I advert to this society, not to give it my approbation, but to avail myself of some of the facts which it has collected and published in its Reports, as evidence of the truth of several positions which I have taken in the course of these sketches.

This society was formed in Boston, June 30, 1825. Its avowed object is "THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC PRISONS." This object, with the motives prompting to it, is expressed in the first Report, page 5, in the following pertinent and emphatic language:—

"The object of the Society, in which they were associated with us, is "THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC PRISONS." This object, we have reason to believe, is approved by the Saviour of the world; for he will say to his disciples on the day of judgment, 'when I was hungry, ye gave me meat; when I was thirsty, ye gave me drink; when I was a stranger, ye took me in; SICK AND IN PRISON, YE VISITED ME." These words we regard as our authority and our encouragement; teaching us to go forward in the work in which we are engaged, and to expect, if we do it with penitent and believing hearts, to meet the approbation of him whose favor is life. We learn also, from these words of the Saviour, the guilt of those who neglect or oppose the performance of the duties, in which we are engaged. And, as we proceed, and see from month to month, the disclosure of facts of which we had never heard, or formed a suspicion, we feel that the Saviour knew vastly better than we can ever know, how great the necessity of practical obedience to the duty implied, in the benediction which he has promised to pronounce upon those who, in memory of his sufferings, seek to relieve misery, wherever it shall be found. We earnestly pray, that we may be sustained, 'by looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God; where he ever liveth to make intercession for us:' for we are sure, that we must visit places and discharge duties, in the prosecution of this work, where there can be no sufficient support, but the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Not to approve of a society whose object is so benevolent and whose motives are so heavenly, may at first thought, be regarded by many as an evidence of inhumanity and impiety. Such is the opinion of the society, and it denounces as guilty, "those who neglect or oppose the performance of the duties in which it is engaged." This is courting patronage in a style rather too arrogant and damnatory. Its simple meaning is this—All mankind must think and act in concert with us, in relation to prisons, or be guilty. As one, I am willing to incur the guilt of dissenting from this society; nor shall I fear that this will expose me to the condemnation of "the Saviour of the world," till the object shall be changed from "THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC PRISONS," to the improvement of PRISONERS. A society for the moral, and spiritual, and temporal improvement of prisoners, that should seek these ends by moral and merciful means, and continue its guardian care over them after they are released, by furnishing them with employment, and treating them with respect, I should consider it criminal to neglect or oppose; but such is not "THE PRISON DISCIPLINE SOCIETY." The great object of this society is, to introduce solitary confinement into all our prisons during the night season, and hard labour during the day. Another part of the discipline of prisons, recommended by this society, is—STRIPES!—

In respect to both these branches of prison discipline, the reader shall have the language of the society, that he may be sure my representations are correct.

In the FIRST REPORT, pages 25-28, the views of the society in respect to the practice of confining several convicts in one room at night, is expressed as follows:—

"We find great unity of opinion among all well informed and practical men, in regard to the evils of this miserable system,[2] and the importance of solitary confinement, at least by night.

The superintendent of the New Hampshire Penitentiary, Moses C. Pilsbury, who has been seven years in that institution, says, he has thought much of the benefits, which would result from solitary confinement at night. The plots which have been designed, during his term of service, have been conceived, and promoted, in the night rooms. He has spent much time in listening to the conversation of the convicts at night, and thus has detected plots and learned whole histories of villany.

Judge Cotton, the superintendent of the Vermont Penitentiary, says, I feel satisfied, that great evils might be avoided, could our State Prison be so constructed, that the convicts might lodge separately from each other. Solitary confinement, during the night, would be an effectual bar, and have a great tendency to suppress many evils, which do exist, and ever will exist, so long as prisoners are allowed to associate together in their lodging rooms.

The Directors of the Massachusetts Penitentiary, in their last Report, say, that the erection of an additional building, within the Prison yard, where each convict may be provided with a separate apartment for lodging, has long been a favorite object with the government of this institution.

The Commissioners of the Connecticut Legislature, say, that the great and leading objection to Newgate, is the manner in which the prisoners are confined at night—turned in large numbers into their cells, and allowed an intercourse of the most dangerous and debasing character. It is here, that every right principle is eradicated, and every base one instilled. It is a nursery of crime, where the convict is furnished with the expedients and shifts of guilt, and, with his invention sharpened, he is let loose upon society, in a tenfold degree, a more daring, desperate, and effective villain.

The superintendent of the New York Penitentiary, Arthur Burtis, Esq. speaking of the crowded state of the night rooms, said, how can you expect reformation, under such circumstances? As well might you kindle a fire, with a spark, on the ocean, in a storm. If a man forms a good resolution, or feels a serious impression, it is immediately driven from him in his night room. The superintendent of the New Jersey Prison, Francis S. Labaw, says, the greatest improvement, that has been made, or can be 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 ever expected they would, so far as trial of them has been had. No person, who has been once confined in them, has ever returned to the Prison.

The Senate of Pennsylvania say, for want of room, the young associate with the old offenders; the petty thief becomes the pupil of the highway robber; the beardless boy listens with delight to the well told tale of daring exploits, and hair breadth escapes of hoary headed villany, and from the experience of age, derives instruction, which fits him to be a terror and a pest to society. Community of design is excited among them, and, instead of reformation, ruin is the general result.

The superintendent of the Virginia Penitentiary, Samuel O. Parsons, says, I consider separating convicts at night, of all others, the most important feature in the Penitentiary system of punishment, and one, which should every where claim the first consideration in erecting such institutions.

With the opinions thus expressed, of the practical men placed at the head of these institutions, the opinions of the governors of the respective States, of the judges, and legislators, and benevolent men, so far as they have been expressed or known, perfectly coincide.

Governor Plumer, of New Hampshire, says, effectual measures should be adopted to separate, in the Penitentiaries, old offenders from the young and inexperienced.

Governor Lincoln, of Massachusetts, in a late message, recommended, that immediate provision be made for the erection, as soon as may be, in the prison yard, of a building, with sufficient cells for the separate confinement of the present, and any future probable number of convicts.

Governor Wolcott, of Connecticut, stated to the Legislature, in May, with reference to the improvements at Auburn, that there were few subjects upon which their deliberations could be bestowed with higher advantage to the best interests of the State.

Governor Clinton has formerly expressed his opinion of the importance of solitary confinement, and in his late message to the Legislature, he expresses an opinion concerning the institution in New York city, for the reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, which is constructed on the plan of the building at Auburn, that it is probably the best Prison in the world.

Judge Woodbury, of New Hampshire, says, that 'Prisoners, during the night, should be wholly separated from each other.'

Mr. Hopkinton, of New Hampshire, says, 'a novice, who, if kept from company worse than himself, might have been reclaimed from his first attempts, is here associated with old, hardened, and skilful offenders; he hears with envy and admiration the stories of their prowess and dexterity; his ambition is roused; his knowledge extended by these recitals; and every idea of repentance is scorned; every emotion of virtue extinguished.'

Judge Thacher, of Boston, says, 'by the confession of those who administer our Penitentiaries, it is found, that most of the evils of this system of punishment flow from the almost free and unrestrained intercourse, which subsists among the convicts.'

Thomas Eddy, of New York, says, 'if a number of ingenious men were requested to suggest the best possible mode of increasing the number of thieves, robbers, and vagabonds, it could scarcely be in their power, to fix on any plan, so likely to produce this effect, as confining in one collection, a number of persons already convicted of committing crimes of every description.'

Hon. Edward Livingston, says, 'it is a great point to produce the conviction of the important and obvious truth, denied only by a false economy, that Prisons, where there is not a complete separation of their inhabitants, are seminaries of vice, not schools for reformation, nor even places of punishment.'

Roberts Vaux, of Philadelphia, lays down five fundamental principles of Prison Discipline, the first of which is, 'that convicts should be rigidly confined to solitary life.'

There is no disagreement between the opinion of these distinguished individuals, and the opinions of various commissioners, directors, &c. who have written on this subject.

The Commissioners of the Massachusetts Legislature, in 1817, ask, 'how it is to be reconciled, that in any civilized country, convicts are brought into promiscuous association, to pass years together, all united under the influence of a public opinion, as strong in its support of vice, as that which rules the community, is, in its support of virtue?'

The Commissioners of the Connecticut Legislature, in a very able Report, written by Martin Wells, Esq. say, 'it is in the cells, that every right principle is eradicated, and every base one instilled. They are nurseries of crime, where the convict is furnished with the expedients and shifts of guilt, and, with his invention sharpened, he is let loose upon society, in a tenfold degree a more daring, desperate and effective villain.'

The Commissioners, Samuel M. Hopkins, Stephen Allen, and George Tibbets, of the New York Legislature, say, "we believe that we do but repeat the common sentiment of all well informed men, when we say, that as long as it is necessary to confine several prisoners in the same room, our State Prison at New York can be no other than a college of vice and criminality."

A highly respectable committee of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, in the city of New York, in a Report on the Penitentiary System, which is one of the most valuable documents ever published on the subject in this country, have the following language, 'Our Penitentiaries are so many schools of vice, they are so many seminaries to impart lessons and maxims calculated to banish legal restraints, moral considerations, pride of character, and self-regard.' 'They have their watchwords, their technical terms, their peculiar language, and their causes and objects of emulation. Let us ask any sagacious observer of human nature, unacquainted with the internal police of our Penitentiaries, to suggest a school, where the commitment of the most pernicious crimes could be taught with the most effect; could he select a place more fertile in the most pernicious results, than the indiscriminate society of knaves and villains, of all ages and degrees of guilt?'

This is a frightful picture of human depravity and proneness to sin; and if the system of separate confinement at night should not remove or prevent these evils, the mind may be led to seek the source of them, not in the circumstance of few or many being lodged together, but in the cruelty and inhumanity of the keepers.

In the SECOND REPORT, pages 38-43, the Society states its objections to solitary confinement by day, and adopts the theory of labour by day and separate confinement by night. The following is its language:—

"Solitary confinement day and night. On this subject, there is great interest excited, at the present time, in America and in Europe. It will be our object to present such facts as are known to us concerning experiments already made in this country. "In the Maine Prison, which has been in operation about three years, a large number of the convicts have been sentenced to six months solitary confinement day and night, and to a period of time afterwards of solitary confinement at night, and hard labor by day. A considerable number more have been sentenced to solitary confinement day and night, for the whole term of their imprisonment. This Prison is under the management of a gentleman, who has been a member of the Senate, in the State of Maine, and who is, also, a skilful physician. He has, therefore, been entrusted with discretionary power, by the Executive, to remove the men from the cells to the hospital, when their health and life required it. The former Governor of the State informed the Secretary of this Society, that it would not have been thought safe to inflict sentences of so long continuance in solitary confinement, if great confidence had not been placed in the discretion of the superintendent. The judges, however, and the Executive, when the Prison was built, were strongly in favour of solitary confinement day and night, and they wished to make a fair experiment. What, then, is the testimony of the superintendent of this Prison, on this vastly important and interesting subject? And what is the testimony of the Records of the Prison? The following statement is collected from the records and the superintendent. It exhibits the names of several convicts; the length of time they were sentenced to solitary confinement; the length of time they were able to endure it before they were removed to the hospital; the length of time they remained in the hospital before they returned to the cells; the alternation between the cells and the hospital to fulfil the whole term of solitary confinement; and the suicide of two convicts in the cells. These are the only convicts who have died since the Prison was organized."

In this case it was necessary to remove the man to the hospital four times, to enable him to endure fifty-six days solitary. The Secretary saw him when he was removed from the cell the last time. He shivered like an aspen leaf; his pulse was very feeble; his articulation could scarcely be heard from his bed to the grate of his cell, eight feet; and when he was taken out, he could with difficulty stand alone.

At half past seven o'clock, on Wednesday morning, he was found dead, having hung himself to the grate of the cell with a piece of the lashing of his hammock.

Isaac Martin cut his throat in his cell July 26, when he was removed to the hospital, where he remained nine days, and died.

This man remained in the hospital, after his discharge from the cell the last time, from September 17 till December 3, when he was pardoned on account of ill health.

This man endured the whole period, without leaving the cell.

"Asa Allen was sentenced to six months solitary and two years three months and fourteen days hard labor. He went immediately into solitary, and remained seventy-four days without interruption. At the end of this period, he came out in good health, and performed a good day's labor in the quarry. Dr. Rose expresses the opinion, that this man would live in solitary confinement about as well and as long as any where else. He has been a soldier, and has been accustomed to the hardships of a camp. He has been a wanderer in the world, without a home. It is not material to him where he is. The keeper thinks that six months solitary to this man would not be a greater punishment than fifteen days to a convict who had been accustomed to the comforts of life: also, that he would rather endure six months solitary confinement than ten stripes.

"John Stevens and John Cain both entered the Prison at the same time, under sentence of three months solitary, and both endured the whole period without interruption, having received nothing except the usual allowance of bread and water, and a little camphor to rub on their heads.

"Benjamin Williams, also, endured three months solitary without interruption.

"But, in general, the superintendent states, that nearly as much time is necessary in the hospital to fulfil long solitary sentences, as in the cells. He also expresses an opinion, in his last report to the Legislature, that long periods of solitary imprisonment inflicted on convicts, is worse than useless as a means of reformation. The character of the superintendent of this Prison is such, that the opinions expressed by him on this subject, as the results of his experience, will be thought worthy of particular consideration. He says, 'the great diversity of character, as it respects habits and temperament of body and mind, renders solitary imprisonment a very unequal punishment. Some persons will endure solitary confinement without appearing to be much debilitated, either in body or mind, while others sink under much less, and, if the punishment was unremittingly continued, would die, or become incurably insane.

'However persons of strong minds, who suffer in what they deem a righteous cause, may be able to endure solitary confinement, and retain their bodily and mental vigor, yet it is not to be expected of criminals, with minds discouraged by conviction and disgrace.

'Those persons who shudder at the cruelty of inflicting stripes as a punishment, but can contemplate the case of a fellow being, suffering a long period of solitary imprisonment, without emotion, must be grossly ignorant of the mental and bodily suffering endured by a long confinement in solitude.

'As far as the experience in our State Prison proves any thing respecting the efficacy of solitary imprisonment in preventing crimes by reforming convicts, it will induce us to believe that it is not more effectual than confinement to hard labor. Seven of the convicts now in the State Prison are committed a second time, for crimes perpetrated after having been discharged from this Prison; three of these had been punished by solitary imprisonment without labor, and the others by solitary imprisonment and confinement to hard labor.

'The keeper of the Auburn State Prison, in the State of New York, very justly observes, 'that a degree of mental distress and anguish may be necessary to humble and reform an offender; but carry it too far, and he will become a savage in his temper and feelings, or he will sink in despair. There is no doubt, that uninterrupted solitude tends to sour the feelings, destroy the affections, harden the heart, and induce men to cultivate a spirit of revenge, or drive them to despair.'

'I would not wish to be understood to express an opinion, that solitary imprisonment ought not, in any case, to be inflicted. On the contrary, there can be no doubt that it is a proper punishment for prison discipline in many cases; but for that purpose, short periods only will be necessary; seldom, if ever, to exceed ten days. In the cases of juvenile offenders, it may also be very useful and proper, in periods of twenty, or thirty days, but never to exceed sixty days. If repentance and amendment are not effected by thirty days of strict solitary confinement, it can rarely be expected to be obtained by a longer period.'

"The Legislature of Maine, in consideration of the opinions and facts above stated, passed a law, in February, 1827, in the words following: 'Be it enacted, that all punishments, by imprisonment in the State Prison, shall be by confinement to hard labor, and not by solitary imprisonment: provided, that nothing herein contained shall preclude the use of solitary confinement as a prison discipline for the government and good order of the prisoners.' Thus we have endeavored to exhibit the results of the experience of the State of Maine, in regard to solitary imprisonment day and night.

"In New Hampshire, Moses C. Pilsbury, Esq. who has been several years the warden of that Prison, the surprising results of whose good management, both in regard to the income and the moral character of the Institution, were exhibited in the last Report, was asked, whether convicts ought not to be sentenced to solitary confinement day and night, for a short time at least. He said it would do much more good to give them hard labor by day, and solitary confinement at night.

"At Auburn, N. Y., the experiment was tried in 1822, by the friends of solitary confinement day and night, on eighty convicts, for a period of ten months. The experiment was conducted with great care, and the observations made appear to have been impartial. As it was done by the friends of the system, it may be supposed that the results were as favorable as they could make them. In the Report of the Commissioners to the Legislature, in January, 1825, these results are stated with philosophical accuracy. Concerning these results, it is sufficient to say, that they were unfavorable to this mode of punishment, and it was accordingly abandoned in that Prison. It was found, in many instances, to injure the health; to impair the reason; to endanger the life; to leave the men enfeebled and unable to work when they left the Prison, and as ignorant of any useful business as when they were committed; and, consequently, more productive of recommitments, and less of reformation, than solitary confinement at night and hard labor by day.

"The experiment in New Jersey has been continued four years, upon an average number of twelve convicts; some of whom have been eighteen months, and some two years, in the cells, without intermission; but in this case, though the men are in separate cells, still the cells are so arranged, that several men can converse as freely as if they were in the same room, and no attempt has been made to prevent it. This, therefore, is to be regarded no farther as 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. In the opinion of the keeper of that Prison, this mode of punishment has been useful in preventing recommitments, and not permanently injurious to health or reason. How far the difference in the results of this experiment from that at Auburn, and the other in Maine, is to be attributed to the difference in the construction of the cells, and the management and diet of the prisoners, it is difficult to determine. In Maine the cells are very gloomy, and communication is difficult, though not impossible. At Auburn the cells are not gloomy, and communication was prevented day and night by a sentinel. In New Jersey the cells are not gloomy, and social intercourse unrestrained. In Maine the diet was very low, i.e. a pound of bread and cold water only. At Auburn, and in New Jersey, it was coarse, but nutritious. In Maine the men might have endured solitary confinement, with a more nutritious diet, a much longer period. At Auburn they might not have been as much injured in health or reason, if they had been permitted to converse with each other. And in New Jersey they might have been more injured if this kind of communication had been restrained. As the experiments have been conducted, they appear to be decidedly against solitary confinement day and night in Maine and at Auburn, and in favor of it in New Jersey. As this mode of punishment, however, would probably never be adopted, except to prevent effectually all evil communication, the experiment in New Jersey cannot be adduced in favor of entire seclusion: for there was nothing of this character in it.

"There have been other experiments made in this country, in many Prisons, on individuals, in regard to this mode of punishment, sometimes for misdemeanor, and sometimes for experiment merely. One was mentioned in the last Report. 'A man in a narrow cell, which was almost a dungeon, where he had been in heavy chains, on a small allowance of food, three months, was asked whether he had rather remain three months longer, in the same situation, than receive a small number of stripes on his bare back. He said he had rather remain.' It is not known, that this man had had any communication with any one except his keeper, and his diet had been much more nutritious than that used in Maine. In the mode in which he was treated, his spirits appeared perfectly unsubdued, and his health and reason unimpaired, and his disposition ready for mischief whenever he should be released. There was nothing seen in him that looked like contrition.

"There is another man, who has been in a solitary cell much of the time for seventeen years, and all the time for more than six of the last years. He is still alive. He does not appear insane. His health is feeble, and he has lost the use of his limbs, so that he uses crutches. His disposition, however, remains the same as when he was committed to the cell, more than six years ago. He had been previously released, and put upon his honor for good behaviour. He almost immediately procured a hatchet, and struck it into the neck of a keeper, in such a manner as to endanger his life. He was again committed to the cell, where he has remained ever since, with a malignant, revengeful spirit; as is evident from the fact, that he attempted to take the life, a few months since, of a keeper, who gave him his food. His cell is gloomy and filthy. His food is coarse but nutritious. His intercourse is in a great degree restrained.

"In regard to the effect of solitary confinement on the individuals last mentioned, as well as on those who were subject to it in Maine, New York, and New Jersey, it is true, that they were left to suffer their punishment, during the whole period, destitute, in a great degree, of the means of grace. In the new Prison in Philadelphia, in which it is proposed to adopt this mode of punishment, and prevent evil communication by solitary confinement day and night, it has been said, by one of the Commissioners, that he should rather abandon the system, and adopt that of solitary confinement at night, and hard labor by day, than see the men confined in the cells day and night, without the means of grace. We may hope, therefore, if the experiment is again tried, it will not be done without adequate provision for moral and religious instruction. How far it may be successful with this variation cannot be told until the experiment has been made.

"As the experiments have been conducted, thus far, the results are decidedly opposed to solitary confinement day and night, as the means of preventing evil communication. We are left, therefore, in view of all the facts known to us, with a preference for solitary confinement at night, and hard labor by day, with such regulations to prevent evil communication as the case requires, and as have been already suggested."

Whose heart does not sicken within him on reading such accounts of human suffering and human guilt? I have mentioned several specimens of cruelty which I saw in Windsor Prison; and to show that man is the same being under similar circumstances everywhere, I will avail myself of another quotation from the Reports of this Society, in respect to New Jersey State Prison. It is in the fifth Report, page 86.

"Solitary confinement on a scanty allowance of bread with cold water is much used. The period of time not unfrequently extends to twenty and thirty days, and this too in the winter season, in cells warmed by no fire. The suffering in these circumstances is intense; the convicts lose their flesh and strength, and frequently their health; they are sometimes so far broken down, as to be unable to work when they are discharged into the yard, and to require nearly as much time in the hospital, to recruit them, as they have had in the cells, to break them down.

"The committee saw a man in the hospital last week, just taken from the cells, where he had been punished for misdemeanor about twenty days. He was prostrate upon the bed, emaciated, and unable to work, and complained of much pain. The physician called the attention of the committee to his pulse, which he remarked was very feeble. The keeper thought it would be some time before he would be able to work.

"Besides punishments in this mode, the records show, that chains are much used; sometimes with a fifty-six attached to them, and sometimes for the purpose of chaining the prisoner to the place where he is at work. A number of the prisoners, at the present time, have chains upon them, and the committee saw one, twelve or fourteen years of age, who had on an iron neck yoke, with arms extending 18 or 20 inches each way from his head, which was said to be, not for punishment, but to prevent his getting through the grates.

"The following list is furnished by the clerk of the Prison, who has been there twenty years. It shows the number of prisoners that is supposed to have died in consequence of being severely punished in the cells, for disobedience;—William Thomas, Thomas Steward, John O. Brian, William Bower, John Brown, Tunis Cole, Aaron Strattain, Thomas Somes, Pomp Cisco, and Peter Marks—10."

Reader, what think you of this? It is said that the laws of America are written with mercy; but are they not often executed in blood? From such mercy as this, gracious Heaven deliver us! "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," but it is better to fall into his hands than the hands of man. Are not the tender mercies of the wicked cruel? Look at the State Prisons and see. They are called merciful, but their floors are reeking with blood, and their cells are vocal with the groans of death.—Pardon this digression from the subject; I will return to it immediately. Any where, to banish these reflections, which wither up my soul!—

In respect to stripes, the Society uses the following language. First Report, pages 17-19.

"Mode of Punishment.—The punishments used in these institutions now claim our attention. These are stripes, chains, and solitary confinement, with hunger. In regard to these different modes of punishment, there is a considerable diversity of opinion and practice, in this country. In some extensive establishments, chains and stripes are dispensed with altogether. In others, both are used severely. In others still, stripes alone are used. At Auburn, stripes are almost the only mode of punishment. In Richmond, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York city, Charlestown, and Concord, solitary confinement mostly, with a small allowance of bread and water. In Connecticut, stripes, chains, solitary confinement, and severe hunger. If the efficacy of these different modes of punishment were to be judged of by the discipline of the respective institutions, punishment by stripes, as at Auburn, would be preferred. The difference, in the order, industry, and subdued feeling, as exhibited by the prisoners, is greatly in favour of the prison at Auburn. This difference, however, is to be attributed, not so much to the mode of punishment, as to the separation of the convicts at night, and several other salutary regulations, which are not adopted elsewhere. At the same time, a part of the difference is supposed by the friends of this system, to arise from the mode of punishment. In favor of this mode, the advocates of it urge the following reasons; it requires less time; the mind of the prisoner does not brood over it, and settle down in deliberate resentment and malignity; it is in some cases more effectual; it is less severe; it can be more easily proportioned to the offence.

That it requires less time, there can be no doubt; and if in other respects, it is as good or better, it is for this reason to be preferred.

That the mind of the prisoner does not brood over it, as over solitary confinement and hunger, there can be no doubt. But then it would be said by the advocates of solitary confinement, that this is an argument against stripes, because the effect is not so permanent. It may be said in reply, that if the effect of punishment is bad, it ought not to be permanent, and men often appear subdued by solitary confinement and hunger, merely for the sake of being relieved, while in their hearts, there is a rankling enmity against the mode of punishment, and the person inflicting it. If this effect is produced, the punishment, so far as the convict is concerned, is injurious. That this is the fact, in many instances, those who have been conversant with prisoners have melancholy evidence.

But while this is admitted, it is also true, that the instances are numerous, in which solitary confinement, with low diet, have not failed to subdue men, who appear to be hardened against every other mode of punishment. The officers of the New Hampshire and Philadelphia Penitentiaries bear testimony to this. And moreover, that the end is often gained, in much less time, than it was supposed would be necessary.

It is objected, however, to solitary confinement, that it is a mode of punishment which operates unequally. If a man has been fond of society; if his mind has been cultivated; if his sensibility is acute; solitary confinement is a terrible punishment. If, on the contrary, the man is a mere animal; if he is stupid, and ignorant, and carnal; if the operations of his mind are dull and sleepy; if, in one word, he is like the torpid animals, (and there are men of this description,) solitary confinement is much less severe than stripes.

Nor is solitary confinement, in the former case, a more severe and effectual mode of punishment, especially if the convict is a proud man; nor is it as much so, as stripes. A man in a narrow cell, which was almost a dungeon, where he had been in heavy chains, on a small allowance of food, three months, was asked whether he had rather remain three months longer, in the same situation, than receive a small number of stripes on his bare back. He said he had rather remain.

It should be stated, however, that his allowance of food had not been so much diminished, as greatly to reduce his body, as is sometimes the case. In those cases, where the allowance of food is six or eight ounces of bread per day, with water only; and in those cells, which in winter are warmed by no fire, solitary confinement produces the most intense and aggravated suffering. In such cases, there is nothing but death, which the most obdurate villain would not endure to be relieved from it, after a confinement generally of less than thirty days. In these cases, it is difficult to tell, whether the cold, the hunger, the pangs of a guilty conscience, the fear of death, the wretchedness of being subjected to revenge and malignity, is the greatest cause of suffering, and whether each of them is not equal to the pain of solitary confinement. Stripes, in comparison with solitary confinement, in such circumstances, are not severe.

It is obvious, from these remarks, that the severity, and effect, and adaptation of punishment to crime, depends more on the manner, than on the kind of punishment.—Stripes may be made, and it is believed in more instances than one in our Penitentiaries, have been made, to result in death. Solitary confinement has brought men to a state of insensibility, and in some cases produced diseases, which have terminated in death. Chains so heavy have been used, and for so long a time, as to mar the flesh, and produce most painful wounds. It is perfectly obvious from these remarks, that punishment, of whatever kind, should be committed to persons of discretion, and that there should be some checks to prevent abuses.

It is, also, obvious, that different modes may be adapted to different individuals and circumstances, and that discretionary power, as to the mode, as well as the manner, ought to be left with the government of the Prison.

It is obvious, too, that the best security, which society can have, that suitable punishments will be inflicted in a suitable manner, MUST arise from the character of the men to whom the government of the Prison is entrusted.—There are men, whom no laws would restrain from indiscretion and cruelty if not barbarity, in punishment. There are others, whose humanity is excessive, and they would never punish at all. To men of either class, the power of punishment, and the management of Penitentiaries should not be entrusted."

Another part of the discipline recommended by the Society, is expressed as follows. Second Report, pages 37, 38.

"The lock march from the shops to the cells, and from the cells to the shops. This consists in forming all the men, under the care of each keeper, into a solid column, and requiring them to march off, at the same time, with a uniform step, in a solid body. The object is to prevent the prisoners, "when their cells are unlocked, from flocking confusedly into the yard, and at the sound of the bell for meals, from moving like an undisciplined mob to the mess-room." This is generally an evil hour with prisoners; if any conspiracy or rebellion is under consideration, it is then communicated. In the mode proposed, it is a time of as much order and silence as any other during the day. It is, in fact, a peculiarly favorable time to see the order and regularity produced in Prison by salutary discipline; and if any one hour were to be selected, while the prisoners are awake, in which they do nothing and attempt nothing of an improper character, probably no hour could be found more free from guilt than this. Another regulation of considerable importance in preventing evil communication is,

Not letting the convicts face each other when their business will permit them to face the same way. This rule may be adopted in shops, for shoemakers, tailors, and weavers: also, among female convicts, when employed in sewing, knitting, and spinning: and on the Sabbath, when assembled in the chapel. In this way, the language of signs, whether by the hands or features, is prevented; for the signs signify nothing if they are not seen. Now if the king of counterfeiters, or a prince in any department of wickedness, can be placed in the end of a long shop, and be permitted to sit with his face towards the convicts, and have them all facing him, he will be very happy in the opportunity of communicating ideas by the language of signs; but, turning his back to the convicts, and his face to the wall, he will feel differently. The principle, therefore, of not permitting the convicts to face each other, when their business will permit them to face the same way, is believed to be one of considerable importance."

Such are some of the means by which The Prison Discipline Society contemplates the accomplishment of its object; and I disapprove of them in toto. All its views through these means are founded on theory, and this theory is opposed by a thousand facts. Universal experience attests the fact that nothing but goodness will reform a sinner. Unfeeling and despotic inflictions will make the sufferer an enemy to his race, and in some instances, awe his sinful propensities into inaction, but these things will not—cannot make him love either his God or his fellow beings. The process on which I have been dwelling, and which the Society would call sacred by asserting that neglect of or opposition to it is guilt, would make angels men, and men devils, and devils worse. I know that future facts will justify this strong language. I am guided by no theory, but am taught by my own experience.

In the course of these sketches, I have occasionally reflected on the conduct of the officers of prisons; and asserted that fit men to govern a prison in such a manner as to make it a penitentiary, cannot be found on earth. The labors of this Society have furnished the following corroborative facts.—second Report, pages 7-8.

"In the Maine Prison, which has been in operation only three years, Dr. Rose, the superintendent, stated that three or four cases of malpractice had already occurred among the assistant keepers; such as intemperance, furnishing forbidden articles to convicts, &c., for which they had been discharged.

In the New Hampshire Prison, Mr. Pillsbury, the former superintendent, mentioned, as one of the greatest difficulties in the Penitentiary system, the insubordination occasioned by the frequent changes among the assistant keepers, and the difficulty of obtaining men of proper character for the compensation allowed them. Escapes have been effected in that Prison, either through the negligence or connivance of assistant keepers, and improper familiarity has been contracted between them and the convicts.

In the Massachusetts Prison, a keeper was detected, three times in succession, by Mr. Soley, one of the Directors, in furnishing bills to be altered, and materials to alter them, to a convict. A warrant was issued for him; but he made his escape. Another keeper was discharged soon after, on suspicion of improper conduct; and in a communication, made by the Directors to the Governor, in the autumn of 1825, and by him submitted to the Legislature, several other cases are mentioned of malpractice by contractors and assistant keepers, and discharge for the same.

In Newgate, the Old Prison in Granby, Conn., there has been great complaint on this ground.

Thomas Eddy, of New York, in a pamphlet on Prison Discipline, mentions a case, in which a number of desperate villains, in one room, within the walls of a Prison, were engaged in the business of counterfeit money, and were enabled to prosecute it by the connivance and assistance of a keeper.

Even in the Prison at Auburn, which is in many respects so worthy of commendation, the Commissioners mention, in a late Report to the Legislature, that "one Terrence Heeney who was never fit for the trust of a guard, was three times appointed to that place, and three times removed for misconduct." They also say, that "several other cases have been proved of the appointment of incompetent or unfit men; but, in general, they were removed as soon as their unfitness became known."

Mr. Lynds, the superintendent of the Prison at Sing Sing, speaks of the character required in this situation as peculiar: viz. equanimity, quick discernment of character, impartiality, resolution, vigilance, promptitude, besides honesty and temperance, and, more than all, a habit of seeing much and saying little. He has not been without his difficulties in getting the right men. He mentions a case, in which an assistant keeper at Auburn was detected in employing convicts to steal for him.

Roberts Vaux, of Philadelphia, in a pamphlet entitled 'Original and successive Efforts to improve the Condition of Prisons,' &c., mentions, that, in the Prison in Philadelphia, many years since, 'the keeper had been a long time connected with criminals, under circumstances which caused him to be suspected of a more intimate knowledge of the depredations committed in the city, than comported with that unblemished reputation which ought to belong to such an officer.'

In the Baltimore Penitentiary, an officer was understood to say, that two assistant keepers had been discharged for circulating counterfeit money for convicts."

There is another part of the discipline recommended by this Society, of which I cordially approve; it is that which relates to religious instruction. May God bless all their labours to give this part of their discipline a permanent residence in every prison on earth! I expect the time when prisons will be purified from sin—I expect a time when they will be no longer needed—and I expect this through the universal and perfect diffusion of the principles of the gospel. "When in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." The means of grace, then, are the only means of reformation. The means of cruelty can effect no good in any heart. The gospel, the gospel; this is the power of God unto salvation, and this alone can effect a salutary change in the soul.

I hold to punishment, but it is the punishment of mercy. Let the sinner endure the consequences of his crime, but let goodness inflict the rod. Let his punishment be severe, if necessary, but never capricious; let its object be the good of the sufferer, not vengeance; and when he is penitent, let the punishment cease.

But the reformation of prisoners is only a small fraction in the reformations which are called for. The whole world needs reforming; and the reformation of prisoners will keep pace only with the reformation of those who are free; and as long as these places must be under the control of corrupt and depraved minds, alas for the cause of reform! Some of the iniquity of prison keepers has been discovered by the public eye, but what has been seen by that eye, is only a drop to a fountain, compared with the whole.—Enough is known about the guilt of prisoners, because the keepers who make the report are believed; but the keepers have no observers of their conduct but prisoners, and these are not credited when they tell the truth. It is believed in general, that prison keepers are tyrants. The voice of every age and country unites in describing this class of men as coming the nearest of any in moral resemblance to Satan; and yet no prisoner is believed when he complains of abuse. Let some great Howard go through the prisons in the United States, and take his accounts from prisoners as well as keepers, and he will give a different Report from the one before me. There is as much need of a society to reform keepers, as there ever can be to reform prisoners; and there can be but little ground to hope for success in prison till the keepers become not merely honest men but pious christians.

My statements in respect to the destruction of the chapel and the neglect of the means of grace in the Windsor Prison, are confirmed by the Reports of this Society. In the FIRST REPORT, pages 32, 33, the Society say, that, "In the Vermont Penitentiary, one hundred dollars only are appropriated for religious instruction. The chapel has been converted into a weaver's shop. The services on the Sabbath are irregular, and the Scriptures are not daily read to the assembled convicts."—Second report, page 56, "The duties of Chaplain are very irregularly discharged. In truth there is no stated Chaplain whose services can be relied on."

One quotation more on this subject is all that I can now make. It is from the SEVENTH REPORT, page 10. "The legislature of Vermont, at the last session, provided by law an additional compensation for a Chaplain; so that the state now pays three hundred dollars per annum for this service, and a chaplain has been appointed to discharge the duties of the office." Will the Secretary of this Society be so good as to inform the public in his next Report, how much service the Chaplain in the Vermont Penitentiary renders for his salary of three hundred dollars?

My time does not permit me to copy any more from the Reports of this Society. In the remarks that I have made upon its doings, I have had no design to impugn its motives. I doubt not that the managers of the Society mean to do good. I impeach not their views, but I doubt the wisdom of their policy. I know what they never can; and I am only opposing facts and experience to a fair but deceptive theory. The hope of effecting a reformation among prisoners, by stripes and solitary cells, can never be realized. It will be of no use for me to reason on this subject, for I am too small to be noticed. Nothing that I can say will tell on the great minds which compose the Society whose doings I condemn. But I must be allowed to give my opinion. "The Prison Discipline Society" is combining the talent of the country, and the wealth of the country, for a purpose which appears to itself benevolent, but which will, past all doubt, result in sinking our prisons to the lowest point of cruelty, and the darkest region of despair; and from his knowledge of human character and the effect of cruelty on the heart, I should suppose that Lucifer would be its most efficient patron.

A few lines more and I shall have done with this article. I was in Windsor when Rev. Lewis Dwight, the Secretary of the Society, visited that prison. I know from what source he obtained his information, and I know how extremely imperfect was some of the account he obtained, and how much was hidden from him entirely. And taking what relates to this prison, in his Reports, as a specimen of what he has related of other prisons, I am certain that much more light is needed to guide him to the evils of penitentiaries, and to their cure, than he has yet obtained, Prisoners ought to have been consulted, as well as keepers; an ex parte examination contains only part of the truth. Prisoners ought to be treated by christians on terms of equality, if any good is to be effected in the work of reformation; and before any thing can be done to effect their lasting good, they must be treated with kindness and respect. No other means can reform them. You may snarl them into sin, and tread them down to hell, but you must love them into repentance, and support them up the ascent to heaven.