ings, as houses of correction, in the counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, and Chester. They were subject to the superintendence and control of a president, treasurer, and assistants, who themselves were accountable for their conduct and disbursements to the justices. These three houses of labour were to be built within three years from the passage of the statute.

The house of correction, erected in Philadelphia, by virtue of the statute of 1718, was located at the south-west corner of Market and Third streets, and was purchased from Joshua Carpenter, by the Mayor and commonalty of the city. This building appears to have been entirely unfit for its purpose, and by no means calculated for the confinement of wicked men, desirous of liberty. It was subterraneous, close, and filthy; the whole lot containing but 240 feet in length and 66 feet in breadth.

The Legislature in 1773,5 being sensible, by the representations made to them, of its numerous and unalterable defects, not only as regarded the safe custody but the health of the criminals, deemed it proper to order the sale of the lot, and to authorise commissioners to purchase ground in a convenient part of the city for the construction of a commodious and substantial gaol. This prison was accordingly erected, and is yet the receptacle of felons; it is the one situated at the corner of Walnut and Sixth streets, extending south to Prune street. The space occupied by the lot is 400 feet by 200; the large stone building erected on it is 184 feet long, is divided into apartments of equal dimensions, and has two stories.i This was found sufficient in size and safety for the criminals placed in it; at least no account is transmitted of breaches, except shortly * after the revision of the penal code in 1786. These are attributable to the unsettled state of the prison after the introduction of the new laws, and perhaps to a relaxation of that vigilance in the keeper, which is necessary at all times, and under any circumstances.

It does not appear that the internal regulation of the prison was the subject of legislative enactment before the period of 1786, when the thunder of Liberty having pealed throughout the United States, left the conquerors the sacred privilege of seasoning the rigour of justice with the kind offices of humanity. The prison

e See this statement in an act of 1773, sec. 5, in 1 Smith, 405.

f1 Smith. 404.

g 1 Smith, 403.

i Lownes' Account, &c. p. 80.
k See Bradford's Enquiry,

was spacious and strong, but the economy was lamentably defective. The statute passed this year made many useful provisions for the interior government of the prisons, in which we can see only the embryo of a more perfect reform. Hope of pardon and restoration to credit, were presented to such convicts as would induce, by their conduct, a belief of sincere repentance and change. There was one provision of the statute from which abundant benefit was anticipated, but from which much evil to the criminal, and peril to society, resulted. This was labour "publicly and disgracefully imposed," according to the language of the preamble, and the wearing a particular uniform to distinguish them from the labouring and poorer classes in the streets. Lownes' Account of the prison informs us that crowds of idle boys assembled, either to teaze or converse with the criminals, who, rendered insensible by their exposure, and excited by liquor, held the most improper conversations with them; and sometimes irritated by the incivility with which they were treated, made desperate sallies on the citizens.

A few years' trial of this experiment proved its pernicious effects; and the Legislature, in consequence of a representation made to them, at the instance of the Supreme Executive Council, by the "Philadelphia Society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons," repealed in 1789 this odious and disgraceful servitude in public.m

Before we consider this statute, it may not be improper to exhibit a portrait of the scene within the prison, previous to this period. Human wretchedness, though invoked by crime, cannot be a pleasing contemplation to a mind not destitute of sensibility; but it is no less the province of the annalist to record, than it will be a subject of exultation to compare it with the subsequent history of prison economy. No apology, therefore, will be offered for the insertion of the following extract, from the elegant and feeling graphic pen of Roberts Vaux, Esq., whose opportunities for accurate information on this subject are unquestionable. After describing the miserable construction of the prison at Philadelphia, when located at the corner of Market and Third streets, he thus continues: "What a spectacle must this abode of guilt and wretchedness have presented, when in one common herd were kept by

1 See Lownes' Account, &c. p. 76-7.

m See the Representation in Vaux's Notices, &c. p. 26.

day and by night, prisoners of all ages, colours, and sexes! No separation was made of the most flagrant offender and convict, from the prisoner who might be falsely suspected of some trifling misdemeanor; none of the old and hardened culprit, from the youthful and trembling novice in crime; none even of the fraudulent swindler, from the unfortunate and possibly the most estimable debtor; and when intermingled with all these, in one corrupt and corrupting assemblage, were to be found the disgusting object of popular contempt, besmeared with filth from the pillory-the unhappy victim of the lash, streaming with blood from the whipping post-the half naked vagrant-the loathsome drunkard-the sick suffering with various bodily pains, and too often the unaneled malefactor, whose precious hours of probation had been numbered by his earthly judge."n

This lamentable state of things existed even after the removal of the prison, and continued without any mitigation, till 1786, and partly till the passage of the statute of 1790. "The Society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons," for whose exertions on this interesting subject too much praise cannot be given, urged with most warmth, in the representation before alluded to, the removal of three great evils in the prison. They were the mixture of the sexes, the use of spirituous liquors, and the promiscuous association of debtors and felons. In addition to these, there were two other evils complained of, perhaps as serious as either of the preceding. Proper apartments in the work-house of the building were wanted for the various descriptions of criminals; the consequence of which was, that boys and girls, inexperienced in vice, comparatively innocent, and confined perhaps by hard masters and mistresses for disobedience or neglect, associated with convicts, hardened by age and abandoned to the basest crimes. The public employment of the criminals, was the other mischief represented. P

It is easy to perceive that such a system was poorly calculated for the purposes of punishment, and the reformation of criminals, Is it surprising that a place, furnishing every means of debauchery and licentiousness, should confirm in guilt those confined in it, and after discharge that they should hasten, by new acts of depre

n Vaux's Notices, &c. p. 13 & 14. p See ibid. p. 29 & 30. o See petition inserted in Vaux's Notices, &c. p. 28.

dation, to be reinstated, where pleasures congenial to depravity awaited them?

But a new order of things was about to commence. The ener getic appeal of the "Society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons," awakened the attention of the Legislature to this alarming state of affairs. Inspectors, in the first instance, were appointed to superintend and conduct the business of the prison, by the act of 1789. The keepers were made liable to a fine of ten pounds, if liquor was permitted to go to the felons, except in cases of sickness, or if they allowed any communication between the male and female convicts.

The alterations introduced in the following year," when it will be recollected that the penal laws underwent a general revision, were more extensive and important. Cells were to be provided for the more atrocious offenders and idle and disorderly vagrants; all visitors, except inspectors, judges, justices, and lawyers, were excluded; assaults and other offences committed by the prisoners were to be punished; inspectors were to be appointed with prescribed powers and duties; the house of correction on Prune street, was to be called "The Debtors' Apartment," and exclusively appropriated to their reception and confinement; and a penalty was imposed on selling liquors in the gaol. And in that spirit of reform and mercy which has distinguished Pennsylvania, provision was made for the prevention of contagious disorders, by promoting cleanliness and ordaining separate lodgings among the prisonersfor private instead of public employment-and for establishing an infirmary in the west end of the gaol.

It has already been remarked, that after the passage of the law of 1786, there was a multiplication of convictions of robbery; and this increase was ascribed partly to the condition of the prison, and partly to the multitude of pardons. The former having been cursorily sketched, it remains that the prerogative of pardon should receive some trifling attention.

It is obvious, that for the purposes of justice, the power of pardon should reside somewhere, though it must be admitted, that its indiscreet exercise is subversive of all the ends of law. In whom this prerogative should be reposed, and when its interference may be otherwise than detrimental, are questions open for disquisition.

q 1 Smith. 106.

r 2 Smith. 533,

By the Constitution of 1776, the Supreme Executive Power was vested in a President and Council of five, to whom was delegated the privilege of granting reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment. The present constitution, adopted in the year 1790, has vested the power of pardon exclusively in the Governor, where it must remain, uncontrollable by the Legislature. Previous to 1790, Mr. Bradford" states that pardons were profuse and unaccountable; that of sixty-eight convictions, thirty experienced this clemency by the President and Council.

After the change took place, he holds this language:-"the prerogative of pardon, since it has resided in a single Magistrate, is no longer weakly exercised." If then indiscretion was manifested by. the injudicious use of this privilege, when reposed in six men, we may suppose a fortiori that a large body, like the Legislature, would be incompetent. From these facts, we are led to presume, that a change would scarcely benefit society, but its proper use will depend greatly on the individual who occupies the gubernatorial chair.

In what cases, does a regard for the public justify the intervention of this power? It is certain, that improper pardons deprive the law of all its terrors; for the more flagitious the crime, more severe the punishment, so much stronger are the expectation of pity and hope of impunity. But, as it may happen from a concurrence of anomalous contingencies, that the innocent may suffer, and the severity of the law be felt with peculiar hardship, it is but justice to acknowledge, that, in such cases, mercy ought to be extended. By the caution and humanity of our juries, innocence will seldom be convicted; but as it may occur in consequence of the fallibility of human judgment, a power should reside somewhere to reverse an erroneous decree. And when the general law applies with peculiar hardship to a particular case, it is obviously the grateful duty of the Executive, "to break its teeth," or mitigate its rigour.

But how is this hardship to be ascertained with sufficient certainty, to authorise the reversal of a judicial verdict? Is the remonstrance of a pitying multitude, to be relied on, whose judg

t See Art. 2. s. 9. in Purdon's Dig

s See sections 3d & 20th of "The Plan or Frame of Government," con- p. 20. tained in 5 Smith, 426-8.

u B. Enquiry, p. 23.