prisoners into indiscreet language, by feigned expressions of sympathy. In general, a silence was maintained by the officers and attendants, which might rival that of the monks of La Trappe. “When a corporal or any other, (said the instructions) is ordered to attend a prisoner, who may have permission to walk in the garden, or on the towers, it is expressly forbidden that he speak to him. He is to observe his actions, to take care that he make no signs to any one without, and to bring him back at the hour fixed, delivering him over to an officer, or one of the turnkeys, as may have been ordered.”—“The sentinel in the court must constantly keep in view the prisoners who may be permitted to walk there: he must be attentive to observe if they drop any paper, letter, note, or anything else: he must prevent them from writing on the walls, and render an exact account of every thing he may have remarked whilst on duty. All persons whatsoever, except the officers of the staff and turnkeys, are forbidden ever to speak to any prisoner, or even to answer him, under any pretence whatever.” As it was supposed that strangers might chance to feel pity for the victims of despotism, and of course be disposed to express it, or to serve them, care was taken to guard against that evil. It was therefore ordered that, “if workmen should be employed in the castle, as many sentinels must be put over them as may be thought necessary, who must observe them with the same attention as they do the prisoners, in order that they may not approach these, nor do any thing that may be contrary to the rules of the place.” Visits from without seem never to have been permitted except in minor cases of offence. No permission was granted till after the final examination, and not then till repeated requests had been made, and powerful interest employed. Even when the favour was obtained, its value was seriously diminished by the restrictions with which it was clogged. The prisoner was obliged to receive his relative or friend in the council chamber, on one side of which he was placed, and his visitor on the other, with two officers between them; nor were the parties suffered to converse on any subject which had the most remote reference to the cause or circumstances of the prisoner’s confinement. The same system was followed when one captive had an interview with another. There was but one case, in which incarcerated individuals could have a free interchange of thoughts; it was when the fullness of the prison, or the humanity of the governor, caused two of them to be located in the same chamber.