The Early Days of Policing in Kent Pt 8.
by Roy Ingleton
The Kentish Boroughs (part2 Maidstone - Tun Wells)

Prior to the Municipal Corporations Act, the peace officers for the county town of Maidstone consisted of a High Constable and four borsholders who were appointed by the justices of the peace at the Court Leet. These were usually local tradesmen who wore no uniform but carried a baton bearing the borough coat of arms as a symbol of their authority. There was also a watchman to patrol the streets at night and call the hours. A small borough police force was established under the 1819 Improvement Act but over the years it became increasingly ineffectual.

By the 1830s crime had become a major source of anxiety; according to the mayor, there were in the town:
'a great number of bad characters who … had no other mode of getting a living than that of plunder', adding that there was: 'no one thing in Maidstone wanted more than an efficient police'

And so a police force, modelled on the newly-formed Metropolitan Police, was created for this town of 17,000 inhabitants and came into operation on 18 April 1837. It consisted of Thomas Fancett, aged 53, as Superintendent, a former drum-major as inspector, two sergeants and a body of 12 men. These were each furnished with a greatcoat and it was decreed that 13 truncheons painted with the King's Arms and 'Maidstone Police' be supplied. A set of 'Instructions and Conditions' was printed and issued to all the constables very similar to that issued to the Gravesend and other police forces and, in 1836, a building was provided in King Street (almost opposite the entrance to Church Street) but this was condemned in 1868.

There were subsequent claims that 'a great change for the better has taken place in the streets;
'prostitutes and other disorderly and bad characters are deterred from pursuing their former annoying and disgusting conduct …. [and] '… government of the town is greatly improved'.

How far this improved state of affairs was effected through the phenomenon of displacement is not easy to determine. Since the force only operated within ¾ of a mile from the Town Hall, for which the inhabitants had to pay an additional rate, it seems likely that many criminals simply turned their attentions to property outside the borough boundary which was to remain without a police force for another two decades. In fact, the occupants of premises outside the town centre were in something of a limbo. In October 1851 Charles Neve of Shepway Court wrote to the Town Clerk complaining that, although he contributed to the borough rates, the town's police did not patrol beyond the top of Upper Stone Street. He had applied to Mr Dunne, the superintending constable for the local county district, who had told him that the Parish Constables under his command were not authorized to patrol within the borough. Poor Mr Neve was therefore excluded from both the borough police and the existing county system.

In 1854 Thomas Fancett had reached the ripe old age of 70 and decided to retire. Seven candidates, all with police experience, were selected for interview and John Blundell, a superintending constable from Pembroke and a former detective sergeant in the City of London Police, was selected to lead this force, now consisting of an inspector and 14 constables.

Although not incorporated as a borough until 1884, Ramsgate had a police force of some kind for many years before this. In 1816 a body of night constables was formed and 20 years later a sergeant was appointed to take charge of them. The 1838 Ramsgate Improvement Act provided the basis for a true police force and the Improvement Commissioners formed a Police and Lighting Committee. James Livick was appointed to take charge of this body of men which, by 1844, consisted of four or five Constables, plus a couple of 'Night Constables', who appear to have been simply Watchmen, working alternate weeks. The Constables were issued with the usual police uniform of the day (swallow-tail coat, high hat, etc.) but the Night Constables only had a greatcoat, a cape and boots and it was common practice for the Night Constables to transfer to the uniformed police when a vacancy arose. The 'Station House' about this time appears to have been located at the Town Hall.

In 1845 it was agreed that 12 (later 25) Supernumerary Constables should be appointed, to work as and when required, being paid only when called out at the rate of 2/6d. per half day and 'the sum usually paid to Special Constables' if working longer than this. They were issued with a staff and an armlet but no uniform. In addition to the Town Police, five Constables, employed by the Board of Trade, were sworn in by the justices in May 1855 to Police the Royal Harbour. They were appointed as Watchmen under the Ramsgate Improvement Act and, being sworn, were empowered to assist the local police if so required. They had an office and a cell in the Harbour Yard, near the clock tower, and were equipped with a boat. But their main occupation was dealing with the drunks leaving the many public houses in the harbour area and preventing them from falling in the water.

By modern standards concern for the welfare of the man on the beat was lamentable. At first there were no paid rest days or annual leave and when Constable Farley of the Ramsgate Borough Police wanted to take four days leave of absence in 1846 to visit his relatives in London, permission was granted on condition that he got one of the Night Constables to substitute for him, at his own expense. Not until June 1859 was permission given for the Chief Constable to grant up to three days leave each year.

The Ramsgate Police were not originally responsible for the town's fire engine, although Timothy Terry, one of the so-called 'Night Constables', was also the 'Superintendent of the Fire Engine.' When he gave up his police job in January 1845 to take the licence of the Ship Inn, he retained his fire brigade post. In 1848, the Police Committee considered that there should be a Chief Officer of the Fire Brigade in addition to the Superintendent of the Fire Brigade, with full control of the Engine and the men in that Department, and recommended that James Livick should be appointed. The personnel under his command were all volunteers and consisted of three of the four 'Night Constables' together with three other Council employees who were required to turn out when called upon by a runner. After they had attended a fire, a bill was sent to the individual owning the property or his insurance company and the proceeds were distributed among those attending the fire. Nevertheless, in August 1856 the Superintendent reported that, apart from one man, the fire brigade had become extinct.

In accordance with the Municipal Corporations Act, Rochester City Council formed a Watch Committee in 1837 which resolved that the City area, with its population of some 13,600 souls, should be patrolled and watched. For this purpose it proposed that a Constabulary Force would be needed, consisting of a superintendent, two inspectors and 21 (later increased to 22) 'Constables or Police-men'. It later decided that the existing gaol and gaoler's house should be used as the Watch and Station House for the Constabulary Force and one Edward Newman was appointed Station House keeper.

In September 1837, Thomas Cork was appointed as Superintendent of Police with Joseph Anderson and John Tuff as the two inspectors. 22 men were sworn in as constables, plus a further four supernumeraries, and the force commenced its duties on 2 October 1837. As early as 1840 the Watch Committee recommended the formation of a River Guard to watch the warehouses and wharves on the banks of the River Medway but there is no record of this proposal being pursued.

In July 1842, Superintendent Cork found himself in trouble. One of his jobs was to collect the tolls at the cattle market and pay them over to the Treasurer but, having performed the first task, he omitted to do the second. When chased for the money (nearly £40) he was unable to pay the sum due but paid over £18 and offered to pay the rest at £1 a week. This was accepted but, as he failed to pay the weekly instalments, he was suspended from duty.

About the same time further pressure was being exerted on the Watch Committee to reduce the cost of policing the city and a sub-committee was formed to see 'what (if any) practical alterations should be made to render the police more efficient and less expensive'. The sub-committee came up with a string of ideas, including dispensing with one of the inspectors and reducing the number of constables to 14 and reducing their pay to 20/- per week. The ten men on permanent night duty men should perform their tour of duty (9 p.m. to 6 a.m.) without a break and the three day duty men work 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and then 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. The gaps would be covered by the 14th constable, designated as the Superintendent's assistant.

Superintendent Cork's disgrace facilitated the implementation of these changes and he was dismissed in December 1842. Inspector John Tuff was appointed superintendent in his stead while Inspector Anderson remained as the solitary inspector. The 'surplus' constables were summarily dismissed. In February 1843, because of the difficult hours they were required to work, the Day Constables complained they were unable to attend Divine Service on Sundays. It was therefore resolved that the force be united once more and that the men take day and night duty in turns.

By July 1844, Rochester City was in serious financial difficulties:
'chiefly from payment having been withheld to a very great extent of their Due on Coals imported into this City … '.

This meant that it was again necessary to reduce the cost of the police. The inspector was therefore dismissed, together with four constables (although another constable was taken on shortly afterwards). Not surprisingly, this greatly reduced force had considerable difficulty in keeping crime under control and in February 1848, it was claimed that the City, the population of which was now around 16,000, was infested with thieves. To combat this, six more constables were to be employed for just three months but, with only the Superintendent to exercise supervision, discipline became very lax and a number of men were punished for being found asleep on duty or other offences. To combat this, it was ordered that each of the Night Duty Constables in turn should act as a sub-inspector and visit all the beats to make sure that men were awake and alert. The post of Station House keeper was not a very happy one since Constable James Vine was dismissed in September 1850 for allowing a prisoner to escape, emulating the fate of his predecessor, Edward Newman. Vine's replacement was in turn dismissed in May 1857 for drunkenness.

Despite constantly complaining about the cost of policing the City, the Council was very quick to join the outcry against the proposed Police Act in 1856 and promptly sent a petition to Parliament, objecting to the idea that the police functions should be assumed by a new county force. As will be seen, this was successful.

Under a charter of 1462, 4 jurats were elected each year for the ancient Cinque Port of Romney who, together with the Bailiff, exercised the office of Keepers of the Peace and Coroners for the year. The position of these justices was fully investigated by the Municipal Corporations Commission in 1833 when the Romney Marsh police consisted of 5 (parish) constables appointed at the Michaelmas Sessions. At this time the gaol at New Hall was still in use. The Commission left the administration of justice in the Marsh untouched so that, when the Kent County Constabulary was formed in 1857, its area of influence did not initially extend to the Romney Marsh

Like Dover, Hythe and Romney, Sandwich is one of the Cinque Ports (the fifth being Hastings in Sussex) and so enjoys special corporate status. The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 therefore applied to this small town and a Watch Committee was duly appointed which reported in March 1836 that there was no permanent police force, 24 parish constables being sworn in to act whenever called upon and who could be supplemented by special constables '… if ever there were occasions of extraordinary excitement'. The Town Council recorded in the Minutes of 31 March 1836 that a permanent police force and police station were regarded as an unnecessary and expensive burden on the town.

With the introduction of Government inspections under the County & Borough Police Act of 1856, Sandwich was subjected to careful scrutiny by the Inspector of Constabulary who reported that the town's police was very inefficient. The Town Council demurred and held that the existing arrangements were 'quite sufficient' but, a few months later, it received a letter from the Home Secretary regretting that: '… the Council do not appear to have put into force the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act which requires within the Borough of a sufficient number of fit men to act as Constables … In Sandwich, only one police constable is employed who receives annually a suit of uniform clothing. The duties are undefined and the Constable occasionally follows his trade as a hairdresser'.

It proposed a properly organized police force of 1 sergeant and two constables:
'… which is necessary for a town the size of Sandwich … and which, at the time of the census in 1851, had a population of 2,966 persons'.

Sandwich therefore had to climb down and create a professional police force. The first sergeant (known as the Head Constable) was J D Warren who was also the inspector of weights and measures and served from 1856 to 1868.

In 1824 the Tenterden Association for the Prevention of Depredations organized a Night Watch consisting of around half a dozen men who patrolled the streets at night and noted who was abroad. This continued until around 1831 and, four years later, the newly-formed Watch Committee organized Tenterden's first police force consisting of a High Constable and three Constables. These were attired in similar uniforms to those worn in London at the time. The first superintendent appears to have been a James Barns who was appointed in 1856. A shopkeeper, he continued to follow his trade at the same time as he supervised the other three constables.

To begin with the force does not appear to have had a police station as such. There was a lock-up at the Tollgate House on the corner of Church Road and the police presumably worked from their homes.

The Report of the Local Act Committee, dated December 1832 refers to the policing of Tunbridge Wells in the following terms:
The question of Nightwatching and Day Police have been separately considered … It appears by the evidence that burglaries and robberies on an extensive scale are not common in this place, but that other depredations are of frequent occurrence and much complained of, as well as wanton mischief, such as breaking of windows, defacing and destruction of fences, continual noise and disturbance at night, occasioned by persons leaving public houses … These are evils which ..… an effective Nightwatch ..… would greatly prevent. On the subject of Day Police, there appears to be some diversity of opinion. It is agreed that the present number of Parish Constables and those of the hundred would be sufficient, if they were effective, but they are found to be not sufficiently under the appointment or control of the magistrates to be rendered efficient ..… and some force therefore seems necessary, differently constituted…

As a result of this Report, the Tunbridge Wells Improvement Act was passed in 1835 and in the August of that year, the Tunbridge Wells Police Force was formed, consisting of a Superintendent and five constables. As the town had not been incorporated as a borough (it had long been a subsidiary of the town of Tonbridge) the force was not constituted under the Municipal Corporations Act but under the local Act; in fact, the town did not become a borough until 1889. There was therefore no Watch Committee, the police being controlled by a Police and Lighting Committee which, in, August 1835, resolved
… that the police force be clothed in a uniform consisting of a blue coat and trousers with the letters TWP and a number (of white cloth) sewed on the collar and with a hat partly glazed, similar to the London Police, and that the Superintendent or Inspector have a similar dress except that on the collar of the coat, a crown only should be sewed instead of the numbers and letters. That each policeman be also provided with a great coat of dark grey cloth with a similar distinction on the collar and all the other articles as provided for the use of the London police.

The uniform therefore followed the usual pattern and later went through the various phases of frock coats and tunics as the other forces in the county.

Anxious that the new police force should be effective and efficient, the Police Committee asked for a sergeant from the Metropolitan Police to be attached to the town temporarily, to advise on its proper organisation. A Sergeant Sillwood arrived in 1835 and gave the Committee valuable advice, including a recommendation that the men should not call the hour at night, since this will;
'… completely destroy the efficiency of the night police … because it prevents the detection of offenders … and in a place like Tunbridge Wells, where there are so many places for thieves and other offenders to hide themselves, it is more necessary than in London for the movements of the police to be as secret as possible.'

Based on the advice it had received, the Police Committee wasted no time in issuing a 'Police Instruction Book' to the members of the new force which, by the end of 1838 had added a sergeant and another constable.

The first Superintendent of the Tunbridge Wells Police was John Alexander Thompson who was appointed around October 1835 but appears to have quickly become unhappy with his excessive workload. He went so far as to resign from the post and the Committee considered seeking a replacement from London but Thompson subsequently asked to withdraw his resignation '… in consequence of the contemplated appointment of a Serjeant '.
The Committee recorded that it
… did not feel satisfied with his conduct so far as respects the sincerity of his motives assigned by him for resigning but that they had been induced again to appoint him to that situation in consequence of the zeal, steadiness and unremitting attention which he had hitherto displayed in the performance of his duties …'

As promised, one of the men was promoted to sergeant whose task was to supervise the men on night duty and take charge of the Station House in the daytime whenever the Superintendent was absent on his rounds, which no doubt made the Superintendent's job a lot easier.

In November 1840 Superintendent Thompson gave in his notice, having been appointed a superintendent in the newly-formed East Sussex force. He was replaced by Thomas Barton, aged 39 from Hadlow who left after four years to take the licence of the White Bear Inn. Next came William Plumb from the East Sussex Constabulary who died in harness in May 1847. The Tunbridge Wells Police force had, by this time, evidently become something of a plum since the next man in charge had been the Superintendent in charge of the Cambridge City Police, one Captain Charles Bailey, who took over in June 1847. However, in October of that same year he was allowed leave of absence 'in consequence of the expected death of a beloved daughter' but failed to return and was therefore summarily dismissed.

The Committee wasted no time in replacing Bailey and on 25 October 1847, William Morten, who had been a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, was appointed, taking up his new post early the following year. Mr. Morten gained an excellent reputation in Tunbridge Wells as a thief-taker and, when he applied for the superintendency of Nottingham City, he was supplied with numerous glowing testimonials as to his 'promptitude, activity. sagacity, courage and general good conduct' from the borough and county worthies. For reasons which are not known he apparently withdrew his application for this new post and, shortly afterwards, was given a number of rewards for his action in arresting 'the Sussex burglars' and others. However, in April 1853, Mr. Morten was reported as absent from duty. His absence prompted numerous complaints from the men under him to the effect that he had defrauded them of money due for their attendance at court. Morten was removed from office in his absence and apparently emigrated to Canada shortly afterwards where he changed his name to Martin, possibly to avoid any pursuit.

The Morten case gave the Police Committee cause for concern and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was asked for assistance and he sent one of his inspectors to investigate the present state of the force. It appears the Committee was right to be concerned since, in May 1853, Inspector Robert Bray duly reported:
I find every department connected in a very disorganised state, no one properly understanding his position. …. Clothing and appointments [dirty and in a poor state of repair] … the Police Station filthy and having more the appearance of a lumber room than a Police Station.

The town now had a population of some 12,000 and Inspector Bray suggested the force should consist of an inspector (in place of the superintendent), two sergeants and 10 constables. He closed by saying;
I attribute the whole of the imperfection to the negligent and very loose manner in which the late Superintendent [Morten] conducted the force.

Consequently, the advertisement for Morten's replacement called for an 'Inspector' rather than a Superintendent and the successful candidate, Cyril Winnington Onslow, 37, a parish constable from Chatham, was duly appointed. Although he was described as Inspector in June 1853, the post was renamed Superintendent four years later and, in February 1860, in response to a letter from the Home Office, Chief Superintendent.

The new police force was initially housed in a building on the corner of Mount Pleasant Road and Grove Hill Road but, when a prisoner escaped by simply demolishing a brick wall, it was agreed that something better was needed. In May 1847 the new Town Hall was available with accommodation for the police and a number of cells. At the same time, the County Justices readily agreed to a proposal that the Superintendent in charge of the Tunbridge Wells Police should also act as the Superintending Constable for the area and undertook to pay him an appropriate stipend for looking after the Parish Constables.

Recruitment
The early policemen met with a very mixed reception. Although parish constables and watchmen had been in existence for many years, the concept of a professional, paid police force was not always welcomed. The wealthy, land-owning gentry already had their own private 'police' consisting of gamekeepers, stewards, bailiffs and other servants and they did not see why they should pay for a force to look after other people. The lower social orders, too, quickly realised that they would be the centre of attention for such a police force, especially as most criminals came from their peers. Only the newly burgeoning commercial and industrial sectors generally welcomed the idea. They were suffering from thefts, industrial unrest and malicious damage and quickly saw that a paid, professional police force would be better than some lackadaisical parish constable.

Given this widespread opposition to a professional police force, what sort of man was going to offer his services? Many chief constables looked to the agricultural labourer to fill the ranks of his force. They were strong and comparatively healthy and many were looking for a more secure life than could be found on the farms, where they could be hired and fired on a whim. But the precarious economic and employment situation encouraged many from other trades and callings to apply - bootmakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, bakers, ostlers and grooms were all represented. But labourers of one kind or another made up a large proportion of the recruits to both town and county forces. Young, single men were generally preferred and some forces expressly excluded married applicants. Others, like Deal, found married men much more reliable and loyal.

The chairman of one watch committee stated, it was 'simply a question of wages' but this view was perhaps overly simplistic. There were a variety of factors which encouraged young men to apply; stability of employment, regularity of pay and various fringe benefits. There was also the fact that a trained policeman was often sought after by other employers and, later on, the attraction of a pension.

Therefore, despite public opposition, there was no great difficulty in attracting recruits. Retaining them was, however, quite a different matter. Of the 3,400 men who joined the Metropolitan Police when it was first formed only a quarter remained in post four years later. This trend was reflected in most of the early police forces. The demands of the job, both physical and mental, were considerable; the discipline was high - unacceptably so for many - and even one's private life was strictly controlled and monitored.

The early borough forces in Kent tended to employ local men, many of whom were farm labourers or brewery workers. The officers in charge, by whatever title they were known (usually Superintendent) were often recruited from the Metropolitan or City of London forces.

Crime and Punishment
The 'General Instructions for the different ranks of the [Metropolitan] Police Force', published in 1829, make it clear that '… the principal object to be attained is the Prevention of Crime …'
One form of crime prevention is the punishment of those convicted of crime, the ultimate form of prevention being capital punishment which ensures that at least that criminal will commit no more crimes. As a discouragement to others, the evidence is less clear-cut; certainly some on the fringes of criminality are deterred by the thought of punishment, be it execution, flogging, imprisonment, fines or even just the disapprobation of one's peers, but history shows that many who suffered flogging and other severe punishments were not deterred from committing further crimes.

As well as dealing with crime, the new policemen waged a constant war against drunkenness and associated disorders. It was as a result of such an incident in 1844 that Constable Couchman of the Dover Borough Police was beaten to death by Thomas Clark, a drunken chimney sweep, who used his brush rods to fatal effect during a serious disturbance between two feuding families at Charlton, to the north of the town. The lack of communication between the few police forces at that time was no doubt explains why the fugitive murderer was never caught.

The Rural Constabulary Act, 1839
The success of the Metropolitan Police led in 1836 to the government forming a:
'Royal Commission for the purpose of enquiring as to the best means of establishing an efficient constabulary force in the counties of England and Wales'.

The Commission consisted of Edwin Chadwick, Colonel Charles Rowan (one of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police) and Sir Charles Shaw Lefevre (representing the county magistrates) and submissions included statements that:
'… the leet constables […] are all connected by family or some other way, they are of no use; we could never get a protecting force from the neighbourhood [in Lancashire]'.

Parish constables were said to be unable or unwilling to put a stop to unlawful popular recreational activities such as cock-fighting, drunkenness, prize fights and it was quite common for the local constable to simply refuse to turn out to deal with brawls and other disorders.

Chadwick, the driving force behind the Commission, saw this as an opportunity to further the points he had already made in his essay Preventive Police. Indeed, it has been suggested that the Report was merely 'a gigantic sequel' to this essay. The Commission accordingly recommended that forces be formed in the boroughs and counties, controlled centrally by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. This was widely opposed, the press in particular being strongly in favour of forces under local control and the ensuing debate proposed that the justices and an elected body be in charge of any county forces.

Because of the weight of the opposition Parliament passed a 'permissive' Act - The Rural Constabulary Act of 1839 which:
1. Left the boroughs which had been incorporated under the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, or which had a separate court of quarter sessions, in control of their own forces
2. Allowed magistrates in quarter sessions in any county in which the majority had expressed a wish for a police force to be formed, to appoint a chief constable in order to create a county police force.
3. The whole cost of the force to be met out of the county rate.

It was largely this latter proviso which formed the stumbling block and many counties declined the opportunity to create (and pay for) a police force of their own. It was felt, as Henry Worsley wrote in his work Juvenile Depravity in 1849:
… there is a difference in the quality of crime between the professionalism of London and the feckless offenders of the countryside. Poaching and petty larceny, rather than the metropolitan sophistication of forgery or housebreaking characterizes rural crime.
Nevertheless, in Kent a proposal to form a rural constabulary in 1840 was defeated at quarter sessions by a majority of only three votes. In the light of this, the Kent magistrates set about improving the old system of parish constables, imposing stricter conditions and making proposals for head or superintending constables to oversee them. Between 1841 and 1852, five measures, all originating in Kent, were brought before parliament to this end. Some of these ideas were incorporated in the Parish Constables Act of 1842 and the Superintending Constables Act of 1850.

In a letter to an unknown person dated 11 October 1850, Sir Edwin Chadwick re-stated the need for a nation-wide police system, adding:
…the landed gentry whose houses have outer walls and porters' lodges, and are, as it were, garrisoned by servants, ride out attended by grooms and feel and see no real danger to person and property, whilst they feel a strong objection to increased rates…. On the other hand, the Corporations of the towns were content with their own wretched constabularies, tenacious of patronage and ready to raise a yell against the slightest interference …

Despite the obvious difficulties and costs, a number of counties did set about forming a county force. The initial problem for those that adopted the Act was the selection of the Chief Constable. Where the borough forces often selected a local tradesman or possibly a member of the Metropolitan Police as the man in charge, the counties looked for a different type. He would have considerable independence and exercise extensive powers, the justices having little control over him other than the ultimate sanction of dismissal. This meant that most benches endeavoured to select men of good social standing, often with local family connections and preferably with distinguished military careers. Some forces looked to the Metropolitan Police which had now gained a decade of policing experience but the Commissioners were none too happy with this and tried to forestall a number of proposed appointments. As was pointed out, the Metropolitan Commissioners could not be expected to run a training school for aspiring chief constables.