1 / 18

The police that never were: Peel, Melbourne and the Cheshire Constabulary

The police that never were: Peel, Melbourne and the Cheshire Constabulary. Dr Maryse Tennnant Canterbury Christ Church University maryse.tennant@Canterbury.ac.uk.

marisela
Download Presentation

The police that never were: Peel, Melbourne and the Cheshire Constabulary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The police that never were: Peel, Melbourne and the Cheshire Constabulary Dr Maryse Tennnant Canterbury Christ Church University maryse.tennant@Canterbury.ac.uk

  2. Just over a month before, one hundred and seventy miles from London, on Monday 10th August several Cheshire magistrates met at the Knustford Sessions House to appoint the first five officers of the Cheshire Constabulary. This force was to police Cheshire for the next twenty-seven years. Chester Courant, 22 Aug, 1829 The New Police Sir Robert Peel: architect of the ‘new’ police On Tuesday 29th September 1829 the first six divisions of the new Metropolitan Police marched out of their station houses to patrol the streets of London (Browne, 1956)

  3. If we are to avoid the dangers of presentism it is important to remember that the direction of provincial reform ‘remained in flux’ until the 1850s (Storch, 1989: 213) • Philips and Storch (1999: 7-8) have provided an excellent analysis of the ‘great cacophony of voices’ involved in discussions about provincial policing between 1829 and 1856, which ‘rested finally’ on prolonged negotiations between the national governing class and the provincial ruling class. • I argue that underpinning the Cheshire Constabulary was a legislative basis which, unlike other early policing schemes, provided a model that could be applied nationally. In fact it was considered in this light by both political parties between 1829 and 1835. • As such it fell within the ‘inventory of alternatives’ (Tosh, 2015: 27) that existed for reform in the period between the 1820s and the 1850s and its changing fate sheds light on the views of both local and central government about the appropriate locus of control for policing throughout this crucial period

  4. Preliminary Approach • 17th Oct. 1826 – Cheshire magistrates resolve to send a petition to the Home Secretary (Peel) requesting that he enact legislation enabling them to appoint salaried constables for the county. • They state they are concerned with the ‘great number of depredators in the district around the towns of Stockport and Macclesfield’ • Details of the method of appointment and payment are sketchy, reflecting local uncertainty about the appropriate locus of control (T.N.A., HO 52/4, Counties Correspondence, 17 Oct. 1826) • No extant response can be found in local or national archives • 14th Jan. 1828 – Cheshire magistrates resolve to send a second identical petition. By this point the increase in crime within the county had escalated from ‘great’ to ‘alarming’ but this is the only significant difference between them

  5. Peel’s Response • 4th February 1828 • Peel’s Under Secretary writes to the Cheshire magistrates acknowledging receipt of their letter (TNA HO 43/35, Home Office Domestic Entry Books: J.M. Phillips to T. Trafford, 4 Feb. 1828 • Peel writes to Henry Hobhouse, his former Under Secretary, saying: “What must I do with the Police? I fear throughout the whole country it is most defective. Some general power to a very full attendance of magistrates to employ police officers according to necessity might be useful. It has always appeared to me that the country has entirely outgrown its police institutions” (cited in Parker, 1899: 36-8) • 19th Feb 1828 • Peel writes to the Cheshire magistrates assuring them their proposal deserved ‘attention’ but counselling that ‘many other matters of detail ought to be most fully considered’ before introducing legislation ‘to a society so varying in its subdivisions as ours’ (TNA HO 43/35, Home Office Domestic Entry Books: R. Peel to T. Trafford, 19 Feb. 1828)

  6. Hiatus • 28th Feb 1828 • Peel rose in Parliament to announce the establishment of a new Select Committee inquiring into the state of the police in the Metropolis Hansard, New Series, Vol. 18, Col. 784-816. 28 Feb. 1828 • 11th July 1828 • Report of the Select Committee published recommending large-scale reform of the capital’s police Select Committee on the Police of the Metropolis (Parl. Papers 1828 [533]) • 17th July 1828 • Peel writes to the two Cheshire MPs informing them that they should seek a local Act as he would not introduce a general measure. He did, however, acknowledge that their plans were ‘advantageous in a public point of view’ and offered any assistance within his power in developing the Act HO 43/36 Home Office Domestic Entry Books, R. Peel to D. Davenport and W. Egerton, 17 Jul. 1828

  7. Negotiations • Magistrates’ original proposal: • Quarter or Petty Sessions to have the power to appoint a special high constables for any petty sessional district • Magistrates at Petty Sessions (with or without the approval of ratepayers) to have the power to appoint an assistant petty constable for any township if they considered is ‘expedient’ to do so • High Constables funded from county rates and Petty Constables for parish rates • Peel encouraged strong central county control with the Quarter Sessions responsible for all decisions and a single source of finance levied on each hundred • Bill encounter opposition in Parliament and Peel agreed to speak in support of it. The magistrates conceded important elements of centralisation • Quarter Sessions responsible for all appointments with minimal role for magistrates at Petty Sessions • No role for ratepayers in decisions about appointments • Continued to resist introduction of single funding stream

  8. Hybrid Approach • Superintending Constables model: • Same hierarchical structure • Same funding split between parish and county rates • Ratepayers decided whether to appoint a paid parish constables • Quarter Sessions decided whether to appoint a superintending constable for petty sessional district • County Police Model: • Complicated as depended whether adopted for whole county or only districts • If for the whole county, quarter sessions in charge of appointing chief constable and chief constable for appoint officers • Single stream of funding from county rates levied on each hundred (eventually) • Ratepayers removed from decision making

  9. Peel’s Perspective • Philips and Storch (1999) consider it is “impossible to say how Peel might have crafted a reform of the provincial police” • Display a man well-disposed to provincial reform but acutely aware that the devil was in the detail and wary of political opposition • Peel showed a clear preference for centralising at a county level both the governance and financing of provincial forces. Supportive of the regional centralisation which Steedman associates with the county police model (Steedman, 1984: 49) • Proposals are similar to the model that would be enacted in 1839 and this discredits Philips and Storch’s (1999) suggestion that centralised county control had not really been considered until the Shropshire Resolution • Unclear what Peel’s views on including any role for central government oversight in a general piece of legislation, although he supported this in other areas of criminal justice policy

  10. Local Uncertainty • The appropriate locus of control for a reformed police was one of the chief elements that was in flux between the 1820s and 1850s • The main possible options for this were: • Control by central government • Control at the level of the county (through the Quarter Sessions) • Control at the level of the hundred (through the Petty Sessions) • The traditional source of control – the parish • Cheshire magistrates were torn between options 2 and 3 but also unsure about whether any role should be given to parish ratepayers • Early period of implementing the constabulary was hampered by two things relating to this: • Opposition from ratepayers who had to fund a force over which they had not authority • Reluctance on the part of the Quarter Sessions to adopt a strong centralised approach leading to inconsistent provision

  11. See Tennant (2010)

  12. See Tennant (2010)

  13. Melbourne’s Proposal • Lord Melbourne as Home Secretary drafted a proposal for a national police scheme in 1832 (Philips and Storch, 1994) at the same time the petition against the Cheshire Constabulary was being put before Parliament • He discounted a discretionary power given to the magistrates of each county as impractical because of opposition and inconsistent implementation, presumably with the Cheshire petition in mind • He also considered a rather vague ‘new and general system of police’ controlled at county level but dismisses this as ‘extremely difficulty, if not impossible’ because of the diversity of the provinces • Melbourne is keen not to allow ratepayers or magistrates discretion but is also unsure whether reform is necessary uniformly throughout the country William Lamb, Lord Melbourne Philips and Storch (1999) consider the Whigs ‘fell silent’ on police reform after this, with interest only reviving when Lord John Russell became Home Secretary in 1835

  14. Shifts in Office • On 16th July 1834 Lord Melbourne replaced Earl Grey as Prime Minister. He was replaced the Home Office by Viscount Duncannon William Lamb, Lord Melbourne Edward Stanley, 2nd Baron of Alderley John Ponsonby, Viscount Duncannon

  15. The Whigs and the Cheshire Constabulary • Chester Chronicle, 26 September 1834 POLICE OF THE COUNTRY: We understand that a bill is in preparation at the Home Office, and is nearly completed, for establishing a general system of police throughout the rural districts in England and Wales. The bill, we believe, will be based upon the system at present operating in this county, under the provisions of the Cheshire Constabulary Act.  • Hmmmm! Exciting. Look into! • No extant communication yet discovered discussing this • Democratic control was the stumbling block for Whigs in relation to police reform and adoption of unelected county magistrates was eventually a matter of politica necessity rather than choice

  16. Back to Cheshire • Proposals were made to adopt the County Police Act in Cheshire after 1839 but these were ultimately rejected (Tennant, 2010) • Instead magistrates took the decision to take a more centralising role in the governance of the force and this enable more consistent provision throughout the county • Philips and Storch(1999) attribute Cheshire’s rejection of the County Police legislation to issues of cost and a desire to avoid ‘a political power struggle of some complexity’, considering it a way of bypassing ‘a very bitter conflict among the county justices for which nobody, at this time, had the stomach’. • By the 1850s the force resembled many of the other county constabularies in a number of respects: • Comparable ratios of police to population • Similar regulations • Comparable rates of pay

  17. Concluding Remarks • Insights into Peel’s thoughts on provincial reform offer a valuable addition to our knowledge of the stance of national government in the 1820s • The changes proposed by Peel were key to the changes which enabled the Cheshire Constabulary to evolve into a force which closely resembled other county constabularies • Centralised county control seems to be an important element in ensuring the development of regular bodies of police but national government influence and a Chief Constable were not essential to achieve detective and preventive functions • These features may have been important for a more paramilitary approach to policing • The Superintending Constables legislation may have been more successful in some counties than is realised, although the more devolved form of governance is likely to have limited its ability to provide regular provision throughout the county

  18. References Browne, D.G. (1965) The Rise of Scotland Yard: A History of the Metropolitan Police, London: Harrap and Co. Parker, C. (1899) Sir Robert Peel from his Private Papers, vol. ii, London: John Murray . Philips, D. and Storch, R.D. (1999) Policing Provincial England, 1829-1856: The Politics of Reform, London: Leicester University Press Philips, D. and Storch, R.D. (1994) ‘Whigs and Coppers: The Grey Ministry's National Police Scheme, 1832’, Historical Research, 67 (162), Steedman, C. (1984) Policing the Victorian Community, London: Routledge. Storch, R.D. (1989) ‘Policing Rural Southern England before the police: Opinions and Practice, 1839-1856’ in D. Hay and F. Snyder (eds.) Policing and Prosecution in Britain, 1750-1850, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tennant, M. (2010) ‘Enterprise, experimentation and the State: Industrialisation and the first Cheshire Constabulary’ (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, KeeleUniversity). Tosh, J. (2015) The Pursuit of History: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of history, 6th Ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press

More Related