STEFAN PETROW

Policing in a Penal Colony: Governor Arthur's Police System in Van Diemen's Land, 1826-1836

In eighteenth-century England the rule of law was "the central legitimizing ideology, displacing the religious authority and sanctions of previous centuries." ¹ Arising out of struggles between the monarchy, Parliament, and the courts, the rule of law sought to protect individual liberty and private property by placing constraints on arbitrary authority. The ruling class used the rule of law ideology to enhance their power, but it also acted as a check on that power. All citizens from the monarch to the poorest citizen became bound by the rule of law and could settle their disputes in the courts presided over by judges, who were independent of manipulation. ²
1

      The ideology and practice of the rule of law were exported to Britain's colonies. According to the distinguished English jurist William Blackstone, writing in 1765, "if an uninhabited country be discovered and planted by English subjects, all the English laws are immediately there in force. For the law is the birthright of every subject, so wherever they go they can carry their laws with them." ³ But, as David Neal has pointed out, in actuality this depended on the circumstances of the colony. Neal seeks to discover what the rule of law meant in the particular circumstances of the Australian penal colony of New South Wales from its foundation in 1788. ⁴ As convicts, ex-convicts, and their children made up a large proportion of the population (87 percent in 1828 and 63 percent in 1841), British governments wanted liberty to be restricted by their representatives, the governors, which did not augur well for the rule of law. The governors, who ruled in an autocratic manner and had more extensive powers than any king since James I, might use the labor of convicts on public works, but they agreed with the British government that the transported criminal class needed to be watched closely and punished swiftly if they misbehaved. ⁵
2

      Colonists, whether free settlers (the Exclusives) or ex-convicts (the Emancipists), felt they themselves were too closely watched and demanded that the rule of law be introduced as a protection against the arbitrary rule of the governor. While the colonists waged their campaign for civil and legal rights, the courts became "a sort of broking house of power." ⁶ Colonists sought protection from oppressive practices and expressed their opposition to the actions of governors, while governors sought to have their actions and authority confirmed. Even convicts soon learned to use the magistrates' courts for their own purposes.
3

      Neal argues that the political ideas and language of the colonists were based on their English legal inheritance as systematized by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. ⁷ They claimed "no more than their rights as free-born Britons, rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the Bill of Rights, [and] the Act of Settlement." Seeking "to forge a new social and political order out of the penal colony," they demanded an independent judiciary, trial by a civilian, not a military, jury, and representative government. The first important step in consolidating the rule of law in New South Wales occurred in 1824 when the newly established Supreme Court began to hear cases. It was staffed by judges appointed in England who were faithful adherents to the rule of law and were a major counterweight to the power of the governors. The achievement of a nominated legislature, the development of a free press, and the introduction of civilian jury trials were also significant landmarks in entrenching the rule of law. But it was not until a partially elected legislature was formed in 1842 that, Neal argues, New South Wales finally changed from a penal colony to a free society.
4

      One key source of dispute between the colonists and the governors arose over the power and control of the police. Police work had an important bearing on whether in practice the rule of law could curb arbitrary power. Not only could the police threaten liberty by treating colonists unequally and unjustly, they also enforced the law, made "its orders meaningful," and constituted its "coercive function." ⁸
5

      The colonists of New South Wales were influenced by their English heritage in determining their policing arrangements. Let us look at that inheritance more closely. Suspicions about the dangers of a powerful police inclined the English to adopt a decentralized model of policing in the eighteenth century, placing the administration of justice and the policing of towns and villages under local control. As unpaid magistrates, the gentry dispensed justice, and the propertied devoted some time to the duties of the unpaid parish constabulary. In the late eighteenth century, however, this informal, amateur system began to break down before the increasing incidence of urban unrest and property crime, especially in London. ⁹ Police reformers, such as John Fielding and Patrick Colquhoun, and the commercial and propertied middle classes advocated stringent control and surveillance of the lower classes by a more systematically organized and coordinated police force. Such proposals were vehemently opposed by the gentry and the emerging industrial working class, who feared that the government would form a powerful, centralized police force to ride roughshod over their liberties. With the crucial support of Tory backbenchers, they resisted efforts to establish French-style police methods in England. The most important development was the Middlesex Justices Act of 1792, which appointed stipendiary or paid magistrates in charge of small police forces. But the predominantly local system of policing was still in place in the 1820s.
6

      There was less resistance to invoking stern measures against agrarian protest and violence in Ireland. The Peace Preservation Act of 1814 and the Irish Constabulary Act of 1822, which established police forces in county areas, created a more militarized and centralized form of policing. ¹⁰ The author of these statutes, Robert Peel, when home secretary, used arguments based on the efficiency of the Irish police and the threat to liberty from disorder and crime to achieve police reform in England. Peel pushed through Parliament the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829, which created a paid, uniformed, preventive police for London headed by commissioners without magisterial duties and under central direction. The example of uniformed, professional police subsequently spread throughout England over the following decades, but they remained under local control. The extent to which the new police differed from the existing watchmen and constables should not therefore be exaggerated. ¹¹
7

      These developments provided two different models for the colonial police—the centralized, military styled, and armed force of Ireland kept away from the local community in barracks and the consciously nonmilitary, unarmed, preventive English police supposedly working in partnership with, and with the consent of, the local community. ¹² More often than not elements from both models were employed by colonial police forces and adapted to suit local circumstances. Where the security of the state was at risk, for example from rebellious natives, the Irish approach was deployed, while English methods were more pervasive and influenced day-to-day policing of all aspects of social life.
8

      In the early decades of New South Wales a decentralized police system was in operation. Lay magistrates in rural areas controlled the police and had discretion to decide "what would and would not be policed." ¹³ They used their power to protect their class interests and relied upon flogging to enforce order. The assistance of the military was needed to quell large-scale disorder, but the military were not used for ordinary policing duties. Reflecting the characteristics of the population, most policemen were convicts.
9

      In 1823 J. T. Bigge, charged with making transportation more of a deterrent for English criminals, reported to the Colonial Office that police organization was defective and recommended centralized control rather than retaining local control by unpaid magistrates. ¹⁴ Because the magistrates were unwilling to relinquish control of the police, in 1825 a number of changes were made to weaken their power, creating a system of divided control. The mounted police, composed mainly of soldiers, were formed to deal with bushrangers and Aborigines. Captain F. N. Rossi became the head of the Sydney police, whose existence was made official by the Sydney Police Act of 1833, a statute based on the London Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. In the absence of local government, the Sydney police were required to assume a range of urban functions. Thus, in the 1820s and 1830s police reform in New South Wales was a compromise between the English and Irish models, modified to meet the exigencies of a large convict population, the escapades of bushrangers, the resistance of the Aborigines, and a growing urban population. ¹⁵ In addition to the police, overseers, masters, and private informers ensured that the colonists enjoyed "a level of surveillance more akin to a penal colony than the society they knew in England." ¹⁶
10

      Bigge's report influenced thinking about police arrangements in Van Diemen's Land, the second Australian penal colony, far more than in New South Wales. Governor George Arthur created a more highly centralized policing system and controlled the police, mainly comprised of convicts, through paid magistrates, responsible directly to him. He ruled even more autocratically than other governors, seeing himself as the servant of empire, answerable only to the British government and not local colonists. ¹⁷ He became the foremost apostle of the benefits of transportation. Feeling that a penal colony was "an unnatural condition" because "virtue" was subordinate to "crime," Arthur believed he had no choice but to rule the colony as a jail. His police reforms and their operation made Van Diemen's Land a more extensively policed society than New South Wales.
11

      Making order his shibboleth, Arthur expected colonists to forgo their rights and liberties in the interests of making transportation a feared punishment and in exchange for the security of person and property that he provided. ¹⁸ The majority of colonists, especially those in the interior, resigned themselves to this policy and were constrained to obey his commands for two reasons. ¹⁹ They appreciated the security, funded not by local taxes but by the Crown, that Arthur provided after years of anarchy, and, especially given the shortage of free laborers, they feared losing the cheap labor of their convict servants, which Arthur could withdraw whenever he liked. But those colonists who did not rely on convict servants for their wealth or who had fallen out with Arthur, mainly the residents of the colony's capital Hobart Town, felt that the benefits of transportation were purchased at too high a price and became hostile to attacks on their liberty. ²⁰
12

      As its central aim was to buttress the authority of the governor and enforce order, the rule of law as a protection of free citizens was compromised at all levels of the legal system in Van Diemen's Land. Under the sway of Arthur's autocratic rule, the nominated Legislative Council, the judges of the Supreme Court, the paid magistrates, and the police generally placed the orderly management of the convict system ahead of rights and liberties. While Arthur relied heavily on the police in running the penal colony, they used their brief of keeping close surveillance over convicts to cloak dubious and illegal practices that offended the rule of law. The rule of law was thus compromised, but not rendered meaningless. In the courts, colonists contested arbitrary uses of police power and employed the language of the rule of law when arguing for their rights or defending their liberties. But they realized that the paid magistrates gave prime consideration to convict order and discipline and supported police action unless the evidence clearly demonstrated they had acted illegally or arbitrarily.
13

      This article examines how the inadequately regulated, low-paid, and poor quality, largely convict police abused their wide powers of discretion and exploited loopholes in the law to further their own interests, not those of the convict system. First I explore the condition of Van Diemen's Land before Arthur's arrival, his principles of government, and his relations with the colonists and then look more closely at his police reforms.
14

Van Diemen's Land, 1803-36

The penal colony of Van Diemen's Land was founded by the British in March 1803. Since this island of 65,000 square kilometers was strategically placed to the south of the Australian mainland, Governor King of New South Wales feared French attempts to colonize it. ²¹ Accordingly, he established there a small community of convicts, soldiers, and some free settlers. Two main settlements emerged, Hobart Town in the south, which became the capital, and Launceston in the north. The colony was administered by a lieutenant-governor, a military officer, who reported to the governor of New South Wales.
15

      In the first decade or so, the convict settlement faced various difficulties. Because of irregular supplies from New South Wales colonists barely survived by supplementing their diet with fish and native animals. Prosperity emerged after the Napoleonic Wars ended and free settlement expanded. The free settlers extended their occupation of the arable land in the north, northeast, and southeast. An economy based on trading, the wool industry, wheat farming, and whaling developed, and Hobart Town and Launceston grew into thriving towns. A small but wealthy farming and trading community emerged. It benefited from the capable and pliable administration of William Sorell, lieutenant-governor from 1817 to 1824. In 1818 convicts began to be transported directly from Britain to Van Diemen's Land. Affluent settlers appreciated Sorell's effective deployment of convicts on public works and as assigned laborers on their farms, thereby consolidating their wealth and power. Unlike New South Wales, very few ex-convicts were prominent in public life in the younger island colony. ²² Through land grants and purchases, free settlers owned "a very large proportion of all the property" and expected to exercise "that influence which is usually associated with large means."

Figure 1. Van Diemen's Land in relation to mainland Australia. Courtesy of Central Mapping Authority, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst 2795, Australia.

Figure 2. Van Diemen's Land.

16

      This picture of developing prosperity should not mask the problems of maintaining law and order in the first two decades. Convicts dominated the population, but were not easily controlled by the military and convict constables. Many convicts escaped into the densely forested and mountainous terrain found throughout the island, there developing a subculture of banditry. Labeled as "bushrangers," they stole from and terrorized isolated settlers. Although Sorell made significant inroads, bushranging remained rampant in the mid-1820s. Settlers also faced attacks from the Aborigines, occupiers of the island for over 40,000 years, who numbered between four and six thousand in 1803. ²³ The Aborigines waged a form of guerilla warfare against the military and settlers, using their knowledge of the rugged interior. Although many were shot and even more succumbed to European diseases, they remained a threat in the mid-1820s.
17

      The court system was a travesty of the rule of law. In 1816 a deputy judge advocate began to hear civil cases up to £50 in the lieutenant-governor's court, but the colony did not have a resident judge until 1824 and colonists were unwilling to spend money prosecuting cases in Sydney. ²⁴ Despite lacking legal authority, powerful lay magistrates heard many capital cases and imposed severe sentences, such as flogging. In many criminal cases, the offenders escaped punishment or were punished contrary to law. In 1814 one commentator found it difficult to give "an accurate idea of the state of misrule and uncontrolled profligacy in all classes" in Van Diemen's Land. ²⁵ The arbitrary imposition of the criminal law engendered "a deeply honed resentment of government." ²⁶
18

      The fragile order of Van Diemen's Land concerned the British government, which planned to increase transportation to the Australian colonies. After Bigge found that transportation was an ineffective deterrent, the British government removed the popular Sorell and in 1824 appointed the strict disciplinarian George Arthur as lieutenant-governor, thus beginning the most important period of the penal colony's history. Seeking to make transportation feared by British criminals, Arthur raised convict discipline to new levels and ensured that punishment was uniform and certain. The British government responded by increasing the annual average of convicts sent to Van Diemen's Land from about 800 between 1817 and 1827 to about 1,800 between 1828 and 1835; between 1830 and 1836 convicts formed on average 44 percent of the population. ²⁷ The increase in convicts and free settlers swelled the total population from 5,468 in 1820 to 24,279 by 1830. Using methods similar to Sorell's, Arthur deployed the increasing number of convicts on a large program of public works and assigned convicts to farmers throughout the island. By forcing convicts to work for long periods, Arthur hoped to break the habit of idleness associated with criminality and provide convicts with skills to earn a living on the expiry of their sentences. The combination of cheap labor, a sizable injection of British capital, and a growing free settler population greatly stimulated the economy and further strengthened the power and wealth of the gentry and merchants.
19

      Arthur imposed severe punishments and floggings on convicts who disobeyed his regulations and many were hung for committing serious crimes, but order was also encouraged by his offer of inducements, such as a ticket of leave and a pardon, to those who behaved correctly and showed signs of reformation. ²⁸ A ticket of leave was a license given to convicts if well behaved for four, six, or eight years depending on the length of their sentence. It allowed them to earn wages and live independently while serving the remainder of their sentences. The convicts remained under surveillance and the ticket could be rescinded for bad behavior. A pardon remitted part or all of a convict's sentence. A conditional pardon required a convict to remain in the colony, while an absolute pardon made no such requirement. Appealing to the self-interest of convicts was a central principle of Arthur's policy of transportation.
20

      Colonists praised Arthur for restoring order by suppressing bushranging and the Aborigines and by enforcing a rigid system of convict discipline. But the relationship between some colonists and Arthur was strained. Arthur wanted to dominate colonists, not bow to their demands, to centralize power, not disperse it, and to restrict liberty, not extend it. The institutions of government reflected his desires. In 1825 Van Diemen's Land secured administrative independence from New South Wales and was granted an Executive Council, a form of cabinet comprised of senior public servants, and a Legislative Council, whose members included the executive councillors and some free settlers chosen by Arthur. Arthur, who initiated all legislation, expected the Executive Council and the Legislative Council to rubber stamp his measures, and they invariably did. Arthur also expected the Supreme Court, formed in 1824 with the arrival of John Pedder as chief justice, to uphold his autocratic rule, even where his powers might "trench upon the privileges or conveniences of the free." ²⁹ By holding a seat on the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, Pedder subordinated the judicial arm of government to the executive and destroyed confidence in his impartiality. ³⁰
21

      Arthur used his power to initiate new legislation "sparingly" when it became the only way of "varying the community instincts and activities" that frustrated his policies. ³¹ In ten years under Arthur (1826 to 1836), eighty-eight statutes were passed compared with one hundred and thirty-six in six years under his successor Sir John Franklin. ³² Arthur's statute law vested "executive powers in himself and those responsible to him; providing administrative directions to enable his policies to be implemented without too much statutory regulation." He argued against the notion that no colonial laws should be implemented unless they were "adapted to the spirit of the British Constitution." ³³ Those who "knowingly" emigrated to a convict colony, which was in effect "an immense Gaol or Penitentiary," should not expect "to retain every immunity and privilege" they enjoyed in England and should "abide cheerfully by the rules and customs of the Prison." There could be "no happiness nor prosperity without personal security," and this could only be secured by "severe discipline." ³⁴ Convict discipline was "the grand consideration to which every other in the Territory must be subservient." Arthur expected "unquestioning obedience," not only from convicts and convict officials, but also "established landholders and merchants." ³⁵ At least one secretary of state for the colonies, Lord Goderich, agreed with Arthur that a penal colony had to endure "the temporary sacrifice of many principles of law." ³⁶
22

      This view antagonized many free settlers, especially in Hobart Town. They echoed their New South Wales counterparts by demanding a greater say in determining the colony's future and the rights of freeborn Englishmen. They valued their liberties and railed against what they saw as arbitrary and unjust government interference. Newspapers published in Hobart Town and Launceston were watchdogs of arbitrary government and outspoken proponents of the rights of the people. In 1826 the Colonial Times, which regularly referred to "free-born British subjects," wrote that "It must be recollected that we are in these Colonies, as far as our rights go, in England. By the privileges of our birth, the British Law is the only one to which we are subjected. Every immunity possessed by our brethren in England is also equally possessed by us de jure, notwithstanding many of them are withheld de facto. But when they are withheld, it is by the effect of the Law, specially enacted for that purpose." ³⁷ For Englishmen, there was "a natural feeling imbibed with our birth, cherished with our youth, and matured in our riper years which forbids our ever sinking to that abject state of being governed by absolute power or of becoming the slaves of despotism." ³⁸ They were "not to be put off with the shadow of Liberty, after having once known the fulness of its enjoyments." ³⁹
23

      Support for measures such as trial by jury and representative government "increased as the free element in the population became proportionately greater" and as it became clear that Chief Justice Pedder was subservient to Arthur. ⁴⁰ In 1827 "the Gentry, Merchants, Landholders, Housekeepers, and other Free inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land" petitioned the British Parliament for these two boons, which were "the pride and the birth-right" and "the safeguard of every Briton." ⁴¹ They declared that trial by jury was "essentially necessary to the preservation of our liberties" because they lacked a representative assembly and therefore "no barrier between the People and the power of the Crown." ⁴² Juries were "best calculated to protect man's natural rights, and secure the pure administration of justice." ⁴³ In 1830 an ordinance empowered a judge to allow a jury in civil cases if desired by either party, but military juries were not removed for criminal cases until 1840. ⁴⁴ A partially elected Legislative Council was not secured until 1850 and self-government until 1855.
24

      In the 1820s and 1830s the absence of trial by civilian jury and of representative government was not the only evidence that the rights of colonists were disregarded. To establish order and enforce convict discipline, Arthur created a powerful police force, comprised mainly of convicts, controlled by paid magistrates answerable to him. To pay for these magistrates, Arthur withdrew allowances from the gentlemen magistrates, thereby undermining their authority and status. Unlike the situation in New South Wales, lay magistrates had little say in police management and police control was not divided but brought under one head. ⁴⁵ This centralized police infringed liberty in various ways, all detested by the citizens. The police arrested individuals on the flimsiest pretext, used excessive violence while so doing, acted as spies for the government, prosecuted offenses that brought them part of a fine (instead of pursuing thieves), and were protected by the paid magistrates who supervised their duties.
25

      Not oblivious to their disadvantages or to criticisms of their methods, Arthur seems to have persevered with the appointment of convicts under sentence as policemen because of a shortage of suitable free settlers. In addition, the convicts' desire to obtain a ticket of leave made them easier to control and, faced with Colonial Office directions to limit expenditure, he could pay them only a minimal wage, likely to attract only the most desperate free settlers. More important, the police achieved Arthur's objectives. Describing them as "the pivot" of his convict system, Arthur praised the police for providing him with unceasing surveillance and control over the convict population, for maintaining order, and for reducing crimes against person and property. ⁴⁶ But as controversial as it was in the history of transportation, this article is the first to subject his police system, or "optical apparatus" as one diarist called it, to close investigation and to determine whether Arthur's claims had validity. ⁴⁷ What follows is an analysis of Arthur's reforms, the appointment of police, their pay and conditions, and numerical strength and powers. The article ends by examining how the police operated in practice.
26

Arthur's Police Reforms

Although he was instructed by the British government to establish "a stricter surveillance and discipline" over convicts, on his arrival in 1824 Arthur first had to deal with a number of threats to orderly government. ⁴⁸ Of particular concern was "a vast amount of crime amongst the Prisoners—Murders, constant Robberies, and other atrocious acts," perpetrated especially by bushrangers. ⁴⁹ Given his "exceedingly limited" military force, and his "inadequate means of punishing offences," Arthur was thankful that crime was not much more prevalent, but it was "truly distressing" to the settlers on isolated farms. Arthur also predicted that the increasing "hostility" of the Aborigines would stretch his limited resources, especially as "some strong measures" would be required to remove them from the settled districts. ⁵⁰ The administration of justice and supervision of convicts by inexperienced gentlemen magistrates was unsatisfactory. They awarded punishments without considering their "efficacy and propriety" and without "uniformity," thus failing to create in the convicts "such a reliance on the measures of Government towards them as alone can produce such an acquiescence of mind as is essential to the success of punishment." ⁵¹
27

      Arthur gave much thought to ways of holding Van Diemen's Land up "as a terror in England rather than an allurement to vice" by increasing penal discipline, preventing and punishing crime, and keeping a record of the movements and behavior of all convicts. ⁵² He believed his "first great improvement" in criminal matters was to appoint a number of stipendiary magistrates. ⁵³ With police magistrates already sitting in Hobart Town and Launceston, in 1827 Arthur appointed paid police magistrates, preferring men with military experience, at the smaller towns of New Norfolk, Oatlands, Richmond, Campbell Town, and Norfolk Plains, while military officers helped lay magistrates at Bothwell, Oyster Bay, and George Town. ⁵⁴ These measures improved the behavior of convicts and "the prevention and detection of crime generally." Masters were also keenly watched and brought to account if they mistreated their assigned convict servants.
28

      According to Arthur, no government department was "more practically defective" than the police. ⁵⁵ As his predecessors had failed to attract free men, all the petty constables were convicts, who were undoubtedly "in many cases the authors [rather] than detectors of crime." The constables were paid £10 per annum and received rations for themselves and their families and two suits of slop clothing. ⁵⁶ As the chief district constables were landholders living on their own farms and spending most of their time on private interests, they neglected their police duties. Moreover, as they regarded their "emoluments" as "trifling," Arthur did not "expect to derive much benefit from their services." Generally, the police were "ill-regulated and insufficient."
29

      Arthur made a number of changes. His first task was to suppress bushranging and win the confidence of settlers. In 1826 he selected with "all care and discrimination" a number of convicts under sentence to serve as armed field police, under the direction of respectable settlers and military officers. Induced by a pardon for good service, the field police arrested runaways from private service or public works, ended bushranging "as a system," and succeeded in making the settlers of the interior feel more secure. ⁵⁷ One important result was that, by appointing convicts to the field police, "a mistrust and jealousy" was "infused into the Prisoner Population," and, seeking a pardon for themselves, other convicts applied for admission to the police. In 1827 the field police numbered eighty-three and a small band of four military mounted police was also formed. ⁵⁸
30

      No sooner had bushranging been contained than the field police were called on to deal with the threats posed to life and property by Aboriginal attacks on settlers. The "outrages" committed against Aborigines by absconding convicts, isolated convict stockkeepers in the interior, and sealers in "remote" parts of the coast excited "the strongest feelings of hatred and revenge," and Aborigines waged numerous incursions against white settlers. ⁵⁹ Arthur was torn by considerations of "justice" to the Aborigines and his duty to protect the settlers. Having failed to conciliate the Aborigines, Arthur proclaimed martial law, hoping to drive Aborigines away from the settled districts for their own protection as well as that of the settlers.
31

      In 1829 Arthur placed as many military parties in the interior as he could spare and detached small parties to protect the more remote settlers. ⁶⁰ The field police and six parties of five well-behaved convicts under constables of "respectable character," all under the control of the wealthy settler Thomas Anstey, conducted "more active operations" to expel or capture Aborigines. These roving parties were kept "continually on the move" in the most threatened districts and killed many Aborigines. In 1830 soldiers, settlers, and convicts traversed the island (the so-called Black Line) in an attempt to confine the estimated three hundred remaining Aborigines to the Tasman Peninsula. Despite capturing only two Aborigines and killing two others, Arthur's efforts won the admiration of most landholders and proprietors. ⁶¹ Physical force was followed by George Augustus Robinson's policy of conciliation, which resulted in the transfer of Aborigines to Flinders Island northeast of Van Diemen's Land. ⁶² Thereafter the colonists rested "securely on the estates, without fear of being murdered, or their property destroyed."
32

      After introducing "a more coercive system" of disciplining convicts and dealing with bushrangers, in early 1828 Arthur devoted more attention to general police arrangements, believing that on the efficiency of the police hinged "the effect of Transportation." ⁶³ Arthur aimed to make the police "infinitely more effective" without adding to policing costs. They would become a "powerful engine" to discipline convicts by ensuring "the most minute attention and incessant watchfulness of the conduct of every convict after his arrival in Van Diemen's Land." They would especially keep "a steady surveillance" over the expirees and "the lower order of settlers." ⁶⁴ The expirees were "chiefly pick-pockets and other London vagrants," drunks "beyond redemption," who had been more corrupted than reformed by a lifetime of punishment in England and who became free men at the end of their seven-year sentences in Van Diemen's Land. ⁶⁵
33

      Under the new system, the chief police magistrate, based in Hobart Town, would head the police. ⁶⁶ Nine police districts would be headed by a police magistrate, each with an annual salary of £350, and be divided into divisions as appropriate. The magistrates sent weekly reports to the chief police magistrate sitting at Hobart Town, who in turn sent a weekly summary to Arthur. ⁶⁷ Arthur periodically issued instructions, aiming by this system to ensure that magistrates were not too lax or too severe and maintained control of their police forces. He thus instituted a centrally directed system of policing, and magistrates deviated from his instructions at their peril. ⁶⁸ Arthur's centralized management irritated some independent magistrates. Constables were appointed, dismissed, or transferred without reference to these officials, who thus felt that they were "mere tools" in the hands of Arthur's henchman, the chief police magistrate. When hearing a case, their "whole thoughts were necessarily directed to know what Colonel Arthur or the chief police magistrate, would think of it; not to what was the just sentence." ⁶⁹
34

      A chief constable, always a free arrival, would be appointed to superintend the police in each district and would live near the police magistrate, to whom he would report. Each division was not to be more than five miles from the chief constable's residence. Division constables, who were usually free arrivals, supervised convict policemen in remote districts. The number of field police and petty constables, appointed from the convict population, varied with the needs of the district. They were paid ninepence per diem instead of rations, sixpence per diem as salary, and were given bedding and slop clothing. ⁷⁰
35

      More important than salary was the opportunity provided by police service to gain freedom from convict sentence. After three years, any convict policeman receiving "a certificate of good conduct" from his police magistrate would earn a ticket of leave. ⁷¹ If he remained a policeman for another three years and received another certificate of good conduct, he became entitled to a conditional pardon, although some additional conditions might be imposed. Another three years with good conduct would earn "the ultimate reward of a Free Pardon." Arthur perhaps relied too heavily on the desperation of convict policemen to secure their freedom. As we will see, these low-paid men were tempted by bribes to turn a blind eye to illegalities or to use their powers to arrest innocent or defenseless colonists, thus gaining their indulgences by unscrupulous means.
36

      As for the free men appointed policemen, the rates of pay varied according to the importance of a district. ⁷² In Hobart Town the chief constable was paid £182 per annum, in Launceston £100, and in other districts £75 or £50. District constables, who were at first appointed only to the two main towns, received a minimum of £50 rising to £75. A division constable received £25 and a petty constable £20. Arthur also appointed clerks to help police magistrates with paper work, thus allowing them to spend more time supervising the police. The existing police cost, including rations, clothing, and salaries, was £12,605 19s. 4d., but his new scheme would only require an extra £311 8s. 2d. The Legislative Council approved the changes, but thought the salaries "the lowest which can be allowed" and doubted that many "competent" men would be attracted to police work. After 1828 the pay and conditions of policemen came under scrutiny. But attempts to increase pay and lessen the temptation to corruption were undermined by Colonial Office directions to reduce convict expenditure.
37

Pay and Conditions

For all their power and responsibility, the remuneration of convict constables was hardly excessive and was thought by many to be the source of their corrupt practices. Taking into account rations, bedding, clothing, and a salary, the total cost of a petty constable was £36 9s. 6d. per annum. ⁷³ A committee of senior public servants, cautioning against reducing this sum unless the term required to earn an indulgence was lessened, thought that policemen should receive only monetary payments and that quarterly payments should be abolished. They recommended that policemen be paid two shillings daily in a monthly advance, which would prevent them incurring debts and remove the "temptations" associated with receiving "a comparatively large disposable sum" every three months, namely wasting their pay on drinking and gambling instead of paying their creditors. Arthur agreed to increase police pay to two shillings daily from 1 January 1830. ⁷⁴
38

      Regularly enjoined by the Colonial Office to reduce administrative costs, in March 1832 Arthur asked the Chief Police Magistrate Matthew Forster to investigate the possibility of reducing police pay by threepence per diem. ⁷⁵ Pointing out that the pay was barely adequate as it was, three of the five magistrates whose opinion Forster sought counseled against any reduction because of the "unusual personal expenses" the police financed from their own pockets, the importance of their duties, the difficulty of keeping "trustworthy good" men in the police after they received their ticket of leave or pardon, and the increasing cost of "the necessary articles of life." Despite this advice, Forster told Arthur that the proposed reduction would not disadvantage the police. Their pay was therefore reduced to 1s. 9d. per diem.
39

      Critics thought the change would exacerbate the practice of "bribery and corruption." ⁷⁶ Estimating the weekly cost of food at seven shillings, of lodging at three shillings, and of washing clothes at one shilling, the Launceston Advertiser claimed this left a constable £5 17s. a year, but clothing alone might cost nearly seven pounds. ⁷⁷ The deficit and other expenses could only be made good by receiving bribes, conjuring up false or vexatious informations, conniving with thieves, or stealing themselves. Believing that no "honest" man could live on a constable's salary, the Advertiser urged that the police be "sufficiently paid, in order to prevent the abuse of the power which they are entrusted to wield." Even in New South Wales where, in 1835, the Sydney police were paid 3s. 9d. per day and the rural police received 2s. 9d., the pay was considered too low and an incentive to corrupt practices. ⁷⁸ Whether policemen acted with propriety depended on the quality of the men appointed to the police, but, as the next section demonstrates, they were generally not of high quality and the low pay was a disincentive to join.
40

Appointing Constables

As was the case in New South Wales, suitable men were hard to find and most of Arthur's police were convicts under sentence. ⁷⁹ According to a committee of senior public servants appointed in 1829 to enquire into the cost of the police, the convict police were "influenced by the two most powerful motives of fear of punishment and hope of reward" in gaining their liberation. ⁸⁰ Their appointment destroyed "the feeling of Convict fraternity" in committing and concealing crime, and created a feeling of "common distrust and suspicion of treachery." But this should not be taken to imply that policemen were always appointed from convicts who had spent some time in the colony and gained a knowledge of their colleagues' characters. A number were appointed directly from the convict ships. The surgeon superintendent recorded everything that occurred on the ship, especially the behavior of convicts, to add to the previous details about their crimes and character. ⁸¹ On the arrival of a ship, government departments requiring men applied first to Arthur and later to the assignment board, which he established in 1832. At least some men, who were thought to have gained a good knowledge of their companions, were selected from each ship to be policemen.
41

      In 1831 Josiah Spode admitted that the system of appointing convicts as constables "immediately on arrival" on convict ships, begun when he was assistant police magistrate in 1828, had defects. ⁸² He found great difficulty in persuading assigned convict servants to volunteer for police work, and their masters would not recommend them without getting "efficient farming servants" in return. The shortage of recruits also stemmed from the increased demand for convict labor by new settlers and the reduced number of "useful" convicts sent to Van Diemen's Land since 1828. On reflection, Spode thought that the system of appointments direct from convict ships was "anything but a good one." Originally he intended to appoint as policemen convicts with "extremely good character either from home, or by the recommendation of the Surgeon Superintendent." But he estimated that five-sixths of the convicts with the desired character were either mechanics needed for public works or physically incapable of performing police work. Consequently, policing was in the hands of "a set of unworthy fellows which counteracts in a great degree the excellent Police arrangements laid down." Despite the defects, Arthur's evidence to the British Molesworth Committee on Transportation indicated that the practice of appointing policemen directly from the convict ships continued until his departure. ⁸³
42

      Arthur defended the appointment of convicts. He claimed that the police were "always the best convicts; men who are sent out with the best characters, active and intelligent." ⁸⁴ But he conceded that many thought to be "good characters" had shown themselves "very bad ones" and that, when faced with pressure to fill vacancies, he appointed "characters who ought on no other account to have been admitted." Generally, he felt the convict constable system was "a good one" because, with a chance of getting a ticket of leave or emancipation, "they have all very strong inducement to give information" and "to do their duty in a very watchful and careful manner." He admitted that there had been some false charges, but "I would not say to such an extent as might be supposed from such a class of persons." Of course, not all false charges were exposed in court, but Arthur here indicates that he expected a certain number of false charges in return for a high level of surveillance.
43

      For convicts, police work held certain attractions. Although not "very well paid," they obtained "a great deal of freedom" and "a great deal of authority." ⁸⁵ But far too many policemen abused their power. Colonists in the major towns regularly complained that convict constables ("the offal of British depravity") could not be trusted with legal powers to ride "rough-shod over the liberties and rights of free British subjects" and justified their complaints by reference to English practice. ⁸⁶ One colonist pointed out that the office of constable was an old and honorable one, and a constable should perform his duties honestly "without malice, hatred, affection, or partiality" and "with utility to the public, whose sworn servant he is." ⁸⁷ Convict constables, however, did not serve the public; they served the convict system while lining their own pockets. Another colonist asserted that in England criminals were not accepted as "competent witnesses" and argued that it was therefore wrong to rely on convict constables in Van Diemen's Land. ⁸⁸ Their appointment, thundered the True Colonist, destroyed "the bonds of society by removing the distinction between crime and virtue" and "elevating the convicted criminal above the unoffending citizen." ⁸⁹ In other words, to send a thief to catch a thief might be a sensible practice in some cases, but the thieves had to be more carefully selected and closely supervised than they were in Van Diemen's Land. ⁹⁰ This criticism was true up to a point, but it ignored the number of dismissals of convict policemen, which showed that Arthur's control of the police was strict, as well as demonstrating "the unreliable nature of many of the personnel of that service." ⁹¹
44

      As Table 1 shows, 41 percent of convicts, whose appointments as policemen between 1828 and 1836 can be verified in the Hobart Town Gazette, were dismissed, while 25 percent of free settlers appointed policemen were dismissed. Table 2 shows that between 1828 and 1831 about 40 percent of dismissed convict policemen were removed for drink-related offenses and another 34 percent for misconduct of various kinds. After Forster, who had served in the military in Ireland, was appointed chief police magistrate in 1832, a more rigid discipline was introduced and policemen were expected to adhere more closely to orders and the law. Between 1832 and 1835 about 40 percent of convict policemen and 40 percent of free policemen were dismissed for breaches of duty. Drink-related offenses ended in the dismissal of 23.7 percent of convict policemen and 43.4 percent of free policemen. Arthur was more likely to dismiss policemen for behavior that weakened convict discipline and control than actions that infringed the liberties of colonists.

45

      The criticisms of the police in the press implied that no free men were appointed as policemen, but this was not so. Table 1 shows that free settlers comprised about 34 percent of all police appointments. ⁹² With few exceptions, all positions from district constable to chief constable were filled by men who had arrived free in the colony. ⁹³ Around 1833 or 1834 Arthur appointed a number of Chelsea out-pensioners and free emigrants as petty constables, but they "proved worse than the men we had." ⁹⁴ The pensioners were "almost invariably addicted to drunkenness" and the free immigrants, being "a low class of persons, very," were "not particularly well selected."
46

      It appeared that free men saw policing as a last resort and resigned if better prospects emerged or if they were reprimanded. ⁹⁵ Table 1 indicates that 41 percent of free settlers appointed policemen resigned, compared with only 17 percent of convicts, most of whom had earned a ticket of leave or pardon. According to the Colonial Times, suitable free men either did not seek appointment or found the duties they were required to perform distasteful. ⁹⁶ They would not "stoop" to commit corrupt practices to get fines for convictions. Free men were not favored by Arthur because they did not need tickets of leave or free pardons and therefore were not as easily controlled as convicts. Free men would be attracted, suggested the Colonial Times, if police pay was increased by reducing the number of constables. But reducing police numbers would not have been a popular move. The number of convicts coming to Van Diemen's Land and receiving their freedom increased during Arthur's reign, prompting demands from colonists, especially in newly settled districts, for more police protection.

47

Augmenting Police Strength and Powers

Arthur's police numbered 254 in August 1828, increasing to 346 in December 1833 and 453 in April 1835. ⁹⁷ In 1835 the population has been estimated at 40,172, giving a ratio of one policeman for every 88.7 people; in Sydney and the settled districts the ratio in 1836 was 1 policeman for every 133 people. ⁹⁸ In rural England the ratio was not more than 1 to every 1000 people. The ratio in Van Diemen's Land was thus not only much more than the colonists had been used to in England but was also even higher than in the heavily policed society of New South Wales. This meant that convicts and colonists were always under the surveillance of the police and made collision with them difficult to avoid, especially in the towns. The police were more concerned to enforce order than protect liberty and were generally supported by the magistrates. The police could use their discretionary powers to harass and arbitrarily arrest free citizens, who were required to buy their freedom with bribes or other favors. On the other hand, if properly supervised, the police were a protection against property crime and violence, and many colonists welcomed their protection.
48

      Arthur was always willing to protect the settlers from crime and was susceptible to arguments for more police if funding allowed. But Colonial Office directions to limit spending acted as a barrier to extending police protection in response to the calls of colonists. In September 1835 Forster pointed out the urgency of appointing an assistant police magistrate at Morven near Launceston where "a great many expirees" had settled because of the absence of police. ⁹⁹ In England from the second half of the eighteenth century dissatisfaction with measures against criminals prompted the propertied class to form associations for the prosecution of felonies, which attempted to track down criminals, sometimes to arrange patrols to prevent crime, and to share the cost of prosecution. ¹⁰⁰ After repeated calls for police protection, the inhabitants of Morven and Breadalbane decided to follow the example set in England and, with land and stockholders in other districts, formed an Association for the Suppression of Felonies in October 1835. ¹⁰¹ How successful this association was is not clear, but its existence indicates that colonists saw Arthur's police as efficient protectors of their property and took direct action only after this protection was not forthcoming.
49

      Settlers in the interior without police protection had good cause for complaint, but in 1836 virtually the whole colony was in an uproar after the British treasury decided that police costs should be funded from local revenue. ¹⁰² Arthur knew that this would be unpopular and had postponed implementing the Colonial Office's instructions for two years by seeking a reconsideration of the decision. Six members of the Legislative Council protested that the large costs of the police and jails stemmed from the presence of British convicts and should be paid by the British government. ¹⁰³ The colonists had already paid £14,464 17s. 6d. for the judicial establishments and for the food and clothing of more than 7,000 convicts. With a mere 12,000 free adults, the economy could not afford an impost of £24,283 1s. 9d. The British government dismissed such arguments and adhered to its decision.
50

      In addition to strengthening police numbers, Arthur was amenable to increasing their powers, even where this might infringe individual liberties. He argued that the demands of convict discipline left him no choice. For instance, he attempted to stop the increasing seizure of vessels by convicts. ¹⁰⁴ He strengthened the coastal police, empowered them to stop all boats and ships suspected of hiding convicts, restricted the movement of small crafts on the rivers, and required all owners of vessels to keep them under "proper surveillance." The most contentious measure was section 61 of the Police Act, which enabled constables to arrest between 9 p.m. and sunrise any sailor found in a pub or on the street without a pass whom they suspected of being a convict in disguise. ¹⁰⁵ The Australian Courts Act of 1828 stated that English statute law was operative in Van Diemen's Land and empowered the Supreme Court judges to protest that a particular section or sections were repugnant to English law. Reflecting a widely held opinion, the judges invoked their power of judicial review and held section 61 to be repugnant to the laws of England because it deprived a free man of his liberty without good reason.
51

      After prolonged delay, the English Crown Law Officers concluded that the governor with the advice of his Legislative Council could pass such a section if the circumstances of the colony necessitated it. ¹⁰⁶ Lord Glenelg mildly rebuked Arthur for allowing conflict with the judges to arise, as they were the acknowledged local experts on legal and constitutional matters. Glenelg doubted that the evil demanded such an "extreme remedy" and thought conflict could have been avoided by inserting a preamble explaining the need for the section. Arthur wanted to avoid a preamble indicating that he had "to place any class of free subjects under a particular restraint," as this would have given ammunition to the nascent anti-transportation party. After Arthur declined to repeal the section, Glenelg let the matter drop, praising Arthur's "habitual foresight and circumspection." Some sailors were arrested under section 61, which exacerbated tensions between Arthur and the free population in the ports of Hobart Town and Launceston. ¹⁰⁷
52

      The Police Act contained seven other sections dealing with police powers over disorderly or criminal conduct. ¹⁰⁸ These included arresting convicts out after 8 p.m. without a pass, drunk and disorderly persons, and persons acting indecently. These sections gave constables ample discretionary power to harass, if not arrest, free citizens. Masters of vessels could request the police to bring disorderly persons ashore. Anyone who assaulted a policeman or publicans who harbored a policeman on duty were liable for a fine. The Police Act said nothing about appointing or disciplining police, about their pay and conditions, about funding police forces, or under whose authority they acted. Arthur had control of these matters and did not need to seek legal authority for their implementation or to give the Legislative Council an opportunity to debate such issues. Some powers in the Police Act benefited the colonists. At this time municipal government was not contemplated, so most of the act's seventy-two sections were designed to improve the health, amenity, and convenience of residents in Hobart Town and Launceston. These included prohibitions against obstructing paths, damaging buildings, polluting streams, disposing of rubbish and nightsoil, and causing nuisances. The police cared little for the comfort and convenience of town residents and merely enforced those provisions of the Police Act and other legislation that brought them part of the fines.
53

      Arthur's enemies expressed their distaste for his statutes by comparing them to the actions of despotic foreign governments. Thus the Colonial Times referred to "the Algerine Police Act—the Turkish Dog Act" and the "Persian" Sunday trading clauses, while the hated Forster was called the "Aga Khan" and the police "Janissaries," the Turkish footguards "formed originally of renegade prisoners." ¹⁰⁹ The next section shows how police enforcement of these statutes antagonized colonists by threatening their liberty and undermined support for Arthur's police system.
54

Corrupt Practices

In 1829 Arthur noted that, although his police system had been introduced "chiefly with the view of controlling" convicts, it also "necessarily operates upon the Community generally" and he was "most vigilant" in keeping the department, "as far as possible, free from imputations." ¹¹⁰ He did this by correcting any abuses that came to his attention, as illustrated by the examples of three London policemen, who had been appointed in 1826 to set an example to the local constables and to report on their conduct. ¹¹¹ Their performance "dissatisfied" Arthur: instead of "raising the character of our Police, they have rather degraded it." ¹¹² Rumored to owe money, Joseph Hewitt appropriated for his own use property placed in his charge as a policeman and received money from a convict who had been charged with an offense. Arthur dismissed him. Richard Hinksman had been reprimanded for "habitual falsehood and insubordination," but he continued to act improperly, "abandoned" his police work, was absent without leave, and published a newspaper advertisement critical of the chief police magistrate. He was also dismissed. ¹¹³
55

      To minimize "imputations" against his force, Arthur periodically issued instructions on the kind of behavior to avoid. For example "no fees, emoluments or perquisites, even of the most trifling kind" could be accepted unless "expressly recognized by law or sanctioned under authority." ¹¹⁴ Official instructions were no guarantee of good conduct, but they had a symbolic force in indicating that policemen must not abuse their powers and in gaining public acceptance of the police. In 1836 Forster drafted standing orders regulating the conduct of the police. These were based on those of the London Metropolitan Police and modified to incorporate colonial legislation. ¹¹⁵ By giving each constable a copy of the standing orders, Forster hoped to establish a uniform system of conduct in every district and restore confidence in the police. These regulations advised constables not to make any unnecessary arrests, not to use unnecessary violence, and to use their powers with discretion. ¹¹⁶
56

      This was too little too late. The police often used their discretion unwisely and allegations of corruption had been regularly leveled at the police since 1828. Much corruption arose from the enactment of numerous statutes designed to raise money for the treasury by licensing various trades and containing either fees or penalties for noncompliance with their provisions. ¹¹⁷ Offering rewards, pardons, and part of the fines to informers for information on offenders had been an established practice in England since at least the seventeenth century. ¹¹⁸ Although this practice encouraged more people to use the legal system, it also acted as an inducement to malicious prosecutions. ¹¹⁹ In Van Diemen's Land informers could gain half of the penalties for noncompliance, and for the police these laws were "like so many gifts from Jupiter to Pandora." ¹²⁰ Required to supervise the various licensed trades, the police made the most of their opportunity to supplement their meager incomes by exploiting and stretching the laws to their limit or by entrapping colonists in order to gain fines and rewards. Since this involved arresting normally law-abiding citizens for petty offenses, it undermined respect for the law.
57

      The practice of striving for fines was prevalent throughout the ranks. The chief constable of Bothwell allegedly prosecuted "the most trifling and inadvertent circumstance that can be construed into a breach" of the statutes, and his constables preferred to seek fines rather than chase sheepstealers and Aborigines. ¹²¹ Arthur directed the assistant police magistrate, Captain Wentworth, to prevent constables from instigating "vexatious proceedings which may be productive of gain to themselves though altogether at variance with the spirit and intention of the Law, of which they avail themselves of the letter." Arthur also did not condone chief district constables laying informations in their own name and receiving part of the fine when the actual informer was a petty constable, who was used as a witness. ¹²² This practice, he thought, would deter petty constables from laying informations and result in "very few convictions." Believing that constables should be rewarded for their good work, Arthur directed that the actual informers be granted their share of the fine.
58

      The police exploited any statute allocating fines to an informer, but some statutes, such as the Dog, Impounding, and Licensing Acts, were particularly lucrative and their vexatious enforcement intensely annoyed citizens. ¹²³ The Dog Act aimed to halt further increases in the numbers of dogs, which roamed the colony ravaging sheep and annoying town residents. ¹²⁴ Owners who did not pay a duty on all dogs, failed to describe their dogs correctly, or failed to control their dogs, could be heavily fined up to £25, with a moiety of fines going to informers. In 1831 Captain Clark of Bothwell claimed a constable provoked a dog to break its chain, laid an information against the owner for letting his dog off the chain, and secured part of the fine. ¹²⁵ A number of landed proprietors, stockholders, and inhabitants of Bothwell petitioned for the repeal of the Dog Act because of its misuse by constables. Colonial Secretary Burnett responded by directing the Bothwell police magistrate to take "strong measures" against "improper and vexatious" proceedings. ¹²⁶
59

      In Hobart Town constables allegedly walked down the street, each with a bitch on a lead and a number of ropes with nooses, which they threw around the neck of any dogs that stopped to make acquaintance with the bitches. ¹²⁷ After thirty minutes, the constables had caught thirteen dogs. Their owners preferred to pay the constables £1 or £2 rather than appear in court, where they could not prove their dogs had been "seduced" by the policemen's bitches. ¹²⁸ Constables also enforced the provision that rewarded them with five shillings for every dog destroyed for indiscriminately killing valuable sheep and cattle dogs. ¹²⁹ Discovering that a few days elapsed between the expiry of a dog license and the recording of payment for a new one, constables charged owners for holding their dogs without a license. ¹³⁰ Some policemen, such as Constable Endger, known as "the dog seizing constable," was renowned for his detailed knowledge of the laws benefiting informers. ¹³¹
60

      The Impounding Act of 1830 also proved a great temptation for constables and others to rob under "the cloak of law." ¹³² The legislation was designed to stop cattle and sheep from wandering aimlessly in heavily populated parts of towns and country areas where they destroyed crops, were easy prey for thieves, and provided food for runaways, thus undermining convict discipline. In practice, the police sought out stock left unattended in any location as the penalty for seizing cattle was 5s. each and for sheep 2s. each. In Launceston the police operated as follows. One on-duty policeman arranged with an off-duty colleague to drive cattle to a prearranged destination. ¹³³ The duty policeman reported the straying cattle to his district constable and drove them to a pound, making a tidy sum. In some areas, such as Westbury, the poundkeeper was the district constable and stock was usually impounded by his petty constables. In 1835 one Westbury stockowner lost £50 in three weeks from the "legalized plunder" of impounding. ¹³⁴ To recover their losses, stockowners increased the price of stock sold to butchers, who in turn increased the price of meat to consumers. Neither this unfortunate consequence nor the rare conviction for illegal impounding deterred policemen from exploiting the law. ¹³⁵
61

      Desirous of reducing drunkenness, in 1828 Arthur brought liquor wholesaling and retailing under tighter regulation by, for example, the Sale of Liquors by Retail and Promoting Good Order in Public Houses Act and the Licensing of Wholesale Dealers in Wine and Spirits Act. ¹³⁶ Exploiting Arthur's desire to reduce drunkenness, the constables set out to entrap publicans for selling spirits on Sundays by sending one of their number to order a drink. ¹³⁷ Two constables, Jonas Lancashire and Edward Visick, were allegedly employed by a district constable, who owned a pub under an assumed name, to visit unlicensed drinking holes and manufacture cases against the owners. ¹³⁸ The constables were paid from the proceeds of the fines. In Hobart Town some of the worst pubs allegedly had policemen on their payrolls, and thus escaped fines and convictions, while other pubs were continually harassed on one pretext or another, usually for harboring absconders. ¹³⁹ Yet other constables were paid hush money by the keepers of sly or illicit grog shops. ¹⁴⁰
62

      The Police Act of 1833 gave constables a moiety of the fines for convictions for drunkenness, and thus encouraged them to make more arrests than strictly necessary for public order. ¹⁴¹ While the police supplemented their pay, the government did well too, deriving, somewhat hypocritically given Arthur's temperance views, an estimated two-thirds of total revenue from liquor licenses, duties on spirits and tobacco, and fines for drunkenness and other statutory breaches. ¹⁴² The wholesale wine and spirit merchant J. W. Bell represented many in the liquor trade in viewing informers with "disgust and abhorrence," criticizing magistrates for assisting their "dirty and degraded calling" and making no enquiry into the substance of their allegations. ¹⁴³
63

      Some commentators saw a role for informers. The Colonial Times thought informers who sought to stop crime or "flagrant and wilful disorderly conduct" or promote "the public good" were "a public benefit." ¹⁴⁴ But it also thought that informers who took advantage of "a mere legal quibble" for "filthy lucre" were a danger to society and quoted the law of evidence that no man's testimony should be taken or received in a case where he was an interested party. ¹⁴⁵ Apart from increasing the pay of constables, imposing nominal fines, giving magistrates discretion over the amount the informer should receive, and giving all fines and penalties to the Crown were suggested as ways of reducing frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. ¹⁴⁶ But because gaining part of a fine was an inducement to vigilant police work, none of these options were taken up by the government, and colonists remained prey to informers whether constables or others.
64

      Policemen also generated revenue by seeking bribes or unofficial fees. It was rumored that constables patrolling the Launceston wharves levied a small charge on merchants for packages left unattended and for the use of public scales. ¹⁴⁷ In Launceston some alleged that an accused could be released from the watchhouse without appearing before a magistrate by tipping a constable £3. ¹⁴⁸ In Hobart Town, Constable Rickie arrested a ticket-of-leave man in a pub just after 8 p.m. and on the way to the watchhouse accepted £1 to let him go. ¹⁴⁹ It was also sometimes alleged that convict police were responsible for midnight robberies. ¹⁵⁰ Two convict constables at Campbell Town allegedly did no police work, but ran a butcher shop and lived on government land next to the public pound, using the yard for their stock rent free. ¹⁵¹ It seems hard to believe police magistrates would tolerate such practices, but they, too, were also accused of dubious acts. One was said to use his police to deliver parcels to friends, chop his wood, dig his garden, and clean and exercise his horse. ¹⁵² Settlers in the district did not complain lest the magistrate prevent them from obtaining assigned servants and injure them in other ways. This was an effective way of stifling complaints from the interior.
65

      Rewards or indulgences offered for the arrest of criminals and absconders also stimulated corrupt practices. In August 1834 the improbably named Constable Howell Howell of Bothwell was consigned to Port Arthur for three years imprisonment with hard labor for inducing a convict to abscond from a road party so he could obtain the reward for his arrest. ¹⁵³ When a felony was committed, alleged the Colonial Times, the convict constables endeavored "to get up a case to convict some one or other," who could plausibly be accused of the crime. ¹⁵⁴ Perhaps the most blatant example involved the murder of Captain William Sergeantson at Campbell Town. Constable Drinkwater tried to pin the murder on an innocent free man named Taylor and obtain a free pardon for himself, but was undone when an accomplice revealed his plan to a magistrate. ¹⁵⁵ Drinkwater was sentenced to two years hard labor at Port Arthur, which the Cornwall Chronicle thought inadequate for "conspiring against the life of a free British subject." ¹⁵⁶
66

      Charges of false or unnecessary arrest were regularly made by free citizens. In 1835 a respectable tradesman called Augustus Kramer was accused by two constables of exposing himself as two women were passing, saying "can you do anything with this?" ¹⁵⁷ As the women and other free witnesses testified that neither Kramer nor his companions spoke to them or exposed themselves, the case was dismissed. The memoirist James George remembered his arrest when a young boy for stopping to watch a crowd surround a New Zealander and not moving on when directed by a constable. ¹⁵⁸ George was knocked down, hit with a baton, handcuffed when he struggled, dragged to the watchhouse, and locked up for the night. He was convicted of helping to create a riot and bound over for future good behavior. On the day Arthur left the colony, George, now a young master baker, joined the crowds celebrating on the streets, was arrested, and charged with striking a policeman. ¹⁵⁹ Although he denied committing the act, George did not specifically deny the policeman's claim that he had called out "pigs, pigs, pigs," a derogatory term for a policeman used since 1811. ¹⁶⁰ George, who was fined 40 shillings, saw constables as "a fearful lot of wretches," keen to arrest anyone for money, promotion, or from spite, especially at night.
67

      The night police in Hobart Town and Launceston deserved George's appellation and were often cited for brutal behavior. In April 1834 two respectable businessmen, both named John Brown, saw a constable subdue a drunken convict by excessively beating him over the head with his staff. ¹⁶¹ Seeing the convict covered in blood, the Browns separated him from the constable and returned him to his master's house. The constable charged the Browns with "rescuing a prisoner from the custody of a constable." But after the constable gave contradictory evidence, the case was dismissed, with the magistrate lamenting the repeated failure of the public to assist the police. The Browns' lawyer responded that constables were "too fond of what is technically called club law" and alienated the public.
68

      Another example of police brutality, combined with an invasion of privacy, occurred in Launceston in November 1834. A band of constables burst in on a dinner held in the private room of a tavern and, when asked to leave, indiscriminately bludgeoned the male guests and injured the mistress of the tavern and two other females. ¹⁶² Believing the constables' charge that they were assaulted in the execution of their duty, the magistrate fined two of the male diners £5 each. According to the Cornwall Chronicle, respectable citizens willingly assisted the police in exercising their "lawful duty" but all reprobated "an undue exercise of authority" and found it increasingly difficult to tolerate "shameful acts of oppression" by the felon police. ¹⁶³
69

      Equally objectionable was to subject individuals of "all ranks, high and low, the knowingly culpable and the unintentionally negligent, to the same painful ordeal of a police summons, and a humiliating interrogation from the magistrate." ¹⁶⁴