A Prehistory of Crime and Law Enforcement in England
           By Karen Adelman

Through most of its history, London has been a center of great economic activity and a commercial giant. In the 16th century, England, and especially London, saw a great population increase, largely among the poorest classes. Because of this influx of people, the demographic of poor vagrants grew enormously and became somewhat of a threat to more affluent members of society. It was at this time that petty crimes such as purse snatching became the overwhelming proportion of all crimes committed. The government's awareness of this problem is reflected in the enactment of the first vagrancy laws in the middle of the 16th century.(1)  However, in the Elizabethan era, England was far from a police state. There was no government sponsored law enforcement agency aside from some provincial constables, who were volunteers and largely ineffective. If someone committed a crime against another individual, the victim of the crime would have to bring the accused before a jury himself, and would act as the prosecutor: this is what made the English judiciary system one of private prosecution and little government intervention. The government didn't force anyone to prosecute, and certainly did not provide any legal assistance for victims or defendants. Victims would often not bring crimes to a jury, especially if they could obtain an out-of-court settlement, since actually prosecuting a crime could be very costly.(2)  Since prosecution of crimes was the only way for the government to punish criminals, certain incentives were instituted, such as prosecutorial bonuses, in an attempt to make the prosecution of crimes more appealing to victims. Neighbors who wanted protection from crimes joined "prosecution associations," a group of people who paid dues that would be used to pay prosecution fees in the event that one of the members was a victim of a crime. However, members in the association were actually bound to go through with prosecution should the need arise. Since names within these associations were made public, criminals were less likely to target them if they knew they would definitely prosecute. Thousands of these associations were formed in the 18th and early 19th century.(3)

The bulk of crimes that were committed in England during the 17th and 18th centuries were those that fall under the category of minor offenses, such as vagrancy or petty larceny (theft of property under the value of a shilling). When convicted of a minor offense, most criminals were subjected to punishments of public humiliation, such as the stocks or whipping. Offenses that fell under the category of felonies were further split up into two groups: those to which criminals could claim benefit of clergy, and those to which they could not. The benefit of clergy originated as a way for actual members of the clergy to transfer their sentencing for capital offenses to the church court (which did not make use of the death penalty). However, by the 18th century, benefit of clergy was extended to all men (women were excluded from this right(4) ) who could read, and in 1706, it was extended to all men regardless of literacy. The punishment for serious offenses that could be pardoned due to benefit of the clergy ended up being the mere branding of the man's thumb, since the benefit of the clergy was intended to be used only once and the branding would mark any man who had already used it. With the widening of the application of the benefit of clergy came also the reduction of the church courts' actual involvement in the cases. The result was a system where "a defendant convicted of a capital felony could plead his clergy, be branded on the thumb, and be sent home."(5)  Since the branding was often ignored and benefit of clergy was repeated for offenders, the only real punishment incurred by such criminals was the period spent in jail prior to conviction.

For the most serious of capital crimes, such as premeditated murder, even the benefit of clergy could not save an offender, and the resulting punishment was almost always hanging. However, hanging actually occurred rather infrequently, since only a small percent of indicted criminals were convicted, and many of those convicted were actually convicted of a lesser crime. In addition to hanging, a system of transportation developed on two different occasions, both for a lesser degree of punishment without benefit of clergy and as a greater punishment even with benefit of clergy. In 1663, merchants began paying sheriffs fees to carry felons to the New World so that they could sell them into indentured servitude for a period corresponding to their sentence in hopes of making a profit. However, the value of some felons as servants was not as much as the cost to bring them over, and some ended up in jails as temporary holding places.(6)  By the end of the 17th century, the American colonies were banning transportation from reaching them. Transportation of criminals stalled until 1718, when the government began actually paying merchants 3 shillings per felon to be taken over to the New World and sold off. Now merchants were eager to begin transportation again, and continued to do so until the American Revolution interfered. While one solution was found in transportation to Australia, some efforts were begun in England itself to use prisons as punishments themselves.

At first, prisoners were put in large, old sailing ships called "hulks" along the Thames. At first this was also meant to be a temporary holding place, as the premise of a ship was that it would eventually sail to Australia, carrying prisoners who were to be transported, but a great number of prisoners stayed in the ships long enough to finish their sentences on them. The conditions on these ships and also in the local prisons were so filthy and disgusting that "jail fever" killed not only many prisoners, but also some jailers and even prosecutors or judges.(7)  The reformer John Howard extensively documented these conditions in his 1777 book, The State of the Prisons in England and Wales. These dangerous conditions, coupled with frustration with the unsatisfactory punishments of the former penal system, led to the institution and control of prisons by the central government. In 1822, Sir Robert Peel became the Home Secretary and began a five-year effort that would reform the prison system immensely. Peel introduced new acts that provided minimum standards of living and inspection criteria for prisons that were operated both locally and centrally.(8)  

Sir Robert Peel was also responsible for the creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, the first bureaucratic police force in England. The Metropolitan Police Force's jurisdiction was limited to the London metropolitan area, and they were a largely preventative body of officers. They were required to remain in uniform and could not take extra fees for solving crimes, unlike the original constables, also known as the "stipendiary police." They would solve individual crimes and get paid by the victims. The Metropolitan Police Force had a fixed salary and was the inspiration for all further English police forces. The people at first resented these new constables as infringements on English social and political life, but they did have a noticeable effect on the dropping of crime rates. The police were trained to be passive, impersonal, and professional, and their means of crime prevention came almost solely from visible patrol. While these prevention tactics did help lower crime rates, they did nothing to solve crimes that they could not prevent. In 1842, the Metropolitan Police Force created the criminal investigative division (CID) which was largely made up of old stipendiary police officers who had experience in solving crimes. However, these investigators found it difficult to be satisfied with the fixed salary of a police officer, since they were used to taking extra fees from the victims of the crimes. Corruption eventually overran the CID until it was disbanded in 1877 and later reorganized. Overall, however, the Metropolitan Police Force was successful, especially in its peaceful handling of street riots, and in 1856, Parliament ordered all provinces in England to create their own police force.

Before the end of the 19th century, England had shifted completely away from the individual nature of private prosecution and decentralized police. The reformation of the prison system and punishments for offenders signified a sense of humanity when dealing even with criminals, and the formation of a nation-wide police forces marked a recognition by the government of responsibility for the safety of the citizens.

 
Notes:
1.  J. A. Sharpe, Crime in Early Modern England, 1550 - 1750 (Essex, Addison Wesley Longman, 1984), p. 24.
2.  The prosecutor would have to pay court fees, possibly provide shelter for witnesses, and even pay a fine if the accused was found not guilty.
3.  David Friedman, "Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century," http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html.
4.  "Crime and Punishment in Elizabethan England," EyeWitness - history through the eyes of those who lived it, www.ibiscom.com (2001).
5.  Friedman, "Making Sense."
6.  Ibid.
7.  Encyclopaedia Britannica, volume 16 (15th edition, 1993), p. 810
8.  In 1877, all local prisons in England and Wales were assimilated into one uniform prison system, controlled by the Prison Commission.

Sources:
1. Crime and Punishment in Elizabethan England. EyeWitness - history through the eyes of those who lived it (2001). <http://www.ibiscom.com/punishment.htm>
2. Early and Modern European Crime and Justice: Criminals and Law in Europe's History. © 2002 by About, Inc. < http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/crimeandjustice/>
3. Edwards, Amy, and Richard Hurley. Prisons Over Two Centuries. Home Office, 1782-1982. © Crown Copyright 1997
4. Friedman, David. "Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century." U of Chicago Roundtable. < http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html>
5. Gaskill, Malcolm. Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England. Cambridge: University Press, 2000.
6. Low, Donald A. Theives' Kitchen: The Regency Underworld. London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1982.
7. Salgado, Gamini. The Elizabethan Underworld. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.
8. Sharpe, J.A. Crime in Early Modern England, 1550-1750. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman, 1984.

Copyright © 2002. ECFS. All Rights Reserved.