to be permanently occupied in consequence 
 of the expense of maintaining prisoners in them in idleness. 
 Nevertheless the few inmates who were now subjected to this 
 altered and imperfect discipline were carefully instructed in 
 their religious duties, and they constituted almost the only 
 class of convicts who exhibited any evidences of permanent 
 reform in the institution. Hence, many of the Inspectors 
 who had witnessed the partial benefits of this imperfect sys- 
 tem, and who were practically conversant with none more 
 advantageous, were anxious to test its advantages in a new, a 
 more extensive and suitably constructed edifice, to be devot- 
 ed solely to this purpose. They were unacquainted with the 
 superior system which had been long tried and which was 
 then in successful operation in Great Britain and elsewhere ; 
 (viz. “ separate confinement with labour ;”) some of the more 
 intelligent Inspectors however wished to introduce, or rather 
 to revive this latter system ( which the law of Pennsylvania en- 
 acted in 1790 had established; ) the efforts of Samuel R. Wood 
 and John Bacon, Esqs. were distinguished by a spirit of bene- 
 volence, zeal and intelligence. They united with the Society 
 for alleviating the miseries of Public Prisons (of which they 
 were influential members) in advocating the system which 
 this Society had sanctioned for forty years with uniform ap- 
 probation— a system from which they have never swerved for 
 a moment, notwithstanding the statements which have been 
 made by several uninformed individuals to the contrary.* 
 
 We regret that the slight and temporary difference of sen- 
 timent on this subject, has afforded an opportunity to some 
 individuals to cavil at and misrepresent the whole system; 
 
 * The Society have deemed it expedient even recently to notice this mistake. In 
 the Report of the Acting Committee published by order of the Society, January 1, 
 1833, page 8, is the following statement. “ A fair trial was not and could not be 
 made in a prison so defective in all the requisites necessary to a complete supervision 
 and separation of the prisoners, as the jail in Walnut street; but so much was ac- 
 complished that no doubt remained that in a penitentiary properly constructed, the 
 system would succeed. The Society, therefore, repeatedly called the attention of 
 the legislature to the necessity of erecting suitable buildings, in which the solitary, or 
 separate confinement of the prisoners, with labour, could be properly carried into 
 execution.” Q1 
 
 “ See the memorial of the Society to the legislature of 14th of December, lot 1. 
 Joint memorial of the inspectors of the prison and of the Society, 25th January, 1803. 
 The memorials of the Society of the 12th of January, 1818- — 22nd January, 1821, &e„ 
 
 “ The Society have never advocated a system of total seclusion from all intercourse, nor 
 of confinement without labour." (1833.) 
 
21 
 
 we therefore think it expedient to describe the plan in which 
 the great majority concur. We have authority to state that 
 a.t present the majority of the Inspectors and prison commis- 
 sioners concur with them in opinion. 
 
 We proceed to describe first, the prisons at Philadelphia 
 and Pittsburg, and second, the discipline which we believe 
 will be established in them. A reference to the annexed en- 
 gravings will render a brief description only necessary. 
 
 The Eastern State Penitentiary is situated on one of the 
 most elevated, airy, and healthy sites in the vicinity of Phila- 
 delphia. Large sums have been expended for the purpose of 
 giving an unusual degree of solidity and durability to every 
 part of this immense structure, which is the most extensive 
 building in the United States. The ground occupied by it, 
 contains about 10 acres. The material with which the edi- 
 fices are built, is a grayish granite, or gneiss, employed in 
 large masses; every room is vaulted and fire proof. The 
 design and execution impart a grave, severe, and awful cha- 
 racter to the external aspect of this building. The effect 
 which it produces on the imagination of every passing specta- 
 tor, is peculiarly impressive, solemn, and instructive. The 
 architecture is in keeping with the design. The broad 
 masses, the small and well proportioned apertures, the 
 continuity of lines, and the bold and expressive simplicity 
 which characterize the features of the facade, are most hap“- 
 pily and judiciously combined. The originality of the plan, 
 the excellent arrangement and execution of the details, display 
 the taste and ingenuity of the architect, to whom our country 
 is indebted for some of her noblest edifices— our fellow citizen, 
 Mr. John Haviland. I he total cost of this building when 
 finished, will be four hundred and thirty-two thousand dol 
 lars.* We are not advocates of inconsistent or meretricio 
 decoration, but we may express our gratification that no 
 wise parsimony rendered the aspect or arrangements of 
 institution an opprobrium to the liberal, humane, and enf 
 ened character of our commonwealth. 
 
 This Penitentiary is the only edifice in this country/ 10 * 1 
 is calculated to convey to our citizens the external app/ ance 
 of those magnificent and picturesque castles of the mid e a S es ’ 
 which contribute so eminently to embellish the s' ner y ot 
 Europe. j 
 
 The front of this building is composed of lar/ blocks of 
 hewn and squared granite; the walls are 12 fee' dlic . k at . tke 
 base, and diminish to the top, where they are feet m tkick ~ 
 
 * In pursuance of the act of 1831, the number of rills hasroeen increased. The 
 total cost will probably be $560,000. (1833.) 
 
 3 
 
22 
 
 ness. A wall of thirty feet in height above the interior plat- 
 form, encloses an area 650 feet square : at each angle of the 
 wall is a tower for the purpose of overlooking the establish- 
 ment; three other towers, which will be presently described, 
 are situated near the gate of entrance. The facade or prin- 
 cipal front, is 670 feet in length, and reposes on a terrace, 
 which, from the inequalities of the ground, varies from 3 to 9 
 feet in height ; the basement or belting course, which is 10 
 feet high, is scarped, and extends uniformly the whole length. 
 The central building of the faqade is 200 feet in length, con- 
 sists of two projecting massive square towers 50 feet high, 
 crowned by projecting embattled parapets, supported by 
 pointed arches resting on corbels or brackets. The pointed mun- 
 nioned windows in these towers contribute in a high degree 
 to their picturesque effect. The curtain between the towers 
 is 41 feet high, and is finished with a parapet and embrasures. 
 The pointed windows in it are very lofty and narrow. The 
 great gateway in the centre is a very conspicuous feature ; it 
 is 27 feet high, and 15 wide, and is filled by a massive wrought 
 iron portcullis, and double oaken gates studded with project- 
 ing iron rivets, the whole weighing several tons; nevertheless 
 they can be opened with the greatest facility. On each side 
 of this entrance, (which is the most imposing in the United 
 States,) are enormous solid buttresses diminishing in offsets, 
 and terminating in pinnacles. A lofty octangular tower, 80 
 feet high, containing an alarm bell and clock, surmounts this 
 entrance, and forms a picturesque proportional centre. On 
 each side of this main building (which contains the apart- 
 ments of the warden, keepers, domestics, &c.) are screen wing 
 walls, which appear to constitute portions of the main edifice ; 
 they are pierced with small blank pointed windows, and are 
 surmounted by a parapet; at their extremities are high oc- 
 tangular towers terminating in parapets pierced by embra- 
 ces. In the centre of the great court yard is an observa- 
 v, whence long corridors, eight in number, radiate ; (three 
 of these corridors, &c., are at present finished.*) On 
 C3a side of these corridors the cells are situated, each at right 
 an &‘ to them, and communicating with them only by small 
 °P en ‘s for the purpose of supplying the prisoner with foody 
 &c., a l f or t ] le p Ur p 0Se 0 f inspecting his movements without 
 attracts j^ s attention ; other apertures, for the admission of 
 cool or h^fgd aV, and for the purpose of ventilation, are 
 provided. \ novel and ingenious contrivance in each cell, 
 
 dorirtf r!" 1 " t * lese kicks have since been added ; they are two stories high, and have 
 the I/--, r l | erl | ln ° IC fi va , Ri the coiridor, and in the lower stories there are doors towards 
 y ra also, noth si>ries ar> lighted front the top, and the cells are larger. (1833 ) 
 
23 
 
 •which has been frequently described, prevents the possibility 
 of conversation, preserves the purity of the atmosphere of the 
 cells, and dispenses with the otherwise unavoidable necessity 
 of leaving the apartment, except when the regulations per- 
 mit: flues conduct heated air from large cockle stoves to the 
 cells. Light is admitted by a large circular glass in the crown 
 of the arch, which is raking, and the highest part sixteen feet 
 six inches above the floor, (which is of wood, overlaying a 
 solid foundation of stone.) The walls are plastered and neat- 
 ly whitewashed ; the cells are 1 1 feet 9 inches long, and 
 7 feet 6 inches wide : at the extremity of the cell, opposite 
 to the apertures for inspection, &c., previously mentioned, is 
 the door way, containing two doors ; one of lattice work, or 
 grating, to admit the air and secure the prisoner, the other 
 composed of planks to exclude the air, if required ; this door 
 leads to a yard (18 feet by 8, the walls of which are ll£ 
 feet in height) attached to each cell. The number of the lat- 
 ter in the present plan is only 266, but it may be increased 
 to 818, without resorting to the addition of second stories. 
 We have had an opportunity of examining many prisons, 
 and other similar institutions in Europe and this country, but 
 we have never seen a building so admirably adapted to the 
 purposes of security, seclusion, health and convenience, as 
 this penitentiary. The rooms are larger, viz. containing 
 more cubic feet of air, or space, than a great number of the 
 apartments occupied by industrious mechanics in our city; 
 and if we consider that two or more of the latter frequently 
 work or sleep in the same chamber, they have much less 
 room than will be allotted to the convicts; whose cells, 
 moreover, will be more perfectly ventilated than many of 
 the largest apartments of our opulent citizens. 
 
 The convict on his entrance, after the customary exami- 
 nation, ablution, medical inspection, &,c. is clothed, blindfolded 
 and conducted to his cell, where he will remain locked up ; 
 and after a patient and careful inquiry into his history, and 
 the delivery of an appropriate address to him on the conse- 
 quences of his crime, and the design to be effected by his pun- 
 ishment, he is to be abandoned to that solitary anguish and 
 remorse which his reflection in solitude must inevitably pro- 
 duce. Every means which have been devised by philanthro- 
 py and experience for effecting reformation will be zealously 
 applied. The labour in which the convict will be employed, 
 is considered as an alleviation, not an aggravation of his sen- 
 tence. Labour prescribed as a punishment is an error in le- 
 gislation, founded on an ignorance of the feelings, the desires 
 and antipathies, the habits and associations of mankind : the 
 
24 
 
 tedious hours spent in solitude will be a punishment suffi- 
 ciently severe, without rendering the infliction of hard la- 
 bour, for this cause, necessary. The want of occupation 
 will produce a feeling of tedium or irksomeness — the state of 
 mind in which labour or employment will appear to the con- 
 vict — perhaps for the first time in his life, as a means of pre- 
 venting uneasy feelings, of producing relief and pleasure; and 
 as the powerful influence of association is acknowledged, this 
 beneficial feeling will become habitual, and after the dis- 
 charge of the convict from his durance, will be a most effect- 
 ual safeguard from the temptations of idleness. Accordingly 
 persons duly qualified will be employed to teach the prisoner 
 suitable trades, and to instruct him in religion, and in the 
 elements of learning. The prohibition of all intercourse with 
 society, is not therefore, to be continual ; the visits of the vir- 
 tuous cannot injure, and must benefit the majority of the pri- 
 soners, between whom, alone, all communication is to be ren- 
 dered impossible. The degree of seclusion to be practised, 
 or of labour and other alleviations permitted, may be varied 
 with the varying dispositions of the prisoners. Regular ex- 
 ercise in the yards, in the open air, will be permitted, and re- 
 quired when necessary; provided that no two adjoining 
 yards be occupied at the same time, for the purpose of pre- 
 venting conversation. 
 
 Such is a brief outline of the system : the numerous details 
 will be introduced hereafter, with more advantage, when we 
 shall have occasion to argue its merits. 
 
 The Penitentiary for the western district at Pittsburg is 
 surrounded by an octangular wall, with towers at four of the 
 angles. The front wall of the building constitutes part of 
 the dwelling for the keepers. The cells are arranged in two 
 concentric circles, back to back, with a circular corridor on 
 the inner and exterior periphery.* 
 
 We have already mentioned that the Dutch plan of joint 
 labour during the day (intercourse by language, or signs, be- 
 ing repressed as far as possible ; separate confinement at night 
 and religious and other instruction administered) — is greatly 
 superior to the plan pursued in the prisons in Europe and 
 America generally, in which these improvements have been but 
 partially introduced. The evils existing in the unimproved 
 prisons are too well known to require further comparison be- 
 tween them, and these on the Dutch plan, which have been 
 introduced at Auburn and Sing Sing, in the state of New 
 
 *The residue of the description is omitted in consequence of the recent altera- 
 tions. These cells have been pulled down, and three blocks (similar to those above 
 described in the Eastern Penitentiary) radiate from a point near the front building- 
 
25 
 
 York — not only without acknowledgment'*— but with the ig- 
 norant pretence of entire originality ! The deception has 
 been so long practised that many of our citizens have ac- 
 quiesced in their claim, in the absence of other evidence 
 than the incessant assurance of the supposed inventors. (See 
 the letter of G. Powers to Messrs. King and Wharton, 1829, 
 Harrisburg; also, Howard on prisons p. 44. Same passim. 
 Buxton on Prisons — description of the Ghent penitentiary or 
 Maison de force.) 
 
 We will endeavour to prove that errors prevail not only in 
 relation to the origin of this system, but also respecting its 
 operation. The causes of this misconception may be ascribed, 
 not merely to the complacent publications of those who are 
 the administrators of the system, but to the hasty and imper- 
 fect examinations, or rather transient glances, of those who 
 have visited and described the prisons at Auburn and else- 
 where. Few are qualified to examine and ascertain the 
 merits and defects of these institutions. Individuals possessing 
 talents and general information, may readily be deceived in 
 their opinions respecting prison discipline, which is a branch 
 of pure experimental science. Few feel any interest in the 
 subject ; fewer have access to the numerous books and vo- 
 luminous documents, which contain the prodigious mass of 
 facts and opinions on which the system is founded (which 
 must be perused and minutely digested,) and few possess the 
 leisure or the opportunity to personally examine the numerous 
 and widely differing institutions of Europe and America, 
 whence the elements necessary for the solution of this great 
 problem are derived. 
 
 We are not therefore surprised at the existence of the er- 
 roneous opinions entertained and expressed by many who 
 have visited Auburn. That prison, when contrasted with 
 those on the old system, which still continue to disgrace the 
 United States, is comparatively excellent ; and therefore, for 
 very obvious reasons, has been overrated. Some of our read- 
 ers may recollect the glowing descriptions of similar prisons 
 in Holland, by British and other travellers : they contrasted 
 them with those existing in their own countries. Where so 
 much improvement had been effected, their benevolence and 
 enthusiasm led them to suppose that nothing remained undone : 
 hence their descriptions are too frequently exaggerated. A 
 personal examination of the most celebrated of the prisons of 
 the Netherlands strongly impressed us with this opinion.* 
 
 * The same remark will explain the extravagant and undeserved praise, which, 
 for many years, was bestowed on the Walnut street prison ; which, even in its best 
 condition, was far inferior to the prison at Gloucester, in England, and other more 
 recent institutions in Europe. This will be proved in our subsequent account of 
 foreign prisons. (1833.) 
 
2G 
 
 Some of the causes of error which we have previously 
 mentioned, united with an ignorance of our legislation, and of 
 the origin, progress and contemplated alterations, in t\\e prac- 
 tice, of our Penitentiary system, have also produced among 
 some persons, a total misconception respecting the theory of 
 solitary or separate confinement. 
 
 Those errors have been propagated not only by persons 
 whose mere want of information has led them into error, but 
 also, by those, who, however incapacitated by nature or edu- 
 cation, dogmatise on every subject with ignorant assurance, 
 and, reckless of the consequences, presume to instruct our 
 citizens by mischievous publications, replete with prejudice, 
 vehement accusations and misstatements. Repeated refuta- 
 tion and exposure, are not sufficient to repress their restless 
 activity. The efforts however of anonymous or obscure indi- 
 viduals, cannot prevent the continuance, or even arrest the 
 progress and improvement of the great system of Pennsylvania. 
 
 An attempt more dangerous than those which we have 
 described, has been made by three individuals, who were 
 appointed commissioners to revise the Penal Code of this state. 
 A report, in which the abandonment of our system and the 
 adoption of the Dutch or Auburn plan is recommended, has 
 been presented by them to our Legislature, and read in the 
 Senate on the 4th of January, 1827. 
 
 In the 5th page of this report they state that “ pains have 
 been taken to arrive at correct conclusions,” that their errors 
 “ have not been the result of careless or prejudiced examina- 
 tions;” they also mention their “ careful research into facts 
 and experience; a patient examination and comparison of 
 testimony, and an anxious consideration of theories and argu- 
 ments. Impressed with this conviction, we have earnestly 
 sought after information from every quarter of our own coun- 
 try and of Europe; we have, personally examined several of the 
 Penitentiaries in the United States, and we have consulted 
 all the publications, to which we could obtain access” — and 
 their time, they “trust, has not been tuiprofUably employed,” 
 that they “have spared neither labour nor expense ,” (p. 6.) 
 
 “ In order to ascertain how far our opinion and conjectures 
 were supported by facts, we have taken some pains to collect 
 all the information that is extant in point on this subject,” (soli- 
 tary confinement,) “ and to make the necessary inquiries of 
 persons conversant with prison discipline, and shall proceed 
 to lay before the Legislature such testimony as we have ob- 
 tained.” (p. 33.) In numerous parts of the report they refer 
 to their information, derived from books, from “ all the super- 
 intendents with whom they have conversed,” and they men- 
 
27 
 
 tion their own experience. In p. 70, they speak of their 
 minute personal examination of the prison at Auburn — of their 
 inspection of the prisons of New York and Philadelphia, &c. 
 We might multiply quotations of this description in which the 
 Commissioners endeavour to impress the public with a reli- 
 ance on their industry, their zeal, their impartiality, and their 
 knowledge. We shall now endeavour to show that the very 
 reverse of all these characteristics pervades the Report, and 
 renders it a most unsafe guide for public opinion. We shall 
 endeavour to show that their information has been derived 
 from few sources; and that their prejudices have induced 
 them to overlook or disregard the numerous authorities op- 
 posed to their theory; or to quote from a few of them, almost 
 exclusively those detached portions which seemed advanta- 
 geous for their argument; that they have disregarded not 
 merely the text hooks on Penitentiary Discipline, but, what 
 is more extraordinary, have denied, not merely the enforcement , 
 but the very existence of the plain laws in our Statute book l 
 All of the committee have been members of the bar, and two* 
 of them are on the bench ! Their exhibition of seeming impar- 
 tiality consists in quoting almost every authority (however 
 inconsistent, or partial, or destitute of credibility) with appro- 
 bation, if in their favour; and in mistaking, or garbling, or 
 refusing credit to the statements of the numerous intelligent 
 and excellent men who differ from them in opinion. Hence 
 in stating the conflicting arguments, many of the most power- 
 ful, the most obvious, and the most frequently urged by their 
 opponents, have been entirely omitted . Weak positions, which 
 have been long totally abandoned, and many which have 
 never been held by any rational body of men, have been in- 
 dustriously sought and conspicuously paraded with apparent 
 impartiality, only to be triumphantly refuted, and thus to 
 excite a prejudice against the real merits, the impregnable 
 strong holds of the argument. 
 
 Hence all the evils which by any possibility could result 
 from solitary confinement, are stated almost as necessary and 
 inevitable results. The question of probability is disregarded, 
 and the exception , instead of the rule, presented to our atten- 
 tion, as the foundation of our future legislation. 
 
 Had this report been the production of mere legal counsel 
 assailing or defending a cause in which they had been retain- 
 ed, little injury could be the result; but when it is presented 
 as the production of learning, of experience, and of impar- 
 tiality, some examination of its pretensions may be expedient. 
 
 We do not intend to attach the slightest censure to the mo- 
 tives of the Commissioners, unless the prejudices which we have 
 
28 
 
 mentioned may deserve reprobation. We will submit the 
 facts for the decision of our readers. These strictures may 
 appear harsh, but a careful examination of our subsequent 
 statements will establish their justice. 
 
 The report is attributed to one of the Commissioners, (a 
 distinguished member of the Philadelphia bar,) whose talents 
 and character have universally commanded the highest re- 
 spect. The previous productions of his pen have deserved 
 the general commendation which they have received. The 
 present report is the only essay of that gentleman which we 
 have seen without pleasure and perused without benefit. If 
 the numerous avocations of the writer had not deprived him 
 of the leisure requisite for a thorough investigation of his 
 subject, we are confident that the conclusion to which our 
 Commissioners have arrived would be more satisfactory. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 As we do not intend these essays as a mere criticism on the 
 Report of the Commissioners, but as an examination of the 
 question of “ separate confinement,” we will proceed to state 
 some of the usual objections to our system, and when discuss- 
 ing these objections, will have frequent occasion to refer to 
 the Report, under the abbreviated title of Com. Rt. # 
 
 1. We have had no experience of the benefit resulting 
 from solitary confinement in Pennsylvania. 
 
 2. The experiment has been made in Maine, Massachu- 
 setts, New York, New Jersey and Virginia — the result has 
 demonstrated the inefficacy of this punishment, which has 
 consequently been abandoned in several states. 
 
 3. The experience of Europe and the opinions of some of 
 her eminent citizens are adverse to this system. 
 
 4. As a punishment it is unequal, cruel, destructive to 
 health and to habits of industry, and productive of madness. 
 
 5. As a means of reform, it is either inoperative or inferior 
 to other means. 
 
 6. The execution of this system is attended with enormous 
 expense. 
 
 There are numerous other objections, which may perhaps 
 be included as ramifications of some of the preceding divi- 
 sions, and will therefore be examined when we discuss them 
 hereafter. 
 
 * In our extracts we will mark in italics the parts to which we particularly request 
 our readers’ attention. 
 
29 
 
 1. “ We have no experience of the benefit resulting from soli- 
 tary confinement in Pennsylvania .” 
 
 This error has been industriously propagated by some citi- 
 zens of Boston and New York, who are advocates of the 
 Auburn or Dutch plan ; their ignorance is, if not entirely excu- 
 sable, capable of palliation; but we cannot extend our for- 
 bearance to the Pennsylvania commissioners, who, being 
 members of the legal profession, ought not to be ignorant of 
 plain and well known provisions of the acts of the Assembly ; 
 nor as judges of criminal courts to manifest to the world their 
 ignorance of the practice of prison discipline. 
 
 In p. 17, Com. Rt. they state that no “ provision was made, 
 however, for any general system of solitary confinement, nor 
 even for the solitary confinement of any class of criminals, 
 during the period of imprisonment: all that appears to have 
 been contemplated, was solitary confinement, for a greater 
 or less term, according to the sentence of the court, and the 
 subsequent return of the offender to the society and inter- 
 course of the convicts.” 
 
 In order to maintain this strange and novel allegation, cer- 
 tain detached portions of the laws of 1790-4-5, are quoted. Our 
 readers may perhaps recollect the similar process by which 
 a fanatic discovered a scriptural warrant for suicide, viz: 
 
 “ and Judas went out and hanged himself,” — “ go thou and do 
 likewise.” A similar mode of interpretation has been applied 
 to our statutes by the commissioners ; several of the most im- 
 portant phrases, and the preamble expressly declaratory of the 
 benefits of solitary confinement, have been omitted by them, in 
 their statement of the acts of the Assembly on this subject. 
 We refer our readers for unanswerable proof of our assertions 
 to the statute books, or to the extracts taken verbatim from 
 them, which were published in our last number. 
 
 Again, in p. 17, Cdm. Rt. “ the size of the cells which the 
 act of 1790 required to be constructed, seems to negative the 
 idea of their being intended for the separate confinement of 
 individuals had the Commissioners read all the sections of 
 the Act in question, this mistake could not have been com- 
 mitted — the intention of the legislature is not a matter of 
 inference, it is distinctly, repeatedly and unequivocally stated 
 to be the infliction of solitary confinement in these cells. 
 Again, in p. 17, Com. Rt. “the cells in the Auburn prison are 
 only 7 feet long, 7 high, and 3^ wide ; and are sufficiently 
 capacious for the intended purpose.” The area of the cells 
 at Philadelphia, according to the directions of the Act, was 
 to be more than twice this size. If the cells in “Auburn pri- 
 son, in which place the experiment of solitary confinement 
 
 4 
 
30 
 
 was fully tried,” as the Commissioners have elsewhere men- 
 tioned, were sufficiently large, by what species of reasoning 
 do they arrive at the inconsistent conclusion, that the size 
 of the cells in Philadelphia “ negatives the idea of their being 
 intended for the separate confinement of individuals'?” In page 
 15, Com. Rt. they quote from a memorial of the Inspectors to 
 the Legislature (1820, Senate Journal, p. 335) testimony re- 
 specting the excellence of the Philadelphia prison, “at a pe- 
 riod when solitary confinement was not spoken of, except to 
 enforce the prison discipline” — as the Commissioners state, p. 
 15, Rt. They omit to quote that “ very many” of these “be- 
 neficial results flowed from the system” of solitary confine- 
 ment, recommended in this memorial. If our readers will pe- 
 ruse the authorities quoted, or those to which we referred 
 in our last number, they will be convinced, beyond the pos- 
 sibility of doubt, not only that solitary confinement was au- 
 thorized by law, for the whole “ period of imprisonment ” of 
 some convicts, but that it was enforced in practice, to an ex- 
 tent limited only by the number of cells. Mr. Vaux states 
 (in his “ Reply to two letters of William Roscoe, Esq.” p. 7,) 
 that frequently convicts on their admission, have been con- 
 ducted to their solitary cells, and remained there until their dis- 
 charge from prison. Similar statements have been repeatedly 
 made by the inspectors and members of the Prison Society — 
 not only respecting the existence of this entire and continual 
 separation, but also respecting the benefit which has resulted 
 from it. We could fill these columns with extracts corrobo- 
 rating our statement. 
 
 The benevolent Lowndes, in his account of this prison, 
 February, 1793, gives the following testimony respecting the 
 effect of solitary confinement in that institution. Out of nearly 
 two hundred persons who at different times have been re- 
 commended to, and pardoned by the governor, only four have 
 returned,” or been recommitted to this, or as is believed, to 
 any other prison ; — the punishment inflicted in these cases 
 was solitary imprisonment, on their re-committal. 
 
 Such has been our legislation, (and practice also, until the 
 crowded state of the Walnut Street prison impeded the full 
 operation of the laws.) The experiment has been sufficiently 
 tried, to convince the great majority of our reflecting citi- 
 zens — the inspectors and commissioners of our prisons — and 
 the benevolent and experienced members of the Society, 
 which we have frequently named, (which has anxiously and 
 unremittingly watched over the system from its birth, about 
 forty years since, to the present hour,) that the principles of 
 sound inductive philosophy urge us to proceed in continuing 
 
31 
 
 the experiment under circumstances far more favourable to 
 success than have previously existed. 
 
 In our next number we will enquire the result of the ex- 
 perience of other states, which our readers will recollect was 
 the second division of our subject. We will expose errors on 
 this subject in the report of the Commissioners, &c. equally 
 monstrous and more dangerous than those which we have 
 examined. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 We proceed to notice the second objection which was men- 
 tioned in our former number, viz : “ The experiment of soli- 
 tary confinement has been tried in Maine, New York, Mas- 
 sachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia ; the result has demon- 
 strated the inefficacy of this means of punishment, which 
 has been consequently abandoned in several states.” 
 
 In our last number we proved that solitary confinement 
 had been tried with success in Pennsylvania — a success limit- 
 ed only by the extent of the requisite accommodations in the 
 prison ; and that increased and perfect confidence in its effi- 
 cacy continued to be entertained by those who were conver- 
 sant with the operations of the system. 
 
 We will now endeavor to prove that the experiment 
 has not been fairly tried in the several states, which we have 
 mentioned in the first paragraph of this number ; that the 
 species of confinement was totally different from that contem- 
 plated in this state. 
 
 We sincerely regret that our duty now compels us to de- 
 scribe experiments characterized by a diabolical cruelty and 
 inconsiderate folly ; we blush for the character of our coun- 
 try, which permitted, even for a moment, the perpetration of 
 such revolting outrages upon humanity, religion, and common 
 sense, as the experiments which have been made in some of 
 the states above mentioned — experiments not to test the 
 efficacy of a proper system of solitary confinement — but to 
 ascertain how much physical and moral torture could be in- 
 flicted without necessity and endured without benefit. 
 
 “ In Virginia, the system of solitary imprisonment, without 
 labour, has had a full trial;” Com. Rt. p. 47. An appalling 
 account of the diseases of the mind and body, produced by 
 such incarceration, is triumphantly stated by our Commission- 
 ers ; they have, however, neglected to notice the facts which 
 viere in their possession, clearly explaining the undoubted causes 
 
of these diseases. They have repeatedly quoted from the 
 second annual report of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, 
 whenever the evidence or opinions were in their favour: we 
 will therefore cross examine their witness. In page 134 of 
 that report, it is stated that the “ diseases most prevalent are 
 dropsy and consumption of the lungs, terminating in death, 
 generally during the winter. The spring, summer and autumn 
 are generally healthy,” as stated in a letter from the superin- 
 tendent of this penitentiary. In page 133, is the following 
 description of the living sepulchres in which a lingering 
 death is inflicted — in which the “ full trial of our system” is 
 made ! “ The solitary cells are arranged in the basement 
 
 story; and the side of the passage leading to them towards 
 the interior yard, consists of a solid brick wall. In entering 
 the solitary cells through this passage from the yard, it is 
 necessary to use a candle or torch. In the cells arranged on 
 the side of this dark passage, the convicts who are generally 
 condemned for the first six months to solitary confinement, 
 generally receive this part of their punishment. It is very 
 severe, for the cells are dark and damp and cheerless. A 
 small sash, placed above the prisoner’s head admits a faint 
 light ; the water stands in drops on the walls in damp weather , 
 and no provision is made for warming the cells at any season of 
 the year. The instance has occurred in which a prisoner’s feet 
 were frozen while enduring his term of solitary confinement 
 in one of these cells. There are some of the cells in this pri- 
 son designed for solitary confinement, which have no window 
 or orifice for the admission of light, and the only ventilation is a 
 small orifice in the door opening into the dark passage. The su- 
 perintendent, Samuel O. Parsons, says in a letter concerning 
 the effect of solitary confinement in the first class of cells, 
 which are far le§s dismal than the last — I consider it under 
 the present laws, imminently dangerous to the health, and of 
 course to the life, of some of the convicts. There are some 
 whose constitutions are not injured, but they are compara- 
 tively few in number.” In page 137, it is stated that “the 
 instruction is almost nothing. No provision is made either by 
 the state or by benevolent individuals, for even one religious 
 instruction on a Sabbath, and sometimes months together have 
 elapsed without a religious service of any kind.” 
 
 Such is the admirable apparatus with which our Commis- 
 sioners state that “ a full trial” of the great experiment of 
 solitary confinement has been made in Virginia. When such 
 have been the excellent means of promoting the comfort and 
 instruction, and consequently the health and reformation of 
 the inmates of this penitentiary, our Commissioners judicious- 
 
33 
 
 ly infer that “ they sufficiently, we think, sustain our propo- 
 sition that the system of solitary confinement without labour 
 is likely to produce either bodily or mental infirmity in its 
 subjects.” Com. Rt. p. 48. This general conclusion is how- 
 ever, not founded exclusively on the results of this prison. We 
 shall presently examine the remaining cases relied on for the 
 support of their position, and we will prove them to be equal- 
 ly inapplicable ; in the mean time we will observe, that, not- 
 withstanding the unfavourable condition of this prison, the su- 
 perintendent, (whom our Commissioners justly style “the 
 intelligent superintendent”) gives the following evidence in our 
 favour; “ there is perhaps no punishment that can be devised, 
 better calculated to keep vice in check, than solitary con- 
 finement.” Com. Rt. p. 48. He also states, that close and 
 uninterrupted confinement without employment will be injuri- 
 ous to the health of the majority of convicts. “To con- 
 fine for limited periods, and then associate them together, 
 will destroy all the moral effect the confinement has had on 
 their conduct — to confine separately and to work at the same 
 time, (by which the health is preserved) is perhaps the best 
 plan,” &c.: he thinks that such labour would be unprofitable, 
 but in this case does not speak from experience. 
 
 We regret to state that this penitentiary so long continued 
 to be tolerated in a Christian land. The old dungeons of 
 the Inquisition in Rome, presented to our view when we visit- 
 ed them, rooms more commodious than the dismal cells in 
 Richmond. 
 
 The experiment of solitary confinement without labour, has 
 been tried without success in Maine, according to our Com- 
 missioners. Com. Rt. p. 43. Had they in this case also, 
 stated the evidence which was in their possession, respecting 
 the circumstances attending the trial of the experiment, it 
 would not now be necessary for us to quote again from the 
 Boston Report, p. 81, the “ cells are pits, entered from the 
 top, with a small ladder, through an orifice about two feet 
 square ; the ladder is removed when the convicts are in the 
 cells. The orifice is secured with an iron grate used as a trap 
 door. The only other orifice in the cells are. one in the bot- 
 tom, about one and a half inches in diameter, to admit warm 
 air from underneath, which is heated by a furnace ; and an- 
 other in the side of the cell about one and a half by eight 
 inc hes. This orifice has an angle in the wall to prevent the 
 convict from seeing any person without. The cells are eight 
 feet nine inches long, four feet and six inches wide, and nine 
 feet eight inches high;” a wooden shed covers the whole, p. 
 84.. “ Many of the convicts sent to the state prison were, 
 
34 
 
 at the time of their arrival there, afflicted with diseases , and 
 some with incurable diseases .” Our readers will not there- 
 fore be surprised to learn in consequence of the small size, 
 the filth, want of ventilation, and oppressive heat in the 
 summer, of these c ells, combined with a total seclusion from 
 society, and a deprivation of all exercise or labour, that the 
 health of the “ incurables” was no t promoted — and that many 
 additional diseases were the result. 
 
 The means adopted to produce reformation, harmonized ad- 
 mirably with the system for ensuring health. No religious 
 services were performed, no lessons of instruction administer- 
 ed, no measures of kindness, benevolence or expostulation, at- 
 tempted ; the prisoner, tortured by suffering, either sunk un- 
 der his misery or, b rooding over his wrongs, meditated on his 
 revenge when released ; in which resolution some were un- 
 doubtedly confirme d by the conversation they were enabled to 
 maintain with their friends without the prison, by means of the 
 small lateral apertures in the cells, which we have previous- 
 ly described. 
 
 Hence the Legislature of Maine, failing in an experiment, 
 (in which absurdity and inhumanity were the only essential 
 elements) — deemedl it expedient, not to correct their blunders, 
 but to abolish the : system — nevertheless, solitary confinement 
 is still resorted to, as a means of enforcing the discipline of that 
 penitentiary. The parsimony of that state deserves unquali- 
 fied reprobation. They have after pretending to try solitary 
 confinement, retrograded in improvement, and returned to the 
 old corrupt, demoralizing system in which a prison is regard- 
 ed as a mere factory, in which the operatives are felons, of all 
 descriptions, herded together without classification or the hope 
 of reformation. We shall hereafter endeavour to prove that 
 this avaricious, parsimonious policy is the reverse of real econ- 
 omy, that it occasions an extravagant ultimate expenditure 
 immeasurably exceeding the paltry nominal reimbursement 
 received from the convicts. 
 
 The experiment tried at Auburn, in New York, is the next 
 instance relied on by our opponents. (Com. Rt. p. 44 to 47.) 
 How “ fully” it was tried will appear from the following facts. 
 A selection of “ the oldest and most heinous offenders” in the 
 Auburn prison was directed to be made by an act of the Le- 
 gislature of that state, passed April 2d, 1821. Mr. Powers, 
 the superintendent, states, “ that in forming the class, on 
 whom the experiment was to be made, the worst men were 
 selected.” The cells in which they were immured are thus 
 described in the Boston report (to which we have previously 
 referred.) p. 111. “The cells are seven feet long, seven feet 
 
35 
 
 high, and three and a half feet wide. The only opening from 
 the cell, except the ventilator, is the door, in the upper end of 
 which is an iron grate, about 18 by 20 inches,” “through this 
 grate all the light, heat and air are admitted to the cells. The 
 ventilator, which is about three inches in diameter, extends 
 from the back of the cell to the roof of the building.” 
 
 In the 03d p. Com. Rt. we observe the following remark in 
 relation to the purity of the air: “ a current of air is created 
 running from the warm halls through the cells and ventila- 
 tors, which brings into the cells a constant succession of fresh 
 air, and carries off the effluvia generated in each.” Any per- 
 son conversant with physics will perceive that no adequate 
 ventilation can be effected by the clumsy arrangement above 
 described, a partial stagnation of the air in that part of the 
 cell, below the apology for a ventilator, which is in the upper 
 part of the door, must inevitably occur. The effluvia con- 
 stantly generated from obvious causes in these narrow cells, 
 are increased by the exhalations from certain indispensable 
 pieces of furniture, which are placed there to prevent the 
 necessity of egress from the apartment. 
 
 These cells at present (as solitary confinement during the 
 day has been abandoned) are daily aired, (the doors being 
 opened during the day for that purpose) and frequently 
 cleansed. Nevertheless, when the prisoners leave them in 
 the morning, the maV aria is intolerably noisome and disgust- 
 ing. This fact is not only in accordance with probability, 
 but it has been ascertained and stated by a benevolent phi- 
 lanthropist of this city, whose means of information were de- 
 rived from repeated visits to the Auburn prison. As we shall 
 have occasion to refer to his evidence hereafter, on other 
 subjects, we will remark, that few, if any, persons in this 
 country have paid more attention to the subject of prison dis- 
 cipline than our fellow citizen, Samuel R. Wood, whose 
 active benevolence and well regulated zeal has induced him 
 to visit and closely investigate the condition of numerous prisons 
 in Europe and in the United States. His general informa- 
 tion, his extensive experience, his discrimination and his can- 
 dour, render his evidence peculiarly valuable. We fear that 
 even this passing allusion to his character by one of his 
 friends, may offend the delicacy of a gentleman whose merit 
 is only surpassed by his modesty. 
 
 Mr. Wood and Thomas Bradford, jr. each of them inspect- 
 ors of our Penitentiary, visited Auburn at different periods, 
 in the year 1827, for the express purpose of thoroughly exam- 
 ining that institution ; they were occupied an aggregate length 
 of time, amounting to six days, (or three days each,) within 
 
36 
 
 the prison ; twice as many days as our Commissiojiers spent hours ! 
 Auburn had never before been subjected to such severe scru- 
 tiny and exposure ; it was now inspected by men on whom 
 deception could not be practiced; men whom a transient 
 glance, a bird’s eye view, would not satisfy. Every part of 
 the building was carefully inspected. The prisoners were 
 subjected to a minute cross examination ; separated from their 
 jailers and fellow cofivicts ; their answers were recorded and 
 compared, not only with other testimony of convicts, but with 
 circumstantial evidence. The result has been a complete 
 demonstration that the boasted system of Auburn has been 
 a failure, unequivocal and irreparable; that it has been in- 
 debted for its exaggerated reputation to the causes which we 
 mentioned in our last number ; that verbal and other communi- 
 cations exist among the convicts, ( notwithstanding all the assu- 
 rances to the contrary ) not only at ?iight when in the cells, but 
 during the day when they are together in the workshops, thus 
 completely overthrowing the whole foundation on which this decep- 
 tive system has been built. 
 
 We shall hereafter furnish unquestionable proofs of the ac- 
 curacy of this assertion, when we examine the details of this 
 institution ; in the mean time we will resume our account of 
 the cells at Auburn, in which the experiment of solitary con- 
 finement was “ fully ” tried. We have stated their contracted 
 dimensions, their vitiated atmosphere, their darkness, the faci- 
 lities they afford for conversation, &c. In these dens, a selec- 
 tion of “ the worst, most hardened, heinous and incorrigible 
 offenders” were buried alive and tortured with a refinement 
 of cruelty without a parallel in this country ; as exercise in 
 the open air was not permitted, the convicts were compelled 
 to remain standing or moving on their feet in their narrow 
 cells during the day. This new species of gymnastics was 
 designed by the Auburn philosophers as an effectual substi- 
 tute for wholesome exercise in the open air! We find the 
 same admirable consistency in the theories and practice of 
 the Auburn school, an equal impartial regard for the welfare 
 of the souls, minds and bodies of the patients submitted to their 
 custody. No literary instruction whatever was imparted ; 
 the kind accents of mercy were never heard ; the mild tones 
 of persuasion, the language of earnest expostulation, were 
 superseded by the more summary and more congenial mea- 
 sures of brutal violence. We are not therefore surprised that 
 the perpetrators of these enormous outrages, these cool expe- 
 rimenters on the capabilities of human nature to endure ex- 
 cruciating, lingering suffering, deemed religious instruction 
 not only unnecessary but pernicious ! They ignorantly, pre- 
 
37 
 
 sumptuously, impiously deemed, that the regenerating influ- 
 ence of religion was powerless within the walls of the purga- 
 tory which they had instituted; that a class of men existed in 
 whom hope and fear were alike extinct ; to whom the threats 
 of punishment or the hope of mercy ought not to be extend- 
 ed ; and that such offenders whom the Almighty in his wisdom 
 and his mercy still permitted to enjoy a period of further pro- 
 bation, were so incorrigible that every attempt should be 
 made to prevent the possibility of their accepting the gracious 
 offers of Providence. 
 
 We are not therefore surprised that solitary confinement 
 did not succeed under the administration of those who had 
 not only took effectual measures to prevent its occurrence, 
 but doubted its possibility or existence.* Even recently, after 
 the abandonment of part of the Auburn system, we find the 
 following admission, made by one of its advocates, Gershom 
 Powers,, (the superintendent) in his “Brief Notices,” &c. 
 “ Th e views of the institution, until lately, had been unfavour- 
 able to the services of a resident chaplain, from the belief that 
 they might have had a bad effect upon the discipline of the 
 prison ! in other words, that religion and the Auburn system 
 were incompatible. Verily, the “ location ” of the Theological 
 Seminary in Auburn has been judicious; and we rejoice to 
 hear that religion has at last forced its way through the hith- 
 erto impenetrable barriers of this horrid Penitentiary. The 
 theological students of the village have, in their frequent 
 visits of mercy, proved that reformation is not hopeless, not- 
 withstanding the many adverse circumstances which still re- 
 tard its progress. 
 
 Solitary confinement could not produce reformation when 
 tried in the manner we have described, and it could not fail 
 to produce the most disastrous effects on the health of the 
 convicts; nevertheless we find the following important evi- 
 dence, that even under these circumstances, occasional exercise 
 m the open air restored to health those who were injured by 
 confinement : Com. Rt. p. 45.-Extract from Report of the 
 Inspectors of . the Auburn Penitentiary : “ Some of the con- 
 victs would sink under this mode of punishment, unless they 
 were permitted to go into the yard for a few weeks, when 
 fresh air and light labour invigorates their constitutions, and 
 generally restores them to health This measure is to be 
 adopted not occasionally as a means of cure, but constantly as a 
 means of prevention, in our Penitentiary at Philadelphia. It 
 
 See Lynd s letter to Mr. Livingston. Also, Mr. Livingston’s letter to Mr Vmv 
 
 5 
 
38 
 
 is not a matter of astonishment that the Legislature of New 
 York abolished this system of solitary confinement ; we are 
 only surprised that any persons still desire its continuance. 
 
 In New Jersey it is stated that the experiment has also 
 failed. It has never been tried. Although the convicts are 
 in separate cells, yet several of them can converse as freely 
 as if they were in the same cell, and therefoie, to use the 
 language of the report of the prison discipline Society of 
 Boston,° “it is to be regarded as no farther an experiment on 
 solitary confinement, day and night, than as keeping the men 
 from seeing or coming in contact with each other, but not 
 from evil communication and corrupt society.” p. 16. Letter 
 of the President, &c. of the Penitentiary Commissioners to the 
 Senate of Pennsylvania, 1828. In the 17th page of the same 
 document, is the following evidence: “according to the testi- 
 mony of the keeper of the New Jersey prison, there have not 
 been any recommitments of those who have suffered solitary 
 confinement; and the cells have not proved permanently in- 
 jurious to health or reason.” The system has been practiced 
 for four years ; but the want of exercise in the open air, the 
 intercourse among the convicts, and the absence of instruc- 
 tion, render it in a great measure inoperative as a means of 
 
 16 W^have now briefly mentioned the circumstances which 
 rendered the experiments in New York, Maine and Massa- 
 chusetts nugatory, and which also materially detracted from 
 the success of the trial in New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsyl- 
 vania We do not therefore believe that “ the boasted expe- 
 riment of solitary confinement has been repeatedly tried 
 without success in the United States, where it has been uni- 
 versally abandoned;” on the contrary, we have proved that 
 it is still in force in several of the states, and that success has 
 attended its operation exactly in proportion to the accuracy of 
 its administration. We shall hereafter advert to the details 
 of our practice in this country, when we have occasion tc • dis- 
 cuss the expediency of our system. Our remarks have hith- 
 erto been necessarily more of an historical than of an argu- 
 mentative character. In the next number we propose to ex- 
 amine the experiments which have been made in Europe. 
 
39 
 
 No. V. 
 
 In our last number we examined the effects of solitary- 
 confinement in Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylva- 
 nia and Virginia. We stated the adverse circumstances 
 which precluded the possibility of success in Maine and New 
 York, and the partial success which attended the experi- 
 ments in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia, notwith 
 standing the imperfect manner in which they were tried. 
 
 As we shall have occasion hereafter to revert to the ex- 
 amination of the practical operation of solitary confinement 
 in the United States, when we shall discuss the humanity, 
 effect, and expense of this means of punishment and reforma- 
 tion, we proceed at present to inquire whether the third 
 objection to our theory possesses any foundation, viz : “ The 
 experience of Europe and the opinions of some of her eminent 
 citizens are adverse to this system.” 
 
 Our Commissioners state (Com. Rt. p. 33,) that they have 
 endeavoured “ to collect all the information that is extant in 
 point upon this subject;” they refer specially to “a volumi- 
 nous report, which we (they) have procured from England, 
 in support of their position. 
 
 We also fortunately possess a copy of this “Report of the 
 Select Committee on the state of jails, &c.” made to the 
 British Parliament, 12th July, 1819; a valuable document, 
 replete with the strongest evidence in favour of solitary con- 
 finement ; almost every sentence of this description appears to 
 have been invisible to the Commissioners, notwithstanding 
 their intention to submit to the Legislature all the evidence 
 in their possession ; an intention expressed in the very page 
 where a few garbled or detached extracts only are furnish- 
 ed — (extracts which by mutilation, omission, altered juxta 
 position, and forced and partial construction, may perhaps 
 produce the erroneous supposition that little or no evidence 
 in favour of, and much opposed to solitary confinement are 
 contained in that report.) Our Commissioners may perhaps 
 plead in extenuation that confinement without labour, form- 
 ing the subject of that portion of their report now under 
 consideration, much evidence in favour of the system accom- 
 panied by labour was necessarily omitted ; even in this case 
 many of our previous remarks would still be applicable : but 
 as in the subsequent part of the Com. Rt. professing to discuss 
 this plan, similar omissions occur, we deem it our duty to 
 contrast the original evidence with the version of it contain- 
 ed in the Report of our Commissioners. 
 
40 
 
 The first witness adduced in the Com. Rt. p. 33, is John Or- 
 ridge, the governor of Bury jail ; he is represented as stating 
 “ that solitary confinement operates in different ways ; on an 
 idle, sluggish mind it has no effect, on men of an active mind 
 it operates very differently.” In answer to an inquiry 
 ■whether it would be prudent to continue a system of solitary 
 confinement without employment, for a length of time, he 
 replied “ no, I should not, for after a certain period, I think 
 it becomes familiar, and has not the same effect ; but for 7, 
 14, or 21 days, I think it has a good effect.” This is all the 
 evidence extracted by our Commissioners, from this, their 
 most prominent witness ; (who is likewise an advocate for 
 occasional scourging;) we will cross examine him : his testi- 
 mony is contained in “ the minutes of evidence taken be- 
 fore the Select Committee on Jails, &c.” p. 322 to 334 
 inclusive, (this document will hereafter be frequently quoted 
 under the abbreviated title of Min. of Evid.) He is evidently 
 a coarse and uneducated man ; we are not surprised to find 
 his evidence contradictory. In page 335, he states that if 
 the prisoners were employed and inspected, there would be 
 no objection to their congregating ; nevertheless, in the same 
 page, that they ought to “ work in separate rooms he pre- 
 viously stated the importance of separate dormitories: he 
 also states that if not more than eleven convicts be employ- 
 ed together in one room “ no mischief will arise from their in- 
 tercourse, if left to themselves, without any inspection whatever, for 
 a part of the time.” The value of his opinion and his know- 
 ledge of prison discipline may be estimated from this single 
 sentence. Nevertheless the evidence of even this blundering 
 witness does not support the views of our Commissioners un- 
 less it be mutilated. We will continue his crossjexamination. P. 
 325, the “ major part of our convicts are labourers in husband- 
 ry, and therefore, the great difficulty is in procuring work for 
 them within the walls hence a resort to the tread-mill was 
 necessary; he had, therefore, no employment for those in soli- 
 tude, p. 330 ; no solitary cells, properly so called, exist in his 
 prison ; they would be extremely useful.” He further states 
 that solitary confinement, when inflicted for short periods of 
 time, is more efficacious when labour is not permitted ; that 
 all criminals, sentenced for a very short period, should be 
 thus treated ; that too much means of separation cannot be 
 enforced, if the prisoners be unemployed ; and finally, that 
 he had no experience in any other prison, &c. 
 
 The only comment we deem necessary is, that he approves 
 of solitary confinement without labour, whenever the term of 
 imprisonment is very limited; in this opinion he was confirmed 
 
41 
 
 by his experience ; he supposes, only, that if it be continu- 
 ed for a long time without employment it will be of little effica- 
 cy. We may remark that this opinion is a mere hypothesis 
 of this ignorant man, who is destitute of experience derived 
 from other jails, by his own confession; and equally destitute 
 of experience respecting the effect of long continued solitary 
 confinement, in his own prison, in consequence of its incom- 
 plete structure, and the consequent neglect of the provisions 
 of the act of Parliament, commonly called the jail act. (The 
 Penitentiary provisions of the 19 Geo. III. cap. 74, &c. have 
 not been fully adopted at Bury.) 
 
 The next testimony submitted in the Commissioners’ Re- 
 port, p. 33, is that of “ Mr. William Bridle, governor of the 
 jail at Ilchester for eleven years; having been asked^ wheth- 
 er a short period of solitary confinement was not sufficient to 
 subdue the* most refractory prisoners, replied, “it may in ma- 
 ny cases, but I think if a short period of solitude will not be 
 sufficient, a longer one will not. I think after a certain time, 
 a person in solitude gets hardened, he gets callous, and does 
 not care what becomes of him ;” he added, “ that he spoke 
 of solitary confinement without labour .” He added something 
 which the Commissioners have omitted, viz : that the only 
 species of solitary confinement, in which he had any experi- 
 ence, had a good effect in making the most refractory prison- 
 ers orderly, (p. 353, Min. of Evid.) but that he had only three 
 cells for solitary confinement in his prison, (p. 344 idem) and 
 that no such imprisonment beyond 14 or 21 days had been tried 
 by him ; (idem) consequently his testimony so far as it is sup- 
 ported by his experience, is in our favour. 
 
 The next witness relied on by our Commissioners is “ Tho- 
 mas Brutton, governor of the jail at Devizes,” whom they 
 assure us testifies “ that solitary confinement had rather an 
 ill effect upon the spirits and disposition of the prisoners ; 
 and being asked in what respect, he answered “ dulness and 
 constant heaviness; the prisoners have appeared dull and 
 heavy in consequence of their solitary confinement.” This 
 is all the testimony which they extract from this witness; 
 although our Commissioners promise to revert to his addi- 
 tional evidence, we do not discover that they have remem- 
 bered their promises ; we will therefore endeavour to assist 
 them with a few more extracts. He (T. Brutton) states ex- 
 pressly, in the sentence immediately following the Commis- 
 sioners extract, that the dulness and effect on the spirits were 
 produced by the privation of various comforts which the 
 prisoners could not purchase : as no part of their earnings 
 were allowed to them; and subsequently that if this arrange- 
 
42 
 
 ment were changed, he had no doubt they would be 
 more cheerful ; that even at present they “ were not sulky 
 in any instances,” that they were all disposed to work, that in 
 no instance had it produced despondency ; that the system 
 ought not to he changed,* (p. 356, Min. of Evid.) that he 
 had not had a sick man in the prison in consequence of it, 
 that all his prisoners, including those in solitude, “ are particu- 
 larly healthy,” (p. 357 idem) that some of the prisoners con- 
 fined in solitude had been thus imprisoned for a year, and 
 some were sentenced for two years ; separate exercise, for 
 half an hour each day, was allowed ; that all but two, were 
 employed in various trades ; “in weaving, knitting stockings, 
 making gloves, shoes, baskets and hats, &c.” that the greater 
 part had learned these trades in the 'prison, of which some had 
 no knowledge whatever on their entrance; that they were com- 
 petent to maintain themselves when they left it; “that the con- 
 duct of these prisoners in solitary confinement has been very 
 good, and that they have continued the same line of conduct 
 afterwards, ’’when released, and associating with other classes; 
 that the effect on the prisoners was “a disposition to attend 
 to religious instruction, and to learn to read, write and work,” 
 three excellent accomplishments acquired in this “dull” school. 
 As we shall again call this witness when we examine the 
 details of our system, we omit for the present other extracts 
 of the same tenor. 
 
 Our Commissioners summon but one more witness before 
 they close their European testimony on this subject, with the 
 assurance that the additional evidence in their possession is 
 “ to the same effect!” This last witness has not been silenced 
 even by them. Sir George O. Paul, the friend, the assistant 
 of Howard, (second only to him in fame, superior even to him 
 in experience on this subject,) he not only earnestly, eloquently, 
 effectually expounded their joint theories, but, after encoun- 
 tering incessant and powerful opposition from the prejudice, 
 ignorance, callousness and parsimony of those who were in 
 power, triumphantly reduced them to practice. The cele- 
 brated Penitentiary at Gloucester is indebted chiejly to him 
 for its existence. Howard, Sir William Blackstone and Eden 
 were his co-labourers in rearing this noble institution ; this 
 impregnable strong hold, where the advocates of our theory 
 may resort for encouragement, and relying on the infallible 
 demonstration resulting from extensive experience of the ad- 
 vantages of solitary confinement exhibited within its walls, 
 may successfully defend their important position. Here the 
 experiment of solitary confinement, on a large scale, was first 
 
 * Prisons are intended not for places of merriment but of solemn reflection. 
 
43 
 
 tried with all the essential requisites for general success. The 
 building was constructed for the express purpose of testing 
 the truth of our theory ; all the prisoners were confined, day 
 and night, separately, from the hour of their admission to 
 their departure ; religious and other instruction being fre- 
 quently administered ; exercise in the open air daily perform- 
 ed, and solitude, without employment, for short periods; and 
 with work for long periods of confinement, (for years in suc- 
 cession) enforced. The result has surpassed the most san- 
 guine expectations of its founders. All these assertions we 
 shall subsequently prove by the most irrefragable evidence. 
 
 Such is the great pattern which is proposed for our imita- 
 tion in Pennsylvania ; a pattern susceptible of some few im- 
 provements which will perfect its excellence. Paul was per- 
 mitted to enter that promised land which his friend Howard 
 beheld at a distance; he lived to enjoy the realization of their 
 mutual visions of hope; to witness the fulfilment of their once 
 derided predictions; to demonstrate the soundness of their 
 theories by successful experiment. He outlived the calumny 
 and the ridicule of his opponents, and bequeathing to us his 
 invaluable legacy, has gone down to the grave esteemed and 
 honoured by nations ; deplored by those whose miseries he 
 had alleviated, whose ignorance he had instructed, and whose 
 crimes he punished, at once in wisdom and in mercy, teach- 
 ing them that “the way of the transgressor is hard;” that the 
 paths of virtue are the paths of happiness. 
 
 How have our Commissioners disposed of the evidence of 
 this great apostle of our doctrines? Evidence in our favour, 
 as clear, complete and powerful as the language of man 
 could express; their partial extract might almost arouse him 
 from his grave ; they have actually represented this well 
 known advocate of solitary confinement as a sceptic, respect- 
 ing its extensive efficacy! One short paragraph contains all 
 they deemed necessary to quote from the unanswerable and 
 comprehensive testimony of this candid and experienced phi- 
 lanthropist, viz : (Com. Rt. p. 33. ) “ Sir G. O. Paul, an acting 
 magistrate of the county of Gloucester for seventeen years, 
 expressed an opinion that solitude with occupation or employ- 
 ment, would reform the most hardened criminal, hut he admit- 
 ted that the effect of solitude depends on the character of the pa- 
 tient; and generally, he thought, solitude ought not to be 
 continued more than a month without some occupation of 
 mind or body.” Our Commissioners in their report frequently 
 represent that solitude will be inoperative on a large class of 
 men, on account of their constitutional dispositions, &c. the 
 forced and unnatural juxta position of these separate sen- 
 
44 
 
 fences would therefore appear by inuendo to confirm their 
 statements ; they have entirely omitted the explanatory sen- 
 tences of Paul, who advocated labour and study in solitude in 
 the majority of cases; (except such solitude were of short du- 
 ration, when labour might be omitted ;) but he urged the ne- 
 cessity of “ attention to ” the varying “ effects ” of this discipline on 
 offenders of different dispositions; that “special cases” might, 
 for these reasons, require a deprivation of labour to ensure 
 reformation; but such cases were exceptions to the general 
 discipline. This theory is precisely the same as that advo- 
 cated by us. Sir George 0. Paul cannot by any, even the most 
 forced construction, be represented as questioning the positive 
 and universal efficacy of solitary confinement. He states that 
 its comparative efficacy, when inflicted for a short period of 
 time only, will depend on “ attention to its effects,” which 
 may require the permission or refusal of labour “ in special 
 cases.” (Min. of Evid. p. 401 to 406 inclusive.) 
 
 We believe that the following additional evidence of Sir 
 George O. Paul (which the Commissioners have omitted) is 
 too important to withhold from our readers : “ Labour was 
 
 not administered as a punishment, but for the purpose of 
 “preventing solitude from pressing too severely on the mind, 
 by accustoming prisoners to find relief and gratification in em- 
 ployment; and thus to dispose them to habits of industry; and 
 finally, by providing a variety of useful trades, and adapting 
 them to the respective dispositions of prisoners to enable them 
 to maintain themselves on their return to society;” many 
 “ learned trades,” and after their discharge “ obtained a live- 
 lihood by honest industry;” “all of them worked alone, so 
 long as there were separate cells for the purpose,” “ in a 
 great variety of works of simple manufacture,” such as stock- 
 ing weaving, &c.; the health of the prisoners was promoted 
 by exercise, separately; they were orderly, obedient to the dis- 
 cipline, and resigned to their situation ; “the chaplain very fre- 
 quently attended and talked with the prisoners in their cells;” 
 “ their moral character was in general greatly improved by 
 the discipline of this prison ; few, if any of them, returned 
 
 TO A SECOND PUNISHMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF MY ATTENTION, 
 
 (17 years.) The plan succeeded in its early effects beyond 
 the theory imagined by the original projectors of the system ; 
 far indeed beyond my most sanguine hopes.” (The numbers 
 sent to this school of reform produced at length the same ef- 
 fect which a similar cause produced at Philadelphia.) He 
 continues, “I have observed a change which has followed, of 
 numbers increased beyond the accommodation, which is indis- 
 pensable to reformatory discipline ; in fact, a large proportion 
 
45 
 
 of the prisoners now confined ( 1819 ) cannot be so kept as to 
 work alone. In the seventeen years, beginning from 1793 to the 
 year 1809 , there were only 517 prisoners committed to this 
 prison. I observe that there have been committed to it 
 1247 within the last ten years.” “ That the consequence of 
 this increased number has been to diminish the good effect of 
 the system,” although the prison was still quiet and its inmates 
 apparently submissive to order. A valuable table of the com- 
 mitments and recommitments in each year, under the impair- 
 ed or associated system, is given by him: prior to this period, 
 few, or no recommitments occurred; we earnestly request our 
 readers to observe the exact accordance of the result in Glou- 
 cester and in Philadelphia, (given in our first number.) In 
 five years the number sent amounted to 319 ; the consequence 
 was, that only a portion were in solitary confinement ; the 
 remainder (notwithstanding all the precautions of classifica- 
 tion, &c.) corrupted each other, and 15 of them were recom- 
 mitted ; in the next five years 664 were committed ; and not 
 less than 50 of them were recommitted after their discharge ! 
 We shall hereafter revert to theevidence ofSirGeorge O. Paul. 
 We may remark that the testimony of the present Governor 
 of this Penitentiary, as given in the Min. of Evid. p. 387 , 
 confirms the statements of Sir George O. Paul, contained in the 
 same document — p. 401 to 406 , inclusive. 
 
 In Europe numerous individuals of experience, of talent 
 and intelligence exist, who are generally supposed to be ac- 
 quainted with the theory and practice of solitary confinement; 
 many sources of information may there be resorted to by dis- 
 passionate inquirers. 
 
 Our Commissioners have nevertheless deemed it expedient 
 to give us the alleged testimony of but four individuals ; with 
 what accuracy they have stated their opinions, our readers 
 may judge from the preceding statements. As it is our in- 
 tention to make further extracts from the documents, &c. 
 which they have found so barren of information, it may be 
 expedient, for the sake of perspicuity, to make a few remarks 
 in our next number, explanatory of the British, Irish, and 
 other systems of imprisonment, of which solitary confinement 
 is an authorized or component portion, (the extent, benefit 
 and existence of which appear to be unknown, and certainly 
 not communicated to the public by our Commissioners.) 
 
 6 
 
46 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 In our last number we promised to give a further sketch 
 of the legislation, practice and opinions prevailing in England 
 in relation to prison discipline. 
 
 The common law of England sanctions but one species of 
 prison for the confinement of all species of prisoners indiscrimi- 
 nately: viz. the Sheriff’s jail for the county, where tried 
 and convicted felons, of all ages, sexes and descriptions were 
 associated with vagrants, detained witnesses, untried prison- 
 ers, &c. ; no labour whatever was even contemplated. The 
 result we need not again describe ; the former horrid condi- 
 tion of our prison in Philadelphia, mentioned in our first num- 
 ber, was but a faint copy of these legalized, hideous abodes of 
 corrupting depravity : of intense suffering and unutterable 
 abomination. The first statute passed for their partial ame- 
 lioration, worthy of notice, is the 19th Charles II. cap. 4; the 
 preamble of which states, “ Whereas, there is not yet any suffi- 
 cient provision made for the relief and setting on work poor and 
 needy prisoners, committed to the common jail for felony and 
 other misdemeanors, who many times perish before their trial ; 
 and the poor there living idle and unemployed, become de- 
 bauched, and come forth instructed in the practice of thiev- 
 ery,” &c. therefore the justices of the peace are author- 
 ized to procure a stock of raw materials and overseers of 
 work, “if they shall fnd it needful so to do,” for the employ- 
 ment and maintenance of such poor prisoners. This provi- 
 sion being only permissive and not imperative, was not en- 
 forced for many years ; and to this day remains a dead letter 
 in many prisons in the United Kingdoms. 
 
 Houses of Correction had been previously provided by the 
 39th Elizabeth for the reception of “ vagabonds and sturdy 
 beggars.” These were, therefore, originally intended for the 
 prevention of pauperism; not the punishment of crime ; but 
 by the 6th George I. cap. 19, “ vagrants and other crimi- 
 nals, offenders, and persons charged with small offences,” or 
 for want of sureties, may be committed to these houses of cor- 
 rection, or to the common jail, at the discretion of the justi- 
 ces. The reason assigned for this permission is, that evil 
 communication and corruption, which had been found to be 
 very prejudicial, would be thereby diminished. (See also 7th 
 James I. and 17th George II.) 
 
 Hence the origin of the discipline pursued in Houses of 
 Correction and Bridewells, which now became mixt institu- 
 tions, not merely for the prevention of the evils of pauperism 
 
47 
 
 and idleness, but for the punishment of minor offences. The 
 benefits resulting from them extended over districts more 
 limited in extent than the Sheriff ’s prisons ; sometimes em- 
 bracing only a parish, or borough, or the part of a county. 
 
 In the year 1779, John Howard, the philanthropist par emi- 
 nence, the benevolent Eden and Sir William Blackstone, the 
 author of the well known legal primer, the Commentaries on 
 the laws of England, drew the celebrated act of 19th Geo. III. 
 in which is the following language, cap. 74, sec. 5 ; “if many 
 offenders convicted of crimes, for which transportation hath 
 been usually inflicted, were ordered to solitary imprisonment, 
 accompanied by well regulated labour and religious instruction, 
 it might be the means, under Providence, not only of de- 
 terring others from the commission of the like crimes, but 
 also of reforming the individuals, and inuring them to habits 
 of industry,” &c. Two National Penitentiaries (words for 
 the first time introduced into their legal vocabulary) were 
 therefore ordered to be built, to reduce these principles to 
 practice. We stated the reasons which occasioned the post- 
 ponement of the execution of this measure in our first num- 
 ber. The 26th clause of this act authorized the temporary 
 conversion of certain Houses of Correction, &c. in the several 
 counties, to the use of Penitentiary Houses, until the comple- 
 tion of the two edifices above mentioned. As this statute re- 
 mained for a long time neglected in practice, the exertions of 
 Paul were directed to obtain another act of Parliament, 
 with similar but improved provisions, for the county of 
 Gloucester alone ; by this act passed in 1785, (25th George 
 III.) the Penitentiary of that county was authorized, and 
 certain sections of the act of 19 and 25th Geo. III. applied to 
 the other prisons of the shire. The system was not car- 
 ried into operation until 1793. Hence, although we cannot 
 claim the priority in legislation in Pennsylvania on this sub- 
 ject, we may justly claim the merit of first testing the system 
 of solitary confinement in practice : our law of 5th April, 1790, 
 was in consequence of previous preparations, immediately ex- 
 ecuted ; but candour compels us to confess that our arrange- 
 ments were less extensive and less completely adapted to pro- 
 duce the intended effect, than those which were established 
 in Gloucestershire, particularly as they respected the degree 
 of labour (which in our cells was almost neglected) and of se- 
 clusion, and the architectural properties of the buildings. 
 
 The National Penitentiary of Great Britain, situated at 
 Millbank, Westminster, was not erected until 1816 , and was 
 not finished until many years after that time. 
 
 The enactments of the statute 25th Geo. III. authorizing 
 solitary confinement, &c. in the prisons of Gloucestershire, as 
 
48 
 
 we have previously described, were extended to the whole 
 kingdom by the 31st Geo. III. but, as many of the jails, &c. 
 would require extensive alterations and expensive additions, 
 and thereby render a complete and immediate compliance 
 with the statutes impracticable in many cases, inexpedient 
 in others and unpopular in some of the remainder, a discre- 
 tionary power, to modify some of the provisions of the acts 
 of Parliament regulating jails, was entrusted to the magis- 
 trates, visiting justices, &c. This dangerous power has been 
 abused, as might have been anticipated. However zealous, 
 intelligent and humane, many of this latter class must unques- 
 tionably be deemed, some are too well known to resemble that 
 portion of the same class of ignorant, prejudiced, indolent 
 and imbecile blockheads who infest this country. Men, 
 whose incapacity and inattention are proverbially notorious, 
 ought not to be permitted to counteract the well planned la- 
 bours of benevolent and intelligent legislators ; to decide on 
 the propriety or inexpediency of the most important of all 
 philosophical experiments ; the noble attempt to prevent the 
 crimes of our species. Hence the most incongruous and dis- 
 cordant practice in prison discipline prevails in the Unit- 
 ed Kingdoms ; from the almost perfect system which was 
 adopted in Gloucestershire, to the venerable plan of idle, un- 
 restrained association, so characteristic of “ the wisdom of 
 our ancestors,” “ of the good old times a plan embodying as 
 much pure, revolting and extensive evil as the great enemy 
 of mankind could desire or devise. 
 
 We have witnessed scenes of abomination in the prisons of 
 that country which our pen would refuse to record. Happily 
 the spirit of the age, the spirit of reform, is rapidly changing 
 the character of these fell abodes of sin and suffering. We 
 rejoice that so much has been done ; we regret that so much 
 remains to be done; we look forward with confident hope to 
 that period of the perfection of discipline, when a prison for 
 whatever class of offenders it may be designed, will be synony- 
 mous with a solitude. 
 
 In Great Britain, nearly all classes of offenders have been 
 punished by solitary confinement in one prison, and some in 
 others, in no particular jail do we find the most atrocious 
 and the most trivial offenders, &c. universally thus pun- 
 ished; convicts sentenced for high crimes, were thus con- 
 fined for their whole term in Gloucester ; and for a consider- 
 able portion of their term of imprisonment at the National 
 Penitentiary at Millbank, at the Richmond Penitentiary, (the 
 Irish National Penitentiary, Dublin,) and in all those numer- 
 ous prisons where the Penitentiary provisions of 19, 25, 31, 
 
49 
 
 &c. of Geo. III. have been thus enforced. In other prisons 
 and houses of correction, persons guilty of less offences were 
 thus punished; at Horsely, &c. for example; in other Bride- 
 wells, &c. mere novices in guilt, and juvenile convicts, suf- 
 fered this punishment, sometimes for part, and sometimes for 
 the whole period of their sentence ; for crimes, &c. commit- 
 ted in prison, solitary confinement is frequently inflicted on 
 those who otherwise might not be subject to this discipline 
 by the terms of their sentence. In many of the British 
 prisons there are numerous wards for the classification of the 
 inmates ; this may be considered as so many distinct and 
 separate buildings, or establishments, subject however to one 
 government. The first ward is frequently appropriated for 
 the solitary confinement of a portion of the prisoners during 
 part or the whole of their term of imprisonment. The de- 
 tention of convicts in prison after their long and beneficial 
 separate confinement, and transferring them to other wards, 
 (where association is permitted, and classification is attempt- 
 ed,) for additional but mitigated punishment ; too frequently 
 counteracts the effects of the previous salutary discipline. 
 Every attempt at classification will be only partially success- 
 ful; admitting for the sake of the argument that the admin- 
 istrators of the institution possessed not merely a general and 
 accurate knowledge of mankind under the most diversified 
 relations, as well as that rare combination of talents and in- 
 formation, tact, to enable them to form an infallible judgment 
 respecting the character, natural and acquired, of each indi- 
 vidual of their numerous patients ; and admitting that pri- 
 soners could be found in each Penitentiary resembling each 
 other in their natural endowments, (their intellectual facul- 
 ties, their feelings, their propensities, their habits,) and their 
 frequently unknown education; admitting that these convicts 
 had all been reduced to the same standard of Penitentiary 
 excellence by the reformatory discipline of solitude — even 
 in this case, subsequent association would inevitably renew 
 the process of corruption ; it would render the convicts known to 
 each other ; it would annihilate any reviving or newly created 
 sense of shame, any regard for character or self respect which 
 might have been acquired in their solitude. It is not their 
 degradation, from their mere exposure to each other, to which 
 we particularly refer, but the ultimate and inevitable conse- 
 quences of that exposure must eradicate the seeds of reforma- 
 tion, the reputation of each (and consequently the most pow- 
 erful incentive to future propriety of conduct) is at the mercy 
 of every fellow convict after their mutual release from prison. 
 
 Continuance in reformation may not be impossible, but will 
 
.00 
 
 be extremely problematical, when any wretch disgorged in 
 unaltered depravity from the same prison, instigated by re- 
 venge or by cupidity, may destroy the character and ruin 
 the prospects of a discharged and repentant felon by the 
 threat of exposure ; to be prevented only by submitting to 
 ruinous extortion, or by a return to the participation of crime. 
 We speak not from conjecture, but from experience; we have 
 known many such cases of relapse after repentance ; cases of 
 man’s last, worst, his second fall; we will not at present give 
 the details. Hence the difficulty, if not the impracticability 
 of any perfect scheme of classification; and the inevitable risk 
 to which those who may be subjected to the attempt, are ex- 
 posed after their discharge, ought to banish this plan from 
 any prison. 
 
 If the mass of convicts be discharged unreformed, and pro- 
 bably greater adepts in crime, then acquaintance with each 
 other ensures them the co-operation of willing, experienced, 
 skilful and familiar assistants, whenever the plunder of society 
 may be most certainly performed by an organized association. 
 
 This system therefore not only encourages the occasional 
 relapse into vicious habits, but almost necessarily establishes 
 an order of desperate, depraved and incorrigible villains as a 
 distinct and perpetual class of society; men who are rogues 
 by profession. 
 
 When sufficient punishment has been inflicted by solitude 
 to make a painful and lasting impression on an offender, and 
 to deter others from following his example, what possible 
 benefit can result from any species of additional incarceration ? 
 remuneration to society from the joint labour of the convicts 
 (even if such labour were more profitable than solitary em- 
 ployment) rarely, if ever , can repay, far less enrich the com- 
 munity.* 
 
 * Since the publication of the first edition of these essays, the discipline has been 
 altered ; the second class of convicts (viz : those who having served half of their 
 time in solitude, were transferred to the second class, in which association was per- 
 mitted) has been abolished, and all those now in solitary confinement are subjected 
 to this discipline during their whole term of imprisonment. They are required to 
 attend church; during the service, their persons are seen, and of course an acquaint- 
 ance with each other is, in some measure, the result. Efforts have been made to 
 prevent this by the erection of partitions, in order to isolate each individual. This 
 is an improvement of great importance, which we hope will be prosecuted further. 
 Nevertheless, the plan formerly pursued at Gloucester is preferable ; viz : religious 
 instruction administered to each in his separate cell. 
 
 The great importance of preventing prisoners forming any acquaintance with 
 each other, does not appear to be sufficiently appreciated in Great Britain, although 
 in practice they have effected more than has been attempted in any part of the 
 United States, even than in Pennsylvania. Many offenders, who in this country are 
 punished by imprisonment, are punished in England by death or transportation. 
 
 In Great Britain the majority of prisoners are confined either in classes or in asso- 
 ciation with each other. Solitary confinement, day and night, is not applied to more 
 than 2500 persons. In Pennsylvania the Legislature have enacted (by the Acts of 
 1790-1-4-5, &c.) that all prisoners, of every description, shall be confined separately. 
 
51 
 
 The classification and separation of all descriptions of pri- 
 soners is enjoined by the several acts of Parliament hereinaf- 
 ter enumerated. In practice much has been effected ; many 
 prisons have been built or altered in which the inmates not 
 only sleep separately, but during the day are divided into 
 classes of one, two, three, or more, in each working room ;* 
 the Bridewell at Edinburg for example contains fifty-two 
 such divisions. (This prison is one of Jeremy Bentham’s pan- 
 opticons; four stories of cells are arranged in a semicircle ; the 
 centre being occupied by a tower for inspection, unknown to 
 the prisoners; the working cells are open on the side facing 
 the tower, for the facility of inspection and the admission of 
 air and light. When we visited it, the prisoners could not 
 only see each other from the opposite sides of the semicircle, 
 but could also converse in those cells which were in the vici- 
 nity ; a plan for remedying these evils has, we are informed, 
 been executed.) In the jail in the same city, the first class 
 of convicts are in solitary confinement ; Min. of Evid. p. 246. 
 In the Bridewell at Glasgow there are “115 cells, each of 
 sufficient dimensions for one person to work and sleep in;" 
 when this prison is not overflowing, “juvenile offenders, par- 
 ticularly boys committed for the first time, are kept in soli- 
 tary confinement;” we request our readers to mark the result 
 of this recent arrangement: “within the last two years there 
 has been a great decrease of crime and of juvenile delinquen- 
 cy in the city of Glasgow ;” sixth report of the London prison 
 discipline Society, p. 190-1. This severe punishment is as- 
 signed as one of the most effective causes of this decrease. 
 
 both in the state Penitentiaries and in the county prisons, as far as the same may; 
 be practicable. 
 
 We have already exhibited in these essays the discrepancy in our legislation and 
 practice. At the present moment, (1833) the state Penitentiaries (near Philadelphia 
 and Pittsburg) are occupied, and the extensive additions to them are nearly finished. 
 In these all of the most serious offences will be punished. The discipline in each 
 prison being exclusively separate confinement with labour and instruction. In the 
 two most populous counties of the state, Philadelphia and Allegheny, extensive 
 county jails are also in progress, in which every prisoner, whether convicted or ac- 
 cused, will be confined, day and night, in a solitary cell. The acting committee of 
 the Philadelphia society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons, have publish- 
 ed the following statement in page 44 of their report, for 1833. “It is therefore a 
 subject of congratulation, that the efforts of the friends of this system have been so 
 far successful that all those great prisons in which 14-17ths of the persons (are now) 
 confined in the state of Pennsylvania, are now, or rather soon will be, when the 
 buildings shall be completed, conducted according to the system which the Society 
 has advocated from their origin to the present time.” When the counties shall all 
 erect similar prisons, in which the remaining 3-17ths shall be confined, viz: all the 
 prisoners in Pennsylvania, the system in this state will be complete. The great ad- 
 vance which has already been made, and which is still in progress, induces us to 
 hope that the day of unrivalled excellence is not very remote. (1833.) 
 
 * If the degree of benefit be found by repeated experience, to be proportioned to 
 the multiplication of classes, viz : to the degree of separation, why not at once adopt in 
 all cases the perfection of classification or separation, by making the number of class- 
 es equal to the number of prisoners ? Even the imperfect plan we have mentioned 
 is far superior to that pursued at Auburn, where classification is neglected. 
 
52 
 
 In some other Biridewells in Scotland, similar discipline pre- 
 vails. In the pritsons of barony in that country, a most cruel 
 and revolting species of confinement, in the most dreadful, 
 unjustifiable form of strict unmitigated solitude, is inflicted: 
 these neglected edifices are small, dilapidated, and destitute 
 of almost every accommodation, without glass in the windows 
 or fire in the roorms, (the latter rarely exceed four in number) 
 they are filthy beyond description ; they have no yards for 
 exercise, and, whiat will scarcely be believed in this country, 
 are rarely inspec ted by the jailer, who, locking up his pri- 
 soners with a pittance of food, abandons them for long periods 
 to their fate ; peirmits them to languish in unassisted misery, 
 whilst he, their mominal jailer, rarely, if ever, resides within 
 the walls of the prison! We have experienced great diffi- 
 culty in inducing these absentees to accompany us in our 
 visits to their priisons. In one case the jailer, who very po- 
 litely exhibited to us every object of curiosity in his neighbour- 
 hood, could not b>e induced to enter with us into the interior 
 of his jail, alleging the risk of personal danger as his excuse. 
 This horrid species of confinement may be so severe as to 
 prevent in many cases a repetition of crime, but reformation 
 cannot be rationally expected from such incarceration. The 
 acknowledged comparative exemption of Scotland from crime 
 may be more certainly attributed to the diffusion of educa- 
 tion, and the prevalence of religion among all classes of her 
 population. For further information on this subject we must 
 refer our readers to the several reports of the London Society 
 above mentioned! — article Scotland, and to the examination 
 of Sir Willim Rae, Bart. p. 241 to 258, Min. of Evid. &c. 
 
 The system ini Ireland is similar to that practiced in Eng- 
 land. The grea t national Penitentiaries at Dublin, &c. re- 
 semble those in the latter country previously described. We 
 refer for general information to the previous authorities which 
 we have mentioned, and to the Min. Evid. p. 173 to 240 in- 
 clusive ; also, to the following Acts of Parliament, regulating 
 the jails of the whole United Kingdoms. 39, Eliz. 7th James 
 I. 19, Chas. II. cap. 4. 6, Geo. I. 19, cap. 74, &c. 22, 24, 25, 
 26, 31, 49, 50, sec. 68 of Geo. III. and 3 Geo. IV. cap. 64, &c. 
 
 From this sketch of the British legislation it is obvious that 
 solitary confinement has been practiced to a far greater ex- 
 tent in the United Kingdoms than even in Pennsylvania, at 
 any period; although frequently neglected by the local ad- 
 ministrators of the law. Notwithstanding the incessant vigi- 
 lance and exertions of numerous benevolent and powerful in- 
 dividuals, some of their jails still exist in a state of almost 
 primitive and undiminished evil ; many of the enactments of 
 
53 
 
 the laws are inoperative when an adherence to their provi- 
 sions is made optional, and not enforced by imperative in- 
 junctions, nor is occasional neglect the only evil experienced; 
 the positive commands, as well as the recommended improve- 
 ments contained in the statutes, are too frequently but par- 
 tially exercised or obeyed. The boasted omnipotence of 
 Parliament does not always extend to that secret sanctuary of 
 abuse, the interior of a prison; the decrees of that body 
 which Europe dares not treat with disrespect, are often 
 regarded with contempt by a common jailer, or an equally 
 insignificant magistrate. 
 
 If we now divert our attention from the practice of the 
 United Kingdom, and endeavour to ascertain the result of her 
 experience, we must consult the testimony of her citizens. 
 
 From the varying practice in relation to minor offenders, it 
 is obvious that the expediency of inflicting on them the same 
 punishment by solitary confinement which is allotted to the 
 higher classes of criminals, is not conceded by all of her writers 
 on prison discipline. It is not necessary at present to ascer- 
 tain the number and force of the advocates on either side of 
 this department of solitary confinement; we have already 
 stated our views in relation to the extent to which we believe 
 the system ought to be adopted, a subject on which we shall 
 enlarge hereafter. That a well regulated system of solitary 
 confinement for the more depraved class of criminals, is a 
 means of punishment and reformation at once the most pro- 
 mising, as well as the most expeditious, economical and hu- 
 mane, we believe may be regarded as the opinion of those 
 who are qualified to form a judgment on the subject in Great 
 Britain, A diversity of sentiment of course prevails in rela- 
 tion to this, as well as to every other subject involving moral 
 and metaphysical speculation ; the truths of our theory are 
 not capable of that species of demonstration which exists only 
 in the exact sciences ; and the great mass of mankind, who, 
 almost necessarily, reason a priori on such subjects, may, 
 from such modes of argument, arrive at widely different con- 
 clusions; but the cause we advocate may be proved not only 
 a priori, but by the inductive system also, sufficient experience 
 Bas been obtained to render the argument a posteriori irresist- 
 ible. 
 
 We have already stated some of the results of the experi- 
 ence of Great Britain; in our 7th, 8th and 9th numbers we 
 will mention some additional details , and the opinions of emi- 
 nent individuals respecting the effects of solitary confinement. 
 We have evidence in our favour from the enlightened Mans- 
 field on the bench, to the suffering criminal in his cell ; from 
 
 7 
 
54 
 
 Howard, whose name is synonymous with benevolence and 
 experience, to the severe but practical jailer, intent only on 
 the actual results of his discipline ; evidence which proves 
 most incontrovertibly that solitary confinement, when admin- 
 istered in suitable buildings, and accompanied by careful in- 
 struction and employment for the mind and body, is not inju- 
 rious to the health or intellects of those who are thus con- 
 fined ; that as a means of punishment, it is at once the most 
 severe and effectual in preventing a repetition of crime, and de- 
 terring others from imitation, by the example of such suffer- 
 ing criminals ; that the dictates of humanity to the prisoner, 
 of justice to society, as well as motives of real economy, render 
 the adoption of this punishment not only expedient, from mo- 
 tives appealing to our self interest, hut imperative from a re- 
 gard to the manifest injunctions of duty. 
 
 In our succeeding numbers we shall discuss these opinions ; 
 we will also submit a few remarks respecting the mistakes of 
 our Commissioners respecting the evidence of La Fayette and 
 Roscoe. 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 In our last number we gave a sketch of the introduction, 
 continuance and effect of solitary confinement in Great Bri- 
 tain and Ireland; we described the legislation and practice of 
 the United Kingdom, and the opinions of some of her citizens 
 respecting this species of prison discipline. We proved that 
 solitary confinement was not only authorized by law, but in- 
 flicted in practice, to a far greater extent in that country 
 than it has been even contemplated by our present system in 
 Pennsylvania. We also stated the evils of classified associa- 
 tion during the whole, or part, of the term of the imprison- 
 ment of convicts; a plan which, notwithstanding the sanc- 
 tion of a large majority of disciplinarians in Great Britain, is 
 only comparatively beneficial; we assigned several reasons 
 for the belief that the efficacy of solitary confinement was 
 counteracted or diminished when succeeded by such classified 
 association. 
 
 If our limits, and the patience of our readers, would permit 
 us to advert to the history of solitary confinement in the re- 
 maining countries of Europe, many additional facts might be 
 communicated which would illustrate our position ; but, for 
 the reasons which we have assigned, this division of our sub- 
 ject will be omitted for the present; and in our subsequent 
 
55 
 
 numbers we will incidentally introduce merely a few passing 
 remarks respecting some experiments in those countries. 
 
 The history of solitary confinement in Great Britain, &c. 
 appears to be either unknown or imperfectly understood, not 
 only by many of our writers on prison discipline in this coun- 
 try, but even by some of their celebrated authors. For a 
 partial confirmation of this opinion we refer to the letters and 
 essays of the benevolent and illustrious Roscoe and La Fay- 
 ette. 
 
 To the opinions of Mr. Roscoe on literary subjects we have 
 been accustomed to bow with deference. As the historian of 
 the Medici, as a promoter of literature, science and the arts, 
 both by his splendid example and continual encouragement, 
 as the moral founder of Liverpool, (which is indebted to him 
 for almost every prominent institution of beneficence) he has 
 deservedly received the tribute of admiration from both he- 
 mispheres. His life of usefulness, his elevated character, his 
 venerable years, and his general information, entitle his opi- 
 nions to be heard with respect, if not adopted with approba- 
 tion. We hope therefore that our remarks on his letters on 
 prison discipline will not be misconstrued ; will not be deem- 
 ed uncourteous or presumptuous; independent of other con- 
 siderations, the grateful recollection of his kind attentions to 
 us at Liverpool, would disarm criticism. 
 
 The labours of Mr. Roscoe, so honourable to himself, so be- 
 neficial to the public, have occupied so large a portion of his 
 time, that but little remained to devote to the intricate and 
 usually repulsive subject of prison discipline; his pursuits 
 would not permit him to visit or minutely examine the condi- 
 tion of the jails of Great Britain, without which examination 
 no correct opinion could be formed in relation to this experi- 
 mental science; hence erroneous and partial information, and 
 personal inexperience, have led him to incorrect conclusions. 
 Our Commissioners have however quoted parts of his essays, 
 without adverting to the circumstances under which they 
 were written; and they have omitted such portions as were 
 adverse to their theory. Our readers have doubtless perused 
 these essays or letters ; it will not therefore be necessary to 
 examine them in detail. We may be permitted to observe, 
 that the accusation of intentional cruelty has been disclaimed 
 by Mr. Roscoe, who does justice to the motives of the benevo- 
 lent citizens of Pennsylvania, who advocate the system of soli- 
 tary confinement. He is however unacquainted with our 
 legislation and practice, as appears from his erroneous expo- 
 sition of our acts of Assembly; mistaking their dates and ob- 
 jects, he remarks that our system of solitary confinement is 
 
56 
 
 not that from which the celebrated reform in our Penitentiary 
 derived its efficacy, but that it is “a new invention within 
 these few years, heard at first with horror, but gradually re- 
 conciled to the public, till at length it has been unblushingly 
 brought forward and recommended to the adoption of states 
 and communities as an adviseable and even philanthropic 
 measure. That some such plan should have been resorted to 
 in the despotic government of Austria is not perhaps surpris- 
 ing, but that it should be listened to for a moment in some of 
 the most enlightened among the states of America, has already 
 astonished all Europe.” Our remarks are founded on the sup- 
 position that Mr. R. alludes to the general system, whether 
 accompanied by labour or otherwise. 
 
 We trust that we need not indicate to our citizens the er- 
 rors contained in this extract respecting Pennsylvania. That 
 solitary confinement is neither new nor untried, and that it is 
 regarded by our citizens by no means with “ horror,” it would 
 be a work of supererogation to prove. In relation to Europe, 
 which is “ already astonished” at our “listening for a mo- 
 ment” to this “ horrid new invention ” of solitary confinement, 
 as Mr. Roscoe supposes, we will observe that if he will in- 
 quire at any Penitentiary in his own country, he will find that 
 very system in full and successful operation ; and that the 
 extensive experience of thirty-five years has demonstrated its 
 efficacy and humanity. 
 
 If he should extend his inquiries to the continent, he will 
 discover that solitary confinement has there also “been un- 
 blushingly brought forward and recommended” as a “philan- 
 thropic measure” by some of the most enlightened and benevo- 
 lent men in Christendom: he will there also discover it in the 
 progress of successful experiment. Mr. Roscoe was not aware 
 that the subject of solitary confinement had attracted much 
 attention, or had elicited much discussion in any part of the 
 United States. In his letter to Mr. Vaux, he remarks that 
 “ Mr. Allen and yourself are the only two individuals in the 
 United States who, as far as my information extends, have 
 had the public spirit to enter on a public discussion of this 
 subject.” Again Mr. Roscoe speaks of “ the state of Philadel- 
 phia and in his pamphlet, published in 1826, three years 
 after the abandonment of the experiment of solitary confine- 
 ment at Auburn, (which we described in our third number,) 
 he states, “ Now it must not be supposed that the convicts in so- 
 litary confinement at Auburn consist of only a few; on the con- 
 trary, they form a considerable portion of the whole number. 
 The third report of the Boston prison discipline Society, p. 55, 
 contains the following remarkon this statement: “in 1826, 
 
57 
 
 out of more than 400 convicts, only 4 were in solitary confine- 
 ment, and from 1823, when the principle of solitary confine- 
 ment, day and night, without labour, was abandoned at Au- 
 burn, the proportion has been nearly the same.” 
 
 From the evidence which we have submitted, or particu- 
 larly from a perusal of Mr. Roscoe’s letters and essays, we 
 presume our readers will perceive that this eminent writer 
 ought not to be appealed to as an authority on the subject of 
 our system, respecting which he has been misinformed:* the 
 cruelty which he supposes will form a constituent part of our 
 discipline, can never be perpetrated in Pennsylvania ; we do 
 not concur with him in the opinion that our prisoners will 
 from starvation “ gnaw their flesh for sustenance.” 
 
 As our Commissioners have alluded to the opinions of Mr. 
 Roscoe when adverse to our system, it may not be irrelevant 
 to state his humane sentiments in relation to their favourite 
 institution. In his letter to Mr. Yaux he remarks, “I have 
 before stated the satisfaction I felt on finding that you, sir, so 
 fully concurred with me in opinion as to the severe system of 
 discipline adopted in the prison at Auburn, which you have 
 reprobated in terms not less impressive than any I have ven- 
 tured to adopt, and seem to consider the bare possibility of its 
 introduction at Philadelphia, with its frightful catalogue of 
 abuses, (which will not be diminished by the perusal of the 
 
 * During a visit to Europe, in 1820, the writer of these essays had the pleasure of 
 discussing with Mr. Roscoe at his residence, near Liverpool, the Penitentiary system 
 of Pennsylvania. We mentioned to him the proposal which had been made by Mr. 
 Bradford and a few other individuals, to introduce a system of solitary confinement 
 without labour, at the new Penitentiaries in our commonwealth. This plan we had 
 reason to believe was at that time sanctioned by Mr. Roberts Vaux, of Philadelphia. 
 The public are aware that the latter gentleman has published several letters and 
 small pamphlets respecting prisons; these were widely disseminated by him. From 
 a perusal of them, it is evident that Mr. Vaux was not an advocate of solitary confine- 
 ment with labour. Even his recent letters to Mr. Roscoe (alluded to in the text) 
 prove that his opinions on this subject were undecided and wavering. He does not 
 appear to have been aware that solitary confinement, either with or without labour, 
 had been tried in any part of the world, except in Pennsylvania. From these causes 
 therefore, his publications respecting our system in Pennsylvania, have not only been 
 at variance with our uniform legislation, and with the opinions of the old, influential 
 and successful founders and friends of “ the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline,” 
 but have also been the means of unintentionally injuring the character and retarding 
 the progress of that system. The number and wide dissemination of his writings in- 
 duced strangers to suppose that his statements and alleged defence of the Pennsylva- 
 nia system were not only complete and profound, but also approved and orthodox. 
 In expressing our regret that the numerous avocations of Mr. Vaux did not permit 
 him to investigate the subject, (respecting which he certainly endeavoured to en- 
 lighten the public,) we feel much pleasure in the remembrance of his former labours 
 in conjunction with Messrs. Wood, Bacon, Bradford, &c. in advocating the Eastern 
 Penitentiary, &c. 
 
 It is obvious from the preceding statements, and from those which are contained 
 in the text, that Mr. Roscoe has been misinformed respecting our system ; and it af- 
 fords us much gratification to state (which we are enabled to do from the highest 
 authority,) that the nature of the present system of solitary confinement in Pennsyl- 
 vania has been recently correctly explained to Mr. Roscoe, and that he a short time 
 previous to his decease retracted the objections which were applicable only to a 
 phantom existing in his imagination. (1833.) 
 
58 
 
 late report of the Commissioners) with peculiar apprehen- 
 sion.” We presume that our Commissioners have been 
 rather inadvertent in summoning Mr. Roscoe as a witness, 
 although they admit the harshness of his strictures on our 
 system. 
 
 The venerable name and authority of our national bene- 
 factor La Fayette, has also been adduced by our Commis- 
 sioners and other opponents, for the purpose of rendering 
 solitary confinement unpopular. His dreadful experience of 
 the horrors of such imprisonment in the dungeons of Olmutz, 
 is supposed by them to afford practical testimony respecting 
 the effects of our system: the complimentary inference is 
 drawn that the reflections of the patriot and of the convict, 
 in unemployed solitude, will be occupied with similar objects, 
 viz', devising and concerting plans of future action when 
 liberated; that reformation or alteration of character will not 
 be the subject of his meditations. This hypothesis is not only 
 untenable by argument, but is at variance with facts ascer- 
 tained by long, uniform and extensive experience; this state- 
 ment will be confirmed when we discuss the subject of 
 “ reformation” in a subsequent number. As the illustrious 
 La Fayette has himself supposed that an analogy exists, 
 (which we cannot perceive,) courtesy would perhaps require 
 us to state his sentiments. In his letter, of which extracts 
 are published in the Com. Rt. p. 30, 32, he remarks, “ Dur- 
 ing the whole time of my imprisonment, all my thoughts were 
 directed to one single object, and my head full of plans for 
 revolutionizing Europe. So I think it will be with the thief; 
 and when he shall be restored to society, it will be with his 
 head full of plans concerted and devised during this 
 singularly favourable opportunity,” (alluding to the iso- 
 lated prisoners in our penitentiaries in Pennsylvania.) 
 We trust that we are not guilty of presumption when 
 we state that these cases are not parallel: they differ 
 as widely as the varying nature of mankind will admit. 
 The felon, whose life has been spent in depredation or out- 
 rage, is justly convicted by an impartial jury of a crime, 
 to which the law has previously affixed a certain and com- 
 paratively mild punishment; detested and despised, he is 
 conducted to his cell without pity or immediate consolation : 
 his reflections on his misspent life, on the friends and relatives 
 whom he has degraded and disgraced, on those whom he has 
 defrauded or injured, must occasion humiliation and remorse 
 in him, who will be compelled to listen to the frequently un- 
 heeded but never ceasing upbraidings of a guilty conscience ; 
 sustained by no (conscious rectitude, supported by no appro- 
 
59 
 
 bation of any human being:, surrounded by none to encourage 
 him by example, or to confirm him in pride, he might surrender 
 himself to despair, if the benevolence of that society whom 
 he had injured had not in its mercy taken compassion on the 
 misery of a wretch deserted by the world — abandoned even 
 by himself, and, by administering the lessons of instruction 
 and the consolation of religion, teaching him the necessity of 
 repentance and the benefit resulting from reformation. Ex- 
 perience has demonstrated that schemes more useful than the 
 future perpetration of crime, are entertained by such con- 
 victs in their hours of solitary reflection. 
 
 The feelings of a noble soul, suffering under a lawless, 
 cruel and tyrannical thraldom, are by no means similar. 
 The dungeon of Olmutz can afford us no analogous informa- 
 tion. La Fayette, whose life was spent in glorious devotion 
 at the shrine of liberty, on whose altar he had offered his 
 fortune and character, was seized, in violation of the laws of 
 justice and humanity, and consigned to a dungeon: having 
 committed no crime, he experienced no remorse ; sustained 
 by an approving conscience, and the sympathy of every 
 friend of liberty, he anticipated the period of his release and 
 the renew'al of his efforts in the cause of freedom: or, if 
 death should arrest his career, he had reason to hope for that 
 reward in the world to come which man cannot take away ; 
 whilst his memory would be cherished in the grateful hearts 
 of millions wdiom he had benefitted. To experience such 
 feelings is a consolation, a support, a luxury, which the crimi- 
 nal can never possess; as well might we compare the feelings 
 exhibited in the audacious bravado of the hardened felon at 
 the gallows, thinly veiling his real despair, with the noble 
 courage of the devoted patriot on the scaffold, or with the 
 holy confidence of the inspired martyr at the stake. 
 
 La Fayette supposes that the horrors of the Bastile, of 
 Olmutz, Venice, and of the other state prisons of Europe, will 
 be renewed in our penitentiaries : we trust that it is not ne- 
 cessary to disprove this statement to the citizens of Pennsyl- 
 vania: the dungeons of France, of Spain, of Germany and 
 Italy, have never been imitated in our commonwealth. We 
 will avail ourselves of this occasion to describe one of the 
 most celebrated of these abodes of torture, which the 
 erroneous information or the heated imagination of some of 
 our opponents, has induced them to suppose will be copied at 
 the prisons in this state. Some years since, we were induced 
 to visit the subterranean dungeons under the Doge’s palace 
 at Venice ; at that period the secrets of this dread prison 
 house were rarely revealed : we descended by a trap door 
 
60 
 
 through the basement floor of a hall (where festivities were 
 held, and which was splendidly decorated with the most costly 
 marbles, &c.) into a long dark passage, on a level with the 
 sea ; beneath this were the cells, ranged on each side of a 
 narrow, perfectly dark, and close corridor ; these dungeons 
 were lined with wood; the nails were corroded with rust, 
 and the damp distilling from them in drops ; the size was so 
 small, that the victims could not have scarcely stretched 
 their limbs, far less have taken exercise : there was no fur- 
 niture ; no communication with the open air ; (a small aper- 
 ture in the door admitted only the damp heavy air of the 
 corridor.) We were informed that a prisoner had lingered 
 in one of these sepulchres for 24 years ; the melancholy me- 
 moranda of his sufferings were to be seen on the walls of his 
 cell : we would have supposed that an interment of even 24 
 hours, in these dismal vaults, would release a prisoner from 
 the further tyranny of man. On our return to the open air, 
 the departed glory of Venice was no longer regretted: her 
 ruined edifices, her starving population, and the oppression, 
 of her present masters, seemed to attest the just retribution 
 of heaven on her cruelty. 
 
 If our readers will compare this description with the ac- 
 count which we gave in our second number of the cells in 
 our new prisons, they will perceive that no similarity exists 
 between them and these dungeons in which prisoners of state 
 have so often suffered in Europe. 
 
 Our venerable friend La Fayette has been so fully oc- 
 cupied in the cause of liberty, that we are not surprised to, 
 discover that he (as well as Roscoe) is not well acquainted 
 with the history of prison discipline: he appears to'have an 
 instinctive dread of solitary confinement, which the reminis- 
 cences of Olmutz are not calculated to diminish. He sup- 
 poses that this punishment is unknown at present in Europe, 
 and that the prisons of state are the only institutions in which 
 it has been introduced. We need not again describe the 
 existence of this system in America, in the kingdom of 
 Great Britain, &c. If La Fayette will visit the prisons of 
 St. Lazare, or St. Pelagie, or any of the houses of correction 
 in Paris, in which juvenile offenders are confined by the au- 
 thority of their parents, he will see our system in successful 
 operation. (Des prisons telles qu’elles sont et telles qu’elles 
 devraint etre par Villerme, p. 117, 18. 171.) 
 
 The sentiments of our national benefactor on any subject 
 will always be heard with respect, but as he has not studied 
 this question, he submits his opinion, with the modesty cha- 
 racteristic of greatness, to the superior judgment of those 
 
whose experience in prison discipline is entitled to more con- 
 sideration.* In legal, medical, or theological speculations, we 
 are guided by the opinions of the lawyer, physician, or di- 
 vine ; why should the sound adage of “ cuique in sua arte 
 credendum est,” be inapplicable to those who have studied 
 the science and examined the practice of penitentiary pun- 
 ishments ? 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 We must now resume the discussion of the efficacy and 
 expediency of solitary confinement, by an examination of the 
 fourth objection which our opponents have alleged against it, 
 viz : “As a punishment it is unequal, cruel, destructive to 
 health and to habits of industry, and productive of madness.” 
 
 1st. Respecting the inequality of this punishment. It is 
 alleged that the natural and acquired peculiarities of disposi- 
 tions of different individuals will render this punishment 
 extremely unequal in its operation : that it will be excessive- 
 ly severe when the patients are possessed of active minds, 
 and of little efficacy, or entirely inoperative, when applied 
 to the sluggish and indolent. 
 
 All appeals to the reason,, and to the moral and physical 
 feelings of mankind, are liable to the same objection. The 
 delicate organization, the highly cultivated intellect, the sen- 
 sitive dispositions of some, may be powerfully affected by 
 causes which may be totally impotent, or of diminished effi- 
 cacy, when applied to the coarse and brutal natures of the 
 stupid, callous and uneducated ; hence solitary confinement, 
 as well as every reward or punishment, must necessarily be un- 
 equal; we cannot therefore perceive why an objection, which 
 applies to every species of prison discipline, should be deemed 
 to be the peculiar characteristic of this — which we will en- 
 deavour to prove is the least liable to the imputation. It is 
 a punishment so severe, that, of the numerous and widely dif- 
 fering individuals who have been subjected to it in many 
 countries, differing as widely in their customs, climates and 
 institutions, all have experienced it to be a most irksome, 
 dreaded and powerful infliction. As a means of reform, its 
 efficacy is equally extensive ; the exceptions to these effects 
 are so few, that they may be regarded as anomalies. These 
 
 * La Fayette, as well as Roscoe, has recently acknowledged that his opinions are 
 no longer tenable. (1833.) 
 
 8 
 
62 
 
 assertions will be confirmed when we examine the topics of 
 reform and cruelty. 
 
 Our commissioners allege that this punishment is not only 
 unequal when applied to different individuals, but that it will 
 vary in its effects on the same individual : that the powerful 
 force of habit will daily diminish its efficacy until it will al- 
 most cease to be felt as a punishment, and the prisoner will 
 become almost reconciled to his situation : the history of cer- 
 tain European prisons, where such imprisonment has been 
 long endured, is adduced as a confirmation of this opinion. 
 We regret that our commissioners have contented themselves 
 with furnishing this vague and general reference: no specific 
 cases or prisons are mentioned: we know of no such in- 
 stances of resignation — of such annihilation of the inherent, 
 ever-during love of liberty ; or of the deeply implanted de- 
 sire of happiness. In sundry old legends, or equally credible 
 modern romances, we have a tale of remote antiquity, ap- 
 plied to various countries with different accessories, as if it 
 were a veritable record of history : It was revived and ap- 
 plied to the Bastile: our readers all recollect the fanciful 
 anecdote of a prisoner who, after a durance of fifty years in 
 that delectable residence, was permitted to depart, but “ the 
 powerful force of habit” had so far “ reconciled” him to the 
 luxuries of that agreeable abode, that he earnestly requested 
 permission to end his days in his beloved dungeon. We hope 
 that our new Penitentiary will not be equally attractive. 
 
 Even if the opinion were correct that time or habit would 
 diminish, or almost annihilate, the severity of solitude, in this 
 extreme case the mind of the patient would be less inflamed 
 by suffering, and from the calmness and resignation which 
 would succeed his former state of vindictive resentment and 
 brooding malignity, the still small voice of conscience, and 
 the merciful admonitions of religion, would be heard with at- 
 tention, be felt with conviction, and probably would be 
 attended with some reformation. 
 
 Unquestionably habit renders solitary confinement, and 
 every species of punishment or reward, daily less impressive on 
 the feelings : sensibility itself will become blunted from often 
 repeated excitement : but never, until human hature itself 
 be changed, will solitary confinement loose so much of its 
 efficacy as to be regarded with apathy, or any other feelings 
 than those of dread, and of strong and unmingled aversion; 
 whatever may be the disposition of the convict or his occu- 
 pation in solitude. Providence has for the wisest purposes 
 bestowed on the various individuals of the human family, dis- 
 positions the most different and even opposite; but some 
 characteristics are common to almost every descendant of 
 
63 
 
 Adam ; feelings, which form an almost essential constituent 
 of humanity — the love of liberty, of society, and of comfort; 
 self-esteem and the love of approbation, still cling even to the 
 most abject and fallen ; they are never-dying incentives 
 which Heaven has implanted as a means of restoration to 
 virtue. On all of these feelings of the convict, solitary con- 
 finement will operate ; his person and his disgrace will not 
 be known to his fellow prisoners ; he can neither corrupt them 
 by example, or receive additional contamination from their 
 intercourse ; on his discharge from durance, he may again 
 resume his station in society; again resume the paths of vir- 
 tue, of industry, and of respectability, without the fear of ex- 
 posure or extortion from any cojivict acquaintance. 
 
 There may be some individuals on whom punishments and 
 rewards may produce no effect; on whom solitary confine- 
 ment and instruction may effect no reformation; but we 
 have known no such cases : they doubtless exist — as there are 
 persons to whom the hope of heaven or the fear of hell, may, 
 even in the very hour of dissolution, be urged in vain. Such per- 
 sons are, however, but rare exceptions to the general laws of 
 humanity. Is the rule on the exception to be regarded as 
 our guide in judgment ? Is our legislation, which is so ad- 
 mirably adapted to 99 in 100 individuals, to be devised for the 
 great majority, or for the almost imperceptible minority? 
 Our commissioners however admit this principle; but as they 
 previously submit an extreme case of the unequal effect of 
 solitude, without labour, on a convict possessed of a refined 
 and sensitive disposition, as a partial objection to our theory, 
 it may be expedient to inquire into the effects of the Auburn 
 system on a person of this description. We will suppose that 
 an individual, possessing character, refinement, acute sensi- 
 bility, education, fortune, family, &c., commits, in a moment 
 of excitement, an act which may be justifiable, perhaps even 
 laudable, in the opinion of most persons, but which the law 
 feels it necessary to repress by imprisonment ; he is commit- 
 ted to that levelling institution, compelled to perform the 
 hitherto unknown task of hard labour, in the immediate vi- 
 cinage of wretches so vile, so repulsive, so loathsome and 
 depraved, that their hideous and revolting aspect must make 
 him recoil from their contact; men engendered in guilt, 
 nursed in impurity, pollution and disease, accomplished only 
 in the arts of profligacy ; whose daily subsistence had been 
 derived from fraud and rapine ; whose lawless lives were but 
 one scene of alternate debauchery, outrage and punishment ; 
 to whom a jail was a natural and accustomed residence, and 
 felons almost their only acquaintance; suppose such an in- 
 
64 
 
 dividual as we have previously described, torn from his home, 
 his family and friends, and forced into this unnatural, horrid 
 communion, exposed to the gaze of these convicts, and to the 
 view of the multitude of spectators, (who are daily admitted 
 to this menagerie from motives of parsimony) subjected to the 
 petty tyranny of a vulgar and brutal jailer, who might de- 
 light in the frequent infliction of the lash on such prisoners ; 
 may we not ask whether the punishment of these two dif- 
 ferent classes of convicts be equal? We believe that no ad- 
 vocate of the Auburn system could maintain such a position. 
 Suppose this individual had, on the contrary, been placed in 
 solitary confinement, this gross inequality in the allotment of 
 his punishment would not exist: his prison would retain suffi- 
 cient suffering to prevent his repetition of offence: sufficient 
 terrors to deter others from imitating his example: self- 
 respect, shame and character would not be entirely eradi- 
 cated: hopeless degradation would not forever counteract the 
 most powerful incentives to reformation. 
 
 The case we have selected is rare, but by no means ano- 
 malous ; the same reasoning will apply, although with di- 
 minished force, to a large class of offenders ; to all who are 
 committed for the first time, to all who are novices in guilt, 
 to all in whom the seeds of virtue are not wholly extinct ; to 
 all these solitary confinement will be a punishment far more 
 equal than any plan which admits of association, and ob- 
 viously far more equal than the boasted system of Auburn. 
 
 Although from the very nature of man all punishments 
 must necessarily be unequal, the nearest practicable approxi- 
 mation to equality is effected by our species of discipline; 
 a discipline sufficiently severe, (as we shall hereafter prove,) 
 on whatever class of offenders it may be inflicted, to effect the 
 great objects of human punishments — the prevention of 
 crime, and the reformation of the guilty, without the un- 
 necessary infliction of pain or cruelty on any who may be 
 subjected to its administration. 
 
 In our next number wm propose to examine whether the 
 general charge of cruelty, or the specific charges of injury 
 to the health or reason of convicts, when subjected to se- 
 parate confinement, be sustainable. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 In this number we propose to inquire whether the charge 
 of cruelty can be justly alleged against our system. 
 
65 
 
 Much misapprehension prevails among some persons re- 
 specting the nature of the discipline to be established in our 
 new Penitentiaries ; those who have been the most clamorous 
 in their accusations of cruelty have been engaged in combat- 
 ting a phantom existing only in their imaginations. They 
 have supposed that the convicts would be confined in dark, 
 damp dens, so small that no exercise in them would be practi- 
 cable, no space allowed wherein the unhappy inmates could 
 even stretch their palsied limbs ; that they would be poisoned 
 by the close and vitiated atmosphere which they would be 
 compelled to breathe ; that the light of day and the fresh air 
 of heaven would be carefully excluded; that warmth and 
 ventilation would be neglected, whilst the prisoner doomed to 
 absolute, unremitted and unmitigated solitude, with no em- 
 ployment to occupy him, and prevent remorse urging him to 
 despair, with none to aid or visit him when sick, with none to 
 instruct him when ignorant, or to attempt his reformation, 
 would either be released by a cruel, lingering death in his 
 dungeon, or, if discharged, that he would be ruined in health, 
 his mental powers impaired or destroyed, and his disposition 
 unregenerate, malignant and vindictive. 
 
 To imagine that any benefit would result from such a dia- 
 bolical species of incarceration, would be the consummation 
 of folly and absurdity. To defend any of our citizens from 
 the imputation of devising or approving this system, would be 
 indeed unnecessary. The wisdom and benevolence of those 
 philanthropists who have so long endeavoured to perfect our 
 Penitentiary discipline, have sanctioned a plan founded on the 
 basis of sound philosophy, of extensive experience, and of un- 
 questionable humanity. 
 
 In our second number we briefly described the Eastern 
 Penitentiary, and the system which is to be practiced there- 
 in. We mentioned the size, furniture, and admirable appa- 
 ratus for warming, lighting, cleansing and ventilating the 
 cells ; the size of the yards, for labour or exercise, which are 
 attached to every cell,* and we alluded to the extreme atten- 
 tion which has been given to provide every requisite comfort 
 for the prisoners. In this respect this prison is unrivalled in 
 
 * Our Commissioners prefer resorting to Boston for information respecting the struc- 
 ture of the Penitentiary in Philadelpfiia, and have consequently committed some 
 egregious errors in their description. Why did they not carefully examine this build- 
 ing? The cells are 16 feet high and not 10, as they have stated. We cannot ima- 
 gine how they can commend the small, wretched and impure cells at Auburn, whilst 
 they censure ours as close, narrow and unwholesome. See p. 43, Com. Rt. Their 
 supposition that the convict might expire before the knowledge of his illness could 
 be known to the keeper, is a mere supposition at variance with experience. Is not 
 the confinement at Auburn at night and on Sundays liable to the same remark ? 
 Suitable means will he provided in our Penitentiary as in other prisons, to enable the 
 convict to notify the keepers of his illness, even if it should escape the hourly obser- 
 vation of these vigilant inspectors. 
 
66 
 
 Christendom. The Western Penitentiary at Pittsburg is not 
 equally well planned, but with some alterations and additions, 
 may be adapted to the purpose for which it was intended. 
 
 Religious and other instruction will be constantly and regu- 
 larly administered; the visits of the virtuous and benevolent 
 permitted and encouraged, under proper restrictions ; unre- 
 mittcd solitude, or separation from all society will not be 
 therefore practiced. Intercourse with the enlightened and 
 virtuous members of the community must inevitably fre- 
 quently console and benefit, and can never torture or injure 
 the convict : he will be separated only from evil society , from the 
 association with the depraved and hardened : the progress of 
 corruption will be arrested; he can neither impart or receive 
 from them contamination; if a gem of virtue or of shame ex- 
 ist, it may be preserved and cultivated; his character will 
 not be irreparably destroyed by exposure; his resolutions of 
 reformation blasted by an acquaintance with his fellow con- 
 victs, an acquaintance which when once formed can never be 
 dissolved. 
 
 We cannot perceive the justice of the imputation of cruelty 
 in thus separating the convicts, not from all the enjoyments 
 of society, but from their intercourse, or rather from their 
 association, without any intercourse whatever, with each other : 
 for the evils of such intercourse are fully admitted by our 
 opponents. 
 
 There is no magical charm in the mere herding together 
 into one silent and revolting society, all the inmates of a pri- 
 son; there is no charm to preserve the mental or physical 
 health of convicts in the performance of labour in the mere 
 presence of each other — for our opponents contend, that no 
 conversation by words or even signs or looks ought to be per- 
 mitted, or in fact exists in their favourite model at Auburn ; 
 (a statement which we shall hereafter prove to be erroneous.) 
 The remarks which we have just made refer to the relative 
 humanity of the two opposite systems during the hours of la- 
 bour. At night and on Sundays, &c. solitary confinement is 
 also practiced at Auburn ; we believe that it will not be 
 again contended, that a residence in the small, narrow, dimly 
 lighted, impure and wretched dens of this horrid institution 
 will be as conducive to health and comfort as in our admira- 
 ble Penitentiaries. In the latter establishments, exercise, or 
 labour, in the open air, when requisite, will be performed; 
 subject to the restrictions mentioned in our second number. 
 
 It was never intended by the friends of our system, even 
 by those who were opposed to the introduction of labour, to 
 deprive the convicts of exercise, of books, of instruction and ol 
 
67 
 
 suitable society. Our Commissioners however have imputed 
 to them the most absurd, inconsistent and unheard of devices. 
 They have expended whole pages of their report in combat- 
 ting a plan existing only in their own imaginations ; we en- 
 treat our readers to examine their essay, they will derive 
 amusement if not edification from the perusal. 
 
 In relation to exercise in our Penitentiaries, they state 
 (Com. Rt. p. 49) that the “ airing yards are without cover, 
 and therefore exposed to rain, snow and inclement air,” con- 
 sequently that they are not adapted for exercise ! Unfortu- 
 nate convicts, doomed by the tyranny of our laws to take ex- 
 ercise in the open air ; how foreign to your previous luxurious 
 and effeminate habits ; how different your lot from the rest of 
 mankind, who never venture into the open air, but in covered 
 coaches ; why was not your Penitentiary covered with a roof 
 of glass, that the winds of heaven might not visit your tender 
 frames too roughly ? Why was no hot house provided for your 
 recreation wherein ye might exercise without contracting 
 colds or consumption ? We trust that this barbarous omission 
 will be rectified. 
 
 In relation to books our Commissioners are equally felici- 
 tous in their predictions ; they state (Com. Rt. p. 36) that 
 many of the convicts will be unable to read, and they pre- 
 sume that it is not intended to instruct them in reading. 
 Even this work of supererogation is contemplated ; for we, in 
 our ignorance, have indulged a suspicion that furnishing books 
 to a convict ignorant of letters, was not intended by our phi- 
 lanthropists merely for the purpose of tantalizing him. Our 
 Commissioners appear to have a glimmering suspicion that 
 this visionary design may possibly have been once entertained, 
 but they conclude unanswerably, that the expense of instruct- 
 ing these convicts will be an insurmountable objection. We 
 refer them for an answer to the 2000 zealous, unpaid, but 
 not unrewarded teachers in the Sunday schools of Philadel- 
 phia. The difficulty will consist not in procuring, but in se- 
 lecting teachers from the host who will press forward to labour 
 in this productive field of benevolence. Never, whilst our 
 missionaries are sent to the uttermost parts of the earth, on 
 their dangerous and expensive errands of mercy, will our citi- 
 zens forget the scriptural injunctions to visit and relieve the 
 prisoner. . We need not therefore refute the strange and un- 
 founded idea of our Commissioners, that religion, as well as 
 learning, is to be carefully excluded from our Penitentiary, 
 as they were from their admired Auburn prison. The mere 
 idea of such a consummation of atrocious cruelty never sullied 
 even the imagination of the advocates of our Penitentiary sys- 
 
68 
 
 tem. To repel such a charge by argument would be almost 
 a reflection on their reputation. 
 
 Our Commissioners terminate their strange paragraph by 
 expressing their apprehension that the perusal of the scrip- 
 tures in solitude, without instruction or labour, will produce 
 mental derangement; we do not apprehend this dangerous 
 result from the precepts of our religion, which silence and 
 seclusion from the world will render more impressive and 
 convincing ; at all events, we do not concur with the advo- 
 cates of Auburn in the supposition that the discipline of the 
 cowskin will cause those precepts to be more relished or re- 
 membered : we believe that a convict whose lacerated limbs 
 are still writhing and reeking from the scourge, is not in the 
 frame of mind best adapted to receive the admonitions, or to 
 enjoy the consolations of a religion breathing mercy and for- 
 giveness. 
 
 Our Commissioners seem to be aware that the humane feel- 
 ings of our citizens would make them revolt at the recom- 
 mendation of the Auburn system, if the lash were considered 
 as an essential accompaniment. They therefore express an 
 opinion that the scourge may be probably dispensed with, 
 and the discipline perhaps preserved by other means ; but this 
 momentary feeling of the Commissioners appears to have 
 yielded to their deeply rooted admiration of Auburn ; and they 
 therefore devote nearly four pages of their report to an ela- 
 borate eulogium on the efficacy of the cowskin as an infallible 
 panacea for crime. They maintain that the infliction of 
 whipping is not in opposition to “ any principle of our political 
 constitution, or of any reason of morals.” Com. Rt. p. 75. 
 That it is a venerable species of punishment recommended in 
 holy writ ; and finally that it was sanctioned in the code of 
 Pennsylvania, &c. In reply to their statements we may re- 
 mark that all cruel punishments are expressly forbidden, both 
 by the letter and spirit of our constitution, as well as by 
 every principle of reason, morals or religion. That whipping 
 is a cruel punishment in the opinions of our citizens, may be 
 presumed from the repeal of those venerable laws, which are 
 so much admired by our Commissioners. The genius and hu- 
 manity of our great founder and law-giver at once expunged 
 from our code, almost every vestige of the cruel and absurd 
 enactments of the barbarism of the dark ages. Where so 
 much amelioration has been accomplished, our admiration and 
 gratitude will be more justly and more cheerfully bestowed 
 than our censure on his memory, because something was al- 
 most necessarily left undone. Corporal punishments are not 
 in harmony with the institutions, nor have they increased the 
 
69 
 
 fame of our benevolent legislator. They resemble the dark 
 but minute spots on the sun, which, adding nothing to its 
 brilliancy, would diminish its splendour, if they were not 
 overpowered and rendered invisible by the surpassing efful- 
 gence which surrounds them. 
 
 If our Commissioners deemed the sanction of the scourge in 
 the Mosaic law applicable to the institutions of Christian 
 countries, why have they not adopted the other punishments 
 of that code ? consistency would require them to recommend 
 stoning to death, and the other revolting inflictions, which, 
 we are informed in the Scriptures, were intended only for a 
 peculiar people, and given to them “on account of the hard- 
 ness of their hearts.” 
 
 Our Commissioners infer (Com. Rt. p. 75,) that our citizens 
 have “ no great reason to be shocked at a proposal of admi- 
 nistering” the lash, which has been so long used to maintain 
 naval and military discipline. The cases are not analogous. 
 In the Penitentiary no immediate evil of importance may 
 result from the negligence, or sometimes even from the mis- 
 conduct, of a convict. A fleet may be lost, or an army an- 
 nihilated, from the indolence or insubordination of a sailor 
 or a soldier. The misconduct of a sentinel, or of a helmsman, 
 may be fatal in its tendency : instantaneous obedience is re- 
 quired ; there is no time to reason or expostulate ; moreover, 
 sailors have been previously accustomed to the lash, it is not 
 therefore equally revolting to their feelings. We may how- 
 ever observe that other punishments have also been adopted 
 in our navy which appeal to other physical and moral feel- 
 ings; that such punishments have been found to be effi- 
 cacious ; that flogging is not as much practised in our navy 
 as in the inferior marine of some other nations. 
 
 Decatur, the brightest star in the splendid galaxy of our 
 naval heroes, was most decidedly opposed to the use of the 
 lash. Admiral Nelson and Lord Collingwood, names which no 
 eulogy can render more illustrious, were strenuous opponents 
 of this sine qua non of the great majority of naval disciplina- 
 rians. In the armies of France flogging is never, and in the 
 armies of Prussia very rarely practiced— although death is 
 too frequently inflicted, (sometimes in lieu of it.) We do not, 
 however, venture to decide whether the last be indispensable 
 for the maintenance of naval or military discipline. 
 
 In our army it has been abolished, and perhaps benefit 
 may result from the regulation. In this city, at the marine 
 barracks, solitary confinement has been substituted in lieu of 
 iV- We re( l uest our readers to refer to the letter of Colonel 
 Miller to Roberts Vaux, of this city, (published January 8, 
 
 9 
 
70 
 
 1828.) The superior efficacy of the new discipline is de- 
 scribed in language alike creditable to the heart and head of 
 the humane commander. 
 
 It is not the mere physical suffering resulting from the lash 
 which we deprecate; but the injurious moral effects: the 
 degradation of the sufferer— the annihilation of all self- 
 respect— the creation of deep, malignant, implacable feelings 
 of revenge. Terror and pain may produce temporary sub- 
 mission ; may apparently repress the manifestation of pride 
 indignant at humiliation ; but when the restraint is removed, 
 the smothered fire will burst out the more fiercely with in- 
 
 controllable fury. . 
 
 We are aware that a relaxation in the inhuman discipline 
 at Auburn has been effected; that the scourge is not in in- 
 cessant action ; the diminution of evil in that institution may 
 be partly attributed to this circumstance ; but, notwithstand- 
 ing the recent letter of Mr. Powers to our Commissioners, 
 (printed at Harrisburg, 1829,) we have the clearest and most 
 undoubted evidence that much cruel and atrocious severity 
 continues to be practised; evidence derived from persons 
 who have been connected with that prison and their state- 
 ments have been confirmed by those who have been sub- 
 jected to the discipline, who had no motive to induce them 
 to practice deception; confirmatory testimony imprinted on 
 their bodies cannot be disproved. The frequent, or even the 
 actual infliction of the lash is not necessary to produce the 
 baneful effects which we have previously described: the 
 spectacle of its infliction on others— the mere power of inflict- 
 ing it on all, is sufficient: it is always present to the imagina- 
 tion ; it galls the feelings even when it does not lacerate the 
 body. We do not rely on the statement of Mr. Powers re- 
 specting the severity and frequency of this punishment, nor 
 can we assent to his opinion on its tendency. In the letter 
 of this ex-jailer, in which he arrays himself against Mr. 
 Livingston, it appears that human nature exists at Auburn 
 with characteristics at variance with the well known at- 
 tributes of the rest of mankind ; that cruel and severe pun- 
 ishments produce no exasperation of feeling, nor even alienation 
 of the affections of the convicts: that scourging is especially 
 acceptable to them ; that gratitude, not revenge, is the senti- 
 ment excited by the administration of the scourge. If our 
 readers relish the exhibition of ludicrous absurdity, they will 
 find materials for their entertainment in this Auburn epistle. 
 In China, as we read in the nursery tales, it is customary for 
 a Mandarin to bestow the use of his cane with profuse li- 
 berality on the shoulders of any of the populace whom he 
 may suppose to require this mark of his paternal regard ; the 
 
71 
 
 sufferer on his bended knees, with due humility, and doubtless 
 equally sincere gratitude, reverently thanks him for the pains 
 he has taken with his education. We had heretofore sup- 
 posed, very erroneously it appears, that this was one of the 
 peculiarities of that remote region. 
 
 We regret that we have consumed our time and trespassed 
 on the patience of our readers by an examination of the ef- 
 fects of the scourge. It is unnecessary to give the details of 
 the mass of evidence which is in our possession, to prove that 
 the lash hardens but never reforms the criminal. We be- 
 lieve that our citizens will not retrograde in humanity and 
 civilization, by reviving or establishing any species of torture 
 in Pennsylvania. 
 
 We believe that our readers will concur with us in opinion 
 that, as far as the questions which we have examined are 
 concerned, solitary confinement cannot be deemed a cruel 
 punishment. Cruelty is the unnecessary infliction of pain ; all 
 punishments are necessarily painful — are intended to be se- 
 vere, to prevent the repetition or imitation of crime. The 
 ultimate benefit conferred, even on the criminal himself, 
 renders such severity a measure of real humanity: more ex- 
 panded views of benevolence, a regard to the welfare of 
 society, renders such severity not only justifiable but obli- 
 gatory. The removal of physical disease may be attended 
 with pain ; but who ever supposed the agent of such removal 
 liable to the imputation of cruelty? The abatement of 
 moral disease — the restoration of criminals to happiness and 
 usefulness — would justify measures far more severe than 
 those we advocate, if such measures be insufficient. 
 
 One feature of our system has not been examined: its 
 peculiar adaptation to the respective guilt of each convict; 
 each individual will necessarily be made the instrument of 
 his own punishment — his conscience will be the avenger of 
 society. 
 
 The peculiar tendency of solitary confinement to produce 
 mental and bodily disease, has been urged by our opponents. 
 
 All confinement, all suffering, has in some measure this 
 tendency: mere separation from the society of former friends 
 and associates; the absence of customary occupations and 
 amusements ; the deprivations of habitual comforts and en- 
 joyments ; the degradation of conviction and exposure ; the 
 disgrace conferred on relatives and connexions ; the suffering 
 of a family left destitute of support ; any or all of these causes 
 must, in some degree, painfully effect the minds of even the 
 most hardened. If to these predisposing causes of disease we 
 add the ravages of previous dissipation, we shall not be 
 
astonished at the mortality observable in even the best re- 
 gulated prisons.* It is however obvious that the majority of 
 the causes which we have enumerated, are less effective in 
 solitary than in associated confinement, as practised at Au- 
 burn: we might therefore argue a priori that the former 
 would be certainly not more prejudicial to health than the 
 latter. Experience confirms the correctness of this opinion. 
 We have shown in our third number that the cases of disease 
 in the solitary cells at Auburn, Richmond and in Maine, were 
 most unquestionably attributable to the inhuman cruelty 
 which was wantonly and absurdly connected with the experi- 
 ments; a smilar cause will never produce such effects in 
 Pennsylvania. In our fourth number we proved that the 
 testimony adduced by our Commissioners, respecting the 
 existence of disease resulting from our discipline in Europe, 
 was garbled ; that the evidence, if correctly quoted, proved 
 the very reverse of their opinion. We might now produce a 
 mass of unanswerable testimony to prove that the experience 
 of Europe, as well as of this country, demonstrates that a 
 well regulated system of solitary confinement is not pre- 
 judicial to health. As the details would occupy an un- 
 reasonable space, we will merely therefore select a few. 
 
 1. Even at Auburn, when disease had been produced by 
 cruelty and close and absolute solitary confinement, fresh air 
 and light labour restores the sick to health; (Com. Rt. p. 45.) The 
 prevention, and not merely the cure of disease, will be ac- 
 complished by these means, constantly and regularly used in 
 our Penitentiaries. 
 
 2. At Richmond, the superintendent states that the health 
 of those confined in solitude will be preserved if labour be 
 permitted, (we refer to his evidence contained in our fourth 
 number.) 
 
 3. In New Jersey, exercise in the open air was formerly 
 neglected, but subsequently occasional exercise and in- 
 struction have been introduced. Our Commissioners state 
 “ that nothing of value as testimony upon the point we are 
 now discussing (health) is to be derived from this prison. If 
 they attach the term valuable only to evidence which may 
 be in their favour, they are correct in their opinion ; but we 
 believe our readers will think differently. In the first Bos- 
 ton report, which we have previously quoted, p. 14, it is ex- 
 pressly stated, both from the evidence of inspection and the 
 testimony of the keeper, Mr. Labaw, that the health of the 
 prisoners was remarkably good: the solitary confinement 
 
 * The mortality among this class when at liberty is well known to be great, in 
 fact even greater than when in prison. 
 
73 
 
 was here inflicted for years ; and in the letter of Mr. Labaw 
 to our eminent fellow citizen Dr. Mease, it is expressly 
 stated that no injury to their mental faculties was the result. 
 
 4. In the prison at Philadelphia the testimony is nearly to 
 the same effect : we refer to the letter of Dr. Bache, the 
 physician of that establishment, and to the certificates of the 
 keepers which have been published; also to the reports 
 of the inspectors and commissioners of our prisons, and to the 
 minutes and memorials of the Philadelphia Society for al- 
 leviating the miseries of public prisons. 
 
 5. In Great Britain the evidence is equally in our favour; 
 we never, in our travels in Europe, heard even a suspicion 
 expressed by those who were conversant with prisons, that a 
 well regulated system of solitary confinement was prejudicial 
 to health. Some of the opponents of our theory in this 
 country, have referred to the extensive and fatal disease 
 which a few years since occurred at the National Peniten- 
 tiary at Millbank, where a large portion of the convicts are 
 confined in solitude. But as this disease prevailed among all 
 the prisoners, their inference would be erroneous even if the 
 peculiar cause of that disorder had not been expressly stated 
 in “the Report on the state of the Millbank Penitentiary, 
 printed by order of the House of Commons, in 1823.” The 
 disorder was cured, and the subsequent annual reports state 
 that health again prevails among all classes of the inmates. 
 
 In the numerous investigations which have been made by 
 the various committees of the House of Commons on the state 
 of jails, as well as in the minute and careful examinations 
 which have been instituted by benevolent individuals, and by 
 the acting committee of the London Prison Discipline So- 
 ciety, no evidence has appeared respecting the unfavourable 
 effect of our system on the health of prisoners. 
 
 In our fifth number we gave a brief abstract of the ex- 
 tensive experience of the benevolent Paul, and of William 
 Brutton, the governor of the jail at Devizes ; we might fill 
 these pages with similar statements, proving, incontrovertibly, 
 that neither physical disease nor mental alienation, nor even 
 despondency, were produced in the prisoners who have been 
 subjected to this discipline. 
 
 Counterfeiting illness or madness is frequently resorted to by 
 convicts to obtain a release from confinement. Some of the 
 cases, in the United States, at Auburn, &c. referred to by 
 our Commissioners, were unquestionably of this description ; 
 hereditary or other predisposing causes have occasioned some 
 of the remainder, and we regret to state that the atrocious 
 cruelty which has been practised at Auburn, at Richmond, 
 
74 
 
 and in the state of Maine, too clearly proves the cause to 
 which we must assign the destruction of the health and men- 
 tal faculties of the remainder. When so many extraneous 
 and powerful causes of evil have been permitted to exert 
 their baneful influence, we may rather express our astonish- 
 ment at the paucity, than at the number of disasters which 
 have occurred. As these causes will not exist at our Peniten- 
 tiaries, no similar evils will be experienced. The abuse of 
 our system ought not to be urged as a reason for its rejection, 
 particularly when such abuse can never be perpetrated in 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 To the hypothetical arguments of our opponents we have 
 endeavoured to reply by a similar species of reasoning ; and 
 we have proved that long continued, extensive and invariable 
 experience — the surest test of the truth of theories — is in ac- 
 cordance with our opinions. Isolated cases of madness occur 
 among all classes of society: the prisoner in his dungeon is 
 not more exempt than the monarch on his throne. Even if 
 it could be proved that a few cases of derangement would ne- 
 cessarily result from solitary confinement, which in the great 
 majority of instances is productive of such incalculable bene- 
 fit, we would reply that better, far better, would it be for 
 society that the convict should become even a madman, than 
 that he should retain those faculties which he had abused, 
 and which no means of punishment would induce him to de- 
 vote to the reparation of the wrongs he had perpetrated. 
 
 Our Commissioners are not aware that, even at present , their 
 favourite institution at Auburn is liable to that imputation 
 which they have endeavoured to attach to our system. Mr. 
 Powers, the ex-jailer, expressly admits that u with all the 
 privileges enjoyed by the convicts at Auburn,” (the cowskin, 
 and other comforts, we presume) “insanity is no uncommon 
 occurrence. There are several now [1828] more or less in- 
 sane.” Powers’ account, &c. p. 85. 
 
 We believe, therefore, that we may conclude that solitary 
 confinement is not a punishment unreasonably severe; the 
 charge of cruelty may be safely repelled by a reference to 
 the long list of zealous and intelligent philanthropists who 
 have advocated its adoption. 
 
 No. X. 
 
 We propose to enquire whether solitary confinement be 
 efficacious as a means of reform. The evils attending the 
 
75 
 
 commission of crime, and the alarming increase in the num- 
 ber* and atrocity of offenders, have forcibly attracted the 
 public attention. The reformation of criminals is regarded 
 as a desideratum; by the selfish, from a regard to their inte- 
 rests ; by the patriotic and benevolent, from a regard to the 
 welfare of society, and the temporal and eternal happiness 
 of the offenders ; by the experienced it is regarded not merely 
 as desirable, but also as practicable. 
 
 That religion and policy alike dictate the adoption of 
 mercy, of kindness and forbearance in the infliction of refor- 
 matory punishments, we presume it is unnecessary to demon- 
 strate ; the infliction of pain, misery and terror on our of- 
 fending brethren, has not been entrusted to fallible and erring 
 mortals, by that Being who has emphatically prohibited reta- 
 liation by the declaration — “Vengeance is mine, I will re- 
 pay.” 
 
 The reformation of convicts may be effected either by radical 
 alteration of their dispositions, by instruction, &c. or by the 
 application of punishment sufficiently severe to deter them 
 from a repetition of crime. Both these means are admirably 
 combined in our system. In solitude the progress of corrup- 
 tion is arrested; no additional contamination can be received 
 or communicated; no exposure produces fatal degradation by 
 the destruction of every principle of shame, or of self respect, 
 of every hope of restoration to character and the enjoyment 
 of society. The convict in his cell will he compelled to re- 
 flect on the error of his ways, to listen to the reproaches of 
 conscience, to the expostulations of religion ; the language of 
 mercy, of kindness and sympathy will not be applied to him 
 in vain: humiliation may be produced without mortification: 
 none will be present to sustain him in pride and to aid him 
 by evil example ; none to deride his repentance, or to eradi- 
 cate his reviving or newly created resolutions of reform ; no 
 revolting cruelty will urge him to desperation or prompt him 
 to meditate on retaliation when released, by deep, malignant, 
 reckless revenge. 
 
 Our Commissioners however are of a different opinion ; they 
 doubt “whether a thorough reformation of the heart and 
 disposition of the great mass of convicts is likely to be 
 effected, under any species of prison discipline;” “at all 
 events they are unable to anticipate such results from the 
 system of solitude .” Com. Rt. p. 72. They do not believe “ that 
 any great benefit is to be expected from appeals to the rea- 
 
 * The number of commitments to the prisons in Philadelphia have amounted to 
 4000 per annum, for the last three years ; the individuals who are thus instructed in 
 crime in these institutions, exceed in number those who are educated at the public 
 expense in our common public schools. 
 
76 
 
 son, or to the moral cause,” of such persons ; and “ that there 
 could be but one kind of argument addressed (to them) with 
 any hope of success, one namely that came home to their 
 sense of bodily suffering. Appeals to the reason or consciences 
 of such persons must, from the nature of things, be utterly in- 
 effectual: more especially do we (‘ they’) think, that severe 
 personal punishments ought to be inflicted for the violation of 
 prison discipline hence their admiration of the cowskin and 
 their enthusiastic recommendation of Auburn. 
 
 The impracticability of reformation has been immemorially 
 a standing theme of the advocates of imperfect institutions ; a 
 frequent and effective means of the continuance and increase 
 of abuses, an obstacle opposed to almost every noble plan of 
 amelioration. The experience of our readers will render 
 unnecessary any illustrations of a species of cant which has 
 been applied to every proposed improvement in morals, in 
 government and in legislation. It was only yesterday that 
 Newgate remained in a state of primitive, undisturbed abo- 
 mination ; the efforts of Howard, and of other philanthropists, 
 to diminish its horrors, had been expended in vain ; reformers 
 had ceased from their exertions, despairing of success, when 
 a member of that benevolent sect, whose name is characteris- 
 tic of their creed and their practice, a female Friend, resumed 
 the task which men had abandoned : one of that delicate and 
 refined sex to whom the exhibition of vice is especially revolt- 
 ing ; to whom the horrors of oppression and misery are pecu- 
 liarly appalling; to whom impurity is instinctively loathsome ; 
 but whose holy devotion to duty is paid with more fervour 
 from a knowledge of the magnitude and necessity of the sa- 
 crifice, successfully removed the doubts of the most incredulous: 
 the enormous and ancient mass of abuse was prostrated, and 
 Newgate is now visited by admiring spectators as a philoso- 
 phical curiosity, with other feelings than those of hopeless 
 regret, or of unmingled reprobation. These well known ef- 
 forts of Mrs. Fry have placed her name at the head of that 
 honoured catalogue of philanthropists whose memory will be 
 cherished in the hearts of the myriads who may be indebted 
 to their benevolence. The beneficial effects of her exertions 
 are too well known to require any enumeration ; they have 
 been repeatedly and gratefully acknowledged in Parliament, 
 and by the public press. Her unexpected success in the pre- 
 viously hopeless measure of reformation, under the most unfa- 
 vourable circumstances, has stimulated many of her benevo- 
 lent sex to imitate her noble example. Ladies’ committees, 
 as these unassuming but meritorious associations are styled, 
 have been formed throughout Great Britain and Ireland, and 
 
in many other countries in Europe. Ere long the ladies of 
 America, second to none in the cause of mercy, will rival them 
 in their usefulness.* 
 
 We need not refer to the voluminous evidence in our pos- 
 session, to prove that a degree of reformation in a majority of 
 convicts has been effected even by very imperfect means of 
 discipline. The authorities, to which we have frequently re- 
 ferred in these essays, are replete with such information. It 
 will require stronger evidence than that of our Commissioners 
 to convince us that such reformation has not been accom- 
 plished, much more that it is impracticable. We are for- 
 bidden to despair of the reform of any human being, what- 
 ever may be his measure of depravity, however improbable 
 we deem our success. The design of an all-wise Providence 
 in the prolongation of human existence, ought not to be for- 
 gotten, far less neglected, through the presumption or indo- 
 lence of man. Duty requires the effort, whatever may be 
 the result. Universal success is expected only by the vi- 
 sionary advocates of the perfectability of human nature: 
 that penitentiary, or any other species of discipline, will be 
 an effectual and infallible means of eradicating the criminal 
 propensities of all who may be subjected to its operations, is 
 a belief entertained only by the visionary. Those even who 
 have the strongest of human motives to retain them in the 
 paths of duty, too frequently are led astray. A long and well 
 spent life, the character of the individual, of his family, and 
 of his relations, and the feelings of his friends, the almost cer- 
 tain prospect of detection, and its dreaded consequences, the 
 scorn and contempt of society, and even the retribution of 
 the world to come, are too frequently but feeble barriers 
 against temptation. If, therefore, those to whom virtuous 
 conduct, (or what is conventionally so called,) has long been 
 habitual, sometimes fall, notwithstanding their many advan- 
 tages, is it reasonable to suppose that convicts alone can be 
 rendered immaculate and infallible — convicts who have been 
 surrounded by temptation to error from the cradle to the 
 grave, whose lives have been but one prolonged crime, and in 
 whom vice has become a habit. No system of penitentiary dis- 
 cipline, however excellent or generally successful, can alter 
 
 * For more than twenty years, the female department of the prison in Philadelphia 
 has been visited by a committee of benevolent females. Their meritorious exertions 
 (although unknown to fame) were prior to those of Mrs. Fry, and the condition of the 
 department of the prison which they have ameliorated is as much advanced as New- 
 gate. The state of each is imperfect. The Walnut street prison will, however, be de- 
 molished in 1834. Newgate, we fear, will long continue to disgrace the British metro- 
 polis. The labours of Mrs. F ry deserve only more commendation from the circumstance 
 that more was to be accomplished than in our prison, which had been improved in 
 1790. The female department of our new prison will, we earnestly hope, be entrusted, 
 to the care of a matron. (1833.) 
 
 10 
 
78 
 
 the laws of human nature, which experience kas shown are 
 alone unchangeable. 
 
 Every person who is familiar with the practcal operation 
 of prison discipline, or who even reflects for a noment on the 
 difficulty of eradicating long cherished and inveterate habits 
 of transgression, will candidly acknowledge the difficulty, 
 and, in too many cases, the forlorn hope of accomplishing “a 
 thorough reformation of the heart and disposition” of a hard- 
 ened, depraved, shameless veteran in vice, of a thrice convict- 
 ed felon, whose conscience is dormant, seared aid apparently 
 extinct. All experience demonstrates that the radical refor- 
 mation of the great majority of these our erring krethrenis not 
 to be expected from the application of any luman efforts. 
 The leprous infection pervades the whole system, and ap- 
 pears to be almost a constitutional taint. The physician of 
 the soul, more fortunate than the physician of the body, 
 should never despair, however unfavourable muy be the con- 
 dition of his patients. Even in the very hour of dissolution 
 some may at length be rescued. The clouds and darkness of 
 the most stormy day are sometimes dissipated at its termina- 
 tion by that brilliant light which fore:ells the clearness of the 
 morrow. The reformation even of ore old convict is of some 
 importance; the reformation of a few is even practicable, if 
 our system be faithfully administered: and we earnestly re- 
 quest our readers to consider that even if none of this class 
 be improved, at least they cannot be further corrupted by our 
 discipline, nor can they corrupt others — a corruption which 
 heretofore has been the most prolific source of crime : more- 
 over when such convicts shall be discharged from prison, they 
 will retain the salutary remembrance of their sufferings in 
 confinement. They will either abstain from committing of- 
 fences which may again subject them to imprisonment, or they 
 will abandon the state and pursue their vocation in other 
 lands. This is not a mere visionary theory. Such has been 
 invariably the case in other countries where our system has 
 been tried. Our readers will perceive in the extracts quoted 
 in these essays, some evidence which anounts to a demon- 
 stration of this fact. Our readers, however, are proba- 
 bly aware that the great majority of persons who will be 
 sentenced to our prisons will not be old convicts, but per- 
 sons who, for the first time, will enter a prison, and on whom 
 our system may be expected to produce the best effects. 
 There are doubtless some to whom all the efforts of education, 
 of religion, of punishment, may be appiet in vain: there 
 have been individuals on whom the judgnents and the mer- 
 cies of the Almighty, and the expost ula tors of his inspired 
 
79 
 
 messengers, have been fruitlessly bestowed; but if the refor- 
 mation of all be impracticable, is nothing to be attempted 1 The 
 voice of religion and experience cry aloud against the horrid, 
 hopeless, desponding theory of our Commissioners. The pub- 
 lication of their opinions on this subject excited but one feel- 
 ing of dissent among our citizens : it has impaired, or destroyed 
 all confidence in their theory, founded on this monstrous and 
 appalling heresy. Hence we are not surprised at their incon- 
 sistency in recently submitting to the Legislature, as an appen- 
 dix to their report, a letter of Mr. Powers, containing state- 
 ments at variance with the fundamental doctrines of their 
 essay .f From this letter it would appear that even at Au- 
 burn the reformation of the majority of convicts is effected. 
 We have no doubt of the partial accuracy of the statement. 
 Notwithstanding the obstacles to reform which exist in that 
 institution, we believe that the solitary confinement at night, 
 and on Sundays, the partial prevention of intercourse, and 
 the recent introduction of education, religion, &c. have effect- 
 ed some reformation: the severity of the discipline has also 
 deterred the convicts from an open repetition of punishable 
 crimes. A success greater than that alleged to exist at Au- 
 burn has been frequently effected by institutions far less cele- 
 brated. The reform actually produced, has been effected by 
 means not peculiar to Auburn. The system of cruelty and 
 association has diminished, not promoted, that reformation. 
 An analysis of the evidence respecting the individual cases 
 of reformed convicts, by no means sustains the partial and 
 exaggerated conclusion of Mr. Powers; on a slender founda- 
 tion he has erected i\ superstructure which his materials are 
 insufficient to sustain ; the mere non-commission of notorious 
 crime, the slightest amendment in the previously abandoned 
 habits of the discharged convicts of his prison, seem to be suf- 
 ficient in many cases to induce him to place their names in 
 the list of reformed criminals. We will not at present submit 
 any of our objections to the evidence he has collected. We 
 will not state the peculiar or partial manner in which it was 
 frequently obtained. 'We will not comment on the evidence 
 which has been withheld, for it is unnecessary at present. As- 
 suming therefore (merely for the argument) the correctness 
 of the statement of facts, may we not inquire whether this be all 
 the boasted system of Auburn has effected ? How far inferior is 
 the result, as stated by its partial and interested advocates, to the 
 reform effected by solitary confinement; a reform, sustained 
 by evidence the most uncontrovertible ; evidence derived, not 
 
 t The extract from the report of ihe Inspectors of the Auburn prison, which is given 
 in the Com. Rt. p. 6>9, exhibits evidence of similar facts. 
 
80 
 
 from one, but from an immense number of prisons, situated 
 in countries the most remote and different from each other] 
 
 The period which has elapsed since the discharge of these 
 convicts from Auburn has been too short to test the perma- 
 nence of the effect of that prison on its quondam inmates. A 
 few years will largely diminish the reformed list of Mr. Pow- 
 ers: alteration of habits (not of disposition) when chiefly 
 effected by means of terror and cruelty, will be, in many 
 cases, only temporary or ostensible. The discharged ten- 
 ants of Penitentiaries have frequently no settled home; if 
 unreformed, emigration to other states, where a repetition of 
 crime will not again subject them to punishments of equal 
 severity, will be frequently accomplished ; (this benefit of 
 course ceases when a similar system prevails in all the states.) 
 Mr. Powers will discover, if he should deem it expedient to 
 make the inquiry, that some of his discharged convicts have 
 been, and are at present, engaged, not in “ honest industry,” 
 but in their accustomed vocation of forced employment, in 
 other prisons. The blanks in his list may be consequently 
 partly filled. 
 
 In addition to the details of the Auburn system, to which 
 we have adverted in several of our essays, we intended to de- 
 scribe some features with more minuteness. Our limited 
 space will not permit us to accomplish our design. This will 
 however be performed by an individual far more competent 
 to the task ; we will therefore merely subjoin a few remarks 
 on the intercourse between the convicts in that prison. 
 
 Our Commissioners, throughout their report, repeatedly 
 admit the evils resulting from any intercourse between con- 
 victs in prison — that it should be prevented at any hazard ; 
 that its existence is incompatible with any efficacious disci- 
 pline. Their report is founded on this opinion. They repeat- 
 edly state that none exists at Auburn, and that their personal 
 inspection convinced them that such was unquestionably the 
 fact. 
 
 How far the experience of our Commissioners can be deem- 
 ed conclusive, may be estimated from a single circumstance ; 
 they are novices in prison discipline, and the aggregate length 
 of time employed by them in the actual inspection of the few 
 prisons which were visited by them in pursuance of their ap- 
 pointment, did not (as we are credibly informed) exceed a 
 single day. At Auburn they spent but a few hours, and could 
 not therefore have witnessed the operations of a whole day ; 
 their repeated appeals to their personal examination of an 
 institution which can only be understood by frequent visits, fail 
 to convince us of their knowledge. It is to no purpose that 
 
they assure us that certain alleged abuses (cruelty, inter- 
 course, &.c.) do not exis:, because their rapid glance did not 
 observe them,* mere negative statements are insufficient to 
 disprove positive affirmative testimony. Viewing this ques- 
 tion as one of mere probability, we would inquire whether 
 the vigilance of Argus could prevent all intercourse, by signs 
 or other means, among a number of convicts in close contact 
 with each other? We know that one of our Commissioners 
 not only supposed that r.o intercourse existed, but that their 
 attention was so rivetted to their work, that no recognition of 
 the persons of each other after their discharge could occur ! 
 We have accounts of many prisons in which a non-intercourse 
 was attempted, and by same supposed to exist ;f but the evi- 
 dence when obtained always disproved the statement. Au- 
 burn, notwithstanding all the assurances of its advocates, fur- 
 nishes no exception to the rule. It was visited by two of our 
 experienced, candid and intelligent inspectors, Mr. Samuel 
 R. Wood and Thomas Bradford ; each of whom expended 
 three days in the investigation. “ The report of the Commis- 
 sioners of the Eastern Penitentiary, printed at Harrisburg, 
 1828,” contains some extracts from their evidence. Some 
 additional statements wc are informed will be communicated 
 to the public. It was ascertained that conversation between the 
 prisoners when in their cells was physically practicable, and that 
 it was frequently maintained. As the mere testimony of the 
 convicts on this subject (however uniform and given when 
 apart from each other) may be deemed exceptionable, a de- 
 monstration of its truth was afforded; some convicts, who 
 were not acquainted with Mr. Wood personally, in their in- 
 terviews (which were specially permitted by Mr. Powers) 
 addressed him by his name, stated the subjects of his conver- 
 sations with other prisoners, by whom they had been com- 
 municated. They stated that conversation when they were 
 in their cells, was subject to interruption, but was neverthe- 
 less practiced. Similar testimony, supported by similar proof, 
 was given in relation to their intercourse when in their yards 
 and workshops. Evidence of the constant infliction of great 
 severity, and of the occurrence of cruelty, was furnished to 
 Mr. Wood, not only by the convicts, but by others who were 
 
 * The brief and incomplete examinations of Auburn, which have been heretofore 
 made, have led to erroneous conclusions ; even the long examination of the Commit- 
 tee of the New York Legislature (1825) was defective. 
 
 t At Weathersfield the two convicts, Teller and Caesar, who were recently exe- 
 cited for the murder of their keeper, confessed that for two years they had been in 
 cmcert contriving plans for escape. We believe that no person conversant with any 
 o' the prisons in which the Auburn system has been introduced, now (1833) maintains 
 that no intercourse whatever exists. They only contend that it is limited or restricted. 
 Their hypothesis could be sustained no longer. The very foundation stone of their 
 sjstem has manifested irreparable unsoundness. (1833.) 
 
acquainted, or had been connected with the administration 
 of the institution. These statements Hr.. W. is prepared to 
 confirm by his affirmation. The elevrt&d characters of the 
 gentlemen whom we have named, render any further proof 
 unnecessary. We trust that hereafter mo assertion of the 
 non-intercourse of prisoners at Auburn wi ll be attempted. 
 
 Our Commissioners state that as no intercourse prevails 
 among the Auburn convicts, the mere sght of each other can 
 be productive of no injury. If the p-emises were correct, 
 the inference is erroneous; as we enceavoured to prove in 
 our former numbers: (the diminution )f reflection, the sup- 
 port of mutual countenance, personal degradation, the conse- 
 quences of recognition, &c.) nevertheless they remark, Com. 
 lit. p. 29, “ Those who aver their belief to the contrary, 
 have not, as far as we have been able b ascertain, supported 
 their averments by any specification of tie manner in which the 
 contagion may be communicated ; or by any evidence of facts de- 
 rived from existing prisons. It may be -emarked in addition, 
 that if the mere consciousness of the neighbouring presence 
 of other convicts be criminating and injirious, then the know- 
 ledge that convicts are in adjoining cels must also excite a 
 feeling of companionship, equally prejudicial; and for that rea- 
 son, even this kind of confinement should be avoided, and the 
 cells ought to be built, no matter at wlat expense, at a con- 
 siderable distance from each other /” 
 
 We believe that our readers will deem any comment on 
 this passage superfluous. 
 
 It has been suggested that intercourse by means of conver- 
 sation will also prevail in our Penitentiary; that the prison- 
 ers will be enabled to effect this by means of the tubes con- 
 veying heated air into their cells. The experiment of an 
 attempted conversation by two parties in adjoining cells has 
 been repeatedly tried : it was utterly impracticable. It has 
 been supposed that the prisoners can converse when they are 
 in their working yards; but no adjoining or neighbouring 
 yards will be occupied at the same lime. Screaming could un- 
 doubtedly be heard, but not without the knowledge of the 
 keeper also. 
 
 An objection has been made to our Penitentiary from the 
 alleged difficulty or impossibility of inspection ; that the keep- 
 er in the central edifice cannot, from that station, see into 
 the interior of the cells or yards, as some persons originally 
 supposed ; we know of no such persons ; that stone walls were 
 not transparent was known prior to the erection of that pri- 
 son. The keeper can traverse the covered passages and tho- 
 roughly inspect the interior of every cell by a peculiar con- 
 
trivance ; his examination will not lbe known by the prisoners. 
 From the central building he earn inspect all the corridors 
 by which the superintendents convey food, &c. to the prison- 
 ers : he can command he tops of the yard walls of the cells, 
 and thus detect any atempt at escalade. The Commission- 
 ers urge as an objection, that the whole interior of the yard 
 cannot be seen from this point. On any plan this would be 
 practicable only by the birds of the air. Continual inspection 
 is not however requisite in solitary confinement ; it is indis- 
 pensable, although not completely effectual, when association 
 is permitted. 
 
 Secondly, the efficacy of solitary confinement as a means 
 of producing reform, is not a question of mere abstract specu- 
 lation, but of actual experience. 
 
 In our preceding numbers we have incidentally introduced 
 or referred to sufficient evidence to support this position. 
 Those who have hitherto discussed this subject have usually 
 confined their remarks to the limited experience in Pennsyl- 
 vania, and a few of the remaining states of our confederacy. 
 The mass of European testimony has been either unknown 
 or neglected. We have prepared a large number of testi- 
 monials which we intended to introduce into these essays;, 
 but as they have been already protracted beyond our expec- 
 tation, and perhaps the patience of our readers, we will omit 
 for the present the greater portion, and merely select a few 
 from the list. 
 
 1. Pennsylvania. The numerous publications which have 
 continually been submitted to our citizens, in relation to the 
 history and the theoretical and experimental efficacy of soli- 
 tary confinement in our Penitentiary, are too familiar to 
 them to require any repetition from us. The sources of in- 
 formation indicated in our previous numbers, may be con- 
 sulted by our inquiring readers. We have previously 
 observed that a powerful argument in favour of our system, 
 is the well known fitct that those of our citizens who have 
 carefully studied or who have been connected with the ad- 
 ministration of our Penitentiary, are most ardently and unani- 
 mously desirous of its continuance, extension and improve- 
 ment.* 
 
 2. New Jersey. Our Commissioners imagine that no 
 evidence on the present subject can be obtained from the 
 prison of this state. We will again qtuote from their Boston 
 report, p. 26, (1827.) “The superintendent of the New 
 Jersey prison, Francis S. Labaw, says, the greatest improve- 
 
 *The reader is referred t> the appendix to this panuphlet for further proof, obtained 
 from tour years experience n the new Penitentiary. (1833.) 
 
ment that has been made or can he made in prison discipline, 
 is by solitary confinement. The solitary cells in this prison, in 
 which one fourth part of the whole number of prisoners are 
 placed under sentence of the court, have answered all the 
 purposes which it was expected they would, so far as a trial 
 of them has been had. No person who has been once confined 
 in them has ever returned The imprisonment in some cases 
 continued for years; one person had been confined for three 
 years and a half.f 
 
 3. Virginia. The superintendent of the Richmond Peniten- 
 tiary, to whose evidence and experience we have previously 
 referred, states, “there is perhaps no punishment that can 
 be devised better calculated to keep vice in check than soli- 
 tary confinement.” 
 
 4. Auburn and Maine. The absurdity of referring to these 
 pretended experiments of solitary confinement as a means of 
 reform, has been discussed in our third number, &c. We 
 might introduce the history of the experiments which have 
 been performed in other parts of the union, but we have 
 deemed it sufficient to confine our observations to those states 
 mentioned by our Commissioners in order to prove the error 
 of their opinions. 
 
 5. Gloucestershire. In our fourth number we alluded to 
 the extensive experience of the intelligent and humane Paul. 
 He states (p. 40, 23, 4, Minutes of Evidence before the Se- 
 lect Committee on Jails, &c.) that the system of solitary con- 
 finement succeeded beyond his most sanguine hopes, or the 
 imagination of its projectors; that the moral character of 
 the prisoners in general was greatly improved by this disci- 
 pline; that it would reform even the most hardened criminal; 
 and for seventeen years, during his supervision, few or none 
 had been subjected to a second imprisonment. The evidence of 
 Mr. Cunningham, in favour of our system, has also been al- 
 luded to previously. 
 
 6. Devizes. Mr. Brutton, the governor of this prison, 
 where the system has long been tested, states its effects on 
 the prisoners to be strong — more efficacious than any per- 
 sonal punishment, producing an aversion to return to prison — 
 and that it is “the most effectual punishmen; that can be 
 made use of.” Min. of Evid. p. 359. 
 
 7. Glasgow. We have also previously stated the benefi- 
 cial effect of solitary confinement at Glasgow on juvenile 
 offenders, and the consequent diminution of crine:s. The re- 
 
 t This prison was very defective in its structure. The Legisatuire have ordered 
 it to be demolished, andj another building to be erected “on the principle of sepa- 
 rate confinement with labour, &c. as practised at the Eastern State Penitentiary of 
 Pennsylvania.” It is in rapid progress. (1833.) 
 
85 
 
 formation of novices in guilt is obviously more practicable 
 than that of adepts in crime, among whom further corruption 
 may be impossible. The novice, especially, ought to be sub- 
 jected to solitude: his character is not entirely destroyed; 
 his conscience is more active ; his sense of shame is not yet 
 extinct ; his person is not yet known to the convicts, nor has 
 he yet formed any acquaintance with them. We believe this 
 to be a subject of immense importance, and therefore cannot 
 but express our regret that it is not made the basis of those 
 otherwise excellent establishments in our country — the Houses 
 of Refuge. In France and other parts of Europe, the greatest 
 benefit has resulted from the infliction of solitary confinement 
 on juvenile offenders. M. Villerme, in his celebrated work 
 on Prisons, (Paris, 1820 ,) p. 171 , 119 , furnishes testimony in 
 relation to the great benefit resulting from solitary confine- 
 ment in France, and forcibly recommends its extension; he 
 corroborates the statement of the Duke of Liancourt, “ that 
 it is the only species of imprisonment which reforms the 
 criminal.” The Governor of St. Pelagie, whose experience 
 also entitles his opinions to attention, gave similar testimony 
 to our respected fellow citizen Samuel R. Wood, when he 
 visited his prison : one class of his convicts were confined only 
 a portion of the time in solitude, the remainder of which, 
 spent in association., counteracted all the improvement result- 
 ing from the solitary confinement — he stated that it was impos- 
 sible to prevent intercourse among them, and that the confine- 
 ment ought therefore always to be in solitude. 
 
 We have recently examined a paper containing a return 
 of all the prisoners in France : 1,800 were in solitary confine* 
 ment. We do not vouch for the accuracy of this statement. 
 
 No. XI. 
 
 We believe that we have already adduced sufficient testi- 
 mony to establish the superior efficacy of our system as a 
 means of preventing crime, both by deterring and reforming 
 offenders. 
 
 The expense which some persons believe will attend the 
 adoption of this discipline, has been frequently urged. The 
 comparative expense is supposed by them to be greater : but 
 this increase is apparent not real. The tax imposed on so- 
 ciety by criminals may be divided into two parts: 1. The 
 expense of maintaining them when convicted. 2. The ex- 
 pense of supporting them when at large. An examination of 
 
 11 
 
either of these divisions will establish the superior economy 
 of our system. 
 
 1. “The expense of maintaining them when convicted/’ 
 may also be further divided into two parts: 1. The cost of 
 the requisite buildings for their custodjr, the salaries of their 
 superintendents, and the cost of their board, &c. 2. The 
 
 compensation derived from their labour; the latter amount 
 compared with the former will exhibit the loss or the profit 
 to the community. 
 
 The buildings which constitute solitary cells, are un- 
 questionably more expensive for any given number of cells or 
 of convicts, if the latter be all confined at the same period of 
 time: but if the position be established that solitude effects 
 the great object of punishment, not only thoroughly and 
 durably, but also more expeditiously , it is obvious that the spe- 
 cified number of convicts will require fewer cells than if the 
 Auburn plan were adopted. The same number being con- 
 fined, but for shorter periods. If, however, the number of 
 criminals be diminished by our discipline — a further reduc- 
 tion of the number of cells, and consequently of the expense, 
 may be effected. In comparing the plan of our Peniten- 
 tiaries with those erected in imitation of the Auburn model, 
 we must remember that the superior accommodations in our 
 cells are such as humanity renders indispensable. The cells 
 of Auburn are far inferior to them in this respect : parsimony 
 has contracted their dimensions, and diminished their conve- 
 nience. A larger expenditure would be indispensable in any 
 prison where this system might be introduced: although the 
 cost of a given number of cells for this purpose would be less 
 than if our system were adopted, a due consideration of the 
 preceding remarks will establish our opinion that the former 
 is in fact the most expensive. 
 
 The number of convicts at any given time in prison being 
 less, (if solitary confinement be the discipline,) and the ne- 
 cessity of superintendence to prevent intercourse being 
 diminished, the amount payable for the “ salaries of superin- 
 tendents” for this purpose will be less, the medical services, 
 provisions, clothes, &c. will not be more expensive ; religious 
 and literary instructions will be imparted by the gratuitous 
 charity of the benevolent. 
 
 Our Commissioners who deem the Auburn model the beau 
 ideal of a prison, and who do not therefore suppose that any 
 attention or improvement will be necessary, state the cost of 
 erecting that building, and of some others on a similar plan in 
 New York and New England : as the convicts themselves 
 were employed in the erection of some of the latter, and as 
 
87 
 
 other circumstances contributed to diminish the cost of thcii 
 structure, they, by a mere stroke of the pen, make a sum- 
 mary and suppositious estimate of their average cost, for the 
 purpose of contrasting the comparative cost of our Peniten- 
 tiaries intended for solitary confinement, and those on the 
 Auburn model. The error of this plan of estimating is ob- 
 vious. It reminds us of an anecdote related of one of our 
 countrymen, who, intending to remove to England, and being 
 accustomed to the use of wood as a fuel for his household, 
 determined on his arrival there to continue its consumption ; 
 his estimates of the cost were founded on the price paid in his 
 native country; this calculating economist would have dis- 
 covered, on trying the experiment, that kindling his fire with 
 a bank note would have harmonized with the cost of lus fuel. 
 
 If a prison at Auburn cost a given sum, how much will a 
 similar building cost at Philadelphia, is a question to which 
 the rule of three cannot, in our estimation, give a correct 
 solution. Building is notoriously expensive in large cities, 
 peculiarly so in Philadelphia. The prison at Sing Sing is 
 built on the margin of a navigable river f the scite containing 
 the quarry whence the materials were extracted; the la- 
 bourers were convicts. The requisite materials and labour 
 at Auburn, Wethersfield, &c. were cheaply procured. Our 
 architects have been exceedingly amused at this strange in- 
 road of our Commissioners into their province. We need not 
 state that the structure of even such a defective prison as 
 Auburn presents, would, if situated here, cost far more than 
 the Commissioners estimate. 
 
 We may here remark that peculiar causes have greatly in- 
 creased the cost of our Eastern Penitentiary : a quicksand 
 existed under part of the foundation ; when it was discovered, 
 much additional expense was required for the purpose of sup- 
 porting the superstructure : large sums have been expended 
 in giving an unusual degree of solidity and durability to every 
 part of^the edifice: the diminished annual cost of repairs 
 ought therefore to be deducted from the capital expended in 
 the original construction: a considerable sum has been expend- 
 ed, not in mere ornament, but in imparting a grave, severe and 
 awVul character to the external aspect of the building. The 
 impression it is calculated to produce on the imagination of 
 every passing spectator, will be peculiarly impressive, solemn 
 and instructive. The architecture is in keeping with the 
 design. We are not advocates of inconsistent or meretricious 
 decoration ; but we may express our gratification that no dis- 
 graceful parsimony rendered the aspect or arrangements of 
 
this institution an opprobrium to the character of our com- 
 monwealth.* 
 
 The Commissioners have compensated for the deficiency in 
 their estimates for cells on the Auburn plan, by profuse li- 
 berality in their estimates of the cost of the solitary cells of 
 our Penitentiary , to which they have gratuitously added at 
 least forty per cent, to the actual cost. The outer wall of 
 this building is very extensive, for the wise purpose of afford- 
 ing an opportunity of increasing the number of cells hereafter, 
 when it will be requisite from the increase of our population : 
 thus avoiding the besetting sin which has paralysed or 
 destroyed the beneficial operations of similar institutions 
 elsewhere. The most expensive portion of the work is ac- 
 complished : the future addition of cells will be attended with 
 comparatively small expense. The number intended for 
 some years is only 266 — it may be increased to 408, if the 
 radiating plan be continued; and 410 in addition may be 
 built in a quadrangle, the lines being parallel to the outer 
 wall : the number may be still increased by the addition of 
 second and third stories, similar to some other prisons in which 
 solitary confinement is practised. In the latter case, an alte- 
 ration of the regulations respecting the exercise of those in the 
 second and third stories will be requisite ; the plan pursued at 
 Cxloucester may be advantageously adopted. 
 
 The other remaining method of our Commissioners of esti- 
 mating the cost of each cell, by dividing the cost of the whole 
 permanent establishment by the number of cells in the ■present 
 plan , is therefore erroneous. (Com. Rt. p. 47, 52, 54.) 
 
 They state that the number of cells is not sufficient to con- 
 tain the number of convicts at present in the old jail in 
 Philadelphia. Will not the number of criminals be extremely 
 diminished when our system is in operation ? The same ob- 
 jection was made in England; our readers may recollect the 
 
 *The cost of the large lot of ground, 12 acres, was of course great. The appro- 
 priations also were made by the Legislature late in the session. The consequent dif- 
 ficulty of procuring materials and workmen, increased the expenditure nearly twenty- 
 five per cent. 
 
 The external wall has cost an enormous sum. A wall less lofty and composed of 
 rubble masonry would cost much less and fulfil all the conditions which are perhaps 
 absolutely necessary. The cells which were finished at the time the above essays 
 were written, are buildings only one story in height, and each has a yard attached to it. 
 In the opinion of the writer, blocks consisting of three or even four stories, and without 
 yards, would be more economical and advantageous. This plan has in fact been adopt- 
 ed in the new prison for the county of Philadelphia. Yards of such small dimensions 
 as those at the state Penitentiary are too small for the most beneficial exercise ; they 
 exclude the rays of the sun, obstruct ventilation, and render not only the area, but 
 perhaps even the cells close and damp. As all these cells are on the ground floor, 
 they are of course liable to the objections which have often been urged by physicians 
 to such apartments. We are, however, pleased to remark that the four new blocks 
 of cells at this Penitentiary have been made two stories high. Experience has also 
 .elicited several important improvements. (1833.) 
 
89 
 
 result: in a short time the Penitentiaries where solitary con- 
 finement had been adopted were, in some cases, not half 
 filled. The inconsistent opponents of the system now ex- 
 claimed against the extravagance of erecting such numerous 
 cells. The memorable answer of Lord Mansfield, who advo- 
 cated our theory, will not be soon forgotten. The surplus 
 present number of convicts in the Philadelphia prison may be 
 distributed temporarily elsewhere, until vacancies occur in 
 the new Penitentiaries. The Penitentiary at Pittsburg, the 
 Commissioners state, is not, nor for many years will b e, filled. 
 The idea did not occur to them that many of our surplus 
 convicts could be sent to that establishment : but, in order to 
 alarm the parsimonious, they state the cost of that structure, 
 and the consequent annual interest or expense ; this sum is 
 divided among the present limited number of inmates, and the 
 amount is given as the average partial cost of each convict 
 to the state ! Com. Rt. p. 39. 
 
 No. XII. 
 
 The second division of our subject now requires us to ex- 
 amine whether the labour of convicts in solitude will be 
 profitable. 
 
 Our Commissioners believe that no inducement will exist 
 to insure their industry ; for they suppose that no further or 
 additional punishment can be inflicted; that they will labour 
 only when they wish to abate their ennui or tedium. In 
 other parts of their report, where they represent solitude 
 without labour as a grievous punishment, they state 
 that employment is anxiously desired by the convict, as a re- 
 fuge from the tedious monotony of idleness. We have given 
 in our former numbers, statements from the evidence of per- 
 sons of experience in this discipline, proving that labour will 
 be, and invariably is, cheerfully and actively performed : 
 but, if this fact had not been ascertained by repeated ex- 
 perience, are no means of additional punishment practicable? 
 cannot his food be reduced in quantity, or debased in quality ? 
 cannot his bed be removed, his cell darkened, his daily exer- 
 cise in the open air prohibited, and all society and books, &c. 
 removed from the refractory. None but a maniac would 
 encounter this discipline without succumbing. We speak of 
 its application as a practicable and justifiable measure under 
 proper restrictions, not as a necessary infliction. Experience 
 has demonstrated that it will rarely be required. 
 
 Our Commissioners state the impracticability of labour in 
 
dose, impure, and small cells. They are larger- than many 
 work shops of honest, industrious and healthy mechanics in 
 our city: they are also far better ventilated and warmed; 
 they will also be cooler in summer from the thickness and 
 structure of the walls and arched ceiling. They object that 
 stone cannot be sawed in them, &c. Our mechanics do not 
 saw stone, &c. in their apartments, but in the open air. 
 They also state that a loom cannot be contained in the cells; 
 some of our weavers differ from them in opinion. They com- 
 plain of the exposure of some of the convicts, who will work 
 in their yards in the open air : do not many of our citizens 
 encounter this hardship daily ! Sheds will be erected to pro- 
 tect them from the rain and snow; and as none will be per- 
 mitted to work in adjoining yards, conversation will be im- 
 practicable. We grant that some trades cannot be exercised 
 which are now conducted in Philadelphia, viz : those which 
 require co-operation, but others may be substituted. We 
 express no opinion as to the comparative value of solitary or 
 associated labour. The opinion of Mr. Samuel R. Wood 
 (whose candour, caution and experience, entitle him to great 
 attention,) is, that, with proper attention, labour in solitude 
 may be rendered equally productive in Philadelphia.* Our 
 Commissioners have given a list of some of the employments, 
 in several Penitentiaries in the different states, which they 
 suppose cannot be advantageously performed in solitude : a 
 perusal of this list will convince our readers that their opinions 
 are partly erroneous. Again, some of these employments 
 could not be advantageously introduced in this state under 
 any system of imprisonment, associated or solitary. It would 
 be more advantageous to inquire what occupation had been or 
 could be beneficially pursued in our present prisons: the result 
 would be unfavourable to the cause advocated by our Com- 
 missioners. 
 
 Our opponents refer to the productive labours of Auburn, 
 Wethersfield and Sing Sing, as indicative of their superiority 
 to our system : they state that such Penitentiaries can almost 
 or entirely support themselves by the products of their in- 
 dustry ; inferring a similar result if their plan were adopted 
 in Pittsburg and Philadelphia. This saving in expense is by 
 no means peculiar to their system; prisons conducted on the 
 old corrupt plan so frequently reprobated, have sometimes 
 produced the same results: localcauses explain the reason; these 
 causes never can exist with us. Such success, has, however, 
 
 * See the appendix, where this opinion is corroborated by experience. One great 
 advantage of our system may be stated — the convicts may be permitted to use lights 
 and work in the evening in their separate cells; This cannot be practised with safety 
 at Auburn, &c. (1833.) 
 
been always transient, never constant. The new prison at 
 Wethersfield is stated as an instance of self-support, if not of 
 profit. Admitting, for the sake of the argument, that such is 
 the fact — peculiar efforts have been made to render this in- 
 stitution productive for this, the first year of its existence — can 
 we imagine that this condition will continue ? 
 
 Sing Sing is productive only in the future tense : it has not 
 yet been tested ; the mere prophecy of its conductor is no de- 
 monstration.* 
 
 Auburn has been heretofore unable to support itself. The 
 last year has been the most productive, but, notwithstanding 
 the apparent assertion of Mi-. Powers to the contrary, it has 
 not constituted an exception to our remarks. Auburn enjoys 
 peculiar advantages of situation, &c. and therefore would 
 not be equalled in the present respect in our Penitentiaries, 
 if a similar system prevailed. We hope that a prison will 
 never be regarded by our citizens as a mere huge factory, in 
 which the operatives are incorrigible felons, and the primum 
 mobile a never-tiring cowskin. 
 
 At the prison in Philadelphia every effort of the utmost 
 vigilance and zeal has not enabled the Inspectors to maintain 
 the institution by the proceeds of the labour performed : it is 
 largely in debt, and will continue to require large yearly ap- 
 propriations. We refer our readers to the reports of the In- 
 spectors; to the interesting pamphlet of Dr. Mease on the 
 Penitentiary ; to the reports of the Inspectors and Directors 
 of the several institutions named, and to the reports of the 
 Boston Prison Discipline Society ,f for more general and de- 
 tailed information. 
 
 It has been clearly proved by the Commissioners of the 
 Eastern Penitentiary, in their report of the last year, that if no 
 labour whatever were practised in solitary confinement, the 
 diminution in the requisite period spent in the prison, (which 
 cannot be entirely compensated by the productive labour of 
 the convicts) would render it less expensive than the present 
 system. 
 
 The maintenance of criminals, whilst they are in prison, con- 
 stitutes but a small portion of the actual enormous and une- 
 qual expense to which they subject society. The expense 
 attending their trial and conviction, the maintenance of a 
 
 t Auburn and Wethersfield have continued to be productive, whilst Sing Sing has 
 every year been an exhausting drain on the treasury of New York. (1833.) 
 
 * The atrocious charges which have recently been recklessly made respecting this 
 institution, by the secretary of this society, are calumnies refuted not only by the in- 
 tegrity of the inspectors, but by their satisfactory statements made to the Legislature 
 in 1831. (1833.) 
 
92 
 
 numerous and vigilant police, to prevent, detect or punish 
 offenders, &c. are onerous but indispensable. Criminals when 
 not in prison are supported at an increased cost by the 
 public. The ravages of the incendiary, the fraud of the 
 counterfeiter, the plunder by the burglar and robber compel 
 the contribution of an unequal, a grievous, an incalculable 
 tax on the members of society, who in general are least able 
 to endure the exaction. The habits of the criminal tend to 
 pauperism ; always to idleness ; he is a consumer, not a pro- 
 ducer; his evil example occasions a wide spread corruption. 
 What economist will inform us of the real cost of crime'? 
 The expenditures in the Penitentiary compose but an insig- 
 nificant comparative item; that view is indeed contracted 
 which is limited by its walls. If, however, our system can 
 effect, not the extirpation, but the prevention or diminution 
 of crime, to an unknown and unrivalled extent, the dictates 
 of mere economy, of sordid self interest, as well as of huma- 
 nity and religion, cry aloud for its adoption. The prime cost 
 of an efficient labour saving machine is never considered by 
 the intelligent and wealthy capitalist as a wasteful expendi- 
 ture, but as a productive investment. Our Penitentiary will 
 be strictly speaking an apparatus for the expeditious, certain 
 and economical eradication of vice and the production of re- 
 formation. 
 
 The question of mere abstract expense is one, at present, 
 of idle speculation ; it has been decided by the actual erection 
 of the buildings : one is completed, and four fifths of the other. 
 Will Pennsylvania, a state whose resources are surpassed or 
 equalled by none in the union, now, for the first time, sully 
 her character by an unwise, inconsistent, disastrous and dis- 
 graceful parsimony? Will she deviate from her intended 
 path, or arrest her march at the bidding of a few individuals. 
 Will she reject the counsels of the experienced, the ardent 
 entreaties of the benevolent, and the urgent demands of neces- 
 sity? Will she who has led the way in almost every great 
 improvement which has originated or been introduced into 
 America, now disown a noble system, peculiarly her offspring ; 
 a system which has extended her glory throughout Christen- 
 dom, where it has been lauded and adopted ; will she now 
 submit to the miserable degradation of servilely copying an 
 inhuman, a debasing, a degenerate institution, which her 
 rival presumes to dictate to her? An institution which even 
 that rival has purloined without acknowledgment, as she has 
 conducted it without shame or remorse; and for what osten- 
 sible inducement? The mere temporary retention of a sum so 
 
93 
 
 utterly insignificant that the cost of the very delay in contri- 
 buting it has already nearly amounted to the pittance re- 
 quired.* 
 
 Will the state of Pennsylvania retrograde in moral whilst 
 she is rapidly advancing in physical improvement ? With a 
 silent and unostentatious liberality she has widely expended 
 (in conjunction with her citizens) twenty-six millions of dol- 
 lars in the construction of roads, canals and bridges ; she is 
 now expending millions in addition. f Will she refuse a few 
 paltry thousands for the accomplishment of the noblest, the 
 most important, the most durable and beneficial of all inter- 
 nal improvements — the amelioration and protection of her 
 population? 
 
 Who are the individuals who are now attempting to divert 
 her from her duty; to injure her interests; to destroy her 
 character ? Who are the opponents of our system ? Are they 
 numerous, intelligent and experienced ? We have shown that 
 they are ignorant of the past, present and future operations 
 of that system ; that they are mere novices, who are unac- 
 quainted not only with our prisons, but with those in other 
 slates and countries. They have much yet to learn ; nothing 
 to teach; and differ in opinion from many of the greatest, 
 wisest, most benevolent and practical men, who have investi- 
 gated this subject. Howard, whose name is synonymous with 
 philanthropy; Paul, who practiced the system which his friend 
 promulgated; Eden and the learned Blackstone, the first who 
 embodied that system in legislation ; Mansfield, the brightest 
 ornament of the bench of England; Palev, the acute and dis- 
 criminating moralist; Liencourt and Villerme, the French 
 reformers of prisons, are but a few of the eminent Europeans 
 w'ho have advocated our system. In our country we may 
 enumerate that venerable prelate, Bishop White, whose 
 whole life has been but one prolonged illustration of that re- 
 ligion which he professes; Dr. Rush, to whose wisdom and 
 benevolence our Penitentiary discipline is so largely indebt- 
 ed; the late attorney general of the United States, the phi- 
 lanthropist, the scholar and the statesman, whose early death 
 left a void in our social circle and in our bar, where he had 
 no superior — William Bradford, who expunged the last san- 
 guinary stain from our penal code, to whose enlightened hu- 
 manity our statute book will be an everlasting monument; 
 
 *The Eastern Penitentiary has been retarded three years from the delay in grant- 
 ing the requisite appropriations ; the edifice in the mean time being useless ; the inte- 
 rest on the estimated cost, for this period, would be nearly sufficient to finish it. 
 
 + The total expenditure since 1791 on canals, rail roads, turnpikes and bridges, ha* 
 been nearly $13,000,000, exclusive of the county expenditures on roads and bridges. 
 More than four-filths of this enormous sum has been expended since 1815. (1833.) 
 
 12 
 
94 
 
 Livingston, the philosophic legislator of Louisiana, and a host 
 of our humane and enlightened citizens, have all advocated 
 the adoption of solitary confinement. The members of the 
 Prison Society, the Inspectors and Commissioners of our Peni- 
 tentiary, whose experience entitles their opinions to the 
 greatest deference and respect, have repeatedly and earnest- 
 ly requested our Legislature to sanction this discipline; the 
 most humane, the most effectual, the most economical which 
 the wisdom of man has hitherto discovered for the prevention 
 of crime and the reformation of offenders. Every motive of 
 duty, of interest, and of patriotism urges us to proceed. The 
 eyes of the union are upon us : the great experiment of Peni- 
 tentiary reform was commenced in our commonwealth, whence 
 it has extended to other lands: the experience of forty years 
 has demonstrated the efficacy of our measures ; repeated le- 
 gislative enactments have acknowledged and sanctioned their 
 benefits. A regard for consistency, an attachment to our ex- 
 cellent and cherished institutions ; a respect for the opinions 
 of the wise, of the virtuous, and of the experienced ; our reve- 
 rence for the memory and exertions of those who have pre- 
 ceded us; our duty to ourselves and to posterity, to preserve 
 and improve our noblest institutions; our character as citi- 
 zens of this commonwealth, all demand the establishment of 
 “ the Pennsylvania system of Penitentiary discipline 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Since the first publication of the preceding essays the 
 Pennsylvania system of prison discipline has been reduced to 
 practice. “The Philadelphia Society for alleviating the 
 miseries of public prisons” deputed one of their most distin- 
 guished and influential members to visit Harrisburg, during the 
 session of the Legislature in 1 828-9, for the purpose of obtaining 
 the passage of the bill organizing the new penitentiary. The 
 selection of Samuel R. Wood for this purpose was at once 
 appropriate and successful. To him the community were 
 indebted for the origin of the Act of Assembly of 1821, and in 
 a great degree, for the successful prosecution of the building 
 of the new edifice. His zealous, intelligent and disinterested 
 exertions received the sanction of the Legislature; and his 
 subsequent administration of the system as Warden of the es- 
 tablishment, (an office which he was induced to accept only by 
 the importunities of his friends and his own sense of duty) 
 has uniformly received the approbation of the public. 
 
 The Inspectors, who were appointed to superintend the 
 new penitentiary, were organized and elected the honourable 
 Charles S. Coxe president of their board. Mr. Roberts Vaux, 
 one of their number, immediately resigned his office, and has 
 not therefore been since connected in any manner with the 
 administration of this well conducted establishment. 
 
 The eastern penitentiary has now 1833, been in operation for 
 four years; 193 convicts have been received, 10 have died, 
 and 51 have been discharged. One death only has occurred for 
 fourteeen months; and there is not at the present moment 
 one person sick; the health of the prisoners has been good 
 according to the official reports of the physician. Of the 51 
 who have been discharged, none have returned a second time 
 to this prison, and but one (an old and incorrigible rogue) has 
 been reconvicted in another state to which he had exiled himself. 
 
 The following extract from the fourth annual report of the 
 Inspectors, dated December 31, 1832, will exhibit the practi- 
 cal operation of the Pennsylvania system. 
 
 REPORT OF THE INSPECTORS. 
 
 The Inspectors of the Eastern Penitentiary, in presenting 
 their fourth annual report, congratulate the Legislature and 
 their fellow citizens, on the success which has thus far attend- 
 ed the experiment of solitary or separate confinement of 
 
96 
 
 convicts, connected with labour and moral and religious 
 instruction. 
 
 It is a point now so generally conceded, as to become trite 
 and familiar, that in the congregation of prisoners, consists 
 most of the causes of increase of crime. This fact became 
 early known to those who made penitentiary punishment a 
 subject of reflection; and to obviate this difficulty, in the esta- 
 blishment of a perfect system, was the great desideratum of 
 philanthropists. Classification was attempted, without suc- 
 cess, owing to the unrelaxing vigilance necessary to keep up 
 the system; the difficulty of judging the nature and disposi- 
 tion of the individuals to be thus classed; and the natural 
 proneness, in those who become subject to the criminal laws, 
 to degrade to one general level, all who come within their 
 scope and influence. 
 
 In the Eastern Penitentiary, the important principles and 
 main purposes of penal enactments, are, we think, fully carried 
 into effect. 
 
 The reformation of offenders, and the prevention of crime, 
 by deterring others from its commission, constitute the great 
 objects of the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline. 
 
 Our official visits furnish us with abundant testimony of the 
 disposition to reform, in nearly all who are confined. Io 
 make this disposition operative, requires much management, 
 and various treatment; and while, as we think, we suceeed 
 with some, and do not entirely fail with others, it is made 
 apparent to us, that the hope of effecting a change in the 
 morals of such as compose our criminal population in a con- 
 gregated state, is entirely fallacious. We remark, generally, 
 that at first the prisoner indulges in morose or vindictive 
 feelings, and is guilty of turbulent and malicious conduct; but 
 after a few weeks, he adopts a more subdued tone, becomes 
 reasonable, and his countenance indicates a mot e amiable state 
 of mind; is disposed to talk of his past life as one of misery 
 and folly; begins to think that the barrier between him and a 
 good reputation is not impassable; and there are those in the 
 community, whose prejudices against the condemned are not 
 so strong as to induce the withholding a friendly countenance 
 to his attempts at restoration. In many, the retrospect of 
 life becomes a horrible and loathsome subject of reflection - 
 the sense of shame and feelings of remorse drive them to 
 some source of consolation, and the ordinary means of stifling 
 an actively reproving conscience being denied by reason of 
 their solitariness, the comforts of the Bible and the peace of 
 religion are early sought for. 
 
 Our anxiety to obtain a knowledge of the operation ot the 
 system, has caused a watchfulness of the conduct of those who 
 have been discharged, and attempts are made to trace their 
 progress in life. With very few exceptions, the resuh has 
 
97 
 
 been satisfactory. Some, we have every reason to believe, are 
 nobly striving to repair their past errors, and appear to be in 
 the way of gaining an honest reputation. Some are living 
 orderly and regular lives, and appear to have profited by 
 their incarceration. There may be some on whom no change 
 has been wrought; for we do not presume that all will be radi- 
 cally reformed: but of such we would say, that the term which 
 they spent in their lonely cell, has made such an impression as 
 to induce them to bid a long farewell to the state where legis- 
 lators have provided a penal code, involving so many priva- 
 tions. None who have been discharged from the penitentiary 
 have as yet returned to it. . „ . 
 
 We draw an argument in favour of the operation of this 
 mode of prison discipline in preventing crime, from a compa- 
 rative view of the criminal population in the years 1826 and 
 1832 . We have not, at this period, a greater number of 
 convicts in Pennsylvania, than we had in 1826 . A glance at 
 the criminal reports, for a series of years prior to the last date, 
 will show a gradual increase of convicts: since then, the 
 number has remained stationary, although the population of 
 the state has rapidly advanced. 
 
 Some testimony may be gathered from a view of the busi- 
 ness of our city police. The infrequency of crime of a serious 
 character, has rendered the duties of our police officers com- 
 paratively light. It is within the memory of every citizen, 
 that a few years past, combinations of rogues of every stamp 
 called forth all the vigilance, activity and courage of our con- 
 stables. Where are they now? Where are the desperate men 
 whose names are notorious, and who blackened the calendars 
 of former years? departed — lost sight of, or only serving now 
 to “point a moral or adorn a tale.” 
 
 We learn from many sources, that a wholesome dread of 
 the misery of loneliness prevails among criminals, teaching 
 them to avoid the crime or shun the state that brings such 
 punishment. 
 
 We rely on the inculcation of religious truth on the minds 
 of our prisoners, and we ask the attention of the Legislature 
 to the subject of providing a means of instruction in religion, 
 and the elements of education of a more permanent character 
 than has yet obtained in our Institution. We think this is a 
 point of great importance, and we feel it would be acknow- 
 ledged such by all who could witness the deplorable deficiency 
 in the rudiments of school learning, and the anxiety to be in- 
 structed made manifest among the prisoners. 
 
 We are under many obligations to good and pious indi- 
 viduals, who have volunteered the task of administering to 
 the moral wants of those under our care; but it cannot be 
 expected that so much time and attention can be gratuitously 
 bestowed as their situations require, or as would work advan- 
 
tageously to the establishment. Much good has, however 
 been done by the ministerial efforts of the Rev. Samuel w! 
 Crawford, who continues to labour among these unhappy men, 
 and to whom we thus publicly express our thanks. The Rev. 
 Mr. Irvine has, during the last five months, also preached 
 regularly to some portion of the prisoners, and occasionally 
 visited them in their cells; yet we are not content with these 
 services, because we perceive by the good done, that much 
 greater good could be effected by a regular stated instructor. 
 
 On the subject of education the warden’s report (which is 
 annexed) contains some remarks, together with opinions on 
 the character of the inmates of the prison, reasons for the 
 diminution of crime, and views of the operation of the system 
 upon criminals generally, which we refer to as corroborative 
 of those founded on our experience. 
 
 The Inspectors feel great satisfaction in announcing that 
 the profits of the past year meet the expenses of the Institu- 
 tion, excepting the salaries, and we entertain the belief here- 
 tofore expressed, that when the entire plan shall be completed, 
 and the prison fully occupied, a revenue will arise from the 
 labour of the convicts. 
 
 The report of the warden contains some views upon this 
 subject, together with much valuable information, and many 
 important suggestions. 
 
 The report of the physician annexed, exhibits the state of 
 the health of the prisoners during the last year, as well as his 
 opinion of the effect of the system on mind and body. We take 
 this opportunity to advert to the fact that there appears to be a 
 disposition in the authorities of some of the counties, to make 
 use of the prison as a substitute for a bedlam. We have re- 
 ceived prisoners whose state of mind make them irresponsible 
 to the law, and who are only fit subjects for some lunatic asy- 
 lum. The two cases of insanity mentioned in the physician’s 
 report, are known to have been labouring under mental aliena- 
 tion sometime prior to their conviction. 
 
 In former reports the board have already expressed to the 
 Legislature its judgment of the practical operation of this 
 system of penitentiary punishment, and it is with great plea- 
 sure that it now is enabled to testify that another year’s expe- 
 rience has confirmed its former impressions. 
 
 PHYSICIAN’S REPORT. 
 
 1 o the Inspectors of the Eastern Penitentiary, the physician 
 respectfully presents his annual report for 1832. 
 
 lhe health of the prisoners for this year has, upon the 
 whole, been good. The complaints which have occurred most 
 
99 
 
 frequently, have been intermittent fever in the spring and au- 
 tumn; disorders in the bowels in the summer; and catarrhs 
 and rheumatic pains in the winter. But one case of fever of a 
 serious type has occurred. 
 
 No facts have been developed during this year to show that 
 the mode of confinement adopted in the penitentiary, is parti- 
 cularly injurious to health. It has the effect, generally, of 
 rendering the frame less robust;* but, at the same time, pre- 
 vents the operation of numerous causes of disease, to which 
 persons of the class which generally fill our prisons, are 
 usually exposed, either from necessity, or from the indulgence 
 of vicious habits. The circumstance, indeed, of being with- 
 drawn from the influence of the severer atmospheric viscissi- 
 tudes, such as wet and cold, which are prolific sources of 
 disease with a large portion of the community, would of itself, 
 more than compensate for the operation of any unfavourable 
 causes to health, experienced in this prison. But, when it is 
 considered, that many of the individuals sent to our prisons, 
 have been in previous habits of drunkenness and debauchery, 
 the comparative healthfulness of the confinement and mode of 
 discipline must be apparent.! 
 
 The following table, exhibiting the comparative health on 
 admission and discharge, of the twenty prisoners who have 
 been liberated during this year, fully confirms the views here 
 expressed. 
 
 No. of 
 
 State of health when 
 
 State of health when 
 
 prisoner. 
 
 received. 
 
 discharged. 
 
 10 
 
 Insane. 
 
 Insane. 
 
 12 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 59 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 15 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 18 
 
 Subject to asthmatic symp- 
 toms. 
 
 Same as when received. 
 
 17 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 * The physician does not mean in this sentence (in which some words of qualifica- 
 tion appear to be accidently omitted,) to convey the idea that all the convicts are 
 rendered less robust; for he has elsewhere expressly mentioned to us, that he 
 intended to remark that healthy, robust and athletic prisoners, who had been accus- 
 tomed to many enjoyments, and to much exercise in the open air, were rendered less 
 robust by this species of confinement as well as by the usual mode of imprisonment ; but 
 that the convicts in general, enjoyed better health in their solitary confinement, than 
 when roaming at large subjected to no discipline, and rioting in drunkenness and 
 debauchery. 
 
 t One circumstance attending the separate confinement of prisoners, deserves espe- 
 cial attention. No contagious or infectious disorder can be communicated — a prolific 
 source of disease and death in prisons where the convicts are herded together. Even 
 epidemic diseases, (which often owe much of their violence and danger to panic 
 occasioned by alarming rumours, and the appalling spectacle of suffering patients) 
 will be divested of some of their most dangerous features, when the prisoners are 
 necessarily ignorant of their prevalence. In the Eastern Penitentiary, for instance, 
 there is not a solitary convict, who was admitted prior to June, 1832, who, even at the 
 "present moment, is aware that the Asiatic Cholera has ever appeared in America. 
 The awful ravages of these diseases at Auburn, Sing Sing, &c. are well known to 
 our readers. G. W. S. (1833.) 
 
75 
 
 Idiotic. 
 
 Idiotic. 
 
 63 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 68 
 
 Robust. 
 
 Excellent. 
 
 22 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 24 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 25 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 48 
 
 Insane. 
 
 Insane. 
 
 3 
 
 Good. 
 
 Better than on admission. 
 
 62 
 
 Not good. 
 
 Improved. 
 
 41 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 44 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 93 
 
 Not robust. 
 
 Better than on admission. 
 
 91 
 
 Imperfect. 
 
 Better. 
 
 90 
 
 Good. 
 
 Good. 
 
 The physician, as well from his personal observation, as 
 from the evidence which he heard given before the coroner’s 
 inquest, is perfectly satisfied that prisoner No. 49 was labour- 
 ing under insanity when received into the penitentiary, and 
 that he committed the act of self-destruction under the influ- 
 ence of a paroxysm of that disease. 
 
 Upon the whole, it may be affirmed that the health of the 
 prisoners has been good during this year. The same period 
 has proved destructive of human life, in portions of our coun- 
 try, from the prevalence of pestilence; but happily, from the 
 isolated condition of our prisoners, and the regularity of their 
 lives, the destructive cause has passed over them without pro- 
 ducing disease. 
 
 The deaths which have taken place, are not of a character 
 to throw a doubt on the propriety or humanity of the system 
 pursued. Two of them have occurred after very short periods 
 of confinement, while health continues to be enjoyed by a num- 
 ber of prisoners whose periods of imprisonment have been the 
 longest. Without making any deduction for the case of sui- 
 cide, the mortality of the year has been moderate. Thus, the 
 average number of prisoners in confinement throughout the 
 year has been 91, and the deaths having been 4, gives the 
 mortality at only 4.4 per cent. 
 
 WARDEN’S REPORT. 
 
 After another year’s experience, with an increased number 
 of prisoners, it will be pleasing to all the friends of separate 
 confinement to know, that we can adopt the language in my 
 last annual report: “ That nothing has occurred to discour- 
 age, but much to prompt us in a steady perseverance in the 
 Pennsylvania system of prison discipline.” I believe this can 
 
be truly said of the piast year, as regards the moral, the physi- 
 cal , and the pecuniary state of the establishment. 
 
 Those who are acquainted with the previous morals and 
 halbits of most of the; inmates of prisons, will not expect that 
 all convicts will be made pious men and good citizens by in- 
 carceration in a cell:: to effect this would, indeed, be perform- 
 ing a miracle; but I think it doubtful, whether there is any 
 situation in which an unfortunate man, who has wandered 
 froim the path of rectitude, can be placed, where he will so 
 soon be made to feel and see his error, and desire to return to 
 the right way. The punishment inflicted not merely on the 
 body, but on the mfind of the prisoner, uniting severity and 
 humanity, is one which the unhappy culprit feels with all 
 its force; but there is nothing in its operation calculated to 
 increase his evil paissions, or stimulate him to hatred or re- 
 venge; those who have the care of him, treating him with the 
 kindness and compassion which are due to the unfortunate 
 man, rather than the, unnecessary and unfeeling harshness too 
 frequently displayed towards the victims of folly, vice and 
 crime, he is soon made to feel that the horrors of his cell are 
 the fruits of sin and transgression, and the only certain relief 
 to be obtained is through his Redeemer. Having no one to 
 prompt in wickedness or shame him for his tears, he becomes 
 humbled in spirit and anxious for help in the way of truth: 
 and I am pleased to be able to say, that I believe there are some 
 who rejoice that they have been brought here. I can truly 
 say, that the more I see of the operation of our system, and 
 the more thoroughly I become acquainted with the character of 
 its inmates, the more important I view its establishment, and the 
 greater its humanity appears. It is a mistake to believe that 
 the inmates of prisons are a set of outlaws and tiger-like beings, 
 lost to all good in thi s world, and without hope of an hereafter. 
 Too many, (indeed most of them,) on first convictions, are 
 cither neglected youiths thrown into the world without educa- 
 tion and without friemds, (often the victims of hard masters,) or 
 ignorant men, the (dupes of artful knaves who know how to 
 elude detection. Neglect of early education, the use of ardent 
 spirits, gambling anid dealing in lottery tickets, are the most 
 prominent causes of felony. 
 
 The deficiency in (Common school learning is greater than is 
 generally supposed:: of the 142 prisoners who have been 
 received here from the commencement, only four have been 
 well educated, and only about six more who could read and 
 write tolerably; and we rarely meet with a prisoner who has 
 had attention paid to moral and religious instruction. 
 
 The eastern district, that sends its prisoners to this peni- 
 tentiary, comprises a population of about one million of in- 
 habitants: during thie three and a half years in which the law 
 has been in operation, 126 persons have been sent here for all 
 
 13 
 
offences of a higher character than larceny; and of the whole 
 number, but one that can be called a master spirit in crime. 
 Many reasons may be assigned for the diminution of this class 
 of prisoners; but I believe that it may be attributed mainly to 
 the knowledge that the community of thieves have of the 
 nature and discipline of our establishment, and particularly 
 three important features in it. 
 
 1st. The entire separation of the convicts, both by day and 
 night, and the seclusion from all except their keepers. 
 
 2d. Their being deprived from all intercourse or knowledge 
 of every kind with either their family or friends. 
 
 3d. That the friends of the system would use their endeav- 
 ours to discourage the granting of pardons, so that the pun- 
 ishment might in all cases be certain; and the determination 
 of the board of Inspectors to refrain from recommending the 
 Governor to pardon, as has been the practice in the old prison. 
 
 There can be no doubt but these features in our system 
 have had an effect, especially among the old convicts; for, of 
 the 142, (the whole number received) 100 are known to be for 
 the first offence, 10 are doubtful, and but 32 who are known 
 and believed to be old offenders. No prisoner whom we have 
 discharged has been reconvicted, and the information from 
 those who have left here, has been generally satisfactory. 
 
 The plan pursued from the first, of purchasing stock and 
 manufacturing on our own account, while it has many advan- 
 tages, and in the number, that of excluding contractors and 
 their agents from intercourse with the prisoners, subjects us 
 to fluctuations common to all in trade. The last having been 
 an unfavourable season in our commercial community, we 
 have felt the effects of it in the disposal of our cotton fabrics. 
 I am glad however, to find, on the taking of an account of 
 stock and a settlement of our books to the first of last month, 
 that the establishment has more than paid all its expenses, 
 exclusive of officers’ salaries. This result is satisfactory; for 
 although it never was contemplated to make profit a primary 
 object, yet it is desirable that the convict should not be a 
 burthen to the state. As it has been proved that they can 
 work to advantage in their cells, at both weaving and shoe- 
 making, there can be little doubt but, with proper manage- 
 ment, after a full organization, every expense will be paid by 
 their labour. The prisoners are employed as follows: — 43 in 
 the dying, dressing and weaving; 32 shoemaking; 4 carpen- 
 ters; 5 blacksmiths; 2 wheelwrights; 3 making and mending 
 clothes; 2 washing clothes; 1 fire maker; 1 apothecary; \ 
 segar maker; 1 cook; and 2 idle. Only nine of the weavers, 
 and four of the shoemakers, understood these branches when 
 first admitted. 
 
 Of the 97 prisoners now in confinement, 74 are white males, 
 19 coloured males, and 4 coloured females: Eight are under 
 
twenty years of age* fifty-one from 20 to 30, twenty-one from 
 30 to 40, ten from 40 to 50, five from 50 to 60, one from 60 to 
 70, and one over 70. 
 
 Thirty-seven are natives of Pennsylvania, thirteen of New 
 Jersey, seven of Delaware, six of Maryland, six ol New Yoi k, 
 two of Connecticut, two of Virginia, one of 1 cntiessee, one of 
 Rh ode Island, eleven of Ireland, six of England, one ol Ne- 
 the Hands, two ol France, one ol Holland, one of Switzerland. 
 
 The general conduct and behaviour of the prisoners, has 
 been such as rarely to produce any unpleasant feelings, on the 
 pairt of their overseers, towards them. 
 
 The result of three years’ practice, having so fully demon- 
 strated the advantages of separate confinement, by day and 
 night, over every other system known to me, I cannot but 
 desire to see it introduced into the prisons ol every civilized 
 coimmunity. 
 
 .Before I conclude this report, I earnestly request your atten- 
 tio n to one of the greatest principles on which our discipline 
 is founded, namely: The prevention ol further corruption, by 
 de priving prisoners ol all opportunity of forming or extending 
 an acquaintance with each other — an acquaintance which al- 
 most necessarily insures their education in all the modes ot 
 perpetrating crime, and eluding detection and conviction. 
 Even if this almost inevitable result could he prevented in the 
 common prisons of the state, as they are at present adminis- 
 tered; and if a prisoner could be discharged, uncontaminated 
 by his associates, still his person and history would be known 
 by his companions in confinement; and, after their discharge, 
 would too often be eagerly divulged to others, and thus 
 the new character of a repentant convict be blasted, and be 
 would too probably relapse into his old habits. In our peni- 
 tentiary, this great evil to which 1 have alluded, is prevented; 
 or, I should rather say, its progress is arrested; but in the 
 coninty prisons, whence we derive our inmates, it exists to a 
 de'plorable and disgraceful extent. In these establishments, 
 scarcely any classification is attempted, and no effectual sepa- 
 ration is made; discipline is neglected, corruption increased, 
 reformation is hopeless, and many most flagrant abuses are 
 known to be practised without any mitigation. Convicts re- 
 ceived by us from such county prisons, may indeed frequently 
 be reformed by our discipline; the lessons ot vice they have 
 learned, when placed in a confinement which the law intended 
 should be salutary, may sometimes be eradicated afterwards; 
 but the great, the irremediable evil, has already been effected. 
 The persons, See. ol such convicts, are known to the great 
 community of rogues, and therefore, even it their reformation 
 be effected when discharged from our penitentiary, too many 
 temptations to relapse, too many obstacles to their commence- 
 ment in the pursuits of honest industry, may and probably will 
 
104 
 
 be encountered by them, Hence our institution cannot pro- 
 duce all the advantages of which it is susceptible, until the 
 county prisons are reformed by the same plan of separate con- 
 nnement, See. which we pursue. If an inquiry into the condi- 
 tion of these prisons could be made, by order of the Legisla- 
 latute, I am confident the remarks 1 have made would be 
 substantiated; and, that many important benefits would result 
 fiom such an inquiry, is the opinion of some of our most in- 
 telligent and humane citizens. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted, by 
 
 Samuel R. Wood, Warden. 
 
 Philadelphia , \2th-mo. 31s/, 1832. 
 
 Religious service is performed in the Eastern Penitentiary 
 in the following manner; the clergyman takes his station at the 
 t nd of one the corridors; a curtain suspended from a wire 
 extends from one extremity to the other, dividing it longitudi- 
 nally: the wooden doors of the cells are then opened. The 
 temporary screen prevents the convicts seeing each other, and 
 the keepers are in attendance to prevent any attempt at con- 
 vcisation. Each prisoner is therefore isolated in his pew or 
 cell, and can hear the service distinctly.. This arrangement 
 is fat superior to the mode adopted in the chapels in the Bri- 
 tish Penitentiaries, &c. where the prisoners can frequently see 
 each other in church, and particularly in going to and return- 
 ing from it. Even at Gloucester where the chaplain instructed 
 them privately in their cells, they were most injudiciously 
 required to attend in the chapel also. 
 
 In the British Penitentiaries the convicts sentenced to soli— 
 tai y confinement have also several other opportunities to see 
 each other; viz. when taking exercise in the airing yards. 
 Even at Gloucester where only two were allowed to be in the 
 court together, and were separated (when they were working 
 at the pump) by a wooden partition— they could see each 
 other when walking in the court, and in returning to their cells. 
 In our Pennsylvania system, it is regarded as an all important 
 principle that convicts shall never see each other at any time dur- 
 ing their confinement; and this provision is uniformly and care- 
 fully enforced in our penitentiaries. I he design is to prevent 
 the possibility of prisoners forming an acquaintance with each 
 other in prison. In this respect, our system is superior to 
 that adopted in Great Britian. It will not, however, be complete 
 until the laws of 1790, &c. be enforced in all the county prisons 
 in the same manner as in the new prisons of Alleghany and 
 Philadelphia counties. See the note in page 51. 
 
 November 15, 1833. G. W. S. 
 
 
_______