Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 55Issue 1 March Article 18

Spring 1964

The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829J. L. Lyman

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationJ. L. Lyman, The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829, 55 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 141 (1964)

POLICE SCIENCE

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829:

An Analysis of Certain Events Influencing the Passage and Character of theMetropolitan Police Act in England

J. L. LYMAN

J. L. Lyman, D. Pub. Adm. (Oxon.) is an Assistant Professor, Department of Social Science,Youngstown (Ohio) University. In addition to graduate study in history and political institutions atLondon University, Dr. Lyman spent time as an observer with the Metropolitan Police and variousother English police units. In 1958 she lectured before the Ohio Chiefs of Police Association on theOrganization and Administration of the Metropolitan Police, and has published articles in severalother professional journals.-EDroR.

The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 introduceda centralized and unified system of police inEngland. The Act constituted a revolution intraditional methods of law enforcement.

The purpose of this paper is to examine certainevents which the writer feels were responsiblefor the eventual legislative action that establishedthe Metropolitan Police and its development as acivilian police. The scope of the paper is limited toMetropolitan London. The Metropolitan Police ofLondon became the model for subsequent nationalpolice reform.

In considering those events during the period1750-1829 which in the writer's opinion most in-fluenced the introduction and passage of the 1829Act, some historic and essential facts must be rec-ognized. First, the historic English concept ofliberty was embodied in the accepted theory ofcommunity responsibility for keeping the King'speace. It had been customary for freemen to ac-cept, in turn, this responsibility. English justiceand administration were obligations, and priv-ileges of Crown-appointed, unpaid, Justices of thePeace who were usually chosen from amongst thegentry. Their duties included responsibility formaintaining law and order, and the direction of thelocal parish constables. Secondly, Englishmpn ofall classes generally viewed the Continental mon-archy as being based on a police tyranny. Conse-quently, any measure suggesting a strengtheningof the power of the central government was sus-pect. Thirdly, the parish-constable system hadbecome anachronistic in a new and rapidly develop-ing industrialized-urbanized society. The old police

system had become ineffective. Tradition and theconcepts of tlhe new industrial capitalism delayedboth the recognition of, and the willingness to dealwith law, enforcement needs.

The eighteenth century witnessed an increase inpopulation and urbanization. Revival of trade andcommerce, progress in medicine, improved agricul-tural methods, and the Industrial Revolution werecontributing factors. Parliament was concernedwith the maintenance of the Protestant Succession,and Parliament and people were concerned withJacobite threats and foreign wars. Little seriousattention was paid to law-enforcement in London.London's constables and night watchmen wereinsufficient and inefficient. Public safety and thesecurity of property were dealt with on a makeshiftbasis, although there were variations in the effec-tiveness of the City, parish, and borough watches.By the mid-eighteenth century, the inability of thepolice to deal with growing lawlessness and crimecaused periodic anxiety.

The police were often harsh and bullying, manywere unfit, physically or mentally, to perform theirduties. As economic opportunities increased,householders found it unprofitable to assume theirturns at keeping the peace. They hired othersto do it for them; their choice was decidedby the price. The result was that theparish's poorest and most unfit were often theparish constables. Many were notorious for bribe-taking and collaboration with known criminals.The increase in crime was reflected in a harsh penalcode containing over two hundred offenses punish-able by death. There was an increase in the con-

J. L. LYMAN

sumption of gin by the lower classes, accompaniedby an increase in drunkenness and vice. An increas-ing birth-rate and population, with little progressin housing, wages, or law enforcement, made con-ditions worse in London. Boroughs, parishes, andprivate bodies established their own police or nightwatch, and each operated only within its ownboundaries.

The first realistic attempt to deal with the prob-lem of law-enforcement occurred in 1749 whenHenry Fielding was appointed to the Bow Streetmagistracy. His interest in law-enforcement soonbecame manifest. This may have been due, in part,to a particularly severe London crime wave aboutthe time of his appointment. The increased crimehas been blamed on the hordes of disbandedsoldiers and sailors who descended on Londonafter the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and to the newGovernment policy on gin. In 1745 Parliament hadgranted permission to distillers to retail on pay-ment of a £ 5 license fee. Official dram shops sprangup, and there was a- shocking increase of gin con-sumption due to its cheapness.' By 1750 the annualconsumption of gin was over one gallon per man,woman, and child.2

Shortly after assuming office, Henry Fieldingand his brother, Sir John, set up the Bow StreetFoot Patrol, also called the Bow Street Runners.These were regularly paid detectives, functioningas a police force, and famous for results achieved.The Fieldings also suggested that metropolitanproperty owners combine into societies for protec-tion against burglars. Each society would collect anannual subscription fee of two guineas per member.This accumulated fund would enable member-victims of robbery to call the Bow Street Patrol,and to pay any expenses incurred in the pursuitand prosecution of offenders. 3 Meanwhile deprada-tions against life and property continued, as didGovernment inaction; except for the Runners, thepolice offered little protection and less prevention.

Until 1829 numerous and sporadic, and generallyinadequate, Bills were presented in Parliament forpolice improvement. Numerous committees wereappointed to investigate the question, but theirrecommendations were seldom implemented. Billsand committees usually achieved little except thebelated recognition of some exceptional outburst

'PATRICK PIRINGLE, Hum AND CRY, Museum Press,London: 1955, pp. 80-81.

2 Ibid., p. 93.'M LvH.LE LEE, A HISTORY oF T=E PouicE N

ENGLAND, Methuen & Co., London: 1901, pp. 157-158.

of lawlessness or rioting. Much of the early policelegislation was ineffective because it failed to pro-vide any source of central control, and the ultimatecontrol was always the individual parish orborough.

Between Michaelmas 1769 and March 1770 therewere 104 house burglaries in the Metropolis. Theloud protests of householders resulted in the ap-pointment of a committee "to enquire into bur-glaries and robberies in Westminister and Londonand whether it is a growing evil." In 1770 theCommittee's report was presented by Sir JohnFielding. The Report stated:

"The Watch is insufficient; their Duty toohard, and Pay too small.... That as they arepaid Monthly, they borrow their Money of aUserer once a Week.... That the Watch inWestminster is in every Parish under the Direc-tion of a separate Commission:-That Commis-sioners of the respective Parishes appoint theBeats of their Watchmen without conferringtogether, which leaves the Frontiers of eachParish in a confused State, for that where oneside of a street lies in one Parish, and the otherside in another Parish, the Watchmen of oneSide cannot lend any Assistance to Persons onthe other Side, other than as a private Person,except in Cases of Felony.4

James Sayer, Deputy High Steward for West-minster, testified before the Committee. He com-plained that there was no way to punish watchmenfor neglect of duty except by dismissal which "isnot a Punishment, for they [parishes] find it diffi-cult to get men to serve in that office.5 At the com-pletion of the inquiry, the Committee presentedsix resolutions. The most important of these werethat the constables and watch should be under onegeneral direction; that a new method of appointingand discharging constables be adopted; and thatthere should be regulations governing the duties ofwatchmen, constables, and beadles. The Reportwas implemented by the Act of 1773. Both theReport and Act were weak in that the formerfailed to state a source for central control, and thelatter failed to provide for central control. Moreserious was the fact that the Act applied only toWestminster so that any improvement would be atthe expense of surrounding parishes and boroughs.The Act did establish a minimum wage for thenight watch, regulate hours of duty, define duties,

4 JoURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF COMONS, XXXI,1770, p. 879.

5Ibid., p. 881.

[Vol. 55

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829

and prohibit watchmen from frequenting alehouseswhile on duty. The Act changed nothing nor im- -

proved anything, and apathy reigned for anotherdecade.

In 1778 the war in America was going badly.France and Spain seemed likely to support Amer-ica, and military and naval campaigns seemed tobe failures. Prices were rising but not wages. Moresoldiers were needed, and the Government decidedon an attempt to persuade Roman Catholics toenlist. To do this, it was thought necessary torepeal a clause in an anti-Catholic statute whichrequired anyone joining the army to take the at-testation oath. Recruiting among Roman Catholicshad never been very successful, and it was hopedthat the repeal would remedy the matter. The pro-posed measure was in no sense aimed at Catholicemancipation. Proponents of the proposed Bill sawlittle possibility of dissent in Parliament to thismild Catholic relief measure. The Opposition wouldnot be a major deterrent as "every good Whigcould not but agree to uphold the traditionalbelief of his party in religious toleration." 6 It wasintroduced by Sir George Saville who was knownto dislike Catholics. The Bill was accepted as anonparty measure, passed, and received the RoyalAssent.

The international situation worsened, CatholicSpain and France were again England's enemies,old suspicions were rearoused and anti-Catholicismflared up. The activities of Lord George Gordon, aneccentric, and the Protestant Association inflamedmass opinion against Roman Catholics. It shouldalso be taken into account that the bitter frustra-tions of the unrepresented, miserable lower classesnow had an outlet in religious bigotry. Hibbertdescribes this reaction:

"... The prisons, the Inns of Court, theBank and the houses of magistrates were allhated and assaulted as symbols of oppression,riches, and dishonest power." 7

On June 2, 1780 a huge crowd carried a petitionprotesting the Bill to Whitehall. A week of terrorfollowed. Catholic chapels in several embassieswere smashed; homes and shops of Catholics andmembers of the Government were looted; IsNew-gate, King's Bench, and Fleet prisons werestormed and prisoners liberated. Finally, the troopswere called. It had become glaringly and irrefut-ably apparent that the police system was inade-

6 CHMSTOPHER HIBBERT, Kixr, MoB, Longmans-Green, London & New York: 1958, p. 18.7 Ibid., p. 127.

quate, and that there was no civil force capableof restraining disorder. The proceedings of theLords debate of June 2, 1780 reveal the temperof the mob.

"...every noble lord who came in, bore abouthim some marks of the resentment of a mob,then collected to the amount of severalthousands, in the old Palace Yard. LordMansfield. .was very ill-treated; lord [sic]Stormont escaped with difficulty with his life.Lords Hillsborough and Townshend met withvery rough treatment, having had their bagspulled off, and their hair... hung dishevelledover their shoulders. The archbishop [sic] ofYork was very ill-used..."I'The significance of the Gordon Riots is that

Parliament and property owners were awakened tothe ever-present danger of the mob that lay justbeneath the surface of life in London. Parliamentwas shocked into facing the facts of London's non-functioning, obsolete police system. Members ofboth Houses were critical of the police magistratesfor their failure to take preventive action.Advertisements had appeared two days prior to theriots calling for people to join in the protest marchof the Protestant Association and protest thepassage of the Catholic Relief Bill. Lord ChiefJustice Mansfield summoned the Westminstermagistrate before the bar. He and another mag-istrate appeared and were asked "whether theyhad received any orders to be ready, and why thecivil power was not assembled?" Both said thatthey had never received nor heard any such orders.It turned out that the orders had been issued, butLord North, the Prime Minister, had neglected tosend them! The Westminster magistrate defendedhimself saying, "... that as yet he has not beenable to get more than six constables together, ...[and] it was in vain to expect to do any goodin dispersing or quieting so very large and tu-multous a mob.. .with so small a number ofconstables."'

The Houses of Commons and Lords concurred incondemning the actions of Lord George Gordonand the rioters. They were unanimous in assertingthat something should be done to improve thepolice. There was complete lack of unanimity inthe solutions proposed. Lord Shelburne assertedthat "the police of Westminster was an imperfect,inadequate, and wretched system; that the

8 Parliamentary Debates, XXI, 1780, p. 665.9 Ibid., pp. 669-671.

J. L. LYMAN [

commission of the peace was filled by men, base tothe last degree, and capable of every mean act,derogative and opposite to the justice of thelaws. . ."'

0 He recommended immediate re-

modelling of the constables and watchmen on thelines of the French police. Shelburne claimed thatthis could be done without danger to Englishliberties if magistrates were elected by the peopleand not appointed by ministers. Edmund Burkecensured the police and use of troops, but offeredno alternative. It was suggested that Westminsterbe made a corporation and be regulated in thesame manner as the City. The City Membersvehemently vetoed any suggestion of a centralizedforce because it would lessen the power of aldermenand the ancient independence of the City. Theyproposed arming citizen-householders who couldthen be available to the magistrates in time oftrouble." Eight months later the state of the policewas still being debated, but with no action.During Shelburne's Ministry, 1782-1783, he didnothing to promote his ideas for a remodelledpolice force. Despite legislative inaction, theGordon Riots left an unforgettable impressionon citizens and lawmakers.

In 1785 Pitt the Younger introduced a "Bill forthe Further prevention of Crime and for the morespeedy Detection and Punishment of Offendersagainst the Peace.. . " His Bill proposed to unitethe City, London, and Westminster for policepurposes into one district. The district was to bedivided into divisions with all the police underthree Commissioners."2 The City opposed theBill on the grounds that it was an infringement ofthe rights of aldermen. It was also criticized asbeing too similar to the Paris police system.Ever aware of, and relying on, business andcommercial interests of the City, Pitt withdrewthe Bill.

Apart from sporadic discussions, the police andcrime rates received little attention and lessaction as memories of the Riots receded. Politicsand business absorbed the government, theEstablishment, and the middle class. The spirit oflaissez faire was abroad in the land. Many heldthat severe punishment, fearlessly applied, woulddeter the lower classes. Burke's Thoughts and

"0 Ibid., pp. 679-681." CHARIES RErm. ThE POLICE IDEA, London:

1938, p. 83."2 Public Bills, XV, 1785. p. 417.

Details m Scarcity written in 1795 is an expressionof the period:

"The State ought to confine itself to whatregards the State. . ., namely the exterior

establishment of its religion, its magistracy, itsrevenue; its military force...; the Corporationsthat owe their existence to its fiat... In itspreventive police it ought to be sparing of itsefforts, and to employ means, rather few,infrequent, and strong....",3

Little heed was paid the few who labored in thecause of police and criminal law reform. Amongthe most important of these was PatrickColquhoun whose influence would appear later inPeel's police legislation. Colquhoun was a Londonmagistrate, a pioneer in the cause of criminal lawreform, and author of A Treatise on the Police ofLondon. Even he did not conceive of police as pri-marily a preventive agency. His object wasamelioration of the harsh penal code, and improve-ment in the organization of the police. He was not asentimental humanitarian nor a Radical. Through-out his Treatise the argument for reform stressesthe protection of property.

"The sole intention of the Author .. .is tosecure the inhabitants of the Metropolis againstthe alarming consequences to be dreaded fromthe existence of such an atrocious and criminalconfederation....

It is by the operation of legal and properrestraints, that the possession of all thingsvaluable in society is secured.

It is by the general influence of good laws andregulations, that the blessings of true liberty,and the undisturbed possession of property ispreserved; as far as legislative authority, aidedby a well-regulated and energetic police, canprove a security against iniquity and depreda-tion.'

4

Concern for property and security of London'sinhabitants is easily understood when one seesColquhoun's figures on crime and criminals in theMetropolis. He estimated that there were 115,000"who are supposed to support themselves in andnear the Metropolis by pursuits either criminal-illegal-or immoral." 15 Two of the twenty-four

13EDMUND BURKE, THOUGHTS AND DETAILS ON

SCARCITY, London: 1800, XVI, p. 48.1" A MAGISTRATE [Patrick Colquhoun], A TREATISE

ON THE POLICE OF LONDON, Philadelphia: 1798, pp.xi-XUi.

"Ibid., pp. vi-x.

[Vol. 55

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829

categories of criminals included in the total figureconvey some idea of the situation in London:"Females... who support themselves chiefly orwholly by prostitution-50,000; Thieves, Pilferers,and Embezzlers who live partly by depredationand partly by.. .occasional labour-8,000." Thetotal figure, 115,000, tell a startling story whenone relates them to London's population of about999,000. The constables and watch numbered1,000, and guarded "the lives and properties ofthe inhabitants residing in near 8,000 streets."These police were under seventy different trusts,employed by and authorized to act only in theirown particular ward, parish, or borough.16 Thepolice themselves were underpaid, often feeble,and frequently in league with the criminals.

"... innumerable petty temptations are heldout to dishonesty by Receivers of stolen goods,to the watchmen and patrols... as well as bythieves and housebreakers in all situationswhere they contemplate the commission of aburglary.

Money is also received from disorderlypersons in the night, topermit them to escape .... ;while unfortunate females are laid undercontribution, for permission to infringe thevery laws, which it is thn duty of these....Police to put in execution."'1

Colquhoun felt that the lack of security of lifeand property and the inefficacy of the police inpreventing crime had nine causes:

1. Imperfections in the criminal code.2. Lack "of an active principle, calculated to

concentrate and connect the whole Police ofthe Metropolis and the Nation." He rec-ommended a police under the direction andcontrol of the Home Office.

3. Lack of police magistrates in the dockyards.4. Lack of a public prosecutor for the Crown in

criminal cases.5. Lack of a regularized system for obtaining

pardons.6. The system of the hulks.7. Lack of penitentiaries "for ... punishment

and reformation .... "8. Lack of a system for handling convicts

sentenced to hard labor or transportation.9. "The want of a more solemn modeof conduct-

ing executions .... 18

16 Ibid., pp. 161-164.17 Ibid., pp. 164-165.'8 Ibid., pp. 21-22.

An attempt on the life of George III in 1796and official, upper, and middle class reaction tothe excesses of the French Revolution reawakenedinterest in Colquhoun's Treatise. In 1798 theSelect Committee on Finance recommendedadoption of Colquhoun's proposals. England wasat war with France and menaced by possibleinvasion, which may explain why Pitt took noaction. The City's opposition to both the Treatiseand the Committee's Report is a possible furtherexplanation for Pitt's failure to act. Colquhounhad testified before the Committee, recommendedestablishment of a Central Board of PoliceRevenue, and assisted in the drafting of a Bill in1799. It was never introduced. 9 Colquhoun'swork was not entirely fruitless. The West IndiaPlanters and Merchants invited him to present aplan to prevent theft from ships in the Port ofLondon. His scheme was accepted and financedby both the Merchants and the Government. ARiver Police Office was opened with a force ofeighty permanent police and eleven hundred andtwenty part-time police whose duty was to watchand unload West Indian ships in port. The RiverPolice were so well organized and successful thatin 1800 the Government adopted the organizationas a separate establishment.

The threat of invasion by Napoleon in 1803aroused patriotism among all classes; combinedwith the Government's repressive measures inregard to public gatherings and subversiveliterature, criticism was effectively silenced.Public disorder decreased. War and economicimprovement lessened law enforcement problemsfor a time. In 1807 the Orders in Council, part ofEngland's blockade of French ports, came intoforce. Effective as a war measure, the results onthe working class were severe unemployment andhunger. A hard winter in 1810, and the failure ofthe harvest in 1812 added to their misery. Theincreasing use of machinery in the nineteenthcentury produced the problem of surplus labor.Machinery became a focus for the frustrations ofthe working class. In November 1811 the anti-machine Luddite Riots occurred, and by January1812 the workers throughout the Midlandsindustrial counties were wrecking stocking-frames.machinery, and factories. The Government rushedthrough a Bill making the destruction of the framespunishable by death. There was concern that the

19 Reports from Committees of the House of Com-mons, XIII, 1798-1803, pp. 344-356.

19641

J. L. LYMAN

riots might spread to London. It, therefore, seemeddangerous at this time to advocate criminal lawreform, and Parliament resisted Sir SamuelRomilly's plan to reform the Criminal Code;apparently a harsh criminal code was the onlydeterrent recognized for crime and disorder.Except for a Bill which abolished the deathpenalty for soldiers and sailors caught beggingwithout a permit, Romilly's attempts at reformfailed. The Luddite Riots forced the Governmentto acknowledge once again its dangerous lack ofany civil agency capable of maintaining law andorder. However, no Bills for police or law reformresulted. Frame-breaking became punishable byhanging, and the power of magistrates to enrollspecial constables was stressed.

For the industrial and agricultural interests,the war years were profitable. British agricultureand industry were "protected" by war and lack offoreign competition. In 1815 the war with Franceended. The seven years following, 1815-1822,were depression years. Trade languished andunemployment increased as factories and shopsclosed. The spectre of starvation again threatenedthe poor. The concept and philosophy of govern-ment intervention and the welfare state wereunknown. Discharged soldiers and sailors werethrown onto the swollen labor market, the demandfor military supplies abruptly ceased, and theunemployed were dependent on the parish PoorRates. The agricultural interests and landedgentry still possessed the predominant powerin Parliament. Fearing a fall in the prices of grainand the decrease of their profits, they rushedthrough the Corn Laws of 1815. The importationof foreign wheat was prohibited until the domesticprice reached eighty-four shillings a quarter. Theprice of bread, the mainstay of the poor, rose.Property owners and taxpayers demanded im-mediate demobilization of the army and reductionof taxes. Discharged soldiers contributed to theranks of the unemployed. The Governmentrepealed the property tax. The taxes most oppres-sive to the poor were those raised from customs andexcise duties on sugar, tea, coffee, spirits, beer, andtobacco, and they were not reduced 20 It was asthough the food and sustenance of the poor weretaxed. There was a further complication. Medicalprogress was eradicating the old scourges ofplague, smallpox, and scurvy, thus reducing the

"A. A. W. R.AMSAY, SIR ROBERT PEEL, London:1928, pp. 49-50.

mortality rate. Acting together, industrial andmedical progress contributed to the unemploy-ment.

The masses were becoming politically conscious,and agitation for reform and economic disorderwent together. Opposition to the Corn Lawsevidenced itself in petitions to Parliament, dis-order, and rioting as starvation, high rents, andlow wages plagued the workers. In the cities itwas worse; there were only the soup kitchens.The high price of food and workers' demands forhigher wages hurt the manufacturers. In theLords concern was voiced about the increase onthe Poor Rates, and the effect on manufacturers"... who would export arts, enterprize, andhands to those countries where sustenance wascheaper, and the wages.. .corresponded betterwith the means of life."" England seemed to liebetween the Scylla and Charybdis of revolution orreform. Manufacturing interests stood againstagricultural interests, the underprivileged againstthe privileged.

In London the unpopularity of the Corn Lawswas revealed by rioting that invoked memories of1780. Again the troops were called out as riotersassaulted Members of Parliament and attemptedto storm the House of Commons. On March 6,1815 in the House of Commons

"Mr. Fitzgerald said... he saw a mosttumultuos [sic] mob by whom members werecollared and dragged about. .. Sir RobertHeron shewed the skirt of his coat, which hungnearly torn from the body...; Sir FrederickFlood declared, that he had been carried.. .onthe shoulders of the mob, just like a mackarelfrom Billingsgate..., and that he thought theymeant to quarter him."2'

Another Member complained that on June 5 therewere no police outside the entrance to the House,but when he came into the lower lobby "he...found an abundance of them." The Secretary ofthe Admiralty claimed that the civil power hadbeen guilty of neglect of duty, and summoned theHigh Bailiff of Westminster to explain. Histestimony is self-explanatory of the urgent needfor police reform. ".. .of his 80 constables, about50 attended today...; he found this force, joinedwith all the force of the police offices, quite in-sufficient to restrain the mob .... He had nopower over any constables but his own." No

21 Parliamentary Debates, XXX, 1815, pp. 60-61.22 Ibid., pp. 33-34.

[Vol. 55

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829

rioters were taken into custody!23 Criticism of'theuse of troops and the inefficiency of the policedid not extend to advocacy of a unified andcentrally organized force. It seems as thoughpolice failures, riots, and use of troops were takenfor granted; however, the main causes wereopposition to more taxes and government in-tervention by the upper classes, and a deep-seated fear by the lower classes that law enforce-ment was just one more measure to protect theprivilege and property of a resented and some-times hated upper class. The Opposition wasopposed, partly to any Tory-introduced measuresand, partly because it was convinced that anycentralized system of police would inevitably bea copy of the repressive government-sponsoredContinental forces designed to keep old rulingclass governments in power. Lord Castlereaghdefended the use of troops as well as police in-action by saying, "The police had not beennegligent; but no police could prevent suchattacks from being made in different parts of thetown under circumstances like the present." 24

Again no action was taken.The ineptitude of the Government in dealing

with civil disorder was to be displayed yet again asthe depression worsened. Resentment was in-creasing, four million were on the parish reliefrolls-out of a total population of about12,000,000-and the parish Poor Rate system andcity soup kitchens were staggering under the load.The Government was under attack by the agitatorswho talked Parliamentary and electoral reform.They found eager listeners among the hungryand unemployed. In the textiles centers theweavers rioted and broke power looms; farmlaborers broke reaping machines. A meeting inLondon culminated in rioting, during whichunemployed weavers shot at their masters. InAugust 1819 a crowd gathered at St. Peter'sField to hear the Radical "Orator" Hunt. Allwere there to protest the Corn Laws, demandreform, and proclaim their misery. The mag-istrates, fearing revolution, ordered the readingof the Riot Act. The crowd refused to disperse.With drawn sabers, the mounted yeomanrycharged. About eleven of the crowd were killedand four hundred wounded. When the newsreached London, a weak Tory party found itselfstrengthened when the frightened governing

2 Ibid., pp. 35-37.24 Ibid., p. 79.

group of England looked to reactionary Toryismfor protection. The Government's reaction was theintroduction of the Six Acts. The Acts prohibitedunauthorized drilling; altered the procedure intreason trials; authorized the seizure of seditiousand blasphemous literature, making transporta-tion the penalty for a second offense; authorizedthe issue of warrants for the search for arms;imposed a stamp duty on pamphlets and leaflets;and restricted the size of public meetings. Toworkers and Radicals, Peterloo became a battle-cry.

As economic conditions temporarily eased, thedisorders which had prompted the passage of theSix Acts began to subside. Demands for policereform also subsided. Once again apathy reigneduntil events in 1820 shattered the uneasy calm.

George III died in January 1820. The PrinceRegent became King George IV. He was illegallymarried to a Roman Catholic, Mrs. Fitzherbert.He openly alternated between her bed and thebeds of his mistresses, having long ago, and justas openly, forsaken that of Queen Caroline towhom he was legally married. Shortly after hiscoronation, George IV demanded that the Ministryinstitute divorce proceedings against the Queen.Being politically insecure, the Ministry refused,and the king threatened to dismiss them. Thenthe Cato Street Conspiracy was discovered. Itwas an alleged plot to murder the Cabinet.In April a revolt broke out in Scotland. As usual,the troops were called out, and the fear of revolu-tion rallied the privileged classes to reactionaryToryism; in the latter they saw the only hopeagainst a repetition in England of the excessesof the French Revolution which they rememberedand feared. The Tories now felt secure. Divorceproceedings were started. The storm broke.Unpopular taxes, suspicions concerning the Dukeof Wellington's ambitions, and a licentious andprofligate king whose sexual life was a publicaffront and scandal, roused people of all classesagainst a Ministry which dared support thetrumped-up charges of adultery against the Queen.The Ministry was already hated by the workersand the Radicals because of Peterloo and theSix Acts. To the lower classes, the wronged Queenbecame an object with whom they could identifyas fellow-victims of injustice. To the Radicals, thecase was fuel for their political fire.

Every issue of the Times (London) in July,August, September, and October 1820 carried

19641

J. L. LYMAN

editorials and letters from readers criticizing theking and the Ministry, and announcing protestmeetings and presentations of loyal addresses toCaroline. These meetings also represented themiddle class. Huge crowds daily greeted theQueen and jeered the Ministers on their way toand from the trial. The case became associatedwith the suppression of constitutional liberties asthe Government's attempts to repress meetingsand criticism increased. Placards began to appearmysteriously. Some were so violent in theirimplications that revolution seemed possible.On October 24, 1820 a meeting was held by "theinhabitant householders" of Southwark in theTown Hall, and was reported in the Times. Itillustrates the resentment of the middle class whowere angry and fearful of the results of the CornLaws, the unemployment, and the trial of QueenCaroline. At the meeting the opening speechexhorted "the middling classes [to] step forward,and by the strong manifestation of their opinionagainst the proceedings of his Majesty's ministersobtain their dismissal, and, by a change ofmeasures, avert the fearful storm which wasgathering.

25

Their fear was well-founded. The inefficientpolice and the hated troops were unable to preventeither the demonstrations or the appearance ofthreatening placards. The House of Commonswas so concerned that on October 17, 1820 therewas a debate on "The Manufacturing of Seditiousand Treasonable Placards." Of the three placardsread during the debate, one will suffice to revealCommons' cause for concern:

"Let us, in this mighty crisis, bear in mindthat the great are not our only foes. Thosemiddling ranks who make us hew and draw, anddole our pittance to us according to theirhumour-these are our most grinding enemies.What is the constituent body but the tyrantsof the nonrepresentatives? What are the tensof thousands of wretches.. .in Westminster...but the oppressors of their non-enfranchisedfellow-citizens-content to crawl before thehigher orders, that we may continue slaves toboth? Alike then, and equal be their commondestiny. The brave, though starving outstandersof Manchester [Peterlool, should be avenged inLondon. Shall we non-represented Britions...be scared by the fear of gibbets or bayonets?... let us in one heroic day, convince mankind

26 LONDON TiMis, October 25, 1820, p. 3.

that the grievances of non-representation arenow become insupportable."

26

Following the Queen's exoneration, celebrationsand nightly illuminations appeared in London. Sounpopular were the king and Ministers thatfresh outbreaks of rioting and destruction occurredwherever the mob found a house without illumina-tions. Troops were necessary to protect the homesof Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Northum-berland.V 7 The turmoil indicated a deeper unrest.On November 17, 1820 an editorial in the Timeswarned that "... Radicalism is every day most

alarmingly and portentously increasing; and will,we predict, continue to increase more and more,till-Without a change of counsels the end iscertain." The Government lost its support in theHouse of Commons. Canning resigned as a protestagainst the treatment of Queen Caroline.

In August 1821 Queen Caroline died. Thefuneral procession became a battle between ahostile populace and the troops. When the royalcorpse reached Hyde Park, the situation becameserious. The Times reported that:

"The scene at this moment was mostawful-the carnage of Manchester... shotacross our memory.

Here a contest arose, and here blood wasshed. Some stones and mud were thrown at themilitary, and... the soldiers were sanctioned infiring their pistols and carbines at the unarmedcrowd. .. .the number of shots fired... wasnot less than 40 or 50.8

There was more fighting between people and troopsin Kensington Church Street and TottenhamCourt Road. The parish police who were therewere powerless and useless. Instead of the blamebeing placed where it properly belonged, on thefailure to provide effective police legislation, thechief magistrate at Bow Street was dismissed.

It is probable that revolution was avertedbecause the protest against the Ministers was ledby the middle class and Whig gentry. The angrymasses had the illusion that they had championsin Parliament. A Government reshuffle wasobviously essential. The Grenville party joinedthe Government. Sir Robert Peel was offered theHome Office and accepted.

Between 1822 and 1825 conditions in Englandimproved. The more objectionable parts of the

26 LONDoN TimEs, Oclober 18, 1820, "ParliamentaryIntelligence," p. 2.

27 LONDON TIMES, November 13, 1820, p. 2.28 LONDON TIMEs, August 15, 1821, 1. 2.

[Vol. 55

TiE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829

Six Acts were allowed to lapse. Profits and priceswere increasing, but low wages were counteredby a decrease in the price of wheat to forty shillingsa quarter. Taxes were reduced and foreign tradeexpanded. As unemployment decreased so did theriots and disorder.

At the Home Office, Peel concerned himselfwith legal reform. He was not the first to advocatereform of the Criminal Law. Jeremy Bentham,Sir Patrick Colquhoun, Sir Samuel Romilly, andSir James Macintosh preceded him, fighting avaliant and largely unsuccessful battle "until amember of the Government was found ready totake up their work.' 2n Peel took up their work.In 1823 he consolidated into one statute the lawsdealing with theft and destruction of property,and did the same with the laws dealing withoffenses against the person. There were 130statutes concerning larceny which were condensedinto one Act. The death penalty was abolished formore than one hundred offenses. A clergymancould escape punishment for a first offense incertain felonies. The Benefit of Clergy was abol-ished. Peel made it easier for victims of sexualoffenses to get justice by abolishing the require-ment that certain embarrassing proofs befurnished. He increased the number of judges andinstituted a Third Assize to lessen delays inbringing prisoners to trial. Prison discipline lawsand transportation laws were each consolidated,and Peel tried to prevent abuses. Ramsay describesPeel's achievements in the cause of criminal lawreform: "When he finally left office in 1830 he hadreformed and consolidated practically the wholeof the Criminal Law of England."3"

From 1812 to 1818 Peel had been Secretary forIreland. The experience influenced his pattern forEnglish police reform. Ireland had been a testingground, possessing some parallels to the Englishsituation. Ireland was in a chronic state of disorder,there was no efficient police, and troops were usedto maintain order. Among his Irish reforms wasthe "Bill for the Execution of the Laws in Ireland"

which Peel had introduced into Parliament in1814. One of its provisions concerned the ap-pointments of a salaried superintending magistrateand salaried special constables. In recruitingconstables, preference was given to discharged non-commissioned army officers with good charactercertificates. Peel followed this policy after the

2' RAMSAY, p. 69.-1 Ibid., p. 68.

passage of the 1829 Act established theMetropolitan Police in London.

Soon after Peel became Home Secretary, itbecame clear that English police reform dare notbe delayed. The prosperity of 1823-1825 had ledto financial speculation. When prices fell in theautumn of 1825, panic followed. There was a runon banks. Seven London banks and eighty countrybanks failed. Wages dropped, factories and millsclosed, and unemployment resulted. In thetextile counties strikes against wage-cuts erupted,then riots. In London ten thousand Spitalfieldsweavers were jobless. Machinery was destroyedand troops fought mobs.3' Hungry people raidedshops for bread.

The political situation was unstable. LordLiverpool, the Prime Minister, had died in 1827and Tory political difficulties followed socialdisorder. Canning became Prime Minister. He wasknown to favor Catholic Emancipation. As a resultWellington, Peel, and Eldon resigned. Severalpro-Catholic appointments widened the split inthe Tory party, and seriously weakened Canning'ssupport in Parliament. In 1828 Canning died.Viscount Goderich kissed hands, but, after tryingunsuccessfully for three months to form a Ministry,he resigned. The king than asked Wellington toform a Ministry. Peel returned to the HomeOffice in 1828 with the Wellington Government.The economic situation eased a bit, aided by a newCorn Law, passed in 1828, which allowed theimportation of corn when the domestic pricereached sixty shillings a quarter.

In London public order and the security of lifeand property still remained, for the most partsolely dependent on troops. Peel's mind turnedtoward the creation of an adequate police force.Under Peel, the time had come for police reform tobe linked with legal reform. Twelve of London'sparishes, with a total population of twentythousand, had no night police. By 1828 one personin every three hundred and eighty-three was acriminal.

32

In October 1828 Peel wrote a letter to LordGower about the Irish situation. It is this writer'sopinion that Peel there expresed what he believedto be the proper purposes of law enforcement:

"The enforcement of the law compromises noopinion on political questions, and it enables the

21 ANTI[ONV WOOD, NINETEENTI CENTURY BRITAIN,

London: 1960, p. 69.'- RAMsA, p. 87.

J. L. LYMAN

Government to speak with a tone of authority,not only to the party against whose acts the lawmay be immediately directed, but to otherparties, who may be carried beyond due boundsin their preparations for resistance or selfdefense. It deprives them of the pretext that thelaw does not afford protection or redress."'

Peel moved the appointment of a Select Com-mittee to study the police. The 1828 Committeewas the fourth such Committee since 1803, and thefirst to accomplish anything. Their Report wasissued on July. 27, 1828. The Committee found anincrease in crime in London and Middlesex, areflection of the national increase in committals. Itdiscovered nothing new about the causes of crime.What was new was the Committee's proposedsolution: an Office of Police under the HomeSecretary, with police responsibility for the wholemetropolitan area. The Office of Police would be incharge of appointed magistrates without anybench duties.-

At the time of th*e Committee's appointment,Peel had expressed his idea of a unified andcentralized policy system with St. Paul's as acenter and extending to a radius of ten miles. TheCity refused .inclusion in any centralized system,and opposed the Report. There was also oppositionbecause of the practice in many parishes of employ-ing paupers as constables in order to reducePoor Law Rates. Because they believed a unifiedpolice system would introduce another tax, somemanufacturing interests opposed the Report.Then there were those who believed that increasesin crime and disorder arose from laxity in punish-ment, not from a defective police. 5 For politicalreasons there was some Whig opposition andRadical opposition because the Report wasassociated with the Tories. Then there were thosewho feared that a unified police system would bean instrument of reactionary Tories to keepthemselves in power. However, there was alsoWhig support. Publicly advocating reform,condemning the use of troops, committed tocertain positions because they were representativeof middle class business and industrial interests,the Whigs could not completely condemn theReport and its proposals. A number of theseinterests suffered financial and property lossesfrom the riots, and were therefore interested in

3 TAE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT PEEL, PEEL, London:

1857, p. 242.11 Reports from Committees, VI, 1828, p. 423.31 Parliamentary Debates, XVIII, 1828, pp. 793-810.

measures that would prevent such losses. Theinfluential voice of the Whigs, The EdinburghReview, supported the Report:

"The rich will always entertain doubts,whether there is any need for the existence ofthose who contribute nothing to theircomfort ... : while those who do exist will

.. help themselves to the means of remainingin the world..., honestly if possible, butsomehow.

.. while the increase of population outstripsthat of employment, the number of offencesagainst property cannot.. .be stationary. Butthe public authority cannot connive at theseirregular proceedings: they must be punishedand prevented."36

The Review also supported the concept of acentralized police with arguments based on costand freedom. .... such a system would be agreat and decided improvement, .... it mightbe adopted... at a less expense than the [parish-watch], and with no new restraint on the libertyof the subject."

37

In April 1829 Peel introduced "A Bill forImproving the Police in and Near the Metropolis."It incorporated his ideas of the chief requisites ofan efficient police-unity of design and theresponsibility of its agents. The purpose was "tosubstitute a new and more efficient system ofPolice in lieu of such establishments of nightlyWatch and nightly Police." The Bill set up a newOffice of Police in Westminster to be in charge ofcertain Crown-appointed Justices, later calledCommissioners, whose conditions of office andadministrative duties were defined in detail.38The area in charge of the Police Office was to becalled the Metropolitan Police District, andincluded all of Westminster, and parts ofMiddlesex, Surrey, and Kent. The Bill alsocontained rules for the duties, powers, and dis-cipline of the paid constables. The section ondiscipline is interesting because of its implications.No policeman on duty could go into a publichouse except in the pursuit of duty. A publican or"victualler or keeper of any house, shop, room, orother place for the sale of any liquors, whetherspirituos or otherwise" who entertained or soldto a policeman could be fined up to five pounds.The Bill also provided for the appointment of a

3' THE EDINBURGH REVIEW, XLVIII, 1828, p. 411.Ibid., p. 412.ARRANGEMENT OF THE PAPERS ... OF THE HOUSE

OF COmONS, 1., 1829, pp. 425-426.

[Vol. 55

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829

salaried Receiver for the Metropolitan PoliceDistrict whose duty was the handling of "allmonies applicable to the purposes of this Act."The Watch Rate was abolished, and provisionmade to levy a Police Rate on property-holders tothe same amount as the Poor Rate. To preventany irregularities by the parish overseers, theReceiver was to be given a note in writing specify-ing the amount of Rate paid, and he would rendera receipt. In the parishes where there was noPoor Rate, the property-owners' contribution wasdetermined by assessors nominated by the PoliceOffice Justices. The Crown was given power toorder any parishes within twelve miles of CharingCross, excluding those of the City, to form part ofthe Metropolitan Police District.P Parts of the Billwere amended in May 1829. The most importantprovision established that ultimate responsibilityfor police finances, as well as administration, laywith Parliament. An account of all monies re-ceived, rates charged and received by the Police,and an account of all police expenditures was to bepresented annually to both Houses of Parliament. 0

Introducing the Bill, Peel said that PoliceCommittees in preceding years had not producedany improvement in the police; that "It had beenclearly ascertained that it was altogether unsafe,and had been for a long period to commit the careof lives and property.. .to the charge of theparochial watch.. ." He said crime had increased55% in London and Middlesex between 1821 and1828, as compared to the period 1811-1818, whilethe population had increased only 19%.4' Headded that he did not believe that the increasedcrime rate was due to depressed conditions, but,rather, to a lax police system. Peel stressed that heintended a gradual reformation of the police. Heintended to put the new police in charge of acertain number of parishes, and then graduallyextend their authority until the whole policeauthority devolved upon them. A day was to befixed for each parish, and on that day it wouldsurrender its police responsibility to the newestablishment of police.

Peel had been forced to resign his Parliamentaryseat for Oxford University because of the leadingpart he had played in securing the passage of the1829 Catholic Emancipation Act. Now, almostany measure he proposed would be resisted by the

1 Ibid., pp. 433-449.40T Ibid., p. 463.41 Parliamentary Debates, XXI, New Series, 1829,

p. 871.

ultra-Tories of the Established Church and ofOxford and Cambridge Universities. There waslittle he could do about that. But he could try tominimize opposition that would be based on fearsof increased taxation, or on possible Radicalcharges of extravagance. Peel carefully planned thefinancial costs of the new police, and he emphasizedeconomy. The maximum chargeable Police Ratewas fixed at eight pence in the pound on the annualvalue of property. In 1829 the whole cost of cloth-ing per man came to five pounds, three shillings,and six pence. Each man had a weekly twoshilling clothing deduction made from his pay.2

The Duke of Wellington presented the Bill inthe House of Lords and repeated most of Peelsarguments. He also, like Peel, stressed the conceptof preventive police. The Radicals, Whigs, andhumanitarians, generally, had protested the harshcriminal code and had supported its reform.Their support was needed again now. Thepreventive police idea also may have been stressedin order to allay the fears of the working class andsome Radicals that the new police would be arepressive instrument for the benefit of theprivileged classes or a vehicle to power forWellington. Hence his argument that "the bestmode of avoiding the infliction of punishment, wasto prevent the growth of crime; and the legis-lature would do away the necessity of frequentpunishment by... an efficient police in the handsof the magistrate."41

The "Bill for Improving the Police.. ." passedboth Houses without serious argument, andreceived the Royal Assent on June 19, 1829. Mr.Richard Mayne and Colonel Charles Rowan werechosen to command the new Police Office. Bothmen had served in Ireland, knew Peel and hisaccomplishments there, and supported his ambi-tions for the new police.

The passage of the Bill may seem paradoxicalin the face of ultra-Tory anti-Catholic hostilitytoward Peel, the suspicions entertained aboutWellington's personal political ambitions, andthe allied Whig-Radical political opposition. To thewriter, the explanation lies in the contemporaryevents of the period.

London had been the scence of riots almostevery year since 1815. Poor economic conditionsand the unemployed and striking Spitalfieldsweavers aroused the fears of the middle class, the

42RAmsAY, p. 88.4 Parliamentary Debates, XXI, 1829, p. 1750.

J. L. LYMAN

manufacturers, and the upper classes. Duringthe debates on Peel's Bill there were outbursts ofrioting and frame-breaking. The Times dailycarried reports of violence, and in editorialsdemanded Government action. On June 2, 1829 aCity Member presented to the Commons apetition asking for measures for "the maintenanceand vindication of the law, which is thus openlyand systematically violated, and.. .such protectionas to the house... shall seem most meet.""

It had become obvious by 1829 that any attemptby the government to enforce the law wouldnecessitate both the immediate availability oftroops and the willingness to risk mob violence.When a weaver had been sentenced to be whippedfor the distance of one hundred yards, or aboutseventy lashes, Peel told the House that "all thecivil forces which could be spared" were at thescene. If these proved insufficient, he hadauthorized the magistrates to call "the militaryarm of the state to their assistance. '45 It is thewriter's opinion that the trend of events seemed toindicate an approaching crisis. The monarchy wasunpopular, republican sentiment was being heardopenly, there was fear of revolution, fear of themob, and apprehension for the security of property.The demand for protection became widespread asbusiness and industrial interests exerted a pressurewhich transcended party lines, a pressure whichParliament dared not ignore. The MetropolitanPolice Act was passed.

The first appearance of the new police on thestreets of London was on September 29, 1829.To avoid any suspicion that they were a militarypolice, the police uniform had been carefullychosen. The one thousand men of the new policewore blue suits of civilian cut and top hats. Theywere unarmed. Their sole distinguishing marks, aspolicemen, were the brass buttons bearing theword "Police" on their suits.

Popular opposition from the masses to the newpolice was immediate. Among the epithets hurledat them were "raw lobsters," "Peel's bloody gang,"and "Blue Devils." Peel himself was assailed as adictator and tyrant, and pictured as the robber ofthe poor. On October 10, 1829 he wrote to hiswife, "... .1 did laugh.. .at one [caricature] called'Peeling a Charley' in which I am representedstripping one of the old watchmen of his great-

14 LONDON TimEs, "Parliamentary Intelligence,"June 3, 1829, p. 1.

45 Ibid., p. 1.

coat. '46 There were also the usual broadsides. Apopular broadside-ballad, entitled "The NewPolice Act," included these verses:

"The Crackman then must take the day theirbusiness to complete sir

For they will find the Charlies then they cannotkeep them sweet sir

For watchmen then no plaver will stand whenthe new act's in force sir

And body snatchers sell their tools they'll haveno work of course sir

Oh Mr Peel what have you done with yourpolice act so grand sir

Twill be the cause I haiVe no doubt of fillingVan Diamen's Land sir

And London now believe me sir is overstockedwith queer Coves

Who wish the Police Act and you were sent toJemmy Square toes.

So hear me all you funny blades who delightin lark so funny

And who whea [sic] in a scrape was got wouldcirculate your money

You Toms and Jerrys now lament the Charliesnow will queer you

For Mr Peel's new Watchman will be to [sic]strong to fear you. '",

The need for adequate and efficientlyadministered police had been demonstrated, andthe 1829 Act provided such a police. Peel'sinterest did not confine itself to legislative success.It was essential that the police win public ac-ceptance. TherefQre, the selection of policepersonnel was important. Peel felt that retirednon-commissioned army officers with goodcharacter certificates would be suitable recruits;it was important that the moral character of thepolice be above suspicion. His pride in the newpolice and his concern for their success is evidencedin a letter which he wrote to the Commissioners ofthe Metropolitan Police on December 10, 1829.

"I propose to refer all applications to you, forinquiry into the character and qualifications ofthe candidates .... all nominations for employ-ment in the Police, as well as.. .promotionsfrom inferior stations, should depend ex-clusively upon the character, qualifications, andservices of the person selected .... I am con-46 GEORGE PEEL (ed.), ThE PRrvATE LETTERS OF

SIR ROBERT PEEL, London: 1920, p. 117.47 Broadside 506, VI, 1829; in the University of

London Collection at the Senate House Library.

[Vol. 55

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT OF 1829

vinced that on a strict adherence to this prin-cipal must entirely depend the efficiency andcharacter of the new Establishment.

When the whole Establishment shall be...infull operation, it may not be fit to establish,as a fixed and inviolable rule, that allappointments... above that of.. .common con-stable, shall take place from out of the ranks ofthe Police....

The experience which you have already hadwill enable you to determine.. .what is the age,and.. .previous occupation of candidates, whichoffer the greatest probability that they can beusefully employed in the Police. And a referenceto these. . ., combined with a personal examina-tion into their character and habits of life, willenable you to select.. .those best entitled torecommendation.

.. whenever a vacancy shall occur in the...Police, or whenever new appointments shall benecessary.. .you shall submit to me thenames.. .to be recommended by you, and that aprinted form be prepared.. .specifying whetherthe person.. .has or has not previously servedin the Police, his age, his previous occupation,the name of the persons by whom he is recom-mended ... ""From its inception in 1829, the essential civilian

character of the police was stressed; public service,self-control, and the importance of gaining thepublic's trust were emphasized. The Instrxlionsand Police Orders for 1829-1830, issued by theCommissioners at Scotland Yard, contain explicitdirections for the conduct of the police. TheIltstructions illustrate the basic emphasis on thepreventive and protective nature of police workwhich was Peel's philosophy and design for the newpolice and which was to be continued by successiveHome Secretaries and Commissioners of the force:

"It should be understood, at the outset, thatthe principal object to be attained is the preven-tion of crime.

To this end every effort of the Police is to bedirected. The security of person and property,the preservation of the public tranquility, and allother objects of a Police Establishment willthus be better effected than by the detection andpunishment of the offender, after he has suc-ceeded in committing the crime. This should...be kept in mind by every member of the Policeforce, as a guide to his own conduct....49 Accounts and Papers, XXIII, 1830, p. 408.

The absence of crime will be considered thebest proof of the completely efficiency of thePolice.

... [the constable] must be particularlycautious not to interfere idly or un-necessarily.... He must remember that thereis no quality more indispensable to a policeofficer than a perfect command of temper,never suffering himself to be moved.. .by anylanguage or threats...; if he do his duty in aquiet and determined manner, such conduct willprobably induce well disposed bystanders toassist him. .. ."49

Police Orders for October 17, 1829 warned that"Some instances of rudeness on the part of thePolice toward persons asking.. .civil questionshas been reported to the Commissioners," andcalled on the Superintendents to warn and instructtheir men. On Guy Fawkes Day, the followingmonth, the. Superintendents were ordered toinstruct their men "to preserve peace and goodorder by the mildest possible means." Policecorruption had been a glaring defect under the oldpolice system. Every effort was made to avoid it inthe new. Precautions were taken against possiblecharges of corruption as Christmas approached.Orders for December 21, 1829 directed that "TheConstables are not.. .to ask for a ChristmasBox from any of the inhabitants upon theirbeats; if any money is offered to them.. .they mustreport the circumstances to their superior officer."-'

From its beginning, the force was administeredaccording to the intent of its founder. Thecharacter and conduct of the police was vigilantlysupervised. Between 1829 and 1831, eight thousandmen had been enrolled, and over three thousandhad been discharged for unfitness, incompetence,or drunkenness. By June 1,1830, the force consistedof three thousand, three hundred and fourteen(3,314) men, and the Metropolitan Police Districtcovered Whitehall, Westminster, and twelve otherboroughs. By the terms of the Act the City wasexcluded, and remains so to this day. Peel wasproud of what had been accomplished, and wroteto his wife in October 1829, "1 have been againbusy all the morning about my Police. I thinkit is going very well, the men look smart, and astrong contrast to the old watchmen."5'

The magnitude of Peel's accomplishment, and

49 Public Bills, I, 1829, pp. 409-415.1 Ibid., p. 421.51 GEORGE PEEL, p. 117.

J. L. LYM 3AN

the potential for law and order, is shown bycontrasting the available police protection for1800 and 1830. In 1800: one thousand (1000) con-stables and watch underseventy (70) different localtrusts. In 1830: three thousand, three hundred andfourteen police under two Commissioners, re-sponsible to Parliament through the Home Office.Within five years (1834) a Select Committee, in-quiring into the state of the Police of the Metropo-lis, was able to report that "The object ... longsought, viz. an efficient and systematic establish-ment of Police, has been practically attained." TheCommittee found that violent offenses had de-creased and detection of lighter ones increased,"which is. . . what was to be expected from a goodsystem of preventive Police."'

All the political, social, and labor unrest, theriots, class suspicion, and agitation for reformduring this period, together with the traditionalEnglish concern for the liberty of the subject, are

1- Reports from Committees, XVI, 1834, p. 4.

factors of vital importance in the developmentand design of the Metropolitan Police system.These factors shaped its development as a civilianpolice, and stressed the preventive function ofpolice. It is significant that for almost thirtyyears there was no plain-clothes detective division.This was due to working class opposition, aswell as some political resistance, to any measurewhich they thought resembled the Continentalpolice-spy system. It took many years before thenew police gained the trust and confidence of thepeople. Economic dislocation, struggles forpolitical and economic reform, and riots wouldcontinue to plague England for several decades.However, the real significance of the MetropolitanPolice lay in its example to the nation as a modelfor subsequent national police reform legislationand organization. It proved that an efficientpolice could greatly decrease the use of troopsagainst civilians; that it could protect life andproperty; that it could be compatible with theEnglish constitutional concepts of liberty.

VOi. 55