Watchmen were organised groups of men, usually authorised by a state, government, city, or society, to deter criminal activity and provide law enforcement as well as traditionally perform the services of public safety, fire watch, crime prevention, crime detection, and recovery of stolen goods. Watchmen have existed since earliest recorded times in various guises throughout the world and were generally succeeded by the emergence of formally organised professional policing.
An early reference to a watch can be found in the Bible where the Prophet Ezekiel states that it was the duty of the watch to blow the horn and sound the alarm. (Ezekiel 33:1-6)
The streets in London were dark and had a shortage of good quality artificial light.[1] It had been recognized for centuries that the coming of darkness to the unlit streets of a town brought a heightened threat of danger, and that the night provided cover to the disorderly and immoral, and to those bent on robbery or burglary or who in other ways threatened physical harm to people in the streets and in their houses.[2]
In the 13th century, the anxieties created by darkness gave rise to rules about who could use the streets after dark and the formation of a night watch to enforce them. These rules had for long been underpinned in London and other towns by the curfew, the time (announced by the ringing of a bell) at which the gates closed and the streets were cleared. These rules, where codified by law, would come to be known as the nightwalker statutes; such statutes empowered and required night watchmen (and their assistants) to arrest those persons found about the town or city during hours of darkness. Only people with good reason to be out could then travel through the city.[1] Anyone outside at night without reason or permission was considered suspect and potentially criminal.[3]
Allowances were usually made for people who had some social status on their side. Lord Feilding clearly expected to pass through London's streets untroubled at 1am one night in 1641, and he quickly became piqued when his coach was stopped by the watch, shouting huffily that it was a 'disgrace' to stop someone of such high standing as he, and telling the constable in charge of the watch that he would box him on the ears if he did not let his coach carry on back to his house. 'It is impossible' to 'distinguish a lord from another man by the outside of a coach', the constable said later in his defence, 'especially at unreasonable times'.[4]
By order of the King of England the Winchester Act Mandating The Watch. Part Four and the King commandth that from henceforth all Watches be made as it hath been used in past times that was to wit from the day of Ascension unto the day of St. Michael[10] in every city by six men at every gate in every borough by twelve men in every town by six or four according to the number of inhabitants of the town. They shall keep the Watch all night from sun setting unto sun rising. And if any stranger do pass them by them he shall be arrested until morning and if no suspicion be found he shall go quit.
As of the 1660s, it was already common practice to avoid night-time service in the watch by paying for a substitute. Substitution had become so common by the late 17th century that the night watch was virtually by then a fully paid force.[11]
An act of Common Council, known as 'Robinson's Act' from the name of the sitting lord mayor, was promulgated in October 1663. It confirmed the duty of all householders in the City to take their turn at watching in order 'to keep the peace and apprehend night-walkers, malefactors and suspected persons'. For the most part the act of Common Council of 1663 reiterated the rules and obligations that had long existed. The number of watchmen required for each ward, it declared, was to be the number 'established by custom' – in fact, by an act of Common Council of 1621. Even though it had been true before the civil war that the watch had already become a body of paid men, supported by what were in effect the fines collected from those with an obligation to serve, the Common Council did not acknowledge this in the confirming act of Common Council of 1663.[12]
The act of Common Council of 1663 confirmed that watch on its old foundations, and left its effective management to the ward authorities. The important matter to be arranged in the wards was who was going to serve and on what basis. How the money was to be collected to support a force of paid constables, and by whom, were crucial issues. The 1663 act of Common Council left it to the ward beadle or a constable and it seems to have been increasingly the case that rather than individuals paying directly for a substitute, when their turn came to serve, the eligible householders were asked to contribute to a watch fund that supported hired man.[13]
From the mid-1690s the City authorities made several attempts to replace Robinson's Act and establish the watch on a new footing. Though they did not say it directly, the overwhelming requirement was to get quotas adjusted to reflect the reality that the watch consisted of hired men rather than citizens doing their civic duty—the assumption upon which the 1663 act of Common Council, and all previous acts, had been based.[14]
The implications and consequences of changes in the watch were worked out in practice and in legislation in two stages between the Restoration and the middle decades of the 18th century. The first involved the gradual recognition that a paid (and full-time) watch needed to be differently constituted from one made up of unpaid citizens, a point accepted in practice in legislation passed by the Common Council in 1705, though it was not articulated in as direct a way.[15]
The fact that the 1705 act of Common Council called for watchmen to be strong and able-bodied men seems further confirmation that the watch was now expected to be made up of hired hands rather than every male house holder serving in turn. The act of Common Council of 1705 laid out the new quotas of watchmen and the disposition of watch-stands agreed to each ward. To discourage the corruption that had been blamed for earlier under-manning, it forbade constables to collect and disturbs the money paid in for hired watchmen: that was now supposed to be the responsibility of the deputy and common councilmen of the ward.[16]
The second stage was the recognition that watchmen could not be sustained without a major shift in the way local services were financed. This led to the City's acquisition of taxing power by means of an act of Parliament[which?] in 1737 which changed the obligation to serve in person into an obligation to pay to support a force of salaried men.[15] Under the new act, the ward authorities also continued to hire their own watchmen and to make whatever local rules seemed appropriate—establishing, for example, the places in their wards where the watchmen would stand and the beats they would patrol. But the implementation of the new Watch Act did have the effect of imposing some uniformity on the watch over the whole City, making in the process some modest incursions into the local autonomy of the wards. One of the leading elements in the regime that emerged from the implementation of the new act was an agreement that every watchman would be paid the same amount and that the wages should be raised to thirteen pounds a year.[17]
From 1485 to the 1820s, in the absence of a police force, it was the parish-based watchmen who were responsible for keeping order in London's streets.
Duties
Night watchmen patrolled the streets from 9 or 10 pm until sunrise, and were expected to examine all suspicious characters.[18] These controls continued in the late 17th century. Guarding the streets to prevent crime, to watch out for fires, and – despite the absence of a formal curfew – to ensure that suspicious and unauthorised people did not prowl around under cover of darkness was still the duty of night watch and the constables who were supposed to command them.[19]
The principal task of the watch in 1660 and for long after continued to be the control of the streets at night imposing a form of moral or social curfew that aimed to prevent those without legitimate reason to be abroad from wandering the streets at night. That task was becoming increasingly difficult in the 17th century because of the growth of the population and variety of ways in which the social and cultural life was being transformed. The shape of the urban day was being altered after the Restoration by the development of shops, taverns and coffee-houses, theatres, the opera and other places of entertainment. All these places remained open in the evening and extended their hours of business and pleasure into the night.[20]
The watch was affected by this changing urban world since policing the night streets become more complicated when larger number of people were moving around. And what was frequently thought to be poor quality of the watchman—and in time, the lack of effective lighting—came commonly to be blamed when street crimes and night-time disorders seemed to be growing out of control.[20]
Traditionally, householders served in the office of constable by appointment or rotation. During their year of office they performed their duties part-time alongside their normal employment. Similarly, householders were expected to serve by rotation on the nightly watch. From the late seventeenth century, however, many householders avoided these obligations by hiring deputies to serve in their place. As this practice increased, some men were able to make a living out of acting as deputy constables or as paid night watchmen. In the case of the watch, this procedure was formalized in many parts of London by the passage of "Watch Acts", which replaced householders' duty of service by a tax levied specifically for the purpose of hiring full-time watchmen. Some voluntary prosecution societies also hired men to patrol their areas.[18]
Reputation
While the societies for the reformation of manners showed there was a good deal of support for the effective policing of morality, they also suggested that the existing mechanisms of crime control were regarded by some as ineffective.[21]
Constable Dogberry's men from Much Ado About Nothing by Shakespeare, who would 'rather sleep than talk', may be dismissed as merely a dramatic device or a caricature, but successful dramatists nevertheless work with characters who strike a chord with their audience. A hundred years later such complaints were still commonplace. Daniel Defoe wrote four pamphlets and a broadsheet on the issue of street crime in which, among other things, he roundly attacked the efficacy of the watch and called for measures to ensure it 'be compos'd of stout, able-body'd Men, and of those a sufficient Number'.[22]
Watchmen on roads leading to London had a reputation for clumsiness in the late 1580s. It was a temptation on cold winter nights to slip away early from watching stations to catch some sleep. Constables in charge sometimes let watches go home early. 'The late placing and early dischargering' of night-watches concerned Common Council in 1609 and again three decades later when someone sent out to spy on watches reported that they 'break up longe before they ought'. 'The greatest parte of constables' broke up watches 'earlie in the morninge' at exactly the time 'when most danger' was 'feared' in the long night, leaving the dark streets to thieves.[23]
Watchmen often counted off the hours until sunrise on chilly nights. Alehouses offered some warmth, even after curfew bells told people to drink up. A group of watchmen sneaked into a 'vitlers' house one night in 1617 and stayed 'drinking and taking tobacco all night longe'.[24] Like other officers, watchmen could become the focus for trouble themselves, adding to the hullabaloo at night instead of ordering others to keep the noise down and go to bed. And as by day, there were more than a few crooked officers policing the streets at night, quite happy to turn a blind eye to trouble for a bribe. Watchman Edward Gardener was taken before the recorder with 'a common nightwalker' – Mary Taylor – in 1641 after he 'tooke 2s to lett' her 'escape' when he was escorting her to Bridewell late at night. Another watchman from over the river in Southwark took advantage of the tricky situation people suddenly found themselves in if they stumbled into the watch, 'demanding money [from them] for passing the watch'.[24]
A common complaint in the 1690s was that watchmen were inadequately armed. This was another aspect of the watch in the process of being transformed. The Common Council acts required watchmen to carry halberds, with some still doing so through the late seventeenth century. But it seems clear that few did, because the halberd was no longer suitable for the work they were being called upon to do. It was more often observed that watchmen failed to carry them, and it is surely the case that the halberd was no longer a useful weapon for a watch that was supposed to be mobile. By the second quarter of the 18th century, watchmen were equipped with a staff, along with their lantern.[25]
Watch houses
A rare and unusually fine Georgian watchman's box of about 1810. Bath, UK
Another step in the evolution of the watch involved building 'watch howses' as the country lurched towards revolution after 1640. A City committee was asked to look into the question 'what watchhouses are necessary' and where 'for the safety of this cittye' in 1642. Workmen began building watch houses in strategic spots soon after. They provided assembly-points for watchmen to gather to hear orders for the night ahead, somewhere to shelter from 'extremitye of wind and weather', and holding-places for suspects until morning when justices examined the night's catch. There were watch houses next to Temple Bar (1648), 'neere the Granaryes' by Bridewell (1648), 'neere Moregate' (1648), and next to St. Paul's south door (1649). They were not big; the one on St. Paul's side was 'a small house or shed'. This was a time of experimentation, and people (including those in authority) were learning how to make best use of these new structures in their midst.[26]
Policing the night streets
The watchmen patrolled the streets at night, calling out the hour, keeping a lookout for fires, checking that doors were locked and ensuring that drunks and other vagrants were delivered to the watch constable.[27] However, their low wages and the uncongenial nature of the job attracted a fairly low standard of person, and they acquired a possibly exaggerated reputation for being old, ineffectual, feeble, drunk or asleep on the job.[28]
London had a system of night policing in place before 1660, although it was improved over the next century through better lighting, administrations, finances, and better and more regular salaries. But the essential elements of the night-watch were performing completely by the middle of the seventeenth century.[29]
During the 1820s, mounting crime levels and increasing political and industrial disorder prompted calls for reform, led by Sir Robert Peel, which culminated in the demise of the watchmen and their replacement by a uniformed metropolitan police force.[30][31]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2020)
Receipt for payment to the watchman of Newburyport dated 1797.
The first form of societal protection in the United States was based on practices developed in England. The City of Boston was the first settlement in the thirteen colonies to establish a night watch in 1631[33] (replaced in 1838); Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1633 (replaced in 1861);[34]New York (then New Amsterdam) (replaced in 1845) and Jamestown followed in 1658.
In the Philippines, Barangay watchmen called "Tanod" is common. Their role is to serve as frontline law enforcement officers in Barangays, especially those far from city or town centres. They are mainly supervised by the Barangay Captain and may be armed with bolo knife. [35]
The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by a state with the aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public order as well as the public itself. This commonly includes ensuring the safety, health, and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder. Their lawful powers encompass arrest and the use of force legitimized by the state via the monopoly on violence. The term is most commonly associated with the police forces of a sovereign state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. Police forces are often defined as being separate from the military and other organizations involved in the defense of the state against foreign aggressors; however, gendarmerie are military units charged with civil policing. Police forces are usually public sector services, funded through taxes.
A lantern is a source of lighting, often portable. It typically features a protective enclosure for the light source – historically usually a candle, a wick in oil, or a thermoluminescent mesh, and often a battery-powered light in modern times – to make it easier to carry and hang up, and make it more reliable outdoors or in drafty interiors. Lanterns may also be used for signaling, as torches, or as general light-sources outdoors.
Penal transportation was the relocation of convicted criminals, or other persons regarded as undesirable, to a distant place, often a colony, for a specified term; later, specifically established penal colonies became their destination. While the prisoners may have been released once the sentences were served, they generally did not have the resources to return home.
The Bow Street Runners were the law enforcement officers of the Bow Street Magistrates' Court in the City of Westminster. They have been called London's first professional police force. The force originally numbered six men and was founded in 1749 by magistrate Henry Fielding, who was also well known as an author. His assistant, brother, and successor as magistrate, John Fielding, moulded the constables into a professional and effective force. Bow Street Runners was the public's nickname for the officers although the officers did not use the term themselves and considered it derogatory. The group was disbanded in 1839 and its personnel merged with the Metropolitan Police, which had been formed ten years earlier but the London metropolitan detective bureau trace their origins back from there.
A bounty is a payment or reward of money to locate, capture or kill an outlaw or a wanted person. Two modern examples of bounties are the ones placed for the capture of Saddam Hussein and his sons by the United States government and Microsoft's bounty for computer virus creators. Those who make a living by pursuing bounties are known as bounty hunters.
Vigiles or more properly the Vigiles Urbani or Cohortes Vigilum were the firefighters and police of ancient Rome.
The City of Glasgow Police or Glasgow City Police was the police covering the city and royal burgh of Glasgow, from 1800 to 1893, and the county of city of Glasgow, from 1893 to 1975. In the 17th century, Scottish cities used to hire watchmen to guard the streets at night, augmenting a force of unpaid citizen constables. On 30 June 1800 the authorities of Glasgow successfully petitioned the British Government to pass the Glasgow Police Act 1800 establishing the City of Glasgow Police. It served Glasgow from 1800 to 1975, when it was amalgamated into Strathclyde Police.
A fence, also known as a receiver, mover, or moving man, is an individual who knowingly buys stolen goods in order to later resell them for profit. The fence acts as a middleman between thieves and the eventual buyers of stolen goods who may not be aware that the goods are stolen.
Charles Hitchen, also mentioned as Charles Hitchin in other sources, was an English thief-taker and under-marshal of the City of London in the early 18th century, also, famously tried for homosexual acts and sodomy offences. Alongside his former assistant and then a major rival Jonathan Wild, against whom he later published a pamphlet and contributed to his sentencing to death, Hitchen blackmailed and bribed people and establishments irrespective of their reputation, suspicious or respectable. Despite the disgrace of the people he earned through his abusive exercising of his power, he remained in power and continued fighting against violent crime, especially after the ending of the war of the Spanish Succession and until 1727.
Throughout the history of criminal justice, evolving forms of punishment, added rights for offenders and victims, and policing reforms have reflected changing customs, political ideals, and economic conditions.
In archaic terminology, a footpad is a robber or thief specialising in pedestrian victims. The term was used widely from the 16th century until the 19th century, but gradually fell out of common use. A footpad was considered a low criminal, as opposed to the mounted highwayman who in certain cases might gain fame as well as notoriety. Footpads operated during the Elizabethan era and until the beginning of the 19th century.
The Piracy Act 1717, sometimes called the Transportation Act 1717, was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that established a regulated, bonded system to transport criminals to colonies in North America for indentured service, as a punishment for those convicted or attainted in Great Britain, excluding Scotland. The Act established a seven-year transportation sentence as a punishment for people convicted of lesser felonies, and a fourteen-year sentence for more serious crimes, in lieu of capital punishment. Completion of the sentence had the effect of a pardon; the punishment for returning before completion was death. It is commonly accepted that 30,000 convicts may have been transported to the British American colonies, with some estimates going as high as 50,000.
The city of Leicester in England was policed independently until 1 April 1967 when its police force was merged with the Leicestershire and Rutland Constabulary to form the Leicester and Rutland Constabulary.
In English legal history, a thief-taker was a private individual hired to capture criminals. The widespread establishment of professional police in England did not occur until the 19th century. With the rising crime rate and newspapers to bring this to the attention of the public, thief-takers arose to partially fill the void in bringing criminals to justice. These were private individuals much like bounty hunters. However, thief-takers were usually hired by crime victims, while bounty hunters were paid by bail bondsmen to catch fugitives who skipped their court appearances and hence forfeited their bail. Both types also collected bounties offered by the authorities.
The 18th century was a period of rapid growth for London, reflecting an increasing national population, the early stirrings of the Industrial Revolution, and London's role at the centre of the evolving British Empire. It saw immigrants and visitors from all over the world, particularly Huguenot migrants from France. The built-up area of London increased dramatically in this period, particularly westward as areas such as Mayfair and Marylebone were constructed. Grand aristocratic mansions such as Spencer House were built, as well as churches such as St. Martin-in-the-Fields and Christ Church Spitalfields.
The history of law enforcement in the United Kingdom charts the development of law enforcement in the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It spans the period from the Middle Ages, through to the development of the first modern police force in the world in the nineteenth century, and the subsequent modernisation of policing in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
The Londonderry Borough Police was the police force in the city of Derry, County Londonderry, Ireland, from 1848 to 1870, nicknamed the Horney Dicks after the bones used in their helmets. They replaced the earlier town watch and were in turn replaced by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The police force was established by the Londonderry Improvement Act 1848 and were governed by the Londonderry Corporation. Its abolition was recommended by a royal commission of inquiry into sectarian riots in the city in 1869. The commission felt the force, having the form of a town watch, was inadequate to policing serious crime; it also noted, but did not endorse, allegations that the police discriminated against Roman Catholics.
Second Thoughts Are Best: or, a Further Improvement of a Late Scheme to Prevent Street Robberies is a 1729 pamphlet by Daniel Defoe. He wrote it under the name of Andrew Moreton Esq., presented as a dissatisfied middle-class old man who was extremely concerned about the increase in criminality around the 1720s.
Augusta Triumphans: or, the Way to Make London the Most Flourishing City in the Universe by Daniel Defoe was first published on 16 March 1728. The fictitious speaker of this pamphlet, Andrew Moreton, is a man in his sixties who offers suggestions for the improvement of London. In particular, he fosters the establishment of a university, an academy of music, a hospital for foundlings and licensed institutions for the treatment of mental diseases. Moreover, he encourages the introduction of measures to prevent moral corruption and street robbery.
John Maurice Beattie was a British legal historian.
References
1 2 Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London 1660–1750. Oxford University Press. p.169. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Beattie, J.M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.169. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Griffiths, Paul (2010). Lost Londons Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. Cambridge University Press. p.333. ISBN978-0-521-17411-4.
↑ Griffiths, Paul (2010). Lost Londons Change, Crime and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. Cambridge University Press. p.335. ISBN978-0-521-17411-4.
↑ Rich, Robert M. (1977). Essays on the Theory and Practice of Criminal Justice. University Press of America. p.50. ISBN978-0-8191-0235-5. The origin of the exception goes back in English history to the Ordinance of 1233 which instituted night-watchmen, and directed them 'to arrest those who enter vills at night and go about armed.' Later the Ordinance of 1252 mentions 'disturbers of our peace.'
↑ Critchley, Thomas Alan (1978). A History of Police in England and Wales. The Statute of Winchester was the only general public measure of any consequence enacted to regulate the policing of the country between the Norman Conquest and the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829…
↑ That is, from the Thursday 39 days after Easter Sunday to the 29th of September.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London 1660'1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.172. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.175. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.177. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Brirain: Oxford University Press. p.182. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
1 2 Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.173. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.186. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.196. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Rawlings, Philip (2002). Policing A Short History. USA: Willan Publishing. p.65. ISBN1-903240-26-3.
↑ Griffiths, Paul (2010). Lost Londons Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.354–355. ISBN978-0-521-17411-4.
1 2 Griffiths, Paul (2010). Lost Londons Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.355. ISBN978-0-521-17411-4.
↑ Beattie, J. M. (2001). Policing and Punishment in London in 1660–1750. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. p.181. ISBN0-19-820867-7.
↑ Griffiths, Paul (2010). Lost Londons Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.359. ISBN978-0-521-17411-4.
↑ A. Roger Ekirch, At Day’s Close: A History of Nighttime, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2001
↑ Griffiths, Paul (2010). Lost Londons Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550-1660. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.359. ISBN9780521174114.
↑ Philip Rawlings, Policing: A Short History, Willan Publishing, 2002
^ This can be verified by England's Old Bailey court records.
Further reading
David Barrie, Police in the Age of Improvement: Police Development and the Civic Tradition in Scotland, 1775-1865, Willan Publishing, 2008, ISBN1-84392-266-5. Chapter "Watching and Warding", Google Print, p.34-41
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
