Reply to two letters of William Roscoe, esquire, of Liverpool, on the penitentiary system of Pennsylvania / by Roberts Vaux.

  • Vaux, Roberts, 1786-1836.
Date:
1827
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Reply to two letters of William Roscoe, esquire, of Liverpool, on the penitentiary system of Pennsylvania / by Roberts Vaux. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    5/12
    even solitary labour, would more successfully tend to reclaim the unhappy objects, fyc. Again:—in 1788, when the supreme executive council called on the society by resolution, for infor- mation concerning the state of the Prison, and solicited advice on the course necessary to be pursued, and the most salutary mea- sures to be adopted, we find a full and able report to that body, closed with this memorable sentence; On the whole, as a matter of the utmost moment to the well being, safety, and peace of society, as well as of the greatest importance to the criminals, the committee think it their duty to declare, that from a long and steady attention to the real practical state, as ivcll as the theory of prisons, they are unanimously of opinion, that solitary confinement, and hard labour, and a total abstinence from spiritual liquors, will prove the most effectual means of reforming these unhappy creatures. This report was adopted and signed on behalf of the society by William White,* Richard Wells, Benjamin Wynkoop, Tho- mas Wistar, Samuel Powel Griffitts, John Kaign, William Rogers, Charles Marshall, John Connelly, James Cooper, Caleb Lownes, Benjamin Thaw, Thomas Harrison, William Lippin- cott, and George Duffield. I give the names of the members of the committee, because among them are some of the most influ- ential and efficient men of that honourable and beneficent asso- ciation. Such was the inception of the penitentiary system of Pennsylvania, and if more distinct terms could have been em- ployed to explain, or more conclusive testimony concerning the purposes and aims of its founders, can be required, I am utterly at a loss to conjecture what will be satisfactory or availing, to establish their intentions. The great work in hand was no less novel than difficult, and of consequence the legislature bestowed much time and reflection upon the proposition, and in conjunction with the society endea- voured to mature a law, suited to the design. The condition of public affairs was unpropitious to the adoption of measures that would require large expenditures of money, as this country had then recently emerged from the protracted war of the revolution, and was labouring under the debility induced by that perilous struggle. Instead, therefore, of erecting a building, throughout adapted to the purpose, the legislature embraced the views of tbe prison society, so far as to provide in 1790, that the commis- sioners of the county of Philadelphia, with the approbation of the Mayor and two Aldermen of the city of Philadelphia, ami two Justices of the Court of Quarter Sessions for tbe county ot Philadelphia, shall, as soon as conveniently may be, cause a suit- * The venerable Bishop White, who hn forty years has been President oi the Society.