In the theme of the previous post
Aug. 28th, 2011 07:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xenithPostscript from the previous story. This was printed in the Cornwall Chronicle following Reardon's confession.
As a proof, (if proofs are wanting) o- the admirable security we enjoy from - felon police, and the trust that can be reposed in the members of it, we mention the circumstance of two prisoners, w- were convicted at the late Sessions held in this Town, having escaped from the Colony, together with the constables who had them in charge, on their way over to Hobart Town. It is, we believe, pretty generrlly ascertained, that the whole party crossed the country, and were taken off the Island in the vicinity of Ringaroma Bay or Cape Portland, in a small cutter belonging to a relative of one of the prisoners. We do not wonder at, nor blame the escape of any prisoners--a good thing for the Colony if all the troublesome of them found their way out of it--but the circumstance we mention certainly affords another proof of the inefficiency of Colonel Arthur's prison discipline system--and the necessity for destroying it.
A few months later, Reardon is again in the news. From the Cornwall Chroncile, 30 April 1836,
SIGN OF IMPROVEMENT — In the Chronicle of the 2d instant, we brought before the public a case of abomination on the part of a convict constable, named Daniel Reardon, in receiving £5 from parties, when on his way to a Magistrate to procure warrants against them, for an alleged assault, said to be committed in his presence and, in which he refused to interfere, when called upon so to do. Last week, the Magistrate, Captain Forth--much to his credit, caused an enquiry into the matter, which led to the fellows dismissal from the Police, and to his being sentenced two years to Port Arthur. This Reardon is the man who confessed the diabolical attempt of his then companion—-Drinkwater—-to charge an innocent man with the murder of Captain Sergeantson-—who was sentenced for the atrocious crime to Port Arthur for two years ! Reardon, for receiving a bribe of £5, receives precisely a similar sentence. If his punishment is merited for receiving a bribe--and we consider it is--how shall we make up our minds to the justice of Drinkwater's sentence, for attempting the ignominious destruction of an innocent man ?
I went back to the 2nd of April and couldn't find that story, but this one is interesting too.
THE FELON POLICE.--On one of the days of the Races, five felon Janissaries, having nothing else to do, thought they might as well make up a case of drunkenness against a sailor, who, no doubt, they thought would tip the five shillings in the usual way. The sailor was, however, no sailor, but an assigned servant, so dressed. The man resisted to the utmost of his power ; he declared he had done nothing whatever, and to the watch-house he would not go. His resistance attracted a crowd, and the constables then began to make use of their battons in a very disgraceful manner, by striking the man on the head, and other parts of the body ; subsequently, the man was handcuffed, and dragged along the ground like a bullock, by these five respectable convict constables. Several gentlemen interfered, and considering the man an honest tar, said, the constables had no right to take the man up as he was not drunk.
At first the constables declared he was drunk, but finding proof likely to lie too strong to the contrary, they at last shifted their charge, and declared, that the man had been seen with his hands in the pockets of several persons on the course. This was enough ; the gentlemen ceased to interfere, saying, that if that was the case, he deserved to be punished. The man naturally declared his innocence, and said, what every body knows (even Dean Swift himself) to be as true as the Gospel, viz. : --that the rascally constables would swear a man's life away for five shillings. On further enquiry it was alleged, that the man had been seen picking the pockets of Mr. John Lord, but he living in Hobart Town, it was, no doubt, thought advisable to fix upon a countryman, and make it Mr. James Lord ; both these gentlemen have been asked what they know about the affair, and the question put was the first they ever heard of the business.
What the man was charged with before the " Aga," we know not, but we are perfectly convinced, that if he was accused either of felony, burglary, or treason, the gentlemen convicts who took him in charge, were ready to prove their case, if that could be done by swearing. One of these splendid specimens of prison discipline,--one of these peace officers, was, but a short time since, sent to a chain gang for his good behaviour as a Janissary : how he became released, matters not ? Our rulers consider felons just turned out of the chain gang, the very best peace officers that can be appointed ; indeed, they complain, that free men cannot be found to do their duty.
I shall stop looking now. I'm quite sure the early issues of the Chronicle (Launceston, 1835 to 1880) are full of such stories.
As a proof, (if proofs are wanting) o- the admirable security we enjoy from - felon police, and the trust that can be reposed in the members of it, we mention the circumstance of two prisoners, w- were convicted at the late Sessions held in this Town, having escaped from the Colony, together with the constables who had them in charge, on their way over to Hobart Town. It is, we believe, pretty generrlly ascertained, that the whole party crossed the country, and were taken off the Island in the vicinity of Ringaroma Bay or Cape Portland, in a small cutter belonging to a relative of one of the prisoners. We do not wonder at, nor blame the escape of any prisoners--a good thing for the Colony if all the troublesome of them found their way out of it--but the circumstance we mention certainly affords another proof of the inefficiency of Colonel Arthur's prison discipline system--and the necessity for destroying it.
A few months later, Reardon is again in the news. From the Cornwall Chroncile, 30 April 1836,
SIGN OF IMPROVEMENT — In the Chronicle of the 2d instant, we brought before the public a case of abomination on the part of a convict constable, named Daniel Reardon, in receiving £5 from parties, when on his way to a Magistrate to procure warrants against them, for an alleged assault, said to be committed in his presence and, in which he refused to interfere, when called upon so to do. Last week, the Magistrate, Captain Forth--much to his credit, caused an enquiry into the matter, which led to the fellows dismissal from the Police, and to his being sentenced two years to Port Arthur. This Reardon is the man who confessed the diabolical attempt of his then companion—-Drinkwater—-to charge an innocent man with the murder of Captain Sergeantson-—who was sentenced for the atrocious crime to Port Arthur for two years ! Reardon, for receiving a bribe of £5, receives precisely a similar sentence. If his punishment is merited for receiving a bribe--and we consider it is--how shall we make up our minds to the justice of Drinkwater's sentence, for attempting the ignominious destruction of an innocent man ?
I went back to the 2nd of April and couldn't find that story, but this one is interesting too.
THE FELON POLICE.--On one of the days of the Races, five felon Janissaries, having nothing else to do, thought they might as well make up a case of drunkenness against a sailor, who, no doubt, they thought would tip the five shillings in the usual way. The sailor was, however, no sailor, but an assigned servant, so dressed. The man resisted to the utmost of his power ; he declared he had done nothing whatever, and to the watch-house he would not go. His resistance attracted a crowd, and the constables then began to make use of their battons in a very disgraceful manner, by striking the man on the head, and other parts of the body ; subsequently, the man was handcuffed, and dragged along the ground like a bullock, by these five respectable convict constables. Several gentlemen interfered, and considering the man an honest tar, said, the constables had no right to take the man up as he was not drunk.
At first the constables declared he was drunk, but finding proof likely to lie too strong to the contrary, they at last shifted their charge, and declared, that the man had been seen with his hands in the pockets of several persons on the course. This was enough ; the gentlemen ceased to interfere, saying, that if that was the case, he deserved to be punished. The man naturally declared his innocence, and said, what every body knows (even Dean Swift himself) to be as true as the Gospel, viz. : --that the rascally constables would swear a man's life away for five shillings. On further enquiry it was alleged, that the man had been seen picking the pockets of Mr. John Lord, but he living in Hobart Town, it was, no doubt, thought advisable to fix upon a countryman, and make it Mr. James Lord ; both these gentlemen have been asked what they know about the affair, and the question put was the first they ever heard of the business.
What the man was charged with before the " Aga," we know not, but we are perfectly convinced, that if he was accused either of felony, burglary, or treason, the gentlemen convicts who took him in charge, were ready to prove their case, if that could be done by swearing. One of these splendid specimens of prison discipline,--one of these peace officers, was, but a short time since, sent to a chain gang for his good behaviour as a Janissary : how he became released, matters not ? Our rulers consider felons just turned out of the chain gang, the very best peace officers that can be appointed ; indeed, they complain, that free men cannot be found to do their duty.
I shall stop looking now. I'm quite sure the early issues of the Chronicle (Launceston, 1835 to 1880) are full of such stories.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-28 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-28 12:24 pm (UTC)But then they'd be depriving the community of newspaper editor!