were four years in our state prison, and, on account
of orderly conduct and good behaviour, pardoned.

Third—Has there been sufficient experience of
solitary confinement, to enable you to answer the
same question in relation to that mode of punish-
ment? And so far as your experience or observation
may extend, please to state the result?

Answer—There has been no experience in the state
prison of New-York

, that would serve to ascertain
how far continual solitary confinement may eventu-
ally produce reformation; recourse has only been had
to it, as a temporary punishment for bad conduct in
the prison—in this way it has produced good effects,
and has generally been the means of enforcing clean-
liness, preserving order, and good behaviour, even
among the most hardened convicts.

When I was a member of the Board of Inspectors,
by-laws were enacted, which declared, that all con-
versation, (except such as might be necessary whilst
at work,) want of cleanliness, whistling, attempting
to sing, &c., were offences against the laws of the
prison, and should meet with immediate punishment,
by confinement in a solitary cell on bread and water,
from one to three days, or longer, according to the
nature of the offence. By a faithful and rigid execu-
tion of these laws, the quiet and order of this prison
was, with some exceptions, perfectly preserved; and,
as regarded neatness and extreme cleanliness, no
prison in the world could surpass it.

Fourth—If you shall be of opinion that the pre-
sent, or any system of prison discipline, may be made
to produce material and permanent reformation in
any large proportion of cases, then be pleased to state
how, and in what way, in your opinion, it becomes
operative towards that end? What are the circum-
stances in the system which will tend to change the
character of the convict, and how do they, or will
they, operate? What can be done to make them
more effectual?