ABSTRACT
The methods of law enforcement were not as such defined by the law itself: much depended on local initiative and investment in time, money and staff. The number of active magistrates was clearly a product of the feelings of obligation of local gentry in the countryside; in Newcastle it was primarily the corollary of holding local civic office. In Northumberland, where many justices were absent on duties such as war service, the growth in numbers on the county commission during the century may simply indicate that membership was a badge of status rather than a sign of any increased devotion to law enforcement by local gentry.1 Below that level there was much variation, from village constables to urban watch-men. There are few signs of systematic policing; even the border keepers were reactive rather than preventative in their actions, although there are indications that they knew the familiar haunts of the illegal cross-border traffic. On two occasions they intercepted stolen horses at Thirlwall Gate near Greenhead, at the western end of the military road that ran alongside the Roman wall. This was at the point of the western passage through to Scotland, and in 1740 stolen horses, from both Scotland and England, were discovered there on offer for sale.2 The most distinctive example of local development of systematic policing was in the area of the greatest apparent crime rate, Newcastle, whose compact area favoured such an approach. The town was divided into 25 wards, with most commonly two constables a ward, but some had four or even six. In all, there were about 60 constables in the 1730s, about one for every 340 or so inhabitants, with 12 magistrates. In addition, inhabitants contributed to the watch system, which provided a squad both by night and day to survey the properties and streets of the town. It seems to have been the
task of the parish constables to recruit these watchers, who “with arms well provided” were to gather at St Nicholas’ church porch at eight every night. Refusal to serve incurred a financial penalty. Lists from the summer of the Guildhall riot (1740) suggest that each guild or occupational group had to contribute regular numbers, and that if businesses were run by women, they would participate. Some households seem to have avoided their personal contributions by being put on a list of houses “watching for themselves”. The resulting patrol system involved hostmen and merchants serving side by side with colliers and weavers (the latter specifically “by their own request”), with 40 or 50 people serving by day and as many as 90 at night. The watching system was under the civic supervision of a salaried appointee of the Common Council (usually a member of one of the richer trades), and the constables in each ward, who, one memorandum implies, would be excused night duty if sufficient watchmen were found. Nevertheless, some constables or serjeants-at-mace did serve at night. When a serious crime had occurred, the watch were instructed to provide extra patrols and keep particular look-out for suspects.3 The town also invested in improved lighting in 1763, after the second or third attempt at a parliamentary bill. This was a development which, though it is but an impression, may have allowed some criminal cases to result from successful night-time identification of suspects: London had set the example by adopting street lighting earlier in the century as a means of crime prevention and detection. Popular views certainly endorsed the development, as one earlier murder in 1755 was adjudged to show “the want of a regular watch, and having the streets well lighted”. Nevertheless, the watchmen and constables were not necessarily respected by many of the population, being subject to frequent assaults and, in one case, homicide. With the evidence of all this effort, however, it is hard to agree that the involvement of urban corporations in law and order in the eighteenth century was “nebulous”. Newcastle, like other areas in the north-east, was acutely aware of disorder, and determined in many instances to combat it. It has been said that while rural constables were neither a detective nor a preventative force, the urban watch system was the nearest the provincial eighteenth-century town came to providing a full police service.4
