Using Digital Records to Reconstruct the Lives of Transported Convicts

Developed with, and for, school pupils this series of exercises examines historical criminal justice sources and uses new digital tools to build pupils understanding of historical crime and punishment, but also enhance awareness of the innovative methodologies used within criminological/crime history research. [1]


This exercise comes in three parts (click on the headings to access the resources);


Session 1

This workshop outlines the primary sources used in Session Two (below), in doing so it uses a convict case study in order to demonstrate those sources. This is a reading exercise which can be done by pupils by themselves or as part of a classroom activity and will take approximately 30 minutes.

This resource consists of two short videos embedded above and below. [2]

Session 2

This session uses The Digital Panopticon to trace convict lives; complete with twenty-four questions for pupils to answer as they explore the online archive. This session needs to take place in a computer suite and should take approximately 1 hour (depending on ability).

Session 2 Answers

This document provides the answers to workshop Session Two (above).




[1] Public Engagement (PE) Awards Scheme (2016-2017) the University of Liverpool. Awarded to E D Watkins and Prof B Godfrey.

[2] Videos created by E D Watkins in conjunction with 6media

[3] This resource was edited by members of the Digital Panopticon team.

Convict Transportation and Public Engagement

Prof Barry Godfrey and myself were awarded funding from the Public Engagement (PE) Awards Scheme (2016-2017) by the University of Liverpool to produce an educational resource. It is the hope that this PE Award would allow the building of public understanding of historical crime and punishment, but also enhance awareness of the innovative methodologies used within criminological/crime history research. This at a time when the importance of history to the national curriculum is being questioned. Part of the development of this resource involved providing a workshop for school pupils. This workshop not only touched on specific topics, crime history and colonialism, but also enhance awareness of, and strengthen existing, critical and digital skills.

In order to do this I visited a number of schools in the Liverpool/merseyside area. The workshop involved introducing school pupils to, and getting them to use for themselves, primary digital sources. Not only did they have hands on experience of primary sources, they were also set specific tasks to complete and questions to answer. They were asked to trace and bring together two specific convicts from a trial using digital resources  (i.e., to their punishment (i.e. and social lives in Australia (i.e. They explored the rounded lives of these historical figures, demonstrating that these individuals were not only offenders; they explored their employment, marriage and family formation evidence. They were given both a hands on experience of building up an historical case study, thereby experiencing the difficulties and benefits of using digital historical sources, and reflecting and evaluating on their findings.These events allowed school pupils to have an opportunity to learn about the wider understanding of crime and punishment, and to interactively use the documents on which much of this historical research is pinned.

The workshops also consisted of a short talk using a series of digital resources, including short two videos embedded above and below (specifically made for this project by myself in conjunction with 6media). Video 1: The Changing Frequency of Convict Transportation (below) uses a digital map with a time-lapse showing the number and frequency of ships leaving Britain for Van Diemen’s Land (formerly Tasmania) in Australia. Video 2: The Statistics of Convict Transportation (above) consists of visualisation of the statistics of the transportation system in the form of accessible, moving graphs.

Convict! Pirate! Bushranger!

The exciting life of juvenile transportee Charles Brewer



Description List: Record CON18-1-13

Born in 1821, Charles was convicted aged fourteen in 1835, of pickpocketing a handkerchief worth six-pence in Milton Street. Charles received seven years’ transportation for this offence. Previously he had been convicted of a similar offence and was imprisoned for three months. Charles’ father petitioned on his behalf.


Criminal Petition: Record HO17

Thomas Brewer argued that he was led to believe his son would serve out his sentence in England on the hulks. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Thomas had visited his son on-board the Euryalus three or four times and strongly believed that: “the discipline on the ship has taught him a lesson”. The authorities disagreed and Charles was sent on-board the Lord Lyndoch, in April 1836, from London to Hobart, Van Diemen’s Land. The journey took four months, during which time Charles was in the hospital for two weeks suffering from ‘catarrh’, but was discharged cured. Charles was fifteen when he first stepped foot in Australia.


Conduct Record: Record CON31-1-3

Charles was recorded as “good” and “orderly” on-board the hulk and ship respectively. However, within just one month Charles committed his first offence; gambling while out on assignment. The following offences were minor: making a noise, bathing without permission, idleness on the works and insolence to a constable. He was at this time in Point Puer, having been taken out of assignment due to bad behaviour. Insolence to authorities and general misconduct continued. He was also in possession of items he should not have been, and was recorded as throwing stones and destroying government property entrusted to him. Charles was then under strong suspicion of attempting to kill a goat, and in August 1838 was recorded as “aiding and assisting Edward Gares in using violence to an overseer”. Charles was repeatedly caught working privately and continued to threaten and be insolent to overseers. He did not reserve his ill-treatment for overseers – he was recorded as ill using a fellow boy in January 1839.

Conduct Record: Records CON32-1-2 and CON32-1-4


After numerous offences, largely disorderly conduct, Charles was convicted of larceny under the value of five pounds and had his term of transportation extended by two years, which was recommended to take place at Port Arthur from 1842. Then, whilst already illegally at large, Charles was convicted of attempting to commit a felony by use of force in March 1843. For this he was re-transported for seven years. During this incident Charles, along with another absconder Michael Conway, stole the property of Mr. F. Bryant of Redlands. They tied the hands of Robert Baker and took possession of a musket, but after their flight they were both apprehended and housed in New Norfolk gaol. Before passing sentence his honour stated that the police books showed no less than between sixty and seventy charges against Brewer. He further commented that “men such as he should be kept from settled districts” and recommended that he placed for the whole term of his sentence at Port Arthur, “whither Conway should also be sent for four years” (The Courier, 1843; 2). Shortly after, Brewer and a James Smith were charged with assaulting a John Scholefield Forster, with intent to rob. On his way home Mr. Forster and his son were stopped by two men who demanded his money or his life. In the struggle one of the men took a small knife from his pocket and stabbed at him. Both men escaped. Neither victims could speak of the features of the assailants. However, two prisoners who had absconded had been seen in the vicinity. The prisoners were apprehended in Bothwell – they claimed to be free men – and one had a stab wound. They were found guilty and sentenced to be transported for life (The Courier, 1843; 2). By 1845 Charles was in chains for two months for having a pipe in his possession, this was then extended by one month for taking wood from a hut which did not belong to him. In total, Charles committed approximately eight-four separate offences in his conduct record. This was a great deal compared to other juvenile convicts. It is not surprising that Charles was unable to earn either a ToL or CP. The last offence recorded in his conduct record was in December 1846. However, this was not his last brush with the law.

A Sentence of Death!

In 1853 he appeared in the newspapers described as a thirty-one-year-old labourer sentenced to death. In a capital trial, Charles Brewer, Quinn, Bridget Stokes and John Twitty were accused by Mr. William Jones. Both Quinn and Brewer cross examined the witness at length. Quinn, in particular, stressed the civility he had displayed throughout the transaction. However, Gardiner, a victim, pointed out that he was under the impression that they would have injured him if he did not comply – but did confess they were very kind. For example, in being asked to light their pipes Quinn replied; “with pleasure” and “good night, friend”. They did not have counsel in the trial. Brewer referred chiefly to some apparent improbabilities in the evidence, but stated nothing material against general tenor, a course which was also pursued by Twitty. The female prisoner remained quiet throughout. His honour pointed out the evidence was incontrovertible in respect to the male prisoners but slight in respect to the female (The Courier, 1853a; 3). The newspapers described the ‘celebrated’ Quinn and Charles as bushrangers. They were captured thanks to an officer who discovered them using a house in Murray Street. A body of armed police were put on standby and then burst open the door with an axe and charged at the prisoners with a bayonet. Both prisoners were apprehended in “respectable clothing and armed with two pistols capped and loaded to the muzzle” (The Courier, 1853b; 3). They were capitally convicted. Fortunately for them, this punishment was mitigated to a life of transportation at Norfolk Island. However, in January 1854 when Charles and twenty other prisoners were being conveyed to the Island, on board the Lady Franklin, they took the ship.

Seizure of the Lady Franklin!!!

Screen Shot 2017-04-27 at 15.35.02.png

The party of convicts, reportedly headed by Quinn, Brewer and Twitty, seized the ship on the night of the twenty-eighth of December. Captain Willett was suddenly awakened and over powered by prisoners. They took complete mastery of the ship. Three of the crew were employed in working her; the master and mate being confined to the cabin. On the eighth of January they order the crew to launch the long boat and cutter which were laden with provisions. They embarked having confined all the crew except one man at the maintop to liberate them when they made a signal from the boat, and threatened to shoot him if he descended before the signal was made. The ‘desperadoes’ also cut the sails and part of the rigging: disabling the ship. The prisoners were able to take the ship because, after breaking from the prison into the hold they got possession of some old fire arms which the crew were not aware were useless. All the crew and soldiers, excepted two sergeants, proceeded to run below deck, and the prisoners therefore got peaceable possession of the vessel. They also tried to take a Sydney schooner but failed (The Courier, 1854a; 2: The Courier, 1853b; 2: The Argus, 1854; 4). The Lady Franklin and her prisoners were never recovered. The newspapers reported that it was likely that they perished in a storm on route to Fiji. Charles had had his sentence extended by two years twice, by seven years once, was given a life sentence and had a death sentence commuted to a life sentence. He was approximately thirty-three when the pirate ship was reported lost at sea. The actual outcome is unknown, but it is likely that these ‘pirates’ did indeed die at sea.


As can be clearly seen in this life-narrative, Charles’ offending increased in severity and he offended up until his death. Evidently, Charles had an eventful life but it must be stressed that he is not representative of juvenile convicts transported to Van Diemen’s Land – his life was extraordinary.


Newspapers (available at Trove)

The Argus, (1854), “Shipping Intelligence”, (Melbourne, Vic.: 1848 – 1957), 1/2/1854, p.4

The Courier, (1843), “Supreme Criminal Court”, (Hobart, Tas.: 1840 – 1859), 28/4/1843, p.2

The Courier, (1853a), “Supreme Court”, (Hobart, Tas.: 1840 – 1859) 22/10/1853, p.3

The Courier, (1853b), “General Intelligence”, (Hobart, Tas.: 1840 – 1859) 26/9/1853, p.3

The Courier, (1854a), “Seizure of the Lady Franklin”, (Hobart, Tas.: 1840 – 1859) 27/1/1854, p.2

The Courier, (1854b), “Seizure of the Lady Franklin”, (Hobart, Tas.: 1840 – 1859), 28/1/1854, p.2


Digital Resources


Australian Newspapers Online, Trove, Found at:


State Library of Queensland, Convict transportation registers database, Found at /


Tasmanian Government, Tasmanian Names Index, Found at


The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London’s central criminal court, 1764-1913, Found at

Juvenile Criminals: The Horrible Child?

Horrible Histories Conference King’s College London

This paper was recorded at the ‘Horrible Histories? Children’s Lives in Historical Contexts Conference‘ at King’s College London June 2016, which coincided with the launch of the History of Childhood Society (@histchild and Organized by Dr Simon Sleight (King’s College London) and Dr Mary Clare Martin (University of Greenwich). A great conference with a range of great papers – some of which you can listen to here;

My paper  ‘Juvenile Criminals: The Horrible Child?’ demonstrates how nominal record-linkage, of digital records, can be used to uncover the lives of children caught up in the nineteenth-century criminal justice system. Criminal records are an extensive source for learning about non-elite lives in history. While such children will inevitably be tied to the criminal records in which they are found, it is still possible to use these records, coupled with newspapers and civil records, to demonstrate that these children were not only criminals. They also had familial, social and economic lives.

Unfortunately you can not see the PowerPoints – but I hope you enjoy – just remember it is live!

Screen Shot 2016-07-10 at 09.40.57

Diverging Life Paths of Transported Juveniles

This research traced individual offenders as far forwards and backwards in their life as records allowed. These offenders were sampled from the Old Bailey between 1816-1850. Of those transported to Van Diemen’s Land, what is perhaps unsurprising is the sheer variety of life paths. This blog will outline 2 opposing examples to highlight the uniqueness of these paths.

This blog is about the lives and criminal careers of James McAllister and James Hudson.

 Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.21.25.png

If you are looking at criminal desistance, by anyone’s standards, James McAllister was not successful. He was executed in Australia. James Hudson on the other hand fared better – he died surrounded by family aged 91.

James McAllister

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.23.17.png

Born in 1827 James McAllister was brought to trial in 1842 for sealing 60 pence in money, aged 14. He was sentenced to 7 years transportation while his accomplice, aged 16, was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment. There were no former convictions mention in his trial, however his conduct record states that he stole loaves for which he received 3 weeks, and a waistcoat for which he spent another 14 days in the house of correction. Also of note is that he was admitted to the Workhouse twice in the couple of years prior to his Old Bailey appearance and was described as having “no home”.

His conduct records confirm what this phrase suggests – while he did have 2 brothers and 2 aunts in London – he had no parents at this time. He did have employment as a mariner and/or labourer at some point too.

But clearly he had a difficult start and as such he could neither read nor write – he was also hesitant in his speech. Even at the time of his death he was described as being able to read and write very imperfectly.  With regards to behaviour he was described as “orderly” on board the Euryalus and “good” by the ships surgeon during the voyage.

James Hudson

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.24.50.png

Born at the earlier date of 1819, James Hudson was convicted when he was 13 years of age also of theft – he stole a soldering iron worth 18 pence – resulting in a sentence of 7 years transportation. Both Hudson and McAllister pleaded guilty but Hudson was actually prosecuted by his father Joseph Hudson. His father was a whitesmith, but his mother had died by this point and he has at least one younger sibling.

Hudson waited 21 months on the Euryalus before his transportation following his trial. This may have been because while on the hulk he suffered from an acute, bacterial skin infection. He also suffered from icterus during the voyage – but was soon discharged. Conversely, McAllister only waited 5 months until he sailed on the Asiatic. But like McAllister, Hudson was reportedly ordered and good while in confinement. I could however find no previous convictions for Hudson. In fact, 69% of those prosecuted by their families, who were sentenced to transportation, were actually sent.

 James McAllister

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.24.05.png

Arriving in Hobart in 1843, McAllister was put on probation for 2 years at Point Puer. While some juveniles have filled pages and pages of offences while under sentence – the most I have is 84 separate offences – McAllister committed one offence (there were only 2 others who committed one offence). His offence was “Misconduct in being concealed in the enclosed yard of Mr. Johnson for some unlawful purpose” in 1849 while a Ticket of Leave man. This was 6 years after his arrival. This ticket of leave he had only just received that year. He was given 3 months hard labour and ordered not to reside in Hobart Town. He finally received his Certificate of Freedom in 1850 after 76 months in the colony. It would seem to be a great start but just 5 years later he found himself in Melbourne Gaol awaiting Execution for the murder of Jane Jones.

James Hudson

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.24.50

Arriving in 1833 on the Isabella Hudson similarly only notched up 2 very minor offences while under sentence the first being “neglecting to deliver his pass and with making a false statement” for which he got 1 months hard labour and removed from his service to Port Arthur, and the second was insolence for which he was admonished. He committed no non-regulatory offences and received a ticket of leave in 1837 after 48 months in the colony.

I cannot find a certificate of freedom – but of course he was freed and made his way to Adelaide. There he married Mercy Abbot at the Native School Encounter Bay in 1846 after 147 months in the colony. He was 27 while Mercy was just 17. He worked for some time as a whaler but after his marriage he settled down to a trade of shoemaker at Encounter bay. He later turned his hand to farming.

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.27.02

Like McAllister, Hudson made the papers on numerous occasions but for very different reasons. In 1855, when McAllister was awaiting his execution, Hudson was converted under exceptional circumstances. The only religious service in the place was conducted by a young Congregational minister in a barn. An intelligent lad of 4 years attended the Sunday school with other members of Mr. Hudson’s family and he often entertained his parents by mimicking the teacher and preacher. A sudden illness over took the lad and he felt that he would not recover, and in his childish way he  gave evidence of a knowledge of spiritual things as only one taught of God could do. This converted him and then he went on to help many by god working through him. After a strenuous life he secured a modest competency and settled in Whitwarta. The writer of the newspaper article wrote that from the letters he had revived from Hudson he knew he was of pure Christian sentiment and had extensive knowledge of God’s work.

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.27.51

James McAllister

McAllister had made his way to Melbourne in this time had worked as a labourer and is also described as a carpenter. The papers stating he had adopted the most disreputable means of getting a living since he has been in this colony. Eventually he began to run a lodging hose. He was not married and had no children known of. He had, however, cohabited for 2 years with Jane Jones prior to shooting her. Jane was shot at the Exchange Hotel on 21st of March last and died in hospital on a later date of her injuries. The deceased made a disposition before she died and it said among other things that the prisoner was not the father of the child that the prisoner had asked her to go back and live with him, she refused as he had formerly kept a brothel. In fact, a month prior to the evening of the shooting Jane had left James to live with another man named Thomas Chisholm, an article clerk. Jane had informed Chisholm that James had ill-used and threatened her. Jane and Thomas Chisholm had to move lodgings because they saw James watching Jane. On one occasion he stopped her in the street and took her child from her and struck her. Consequently, James was summoned before the City Police Court and he was ordered to give the child back to the mother.

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.30.28.png

On the night of the incident Chisholm was out and on returning he saw James who levelled a pistol at him – and fired. Fortunately for him the bullet merely grazed his temple, sending him falling backwards. At this point Thomas begun to get up when he heard the retort of another pistol. James had shot Jane. James at first tried to run, but a waiter stopped him and he then surrendered himself declaring “I am the murderer”. It was noted that Jane was shot in her shoulder, but what was missed was that she also had a bullet lodged in her spinal cord which caused paralysis and death. Jane was only 22 years old and described as “of plain appearance” while James was described as “respectable looking”. At trial the defence admitted the act but stated it was only manslaughter because he could not be held responsible for his actions because he was provoked. The provocation being that he was made furious because the deceased Jane was in all intents and purposes his wife and had eloped. And in seeing the man who had taken her, he was not able to control his actions. The judge disagreed – pointing out that he could see no provocation for manslaughter and nothing to suppose they were as good as married. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against James McAllister. He was executed at Melbourne Gaol.

About 500 persons were present outside the gaol to witness the execution. No body but the officials were allowed to be present in the walls at the time of the execution. He apparently approached his death with resignation, in consonance with his general behaviour since his condemnation. Said to have conducted himself with, humility and apparent penitence, he expressed no hope of pardon in this world. There was reported to have been a cast of his head after death taken by an artist – Mr. Pardoe.

 Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.32.08.png

James Hudson

Hudson and his wife Mercy on the other hand went on to have 12 children. He died in Whitwarta, Gilbert, South Australia in 1910 at the grand age of 91– presumably of old age. James Hudson’s death also resulted in what was described as a “large assemblage” at his burial at Balaklava Cemetery. By special request of the deceased the funeral service was read by James Sampson who was an old and intimate friend. Mr. Hudson was described in the papers as one of the oldest residences of Whitwarta, and was widely known and esteemed. He left behind his wife, who was several years younger. Having been married for 64 years he left behind at 5 living sons and 1 daughter, 40 grandchildren and 18 great grandchildren. One son sadly only survived his father by 4 days – leaving his ageing mother having to rush from the burial of her husband to the death bed of her son. Nevertheless, the life Hudson led left him repeatedly in the papers because of the legacy he left in his children and later grand children who mentioned him every time they got married or had children.

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 18.32.49.png


While James Hudson and James McAllister are, I believe, very interesting case studies they mean little in isolation. In order to make sense of these diverging pathways, they need to be analysed in aggregate. So while contextualising these offenders is important, so to is investigating trends quantitatively.

Canterbury Prison Heritage Event  


Overview: This event was occasioned by the decommissioning of the early nineteenth-century HMP Canterbury Prison in 2013, along with its imminent conversion into student residence.[1] This redevelopment of George Byfield’s original design, by Canterbury University, is of interest partly because it is not an isolated incident.[2] Moreover, these developments are embedded in a wider discourse of the ethics of ‘Dark Tourism’ – an emerging strand of academic study focused on ethics which ranges from websites to museums. Those gathered at the conference were problematizing how best to respectfully preserve and represent prison heritage, while educating and engaging the public. Threaded through this event was the theme of respecting the real-lives of those tied up in the archives, artefacts and buildings being presented, notwithstanding the increasing issues of funding. How can heritage be preserved while still remaining ethically represented with limited funds?

canterbury prison

Figure 1.1 – Prison Ward

Panel 1: Introduction to HMP Canterbury


  • Dr Maryse Tennant (Canterbury Christ Church University) ‘An ordinary prison: The history of HMP Canterbury’
  • Iain Clover (HMP/YOI East Sutton Park) ‘Working at Canterbury’


Beginning with the organiser of the event, Dr Maryse Tennant, the first panel focused aptly on Canterbury Prison. The history and current plans for the buildings were discussed, but as well as outlining the physical changes of the prison, Tennant also placed these transformations within the wider changes taking place in the ideas and practices of penal servitude. Much emphasis was placed on the ordinary and representativeness of this prison as the basis for why its changes and its stories are so important to research. Tennet also spoke of some of the intentions that the University had for the site – notably that they did not purchase the land for the prison itself but rather for its location. Nevertheless, due to areas such as the Round House being listed, certain elements will indeed be preserved. The 200 year history of Canterbury prison was followed by the recent experiences from within its walls from former wing manager, Iain Clover. Such a combination of speakers was a useful and novel way of getting the audience to constructively reflect. Through giving his first-hand experience, Clover was really able to bring home the fact that “not many people have actually seen inside a prison”, which was very apposite to today’s conference. During the course of his talk he outlined his tasks, while emphasising their increasing difficulty due to cuts in funding and moves towards increasing dehumanised control of inmates, which he is especially concerned about due to his experience in suicide prevention.


canterbury prison 2

Figure 1.2 – Prison Cell


Panel 2: Prison History and Heritage


  • Stewart McLaughlin (HMP Wandsworth) ‘Wandsworth Prison Museum: A Volunteer Museum’
  • Angela Sutton-Vane (Devon and Cornwall Police and The Open University) ‘Thinking Through Prison Museums


The second panel was very much concentrated on the struggles of preserving heritage, but taken from two different perspectives. Stewart McLaughlin, a prison officer, although on this occasion present in his capacity as a Volunteer Curator of the Wandsworth Prison Museum – underlined the struggles with preserving heritage without working policies in place.[3] Wandsworth Prison Museum was a one man project which only survived due to the sacrifice of his own time, and currently relies solely on voluntary donations. McLaughlin was followed by Angela Sutton-Vane, an artefacts conservator, with twenty years’ experience in the museum profession. Working as a part-time curator for the historic collections of Devon and Cornwall Police, Sutton has a limited yearly budget from the Policing Past Community Present Lottery Fund.[4] As a result of such limited funding, there is no public access, the project is only able to conserve and catalogue findings. Despite the difference in the nature and funding of these two projects, McLaughlin and Vane echo similar concerns – namely how to conserve heritage on limited budgets, with no working policies.


Panel 3: Representing Prison History


  • Jane Hoodless ‘Toxic Tiffin’ and Pandora Vaughan ‘A Little Bit of Space’ (Visual Artists)[5]
  • Professor Alyson Brown (Edgehill University) ‘The Development of Prison Tourism in Britain’[6]


This multidisciplinary panel begun with a joint presentation from visual artists Jane Hoodless and Pandora Vaughan, followed by Professor Alyson Brown. Hoodless explained that her aim is to juxtapose and show new perspectives through her art using interpretation, consequently challenging the public by making them uncomfortable and thus reflective. Vaughan, on the other hand, is exploring through the use of stitch work, how we react and respond to architecture designed around us. Presenting her work with Dr Alana Barton alone, Brown’s focus was the overview of representations of the prison. Pointing to the importance of Prison museums and stressing that prisons cannot be seen as apolitical places because of the potential of what they could achieve. Namely the all-important public understanding of prisons. Notwithstanding the issues associated with nature of tourism, which have the potential to turn important parts of the civic landscape and the real-life suffering of individuals into a dehumanised public spectacle. While the tensions between education and entertainment were emphasized, so too was the idea that it is through reconstructing the past that perceptions of now are influenced. Brown concluding on the need to invest in the structural, political and social context of the individual to ensure that the pain of confinement is not hidden in history, which would result in less concentration and reflection on present issues.

[1] See information of History of HM Canterbury Prison;;; See information on Christchurch University purchase;

[2] See Information on George Byfield;

[3] See information on Wandsworth Prison Museum;

[4] See information on The Friends of The Devon & Cornwall Constabulary Heritage;; See information on Policing Past Community Present Lottery Fund;

[5] See Jane Hoodless website;; See Pandora Vaughan website

[6] Link to work of Prof Alyson Brown and Dr Alana Barton;