CHAPTER VII

MILITARY POLICE AND POLICE UNDER CHARLES II

If the feebleness of the police was in some degree responsible

for the ready appeal to arms in 1642, the lawlessness that was so

widespread at the close of the century, was largely the outcome of the

disorganization of the national police system, which was the natural

accompaniment of the Revolution. Civil War is invariably attended by

an outbreak of crime that has no connection with the main quarrel, but

which arises in the day of trouble because the powerlessness of the

executive is the opportunity of the criminal. No longer is any one

power supreme (crimes committed in one camp being generally condoned

in the other), and a mania of insubordination drives ordinarily

well-disposed persons to throw off the old restraints to which they

instinctively submit in times of peace. When Civil War begins, the

"King's Peace" is at an end, the Law is forgotten or despised, the

whole body politic is in a state of fever, and the usual functions of

orderly government are suspended.

If the Revolution in England produced less serious consequences than

might have been expected, this result was due to the puritan zeal

of the Parliamentary Army, which had no sympathy with any acts of

violence that were not directed against those whom it held to be the

enemies of liberty and religion, and which at least permitted no

riotous licence amongst its adherents. Yet in spite of this desire of

the popular party to maintain order, the whole civil machinery of the

country was dislocated and out of gear as long as the war lasted; even

the circuit of the Justice of Assize was discontinued; and marriages,

no longer solemnised with the customary religious ceremony, were

performed by Justices of the Peace, and in such a casual manner that

few records were kept.

As soon as Cromwell's victory was complete he at once set to work to

establish an orderly government, only to find that the old implements

that had served his predecessors were now broken and well-nigh

useless. In London, the Parliamentary stronghold, the re-establishment

of order presented no insuperable difficulties, but in the rural

districts the case was different. There the gentry, to which class

both Justices of the Peace and grand jury-men belonged, were in the

main royalists--whilst constables, tythingmen and petty jurymen were

usually Roundheads. The resulting friction hampered the Protector's

administration from the first; so that, much as he would have preferred

to have made use of the constitutional machinery for peace-maintenance,

he was often compelled to resort to novel expedients to police the

new commonwealth. If it was denied to Oliver Cromwell to govern on

constitutional lines, he held, nevertheless, the supreme command of a

large and powerful army, such as no sovereign in England had previously

had the control of, and inevitably therefore, he fell back upon the

military forces that had served him so well in the past, hoping by

their aid to restore, if not to improve upon, the state of security

that had been wrecked by the war.

An attempt to reform the county magistracy by the creation of a new

commission of the peace in the year 1651 having ended in failure, the

Protector had no choice but to hand over to the Army those police

functions which no alternative organization was competent to undertake,

and so for the first time in English history, the civil power was

subordinated to a military dictatorship, and for a while the sword

supplanted the baton.

In the course of the year 1655 the whole of England and Wales was

divided for administrative purposes into twelve police districts,

viz.:--

i. Kent and Surrey.

ii. Sussex, Hants, and Berks.

iii. Gloucester, Wilts, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

iv. Oxford, Bucks, Herts, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Cambs.

v. London.

vi. Westminster and Middlesex.

vii. Lincoln, Notts, Derby, Warwick and Leicester.

viii. Northants, Beds, Rutland and Hunts.

ix. Herefordshire, Salop and N. Wales.

x. Cheshire, Lancashire and Staffordshire.

xi. Yorkshire, Durham, Cumberland, Westmoreland

and Northumberland.

xii. Monmouth and S. Wales.

To each of these districts a military officer was assigned, and largely

endowed with inquisitorial and penal powers. Though holding for the

most part no higher army rank than that of colonel or major, these

functionaries (who were appointed by Cromwell himself, and who remained

under his personal supervision) were styled Major-Generals,[126] and

under this title exercised an office which for the moment overawed

the constitutional ministers of the peace. At first it was not

intended that the ordinary magistrates should be superseded, for the

Major-Generals were instructed to co-operate with "the other Justices

of the Peace," and if in practice this co-operation degenerated into

flat coercion, such a result must be attributed to the exigencies

of the occasion, or to the misinterpretation of their orders by the

Protector's agents, rather than to the deliberate design of Cromwell

himself.

The programme in front of the military reformers was a sufficiently

extensive one, comprising, as it did, measures "for the security of the

peace of the nation, the suppressing of vice, and the encouragement of

virtue."[127] To enable them to grapple with their herculean task, they

were assisted by a special force of militia, 6420 strong, all but two

hundred of whom were mounted, and the expense of the new administration

was met by the imposition of a tax of ten per cent. on the estates

of Royalists, on the old English principle that those responsible

for disturbances should pay for the re-establishment of order. As

was only to be expected, political considerations suggested many of

the police regulations now enforced--travellers from foreign parts

were not free to remain on English soil till they had communicated to

the Major-General of the district, their names, their destination,

and their business, nor were they allowed to move from shire to

shire without previously advising the Justices; whilst ex-cavaliers

and other persons of known royalist sympathies were bound to notify

every change of address to the soldier-magistrates, who were also

empowered to disarm rebels and to distribute the confiscated weapons

amongst supporters of the parliamentary cause. For the guidance of

the Major-Generals a document was circulated, containing twenty-one

headings, under which was set out a scheme for the better government

of the people--horse-racing, cock-fighting, and bear-baiting were

forbidden, drunkenness, blasphemy and sabbath-breaking were to be

severely punished, and alehouses, not absolutely necessary for the

refreshment of travellers, were to be suppressed.[128] The vigour

with which this crusade against popular sports was pushed is well

illustrated by the activity displayed by Colonel Barkstead, who with

his own hand killed all the bears in Westminster, and ordered his men

to wring the neck of every game-cock that they could find.

Under the military régime espionage was encouraged, and the new

functionaries received special instructions to watch carefully such

persons as appeared to live beyond their means. At the same time

better protection for the public highways was provided, sheriffs being

ordered to apprehend vagrants, robbers and highwaymen throughout

their respective districts, with the assistance, if necessary, of the

military police; in this way the vagrant nuisance was considerably

abated, if not for long, and in one neighbourhood at least complete

success would seem to have been attained, for Whalley was able to

boast, "This I may truly say, you may ride all over Nottinghamshire,

and not see a beggar or a wandering rogue."

Although the meshes of what the Protector called his "little poor

invention" were calculated to entangle petty sinners amongst his

opponents whilst admitting of the escape of more dangerous offenders

amongst his adherents, it would be unjust to suppose that Cromwell's

police system was only a pretext for the exercise of political tyranny.

Many of the pains suffered by royalists were directly attributable

to their own faults, and, without deserting their cause, they might

with ordinary care have avoided many of the penalties they incurred.

Generally speaking, the code was especially severe against moral as

contrasted with criminal offences; gambling and profane swearing being

punishable by heavy fines and imprisonment, whilst dissolute living

rendered the offender liable "to be sent out of the Commonwealth,"

as transportation to Barbadoes was euphemistically termed. In

addition to their already too numerous duties, the Major-Generals

were expected to exercise a general supervision over the religious

habits of the people, the regulations of weights and measures and the

control of certain trades also falling to their lot. In London and

Westminster, where the Puritans had a preponderating majority, and

where Major-General Skippon and Colonel Barkstead respectively held

command, the police control grew particularly irksome and irritating,

puritan zeal being carried to such a pitch that fiddlers found

themselves in the stocks for no worse offence than playing a jig, and

even the ordinary Christmas festivities were sternly repressed. Search

was frequently made in the taverns and alehouses, and any servant

or apprentice found there after 8 P.M. was seized and taken before

a Justice of the Peace for punishment. The Commissioners of Customs

also were instructed to cause their officers to make similar visits in

order to prevent tippling amongst watermen,[129] whilst stage-plays and

places of public amusement were vigorously proceeded against.[130]

The régime associated with the Major-Generals was short; these

functionaries were practically extinct before the end of 1657, and all

traces of their rule were quickly obliterated after the restoration of

the Monarchy. But the episode is none the less interesting as being

the only example in England of an almost unqualified military police

ascendancy, such as has been common elsewhere.

In estimating the results produced by this system, it must be borne in

mind that the circumstances under which it was instituted were quite

exceptional. The army which undertook the policing of the country was

composed neither of foreigners nor of mercenaries; on the contrary,

its members were the pick of the middle classes of England, and their

object was the maintenance of liberty and religion, as they understood

those terms, not conquest, nor oppression for oppression's sake.

Cromwell's lieutenants did their work with honesty and diligence,

and, according to their lights, they held the balance of justice

level between man and man. If their discretion had equalled their

impartiality, posterity would be able to look upon their administration

with unqualified approval, but the admonishing, meddling, and

eavesdropping tactics that they saw fit to pursue only invited the

reaction that so quickly followed on the heels of their employment.

As long as a strict military discipline remained in force, disorders

were kept in check, but as soon as it was relaxed, the havoc caused by

the war soon became apparent, and at no time in our history has there

been such a need of a strong and capable police force as there was

at the time of the Restoration. The country was overrun by vagrants

and disbanded soldiery, numbers of people had suddenly been reduced

to poverty, and numbers had as suddenly been raised to affluence; the

revulsion of feeling that followed upon the downfall of the puritan

party led to excesses of every kind, and licence and violence thrived

in the general confusion; nor was it till Charles II. had been king for

several years that any attempt was made to grapple with the state of

chaos to which the internal security of the kingdom had been reduced,

and even then the matter was not faced with any resolution.

London was in a disgraceful condition. Few towns in Europe were at once

so inadequately policed, so badly lighted, and in such an insanitary

state as the capital city of England; proof of the lack of proper

sanitation, and its unfailing result, was brought home to people in

convincing form at the time when the nightly procession of dead-carts,

filled with victims of the plague, was the only traffic to be seen

in the streets; but although the great fire of 1666 improved out of

existence some of the most pestilential quarters, London remained a

city of squalor and darkness. Most of the thoroughfares were without

pavements of any kind, and such as existed were so sunken and broken

that they were a source of danger to those who stumbled along them;

rubbish was shot out of upper windows into the street beneath, and

the public squares were used as receptacles for all the filth of the

neighbourhood. After nightfall the certainty of having to encounter

drunken bullies and highway robbers confined to their houses those

citizens whom urgent business did not compel to walk abroad; even

in daylight there were districts where the peace officers dared not

venture, and Macaulay tells us that within the sanctuary of Whitefriars

"even the warrant of the Chief Justice of England could not be executed

without the help of a company of musketeers."[131]

All this time the legislature was mute: throughout the reign of

Charles II. hardly a single Act of Parliament was passed dealing with

the policing of the twin cities that make up the metropolis. The

municipal authorities did what they could, and by an Act of Common

Council provided a force of about one thousand Bellmen, afterwards

called Charlies, in memory of the monarch in whose reign they were

first instituted. Unfortunately these watchmen were allowed to shirk

their duties and were well known to be altogether inefficient, so

much so, that when rowdy apprentices and other unruly assemblages

gave trouble, as they too often did, no one thought of looking

to such weak-kneed officials for the safety of the town. On such

occasions companies of soldiers were requisitioned to protect the main

thoroughfares, and, as a further precaution, chains were stretched from

one side of the street to the other to prevent the free movement of the

riotous bands.

Before the end of the reign, however, some advance was made towards

rendering London a fit place to live in. Several squares were

enclosed and planted; new and wider streets were built; but the

greatest improvements of the time were due, not to the efforts of

municipal authorities, but to the recently-formed Royal Society,

which investigated the question of sanitary police, and offered

suggestions that to some extent were acted upon, with the result that

England has since been free from the plague, so fatal in former years.

Commissioners of Sewers were appointed, and the duties of scavengers

and rakers, with regard to the cleansing of the metropolis, were

formulated.

In other departments also, progress was manifest, especially in the

lighting arrangements. By an act passed in 1672[132] it had been

ordered that a certain number of candles should be displayed every

night between Michaelmas and Lady Day; but in 1685 private enterprise

was responsible for placing a light before every tenth door from dusk

till midnight. The effect cannot have been dazzling, but even this

moderate amount of illumination was more effectual in preventing crime

than any number of the watchmen of the period were likely to be. About

the same time regulations for the control of hackney carriages plying

for hire were first published.[133]

In the rural districts peace-maintenance was, if possible, at a lower

ebb than in London--the roads were almost impassable throughout the

winter months, and highwaymen were as frequent as mile-stones. Peace

officers were practically non-existent: Justices were careless and

apathetic, and Lords of the Manor had neglected to hold Courts-Leet for

the annual election of Constables. A statute of 1673[134] complains of

the lack of constables, and authorises two Justices of the Peace in

each district to fill up the vacancies immediately. This was the first

occasion on which the power of appointing petty constables had been by

Act of Parliament conferred on the magistrates, and official sanction

extended to what had for years been the almost invariable custom. For

the better policing of highways, turnpikes were established,[135]

and those who used the roads made to subscribe towards the necessary

repairs, instead of the whole burden being thrown on the rural

population, which, partly by forced labour exacted by law (the _Corvée_

of Feudal times), and partly by a parochial rate, had been compelled to

mend the roads that traversed their neighbourhood. It is to be feared

that this long-delayed act of justice was attributable rather to the

vile condition of the highways than to any tender consideration for the

rural population.

The system of passports, which had been introduced some centuries

before for the purpose of checking vagrancy, continued to find favour,

and was believed in as a panacea for the prevention of all kinds of

crime. It was thought, not without reason, that a thief could not

long pursue his vocation undetected amongst neighbours, who were

acquainted with his circumstances, and who saw how he occupied his

time and how he spent his money, whilst a stranger who came to-day

and was gone to-morrow, might rob from one end of England to the

other with impunity. The police were therefore instructed to enforce

the regulations against vagrants with increased vigour, and in the

following manner. After a vagrant beggar had been whipped he was

entitled to a testimonial signed by the minister of the parish and

countersigned by the constable or tythingman, setting forth the

date and place of his punishment, something after this form. "W. W.,

a sturdy vagrant beggar (aged about forty years) tall of stature,

red-haired, and long lean-visaged, and squint-eyed, was this 24th day

of A in the 22nd year of the reign of Our Gracious Sovereign Lord

King Charles the Second, etc., openly whipped at T in the County of

G; according to the law, for a wandering rogue; and is assigned to

pass forthwith from parish to parish by the officers thereof the next

streight way to W in the county of B, where he confesseth he was

born: and he is limited to be at W aforesaid within twelve days now

next ensuing at his peril. Given under the hands and seals of C. W.

minister of T. aforesaid, and of J. G. constable there, the day and

year aforesaid."[136] Any vagrant found by a constable, and unable

to produce such a testimonial, was straightway to be arrested, and

became liable to more whipping, or if found incorrigible[137] to

transportation "to any of the English plantations beyond the sea" by

the order of a majority of Justices at Quarter Sessions. Although we no

longer look upon vagrancy as "The Mother and Root of all Evil" as our

forefathers did, and have relaxed the stringency of the laws against

vagabondage, the tramp is still an object of legitimate suspicion,

and a watchful eye is kept by the Convict Supervision Office over all

convicts at large, who are bound to produce their licenses when called

upon by a police officer to do so, and are only allowed to travel from

district to district under certain restrictions.

Among the many difficulties that those responsible for the preservation

of the peace had to contend with, one of the most complicated was how

best to deal with the lawless aggression of the Lowland Scots without

involving the two nationalities in actual war. Henry VIII. endeavoured

to solve the problem by the creation of a special local authority

called "The Council of the North," but this was only a temporary

measure, and not very successful, nor were the expedients adopted by

Elizabeth any more effectual. Throughout the whole of the seventeenth

century, the northern counties were continually overrun by predatory

bands, called Moss-troopers, who taking advantage of the almost

perennial hostility existing between the English and the Scots, harried

the country-side, murdering, marauding, and lifting cattle: in case of

pursuit, or after an unusually successful expedition, they had only

to cross the border to avoid capture. According to Fuller,[138] their

numbers amounted at one time to some thousands of men, who scoured the

country in troops and exacted an annual tribute from the inhabitants of

the valleys between the Solent and the North Sea. Although Fuller's was

assuredly an exaggerated estimate, these enterprising freebooters were

without question a most formidable fraternity. The Union of the Crowns

of England and Scotland deprived them, it is true, of the international

pretext they had traded upon in the past, but their depredations

continued just the same as before. With the hope of putting an end to

these raids, a local police force was established in 1672,[139] and

afterwards kept alive by successive Acts of Parliament. The Justices

of the Peace for the northern counties were empowered by virtue of

this Statute to make a charge of £500 against Northumberland, and of

£200 against Cumberland, for the payment and support of a body of men,

forty-two strong (viz., thirty Northumbrians and twelve Cumbrians),

whose duty it was to "search out, discover, pursue, apprehend, and

bring to trial by law,"--the raiders. In strict justice, the task of

suppressing the Moss-troopers should not have been left to a local

force, but the political relations between the two countries were

already strained almost to breaking point, and the employment of troops

on the borderland might, and probably would, have induced a rupture.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the government of the day was

probably justified in the course pursued, but on no account should the

whole expense have been borne by the very counties which had already

principally suffered through the inroads of the raiders.

Contemporary literature shews how lamentably insecure life and property

had become in the days of the later Stuarts, and during the early

Georgian period. Luttrell's diary is one long catalogue of crimes of

violence, and he remarks, from his own experience, that "footpads are

very troublesome in the evening on all the roads leading to the city,

which renders them very unsafe." In his history of England, Smollet

declares that "thieves and robbers are now become more desperate and

savage than they had ever appeared since mankind was civilized."

No thoroughfare was free from the tyranny of the fraternity of

highwaymen, who were allowed to terrorize whole districts, and who

enjoyed an almost unlimited freedom from interference. As their

depredations grew more extensive, their insolence increased. Evelyn

describes how a gang of robbers succeeded in appropriating the

taxes that had been collected in the northern counties, as the bags

containing the money were being escorted through Hertfordshire, on

their way to London: the highwaymen first stopped and secured all

travellers in the immediate neighbourhood, placed them under guard in

a field, and after killing the horses of their captives to prevent

pursuit, attacked the escort, put them to flight, and captured the

treasure. The authors of this outrage were never caught.

Troops were sometimes made use of in a half-hearted sort of way

to patrol the most infested localities, but the simple remedy of

maintaining a properly paid and equipped police was never tried:

the only expedient that the wisdom of the age could suggest was the

offering of rewards to all and sundry to encourage the apprehending

of highwaymen. This disastrous policy was inaugurated in 1692.[140]

"Whereas the highways and roads," runs the preamble of the statute

in question, "within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales

have been of late times more infested with thieves and robbers than

formerly, for want of due and sufficient encouragement given, and means

used, for the discovery of such offenders," provision is accordingly

made, that in the event of any person being killed in the act of taking

a highwayman, his executors shall have the reward, and a free pardon

is promised to accomplices and other criminals who shall cause such

offenders to be brought to justice. The conditions under which this

pardon was granted were as follows: "If any person or persons, being

out of prison from and after the said five-and-twentieth day of March,

commit any robbery and afterwards discover two or more persons, who

already hath or hereafter shall commit any robbery, so as two or more

of the persons discovered shall be convicted of such robbery--any such

discoverer shall himself have, and be entitled to, the gracious pardon

of their Majesties."

The provisions of this Act were afterwards extended to robberies in

London,[141] and first and last were responsible for an appalling sum

of wickedness. The bait of blood-money and the lack of a salaried or

professional class of detectives were answerable for the appearance of

amateur thief-takers; these men were mostly ex-thieves, who had given

up their old vocation for the safer, more lucrative, but infinitely

baser role of fattening on the conviction of the innocent, and on the

execution of those whom they had themselves corrupted. The best known

and most energetic member of this horde of vampires was the notorious

Jonathan Wild, who flourished at the beginning of the eighteenth

century, and whose _modus operandi_ is fully set forth for us by Henry

Fielding in his satirical history of "Jonathan Wild the Great."

This arch-ruffian had a most complete knowledge of all the thieves in

England, and at one time practically monopolised in his own person the

trades of receiver of stolen property and trafficker in blood money. He

established warehouses all over the country, and even bought himself a

ship to export what he could not dispose of at home. To those thieves

who submitted to his authority, and who brought him the proceeds of

their robberies, he extended a protection that must have been dependent

to a certain degree on the connivance of some person or persons in

authority. Grandmaster of espionage, and holding in his talons the

threads of all villainy, Wild could manufacture whatever evidence he

chose, could ruthlessly destroy any who opposed him, and deliver up

to justice those thieves who were bold enough to take their spoils

elsewhere for disposal. When this supply of victims ran short, or

when it suited his purpose to shield the real culprit, he was content

to take the reward offered for the conviction of the innocent. It is

comforting to know that his carcass, the foulest fruit the fatal tree

ever bore, eventually swung at Tyburn, at the same spot where so many

of his victims had preceded him.

The iniquitous system of paying blood-money for the conviction of

certain classes of offenders continued for generations, but is now

happily extinct. At the present day rewards are not offered by

Government except under very exceptional circumstances, and then

only in cases where the identity of the criminal is clear, whilst

rewards offered by private persons are placed under restrictions that

prevent any revival of the abominable traffic that continued even

into the nineteenth century. As late as 1816 George Vaughan, and

others associated with him, were convicted at the Middlesex Sessions

of conspiring to induce three brothers named Hurley, and a lad named

Wood, only thirteen years of age, to commit a burglary at Hoxton, and

by having them convicted of the fact, to procure for themselves the

rewards given by Parliament for the conviction of housebreakers.

One of the chief embarrassments, after the inefficiency of the

constabulary, which hampered the action of the authorities, and made

the suppression of crime more difficult, was the popularity that the

more notorious thieves enjoyed amongst a large section of the people;

the sympathy, felt and expressed, for highwaymen of the Claude Duval

type was widespread, and arose from a variety of sentiments. The mass

of the people, who never suffered in their own pockets, were not

altogether averse to seeing the rich plundered occasionally, especially

as it was the policy of the robbers to be free and open-handed with a

part of their booty. Another class of people who were well-disposed

towards the highwaymen, gave their sympathy as a misdirected kind of

protest against the severity of the law; and the "gentlemen of the

road," as they were called, quick to perceive the advantage that this

popularity, from whatever source arising, gave them--sometimes, but not

often--performed quite gentlemanly actions, in order to enhance and to

advertise their reputation for good deeds.

The Abbé le Blanc, who spent some years in England early in the

eighteenth century, declared that he frequently met Englishmen who

were as proud of the exploits of their highwaymen as they were of the

bravery of their soldiers, and in a letter to de Buffon he writes: "It

is usual, in travelling, to put ten or a dozen guineas in a separate

pocket, as a tribute to the first that comes to demand them," and adds

that, "... about fifteen years ago, these robbers, with a view to

maintaining their rights, fixed up papers at the doors of rich people

about London, expressly forbidding all persons, of whatever quality

or condition, from going out of town without ten guineas and a watch

about them, under pain of death. In bad times, when there is little

or nothing to be got on the roads, these fellows assemble in gangs,

to raise contributions even in London itself; and the watchmen seldom

trouble themselves to interfere with them in their vocation."[142]

Without attaching too much importance to the statements of this foreign

critic, it must be confessed that at no time in our history have the

arrangements for maintaining the peace sunk to so low an ebb as when

thief-takers like Jonathan Wild were officially recognised and allowed

to co-operate with the constitutional police forces, and at no time

has the flood of lawlessness reached such a height as when highwaymen

and footpads dictated their own terms to all who made bold to use the

King's Highway. Yet the Government took no steps towards organizing an

adequate defence, and utterly failed to provide any counterpoise to

the criminal tendencies of the age; it was left to private enterprise

to carry out the duties, or some of them, that Parliament neglected

to perform. In 1696 a "Society for the reformation of manners in

the cities of London and Westminster" was formed, and in 1702 was

instrumental in securing the conviction of 858 "Leud and Scandalous

persons." Two years later, the Governors of the London poor issued

a proclamation, promising the sum of twelve pence to any person who

should apprehend "any rogue, vagabond, or sturdy beggar," and, having

brought him before a Justice of the Peace, cause him to be committed to

the workhouse.

The particular kind of lawlessness, however, that chiefly exercised

men's minds in the days of Queen Anne was the work of young men of the

town, commonly known as "Mohocks," who established a reign of terror

in London, and whose excesses the peace-officers were powerless to

prevent. The worst outbreak occurred in 1712, and the doings of these

young blackguards are minutely described in a pamphlet published

in that year.[143] "The watch in most of the out-parts of the town

stand in awe of them, because they always come in a body, and are too

strong for them, and when any watchman presumes to demand where they

are going, they generally misuse them. Last night they had a general

rendezvous and were bent on mischief; their way is to meet people in

the streets and stop them, and begin to banter them, and if they make

any answer, they lay on them with sticks, and toss them from one to

another in a very rude manner. They attacked the watch in Devereux

Court and Essex Street, made them scower: they also slit two persons'

noses, and cut a woman in the arm with a penknife that she is lam'd.

They likewise rowled a woman in a tub down Snow Hill, that was going to

market, set other women on their heads, misusing them in a barbarous

manner."

In spite of the public indignation that such brutalities aroused, the

feeble and timid watchmen were not superseded, nor was any inquiry

instituted to discover the reasons for their inability to cope with

these scandalous proceedings. It was thought rather a good joke that

watchmen should be knocked down, and constables overturned, whilst

the fact that London was left in complete darkness during the greater

part of the night seems to have occasioned but little concern. There

is a saying to the effect that a good lamp is a good policeman; but

the subjects of Queen Anne, as it seems, expected the peace to be

maintained without the assistance of either the one or the other,--the

lamps were only lighted at six o'clock in the evening, and those that

had not gone out before were extinguished at midnight, and when the

moon was full they were not lighted at all.

The outrages committed by the Mohocks were so serious and persistent

that something had to be done towards putting a stop to them, and

so recourse was had to the objectionable expedient of offering a

government reward for the conviction of the members of the gang. On

the 17th of March 1712, the Queen issued a Royal Proclamation in the

following words--"Anne R. The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty being

watchful for the Public Good of her loving Subjects, and taking notice

of the great and unusual Riots and Barbarities which have lately been

committed in the Night Time, in the open Streets, in several parts of

the Cities of London and Westminster, and Parts adjacent, by numbers

of Evil dispos'd Persons, who have combined together to disturb the

Public Peace, and in an inhuman manner, without any Provocation have

Assaulted and Wounded many of her Majesty's good Subjects, and have had

the Boldness to insult the Constables and Watchmen, in the Execution of

their Office, to the great Terror of her Majesty's said Subjects, and

in Contempt and Defiance of the Laws of this Realm, to the Dishonour

of her Majesty's Government, and the Displeasure of Almighty God, &c.,

&c.... Her Majesty doth hereby promise and declare, That Whosoever

shall before the First Day of May now next ensuing, discover to any of

Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, any Person who, since the First

Day of February, last past, hath, without any Provocation, Wounded,

Stabb'd, or Maim'd, or who shall before the said First Day of May,

without any Provocation, Wound, Stab, or Maim, any of her Majesty's

Subjects, within the said Cities of London and Westminster, and Parts

Adjacent, so as such Offenders be brought to Justice, shall have and

receive the Reward of One Hundred Pounds, &c., &c."

The continuance of disorders, which Rewards and Royal Proclamations

were unable to check, and the prospect that the Jacobites would not

tamely accept the rule of the House of Hanover, combined to make the

question of peace-maintenance a very difficult problem for Queen Anne's

successor. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the first

legislative enactments of George the First had for its object the

suppressing of public tumults. The Act referred to is commonly called

"The Riot Act,"[144] and became law in 1715. This Statute introduced

no new principle--similar enactments, or at any rate measures which

had the same object in view, had been frequently brought forward by

Tudor sovereigns and by their predecessors, but in 1715 the offence

of rioting (together with the penalties attaching thereto) was more

clearly defined than had formerly been the case, and extended powers

were conferred on a single Justice of the Peace or other authorized

officer, acting alone, for "preventing tumults and riotous assemblies,

and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters."

After reciting that "the punishments provided by the laws now in being

are not adequate to such heinous offences" the Statute enacts, that

if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being unlawfully,

riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of

the public peace, at any time after the last day of July 1715, and

after being commanded by any one or more Justice or Justices of the

Peace, or by the sheriff, etc., by proclamation in the Kings name, to

disperse themselves, shall unlawfully continue together for the space

of one hour after such command, then such continuing together to the

number of twelve or more, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of

clergy, "and the offenders therein shall suffer death as in the case of

felony without benefit of clergy."

The method of making the proclamation is as follows:--The Justice of

the Peace or other authorised person "being among the said rioters,

or as near to them as he can safely come" shall command silence, and

after that shall openly and with loud voice make proclamation in

these words:--"Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth

all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and

peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business,

upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King

George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the

King." To constitute a riot it is essential that alarm should be

caused amongst the King's subjects, and if the four last words of the

proclamation are omitted the reading of the Riot Act has no virtue. If

after proclamation has been made the rioters do not disperse within an

hour, any or all of them may be apprehended by force, and if they make

resistance, the persons killing or injuring them are indemnified and

discharged of all liability with respect to any death or lesser injury

they may happen to inflict.

The general tone of public opinion was constantly being lowered by

the degrading spectacles that were everywhere displayed. Government

itself set the example of brutality and violence by countenancing the

procession to Tyburn, the use of the pillory, and the setting up of

whipping-posts in the public streets; with the result that imitators

sprung up in abundance to practice the lessons so sedulously taught

by the authorities. The punishment of the pillory was in itself

sufficiently severe, but the method of its infliction practically

amounted to the official legalising of Lynch Law, because the

populace were permitted to torture the sufferer almost to any extent;

stone-throwing was nominally forbidden, but the prohibition was not

enforced, and, if a victim died of the ill-usage to which he was

subjected, no one was punished.

The police, who were feeble and timid when danger threatened, and who

could never be trusted to quell the most insignificant riot, grew bold

on occasions, when, without risk to themselves, they could pounce upon

some weak or unpopular individual. Although whipping could be legally

inflicted only by order of the magistrate, it was no unusual occurrence

for a constable to take a man to the nearest whipping post, and there

have him thrashed without reference to any superior authority whatever.

For the safeguarding of prisons, banks, and other important places,

military guards were often used to reinforce the ordinary watchmen,

and, when so employed, the soldiers were accompanied by constables,

whose duty it was to question passers-by, to hand suspicious characters

over to the guard, and to bring them before a Justice of the Peace

on the following morning. These duties, simple as they were, seem to

have been negligently performed by the peace-officers, for complaints

of neglect of duty were frequent; when Brigadier Mackintosh and his

companions escaped from Newgate, they were lucky enough to pass the

guard without examination, because the constable was absent from his

post, and, in his absence, the military sergeant in charge had no

authority to detain fugitives.

Further evidence, were any required, of the unsatisfactory condition

of the parochial constabulary in London is abundant--not only was

delinquency on the increase, but internal squabbles were everywhere

rife amongst the local bodies intrusted with the preservation of

the peace. In 1727 the Vestry of St George's, Hanover Square, for

example, established a force of thirty-two watchmen and four bedels

for that parish; several of the inhabitants, however, refused to pay

the Watch-rate, and set up an opposition establishment which they

called "The Inhabitant Watch" consisting of some sixteen persons,

who repudiated the authority of the existing constables, and, on one

occasion, flatly refused to arrest certain offenders even when required

to do so by the High Constable.

An ineffectual attempt to reform the police of London was made in

1736, in which year an Act of Parliament[145] was passed, giving

powers to the Common Council of the City to raise a sum of money

sufficient for all police purposes, to appoint as many peace officers

as they thought proper, and to issue new and improved orders for the

guidance of the nightly watch. By the same statute, Aldermen were made

responsible for their respective wards, constables were empowered to

arrest night-walkers, malefactors, and other suspected persons, and

watchmen, in the absence of the Constable, might perform the duties

of that functionary. Liability to watch and ward extended to all the

inhabitants of London who were not "rated and assessed," by virtue of

the Statute of Winchester.

At about the same time, the police administration of the rural

districts was the subject of legislation, it being enacted[146] that

any constable neglecting to make Hue and Cry shall be fined five

pounds, and the liability of the hundred, in which a felony has been

committed, for the escape of the felon is again insisted upon. By

another Statute,[147] passed four years later, High Constables were

ordered to levy a County Rate in the provinces and to pay the proceeds

over to a treasurer appointed by Quarter Sessions, to be applied by him

to the general police purposes of the County.

It is obvious that the Civil Power ought to be prepared for any

possible emergency, but before 1829 this was far from being the case,

and we find that when any exceptional conditions arose, temporary

expedients had to be hurriedly devised to meet the crisis, affairs

being allowed to slip back into their normal state of unpreparedness

immediately the pressure was relieved. Such was the nature of the

arrangements improvised during the rebellion in favour of the Young

Pretender in 1745, when London prepared to defend itself against the

enemy that marched southwards from Perth as far as Derby, almost

without a check. The trained bands, who a hundred years before had

barred the advance of Charles I. at Turnham Green, were called out,

and, for a period of five months, the City Militia superseded the

normal police establishments.

At this time the trained bands consisted of six regiments, viz., The

Yellow, The White, The Orange, The Blue, The Red, and The Green. Their

numbers amounted to close on ten thousand men, who at the crisis

undertook to protect London, not only against a possible attack of an

enemy from without, but also against the depredations of thieves and

rioters within. The different regiments were told off to come on duty

in rotation, for twenty-four hours at a time, and were disposed for

police purposes in the following manner. Near the Mansion House was

placed the main guard, and here the Commanding Officer was to be found

during his tour of duty; other guards, under subordinate officers,

being stationed at various points in the city.

During the day, only "home-sentinels," as they were called, were

posted, but after sunset both "out-sentinels" and patrols were added;

these patrols, called "petty-rounds," periodically visited the

neighbouring sentries; in the event of any rioting or other disturbance

taking place, they had to return immediately, and inform the officer

in charge. He was then instructed to march out his party to suppress

it, at the same time notifying his commanding officer of the extent

of the disorder, in order that the latter might send the necessary

reinforcements, not only from the Main Guard, but from the other guards

also, in sufficient numbers until peace was restored. Moreover, a

general supervision was maintained by means of "grand rounds," which

starting from the Main Guard patrolled the whole circuit to see that

sentries were alert, that patrols were acquainted with their duties,

that the countersign was correctly given, and to conduct prisoners

to head-quarters for subsequent disposal by the magistrates. At

daybreak reveille was sounded, and all out-sentinels relieved; but the

home-sentinels were continued at their posts throughout the day.

The retreat of the invaders, and their final rout at Culloden, rendered

the further embodiment of the citizen soldiers unnecessary, but during

the period of their employment they performed their police duties with

so much success, that robberies in the streets of London were for the

time almost entirely suppressed, and the King's Peace was maintained in

unexampled tranquillity. It does not appear that the Militia abused the

power placed in their hands in any way, whilst the superiority of their

rule over that of the watchmen was so pronounced, that there was some

talk in after years of permanently handing over the policing of London

to the trained bands; but the national distrust of a too powerful

gendarmerie prevailed, and the old régime was allowed to continue.

If the suggestion had come to anything, it would of course have been

necessary to modify their organization which was of a strictly military

character; but when the proposal was rejected an excellent opportunity

was lost of obtaining the services of a really efficient body of men,

at an expense to the ratepayers far below that of the existing watch,

which then cost about £23 per night for the City proper, besides what

was paid by banks and private individuals for special services.

A History of Police in England · 第 7 / 13 章