Chapter XIX Conclusion
From the time when Rural Constabulary forces were instituted in 1839, until the date of the creation of County Councils fifty years later, the police authority throughout rural England had been the County Justices of the Peace in Quarter Sessions, to which body alone, in the several counties, was each Chief-Constable answerable, provided that he conformed to the general regulations laid down by the Secretary of State. During this period various changes, in addition to those of a more important nature already mentioned, were brought about, having for their object the better management of the police, or the more convenient administration of justice. In 1846 County Courts for the hearing of civil suits involving minor issues were established in the different shires; and, by the gradual enlargement of the jurisdiction exercised by these tribunals, the higher courts have, to a corresponding extent, been relieved of much petty business to the advantage of larger interests. In 1869 the office of High-Constable was formally abolished, any powers that he had anciently exercised having long since dwindled almost to the vanishing point. At first the Treasury contribution towards the expenses of the rural police had been strictly limited and quite inadequate in amount; but in 1875 the old limitation was suspended, first for one year, then for another, and finally indefinitely, until it became the rule for the public Treasury to provide half the cost for pay and clothing of all provincial police forces that, at the end of each year, are returned as efficient by the Home Office on the recommendation of the Government Inspector of Constabulary.
Following upon the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835,263 some fifty Acts of Parliament, relating wholly or in part to municipal government, received the royal assent, and this at the rate of more than one a year; in August 1882 the mass of legislative amendments that resulted was consolidated and reduced to one Statute.264 Amongst other police enactments, the formation of a separate constabulary, distinct from the county force, in any borough containing less than twenty thousand inhabitants, was hereby prohibited; but the control of local police forces already established was for the present confirmed to the existing Watch Committees, whatever might be the population of the borough concerned, and at the same time authority to enforce certain sanitary laws (e.g. The Public Health Acts of 1873 and 1875) was conferred on the Town Councils.
Six years later more important changes, affecting the police of counties as well as that of boroughs, were introduced by the Local Government Act of 1888,265 which transferred the control of the rural police from the Justices of the Peace in Quarter Sessions to an annually appointed committee (called the Standing Joint Committee) composed of a certain number of County Councillors, selected by and from the members of the new councils, and of an equal number of Justices chosen by Quarter Sessions. The effect of this Statute was not simply to substitute one consultative body for another, for to the Standing Joint Committee was also conveyed all that authority over the county police which had hitherto been enjoyed by Justices out of Session, the important proviso being added, however, that “nothing in this Act shall affect the powers, duties, and liabilities of Justices as Conservators of the Peace, or the obligation of the Chief Constable or other Constables to obey their lawful orders given in that behalf.”266
Although local government in township, hundred and shire is as old as the Constitution itself, the birthday of the modern county councils in 1888 is from the historian’s point of view an event of the first importance, for it deprived the county magistracy of a prerogative which for more than five hundred years had been steadily growing in completeness, by suddenly transferring the destinies of the rural police to a body that owed the half of its authority to the popular vote of the shire. From the standpoint of the practical politician, on the other hand, the change has so far proved but an incident; and, for all the effect it has produced on the actual efficiency and on the daily routine of the police forces concerned, it has passed almost unnoticed. Standing Joint Committees have accepted and carried on the traditions which they inherited; and the administration of the county police remains much the same to-day as it was when the entire control was vested in the county magistrates, who, no longer overweighted by a mass of general—as distinguished from judicial—business, are now free to devote themselves to their proper duties as conservators of the peace.
By the first Municipal Corporations Act, any borough so disposed was allowed a separate police force on the understanding that, in the case of towns containing less than five thousand inhabitants, all expense connected with the maintenance of such forces should be borne by the borough availing itself of the privilege. In 1888, this power of choice was restricted, and all boroughs, which at the last census failed to show a population of 10,000, were amalgamated for police purposes with the county to which they belonged; if, however, any borough entitled to have its own police prefers amalgamation, it is permitted to contract with the Standing Joint Committee of the county in which it is situated for the establishment of a consolidated constabulary under the general disposition and government of the Chief Constable of that county, the powers of the Watch Committee remaining in abeyance as long as the contract lasts. A larger measure of autonomy was secured by the Local Government Act to certain boroughs, called County-Boroughs, being those which were either counties in themselves before the passing of the Act, or had an estimated population of at least 50,000 on the 1st of June 1888. As, however, the police of a County-Borough is for all practical purposes on the same basis as one maintained by any other town, that controls a separate constabulary, it is unnecessary further to enlarge upon this part of the subject. It is sufficient to state that in 1899 one hundred and twenty-four English and Welsh boroughs possessed independent police forces, and that out of this number sixty-one were county-boroughs.
At the present time there are only two portions of the United Kingdom that do not manage their own police. Ireland is one and London is the other. Ireland is not allowed the privilege for reasons with which we are not here concerned, but which have been succinctly put by a politician who is not ill-disposed towards that country, “If Kerry was treated as Northumberland,” said he, “Kerry must control her police, and if Kerry controlled her police, there was an end of law and order.”267 The case of London is altogether different: when the Local Government Act readjusted the command exercised by the various local authorities over their county and borough police forces, the Metropolitan area was especially exempted from provisions that applied elsewhere. A County of London, carved out of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, was called into being on the 1st of January 1889, but its area did not coincide with the Metropolitan Police District, nor was the London County Council given any voice in the management of London’s constabulary.
This anomalous position of the Metropolitan Police, governed as it is by a Chief Commissioner appointed by the Home Office and independent of municipal control, has ever since been a subject for controversy amongst local politicians. Members of the progressive party have held that the control of the police ought to be transferred from the Government to the London County Council; and, in support of the desired change, argue that as the ratepayers find the money they should have a voice in its expenditure; they contend that it is an insult to London that she alone amongst the great towns of England is debarred from the management of her own constabulary. At first sight it would appear reasonable to extend to London the same measure of self-government in police matters that provincial towns enjoy; but the answer of those who are content with the present arrangement is that the Metropolitan Police is an Imperial rather than a local force—provincial towns and districts have only provincial interests to guard, London has responsibilities as wide as the Empire; and however public-spirited local authorities may be, the danger will always remain that they may be induced to prefer local to national interests. The Houses of Parliament, the British Museum, public offices and foreign embassies happen to be in London, but they are not local institutions: the head-quarters of the Criminal Investigation Department is no more inseparable from Scotland Yard than is parliament from Westminster: London is the focus of crime and it is convenient that it should also be the head-quarters of the machinery for its prevention, but that is no reason why the principal detective agency of England should be subordinated to Spring Gardens influences. The inhabitants of Canterbury might as well aspire to the control of the National Church on the strength of their pride of See, as Londoners insist that the Metropolis must bear the responsibilities of the National Police. It is repeated that the ratepayers of London pay for the Metropolitan force; but this is only partly true. It would be more correct to say that they pay half the bill, and, in return, they obtain the protection they pay for, the Imperial Treasury providing the balance.268
It has been suggested that a fair compromise might be found in a division of the responsibility, by giving the London County Council control over a moiety of the force for local purposes, and transferring to that body the authority to license hackney-carriages, pedlars and lodging houses together with the management of street traffic, &c., &c., whilst retaining a separate police establishment for imperial purposes; but there is little doubt that such a change would only lead to friction, and might conceivably bring about a recrudescence of that jealousy which was the bane of the old parochial system.
The whole question is complicated by the independent position that the City of London has been allowed to retain. From many points of view it would be advantageous to concentrate the entire police of the metropolis under one and the same administration, and to some amalgamation seems desirable for the sake of uniformity, if for no better reason; but regularity in our institutions is not in itself a great end to strive for, and it would be prodigal of labour to tinker with our going concerns merely to eliminate deviations from the normal. Against amalgamation much can be urged. The city wishes to retain its ancient privilege of policing itself, and as long as it maintains an efficient force entirely at its own expense, the government is not likely to interfere. The matter is largely one of finance. Under the existing arrangements, three-quarters of the total cost of the City police is raised in the city by a local police rate, and the remaining quarter is subscribed by the Corporation out of its revenue; if, however, the control was transferred to the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the city would only have to pay five-ninths of the total cost instead of the whole amount as at present—or putting it in another light, amalgamation would cost the Imperial Treasury more than fifty thousand pounds a year, which sum is the price that the city now pays for the privilege of managing its own police. A second objection to amalgamation is that the Justice Rooms at Mansion House and Guildhall are presided over by magistrates who are experts in commercial jurisdiction, and consequently the usefulness of these courts would be to some extent impaired if they became ordinary metropolitan police courts.
Modern police in the City of London dates from 1839, in which year, it will be remembered, the Corporation awoke to the necessity of reorganization, and so escaped the consolidating process that had already absorbed all the other independent and semi-independent police establishments within the 688 square miles that surround Charing Cross. Since then the advisability of fusing together the two London police forces has often been debated, and after the death of Sir Richard Mayne in 1869 the threatened amalgamation would have become a fait accompli had the Government been ready to acquiesce in the suggestion made by the Corporation that the City Commissioner should be promoted to the command of the proposed combination. In 1894 the Royal Commission on the Unification of London reported in favour of bringing the whole of the police of the metropolis under one administration; but its advice has not yet been acted upon, nor is there any immediate prospect of its recommendations being carried into effect. If, however, the City authorities should at any time fail to keep up the high standard of police that they have hitherto maintained they would certainly lose their historic privilege of police independence, and the knowledge of this fact contributes to the undoubted efficiency of the force they control. At the present day both the metropolitan and city forces rightly consider themselves corps d’elite, and a proper rivalry exists between them, which is at once creditable in itself and advantageous to the public interest. We have said that the ultimate authority over the city police rests with the Corporation. It may however be remarked that the appointment of any person has to be ratified by the Crown before he is confirmed in the Commissionership, and that practically speaking the powers possessed by the Corporation are exercised by proxy. To a Police Committee consisting of some eighty members selected by the Common Council is delegated everything that concerns the pay, allowances, and financial business of the force; whilst all questions touching the discipline and disposal of the men under his command are referred to the Commissioner, who is thus supreme in his own department.
One of the clauses in Peel’s Act had disfranchised the new police by denying to constables the right to vote for the election of a Member of Parliament for the district comprised in the metropolitan police area: with the growth of other forces this disability was correspondingly extended, and all over the country policemen were debarred from taking their part in parliamentary elections. For the moment the prohibition was in all probability a wise one; elections were then very turbulent affairs, public opinion was already aflame with excitement over the impending parliamentary reforms, and men could only speculate upon the future behaviour of the as-yet-untried constabulary. Even if it had been possible to guarantee that the police would maintain a perfectly correct attitude, prudence would still have counselled the advisability of dissociating the guardians of the peace from the factious interests of electioneering. The public were so suspicious, and Peel’s scheme had so many opponents, that in every political contest the losers would to a certainty have attributed the result to the sinister influence of the bogey-man in blue. When, however, both popular prejudice and popular excitement had subsided, there was no longer sufficient cause for the disfranchisement of a numerous and important class of public servants who had proved themselves worthy of all trust; but the original prohibition still held good, to the great disadvantage of the police service. This continued for nearly half a century, that is until 1887, when the “Police Disabilities Removal Act” of that year for the first time gave the parliamentary suffrage to all properly qualified police officers who comply with certain regulations made for the joint convenience of police and public.269 Six years later constables became entitled to vote, if qualified, at School Board, Municipal and other elections; but in no case are they allowed to canvass, any attempt to influence an elector rendering the offender liable to a penalty of £10.
The wisdom of enfranchising the police has been amply proved by the result, for on no occasion since their admission to the suffrage has it been as much as suggested that they make an improper use of the privilege. Although English police of the twentieth century is a very different thing from Anglo-Saxon police of the tenth century, there is a potent characteristic which is common to both; that is to say, the modern system rests, as the ancient one did, on the sure foundation of mutual reliance. We may rely upon it that the law-abiding character of the British nation is largely due to the rarity with which espionage as a method of control has been employed in these islands, just as the trustworthiness of our English Constabularies is largely the outcome of the confidence that we repose in the wisdom and integrity of our peace-officers. We are well served by our police because we have wisely made them personally responsible for their actions. The constable suffers equally with the non-official citizen for any illegal action he may commit; the law protects him only in the performance of acts authorized by the law; nor can he divest himself of responsibility by pleading the orders of his superior officer, if those orders should chance to be illegal. This personal responsibility is not only a curb to excessive zeal, it is also a spur to legitimate activity. “When,” says Sir Arthur Helps, “a man can do anything well, and is entrusted to do it, he has generally an impulse to action which is as strong and abiding as can be found amongst human motives, and which will even surpass the love of gain.”
To teach the value of self-reliance is one of the most important duties that a Chief-Constable has to perform, and the efficiency of the force under his command will largely depend upon the manner in which he has imbued individual constables with the lesson. To this end the military model of organization and discipline must not be too closely followed; soldiers generally act in masses and but rarely on their own responsibility, whilst policemen do nine-tenths of their work as individuals. The main object of discipline in the army is to make a man obey orders from force of habit on occasions when his natural instinct would impel him to think only of his personal safety, advantage, or honour; the principal end to be attained in the education of the constable is that he should know his duty, and do it with circumspection and self-control, generally on his own initiative and frequently in opposition to the sympathies of the crowd.
Police discipline has been described by Sir Howard Vincent as “the obedience and respect to lawful authority which distinguishes an organized body from a rabble”270 and Sir Henry Hawkins (Lord Brampton) has insisted upon the necessity of absolute obedience being rendered by constables to all in authority over them, “Such obedience and observance,” he said, “I regard as essential to the existence of a police force.”271 All who have had any experience of dealing with large bodies of men will endorse every word of these pronouncements. First obey orders and, if necessary, complain afterwards, is a rule upon the application of which depends the life and well-being of every properly-disciplined body; at the same time it should not be forgotten that the too-strict enforcement of a rigid type of discipline neither conduces to the value of a police force nor to the advantage of the public. Periodically since 1829 alarmists have repeated the formula that “the era of dragooning has dawned”; on every occasion hitherto the cry has proved as groundless as that of the proverbial shepherd-boy, but, in order to make quite sure that the fable shall for us have no actual counterpart, it is politic to remember that a watchdog which is not kept under proper control may become as dangerous as any wolf. In Continental Europe this danger has not, as we think, been sufficiently guarded against: the police functionary is there entrusted with powers that render him to some extent independent of the ordinary law of the land, for he cannot be prosecuted for malfeasance unless special permission has first been obtained from the Government, and this permission is only granted under very exceptional circumstances.
Occasion has already been taken to remark that the freedom enjoyed by the Press of this country is an invaluable safeguard against police tyranny, that the public Press in fact polices the constabulary. This, however, is only one of the many police functions that modern journalism performs. When a serious crime is committed the newspapers raise a Hue and Cry so far-reaching and persistent that soon every tavern discusses the news, every village harbours a potential detective. Whenever a criminal is caught and convicted the deterrent value of the punishment served out to him is increased a thousand-fold by the publicity given by the Press to the award of the judge. In former days capital punishment was publicly inflicted with the mistaken idea that in this way was the maximum deterrent effect of the death penalty assured272; now, not only is what was a brutalizing spectacle decently veiled from the public gaze, but in place of the depraved thousands who formerly used to witness the “turning off” of each poor wretch, normal millions read, and it is to be hoped inwardly digest, the lesson that these tragedies are meant to convey. The Press also acts most effectually as a modern substitute for the pillory. The knowledge that an account of his offence will figure in the morning’s police intelligence for all his friends to read, is far more likely to prevent a man (who lays claim to even a shred of respectability) from committing himself, than is any fine that the police magistrate might impose. Nor is the efficacy of the Press as an auxiliary agent of police confined to its success as a deterrent—newspapers advertise the bankrupt’s loss of credit, expose the tricks of the swindler, ruin the trade of the impostor, and chastise many an offender whom the law cannot reach. Finally, a free Press, being a guarantee for public liberty, acts as a seton for the escape of evil humours which, if confined, might become a source of danger to the Commonwealth; for as Bentham has said, “a people sure of its rights, enjoys them with moderation and tranquillity.”273
In his introduction to the “Criminal Statistics for 1898,” recently published by the Home Office, Mr C. E. Troup, of that Department, says that the general conclusions to be drawn from a study of the comparative tables which form part of the statistical returns, may be summed up as follows—“That the actual number of crimes brought into the courts has diminished appreciably during the last thirty years; that, if the increase of population is taken into account, the decrease in crime becomes very marked; that, if we also take into account the increase of the police forces and the greater efficiency in the means of investigating and punishing crime, we may conclude that the decrease in crime is even greater than the figures shew; and finally, if we take into account the fact that habitual criminals are now for the most part imprisoned only for short periods and have much more frequent opportunities than formerly of committing offences, we must hold that the number of criminals has diminished in an even greater ratio than the number of crimes.”274
It is of course impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy to what extent this diminution of crime and this increased security of recent years are due to the exertions of our modern constabularies; enough has been said to make it abundantly clear that the amelioration is real, and that it is progressive in its tendency, but the difficulty is to apportion the credit justly between the various agencies that have contributed to the result. There is no doubt that the spread of education and the labours of religious and philanthropic bodies have done much to civilise the masses; it is certain also that an improved prison system and a reformed penal code have reacted beneficially on the criminal classes; but if we believe in the teachings of history we shall put our trust in no combination of influences directed towards the maintenance of the peace that does not at least include a good preventive police-force. If Lombroso’s theories are correct, even if some men are born criminal beyond all hope of human redemption, these are only reasons for redoubling our police precautions: the delinquent who is a delinquent from his cradle is the more dangerous on that account, and to the congenital criminal must be denied the opportunity for mischief. But such freaks are rare and the normal criminal is anything but a creature of impulse; his calculations may not be shrewd but they are undoubtedly deliberate. “Abandon fait larron!” When poverty or the want of life’s necessaries lead to theft, or where native cruelty and love of bloodshed give rise to deeds of violence, police, however efficient, can effect but little in the way of prevention; but it is the almost unanimous opinion of those best qualified to judge that the bulk of the offences committed in this country are perpetrated by those who enter upon a criminal career because it appears to them that it is easy and profitable, and because they think that it will enable them to obtain luxuries that lie beyond the reach of their industrious and honest companions. It is obvious, therefore, that an effective police, by making the profession of dishonesty difficult and precarious, can remove the principal incentive that makes men criminal.
The circle of police employment is constantly widening, and many of the functions delegated to the Constabulary by Parliament and by local authorities have not been so much as touched upon in this book, which, in a small compass, has endeavoured to trace the main features of police development in England through a great number of years. It is to be hoped, however, that the tendency to load police officers with duties heavier and more diverse than they have to perform already will not go on increasing. It is difficult to fix the precise limits within which it is proper that they should act; but it is certain that by indefinitely multiplying their duties we run a twofold risk, viz., that of rendering the work of police constables so complex and varied that men of average talent and education will be unable to perform it thoroughly, and further of undermining the popularity of the force by exhibiting its members before the eyes of the people as universally interfering and censorious. It is, of course, right and proper that the policeman should endeavour to prevent the commission of any act that he knows to be illegal, at all times and in all places; but it is generally advisable to employ functionaries who do not belong to the police for purposes not closely connected with the maintenance of the peace, whenever the employment of outsiders is equally effectual: it is more convenient, for instance, that game-keepers should protect the rights of owners on sporting estates, and that custom-house officials should examine portmanteaux, than that such duties should be performed by constables. His Majesty’s Coastguard, the Inspectors of Mines and Factories, and other persons appointed by Societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and for the suppression of mendicity, etc., relieve the police of much work by carrying out the various parts assigned to them by Government or by private enterprise; it is worth considering whether it would not be more profitable to delegate to functionaries, other than constables; all duties connected with the inspection of weights and measures, the enforcement of sanitary laws, the protection of arsenals and dockyards, and with the maintenance of order on racecourses. A force specially devoted to the last mentioned object is desirable on many grounds. In the first place the knowledge that such a body would possess of the welshers, cardsharpers, and pickpockets who travel about from one race-meeting to another, and with whom the different local police forces are unable to cope, would put an end to a great deal of the crime which is at present unchecked and undetected; and in the second place, it would no longer be necessary to withdraw large bodies of police from their proper duties for the protection of race-goers. On the occasion of the riot at Featherstone in 1893, the calling out of the Military, and the loss of life which followed, was largely attributable to the concentration at Doncaster of all the available Yorkshire constables, an unfortunate arrangement which bared the rest of the county of its regular protectors, and encouraged the rioters to proceed to lengths they would not otherwise have attempted.
Although it will hardly be denied that our police discharge their office conscientiously, courteously and courageously, the general public has shewn itself somewhat slow to acknowledge the debt which it owes to the men who undertake what is by common consent a thankless task; who armed with no extraordinary powers, and protected by no elaborate exemptions, perform arduous duties on behalf of their fellow-countrymen, for little reward, and at considerable personal risk. Perhaps it may not be presumptuous to hope that the foregoing pages, by adding their quota to the scanty sources of information on the subject, may cause a corresponding increase in the tribute of public goodwill, that has been so well earned, and so long awaited, by the police forces of England.
The End
Footnotes
1 Fraser’s Magazine, No. xvi. p. 169.
2 Evidence of Mr Murray, a magistrate at Union Hall, before the Parliamentary Committee of 1834.
3 Report of Police Commissioners, 1839.
4 See Stubb’s “Constitutional History,” end of para. 60.
5 In the reign of Edward VI. the well-known legal maxim, “The King never dies,” was first enunciated; since which time it has been held that there can be no break in the continuity of kingship; that is to say, that the accession of each succeeding monarch and the decease of his predecessor are simultaneous.
6 Chron. Ang. S., ad ann., 1135.
7 “Thane” is here used in the loose and popular sense to signify the resident owner of considerable territorial possessions.
8 Headborough, Borsholder, and Chief-Frankpledge are three words which describe the same functionary. The latter of Norman, and the two former of Saxon origin. Borsholder = Borhes-ealder—Borhes (often written Borough as in “Headborough”), meaning Pledge or Surety. It is probable that the connection between Borough signifying “Town” and Borough the correlative of Plegium, is merely an accidental coincidence.
9 It is difficult to avoid the confusion which arises from the use of the word “Hundred.” Here the police-hundreds (probably introduced for the first time into England by Edgar) are referred to. The statement does not necessarily imply that the grouping of families into Tythings, and of Tythings into Hundreds took place before county areas were subdivided into smaller areas called Hundreds. It may be remarked, however, that an uninhabited Hundred (and there must have been many such if the whole kingdom was divided in this way) can have had no police significance.
10 See Note on the Liability of the Hundred, p. 180, chap. ix. post.
11 Burn I. p. 671.
12 Edgar, Secular Ordinance, c. 6.
13 Writing at the end of the eighteenth century Jeremy Bentham declared: “This is the great problem of penal legislation—(i.) To reduce all the evil of offences, as far as possible, to that kind which can be cured by a pecuniary compensation. (ii.) To throw the expense of this cure upon the authors of the evil, or in their default, upon the public.”
14 In addition to the “Trinoda necessitas” which besides compelling a man to serve in the Militia, also claimed his services for the repair of bridges, and for the up-keep of the national fortifications.
15 See “Spelman’s Glossary,” sub verbo “Fredus.”
16 Ll. Aelf. 40; Ll. Ethelb. 34.
17 The germ of trial by jury.
18 Gneist. “History of the English Constitution.”
19 Coke. 2 Instit. 73.
20 Bede H. E., II. xvi.
21 It is probable that the scir-gerefa was originally elected by the freeholders in the folkmoot: the Norman Sheriff, on the other hand, was invariably appointed by the Crown direct.
22 This fine was called the “Murdrum.”
23 Bacon’s “Office of Constables.”
24 (Magna Carta, Section 20). King John also promised as follows: “We will not make men justiciaries, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs, unless they understand the law of the land, and are well disposed to observe it.”
25 Second Great Charter of Henry III.
26 “Chronicle of Dunstable,” vol. i. p. 155.
27 Dictum de Kenilworth, sect. 14, Stubb’s “Select Charters.”
28 10 Geo. II. c. 22, and 14 Geo. III. c. 90.
29 13 Edw. I., Statuta civitatis London.
30 23 Edw. III., sect. i. c. 7.
31 “Commissioners’ Report,” 1839.
32 From form of oath administered by Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury (“History of Vagrants,” by Ribton Turner).
33 See Chitty’s “Office and Duties of Constables”: Coke 3 Inst. 116, 117; and 2 Hale P. C. 102.
34 See “Statute of Northampton.”
35 3 Edw. I. cap. 34.
36 Coroners are first heard of in the directions given to the itinerant Justices by Richard I. in 1194, when four of these officers were assigned to each county.
37 4 Edw. I. Stat. 2.
38 “History of Vagrants.”
39 Fitzherbert, Dalton, Burn, etc.
40 The edict of Hubert Walter.
41 Rot. Pat. 14 Edw. I. m. 25.
42 Rot. Pat. 10 Edw. I. m. 8.
43 Stephens’ “Hist. of the Crim. Law,” i. 112.
44 2 Edw. III., c. 3.
45 Rot. Parl. 6 Edw. III.
46 34 Edw. III., c. i.
47 36 Edw. III., c. 12.
48 1 Edw. IV., c. 2. See Reeves’ “Hist.” vol. iii. p. 9.
49 Burn’s “Justice,” v. 302, 25th edition.
50 See also in this connection Carter’s “English Legal History,” p. 93.
51 I. Hale’s Sum. 96.
52 Hist. Ram. Gale. vol. iii. 416, 417.
53 Extended to other towns in 1427. By 6 Henry VI. c. 3 Justices are to discharge in counties the same duties as are performed in towns by Mayors and Bailiffs.
54 2 Hen. V. c. 1.
55 4 Hen. VII. c. 13.
56 Cf. Koenig.
57 Viscount—“an arbitrary title of honour, without a shadow of office pertaining to it” (Blackstone).
58 Coke viii. 43.
59 13 & 14 Car. ii. c. 12.
60 Selden Society, vol. vi. p. 35.
61 Secular Dooms, Cap. 81.
62 All evil customs of forests and warrens, and of foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, waterbanks and their keepers, shall immediately be inquired into by twelve knights of the same county, upon oath, who shall be chosen by the good men of the same county; and within forty days after the inquisition is made, they shall be quite destroyed by them, never to be restored.—Magna Carta.
63 Spelman’s Glossary in verbo “foresta.”
64 Manwood, “Treatise of the Forest Laws,” 4th ed., p. 143.
65 Vert included trees, underwood and turf; venison comprised the hart, the hind, the hare, the boar and the wolf, which were beasts of forest—the buck, the doe, the fox and the marten, which were beasts of chase—the rabbit, pheasant, partridge, quail, mallard, heron, etc., which were beasts or fowls of warren. So sacred was the stag that should one be found dead an inquest had to be held, and a verdict as to the cause of death taken. (See Low and Pulling’s “Dictionary of English History,” under Forests.)
66 It was a universal principle of Early English Law that no defence was valid if the culprit was caught red-handed, he was ipso facto convicted. (See Carter’s “English Legal History,” p. 175.)
67 Assisa et Consuetudines Forestae, anno 6, Edward I.
68 Coke Inst., iii., p. 294. This is according to Coke, who derives “Mayneer” from the Latin Manus. Manwood, on the other hand, has the phrase “taken in the manner,” using manner in the sense of “maniére.”
69 Coke Inst., iii. 289 seq.
70 Coke Inst., iii. 294.
71 Although the authenticity of this document is denied, there is good reason to suppose that, as far as the following enumeration of forest officers is concerned, its accuracy may be trusted.
72 Manwood, p. 163.
73 Manwood, p. 78.
74 Forest Law, as once administered, was perhaps the worst example of class legislation ever known to the English Constitution—it was a deliberate violation of the rights of the many for the gratification of the few—the same act which was venial in the gentleman became unpardonable when committed by the villein. For example, a common man who slew a deer was guilty of felony and might be capitally convicted, whereas a nobleman riding through the King’s Forest was allowed to kill a stag or two for his refreshment, on the understanding that he did so in the sight of a ranger, or if no ranger was present, provided that someone blew a horn for him, “that he seem not to steal the deer” (9 Henry III.).
75 Dalton, cap. 60, fol. 141.
76 “Town Life in the Fifteenth Century,” Mrs J. R. Green, vol. i. chapter iv.
77 “Liber Albus,” p. 312.
78 “Liber Albus,” p. 315.
79 Hist. MSS. Com., ix. 174.
80 51 Hen. III., stat. 6.
81 12 Edw. ii. c. 6.
82 See Final Report of H. M. Commissioners appointed to enquire into the operation and administration of the Laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, chap. xvi. p. 21.
83 The King could tax foreign merchants resident in England without having to obtain the consent of Parliament.
84 The test was usually a verse out of the 51st Psalm—commonly called the “neck verse.”
85 7 & 8 Geo. iv. c. 28; and see Carter’s Eng. Leg. Hist., pp. 202, 203.
86 6 Edw. I., c. 9.
87 22 Edw. IV.
88 3 Henry VII., c. 1.
89 34 & 35 Hen. VIII., c. 26 (Wales).
90 “Tables of population,” says Bentham, “in which are described the dwelling-place, the age, the sex, the profession, etc.... of individuals, are the first materials of a good police” (Bentham’s “Principles of Penal Law,” chap. xii.).
91 The story of young Edward amongst the vagabonds has recently been told with great charm and pathos by one of the most popular writers of the day. Mark Twain’s “The Prince and the Pauper” may not be history, but that it presents a truthful picture of the sufferings of vagrants in the sixteenth century cannot be doubted.
92 Slaves might be bought, sold, or bequeathed by will, like any other chattel.
93 1 Edw. VI.
94 3 & 4 Edw. VI., c. 5.
95 The command of the Militia was transferred from the Lords-Lieutenant of counties to the Crown in the year 1871 (“The Army Book for the British Empire,” p. 373).
96 To this there was one exception, viz., that foreigners were not allowed to keep inns “unless they have report from the parts whence they come, or find safe pledges” (Statute).
97 5 & 6 Edw. VI., c. 25.
98 27 Elizabeth, Private Acts.
99 Ordinance, 27 Eliz.
100 “The Commonwealth of England,” Sir Thomas Smith, Ed., 1598, bk. ii. chap. 21.
101 5 Eliz., c. iv. sect. 7.
102 See p. 302, chap. xv., post.
103 14 Eliz., c. v. sect. 2.
104 39 and 40 Eliz., c. iv.
105 43 Eliz. c. 2.
106 27 Eliz. c. 13.
107 39 Elizabeth, c. 25.
108 See the Introduction to “Prothero’s Select Charters,” sect. v.
109 Rymer’s “Foedera,” xvi. p. 279.
110 Prothero’s “Select Charters,” p. 187.
111 “Measure for Measure,” act ii. scene 1.
112 Strype’s “Annals,” 1824, Edn., vol. iv. p. 405.
113 iii James 4.
114 See Somers’ “Tracts,” edited by Scott, vol. ii. p. 266.
115 1 Jac. I., cap. vii. sects. 3 and 4.
116 7 & 8 Jac. I., cap. iv.
117 I. Jac. i. cap. 31.
118 This statute, which gave such extraordinary powers to constables, only remained in force for twelve months. (See article “The office of Constable,” by H. B. Simpson, “English Historical Review,” vol. x.)
119 See Proclamations, etc., of Charles I. Bodleian, z. i. 17 Jur.
120 I. Car. i. cap. 16.
121 3 Car. i. cap. 4.
122 Lib. Albo, fol. 41, b, c, d, e; 23 Henry vi.
123 “Minshæi Emendatio,” ad ann. 1626.
124 See Note on Liability of the Hundred, chap. ix. post.
125 4 & 5 Phil. Mary, cap. 2 and 3.
126 For a full and interesting account of Cromwell’s Major-Generals, see an article under that title by D. W. Rannie in the “English Historical Review,” No. 10.
127 See Professor Gardiner’s “History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660,” vol. iii.
128 An Excise duty on liquor had recently (1643) been introduced by the Long Parliament.
129 Scobell, part i. p. 129; part ii. p. 320.
130 D’Argenson, lieutenant of police, declared that “there were more irregularities and debaucheries committed in Paris during the Easter fortnight, when the theatres were shut, than during the four months of the season during which they were open” (“Memoirs de Pollnitz,” vol. iii.).
131 Macaulay’s “History of England,” 1889 Edn., p. 178.
132 13 and 14 Car. ii. c. 2.
133 The number of such vehicles was strictly limited. In London no more than 400 were allowed.
134 14 Car. ii. c. 12, sect. 15. The statute also provides for the appointment of special constables in times of emergency.
135 15 Car. ii. c. 1.
136 From “The duty and Office of High Constable, &c.” by W. Brown, a clerk of the Court of Common Pleas. Lond. 1677, pp. 26 and 27.
137 13 and 14 Car. ii. c. 12 § 22.
138 Worthies of England, p. 216.
139 13 Car. ii. c. 22.
140 4 William and Mary, c. viii.
141 6 Geo. i., cap. 25, sect. 8.
142 “Le Blanc’s Letters,” vol. ii., 1737.
143 “The Town Rakes,” Brit. Mus., (816—m—19)/74.
144 1 Geo. i., stat. 2, § 5.
145 10 Geo. ii. c. 22.
146 8 Geo. ii. c. 16.
147 12 Geo. ii. c. 16.
148 Ann Reg., 1763.
149 See Gent. Mag., 1761, p. 475; 1780, p. 1446, and Laurence’s “Life of Fielding.”
150 Of the several Statutes dealing with police passed during the reign of George II., the most valuable and important is the 24 Geo. ii., c. 44, which enacts that action cannot be brought against a constable for anything done by him in obedience to a Justice’s warrant, unless the Justice who signed the warrant is made a joint-defendant with the constable; and which directs that if action is brought jointly against the Justice and the constable, then the jury shall find for the latter, provided that they are satisfied that he acted strictly in accordance with the terms of the warrant that he pleads in justification. When making an arrest a constable should, if required, shew the warrant which is his authority, but he need not allow it to leave his hand.
151 29 Geo. ii., c. 25.
152 31 Geo. ii., c. 17.
153 14 Geo. iii. c. 90.
154 Wedderburn.
155 This was the first occasion on which the word “police” was officially made use of in the British Isles.
156 Irish Statutes, 26 Geo. iii., c. 24.
157 33 Geo. iii., c. 4.
158 By 29 Car. ii. c. 7, § 7 it was enacted that no liability attached to the Hundred if a man be robbed whilst travelling on a Sunday—“for he should not travel on the Lord’s Day, nor ought the Hundred to watch on that day of rest.” Nevertheless it was ordained that Hue and Cry should be raised against a known offender, despite the non-liability of the Hundred, in order that depredators should not take advantage of the omission.
Actions against the Hundred had to be brought within three months from the date of the damage, and there was no liability for deeds done in the night-time—if, however, there was just sufficient light to see a man’s face, liability might be proved, whatever the hour. No charge against the Hundred held good for any robbery done in a man’s house, “because every man’s house is his castle, which he ought to defend; and if any one be robbed in his house it shall be esteemed his own fault” (Dalton, c. 84); and with regard to liability on account of murder and robbery committed in the daytime, see “Year Book of the Exchequer,” (16 Edward I.)
159 42 Geo. iii., c. 76.
160 Between 1822 and 1828, the increase was about 38 per cent.
161 It has been calculated that at this time there were as many as fifty fraudulent mints in the metropolis alone.
162 In the hope of suppressing the seditious spirit so rife at this period, six coercive measures generally known as the “Six Acts” were rushed through both Houses of Parliament in a special autumn session of 1819. These Acts sought to preserve the peace by placing restrictions on the press, by forbidding the training of unauthorized persons in the use of arms, by empowering Justices of the Peace to search for and confiscate weapons, and by other repressive measures of a similar nature.
163 “The policy of a legislator who punishes every offence with death, is like the pusillanimous terror of a child who crushes the insect he dares not look at.”—Bentham, “Principles of the Penal Code,” Part iv. Cap. xxii.
164 “The more the certainty of punishment can be augmented, the more it may be diminished in amount.”—Bentham, “Principles of the Penal Code.” Rule viii.
165 The ethical point of view is well put by Henry Fielding, who said, “Nor in plain truth will the utmost severity to offenders be justifiable, unless we take every possible means of preventing the offence.”
166 In a letter addressed to The Times of November 14th, 1849—Charles Dickens, himself an eye-witness of one of these brutalising exhibitions, wrote—“I am solemnly convinced that nothing that ingenuity could devise to be done in this city, in the same compass of time, could work such ruin as one public execution, and I stand astounded and appalled by the wickedness it exhibits.”
167 As early as 1597, by an act passed in the 39th year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign—Quarter Sessions were empowered to inflict transportation, but at first the law could not be enforced because there was no place to which convicts could be shipped. A number of royalists were transported to Barbadoes after its capitulation in 1651, but this was only a temporary measure.
168 4 Geo. i. c. 2.
169 8 Geo. iii. c. 15.
170 Escott’s “England,” 1885 Edn., p. 240.
171 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 18.
172 It is impossible to say how far Bentham was influenced by Beccaria; the two men arrived at similar conclusions, but their methods were essentially different. Beccaria’s great work, “Dei Delitti e delle Pene,” was first published (anonymously) in 1764, and Bentham’s “Rationale of Punishments and Rewards” was written eleven years later.
173 In 1800 six women were publicly flogged till the blood ran down their backs for hedge-pulling.
174 9 Geo. iv. c. 61.
175 See “Encyclopædia of the Laws of England” under Licensing Acts.
176 7 and 8 Geo. iv. c. 31.
177 2 Geo. iv. and 1 Will. iv. c. 70.
178 “Mysteries of Police and Crime,” Griffiths, p. 66.
179 A River Police Office, with three Justices assigned to it, was authorised by 39 and 40 Geo. iii. c. 88.
180 None of this applies to the “City of London” proper, which still retains its independent position, as far as its police is concerned.
181 10 Geo. iv. c. 44.
182 10 Geo. iv. c. 45.
183 The official designation of the Chiefs of the Metropolitan Police was changed from “Justice” to “Commissioner” in the year 1839. The change was one of title only, and the Police commissioners were still Justices of the Peace by virtue of their office. To prevent confusion the word “Commissioner” is henceforward employed in this book.
184 “Sir Robert Peel,” by C. S. Parker.
185 Bentham defines the “Lettre de Cachet” as “an order to punish, without any proof, for a fact against which there is no law.”—(Principles of Penal Law, chap. xxi. part 3).
186 In the year 1820 the Spanish government suppressed some of the leading newspapers for daring to adversely criticise the police of Madrid, and at the same time it was currently believed in England that Italian police officials employed the torture to procure evidence against persons suspected of political offences.
187 Hansard, vol. i. p. 271; and see Ann. Reg. 1830 Chron., p. 185.
188 See article by Sir C. Warren, Murray’s Magazine, Nov. 1888.
189 See Report of Parliamentary Committee, 1838.
190 10 Geo. iv. c. 45.
191 3 Will. iv. c. 19.
192 6 & 7 Will. iv. c. 50.
193 Peel wished to include the City of London in the Metropolitan Police Area, but in a private letter to a friend frankly confessed that he dared not meddle with it.—(“Life of Sir Robert Peel,” C. S. Parker).
194 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47.
195 See 2 & 3 Vict. 47-71 & 93.
196 See “The Police of the Metropolis,” by Sir C. Warren—Murray’s Magazine, Nov. 1888. On the 15th April 1829, Peel informed the House of Commons that crime was then far more prevalent in the metropolis than in the country—one person out of every 383 persons having, on the average, been committed in London, whilst in the provinces the proportion was only one in 822.
197 1st Report Constabulary Commissioners, 1839, page 13.
198 3 & 4 Will. iv. c. 90.
199 This “Lighting and Watching Act” still remains the authority for the appointment of firemen, who may be “additional constables,” and who, “shall, during the time they shall be on duty, use their utmost endeavours to prevent any mischief by fire.” (3 & 4 Will. iv. c. 90, s. 41.)
200 5 & 6 Will. iv. c. 76.
201 13 and 14 Car. ii. c. 12.
202 1 and 2 Will. iv. c. 41.
203 5 and 6 Will. iv. c. 76.
204 1 and 2 Vic. c. 41.
205 Bicknell’s “Police Manual,” p. 58.
206 2 & 3 Vict., c. 93.
207 In 1840 the Act was amended, and a separate Police rate levied, by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 38.
208 In the year 1842, the Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts of Quarter Sessions, which hitherto had been competent to deal with all offences except treason, was limited by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, which removes murder, capital felony and some other offences from the cognizance of the Justices. In the metropolis, at the same time, much criminal business was transferred from Justices of the Peace to Stipendiary Magistrates. This was due rather to the increase of commitments consequent upon an improved police, than to any implied incompetence of the Courts. In 1896 Quarter Sessions were again empowered to try Burglary cases (59 & 60 Vict. c. 57), and a further extension, or rather restoration, of the powers exercised by Justices in Quarter Sessions is understood to be now (1901) under consideration.
209 5 & 6 Vic. c. 109—amended by 13 & 14 Vic. c. 20.
210 10 Geo. iv. c. 97.
211 See 1st Report 1853 Select Committee, p. 137.
212 Those landowners who gave evidence before the Select Committee in 1853 were almost unanimous in their testimony that the value of property had increased in counties where rural police forces had been established.—See second Report, 1853 Committee, §§ 2770, 2792, and 2793.
213 See ante p. 102, Chapter VI.
214 See Second Report 1853 Committee, pp. 151, 152.
215 19 & 20 Vic., c. 69.
216 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47.
217 In the course of these riots £50,000 worth of damage was done.
218 After these riots the General Convention of Chartists issued a proclamation declaring “that a flagrant, wanton, and unjust outrage has been made upon the people of Birmingham, by a bloodthirsty and unconstitutional force from London, acting under the authority of men who wished to keep the people in degradation.”—“Annals of Our Times, 1839.” See also “Chronicles of Crime,” Camden Pelham.
219 Quarterly Review, No. 257, 1870.
220 Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’s “A History of the Criminal Law of England,” vol. i. chap. xiv.
221 Hale, Sum. 36, 37—I Hale, 457.
222 From “The Commonwealth of England,” by Sir Thomas Smith, 1589 edition.
223 The County and Borough Police Act of 1856 required Rural Police Forces to furnish annual returns of all crimes committed, persons apprehended, and subsequent criminal proceedings in their respective districts, on forms of return supplied by Sir George Gray. From the materials thus supplied were the Criminal Statistics prepared until 1892, when an improved method of compilation was introduced by the “Police Returns Act” of that year—(55 and 56 Vict. c. 38).
224 There were eighty-two cases of garrotting in London between June and December 1862; nor was the increased prevalence of crime confined to the Metropolis—most of the larger towns (especially Liverpool) suffered in the same way.
225 Transportation to New South Wales and S. Australia ceased in 1850, to Van Diemen’s Land in 1852; the last batch of convicts was sent to Western Australia in 1867.
226 The Chatham mutiny occurred in 1861, some years after the “Penal Servitude Act” had become law, but it was due to very similar causes to those which had occasioned the earlier outbreaks.
227 16 and 17 Vict. c. 99.
228 Select Committee on Transportation 1856, Para. 1824.
229 In the case of women convicts remission to the extent of one-third or thereabouts can be earned.
230 50,000 is nearer the mark. There were 43,000 in Australasia alone.
231 Speech by Sir H. Fowler, The Times, Jan. 15, 1901.
232 See the article on Reformatories by Sir E. Du Cane in “Chambers’ Encyclopædia.”
233 17 & 18 Vict. c. 86.
234 18 & 19 Vict. c. 87, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 109.
235 20 & 21 Vict. c. 48.
236 24 & 25 Vict. c. 113.
237 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49.
238 50 & 51 Vict. c. 25.
239 “Police Code,” pp. 80 and 81.
240 These recognizances may be with, or without, sureties; and the obligation “to keep the peace” and “to be of good behaviour” continues during such period as the Court may direct. Cf. p. 49, chapter iii. ante, with reference to the powers conferred on Justices of the Peace by 34 Edw. iii. c. 1.
241 Bicknell’s Police Manual, p. 244.
242 34 and 35 Vict. c. 112.
243 Female holders of licenses are not required to report themselves once a month.
244 See Bicknell’s Police Manual, p. 245.
245 A complete description of the system as employed in England may be found in a pamphlet entitled “The Identification of Habitual Criminals,” published by The Police Review.
246 See “Our absurd system of punishing crime,” by Dr Robert Anderson, in The Nineteenth Century and After for February 1901.
247 See also a letter of Mr Justice Wills on the same subject, in The Times, 21st Feb. 1901.
248 The electric telegraph was first adapted to police purposes in 1841.
249 See Kirchner’s “Law and practice relative to Fugitive Offenders.”
250 42 & 43 Vict. c. 22.
251 47 & 48 Vict. cap. 58.
252 These Regulations were revised by Sir Richard Webster (Lord Alverstone), Lord Herschell, and the Right Hon. Hugh Childers in 1886, and may be found on page 250 of Bicknell’s Police Manual.
253 Now Colonel Sir Howard Vincent, M.P., the compiler of “The Police Code,” and a well-known authority on police questions.
254 In 1884 the office of Director of Criminal Investigation was abolished, and the duties formerly appertaining to the office have since then been performed by an additional Assistant-Commissioner, appointed for the purpose; but the system remains practically the same as when it was first introduced in 1878.
255 See The Times, 6th Feb. 1888.
256 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 22.
257 In addition to the authorized deductions made from the pay of constables, all monies arising from fines imposed on constables, or for assaults on constables, from the sale of old police clothing, from pedlars and chimney sweeps’ certificates, from fines imposed by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, for offences under the Licensing Acts 1872-74, and from certain other sources, are now carried to the Pension Fund (see Police Act, 53 & 54 Vict. c. 45).
258 20 & 21 Vict. c. 64, s. 15.
259 See “The Story of Police Pensions,” by J. Munro.—New Review, vol. iii.
260 53 and 54 Vict. c. 45 (a).
261 Disorderly meetings took place on the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 23rd Oct. ’87; on the last of these occasions some two thousand rioters were guilty of brawling in Westminster Abbey.
262 There is an interesting article on the “Right of Public Meeting,” by Professor Dicey, in The Contemporary Review, April 1889. See “Annual Register,” 1888.
263 5 & 6 Will. iv. c. 76.
264 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50.
265 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41, &c.
266 See L.G.A., Section 9, para. 3.
267 Speech by Mr Morley at Newcastle, 21st of June 1886.
268 See article in the Contemporary Review, vol. lv. (Year 1889), by H. Evans, who therein pointed out that “the Treasury Grant to the Metropolitan Police Fund bears a higher proportion to the rateable value, than is the case with the contributions to the County and Borough Police.”
269 See section 2, 50 Vict. c. 9.
270 Police Code, under “Discipline.”
271 From “An Address to Police Constables on their Duties,” by Sir Henry Hawkins, printed in “The Police Code.”
272 Contrasting public with private executions, Henry Fielding remarked in favour of the latter, that, “the criminal dies only in the presence of his enemies, without the cordial of public approval to flatter his ambition.”
273 J. Bentham, “Principles of the Penal Law,” chapter xxi.
274 “Judicial Statistics England and Wales.” Part I.—Introduction, page 25.