Analyse how the treatment of offenders was approached under ‘Crofton’s ‘Irish system’’1 in the
1850s and 1860s?
Abstract:
This essay explores the power relations that existed under the so-called ‘Crofton’ or ‘Irish’ system of
open prisons that attracted much international attention in the mid-nineteenth century as
governments and social campaigners looked for new ways to deal with offenders. The analysis draws
on concepts from the social sciences, particularly the power theories of Lukes, Foucault, and Mann. It
demonstrates the importance of religion and ideas about gender in the formulation of prison policy.
It also provides significant insights into the complex power relations in nineteenth-century Irish
society more generally.
the Irish system makes use of every agency, both inside and outside of the prison, that can be
applied to the improvement of the convicts; compulsion and voluntary activity, freedom and
restraint, moral and social power, government and society, police and church, are united in
one common effort to influence the mind of the convict, who ....reforms himself.2
This essay will analyse the methods used to deal with offenders under the ‘Irish system’ of
convict management usually associated with Walter Crofton, who helped introduce it to
Ireland in mid-1850s when chair of the Irish Convict Prisons Board.3 Analyses of the
‘Crofton system’ tend to focus on its success or wider influence, this essay will examine how
power was exercised through the system and what this reveals about power-relations in
Thomas Krause, ‘The influence of Sir Walter Crofton’s ‘Irish system’ on prison reform in Germany’, in Paul
Brand et al (eds), Adventures of the Law, proceedings of the Sixteenth British Legal History Conference, Dublin,
2003 (Dublin and Portland, Oregon, 2005), p. 234.
2
Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations on the Present Condition of the Irish Convict System
translated from the German of Baron Von Holtzendorff, Professor of Law in the University of Berlin By Mrs
Lentaigne (Dublin, 1863) pp. 28-29, for Von Holtzendorff see Thomas Krause, ‘The influence of Sir Walter
Crofton’s ‘Irish system’ on prison reform in Germany’, p. 240.
3
The system will be referred to as the ‘Crofton system’ for convenience although it will be seen that Walter
Crofton was not its only advocate, Crofton had been involved in a government-appointed investigation into Irish
Prisons prior to the establishment of the Convict Prisons Board, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, The Story of a Prison
(Cork, 2000), p. 66, Seán Aylward and Jim Mitchell, ‘Irish Prisons, Past, Present and Future Challenges’,
Corrections Today, 65 (7) (2003), pp. 98-99, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the
Irish Convict System, 1854-61- II’, The Irish Jurist, 12(2) (1977), pp. 295-303, Martin McElroy, ‘Crofton, Sir
Walter, Frederick (1815-97)’, Dictionary of Irish Biography
(http://dib.cambridge.org.elib.tcd.ie/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a2189&searchClicked=clicked&quickadvsearc
h=yes) accessed 27 March 2012.
1
1
Ireland in the 1850s and 1860s.4 It will be argued, as suggested in the opening quotation, that
the relevant power-relations were complex and multifaceted. It will be seen that this system,
like many before it, was ‘individualizing’, it targeted the mind of each prisoner and attempted
to change their moral values.5 Indeed it will be argued that individualization extended to
deterrence as the idea of punishing prisoners to discourage potential criminals received less
attention.6 Nevertheless, it will be seen that the system aimed to influence society in other
ways. Prison administrators had to respond to public anxiety and the system was designed to
demonstrate that it was successfully reforming offenders. The essay will begin by examining
the system’s different stages to show it tried to make offenders adopt a new moral code. It
will then examine the system’s ‘social aims’ to reveal the complex and ambiguous power
relationships that existed in Irish society at least with regard to this policy area. Different
theories of power will be considered in order to examine relevant power-relations. The focus
will be on Ireland in the 1850s and 1860s as this includes the period when the system was at
its height.7
The Crofton system was partly a response to the closing of most colonies to transported
offenders, creating the problem of what to ‘do’ with criminals, and partly a response to the
bad reputation ‘transportees’ had gained in the colonies which reignited interest in the
See for example, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the Irish Convict System, 185461- I’, The Irish Jurist, 12(1) (1977), pp. 134-147, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of
the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- II’, pp. 320-336, Elizabeth Eileen Dooley, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Irish
Intermediate System of Prison Discipline’, New England Journal on Prison Law, 7 (1981), pp. 72-96, Thomas
Krause, ‘The influence of Sir Walter Crofton’s ‘Irish System’ on prison reform in Germany’, pp. 234-245, Seán
Aylward and Jim Mitchell, ‘Irish Prisons, Past, Present and Future Challenges’, pp. 98-99, Carroll-Burke made
use of some theories of power when analysing it but his focus was broader than power-relations under the
Crofton System, Patrick Carroll-Burke, Colonial Discipline, The Making of the Irish Convict System (Dublin
and Portland, Oregon, 2000), pp. 11-20, p. 100, pp. 179-190.
5
Henry Heaney, ‘Ireland’s Penitentiary 1820-1831: An Experiment that Failed’, Studia Hibernica, 14 (1974),
pp. 28-29, pp. 36-39, ‘Report on the Gaols of the City of Dublin’, Poor Inquiry Ireland Appendix C Part II
(London, 1836), pp. 3b-5b, U.R.Q. Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System of Prison
Discipline’, Past & Present, 54 (1972), pp. 64-66, pp. 68-70, Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, The Birth
of the Prison translation Alan Sheridan (London, 1979, First French Edition 1975), p. 16.
6
U.R.Q. Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System’, pp. 63-64, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter
Crofton and the Reform of the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- I’, p. 118.
7
Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 116-117, p. 125, Sixteenth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons for
Ireland, for the year ended 31st December 1869; with Appendix (Dublin, 1870), p. 7.
4
2
reformation of offenders.8 Although Crofton thought it applicable to all prisoners, the system
was established to deal with ‘convicts.’ In this context ‘convict’ referred to those sentenced to
‘penal servitude’, a type of prison sentence used as a substitute for transportation.9 It differed
from the sentence of ‘imprisonment’ as it normally involved a longer time in (often state-run
‘government’ rather than local)prisons.10
Attempts to use prison as an instrument of reformation date from the late Eighteenth Century
and the Crofton system shared many of the features and aims of earlier projects.11 In the first
stage the prisoner was placed in ‘separate’ confinement i.e. in a cell on their own and allowed
contact with prison staff but not other prisoners.12 The aim was that pursued by earlier
Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 41-42, pp. 65-66, Beverly A. Smith, ‘The Female Prisoner in Ireland, 1855-1878 ’,
Federal Probation, 54(4) (1990), p. 74, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the Irish
Convict System, 1854-61- I’, pp. 123-124, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes and their Control. Prison
Treatment and its Principles. Addresses by Sir Walter Crofton, C.B....(London, 1868), p. 3, Walter Crofton.
Convict Systems and Transportation, A Lecture Delivered at the Philosophical Institution Bristol, on the 22nd
December, 1863, by Sir Walter Crofton, C.B.....(London and Bristol, 1863), p. 3.
9
This included those who had been originally sentenced to transportation whose sentenced were ‘converted’ to
penal servitude and those sentenced to penal servitude because the option to sentence them to transportation no
longer existed, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 10, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 41-42, Seán
McConville, A history of English prison administration, Volume I, 1750-1877 (London, Boston, Massachusetts,
and Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1981), pp. 381-387, Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of Women Sentenced to
Transportation and Penal Servitude, 1790-1898’, Unpublished M.Litt. Thesis (Trinity College Dublin, 1989),
pp. 13-14, National Archives of Ireland (hereafter NAI), Chief Secretary’s Office Registered Papers,
CSORP/1858/1244, Circular ‘Dublin Castle July 1857’, letter from Walter Crofton ‘Government Prisons Office,
Dublin Castle 19 January 1858.’
10
Beverly A. Smith, ‘The Female Prisoner in Ireland’, pp. 70-74, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 117-118, it should
be noted that not everyone sentenced to penal servitude passed through the Crofton system partly due to a lack
of facilities, Report of the Board of Superintendence of the City of Dublin Prisons, To the Right Honorable the
Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Dublin...(Dublin, 1863), p. 7, pp. 12-13, Rena Lohan,
‘The treatment of Women’ , pp. 15-16.
11
Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 2-3, pp. 7-8, pp. 24-29, pp. 44-48, p. 66, Seán McConville, A history of English
prison administration, pp . 4-5, p. 325, the ideas behind the Crofton system were also influenced by the
development of reformatory schools, something with which Crofton himself was closely involved, Lawrence
Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics in Victorian Britain, The Social Science Association 1857-1886
(Cambridge, 2002), pp. 143-144, p. 146-147, pp. 155-156, Reformatory Schools, Return to an Address of the
Honourable House of Commons, dated 15 June 1860.. (n.p. , 1860), p. 6, First Report of the Inspector Invited
to Visit the Reformatory Schools of Ireland..(Dublin, 1862), p. 8, Martin McElroy, ‘Crofton, Sir Walter,
Frederick.’
12
NAI, Chief Secretary’s Office Official Papers, OP/1869/38, ‘Letter from Patrick Murray to the Under
Secretary’ 10 June 1869, Observations on the Treatment of Convicts in Ireland, With Some Remarks on the
Same in England, By Four Visiting Justices of the West Riding Prison at Wakefield (London, 1862), pp. 2-4, pp.
20-22, Second Annual Report of the Director of Convict Prisons in Ireland for the Year Ended 31 st December
1855; with Appendix (Dublin, 1856) .p. 36, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 67-71.
8
3
reformers, individualization, a focus on each individual prisoner, making him13 responsible
for his own conduct and targeting his personal reformation.14 Individualization is sometimes
simply associated with the third stage of the Crofton system but it was a feature of the whole
process.15 It might be said to involve Lukes’s ‘third face’ of power, aiming to shape
offenders’ preferences to reflect the desires of prison administrators.16 Von Holtzendorff,
when investigating the Crofton system, claimed a government official asserted, ‘the corrupt
mind of the criminal lays itself down in fallow for the plough of civilization.’17 As Foucault
suggested, the object was not simply to gain retribution but to make the offender adopt the
‘correct’ value system.18 Religion was a key instrument in this process. The ‘separated’
prisoner attended religious services and was visited by a chaplain of his denomination, in this
(separated)state his mind was thought to be particularly susceptible to such influences.19 This
aim has been presented as ‘irrational’ because it depended on a prisoner’s religious
13
This section will mainly describe the treatment of male prisoners, the treatment of female prisoners will then
be considered below in order to highlight differences in approach.
14
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline as Developed by the Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Crofton, in the Irish
Convict Prisons (London, 1872), p. 10, Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, pp. 7-8, for
earlier examples see Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 200-201, pp. 237-239, Miles Ogborn,
‘Discipline, Government, and Law: separate confinement in the prisons of England and Wales, 1830-1877’,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(3) (1995), pp. 295-297, pp. 301-303, U.R.Q.
Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System’, pp. 64-66, pp. 73-75, p. 79, Rena Lohan, ‘The
treatment of Women’ ,p. 123, Freeman’s Journal (hereafter FJ) 25 May 1821, 10 April 1830, Robert Perceval,
Speech, Delivered by Robert Perceval, M.D. at the Sixth Annual General Meeting of the Association for the
Improvement of Prisons and of Prison Discipline in Ireland.....(Dublin, 1825), p. 4, pp. 6-9.
15
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 10, Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation,
pp. 7-8, Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of Women’ , p. 123.
16
Crofton in almost mirror-image of Luke’s arguments talked about reforming the criminal in order for him to
realise his[the criminal’s] ‘real interests’, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 9, Clarissa Hayward and
Steven Lukes, ‘Nobody to Shoot? Power, Structure and Agency: A Dialogue’, Journal of Power, 1(1) (2008),
pp. 6-7, Andrew Heywood, Politics (Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York, 2007, First Edition, 1997), p. 11,
although this essay draws on the ideas of Lukes and Foucault when explaining attempts to reform prisoners it
should be noted that their views of power were not always compatible, Lukes for example tended to attribute
more importance to individual agency, Steven Lukes, Power, A Radical View (Basingstoke, Hampshire and
New York, 2005, First Edition, 1974), p. 12, pp. 25-29.
17
Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations , p. 15.
18
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 17-18, pp. 285-286, pp. 295-296.
19
First Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland for the year ended 31 December 1854; with
Appendix (Dublin, 1855), pp. 42-44, Second Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 56, p. 59,
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. xi, Patrick Carroll-Burke, Colonial Discipline, p. 35, pp. 4142, p. 188, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 67-72, Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, p. 8.
4
conversion20 but such arguments tend to misinterpret its proponents’ ideas, they saw religious
values and ‘rational’ thought as completely compatible.21 Carpenter, who was deeply
religious,22 invoked both God and Bentham to defend the Crofton system.23 Indeed the fact
female inmates were encouraged to stay within their own denominations suggests the
inculcation of a basic Christian morality (rather than promotion of denominational ‘truth’)
was the main aim.24 Separation was intended to remove offenders from the effects of bad
company and expose them to the effects of good, i.e., that of the chaplains and the prison
staff, whose values the prisoner would begin to appropriate. Carpenter quoted Crofton as
saying ‘The First stage will have done good work if it has succeeded in planting in the mind
of the convict that there is an active coöperation existing between himself and those placed
over him.’25 It will be seen that the systems’ other stages also tried to use religion and
positive social influences to alter the offender’s outlook.
The second stage involved work in the company of other prisoners, for male convicts this
U.R.Q. Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System’, p. 86, see also Second Annual Report of
the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 59,
21
Patrick Carroll-Burke, Colonial Discipline, p. 36, pp. 184-188.
22
Frank Prochaska, ‘Carpenter, Mary (1807-1877)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(http://www.oxforddnb.com.elib.tcd.ie/view/article/4733?docPos=22) accessed 31 March 2012.
23
See for example Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, pp. xii-xiii, Patrick Carroll-Burke, Colonial
Discipline, p. 32, F. Rosen, ‘Bentham, Jeremy (1748-1832)’, Dictionary of National Biography
(http://www.oxforddnb.com.elib.tcd.ie/view/article/2153?docPos=5) accessed 29 March 2012.
24
Although the influence of interdenominational tensions on such decisions should not be forgotten, Franz Von
Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, p. 8, Rena Lohan, ‘Mountjoy Female Prison and the Treatment of
Irish Female Convicts in the Nineteenth-Century’, in Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology of
Irish Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), p. 754, Delia Lidwill,
‘Letter to the Director of Convict Prisons’, in Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology of Irish
Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), p. 757, Irwine Whitty,
‘Letter to Delia Lidwill (1864)’, Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V,
Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), p. 758, NAI Government Prisons Office,
Correspondence Register 1869, Mountjoy Female Prison, entry 13 (unpaginated).
25
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 7, ‘Letter from Patrick Murray to the Under Secretary’ 10
June 1869, First Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 6-7, p. 15, Second Annual Report of the
Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 4, Patrick Carroll-Burke, Colonial Discipline, pp. 56-57, p. 109, the importance
of ensuring prison staff were good moral influences is demonstrated by the seriousness with which minor errors
by them were taken NAI Government Prisons Office, Correspondence Register 1859, Lusk and Smithfield,
entry 35, entry 71, entry 82, entry 96, entry 100 (unpaginated), see also Rena Lohan, ‘Matrons in Mountjoy
Female Convict Prison, 1858-83’, in Bernadette Whelan (ed), Women and paid work in Ireland, 1500-1930
(Dublin and Portland Oregon, 2000), pp. 99-100.
20
5
meant transfer to another prison(for example Spike Island).26 Individualization was also
apparent here and prisoners were expected to progress through a series of classes by earning
‘marks’ (their progress was displayed to others by use of badges and markings on
uniforms).27 Again, attitudes were a key target, for example marks were awarded for effort at
school rather than academic success.28 Since each progressive class meant greater earnings
(as well as an increased possibility of reduced prison time), the system aimed to make
convicts value principles like industriousness and good conduct by associating them with
reward.29 Prisoners were told the ability to reach each class depended solely on their
individual efforts, encouraging them to internalise the value system and control their
unacceptable motivations. According to Crofton, ‘The criminal here learns that his progress
to liberty within the period of his sentence, can only be furthered by the cultivation and
application of qualities opposed to those which led to his conviction.’30
The third stage for male prisoners was time at an ‘intermediate prison’ (often considered the
defining feature of the ‘Crofton system’31). These were ‘open’ facilities where prisoners were
under minimum supervision, they included establishments at Smithfield, Dublin city, and
Lusk Common, just outside Dublin.32 The prisons were designed to resemble conditions
26
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 7, p. 19, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, p. 72.
Fourth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland for the year ended 31st December 1857;
with Appendix (Dublin, 1858), p. 84, Elizabeth Eileen Dooley, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Irish Intermediate
System’, p. 78, pp. 80-81.
28
Fourth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 84, Anne Jellicoe, ‘from: Transactions of the
National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (1862)’, in Séamus Deane et al (ed), The Field Day
Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), p. 755,
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 8, p. 18.
29
Elizabeth Eileen Dooley, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Irish Intermediate System’, p. 78, pp. 80-81, Walter
Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 11, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 74-75.
30
Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 11, see also Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 236, pp.
245-246.
31
Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of Women’, pp. 130-131.
32
Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, p. 4, Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline,
p. 29, p. 33, pp. 134-135, Fourth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 33, Tim Carey,
Mountjoy, pp. 76-77.
27
6
under which prisoners would live after release.33 Convicts were allowed to visit surrounding
areas unsupervised under certain circumstances.34 This was another stage in which the
offender would be ‘trained’ to live in a morally acceptable manner and individualization was
an explicit aim. Numbers in the prisons were kept low so that information on each inmate
could be obtained and their ‘self-discipline’ tested.35 Religious and moral training was again
important. Prisoners at Lusk attended services at the local chapel.36 Convicts were also given
lectures on moral issues by instructor James Organ.37 While one critic claimed association
between prisoners destroyed the moral improvement engendered by separation in the first
stage,38 for Crofton and his supporters the two were complementary. Positive social
influences were provided by staff in the first stage and such influences were to continue in the
associated stages, prison officers worked alongside the prisoners, providing good example by
their actions.39 Indeed using association at some stages may have been partly a response to
individual diversity, it was suggested that those with lower ‘intelligence’ could not be
reformed by separation alone, they needed to learn from the example of other convicts who
had adopted ‘correct’ habits and values.40 Crofton thought such positive influences produced
a change in a convict’s outlook, ‘the mind of the Convict is in alliance with the minds of
33
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 48, Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation,
pp. 8-9, Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict Reform, The Intermediate Prisons a Mistake...(Dublin, 1863), p. 33,
Fifth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland for the year ended 31st December 1858; with
Appendix (Dublin, 1859), pp. 132-134, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the Irish
Convict System, 1854-61- II’, pp. 309-333.
34
Fourth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 33, Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, and
Politics, p. 156, Fifth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 142, Charles B. Gibson, Irish
Convict Reform, p. 33.
35
Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, pp. 8-9, p. 13.Walter Crofton, ‘Art.-VIII- The Irish
Intermediate Convict Prisons’, Irish Quarterly Review, 8(31), p. 1063.
36
Fifth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 142, Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict Reform, p.
33.
37
Organ was also responsible for monitoring them after release on licence (see below) Fourth Annual Report of
the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 33-34, pp. 111-114, p. 116, Walter Crofton, ‘Art.-VIII- The Irish
Intermediate Convict Prisons’, pp. 1065-1066, Patrick Carroll-Burke, Colonial Discipline, pp. 126-129.
38
Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict Reform, p. 16, pp. 20-21.
39
At Lusk they were present in too small numbers to deal with anything except minor trouble, Mary Carpenter,
Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 10, Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, p. 9, see also Fifth
Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, p. 44, p. 55, p. 62, Walter Crofton, ‘Art.-VIII- The Irish
Intermediate Convict Prisons’, pp. 1063-1064.
40
Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, p. 29, see also the comments of a prison guard on the
moral effects of association between prisoners, Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict Reform, p. 34.
7
those placed over him’41 and he recognised the power of such a method, ‘It is evident that this
result is the attainment of enormous power, which it would be impossible to secure by mere
routine or mechanical appliances’, instead it could only be achieved by changing offenders’
priorities.42
The system continued after the offender left prison.43 This stage and the ideas behind it reveal
much about the exercise of power under the ‘Crofton system’ and about power-relations in
contemporary Irish society. After completing stage three, male convicts could be released on
tickets-of-leave/licence before they had served their full sentence.44 Licences could be
revoked if their holders were not supporting themselves by ‘honest’ labour or if they were
socialising with ‘undesirables’, even if they committed no new crimes.45 Here again is
evidence that it was not simply criminal actions that were important but offenders’ attitudes
and values.46 It was claimed licence-holders were supervised more strictly in Ireland than
England.47 It might be argued that the Irish system attempted to extend the ‘infrastructural
power’ of the state (i.e. its ability to ‘penetrate’ the lives of inhabitants)48 in order to deter exoffenders and encourage them to retain their ‘new values.’49 (This greater ‘infrastructural
power’ was partly related to police centralisation in Ireland.50) Crofton and his supporters
41
Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, p. 10.
Ibid.
43
Ibid., p. 11.
44
This had been a feature of the transportation system and also occurred under the contemporary English system,
Seán McConville, A History of English Prison Administration, pp. 400-402, Observations on the Treatment of
Convicts in Ireland, With Some Remarks on the Same in England , pp. 73-74, p. 143.
45
Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 4, pp. 5-7, Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, pp.
1-11, Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics, p. 152, pp. 155-156.
46
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 16-18.
47
Observations on the Treatment of Convicts in Ireland, With Some Remarks on the Same in England, pp. 143144, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, pp. 10-11, for the use of surveillance to alter behaviour and values
see Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 200-203, pp. 206-209.
48
Michael Mann, ‘Infrastructural Power Revisited’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 43 (34) (2008), p. 355.
49
Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 12
50
Crofton was also enthusiastic about using new technology to extend this reach (e.g. photographs), Walter
Crofton, The Criminal Classes, pp. 6-8, which is consistent with Mann’s idea that increased infrastructural
power was linked with improved technology, Michael Mann, ‘Infrastructural Power Revisited’, pp. 355-356,
Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, p. 25, Surajit C. Mukhopadhyay, ‘Importing back
42
8
were also prepared to extend monitoring beyond those released on licence to those who had
the characteristics of ‘habitual criminals’, in order to punish them for undesirable (though not
necessarily criminal) behaviour.51 This again provides support for Foucault’s idea that prison
systems aimed to shape individual’s motivations rather than simply respond to criminal
acts.52
The system described above mainly applied to male prisoners but the way in which female
prisoners were treated,53 although somewhat different, was influenced by the same ideas. The
first two stages were similar to those for male convicts, separate confinement, followed by
work in association through which ‘marks’ could be earned and attitudes reformed.
54
They
worked at ‘feminine occupations’ in order to ‘rouse their energies in a right direction.’55
Women, however, did not go to intermediate prisons like Lusk or Smithfield, they were
transferred to ‘refuges’ where they carried out domestic duties like laundry work. These
establishments were run by religiously-minded individuals, (the Sisters of Mercy at GoldenBridge and ‘Protestant ladies’ on Heytesbury Street) which again emphasises the importance
given to religious influences in the reformation process. (Indeed members of these charities
also visited female prisoners in Mountjoy).56 Initially women entered the refuges at the stage
Colonial Policing Systems? The Relationship Between the Royal Irish Constabulary, Indian Policing and
Militarization of Policing in England and Wales’, Innovation, 11(3) (1998), p. 255.
51
Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics, pp. 159-165.
52
Michael Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 17-18, see also Joseph Rouse, ‘Power/Knowledge’, in Gary
Gutting (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (Cambridge, 2005, First Edition, 1994), pp. 100-101.
53
Although the treatment of the issue here is kept relatively brief to avoid repetition the issue of ‘female convict
management’ was important, a significant number of convicts were female, see for example First Annual Report
of the Directors of Convict Prisons where it was claimed ‘our proportion of female criminals is very large’,
(about ten per cent of the total), p. 1, p. 15, in 1861 they made up about one third of those sentenced to penal
servitude, Eight Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1861; with Appendix (Dublin, 1862), p. 5.
54
Although those in Mountjoy tended to remain there for the second stage rather than move to another prison
and the first stage was shorter than for men as administrators believed women less able to cope with long
periods of separation, Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of Women’, p. 134, Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison
Discipline, pp. 84-85, Second Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 5-7, Fifth Annual Report
of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 87-88.
55
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 85, Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and
Observations, pp. 22-23.
56
Ninth Annual Report of the Director of Convict Prisons in Ireland for the year ended 31st December 1862;
with Appendix (Dublin, 1862), p. 8, p. 36, p. 42, Jacinta Prunty, Dublin Slums, 1800-1925, A Study in Urban
9
in their sentence at which men were released on licence, later, women were allowed to go the
refuges at the stage at which men entered the intermediate prisons but they still spent their
licence period in the refuges rather than in society.57 This reflected ideas about how women
should be reformed.58 Since they were seen as morally superior to men, women who
committed crimes were thought to have disgraced themselves to a greater extent, their
corruption was also thought to have a wider social impact, hence they needed to be reformed
more thoroughly.59 This involved the greater supervision and opportunities for developing
religious and moral attitudes that the refuges provided.60 The ultimate aim was the same as
for men, value change through the use of religion and positive social influences, but in this
case the methods were applied more intensely. For example the ‘Lady Superior of [GoldenBridge]refuge’ provided religious instruction as well as general moral guidance.61
Individualization remained important. Attempts were made to keep the number of inmates
low. Convicts spent a relatively long time in the refuges in order to allow management to ‘get
to know [each inmate’s] character’, encourage them to ‘get into new ways of thinking and
acting’, and counteract previous social influences.62
Geography (Dublin and Portland, Oregon, 1998), p. 271, Maria Luddy, Women and Philanthropy in NineteenthCentury Ireland (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 163-166.
57
They also seem to have less freedom in the refuges than men had at Lusk, Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of
women.’, pp. 131-134, Maria Luddy, Women and Philanthropy, pp. 163-164, Mary Carpenter, Reformatory
Prison Discipline, pp. 86-87.
58
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, pp. 74-75, Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and
Observations, pp. 21-22.
59
Maria Luddy, Women and Philanthropy, pp. 162-163, Mary Carpenter, ‘On the Treatment of Female
Convicts’, Fraser’s Magazine, 67(397) (1863), p. 31, pp. 33-34, First Annual Report of the Directors of Convict
Prisons, p. 16.
60
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, pp. 74-79, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 122.
61
‘The Royal Commission on Irish Prisons. Minutes of Evidence. First Day- Saturday 3rd February 1883’, in
Royal Commission of Prisons in Ireland. Vol. I. Reports, with Digest of Evidence, Appendices, & c. (Dublin,
1884), pp. 107-108
62
Jacinta Prunty, Dublin Slums, p. 271, ‘The Royal Commission on Irish Prisons. Minutes of Evidence. First
Day-Saturday 3rd February 1883’, p. 107, p. 109, p. 111, Charles F. Coffin, ‘from Notes on Prisons,
Reformatories, Gaols, etc. through Ireland and Great Britain (1871)’, in Séamus Deane et al (ed), The Field Day
Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), pp. 762763, the Mountjoy Convict Classification Registers reveal the large amount of detail kept on each individual
prisoner including remarks on behaviour, progress through separate classes and marks earned, for example see
the first, second, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth pages in NAI, Mountjoy Prison Convict Classification 1868-1875,
10
While the Crofton system aimed to reform, it also aimed to deter. The harshness of the first
stage, and the constant threat of returning to such conditions, was supposed to deter the
offender.63 The removal of the disobedient from intermediate prison back to Mountjoy would
have made other prisoners aware of this possibility.64 (Indeed, as the opening quotation
suggested, reform might be considered the ultimate form of deterrence as the prisoner learned
to police and restrict himself.65) However since individualization was a key feature of the
system, ‘social deterrence’ (i.e. preventing other members of society from committing crimes
by making an example of current prisoners66) received less attention. It was suggested that
first-stage prison conditions and the extension of surveillance would have a social deterrent
effect,67 but the main focus of Crofton and his supporters was to remove offenders from
society and reform them on an individual basis.68 Even their plans to extend supervision
beyond those released on licence to ‘habitual criminals’, involved identifying those with
particular characteristics and monitoring them individually, rather than deterring all potential
offenders.69 Some feared prospective criminals would be encouraged by the Crofton system
as they were most likely to be familiar with its third and ‘easiest’ stage.70 (Indeed it will be
1/11/34 , Dublin Mountjoy Gaol Registers, No. 34 Female Convicts Classification Book, No.s 1688-2252
(unpaginated).
63
Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, p. 6 p. 8, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 11,
Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 71-72.
64
Government Prisons Office, Correspondence Register 1859, Smithfield and Lusk, entry 81, entry 85½
(unpaginated).
65
See also Steven Lukes, Power, A Radical View, pp. 37-38.
66
For examples of ideas that focussed on social deterrence see Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the
Reform of the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- I’, p. 118, U.R.Q. Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the
Separate System’, p. 64.
67
See for example Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 11.
68
See for example Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, pp. 3-4, pp. 11-12, see also pp. 8-9 where he presents
reforming the individual criminal as a way of protecting their (the criminals’) children, see also the first line in
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. ix, ‘The object of Prison Discipline is to transform offenders
into honest self-supporting men and women, and eventually to minimise crime in society. Any system which
effects these most desirable results, must be founded on sound principles; no mere mechanism, however
excellent, can affect the moral nature of human beings; unless this is changed no reformation can be real and
permanent ’, Ninth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 7-8, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 116122, this resembles Foucault’s arguments about the decline of the ‘spectacle’ of punishment and the rise of
individualization, see Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 7-11, pp. 16-18.
69
Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics, pp. 159-165.
70
Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict Reform, pp. 34-36, Report of the Board of Superintendence of the City of
Dublin Prisons, p. 9.
11
seen that strong efforts were made to publicise intermediate prisons). The fact some criminals
asked to be sentenced to penal servitude rather than imprisonment suggests they were
attracted by the later stages of the Crofton system but such stories should be treated with
caution. They tended to be purposely selected by the system’s critics and they while indicate
the preferred penalty after the crime was committed, they do not necessarily provide evidence
that the system affected motivation to commit crime.71 Nevertheless, the fact it aimed to
provide offenders with something they would realise was ‘for their own good’, indicates
individual reformation rather than ‘social deterrence’ remained the system’s main focus.72
The system, however, aimed to influence society in other ways. Intermediate prisons
provided ‘training’ for convicts but they also allowed the system’s merits to be displayed to
the public (and to potential employers in particular).73 The Directors of Convict Prisons’
Reports stressed the merits of Lusk and Smithfield and visits from certain members of the
public were encouraged.74 This was a key component of the convict reformation process. It
was argued that society had to be convinced to reaccept convicts in their midst, ‘without
[their] co-operation it is not possible for any treatment of Convicts to succeed.’75 Prison
administrators were constrained by what society would tolerate and open prisons were used
to demonstrate that reformed prisoners could be trusted. They were a way of showing ‘the
public that the Convict, who will soon be restored to liberty…….may upon reasonable
71
Irish Times 11 July 1861, Report of the Board of Superintendence of the City of Dublin Prisons, p. 9, South
Dublin Union paupers may have started a fire in the workhouse in order to be sentenced to penal servitude but
this may be a special case as they were trying to escape Workhouse conditions which they described as ‘hell’,
FJ 15 December 1862, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 117-119, Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the
Reform of the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- II’, pp. 319-320, pp. 322-331.
72
See for example Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 11, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 116-122.
73
Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict Reform, pp. 34-36, Walter Crofton, The Criminal Classes, p. 11, Ninth
Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 52-54, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 76-78.
74
FJ 9 August 1861, Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, p. 4, Fourth Annual Report of the
Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 10-12, p. 18, pp. 27-30, Fifth Annual Report, of the Directors of Convict
Prisons, pp. 9-10, p. 60, pp. 107-108, Sixth Annual Report of the Director of Convict Prison in Ireland, for the
year ended 31st December 1859 (Dublin, 1860), pp. 78-79, Eleventh Annual Report of the Directors of Convict
Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December 1864; with Appendix (Dublin, 1865), p. 7, p. 56, Mary
Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 33, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, p. 76, see also Patrick Carroll-Burke,
Colonial Discipline, pp. 181-183.
75
Walter Crofton, Convicts Systems and Transportation, p. 14.
12
grounds be considered as capable of being safely employed.’76 While prison administrators
may have been trying to exercise power over the public in the sense Dahl understood it,
attempting to make them ‘do something’ they ‘would not otherwise do,’77 i.e. provide a less
hostile environment for former offenders, it differed from the power the state exerted over the
convict which always included some threat of ‘punishment.’ It might be considered a ‘softer’
form of power, trying to convince people ex-convicts would obey social norms.78 This was
important not only in the system’s experimental early stages but also in the 1860s as rising
crime in Britain led to increased fears in Ireland.79 This suggests power-relations in
contemporary Ireland were complex, government could not simply impose its will on the
public without responding to at least some of their concerns.80 (Indeed the picture might be
seen as even more complicated with ‘social science’ pressure groups (whose members had
close links to government81) sometimes directing policy in this area.82)
The final stage, police surveillance, was also managed with public reassurance in mind. It
was argued that the English public had lost confidence in the ticket-of-leave system because
it had not been adequately supervised.83 As suggested, a key feature of the Crofton system
was (in theory at least) the extension of the state’s ‘infrastructural power.’ The ability to
76
Walter Crofton, Convicts Systems and Transportation, p. 9, see also Third Annual Report of the Directors of
Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December 1856; with Appendix (Dublin,1857), pp. 13-15, p.
85, Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 33.
77
Robert A. Dahl, ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioural Science, 2(3) (1957), pp. 202-203.
78
Andrew Heywood, Politics, p. 142.
79
Report of the Board of Superintendence of the City of Dublin Prisons, pp. 7-8, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, p. 66,
pp. 76-80, p. 115, Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics , pp. 152-155.
80
D. George Boyce, Nineteenth Century Ireland, The Search for Stability (Dublin, 2005, First Edition, 1990),
pp. 137-138, p. 141, pp. 149-150, p. 277, pp. 279-280, James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, Everyday Forms
of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, Connecticut, and London, 1985),pp. 30-32, R.V. Comerford, ‘Gladstone’s
first Irish enterprise, 1864-70’, in W.E. Vaughan (eds), A New History of Ireland, V, Ireland Under the Union, I,
1801-70 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 439-442.
81
Some government officials were members of these associations, Patrick O’Carroll-Burke, Colonial Discipline,
pp. 179-182, Mary E. Daly, The Spirit of Earnest Inquiry, The Statistical Society of Ireland 1847-1997 (Dublin,
1997), p. 12, see also pp. 28-29, p. 71, Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics , pp. 1-3, pp. 158161.
82
Their pamphlets describing the ‘Crofton system’ were also designed to influence public opinion, Lawrence
Goldman, Science, Reform, and Politics, pp. 158-168.
83
Walter Crofton, Convict Systems and Transportation, pp. 14-16, Observations on the Treatment of Convicts in
Ireland, With Some Remarks on the Same in England, pp. 81-83, p. 94.
13
monitor ex-convicts and act quickly when they were living in an ‘inappropriate’ manner was
supposed to ensure the system’s acceptance.84 This was more complex than the ‘state’
holding back the criminal for the benefit of society, by providing reassurance the state could
‘enable’ former criminals to have opportunities which they would lack in a more hostile
environment, something which could be of benefit to the ex-offender and the public.85 The
state’s ‘empowering’ role should not be exaggerated, it was only convicts who would conduct
themselves according to an accepted value-system that could enjoy these ‘benefits’ and some
members of the public remained sceptical about the system.86 Nevertheless this again
suggests power-relations between government and society could be quite complex.
Analysis of the ‘female system’ reveals similar aims. It has been seen that the extra-control
provided by refuges was necessary because Crofton and his associates considered female
convicts more difficult to reform. It was therefore also believed the public, (who were
assumed to share these views), would need greater reassurance about the success of female
convict reformation.87 The refuges, by providing an environment that approximated
‘domestic service’ under the management of well-respected organisations, were a way of
demonstrating that female ex-convicts could be safely employed as servants(one of the few
opportunities that would be available to them).88 This was particularly important as it was
84
Observations on the Treatment of Convicts in Ireland, With Some Remarks on the Same in England, pp. 8794, Second Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 13-15, Seventh Annual Report of the
Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December 1860; with Appendix (Dublin, 1861),
pp. 7-10.
85
Second Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 13-15, for the idea of power as enabling see
Andrew Heywood, Politics, p. 7, Anthony Giddens, ‘From The Constitution of Society’, in Mark Haugaard (ed),
Power: A Reader (Manchester and New York, 2002), p. 159, Kathy Davis, ‘Critical Sociology and Gender
relations’, in Mark Haugaard (ed), Power: A Reader (Manchester and New York, 2002), p. 215, p. 221.
86
Report of the Board of Superintendence of the City of Dublin Prisons, pp. 7-9, Patrick O’Carroll-Burke,
Colonial Discipline, pp. 208-209, p. 227, Tim Carey, Mountjoy, pp. 113-114, Charles B. Gibson, Irish Convict
Reform, pp. 45-50.
87
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, pp. 74-77, Second Annual Report of the Directors of Convict
Prisons , pp. 7-9, Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of Women’, pp. 130-133, pp. 239-240, Mary Carpenter, ‘On the
treatment of female convicts’, pp. 31-34, Maria Luddy, Women and Philanthropy, pp. 162-163.
88
Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations, pp. 21-22, ‘The Royal Commission on Irish Prisons.
Minutes of Evidence, First Day- Saturday 3rd February 1883’, p. 107, Rena Lohan, ‘The treatment of Women’,‘
pp. 239-242.
14
thought employers needed greater reassurance about the characters of those working in their
houses than of those working on their farms or in their workshops.89 Like intermediate male
prisons, refuges were presented as ‘a valued link to society...they are accessible to the public
whose coöperation is so important.’90 This system relied on the work of trusted ‘private’
charities. While this may reflect the fact that contemporaries did not always see major
differences between ‘public’ and ‘private’ actors carrying out the same functions,91 later
comments indicating unease at the absence of state inspection of these establishments92
suggests the system did not always work according to plan. This again reveals the complexity
of power-relations in the systems’ operation as private actors as well as the state could play
an important role.
The Crofton system targeted the individual offender, through a number of stages inside and
outside of prison, their moral values and motivations, as well as behaviour, were to be
altered. Religion and good social influences were used to try to achieve these goals. ‘Power’
was exerted over offenders, not simply by overtly coercing and threatening them, but by
altering their value-systems. It has been seen that the ideas of Lukes, and in particular,
Foucault, have been useful for considering this. Individualization meant ‘social deterrence’,
something others considered a key element of a prison system,93 received less attention.
Nevertheless, the system aimed to influence society in other ways, by ‘displaying’ prisoners
89
Second Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, pp. 6-7, Maria Luddy, Women and Philanthropy,
pp. 164-165.
90
Mary Carpenter, Reformatory Prison Discipline, p. 77. These attitudes were not universally shared, prison
administrator Jebb claimed refuges were significantly less attractive than release on licence and thought they
provided less incentive for reformation, Rena Lohan , ‘The treatment of Women’, pp. 131-132, ‘Minutes of
Evidence taken before the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the operation of the Acts relating to
Transportation and Penal Servitude, &c.’, in Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
operation of the Acts (16&17 Vict. c. 99. and 20& 21 Vict. c. 3) Relating to Transportation and Penal Servitude.
Vol. I. Report and Appendix (London, 1863), p. 56.
91
Hugh Cunningham, ‘Introduction’, in Hugh Cunningham and Joanna Innes (eds), Charity, Philanthropy and
Reform, From the 1690s to 1850 (Basingstoke Hampshire, London, and New York, 1998), p. 2.
92
Although the state possessed the legal power to do so, Franz Von Holtzendorff, Reflections and Observations,
p. 22, Maria Luddy, Women and Philanthropy, pp. 163-164, ‘The Royal Commission on Irish Prisons. Minutes
of Evidence, First Day- Saturday 3rd February 1883’, p. 204.
93
Richard S. E. Hinde, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- I’, p. 118,
U.R.Q. Henriques, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System’, p. 64.
15
capable of working under few constraints in intermediate prisons and by establishing a wellfunctioning surveillance system, it was meant to reassure the public and persuade them to
give opportunities to ex-convicts which they would not have otherwise provided. This part of
the process suggests that power relations in contemporary Ireland, with regard to this issue at
least, were not simply about ‘government’ dictating to or coercing the rest of society, public
cooperation was seen as important for successful convict ‘treatment’ and government
officials felt it necessary to respond to their anxieties.
16
Bibliography:
Primary Sources:
Manuscript Sources:
National Archives of Ireland:
Chief Secretary’s Office Official Papers, OP/1869/38.
Chief Secretary’s Office Registered Papers, CSORP/1858/1244.
Government Prisons Office, Correspondence Register 1859.
Government Prisons Office, Correspondence Register 1869.
Mountjoy Prison Convict Classification 1868-1875, 1/11/34 , Dublin Mountjoy Gaol Registers, No.
34 Female Convicts Classification Book, No.s 1688-2252 (accessed on microfilm: MFGS 51/05).
Printed Sources:
Annual Reports of the Directors of Convict Prisons:
First Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1854; with Appendix (Dublin, 1855).
Second Annual Report of the Director of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the Year ended 31st
December 1855; with Appendix (Dublin, 1856).
Third Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1856; with Appendix (Dublin, 1857).
Fourth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st
December 1857; with Appendix (Dublin, 1858).
Fifth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1858; with Appendix (Dublin, 1859).
Sixth Annual Report of the Director of Convict Prison in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1859 (Dublin, 1860).
Seventh Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st
December 1860; with Appendix (Dublin, 1861).
Eight Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1861; with Appendix (Dublin, 1862).
Ninth Annual Report of the Director of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st December
1862; with Appendix (Dublin, 1862).
Eleventh Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland, for the year ended 31st
December 1864; with Appendix (Dublin, 1865).
Sixteenth Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons for Ireland, for the year ended 31st
December 1869; with Appendix (Dublin, 1870).
17
First Report of the Inspector Invited to Visit the Reformatory Schools of Ireland... (Dublin, 1862).
‘Minutes of Evidence taken before the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the operation of the
Acts relating to Transportation and Penal Servitude, &c.’, in Report of the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into the operation of the Acts (16&17 Vict. c. 99. and 20& 21 Vict. c. 3) Relating to
Transportation and Penal Servitude. Vol. I. Report and Appendix (London, 1863).
Observations on the Treatment of Convicts in Ireland, With Some Remarks on the Same in England,
By Four Visiting Justices of the West Riding Prison at Wakefield (London, 1862).
Reformatory Schools, Return to an Address of the Honourable House of Commons, dated 15 June
1860.... (n.p. , 1860).
Report of the Board of Superintendence of the City of Dublin Prisons, To the Right Honorable the
Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Dublin...(Dublin, 1863).
‘Report on the Gaols of the City of Dublin’, Poor Inquiry Ireland Appendix C Part II (London, 1836).
‘The Royal Commission on Irish Prisons. Minutes of Evidence. First Day- Saturday 3rd February
1883’, in Royal Commission of Prisons in Ireland. Vol. I. Reports, with Digest of Evidence,
Appendices, & c. (Dublin, 1884).
Carpenter, Mary, ‘On the Treatment of Female Convicts’, Fraser’s Magazine, 67(397) (1863), pp. 3146.
Carpenter, Mary, Reformatory Prison Discipline as Developed by the Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Crofton, in
the Irish Convict Prisons (London, 1872).
Coffin, Charles F., ‘from Notes on Prisons, Reformatories, Gaols, etc. through Ireland and Great
Britain (1871)’, in Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V, Irish
Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), pp. 761-763.
Crofton, Walter, ‘Art.-VIII- The Irish Intermediate Convict Prisons’, Irish Quarterly Review, 8(31),
pp. 1057-1102.
Crofton, Walter, Convict Systems and Transportation, A Lecture Delivered at the Philosophical
Institution Bristol on the 22nd December, 1863, by Sir Walter Crofton, C.B.....(London and Bristol,
1863).
Crofton, Walter, The Criminal Classes and their Control. Prison Treatment and its Principles.
Addresses by Sir Walter Crofton, C.B....(London, 1868).
Gibson, Charles B., Irish Convict Reform, The Intermediate Prisons a Mistake...(Dublin, 1863).
Lidwill, Delia, ‘Letter to the Director of Convict Prisons (1864)’, in Séamus Deane et al (ed), The
Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New
York, 2002), p. 757.
Jellicoe, Anne, ‘from: Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science
(1862)’, in Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s
Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), pp. 755-756.
Perceval, Robert , Speech, Delivered by Robert Perceval, M.D. at the Sixth Annual General Meeting
of the Association for the Improvement of Prisons and of Prison Discipline in Ireland.....(Dublin,
1825).
18
Von Holtzendorff, Franz, Reflections and Observations on the Present Condition of the Irish Convict
System translated from the German of Baron Von Holtzendorff, Professor of Law in the University of
Berlin By Mrs Lentaigne (Dublin, 1863).
Whitty, Irwine, ‘Letter to Delia Lidwill (1864)’, Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology
of Irish Writing vol. V, Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), p. 758.
Newspapers and Periodicals:
Fraser’s Magazine
Freeman’s Journal
Irish Quarterly Review
Irish Times.
Secondary Works:
Aylward, Seán, and Jim Mitchell, ‘Irish Prisons, Past, Present and Future Challenges’, Corrections
Today, 65 (7) (2003), pp. 98-101.
Boyce, D. George, Nineteenth Century Ireland, The Search for Stability (Dublin, 2005, First Edition,
1990).
Carey, Tim, Mountjoy, The Story of a Prison (Cork, 2000).
Carroll-Burke, Patrick, Colonial Discipline, The Making of the Irish Convict System (Dublin and
Portland, Oregon, 2000).
Comerford, R.V., ‘Gladstone’s first Irish enterprise, 1864-70’, in W.E. Vaughan (eds), A New History
of Ireland, V, Ireland Under the Union, I, 1801-70 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 431-450.
Cunningham, Hugh, ‘Introduction’, in Hugh Cunningham and Joanna Innes (eds), Charity,
Philanthropy and Reform, From the 1690s to 1850 (Basingstoke Hampshire, London, and New York,
1998), pp. 1-14.
Dahl, Robert A., ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioural Science, 2(3) (1957), pp. 201-215.
Daly, Mary E., The Spirit of Earnest Inquiry, The Statistical Society of Ireland 1847-1997 (Dublin,
1997).
Davis, Kathy, ‘Critical Sociology and Gender relations’, in Mark Haugaard (ed), Power: A Reader
(Manchester and New York, 2002), pp. 209-224.
Dooley, Elizabeth Eileen, ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Irish Intermediate System of Prison Discipline’,
New England Journal on Prison Law, 7 (1981), pp.72-96.
Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison translation Alan Sheridan (London,
1979, First French Edition 1975).
Giddens, Anthony, ‘From The Constitution of Society’, in Mark Haugaard (ed), Power: A Reader
(Manchester and New York, 2002), pp. 151-165.
Goldman, Lawrence, Science, Reform, and Politics in Victorian Britain, The Social Science
Association 1857-1886 (Cambridge, 2002).
Hayward, Clarissa, and Steven Lukes, ‘Nobody to Shoot? Power, Structure and Agency: A Dialogue’,
Journal of Power, 1(1) (2008), pp. 5-20.
19
Heaney, Henry, ‘Ireland’s Penitentiary 1820-1831: An Experiment that Failed’, Studia Hibernica, 14
(1974), pp. 28-39.
Henriques, U.R.Q., ‘The Rise and Decline of the Separate System of Prison Discipline’, Past &
Present, 54 (1972), pp. 61-93.
Heywood, Andrew, Politics (Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York, 2007, First Edition, 1997).
Hinde, Richard S. E., ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- I’,
The Irish Jurist, 12(1) (1977), pp. 115-147.
Hinde, Richard S. E., ‘Sir Walter Crofton and the Reform of the Irish Convict System, 1854-61- II’,
The Irish Jurist, 12(2) (1977), pp. 295-338.
Krause, Thomas, ‘The influence of Sir Walter Crofton’s ‘Irish system’ on prison reform in Germany’,
in Paul Brand et al (eds), Adventures of the Law, proceedings of the Sixteenth British Legal History
Conference, Dublin, 2003 (Dublin and Portland, Oregon, 2005), pp. 234-245.
Lohan, Rena, ‘Matrons in Mountjoy Female Convict Prison, 1858-83’, in Bernadette Whelan (ed),
Women and paid work in Ireland, 1500-1930 (Dublin and Portland Oregon, 2000), pp.86-101.
Lohan, Rena, ‘Mountjoy Female Prison and the Treatment of Irish Female Convicts in the
Nineteenth-Century’, in Séamus Deane et al (eds), The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing vol. V,
Irish Women’s Writing and Traditions (Cork and New York, 2002), pp. 752-754.
Lohan, Rena, ‘The treatment of Women Sentenced to Transportation and Penal Servitude, 17901898’, Unpublished M.Litt. Thesis (Trinity College Dublin, 1989).
Luddy, Maria, Women and Philanthropy in Nineteenth-Century Ireland (Cambridge, 1995).
Lukes, Steven, Power, A Radical View (Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York, 2005, First Edition,
1974).
Mann, Michael, ‘Infrastructural Power Revisited’, Studies in Comparative International Development,
43 (3-4) (2008), pp. 355-365.
McConville, Seán, A history of English prison administration, Volume I, 1750-1877 (London, Boston,
Massachusetts, and Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1981).
McElroy, Martin, ‘Crofton, Sir Walter, Frederick (1815-97)’, Dictionary of Irish Biography
(http://dib.cambridge.org.elib.tcd.ie/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a2189&searchClicked=clicked&quic
kadvsearch=yes) accessed 27 March 2012.
Mukhopadhyay, Surajit C., ‘Importing back Colonial Policing Systems? The Relationship Between
the Royal Irish Constabulary, Indian Policing and Militarization of Policing in England and Wales’,
Innovation, 11(3) (1998), pp.253-265.
Ogborn, Miles, ‘Discipline, Government, and Law: separate confinement in the prisons of England
and Wales, 1830-1877’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(3) (1995), pp. 295311.
Prochaska, Frank, ‘Carpenter, Mary (1807-1877)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(http://www.oxforddnb.com.elib.tcd.ie/view/article/4733?docPos=22) accessed 31 March 2012.
Prunty, Jacinta, Dublin Slums, 1800-1925, A Study in Urban Geography (Dublin and Portland,
Oregon, 1998).
Rosen, F., ‘Bentham, Jeremy (1748-1832)’, Dictionary of National Biography
(http://www.oxforddnb.com.elib.tcd.ie/view/article/2153?docPos=5) accessed 29 March 2012.
20
Rouse, Joseph, ‘Power/Knowledge’, in Gary Gutting (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault
(Cambridge, 2005, First Edition, 1994), pp. 95-122.
Scott, James C., Weapons of the Weak, Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven,
Connecticut, and London, 1985).
Smith, Beverly A., ‘The Female Prisoner in Ireland, 1855-1878 ’, Federal Probation, 54(4) (1990),
pp. 69-81.
21