Sir George Arthur and his police

Arthur made a number of changes. His first task was to suppress bush-ranging and win the confidence of settlers. In 1826, he selected a number of convicts 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 bush-ranging and succeeded in making the settlers of the interior feel more secure.[1] 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.[2]

Once bush-ranging been contained, the field police were called on to deal with the threats posed by Aboriginal attacks on settlers.[3] The ‘outrages’ committed against Aborigines by absconding convicts, isolated convict stock keepers in the interior and sealers in ‘remote’ parts of the coast excited ‘the strongest feelings of hatred and revenge’ and Aborigines waged guerrilla war against white settlers.[4] Arthur was torn between his belief in ‘justice’ for 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.[5] 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.[6] The field police and six parties of five well-behaved convicts under constables of ‘respectable character,’ under the control of Thomas Anstey a wealthy settler, conducted more active operations to expel or capture Aborigines.[7] 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.[8] Physical force was followed by George Augustus Robinson’s policy of conciliation leading to the transfer of Aborigines to Flinders Island northeast of VDL.[9] By August 1834, the Aboriginal problem, as the colonists saw it, had been settled, since all but a handful of natives had been removed from the mainland to the Flinders settlement.

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.’[10] Arthur aimed to make the police ‘infinitely more effective’ without increasing costs by establishing a ‘powerful engine’ to discipline convicts 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.’[11] 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 VDL.[12]

Under the new system, the chief police magistrate, based in Hobart Town headed the police.[13] Nine police districts were headed by a police magistrate, each with an annual salary of £350, and divided into divisions as appropriate. Magistrates sent weekly reports to the chief police magistrate sitting at Hobart Town, who in turn sent a weekly summary to Arthur.[14] Arthur periodically issued instructions 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.[15] Arthur’s centralised management irritated some independent magistrates. Constables were appointed, dismissed or transferred without reference to these officials, who often felt that they were ciphers 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.’[16] A chief constable, always a free arrival, was appointed to superintend the police in each district and lived 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 also 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 nine-pence per day instead of rations, sixpence per day as salary and were given bedding and clothing.[17]

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.[18] 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 a free pardon. Arthur perhaps relied too heavily on the desperation of convict policemen to secure their freedom. However, these low-paid men were tempted by bribes to turn a blind eye to illegalities or to use their powers to arrest innocent or defenceless colonists increasing their wages by unscrupulous means.

Hobart in 1825

For free men appointed policemen, the rates of pay varied according to the importance of a district.[19] 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 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 and attempts to increase pay and lessen the impact of corruption were undermined by Colonial Office directions to reduce convict expenditure.

For all their power and responsibility, the pay of convict constables was hardly excessive and was thought by many to be the cause 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.[20] 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. This 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.[21]

Regularly directed by the Colonial Office to reduce administrative costs, in March 1832 Arthur asked the Chief Police Magistrate Matthew Forster[22] to investigate the possibility of reducing police pay by three-pence per day.[23] Pointing out that the pay was barely adequate as it was, three of the five magistrates whose opinion Forster sought counselled 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 and their pay was reduced to 1s 9d per day.

Critics thought the change would aggravate the practice of bribery and corruption.[24] 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.[25] The deficit and other expenses could only be made good by receiving bribes, conjuring up false information, conniving with thieves or stealing themselves. Believing that no ‘honest’ man could live on a constable’s salary, the Advertiser urged that the police should be ‘sufficiently paid, in order to prevent the abuse of the power which they are entrusted to wield.’ Even in NSW 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.[26] Whether policemen acted with propriety depended on the quality of the men appointed to the police, but they were generally not of high quality and low pay proved a disincentive to join.

---

[1] AOT GO 33/1, Arthur to Bathurst, 11 April 1826, Arthur to Huskisson, 21 April 1828; CO 280, Arthur to Murray, 25 May 1829, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. 367-371; ML: Arthur Papers, Vol. 5, letters from Arthur, Arthur to Wilberforce, 9 October 1828; Hobart Town Courier, 29 December 1827, 10 September 1831, letter by ‘A Constant Reader’; Colonial Times, 12 June 1829.

[2] Arthur to Huskisson, 1 May 1828, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 7, p. 303; O’Sullivan, John, Mounted Police of Victoria and Tasmania, (Rigby), 1980, p. 182.

[3] Windschuttle, Keith, The fabrication of Aboriginal history: Vol. 1, Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847, (Macleay Press), 2002 has generated a protracted and heated debate on the nature of the colonial attack on the Tasmanian Aborigines. See particularly, Moses, A. Dirk, ‘Moving the Genocide Debate Beyond the History Wars’, Australian Journal of Politics & History, Vol. 54, (2), (2008), pp. 248-270, Shipway, Jesse, ‘Modern by analogy: modernity, Shoah and the Tasmanian genocide’, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 7, (2), (2005), pp. 205-219, Reynolds, Henry, ‘Genocide in Tasmania’, in Moses, A. Dirk, (ed.), Genocide and settler society: frontier violence and stolen indigenous children in Australian history, (Berghahn), 2004), pp. 127-149, Grimshaw, Patricia, ‘The fabrication of a benign colonisation?: Keith Windschuttle on history’, Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 35, (2004), pp. 122-129 and Manne, Robert, (ed.), Whitewash: on Keith Windschuttle’s fabrication of Aboriginal history, (Black Inc. Agenda), 2003.

[4] ML: Arthur Papers, Vol. 5, Letters from Arthur, Arthur to Franklin, 29 October 1836; CO 280, Arthur to Murray, 15 April 1830, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 9, pp. 164-168; see also AOT Non State (NS) 1044/1 and Colonial Times, 29 September 1826; AOT GO 33/4, Arthur to Murray, 4 November 1828. Arthur’s Aboriginal policy has been fully analysed in ibid, Reynolds, Henry, Fate of a Free People and HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. xxxvi-xlv and HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 9, pp. xxi-liii for the context to the Black Line operation in 1830. See also, Ryan, L., The Tasmanian Aborigines, 2^nd ed., (Allen & Unwin), 1996, pp. 101-173.

[5] Connor, John, ‘British frontier warfare logistics and the ‘Black Line’, Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), 1830’, War in History, Vol. 9, (2), (2002), pp. 143-158.

[6] CO 280, Arthur to Murray, 12 September 1829, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. 610-624; AOT GO 33/5, Arthur to Murray, 28 April 1829, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. 334-336; ibid, Levy, M.C.I., Governor George Arthur, pp. 106-124.

[7] ‘Anstey, Thomas (1777-1851)’, ADB, Vol. 1, pp. 19-21.

[8] Tasmanian and Austral-Asiatic Review, 31 December 1830.

[9] Ibid, Reynolds, Henry, Fate of a Free People, chapter 6; Launceston Advertiser, 9 May 1832; see also, ‘Robinson, George Augustus (1791-1866)’, ADB, Vol. 2, pp. 385-387 and Plomley, N.J.B., (ed.), Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of G.A. Robinson 1829-1834, (Tasmanian Historical Research Association), 1966.

[10] AOT GO 33/3, Arthur to Huskisson, 21 April 1828; Arthur to Huskisson, 1 May 1828, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 7, p. 292.

[11] CO 280, Arthur to Hay, 24 November 1829 HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. 724-727; Hobart Town Gazette, 25 January 1833.

[12] Arthur to Goderich, 31 December 1827, HRA, Series III, Vol. 6, pp. 421-422; Report from the Select Committee on Transportation, Vol. 2, pp. 290, 311.

[13] AOT GO 33/3, memo by Arthur, 28 February 1828, minute by Arthur, 26 February 1828; CO 280, Arthur to Goderich, 27 February 1833, memo by Forster, 1 January 1833.

[14] Ibid, Arthur, George Defence of Transportation, in Reply to the Remarks of the Archbishop of Dublin in His Second Letter to Earl Grey, pp. 33-34; ibid, Forsyth, W.D., Governor Arthur’s Convict System, p. 57.

[15] Shaw, A.G.L., Sir George Arthur, Bart, 1784-1854, (Melbourne University Press), 1980, pp. 71-73.

[16] Ibid, Report from the Select Committee on Transportation, Vol. 3, pp. 116-17.

[17] AOT Colonial Secretary’s Office (CSO) 1/199/4743, minute by Arthur, 29 February 1828, minute by Arthur, 1 August 1828; AOT Executive Council (EC) 4/1, pp. 286-287, 9 April 1828

[18] AOT CSO 1/199/4743, minute by Arthur, 29 February 1828.

[19] AOT CSO 50/5 and 50/10.

[20] AOT CSO 1/60/1258, report by committee of senior public servants, 15 October 1829, Lyttelton to Burnett, 7 June 1830.

[21] AOT CSO 1/60/1258, report by committee of senior public servants, minute by Arthur, 1 December 1829; CO 280, Arthur to Hay, 24 November 1829, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. 724-727.

[22] Shaw, A.G.L., ‘Forster, Matthew (1796-1846)’, ADB, Vol. 1, pp. 404-405.

[23] AOT CSO 1/545/11870, Forster to Burnett, 30 March 1832, Police Magistrate, New Norfolk to Forster, 16 March 1832, Police Magistrate, Launceston, 21 March 1832; AOT EC 4/2, pp. 321-322, 2 April 1832.

[24] Launceston Advertiser, 18 April 1832; Launceston Independent, 28 September 1833.

[25] Launceston Advertiser, 9 May 1832.

[26] Ibid, Neal, David, The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony: Law and Power in Early New South Wales, p. 159.

Sir George Arthur and transportation

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.’[1] 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.’[2] This view antagonised many free settlers, especially in Hobart Town. They echoed their NSW counterparts by demanding a greater say in determining the colony’s future and the rights of freeborn Englishmen railing 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:

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.’[3]

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.’[4]

They were ‘not to be put off with the shadow of Liberty, after having once known the fullness of its enjoyments.’[5]

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.[6] In 1827, ‘the Gentry, Merchants, Landholders, Housekeepers, and other Free inhabitants of VDL’ petitioned the British Parliament for these two boons, which were ‘the pride and the birth-right’ and ‘the safeguard of every Briton.’[7] 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.’[8] Juries were ‘best calculated to protect man’s natural rights, and secure the pure administration of justice.’[9] 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.[10] A partially elected Legislative Council was not secured until 1850 and self-government until 1855.

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 NSW, lay magistrates had little say in police management and police control was not devolved but centralised.[11] The 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 offences that brought them part of a fine instead of pursuing thieves and were protected by the paid magistrates who supervised their duties.

Not unaware to their disadvantages or to criticisms of their methods, Arthur 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.[12] This paper subjects his police system, or ‘optical apparatus’ as one diarist called it, to close investigation and determines whether Arthur’s claims had validity.[13]

Hobart in 1823

Although Arthur 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 effective government.[14] Of particular concern was ‘a vast amount of crime amongst the Prisoners—Murders, constant Robberies, and other atrocious acts,’ perpetrated especially by bushrangers.[15] Given his ‘exceedingly limited’ military force, and his ‘inadequate means of punishing offences,’ Arthur was thankful that crime was not more widespread, 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.[16] 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’ and failed 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.[17]

Arthur sought to portray VDL ‘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 behaviour of all convicts.[18] He believed his ‘first great improvement’ in criminal matters was to appoint a number of stipendiary magistrates.[19] 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.[20] These measures improved the behaviour 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.

According to Arthur, no government department was ‘more practically defective’ than the police.[21] His predecessors had failed to attract free men and 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 clothing.[22] 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.’

---

[1] Korobacz, Victor, The Legislative Council of Van Diemen’s Land, 1825-1856: Some Aspects of the Development of a Colonial Legislature, master’s thesis, University of Tasmania, 1971, pp. 30, 53.

[2] Levy, M.C.I., Governor George Arthur: A Colonial Benevolent Despot, (Georgian House), 1953, p. 52.

[3] Colonial Times, 28 April, 26 May 1826.

[4] Colonial Times, 16 February 1827.

[5] Colonial Times, 2 March 1827.

[6] Ibid, Korobacz, Victor, The Legislative Council of Van Diemen’s Land, 1825-1856, p. 10.

[7] Colonial Times, 16 March 1827; ibid, Giblin, R.W., The Early History of Tasmania, Vol. 2, chapter 24.

[8] The Colonist, 15 July 1834. Trial by jury was the most important question decided during Pedder’s first years in office. The Act empowering the Crown to establish Supreme Courts in NSW and VDL (4 Geo. IV, c. 96, s. 6) provided that actions at law should be triable by a jury of twelve men if both parties concurred in an application to the presiding judge for such jury. In NSW, Chief Justice Francis Forbes construed s.19 of the Act to require that free men should be tried by juries of their fellows, but limited it to Courts of Quarter Sessions. In contrast, Pedder ruled that the Act had introduced trial by jury in the Supreme Court only and did not apply in inferior courts. The controversy that arose in 1825 in Hobart on this question branded Pedder as a member of the ‘government party’.

[9] Launceston Independent, 31 March 1832.

[10] See, West, John, The History of Tasmania, 2 Vols. (H. Dowling), 1852, reprinted, (Angus and Robertson), 1971, pp. 73-74, 81-83, 132-134; ibid, Castles, A.C., An Australian Legal History, pp. 273-275.

[11] Archives Office of Tasmania (AOT), Police Department (POL) 319/1, Forster to Assistant Police Magistrate, Great Swan Port, 19 September 1835; for the tensions between stipendiary and lay magistrates in New South Wales, see ibid, Neal David, The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony: Law and Power in Early New South Wales, pp. 115-140 and Golder, Hilary, High and Responsible Office: A History of the New South Wales Magistracy, (Sydney University Press), 1991, chapter 2.

[12] CO 280, Arthur to Goderich, 27 February 1833; ibid, Arthur, George, Observations Upon Secondary Punishments, p. 40.

[13] The words ‘optical apparatus’ were used by G.W.T.B. Boyes, University of Tasmania Archives, Royal Society collection 25/2(5), Boyes diary, 16 March 1836; see also, Chapman, P., (ed.), The Diaries and Letters of G.T.W.B, Boyes, Vol. 1, 1820-1832, (Oxford University Press), 1985; for a brief account of Arthur’s police, see Stephenson, Richard, ‘The Rise of Governor Arthur’s Police State’, Historical Records of Australia: A Documentary Periodical, number 1, (1990), pp. 11-15.

[14] AOT Governor’s Office (GO) 33/1, Arthur to Bathurst, 14 September 1825; AOT GO 33/3, Arthur to Huskisson, 21 April 1828, minute by Arthur, 26 February 1828; CO 280, Arthur to Murray, 25 May 1829, HRA, Resumed Series III, Vol. 8, pp. 367-371.

[15] AOT GO 33/1, Arthur to Bathurst, 3 July 1825; ibid, Levy, M.C.I., Governor George Arthur, pp. 90-96; Maxwell-Stewart, Hamish, ‘‘I Could Not Blame the Rangers...’: Tasmanian Bushranging, Convicts and Convict Management’, Tasmanian Historical Research Association Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 42, (1995), pp. 109-126.

[16] AOT GO 33/3, Arthur to Huskisson, 21 April 1828.

[17] Mitchell Library: (ML) Arthur Papers, Vol. 5, Letters from Arthur, Arthur to Franklin, 29 October 1836, emphasis in original.

[18] AOT GO 33/1, Arthur to Bathurst, 3 July 1825; CO 280, Arthur to Hay, 24 November 1829.

[19] ML: Arthur Papers, Vol. 5, Letters from Arthur, Arthur to Franklin, 29 October 1836.

[20] AOT GO 33/3, Arthur to Huskisson, 21 April 1828, minute by Arthur, 26 February 1828; ibid, West, John, The History of Tasmania, pp. 85-86.

[21] AOT GO 33/1, Arthur to Bathurst, 3 July 1825; for a description of the police in 1820, see Superintendent Humphrey’s evidence to the Bigge Commission, HRA, Series III, Vol. 3, pp. 270-289; see also Jackman, A.K., Development of Police Administration in Tasmania, 1804-1960, diploma of public administration thesis, University of Tasmania, 1966, pp. 1-46

[22] AOT GO 33/3, Arthur to Huskisson, 21 April 1828, minute by Arthur, 26 February 1828; Arthur to Bathurst, 9 June 1824, HRA, Series III, Vol. 4, p. 142; ibid, West, John, The History of Tasmania, p. 81.