Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies
Trading Justices: Magistrates, Thief-takers, and Bow Street Runners
Download 236.5 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2.4From 1785 to 1829: Forty-four Years of Partial Reforms
2.3Trading Justices: Magistrates, Thief-takers, and Bow Street RunnersEarly-eighteenth-century Englishmen were still expected to pursue offenders themselves, which remained possible in rural areas. “Petty thefts committed by neighbours or servants in a hamlet were relatively easily sniffed out” (Porter, ESEC 156); but in London and other big cities it began to cause problems. As mentioned earlier, duties of constables and watchmen were varied but detection and prevention of crime were not among them. Even if they had been, the number of constables in London and other cities was so low that they could not cope with rising criminality. “In the late eighteenth century, the metropolis, its population nearing one million, had no more than 1,000 officers and 2,000 watchmen. (Paris, by contrast, had 7,000 officers and 6,000 Swiss guards, under greater central control) (Porter, ESEC 156). Authorities relied on private initiatives and, as a result, at the beginning of the eighteenth century English metropolises and London in particular were marked by activities of magistrates, trading justices and professional thief-takers. Magistrates were not generally admired and are believed to win little trust (Porter, London 155). The same is true for trading justices who received fees for dealing with petty offences. Emsley claims that they had a reputation for greed and self-enrichment and that their own pocket was their only consideration (CPPP 61). The bad press magistrates and trading justices received resulted in many cases from their connection with thief-takers. Thief-takers appeared when individuals or their families were not able to chase an offender themselves. Since the number of constables was not sufficient, authorities encouraged citizens to establish themselves as thief-takers. Thief-takers were paid by courts for bringing offenders to justice and by individuals for returning stolen goods,2 which proved to be dangerous since some of them were ready to capture anyone who was not able to defend themselves. All magistrates and thief-takers were not, undoubtedly, greedy entrepreneurs and, for instance, the magistrate court established in Bow Street became the centre of policing in London in the middle of the 18th century: “In 1739 Sir Thomas De Veil [...] had become a magistrate in Winchester and set up a house in Bow Street from where he administered justice” (Emsley, GBB 20). He was then followed by Henry Fielding and his step-brother John, who set up a group of professional thief-takers, the Bow Street Runners, in 1749 (Porter, ESEC 156). Their activities developed those of trading justices but they were paid “from a variety of clandestine government and administrative resources” (Emsley, GBB 20), and also for their administration of justice. They were in charge of roads and “patrolled the highways and streets within the parish of Bow Street” (“Police”). The Fielding brothers and their Runners did not become famous only for their tracking down of offenders. They are remembered for their innovative and more professional approach to policing and detection and, for instance, for Finnane they represent the major police experiment of the eighteenth century (50). Their main argument was that “crime control could be achieved by a bureaucratic detective system that was national in its outlook, that possessed sufficient legal and financial resources and that utilized skills not available to the ordinary person” (Rawlings 96). They came up with several suggestions that were later developed by the new police. Henry Fielding understood the importance of communication and worked out a plan for information exchange. He wanted the Bow Street Office to become a place where information about crimes and offenders from various districts was gathered and processed. He succeeded and from 1773 a newspaper Hue and Cry began to be circulated. Other proposals were not well received because they suggested what was seen as professional paid police. These proposals met with a strong opposition of regional authorities who were not willing to reorganize the existing system of policing and of people fearing the government intrusion and creation of an army-like force similar to that of France and other countries on the continent. 2.4From 1785 to 1829: Forty-four Years of Partial ReformsThe idea of establishing the armed and regular police was inimical to most eighteenth and nineteenth-century Englishmen. Every suggestion of establishing a national police force in England met with resistance. It was caused by the belief that Great Britain was “the land of liberty” (Emsley, GBB 33) and that police would bring oppression known from continental Europe. “Police institutions were regarded with suspicion as the kinds of instruments with which the princes of Continental Europe kept their unfortunate subjects in thrall” (Emsley, GBB 13). Although the English were aware that the existing system of policing was far from perfect, they did not want to create a force similar to those on the continent: The “eighteenth-century English observers admired the apparent efficiency of French policing [but] they recoiled not only from the apparent intrusive behaviour of plain-clothes police spies but also from the military structure of the national force that patrolled the principal rural roads, the Maréchaussée” (Emsley, GBB 33). However, calling out the army was not unknown in England. Although the English opposed the creation of a standing army of policemen, they were accustomed to an army intervention. When it was necessary to deal with mobs and when it came to riots like the Gordon Riots in 1780, neither parish constables nor Runners were able to cope and, subsequently, the army had to be called. It was after the Gordon Riots and their harsh suppression that Lord Shelburne complained that “the police of Westminster was an imperfect, inadequate, and wretched system ... a fit object of reformation” (Porter, London 153). There were, actually, attempts at reformation as early as 1785, however, they were not successful. In 1785 Pitt’s government introduced the Police Bill. In the bill Pitt proposed “the establishment of a centrally controlled police for the entire metropolis” (Emsley, EP 20). Nevertheless, it met with a strong opposition from various parties: The City of London did not want to lose its independence, and the distrust of organised police was still overwhelming. Then in 1789 the former Lord Provost of Glasgow, Patrick Colquhoun, became a magistrate in London. In 1796 he wrote Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis, in which he began to use the word ‘police’ in a relatively modern sense (Emsley, CPPP 105). He pictured a set of police districts with professional officers with salaries and clearly defined duties.3 He saw the weaknesses of rewarding thief-takers by results and pointed out the problems of smuggling and theft on the Thames. He suggested the armed river police and “by 26 June 1798, it was announced that a river police to be called the Marine Police Institution was to be formed immediately, with its base at Wapping” (Wade 20). There were 50 officers (Paterson) who were responsible for detection and prevention of crime and protection of merchants on the river Thames. The river police was not the only force that emerged in England at the end of the eighteenth century. In 1792 the inhabitants of Hoxton founded a “military association for the protection of their persons and properties against the attacks of ruffians” (Porter, ES 156) whereas some towns witnessed formation of societies for the prosecution of criminals. Members of these societies, usually urban employers, “contributed a fixed payment to a common pool. The money was available to pay the cost of prosecuting a crime committed against any member” (Friedman). In this way they minimised the expenses necessary for bringing an offender before court, which was expensive and which might have exceeded the value of goods stolen or destroyed. During the 44 years that elapsed between Pitt’s unsuccessful proposal and before the British Parliament passed the Metropolitan Police Act, the attitude to centralised policing did not profoundly change, but the advocate of the 1829 Act, Sir Robert Peel, could prepare the ground for it and skilfully persuaded the opponents. Peel was influenced by Colquhoun’s ideas and suggested the creation of a centralised police force. When he became the Home Secretary in 1822, he immediately set up a committee that was to investigate the state of policing in the metropolis. The results of the investigation showed that albeit centralization of police was needed, the fears of government intrusion and concerns about Englishman’s liberties prevailed (Rawlings 114). Another inquiry, initiated in 1828, however, brought a different result and a year later the Metropolitan Police Act was passed. To support the passage of the bill, Peel argued that the parochial system of policing is inefficient and that “while parish boundaries confined officers they did not confine criminals” (Rawlings 114). He tried to persuade the members of Parliament that the costs needed for establishing the new force would not be higher that those required for the existing system and that this reform might encourage other reforms of the penal code. Peel’s success may be put down to the fact that he skilfully avoided controversial issues, disputes with the authorities of the City in particular. Although he promoted integration of police forces, the City was excluded from his proposal. He was well aware of the fact that the representatives of the City would never support an act that would limit their independence and ancient rights. He also managed to persuade the Members that the Metropolitan Police would not have any links with London’s local government and the Commissioners would be responsible to the Home Secretary who would exercise only a broad authority over them (Miller 33). Having muted the opposition, he guided the bill through Parliament, and on 29 September 1829 first ‘Bobbies’ started patrolling London streets.
Download 236.5 Kb. Share with your friends:
|