_Western Penitentiary._—From the time that the principle of individual separation of convicts was recognized by the Legislature, in 1790, the legal provisions and the arrangements of the prison had been so defective, that a full and fair trial of the system could not be made; yet notwithstanding the impediments it encountered, its good results were so evident, that the Society deemed it proper to call public attention to the importance of extending it throughout the State. This being done, in the same year (1818) the Act was passed, authorizing the erection, at Pittsburg, of the Western State Penitentiary, “on the principle of the solitary confinement of the convicts, as the same is, or hereafter may be, established by law.” In the passage of this Act, it is rather to be regretted that the term “separate” had not been used, instead of “solitary,” as it would have more accurately described what is now emphatically called “the Pennsylvania System,” and would not have been so likely to aid in the prejudice towards it, which is entertained by persons in other States and countries. _Inquiries from London._—About the same time Dr. Lushington, on behalf of the London Society for improving the condition of Prisons, then recently established, requested of our Society information as to the results of the melioration of our Criminal Code. The reply expressed strong confidence in the full success of the system, when the difficulties were overcome which resulted from the construction of the Philadelphia gaol, not allowing the fundamental principle of separation to be observed except to a very limited extent, and when the new Penitentiary, then in progress at Pittsburg, was completed, the plan of construction of which being intended to especially adapt it to entire separation of the prisoners from each other. _Inquiries from New York._—About the same time, a series of inquiries, tending to the same point, were addressed to us, by a Committee of citizens of New York. The reply most fully sustained the efficacy of our more lenient system, so far as facilities existed to properly carry it out. “Were a Penitentiary established,” they say, “sufficiently large, and so constructed as to keep the prisoners separated from each other during work, meals, and sleep (in other words, perpetual separation), and if no pardons were granted except in extraordinary cases, its efficacy would soon be self-evident.” They also referred to the difficulty of procuring suitable employment, the frequency of pardons, and the deplorable condition of discharged prisoners, as being very serious, but not really necessary evils. They regarded the suggestion to extend capital punishment beyond its then narrow limits, or to resort to transportation, as being evidently inexpedient.