festly impossible to be done. All that can be done, in this respect, is, to prevent bad men from rendering each other worse, or from rendering the less wicked as bad as themselves. Whatever degree of solitude accomplishes this purpose, fulfils, so far as this view of the subject is concerned, all the practical indications of the case. And, besides, uninterrupted solitude, long continued, is certainly at variance with all the social instincts of our nature. The presumption is always against any system, to which the constitution of man is essentially adverse. On this point, we are, therefore, inclined to the opinion, that a system of uninterrupted solitude should not be adopted, unless it were proved necessary to reformation; inasmuch as it is at variance with the human constitution, and, in the circumstances of the case, cannot accomplish any point of special, practical utility.

Much has been said of the comparative healthiness of the two systems. It has been objected to the solitary system, that it must, of necessity, destroy the health and undermine the reason. Such was the opinion of Roscoe and Lafayette. What might be the effect of solitary confinement without labor we will not pretend to decide; but the danger of solitary confinement with labor has certainly been overrated. Still, on the score of health, the other prisons have the advantage. The percentage of deaths at the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, has been, on an average, for eight years, about 3; varying from of one to 6 per cent. The average of deaths at the other prisons, has been about one per cent. less, for the same time. In the report of the physician of the Eastern Penitentiary, for January, 1838, fourteen cases are recorded of dementia, from abuse of the person. To this vice, this mode of confinement would seem to be peculiarly liable. Just so far as this liability is greater under the solitary system than the other, it would, by so much, lead us to prefer the system of modified solitude.*

From this examination of facts, we are inclined to the opinion that, so far as the experiment has been tried, the Pennsylvania system can claim no superiority over the other. It is not proved to be either more reformatory, more humane, more easy of management, or more healthy. Indeed, so far

The last and Tenth Annual Report of the New Penitentiary in Philadelphia is awful in its results. The average number of prisoners was 402; the deaths 26, or 6 per cent.; the recommittals 23; and the cases of monomania, mania, hallucination, and dementia, 18.

as the results can be compared, it appears to be in most of these respects decidedly, though not greatly inferior.

We are next met by the question of expensiveness. Here there is nothing to be said by way of balancing arguments. The facts are, by confession, all on one side. The solitary system is vastly more expensive, whether we consider the original cost of the arrangements, or the amount required for the annual maintenance of the prisoners.

The cost of building the Eastern Penitentiary, estimated at the price per cell, was

At Pittsburg,

At Providence, (R. I.)

These are all on the Pennsylvania system.

$1,648.85* 978.95

1,875

On the other hand, the cost per cell of the prison at

Charlestown was

At Sing Sing,

$286 200

150.86

At Weathersfield,

At Baltimore,

146.32

The prison at Charlestown was made unnecessarily costly, the outside walls being nearly twice as thick as they need to be. The Eastern Penitentiary is also more costly in grounds, external wall, &c. than would commonly be deemed desirable. The prison at Providence was built on land unusually expensive; and we are informed, that as good a prison might be built at the cost of $1200 per cell in another situation. The Pittsburg prison is, by all acknowledgment, very imperfect, and insufficient for the purpose of isolation. Taking twelve hundred dollars as the fair price for a good and secure cell on the Pennsylvania, and one hundred and fifty as the cost of a cell on the Auburn system, we have, probably, a fair estimate of the comparative expensiveness of the two systems, so far as the building is concerned. This makes the cost as eight to one; and, if we make an allowance for error, of which, however, we are not aware, we cannot estimate the ratio lower than seven to one. When we consider that the same mode of building, if it be preferable, should also be introduced into the county jails and houses of detention, this amount of difference of expense, will make a very considerable item in the pecuniary burdens of a community.

On the question of subsequent economy, there is almost as

The total of sums granted by the legislature for the erection of this prison is $772,600-69.

little room for argument as on that of the original cost of erection. We regret, that on this subject the information published by the Inspectors of the Pennsylvania prisons is extremely unsatisfactory. It seems, that the salaries of all the officers are paid by the State. How nearly the labor of the prisoners pays for their food and clothing, (the capital, we believe, is furnished by the State,) we do not know. Last year, an application for a loan of $ 10,000 was made to the legislature, for the Eastern Penitentiary alone. The New Jersey prison earned for the year 1837, $1,741 41, above its expenses; but, whether this was inclusive of the salaries of officers, or not, we do not know. So far as we can judge, a prison on this plan could do but very little more than pay the personal expenses of prisoners. The buildings and attendance must therefore be furnished at the cost of the community. The reason of this is obvious. At solitary labor, there can be but little use of machinery, and, of course, the wages of such labor will be at the lowest rate. What wages can a weaver earn, when he has to come into competition with a powerloom? In solitude, there can be but very little division of labor, and, on this account also, there will be but comparatively small remuneration due to the labor.

It is evident, then, that the prisons which allow of joint labor by day are much the more economical. The Weathersfield prison, as we have stated, has paid its own current expenses, including salaries of officers and every contingency, besides accumulating or refunding to the State the whole cost of its erection, and having, in its tenth year, a balance in its favor of $10,746-17. The average earnings of the State prison at Charlestown above its expenses, for four years preceding the year 1836, were $6,371 04. In that year, 1836, they were $13,428.25. The earnings above expenses, for the year 1837, were $806.81, and in the bill of expenses were included "food, clothing, medical attendance, salary of the officers, transportation of the prisoners from the county prisons, and a new suit of clothes, and from three to five dollars in money, on the discharge of each convict." This is a less favorable result than that of the preceding year, but it was a year of great commercial embarrassment, and was also the same year, in which the Pennsylvania Penitentiary required a loan from the State of $10,000, besides the payment of the salaries of all the officers.

We would by no means urge the consideration of expensiveness beyond its actual importance. It is, however, surely undesirable to oblige honest men to labor for rogues, any further than is absolutely necessary. It does also seem, that one or two hundred able-bodied men ought both to support themselves, and to pay for house-rent and necessary attendance. If this can be done consistently with every reasonable hope of reformation, it certainly should be attempted.

If, then, the solitary system can show no results more beneficial than the other (and, as far as we have been able to discover, it has not shown them); and if it be from seven to eight times as expensive in the outset, and no one knows how much more expensive in the annual outlay; and, yet more, if its radical idea, isolation of the criminal, has not yet, with all this expense, been proved practicable; the result, thus far, is surely in favor of the Auburn system. Which system will, in the end, prove the better, we need not predict. We decide from the facts and results before the public; and we hesitate not to say, that we believe any unprejudiced person, who will read the evidence, will coincide with us in opinion.

We should not give so decided an opinion on a matter of this kind, were it not a question of much practical importance. Prisons are to be erected all over this country. They are costly structures at best. If they are very costly, and prove worthless, and are, besides this, a heavy annual bill of expense, there is reason to fear lest the people should tire of the whole subject, and their efforts be relaxed for the reformation of criminals. It is, however, proper to add, that, by far the greater number of those who have examined these systems, for practical purposes, have arrived at the same conclusion with ourselves. Most of the new penitentiaries in the United States have been constructed on the Auburn plan. The Committee of the legislature of Michigan have, in preference, and for reasons given, recommended its adoption in that State. The Commissioners of Upper and of Lower Canada have, after a full and mature comparison of both systems, done the same.

In conclusion, we beg leave to suggest a few remarks to the friends of reform in prison discipline in the United States.

The weak points of the Pennsylvania system are, its expensiveness, and the difficulty of effecting the actual isolation VOL. XLIX. No. 104. 6

of prisoners. The friends of this system should direct their attention to the removal of these difficulties. When prisoners can be confined in solitude at a reasonable expense, and are enabled thus to support themselves, a fair opportunity will be afforded for testing the superiority of the solitary system. In this connexion, however, it is right that we express our regret at the manner in which this mode of prison discipline has been defended. There has been too much reasoning a priori; too much of taking things for granted, and this when the facts were accessible; too much arraigning of the motives of opponents, to be in entirely good taste. When the testimony before the investigating committee of 1835 had been published, we see not any good reason for using Mr. Crawford's report to prove, that the prisoners did not communicate, or that there was, under this system, no necessity for severity in punishment. The financial part of the reports of these prisons is also lamentably deficient. We defy any one to find out, from any thing that has been published, to which we have had access, what is the state of the financial concerns of either of the Pennsylvania establishments. We wonder the legislature does not take the matter in hand.

The weakest point, as it seems to us, in the other system is the liability to intercourse between the prisoners, which we think must exist, in the workshops. This might, to a much greater degree, be remedied. The workshops seem not to be built with any special intention to prevent intercourse between the prisoners. This should manifestly be a main point in their construction. They should be smaller and more numerous, and arranged with a view to the most perfect supervision. The proportion of overseers should be greater. The trades should be, as far as possible, the most noiseless, so that conversation could be most easily detected. As a prison on this plan can more than support itself, we do not perceive in what manner its surplus earnings could be better appropriated, than in rendering its physical arrangements, and its means of moral and intellectual culture, as perfectly adapted to their design as human ingenuity can make them.

Where new prisons are to be built, we conceive that several important modifications might be beneficially introduced. The walls need not be so thick as they are commonly made. The windows in the external wall should be large, for the