Delineating the fine line between the mad and the bad: Victorian prisons and insane asylums,1856–1914

To the Editor

Two institutions of social control dominated the town of Beechworth in the late 19th century: H.M. Prison Beechworth opening in 1864 and Mayday Hills Lunatic Asylum opening in 1867. Their development so close in place and time provides a strong basis for a comparative study of the relationship between the incarceration of prisoners and the mentally ill in late-19th-century Victoria. Research grounded in historical and contemporary penal, mental health and social control theory can reveal how such ideas have shaped the development of the prison and asylum and how we can understand these historic institutions today.

Analysis of parliamentary papers and legislation from 18th- and 19th-century Britain demonstrates that the sweeping economic changes brought about by the industrial revolution were accompanied by new ideas associated with the enlightenment, including:

• a new interest in reforming deviants;

• the creation of new types of institutions to achieve this;

• a humanitarian shift from punishment to reform of those incarcerated; and,

• the growth of scientific knowledge surrounding health, diet and sanitation.

The purpose and evolution of these two Beechworth institutions – their design, administration and governance – and the individuals employed and incarcerated within are important indicators of institutional development during this period. Concentrating on the increased importance of the internal design of institutions, architectural historian Robin Evans’ (1982) belief that ‘it was always architecture that fixed the shape of experience’ can be examined using spatial analysis of building plans and how these changed through this period, amidst ongoing contemporary discussion around the concept of inmate and patient classification, and organisational systems of separation, association and silence. The role of the institution as an instrument of social control and the extent to which methods of surveillance were used to create power within institutions (Foucault, 2006) are thought to support Garton’s (1988) argument that institutional populations were ‘constructed by particular social contexts and specific social policies’.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of primary source documents from these two institutions provides interesting insight into the treatment of criminals and the mentally ill by illustrating specific journeys of individuals as both inmate and patient in the town of Beechworth. Supported by the historical recurrence of contemporary themes and legislative reform across the institutional sphere, it is likely that a mirrored experience across both types of institution, in terms of governance, bureaucracy, methods of surveillance and the reformatory role of health, education and employment, was in play.