The Early Days of Policing in Kent Pt 9.
by Roy Ingleton
The Parish Constables Act, 1842

Many counties preferred to retain the principle of universal obligation and adopted the 1842 Parish Constables Act. Despite the fact that it was much troubled by the Swing and anti-Poor Law disturbances, Kent was included amongst these. The county justices were so pleased with the workings of the superintending constables system that a motion raised at quarter sessions to introduce a rural constabulary in 1849 was roundly defeated and it remained foremost among the counties calling for a revitalized Parish Constable system. This was presumably because the county magistrates wanted a police force under their orders but did not wish to pay for it.

The justices could provide a lock-up (at their own expense) in which case they had to appoint a 'Superintending Constable' to take charge of the lock-up and the constables in the area it served. The superintending constable came under the exclusive directions of the local justices and was paid out of the county rates. Unlike the men under their command, the Superintending Constables were professional policemen, often appointed from London or another of the new county forces, and had considerable difficulty in motivating the part-time parish constables under their command. There also arose a problem of parochiality. The justices sometimes refused to see the wider picture and jealously guarded 'their' police. In the summer of 1853, when the superintending constable at Tonbridge, on the directions of his local magistrate, asked his counterpart at Ashford for assistance because of a riot, the Ashford magistrates refused to allow the superintendent to cross the petty sessional division boundary.

In July, 1850, the Kent Court of General Sessions appointed a Constabulary Committee to report on the duties of the Superintending Constables, the districts covered by them and the salaries and fees due to them. This committee made its first report on 7 April 1851, recommending that a Superintending Constable should be between the ages of 25 and 45 years and literate. Whilst so employed he was not to follow any other occupation and had to reside where instructed by the Court. He was not allowed to leave his district except in an emergency and was to keep in contact with the other Superintending Constables, informing them of any robberies, etc. He was to visit his Constables at least once a month and visit all public houses in his district. He was to be notified of all serious offences and should attend the scene to investigate. His pay was to be £85 a year plus a £25 horse allowance and £6 towards the upkeep of a cart and harness (which he had to provide himself). Vacancies were to be advertised in 'The Times' and the relevant local newspaper.
There were 12 petty sessional divisions outside the municipal boroughs to which the following Superintending Constables were appointed in October 1850:

No. Division Lathe Name Population
1. Ashford Lower division of Shepway Robert Gifford 24,926
2. Cranbroook Lower division of Scray Marcus Rigg 24,121
3. Bearsted Eastern division of Aylesford John Dunne 20,515
4. Dartford Upper division of Sutton-at-Hone Christopher Brandon 17,008
5. Elham Upper division of Shepway Thomas Link 11,808
6. Faversham Upper division of Scray Joseph Boyd 36,416
7. Home Western division of St. Augustine William Walker 19,256
8. Malling Upper South division of Aylesford George Hilton 24,216
9. Rochester North division of Aylesford Thomas Everist 44,226
10. Sevenoaks Lower division of Sutton-at-Hone James Handley 24,448
11. Tunbridge Lower South division of Aylesford Richard Gilbert 27,683
12. Wingham Eastern division of St. Augustine James McGregor 26,495

Each Superintending Constable was given a staff bearing the number of his division, a pair of handcuffs, a sword and belt, cartouche and box. Double-barrelled pistols and a holster were issued later, as were bull's eye lanterns.

Superintendent Dunne left in 1851 to take up a position as Superintendent of the Norwich City Police, finally ending up as Sir John Dunne, DL, JP, the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmorland while Superintendent Boyd was dismissed 1853 for inefficiency with regard to a robbery. Superintendent McGregor was dismissed in April 1852 as lacking the necessary qualities for the efficient discharge of his duties.

The Court of General Sessions sent a circular to the justices in the various divisions on 21 March 1851, setting out the conditions for the employment of parish constables:
· Constables to be appointed for one year only under the Parish Constables Act of 1842, by the justices who will select 'the most efficient men' in their Division from the lists sent in by the parishes of men who are liable to serve, as well as those who are willing to serve.
· When a parish has determined to have a paid constable, the justices should take especial care to appoint the best man and to inform him that, in consideration of the salary paid, he will be required to perform all such business as appertains strictly to his own parish, such as serving summonses and warrants for non-payment of rates, apprehending vagrants, etc.
· All Parish Constables will come under the control of the Superintending Constable for their respective division.

Although these appointments give the impression of an organized police force, it must be remembered that the constables and their supervisor were all appointed locally by the justices of the peace and most of the Constables were unpaid. Nevertheless, the supervisory posts were much sought after, by both experienced policemen and others. For example, when the Faversham post came vacant (following the dismissal of Boyd) and that for Cranbrook (resignation of Rigg), the advertisements attracted 60 applications, of which 10 were short-listed, including:
Thomas Mapleston Green, Sub-Inspector, East Suffolk Police (selected for Faversham)
Richard Dance Sergeant, Gloucestershire Police (subsequently selected for Tunbridge)
Thomas Hazle Sergeant, Gloucestershire Police (selected for Cranbrook)

The County & Borough Police Act, 1856
By 1853 there were police forces in 22 counties and parts of seven others - mostly those where the Chartist unrest was strongest. The majority of these had been created and developed along curiously - even dangerously - original lines by former army and navy officers. Meanwhile the question of a nationwide policing system continued to excite its proponents and opponents and, following a motion raised by E. R. Rice, the MP for Dover amongst others, a further Select Committee was appointed in April 1853 'to consider the expediency of adopting a more Uniform System of Police in England and Wales and Scotland'. In giving evidence before the Committee, Sir Edwin Chadwick proposed (as he had done before in the 1836 Report) that all the police should be supervised from London. All the counties that adopted the Rural Constabulary Act, as well as the boroughs therein, should be an extension of the Metropolitan Police Force and supplied by that force with a nucleus of trained men and supervisors. He thought it would eventually be necessary to direct a national police force from several district centres, each centre comprising several counties.
Perhaps because of Kent's known preference for the existing Superintending and Parish Constable system, no one from the county was called upon to comment on that type of policing. Although E R Rice chaired the Committee, he was an advocate of a new constabulary system and was not likely to sing the praises of the 'old' system. Although evidence was heard from one former Kent superintending constable, John Dunne, he was a veteran of the Manchester Police and the Essex Constabulary and was now the Head Constable of Norwich. He spoke of the Kent system in very disparaging terms.
Much of the discussion in the committee focused on the value of a professional constabulary in suppressing vagrancy and it was convinced that the new constabularies had contributed to a decline in this as well as 'to the maintenance of order and the improved habits of the population. The Select Committee presented its Report in 1853 which resolved:
That the efficiency of all the existing Police forces is materially impaired by the want of co-operation between the Rural Constabularies and the Police under the control of the authorities of the Boroughs or other local jurisdictions … your Committee are of the opinion that the smaller Boroughs should be consolidated with Districts or Counties for Police purposes and that the police in the larger Boroughs should be under a similar system of management and control to that of the adjoining District or County and (where practical) under the same superintendence …

The boroughs were strongly opposed to the proposals and a very large and influential meeting was held in London on 2 February 1854. Delegates included deputations from Canterbury and Faversham, while a letter of support was sent from Rochester. The meeting, chaired by the Lord Mayor of York, resolved:
That the contemplated measure for the consolidation of the Police of Counties and Boroughs is a most unjustifiable attack upon the rights and liberties of Municipal Corporations and an unconstitutional interference with their privileges and independence.

A deputation was formed which went immediately to the Home Office and made it clear that they saw the proposals as favouring the establishment of a National Police and were concerned that the Select Committee had heard little or no evidence from the boroughs. On their return, a specimen petition was sent to all the boroughs in the country which they were urged to send (adapted as necessary) to their Member of Parliament, protesting at the proposals. Maidstone Borough was one which duly obliged.
For various reasons, partly because of this concerted resistance on the part of the boroughs, partly because of the volatile political situation, the Bill was left on the table for two years. In 1855 another Kent MP, William Deedes, made a further proposal to develop the parish constable system, a proposal which received considerable support but was eventually withdrawn after Mr. Deedes had had lengthy discussions with the new Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, on a new government bill.
Grey's bill was introduced in parliament in February 1856 with the object of 'providing an efficient police force, both for counties and boroughs, as is possible under the existing system of local management' and, in 1856, the County and Borough Police Act received the Queen's Assent. Unlike the 'permissive' Rural Constabulary Act, this was an 'mandatory' Act which required the establishment of a police force in all counties of England and Wales, embracing those boroughs which had not created their own force as well as the rural areas, towns and villages. The government would pay one quarter of the total expenditure on pay and uniforms in all counties and boroughs. Smaller incorporated boroughs with less than 5,000 inhabitants could either (a) continue to provide their own force but with no government support or (b) amalgamate with the surrounding county. In this way much of the opposition to the earlier Bill was overcome and, as they were able to retain control of their police force, the vast majority of Boroughs were satisfied. The 1856 Act also introduced the concept of three Inspectors of Constabulary who would visit all police forces in receipt of the government grant and report on the numbers of men employed and their discipline. If they felt that the force was not being efficiently run they could recommend the withholding of the grant.
It was this Act in particular which removed policing from the parish pump level. It did not go as far in producing a central, national police force as the government would have wished but it was a step in that direction and was not so violently opposed as the latter course of action would have been. By this time two-fifths of the counties in England and Wales (including Kent) still relied on the parish constable system and, like Kent, had no option but to form a constabulary force. At the Annual General Sessions for Kent, held on 21 October 1856, it was ordered:
… that a committee of justices be appointed, consisting of the custos rotulorum of the county, the chairman of the General and Quarter Sessions and one JP from each of the Petty Sessional Divisions of the county, to be named by the respective benches, to enquire into the probable number of men of all ranks required to carry into effect within the county the provisions of the Act 2 & 3 Vic. Cap 93 and subsequent Acts called 'The County Police Acts' and the rate of pay which it would be expedient to pay the Chief and other Constables and officers and other preliminaries and to report thereon to the next adjournment of the Court intended to be held on the third day of December next.

Wheels turned surprisingly quickly in those days and, on 11 November 1856, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Viscount Sydney, consisting of an impressive array of the great and good in the county at that time. It was reported that the population of Kent (outside the incorporated boroughs) was 334,115 for which it was recommended that the police should consist of a chief constable, 12 superintendents, 18 sergeants and 191 constables, making a total of 222 officers. It was further recommended that one of the sergeants should be designated the sergeant-major and another as clerk to the chief constable. The chief constable's annual pay was determined at £400, plus travelling and other expenses. A proposal made by the North Aylesford Petty Sessional Division that Chatham should be a separate, autonomous police district was not supported.
The main proposals made by this committee were agreed by the General Sessions, which ordered the Committee to advertise and interview candidates for the chief constableship. 66 men applied of whom 29 were interviewed and 22 'short-listed'. These were nearly all military men - 12 captains, 2 majors, 3 lieutenant-colonels, 1 commander (RN) and only 4 civilians. In the end Captain John Henry Hay Ruxton, of Brenchley was duly appointed. As he was a Kent man, a justice of the peace and a member of the original 1851 Constabulary Committee the County authorities obviously wanted to keep things 'in the family'.
And so the Kent County Constabulary was born.