The Early Days of Policing in Kent Pt 7.
by Roy Ingleton
The Kentish Boroughs (part 1 Ashford - Hythe)

Ashford was never an incorporated borough and so was not subject to the Municipal Corporations Act. Nevertheless, it made some valiant attempts to police itself. It employed watchmen to patrol its streets by night and a parish lock-up behind the Forge Lane workhouse was available for their use. In 1829, one of the watchmen was dismissed for assaulting a colleague and it is indicative of the problems facing the town authorities that, a year later, he had to be re-employed as there were no other applicants for the job. In 1840 the authorities appointed their first constable, Walter Smith from the Canterbury City Police but he resigned two years later after being charged with being drunk and in possession of a loaded pistol while on duty. The strength was later increased to two constables and, in 1855, Superintendent Fawcett was in charge of this minuscule force. In 1857, when the Kent County Constabulary was formed, Ashford was absorbed into the new force and was placed under the command of Superintendent Dewar, who had been the Superintending Constable in charge of the Parish Constables in the Ashford area.

The early records for the City of Canterbury show that in 1787 there were 9 watchmen, including two supernumeraries. Watch houses were was set up successively in the Corn Market (1777-1800), Iron Bar Lane (1800-1820) and White Horse Lane/ Westgate (1820-1836). Their task was laid down as calling the hour and the weather, examining and securing property, raising alarm of fire and apprehending wrongdoers. In 1829, three of the watch were so senile and infirm that they were incapable of performing their duties and were replaced.

By now the need for change was obvious, labourers working 12 hours or more a day could hardly be expected to police the city at night. There was no watch in the day time and the hue and cry had fallen into disuse. In December 1835 a Watch Committee was formed and, in February the following year, it appointed a superintendent, two inspectors and 15 constables to police the city in uniform. Unusually, this force was created without recourse to the Metropolitan Police and all were local men. Most of the new men were labourers, including one of the inspectors, whilst others were shoemakers, lime burners, grooms, tailors, butchers and gardeners.

This creation was not without opposition, a local newspaper viewing it with 'hostility and suspicion' and complaining of the 18/- a week being wrung by taxes from the pockets of the inhabitants. 'Six policemen we think would have been amply sufficient to maintain order and execute the civil business of Canterbury.'

The 'New City Police' went on duty for the first time on 7 March 1836. The Kentish Gazette for the following day reported:Yesterday this 'great first cause' for imposing a Borough rate, assembled opposite Mr. Payn's slaughterhouse in Crown Alley and having been duly inspected by the municipal authorities, made their debut on the city stage before a crowd of anxious persons congregated … to witness the 'interesting' spectacle. On enquiry at a late hour last evening, we have the pleasure of stating that not one misdemeanour had been committed … The consolation the economising liberals, out of office, will receive will arise from seeing their protégés listlessly parade our quiet streets in their livery.

Of the 18 proud young men who paraded that day in their spanking new uniforms, half would be gone within the next four years (three resigned, six dismissed for misconduct). By the time the force reached its tenth anniversary a further four had left (Inspector Andrew Plank, aged 37, died in 1841, two constables were dismissed and one resigned). The second inspector, William Bradley was dismissed in March 1846. The first superintendent, John Clements, however, soldiered on until May 1860 when he retired after 24 years service.

A number of men were taken on over the years as 'supernumerary' constables, usually two at a time. These followed their own occupation but turned out for police work as and when required, for example to assist at special occasions, to cover sickness, suspensions, vacancies. They were sworn in as special constables and issued with a uniform and paid 2/6d. for every day's duty performed. These men formed a major source of recruitment over the years (31%).

The 'Rules and Regulations for the Government and Instruction of the Police Force of the City and Borough of Canterbury' (based on those of the Metropolitan Police) provided that: the main objects of a police force are these : first; the prevention of crime; second; its detection; third the apprehension and punishment of offenders.

However, they had many other mundane tasks to perform such as enforcing the height of shop blinds, dealing with nuisances and rubbish, reporting broken gas lamps, opening/closing the Westgate urinal, apprehending vagrants and beggars, maintaining order and supervising processions.

Canterbury had long been a garrison town as well as an ecclesiastical one, the military strength varying between 100 and 2,000. The officers were, as one might expect, generally wealthy, fashionable young men from 'good families', but were several reports of their 'outrageous' behaviour' - drunkenness and riding their horses across fields and damaging crops. Although the army only represented some 10% of the population, soldiers accounted for 25% of the cases brought before the magistrates.

Disciplinary powers were shared between the Watch Committee and the Justices and the early records show that those dismissed or otherwise punished had committed the usual misdemeanours of the time: drunk/asleep on duty, leaving the beat, neglect of duty. Most cases were dealt with by way of reprimand with the added threat of dismissal for a subsequent offence. The number of dismissals in the early days of the Canterbury force is indicative of the calibre of recruits, their lack of training and the public opposition to their existence. Of the 104 men who left the force in the period between 1836 and 1888, one third were dismissed.

Familiar images of dallying policemen are conjured up by the instruction that members of the force would be severely punished if found engaged in conversation with female servants or other women. The threat of disciplinary action did not always deter them and Jesse Manuel, who served in the Canterbury City force from 1847 to 1885, told of being disturbed by the 'Missus' whilst being administered to by a kindly cook during the early years of his service. He beat a hasty exit but, in doing so, upset the dish and had to complete his tour of duty with a large gravy stain on his otherwise spotless white trousers . Perhaps remembering his own indiscretions, when Manuel was made sergeant he would roll a stone towards a sleeping policeman to warn him of his approach, thus avoiding having the report the man.

The new police force was initially housed in a disused abattoir in Crown Yard/Stour Street. In 1850 part of the old city workhouse (the Poor Priests' Hospital) in Lamb Lane was converted to provide six cells, an office and accommodation for the superintendent's family. The cells were probably those previously described by the Municipal Corporation Commissioners as 'very small and close, presenting very insufficient means of ventilation' Although steps were taken to alleviate complaints by the provision of WCs and palliasses, the smell that emanated from these facilities was extremely offensive and the superintendent complained bitterly about it. Nevertheless, despite their very obvious disadvantages, these premises remained the City Police Station for fifteen years.

Deal was incorporated as a borough in 1699, having previously been a dependency of Sandwich. In the 18th century it was a thriving little town of some 7,000 souls, with a Town Sergeant and 12 parish constables to police it, aided by a number of watchmen. On 1 January 1836 a Watch Committee was appointed which chose George Hoile, a native of Deal and formerly a butcher, to be the Inspector of Watchmen with five men under him, working from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. The new police force was initially housed in the Town Hall, where the gaol was also situated.

So successful was this arrangement that it was decided to create a day police as well, consisting of the Town Sergeant and two constables, all to be dressed in the same fashion as the London police. The Town Sergeant declined the police role and so two of the nightwatchmen were promoted and another man was shortly added to their number. All these were Deal men. In fact, during the whole existence of the force - some fifty years - only one man was ever appointed who was not from the area. Being responsible for both day and night branches, the Inspector found he was unable to give the men the degree of supervision they needed and, in July 1839, the night watch were found accepting beer from a prisoner and were all fined a week's pay. Three of them promptly resigned and were replaced. Shortly afterwards it was decided to amalgamate the two groups with an increase in pay. The men who had just resigned were prompted by this to re-apply for their old jobs but were rejected. The force now consisted of an inspector, a sergeant and five constables together with three watchmen who only worked at night but, a fortnight later, the three watchmen were dismissed in order to save money. This increase in establishment led to a building adjoining the gaol being purchased to act as a watch house.

In December 1841, money was again a problem and so the last three constables to be appointed were dismissed and there was talk of disbanding the police altogether. The following November (1842), Queen Victoria arrived to take up residence at Walmer castle, then just outside the borough boundary. Because of this, two of the recently dismissed policemen were re-employed as night watchmen and were gradually re-absorbed into the force. One of these was Henry Redsull who later became the chief officer.

In 1848 it was agreed that a thorough re-organization of the force was necessary and a new Inspector of Police should be appointed. The Committee decided that candidates should be between 30 and 40 years of age, be married and have previous police experience. Before the advertisement appeared in The Times, Sergeant Boyd of the City of London Police applied for the post and was appointed. Mr. Hoile, who was now around 69 years of age, retired but, shortly before he did so, demonstrated his considerable physical strength and courage by overpowering and arresting three violent thieves.

The new broom swept very clean and made a great many changes in the organization of the force, with Constable Redsull being appointed sergeant. Inspector Boyd did not last very long, however, being dismissed in 1850 for slackness following some very pointed comments by the Government Inspector. The gaol was closed, the post of Inspector and Gaoler abolished and Sergeant Redsull was put in charge of the force.

Prior to the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, policing of the town and port of Dover was in the hands of watchmen employed by the Paving Commission and were provided with watch boxes at various points throughout the town in which they could take shelter. The local youths delighted in overturning these boxes, trapping the watchman inside. Immediate supervision was by the parish constable for whom a tower was built (roughly where the 'Britannia Inn' now stands) for the '…constable of ye night to keep ye watchmen to their duties'. In 1831 the Paving Commissioners decided to appoint a uniformed Chief Constable and two assistants, although the night constable was to continue with nine watchmen. The day police worked from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and their duties included being present when passengers were boarding or disembarking from the Channel packets, supervising the scavenging and watering of the streets, reporting nuisances, dealing with vagrants and seeing that the various Acts of Parliament were observed. They were under the general instructions of the justices of the peace.

With the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, Dover promptly formed a proper police force in January 1836, consisting of 15 men made up of three sergeants and twelve constables. The latter included Richard Crosoer, the late 'chief constable'. A police station was erected in Queen Street, Dover in 1838 which the Government Inspector later found to be 'well-constructed but requiring some appliance for promoting warmth in cold weather'.

The members of the new force were required to devote all their time to policing the town and were not permitted to follow any other trade or calling. Discipline was strictly enforced with the main disciplinary offence, drinking on duty, being punishable by instant dismissal, although a good man could apply to be reinstated. When different classes of constable were introduced, a reduction in grade was another favoured punishment.

In February 1836 a Henry Crosoer (brother of Richard?) was appointed the inspector in charge of the force but, in November the following year, he was warned that, unless there was a marked improvement in the force, he would be dismissed. Crosoer managed to hold on to his job for a while but, perhaps as a result of his apparent lack of control, a Superintendent (Edward Correll) was appointed over his head in March 1839. Inspector Crosoer did not last much longer and was dismissed the following January for drunkenness. Drunkenness was not the only misdemeanour committed by the senior ranks; in 1847 Superintendent Correll was accused of ordering bread for prisoners when there weren't any, of harbouring an acquaintance at the Station who was burning coals at the expense of the Borough, and of failing to make the required twice-weekly night visits. The Superintendent denied these accusations and said that he often visited the men without their knowledge in accordance with a system of supervision that he had developed. The Watch Committee was not convinced and Mr. Correl's resignation was accepted.

Dover's run of bad luck continued however with the promotion of Sergeant Laker to succeed Superintendent Correl and, in 1850, the former attempted to commit suicide. He expressed a desire to return to his duties but was regarded as unfit to continue in the post and was dismissed. Applications were received from a wide variety of candidates for the resulting vacancy. These included three superintendents, another police officer, a prison warder, several local men and soldiers. The Committee finally appointed John Rofe, lately chief of the Walsall police who took charge in 1850 but resigned the next year to take an inn in Walsall. He was replaced in April 1851 by John Coram, a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police who had been the second choice when the previous interviews were held.

The Dover Police were also responsible for fire brigade duties and a fire engine was kept in the Town Pound in Queen Street. The Superintendent was also the Captain of the Fire Brigade and was paid an allowance for each time he turned out to a fire. The two constables detailed for permanent fire brigade duties lived over the fire station for much of the time and were aided by other policemen out necessary.

Faversham was one of the smaller municipal boroughs with a population of just over 4,000. The earliest reference to police in the borough records is dated 22 August 1836 where mention is made of a certain James Craig and a William Waters who were convicted of assaulting the Superintendent of Police. In September of that year the Borough finance records refer to the sum of £15.4s.0d being paid to the superintendent 'for Watchmen's and Police wages for 4 weeks'. It is reasonable to assume that the borough followed the common system of having watchmen on the streets at night with a couple of day constables patrolling during the daylight hours.

There is no record of who was in charge in the early days; there is a mention of a Constable Orpin in 1842 who was referred to as the Superintendent in 1857. However, in the same year, a Thomas Burrough is referred to as 'the newly-appointed superintendent'.

Folkestone also had a population of around 4,000 when, at a meeting of the new Watch Committee held on 14 January 1836, it was resolved that 15 constables be appointed for the borough. It may be assumed that these were Special Constables and were appointed for one year as was the usual arrangement and expected to combine certain policing duties with their normal trade or calling. They were not required to perform any regular duties apart from two men who were to watch the borough 'from 6 p.m. to midnight by the church clock', for a week, another two taking over the next week after which the first couple came back on duty and so on. They were paid 2/- per night and their engagement was on a month-by-month basis.

Although referred to as constables, these four men were in fact on a par with the old town watchmen. They were not issued with any kind of uniform but, in June of that year, (1836) it was resolved that there should be a Regular Policeman, paid 18/- per week and issued with a coat, trousers, waistcoat and hat of the same pattern as the London Police as he would be required to give his whole time to the office. In September a second constable was appointed, to work every day of the week from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. It was also resolved that the services of two of the night constables be dispensed with.

In January 1837, the earlier appointments expired and another 12 men were appointed. These included the gaoler, a baker and a labourer, (three of the retiring constables), together with four butchers, another baker, two bricklayers, another labourer and a fish carrier. Their addresses included Upper Tree Row, Broad Street, Fancy Street, Queen's Place and Butchery Road - names that seem to have long disappeared from use. At the time of their appointment these new constables were instructed:
'… to give notice that parties beating carpets, removing manure and emptying vessels in the public streets … would be proceeded against …'

These constables continued to provide police cover until 1847 when a further six constable were employed 'to watch the Borough at night' from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. They were accommodated in the central watch house until around 1852 when they moved into the Sessions Hall in the (Old) High Street, adjacent to the Bayle steps.

Although these measures provided a form of policing in the borough of Folkestone for some two decades, they were really no great improvement on what had been the system for many years. In 1850 however an advertisement was placed in the local newspapers calling for applicants for the new post of Superintendent of Police (referred to later in the same advertisement as 'Inspector') and James Steer of Gosport was appointed.

Steer soon had problems with some of his men and, in June 1852, he had to report Constable Gilbert, stating: I respectfully beg leave to report Constable William Gilbert for neglect of duty in taking a glass of rum from a Mr. Martin, landlord of the Fountain Public House, High Street, on the pretence of taking William Ottway home, who was at the time in a state of intoxication and leaving him in the street whereby his life was endangered.

Gilbert was soon in trouble again and, in January 1856 he was dismissed for being absent from his beat for about an hour during which time three doorknockers were pulled off houses in Guildhall Street.

Superintendent Steer did not stay much longer, however, and resigned in July 1857, apparently under something of a cloud since there was talk of his being prosecuted for appropriating certain property that had come into his possession following a burglary. Following exhaustive discussions between the mayor and Government officials, an information was laid with a view to Mr. Steer's arrest but the Folkestone Bench, on the advice of their Clerk, refused to issue a warrant.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Gravesend was patrolled by two watchmen, one in Gravesend itself and one in Milton. They received no pay but relied entirely on voluntary contributions for their services and in at least one case, pursued another business activity in the daytime. From 1816, following the passing of a local Act of Parliament, the arrangements were put on a more professional basis with the watchmen receiving a fixed wage from the town rates and they were supplied with greatcoats and rattles. A third watchman was appointed the following year and, from 1827, a further two watchmen were appointed for the winter months only.

In 1833 William North was appointed Inspector of the Watch, which now consisted of six men (two of whom acted as day constables on an alternating basis for an extra 3/- per week), plus two day constables who worked 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. With the introduction of the Day Police more interest was given to clothing and equipment. Frock coats were issued bearing the initials G and MP together with blue trousers and an extra heavy coat for night duty, sometime referred to as a Foulweather or Fearnought coat. This dress was topped off with the usual high hat with an oilskin cover for wet weather and a waterproof cape. Cutlasses and handcuffs were also issued, staffs following two years later.

The following extract from a letter published in the Gravesend and Milton Journal of 6 September, 1834 gives a good indication of the attitude of local businessmen to the newly-formed police:
Sir,
There is one great nuisance in Gravesend, that ought to be speedily removed, as it throws a censure upon the powers that be - is very unpleasant to the inhabitants, and injurious to the shopkeepers of the place. It is the congregation of half-grown youths and others. … the pathway is so much occupied, that the passengers …[are] …. in danger of being run over by every passing vehicle. Independent of this, the disgusting language heard, tends to exclude every respectable person from the place. …and we consider it equivalent to robbery, that we should pay for the support of that from which we receive no benefit. I allude to the police establishment who, in the foregoing matter, show the greatest negligence. In fact, the whole of … the force … is occupied by looking for refugee deserters and criminals, (from the committal of which they receive a bounty), while the order and comfort of the town, from the inhabitants of which they receive a permanent pay, is shamefully neglected.
I am, Sir, Yours respectfully,
A Shopkeeper.

One can but speculate to what extent the citizens of Gravesend, nearly two centuries later, would empathise with this Shopkeeper's comments.

With a population of around 9,500, Gravesend formed a Watch Committee in January 1836 to which Will North reported that each watchman (including himself) had a watch coat, sword, stave, pair of handcuffs, rattle, whistle and a cape; the day policemen had a coat, pair of trousers, greatcoat, high hat and waterproof cover. There was no watch house, station or watch box for their use and he considered that a station house and 3 lock-ups were needed. He claimed that the watchmen were efficient, although two of them were 'a little deaf'. The watch committee resolved that all the men should become watchmen under the control of an inspector with the day policing divided amongst them. Two additional watchmen were appointed together with four (unpaid) constables and Will North was formally appointed inspector of police by day and by night. One of the original watchmen, Will Penman, was appointed assistant inspector making a total of nine men. These men had very little time to themselves as the whole force had to be on duty from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. and day duty was performed in rotation, i.e.:

No's 1, 2 and 3 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
No's 4, 5 and 6 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
No's 7, 8 and 9 from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
(no watch between 5 a.m. and 10 a.m.)

A station house was erected in Gravesend in July 1836, forming part of the Town Hall in the High Street, and served as the town's Police Station for many years.

In October of 1836 the Watch Committee recommended that 24 special constables (12 for Gravesend and 12 for Milton) be appointed and these were duly sworn in. The Borough also adopted the usual practice of appointing 'supernumerary' constables who were only paid if they were called out to cover for absent regular officers. Unfortunately this practice was not without its difficulties and two of these supernumeraries were reported for 'persistently refusing to turn out when required' but, as they pointed out, they 'could not leave a Master who regularly employed them in order to obtain uncertain employment as a supernumerary constable'

Gravesend had its share of disciplinary problems with two constables being reprimanded for being found asleep on the steps of the National School in 1836. At a meeting of the Watch Committee on 10 January 1837, Assistant Inspector Penman was fined 5/- for being drunk and two Day Constables disciplined, one being reprimanded for 'violence of temper' while the other was discharged. Inspector Penman was later dismissed for persistent drunkenness and Edward Taylor was appointed in his stead despite Penman 'craving to be reappointed'. Following complaints from the worthy citizens of Gravesend, the Watch Committee issued an instruction in December 1838 that the men were not to go round the town asking for Christmas boxes which effectively cut off a valuable source of income for some of the more brazen constables.

In some cases the Watch Committee seems to have extended considerable leniency towards members of the Borough Police. For example, Constable North (the son of the Inspector in charge of the force) committed 16 offences and was fined a total of 56/- over a period of three years. He was eventually dismissed for a third offence of failing to report for duty. A Sergeant had a variety of convictions against him including three cases of drunkenness, sleeping on duty, using insulting language and behaviour, careless and slovenly entries in account books and allowing a prisoner to escape. His questionable conduct with a prostitute at the Maidstone Assizes had resulted in his reduction in rank from Inspector to Sergeant but, in spite of his record, he remained in the service of the Borough Police for a considerable number of years.

In July 1839 Mr. North's post was renamed 'Superintendent' and in 1841 Josiah Oxley was appointed inspector while William Penman (whose cravings had apparently borne fruit) was appointed sergeant. Mr Oxley was subsequently replaced by Inspector Denyer

In 1848 the Committee set up a formal Superannuation Fund into which the constables paid 8d a week and the Superintendent 1/4d. In addition, any money received for the service of summonses or the execution of warrants was paid into the fund. Consequently, when Superintendent North retired in 1851 he was granted £1 a week out of the Fund, plus a further 6/- from the Borough Fund and another £10 in view of his length of service and loss of office. Unfortunately, the pensions paid out soon exceeded the sums paid in and it was decided to make use of a clause in the Municipal Corporations Act by means of which the Watch Committee could make an allowance to those who became worn out through length of service. At that time the Fund was only paying out £1 per week to ex Superintendent North and 17/- per week shared between two retired Constables but it was unable to sustain even this level. The three pensioners therefore had no option but to accept a reduced pension (12/- for ex-Superintendent North and 7/- and 5/- respectively for the other two). This enabled the Superannuation Fund to build its funds up to meet future commitments.

The untimely death of Inspector Denyer in December 1850 gave the Watch Committee the opportunity of reorganizing the force. It was decided that Superintendent North should be superannuated 'as being worn out by length of service'. The Commissioners of the City of London and Metropolitan Police were asked to recommend some fit and proper person for the post of Superintendent of the Gravesend Borough Police at a salary of £65, plus gaol fees. Commissioner Harvey of the City force replied that he had a recommendation to make but considered the pay too low. The Watch Committee decided to increase the offer to £80 which, with the emoluments offered, would amount to £120 p.a. As a result, 14 applications were received and Frederick White, a family man of 35 years of age, with 11 years police experience in London was selected for the job. He took up his duties on 1 April 1851, the force at this time consisting of the superintendent, two sergeants and 14 'privates' for a population which had grown to just under 17,000.

Mr. White promptly set about reorganising the force, laying down new beats and issuing printed 'Rules and Directions for the Instruction and Guidance of the Police Force for the Borough of Gravesend' to each member of the force. These booklets followed a general and familiar pattern, instructing the men what they must do (report promptly for duty, work their beat properly, obey instructions, etc.) and must not do (drink on duty, enter licensed premises, incur debts, etc.) and gave a layman's guide to the criminal law, as well as setting out the more common minor offences. An idea of a constable's duties in the first half of the 19th century may be gleaned from these Instructions:
…. Constables are to pay attention to uninhabited houses on their beats as robberies are often effected by entering such houses. The Serjeant will inform new Constables that they are to make a mark upon the doors and windows of unoccupied houses which will enable them to ascertain at any time whether any entry has been made during their absence …… Constables will note the times the Gas Lamps are lighted and extinguished, also any lamps or glass broken during the night … particular attention must be paid to persons conveying parcels and bundles or the removal of goods … at unreasonable hours or under suspicious circumstances … Attention is directed to persons who go from house to house collecting bottles, rags and refuse of similar kinds from servants at an early hour as many opportunities are then given for committing felonys (sic) and enabling servants to dispose of the property of their masters. …. The attention of Constables is directed to coal holes, trap-doors or other places on or near the footpaths; such conveniences should be secured …

Prior to this the Gravesend Pavement Commissioners had criticised the force for failing to attend to offences committed under the Pavement Act and instructed constables to observe:
'… every kind of nuisance, stench, obstruction or annoyance arising from accumulations of offensive matter. any defect of drainage or neglect in the cleaning of the streets within their beats …'

Gravesend had something of a reputation for disastrous fires and conflagrations were a fairly regular occurrence. The timber construction of the closely packed buildings made any fire likely to spread extremely rapidly. The Gravesend Improvement Act of 1833 authorized the Commissioners to provide fire engines and other equipment and employ a number of firemen. These were placed under the control of the police Inspector. By 1845 the fire service had become a separate unit with 15 men under their own superintendent but this was not entirely efficient so, in 1854, the Watch Committee decided that the fire engines should come under police control once more. The firemen were issued with a low-crowned glazed hat with the word 'Fireman' and the man's number painted on it and three years later it was agreed to provide three fire helmets and thick coats.

The early history of the Hythe police is somewhat hazy. It appears that in 1830 John Friend was appointed the Parish Constable for the town and in 1834 he was named as Chief Constable. At the same time he was carrying on his bootmaking business which employed several hands but in 1844 the Town Council offered to make it worth his while to give up his business and become a full-time policeman, to which he agreed. Although given the title of Chief Constable, Friend was in fact the only police officer, although there may have been some night watchmen.

A gaol and accommodation for the Gaol Keeper had been built on a piece of land in Stade Street, opposite Oaklands, around 1794. and was used by the town's police as a lock-up but the 'police station' seems to have been whatever house the Head Constable or Superintendent occupied.