Since the last war, commerce has resumed its wonted activity; however, the exports are not in proportion with the activity of the industry of the state. Exports consist principally of corn, flour, beef, pork, flax-seed, iron utensils, plank, soap, candles, &c.: in 1820 they did not exceed 8,000,000 of dollars. The coasting trade is considerable, and about thirty ships are employed constantly in the India, China, and North West Coast trade. Altogether, internal and external commerce occupies about 7,000 persons.

As commerce, agriculture and industry, have no obstacles to prevent their increase, and have no great burthens to support, their prosperity is unavoidably augmented every year. Taxes are light, since none of them can ever be increased beyond one per cent. of the value of the goods. They are levied and collected in the following manner. Every three years, at the period of the general election, the people choose assessors, who after having estimated in money the value of the taxable property, send to the commissioners of the county the names of two respectable freeholders of the district, one of which is appointed receiver. This individual announces to the citizens the amount of their taxes, and the day on which their objections will be heard by the commissioners. The payments are then made, and the money placed in the hands of the county treasurer, who receives as his fee one per cent. of the funds that pass through his hands. The taxes are levied upon lands, houses, mills, manufactures, ground rents, cattle over four years old; upon lucrative commercial charges, and in general upon all offices, except those of ministers of the gospel, and schoolmasters; and in short upon tavern licences, and upon adults engaged in no profession.

The excellent financial organization of the state, and the severe economy carried into all the expenses of government, never require extraordinary taxes, and still allow the public agents to devote sufficiently considerable funds to the execution of the seventh article of the constitution, which directs the legislative power to employ all the means proper to multiply the means of public instruction, to procure gratuitous elementary education for indigent children and contribute to the rapid developement of the arts and sciences. The primary schools for the poor, and academies for the study of literature and the sciences are encouraged not only by legislative enactment, but also by the constant efforts of all the citizens, who subscribe together to create new ones where a want of them is felt.

The civil laws of England are still generally in force in the state of Pennsylvania; their conservation was one of the conditions stipulated in the patent granted by Charles the 2nd to Wm. Penn; they should have been entirely changed at the epoch of the revolution, as all connection with England was then broken off; but time and use had so consecrated them that they were left untouched, and even at present they have undergone but few and slight modifications. The same could not be the case with the criminal laws. The penal code of Great Britain, so often sanguinary, is entirely repugnant to the principles of the mild and philanthropic society of Friends; thus from the earliest days of the colony the object of Penn’s attacks who sought to substitute for it a code more conformable to the spirit of his sect, which vigorously opposed capital punishment, or at least desired that it should not be of such frequent and easy application. But the English Parliament was deaf to the cry of humanity and revoked the code of Penn and the tolerant decrees of Calvert which preceded them about half a century.

After the revolution, the disciples of Penn always animated by his philanthropic spirit, again raised their voice against the barbarity of the English penal code. This voice found an echo in the luminous and profound writings of Franklin, William Bradford, Caleb Lowndes and Dr. Rush, and soon after punishment by death was only inflicted upon premeditated murderers or poisoners. Imprisonment and labour proportioned to the strength of the convict, displaced corporal punishment, and those shameful brandings which complete the corruption of the soul, by consigning the body to enduring contempt.

These happy changes were wrought in 1793; from that period a considerable number of useful essays on the improvement of prisons and amelioration of the condition of prisoners, and particularly on the philanthropic system of the moral improvement of the convicts, have appeared in Philadelphia, and soon were imitated in other parts of the union. The state and city governments have not been the exclusive agents in this work, but a great number of benevolent societies, among which the society of Friends occupy a distinguished place, have devoted themselves to this great and good work. Among all the evidences I could cite, I shall confine myself to that of the most respectable and useful philanthropist, the duke Delarochefoucault Liancourt, who in a large and very instructive work, his travels in the United States during the years ’95, ’96 and ’97, speaks with enthusiasm of the reforming prisons of the United States, and particularly of the state prison of Philadelphia, principally managed by the society of Friends. This word state prison has another signification in Europe; but it here signifies the prisons erected by the state legislatures, for the criminals condemned by the courts of justice. Whenever the prisons of France, England, or other parts of Europe have been ameliorated, the prisons of the United States, and especially those of Philadelphia, have been taken as models.

However, the moral means of reformation so well detailed in the works of Liancourt and other travellers, have not entirely satisfied the ardor of improvement which animates the managers of these establishments; on the other hand, it is probable that the prisons of Philadelphia, by receiving a greater number of convicts, and among these a greater number of Europeans, and a much larger proportion of men less susceptible of reform, have furnished less satisfactory results than at the period described by the duke De Liancourt. These respectable friends of humanity have thought to do still better, and by resorting to solitary confinement, which leaving the prisoner to his reflexions, or to those which may be suggested to him, and separating him from other convicts, offers more chances of his amendment. In consequence, and as no expense frightens the Americans when they are once convinced of any great public good, they have built at a great cost, near Philadelphia, an immense building with its court yards and cells, where every prisoner may be separately shut up, and where from the form of the edifice, an easy and continual watch may be kept up.

This superb establishment was still unfinished, when general Lafayette, accompanied by the committee appointed to do the honours of the city went to visit it, and were received by the respectable directors and managers, who explained to him the improvements made. One must have courage to venture upon contradicting men so virtuous and experienced, as generous in design as in the execution of their benevolent works. The frankness and conviction of the general, overcame his repugnance, and with all the regard and respect which were due, and which his personal situation rendered still more necessary, he represented to them that solitary confinement was a punishment which should be experienced to be rightly appreciated; and that the virtuous and enlightened Malesherbes, who during his administration under the monarchical government of France, had ameliorated the condition of prisoners of state, regarded solitary confinement as leading to madness. The general observed that during his five years’ captivity, he had passed an entire year in solitary confinement, and another part of the time seeing a companion but during a single hour, and he added, smiling, that he had not found it to be the means of reformation, since he was imprisoned for wishing to revolutionize the people against despotism and aristocracy, and passed his solitude in thinking upon it, without coming out corrected in that respect. He also made some observations on a too assiduous watchfulness, such for example as that he had been subjected to, during the early part of his captivity, when he was constantly guarded by a sub-officer who remained in sight of him, and was relieved every two hours. Mr. Adams, at this time secretary of state, appeared to be of the same mind with Lafayette. These opinions have since been discussed in newspapers and pamphlets, in which persons on both sides, understanding the subject thoroughly, have maintained opposite opinions. “I observe,” said Lafayette, “that in the states where the prisons are less crowded, in New Hampshire, or in the state of Vermont, the managers, (in New Hampshire the senate have charge of the prisons,) the legislators and the public, find the old method still good, and it procures the reformation of the convicts, which you complain of being unable to effect in Pennsylvania, and in the most populous states. Why may not your fine building be divided into several parts, each of which to contain the same number of prisoners as the prisons of New Hampshire and Vermont, which would be a mode of separating the criminals and exciting the emulation of prisoners who behaved well; and since in your admirable and philanthropic generosity, you have gone to the expense of a cell for each prisoner, shut them up separately at night, instead of crowding them together in those vast sleeping rooms, where it is true the convicts mutually corrupt each other more than in the day time and at work, when they are watched by their guards.” This discussion of equally well meant opinions, in which it must be confessed the directors and managers have the advantage of experience, has not been limited to Pennsylvania, nor even to America. Many philanthropic Europeans who considered the prisons of Pennsylvania as the type of perfection, have become alarmed at this avowal of their insufficiency, this necessity for change, as likely to trammel the efforts of the friends of humanity in Europe. One of the most distinguished Englishmen, Roscoe, the historian, has already written against some opinions which he regards as erroneous, contained in a report made upon prisons to the legislature and public. Soon after Mr. Roscoe entered into a discussion relative to the prison of Philadelphia, and has published some pamphlets on the subject which do equal honour to his understanding and his heart. Such was the existing state of the question, which the circumstance of our visit to the prison caused me to consider. A numerous, enlightened, and experienced portion of the citizens of Pennsylvania, and especially of Philadelphia, appear disposed to try solitary confinement, not as an exception to, but as the basis of, the penitentiary system. Many worthy men whom I have seen and conversed with on both sides of the Atlantic, are of an opposite opinion; but it is exceedingly fortunate for a country that already bestows so much attention upon questions of this sort, that the experiment will be made by well meaning persons, who beyond doubt will modify their system when they perceive its unfitness. After having obtained such wise and generally desired reforms, the ever active philanthropy of the Pennsylvanians has been unremittingly directed to every thing which can contribute to repair or diminish the evils of humanity. The government and directors have vied with each other in zeal; in all parts of the state, hospitals and charitable establishments have exceedingly multiplied. In the year 1774, a society devoted to the abolition of the slave-trade, and to the succour of blacks illegally held in bondage was formed, of which Franklin was the first president.

The Humane Society for affording succour to apparently drowned persons, was established in 1780. This society has considerably diffused the apparatus necessary for attempting to afford such relief; and has established prizes for those who have in any way contributed to save the life of a fellow creature.

Four female benevolent societies, for the relief of widows and orphans, were founded during the years 1793, 1802, 1809, and 1811. The Washington Benevolent Society of Pennsylvania, founded in 1812, also deserves to be mentioned; it was composed of more than 3,000 members, each of which payed two dollars on admission, and the same sum annually into the treasury. These funds were devoted to the relief of members of the society, or to their families.