ASPECTS OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
NINETEENTH CENTURY KNOTTINGLEY
By TERRY SPENCER B.A. (HONS), Ph D.
Preliminary Draft May 2005
CHAPTER TEN
LAW AND ORDER
The
earliest recorded reference to a guardian of the law at Knottingley is the
7th January 1825 when the Select Vestry appointed John Atkinson as Town’s
Constable for the ensuing year with Samuel Atkinson as his deputy together
with five special constables. (1)
The
office of Parish Constable was of ancient and honourable origin. Prior to
the passing of the Elizabethan Poor Law legislation the Constable was the
one entrusted with the general supervision of civil affairs within any
parish. The lodging of the impotent poor, apprenticing children,
admonishment of vagrants, superintendence of ale houses and convening of
parish meetings were all the domain of the Constable who was therefore the
mainstay of local law enforcement. Furthermore, unlike other parish
officials, the Constable was authorised to arrest wrongdoers or, if even
suspecting that a breach of the peace was imminent, to apprehend any
suspect and confine him in the local prison, or failing the existence of
such, lodge him in his own house until the offender could be brought
before the local Justice of the Peace. (2)
The
latter requirement applied in the case of William Shillito, Knottingley’s
Constable, who in June 1841 is recorded as having a 12 year old boy,
William Priestley, as a prisoner in his house. (3) The township did have
jail premises at that time but it is probable that Shillito’s decision
to house Priestley within his home was prompted by consideration of the
extreme youth of the prisoner and the self-evident of moral danger arising
from confinement within the jail house. It is clear that while a sturdy
physique was a prerequisite of the office holder, fair mindedness and some
understanding of the psychology of human nature, together with respect for
one’s fellow citizens, were no less essential attributes for the post.
Of
all the local officials it was the Constable who brought direct focus on
the personal rights and liberties of his fellow citizens and who was the
physical embodiment of justice. In the mid seventeenth century, William
Sykes, Constable of Knottingley, used his office to lead the townspeople
against the perceived injustice of tithes payment, placing the cause of
moral law above that of customary observation and suffering a martyr’s
fate for championing the popular cause. (4)
Owing
to its comprehensive, time consuming and legalistically fraught nature,
the office of Constable was regarded as the most onerous post and
therefore the one which eligible men sought to avoid. While the post of
churchwarden was one conferring dignity upon the holder, hence its being
held by the gentry of the town, the posts of Overseer of the Poor, and
Surveyor of the Highways involved much labour and not a little
unpleasantness with ones fellow citizens and were therefore filled by the
‘lesser gentry’. From the seventeenth century onward, the office of
Constable was the least socially prestigious of the local offices, being
regarded as a stepping stone for the attainment of higher office by
ratepayers of more humble means and status. (5)
The
absence of central control throughout the eighteenth and the first quarter
of the nineteenth century had permitted a considerable degree of autonomy
in administrative systems and yet, while no two governing bodies were
alike, they each had features in common which enabled parishes to meet
legislative obligations. Owing to the odium and unpleasantness parochial
service could engender, a disinclination to serve in the capacity of
Constable had developed amongst a substantial element of the ratepayers by
the latter date. To ease the burden, an Act, 6th Victoria 1842, directed
magistrates to call annual meetings for the purpose of nomination and
recommendation of eligible parishioners from a list drawn up by the
serving Overseers of each parish. The custom of forwarding additional
names as a preliminary to the specially convened meeting to elect the
Constable is clearly evident at Knottingley. In 1842, where in accordance
with the precept from local magistrates, in July, Knottingley Select
Vestry issued a public notice that the ratepayers of the town convene in
the schoolroom adjacent to the church in order to nominate ten or more
able-bodied men of the town qualified to be appointed Parish Constable. At
a subsequent meeting on Thursday 6th October, Joseph Atkinson was elected
from the list of twelve nominated citizens. (6) To the initial list of ten
nominees, two others were added later, one being the retiring Constable,
Joseph Shillito. An interesting insight into the degree of reluctance or
the unsuitability of potential office holders is provided by the meeting
held in the town’s schoolhouse in February 1847, when only five
candidates were listed. Of the five, John Fenton was nominated as ‘Chief
Constable’ by Joseph Atkinson, the retiring Constable, who was in turn
nominated for re-election. Unfortunately, the proposer and seconder are
not recorded so we have no means of knowing whether Atkinson was nominated
by Fenton in order to deflect the dubious appointment from himself, nor
does the record reveal the name of the appointee. (7) Again, in 1852, only
eight nominees were listed, six having featured as candidates in 1842 and
all having served in subsequent years. (8) Of those nominated in February
1860, six were listed by the Overseers and two were proposed from the
floor at the public meeting, whilst two years later the Surveyors
nominated five candidates and the public, four. (9)
It
is significant that by the meeting of 1860 and at all subsequent annual
meetings, those nominated from the floor of the hall are,
"recommended and willing to serve as Constable."
Also,
of the five nominees put forward by the Overseers in 1862, one had his
name scratched by the Vestry Clerk, presumably being disinclined to serve.
(10)
The
list of 1850 is particularly interesting for it provides details of the
residential locations and occupations of the nominees and thus provides an
insight into the social status of those nominated. Of those listed all
were self employed and seven had previously served as Constable, while
some were later to serve as Overseers of the Poor (11) viz:-
| NAME |
SITE OF RESIDENCE |
OCCUPATION |
| John Howard |
Marsh End |
Ropemaker |
| Joseph Atkinson |
Hill Top |
Currier |
| Richard Askham |
Flatts |
Dealer & Chapman |
| John Shillito |
Flatts |
Constable |
| John Cheesbrough |
Cow Lane |
Lime Burner |
| John Fisher |
Holes |
Butcher |
| George Barton |
Low Green |
Carpenter |
| John Bentley |
Primrose Hill |
Farmer |
It
is significant that John Shillito is named as Constable, he being the
ongoing occupant of the post, implying the full time nature of the office.
Following
the Act of 1842 there was a degree of detachment by the Select Vestry
concerning the appointment of the Constable which may have found
expression in the custom of nominating candidates from the floor of the
town meeting to supplement the list formally drawn up by the Select Vestry
as a recommendation to the magistrates. A clear indication of this freedom
of action by the general public is seen in the Vestry resolution of 24th
April 1848 that,
"When
a Vestry or Town’s Meeting is called for any purpose, the Select Vestry
shall individually have notice of the meeting and its business."
(12)
The
resolution followed a town’s meeting convened in the Church Schoolhouse
on the 19th February at which it was decided to recommend Joseph Atkinson
for appointment as Constable for the ensuing year. Having received no
formal notification of the said meeting, the collective dignity of the
members of the Select Vestry felt sorely abused, hence the subsequent
assertion of authority. However, the Vestry acceded to the public demand
by adding Atkinson’s name to the official list. It is of interest to
note that the final list of candidates was scheduled by the Select Vestry
for publication on the first two Sundays in March by being posted on the
door of the parish church thereby observing the traditional connection
with the church vestry. (13)
The
exercise of public choice at one degree removed from the auspices of the
Select Vestry in the matter concerning the candidacy for Constable.
Appears to have raised the question on at least one occasion as to whether
the formal legislative requirements were being observed. In 1856, the
Select Vestry instructed Isaac Smith, the Vestry Clerk, to write to Mr.
Jewison, the district coroner, and inform him that the meeting held on the
21st February for the specific purpose of nomination, was legally
conducted. Presumably the explanation was accepted for there is no further
report concerning the subject. (14)
During
the second half of the nineteenth century the emphasis on the duties of
the Parish Constable changed from being primarily a law enforcement
officer to being a civic administrator. The same force of change which
produced difficulties in other social spheres (such as population growth
and its concomitant urbanisation and the transient nature of an element of
the local public, arising from the development of the townships status as
an important inland port) combined to pose problems for the maintenance of
law and order.
On
a psychological level the theory of less eligibility which informed the
New Poor Law administration was equally valid in its application to
lawlessness. The presence of a uniformed policeman as the full time
professional representative of the forces of law and order would, it was
considered, render the condition of the criminal less viable than that of
the law abiding citizenry and therefore provide an effective deterrence to
crime.
The
establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force in 1829 had great influence
on public attitude and the reform of municipal corporations in 1835
enabled local constabularies to be formed under the supervision of local
watch committees, a measure which was extended to the counties by the
Police Act of 1839. However, response was sporadic and whilst by 1836
conditions at Knottingley warranted consideration of the establishment of
a formally constituted force, the general response was by no means uniform
before the enactment of the County and Borough Police Act of 1856,
assisted compulsory measures by Exchequer grants.
In
1836 the Select Vestry wrote to the Poor Law Commissioners, established in
1834 to oversee the New Poor Law, asking if it was legally permissible to
employ a professional policeman to be charged to the Poor Law Rate or if a
special rate was necessary for the purpose. Following considerable delay
on the part of the Commissioners a decision was taken to proceed with the
engagement of a police officer in anticipation of the Commissioner’s
approval. (15) On the 30th July 1836 the Select Vestry resolved to appoint
a Constable and prescribed a list of duties before placing an advert in
the press concerning the proposed appointment. (16)
The
funding of the office of Constable in the event of a decision by the
Commissioners to disallow a rate subsidy was obviated by a written
undertaking on the part of fifteen substantial townsmen:-
"We
the undersigned members of the Select Vestry do hereby guarantee the
Overseers of Knottingley that should the Commissioners of the New Poor Law
strike out the Overseers’ general account any monies paid as salary to a
Constable or Policeman we will make up the deficiency to the said
Overseers. As witness our hands this 24th day of September 1836.
P.S. The deficiency is £18-0-0." (17)
The
Constables salary was set at £30 per annum in addition to the regular and
customary emoluments of his office. In addition, the Constable was
expected to devote his whole time to the duties of the post and deal with
all cases of felony, etc.. It was decided to appoint two deputies to
assist the Policeman, they to act in accordance with his directions. Each
deputy was to receive £10 p.a. for his services. (18)
On
the 26th September 1836 John Hodgson was appointed as Town Constable with
Michael Bentley as the deputy for the east (Low) end of the township and
John Shillito as the deputy for the west (Top) end. (19)
Bentley,
who had been appointed to the Select Vestry the previous year, has served
as the township’s Constable in 1831, at which date the duties of the
office were defined as : -
"…
to serve all summonses which the Parish Officers procure and be
responsible for money collected and to give it to the Overseers
immediately after recovery and to have no claim on the Town if he cannot
receive his expenses of the parties [and] to present his accounts every
three month to the Select Vestry." (20)
In
addition, the Constable was instructed to prepare three notice boards to
be placed at appropriate points within the town for the purpose of
expelling vagrants. (21)
It
is clearly apparent that under the former system the Constable
supplemented his annual salary by obtaining small fees for serving
summonses on defaulting ratepayers and collecting arrears from the same.
Further sources of income came via giving evidence at the Magistrates
Court and summonsing jurors for inquests. With regard to the latter it is
of interest to note an arbitrary decision by the Select Vestry in December
1831 that.
"The
Constable to have only 3s6d in future from summons of juries on inquests."
(22)
In
1834 Edward Gaggs was appointed as Chief Constable for the ensuing year
with Michael Bentley, Richard Hill, Joshua Atkinson and William Moon as
deputies. It was decreed that all expenses regarding duties were to be
paid out of the Poor Rate (23) but it would appear that supplementary
earnings were regarded as an essential perquisite. Thus, within a few
months of his appointment we find John Hodgson seeking compensatory
remuneration from the Select Vestry after attending the County Court and
being denied his claimed fee due to the fact that the case ended without
the conviction of the accused, an indication of payment by results. The
Select Vestry agreed to pay Hodgson £1-10-0 but stated that such payment
was not to be regarded as a precedent for any future occurrence. (24)
In
September 1837 Hodgson was reappointed for a further year, his salary of
£30 being paid from the Poor Rate. Bentley and Shillito were also
reappointed as deputies but,
"…without
salary…their remuneration to be raised from cases which fall into their
hands." (25)
The
extent to which the decision was a factor in the eventual accusation
brought against Bentley by his supervisor is not clear but on the 15th
February 1838 it is recorded,
"The
Select Vestry having heard the charges against Mr Bentley by John Hodgson
do acquit him of everyone of the charges."
The
statement of acquittal was signed by 16 Vestrymen, including the Curate,
Reverend G. Stewart, and ironically, by Bentley himself in his capacity as
a member of the Select Vestry. (26) That the charge concerned affairs of a
pecuniary nature is evident from the fact that the Select Vestry resolved
that a subscription on Bentley’s behalf be entered into immediately and
a sum equal to that raised be taken out of the Poor Rate. (27)
The
boldness of Hodgson in moving against one of the social elite of the town,
albeit one who was inferior to him in civic status, appears to have put
paid to Hodgson’s career as Town Policeman for thereafter there is no
record of his activities. A reference to the Constable in June of that
year may apply to Bentley for the following month he was authorised to act
on behalf on the Select Vestry with reference to the Town’s Prison.
Furthermore, the month following the Town Cryer was instructed to cry that
the Select Vestry would meet on the 23rd October to choose a new Town
Constable. (28) As a result on the 30th instant John Shillito was
appointed as office holder for the following year. (29) In December the
Bellman was again despatched to give notice to the inhabitants of the town
that a Deputy Constable was to be elected and the following month the
Select Vestry appointed James Cawthorn. (30)
During
the course of reversion to the former system of law enforcement Bentley
progressed to the office of Surveyor of Highways, being appointed to the
post in March 1839 at an annual salary of £15. However, the year
following, when William Moorhouse was nominated as Chief Constable,
Bentley was appointed as Town Constable, assisted by two deputies. Bentley’s
remuneration was £15 with the Overseers instructed to give all summonses
and warrants etc. Into his hands for serving, while the deputies were
somewhat grudgingly awarded £5 per annum. (31)
Something
of the time consuming and potentially dangerous nature of the deputies
work is shown by the decree that,
"It
is desirable for the Constables to attend Quarter Sessions to watch
proceedings in [town pauper] Amelia Mounteer’s trial", and "A
complaint having been made to the Select Vestry of rows and fights in the
Holes and at the Top of the Hill, the Constable is requested to attend
more frequently to the upper part of the Town." (32)
Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes? The very foundations of the town’s elite
society was doubtless rocked when in April 1840 the Select Vestry resolved
that,
"From
a conviction having taken place for a gross assault upon a female, before
the Magistrate at Pontefract on Michael Bentley, one of the Constables of
the Township, - the Select Vestry deem it proper…to take into
consideration the propriety of petitioning the Magistrates to Quash the
appointment of the said Constable and appoint another in his place. "
(33)
The
decision was confirmed at a special Select Vestry meeting on the 30th
April, the Vestry Clerk having meanwhile undertaken enquiries to confirm
the conviction. Bentley attended in his role as Vestryman and Joshua
Atkinson was recommended as Bentley’s successor with equivalent salary
and perks. The Minute Book carries a footnote stating that Atkinson was
sworn as Town Constable at Pontefract Courthouse on the 19th May
1840. (34)
It
is perhaps a reflection of the ability of the middle classes to close
ranks in such situations that there appears to be no public record in the
form of newspaper reports despite the fact that gross assault,
particularly on a woman, was a committal offence. Furthermore, apart from
a little social embarrassment occasioned by having to appear to ‘do the
right thing’ no obloquy attached to Bentley who remained within the
ranks of the Select Vestry until 1867 and was proposed, albeit
unsuccessfully, as an Overseer of the Poor on no less than three occasions
before that date. (35)
The
reduction in the number of capital offences and the abandonment of
transportation made more necessary the provision of places of detention
and incarceration. An Act of 1824 had encouraged the establishment of such
places but the nature and conditions of prisons varied with localities
before the imposition of centralised supervision in 1835. It was not until
the last quarter of the nineteenth century, however, that prisons were
placed under the full control of the Home Office.
The
necessity for a prison at Knottingley is apparent from consideration of
the social environment. The earliest attempt to establish a jail in the
township is unrecorded but one of the earliest locations was a complex of
buildings surrounded by a high wall, situated at Hill Top and known to
later generations of inhabitants as Gaol Yard. The premises are defined as
the Debtors’ Prison by Forrest who, in writing in 1871, declares the
prison as,
"long
since disused and now converted into cottages." (36)
The
description is supported by a property deed dated 2nd April 1848,
incorporating a sketch plan which reveals a series of cottages and
outbuildings in the possession of the local surgeon, William Bywater, at
that date. (37) The property was sold in 1863 and resold in the following
decade for a deed of sale between James Thackray, agricultural implement
maker of Pontefract, and George William Carter, brewer, of Knottingley,
dated 25th June 1874, refers to,
"…six
cottages, formerly seven, with detached shoemakers’ shop near the same…known
as Gaol Houses." (38)
The
documentary evidence therefore shows that the site was used as a prison
prior to the third decade of the nineteenth century, however, an entry in
the minutes of the Select Vestry dated 12th July 1838 shows that Michael
Bentley, the Town’s Constable was authorised to,
"…put
the old prison taken of Mr. Bywater into the same state of repair in which
the Township took it."
A
subsequent rider was added by which the Select Vestry agreed to pay
Bywater,
"…then
rents of the cottages up to the 12th July 1838, including the one used
as a Town Prison …and give Mr Bywater £1 to put the cottage used as
a prison in tenantable repair." (39)
This
suggests that the whole complex was previously used to house parish
paupers. As overspill from the nearby workhouse, the entire complex being
known as debtors’ prison. The fact that only one cottage was used as an
actual lock-up for vagrants and miscreants may furnish a clue which
explains the reason for surrender of the lease, namely, lack of space.
The
new town prison was located on the site of the Old Hall, the former manor
house of the Wildbore family. The prison site was leased from the private
owner, Samuel Maw Long.
While
limitations of space may have been the prime reason for the relocation of
the town’s prison, cost was always a consideration. The fact is clearly
seen within a year of taking a lease on the new site when the Select
Vestry reached the opinion that Mr Long ought to make some reduction in
the rent of the prison and the adjacent dwelling house. At that time Maw
Long had already commenced the process of excavating the limestone from
the more accessible area of the old hall site which a short time later was
to result in the complete demolition of the on site buildings and the
extension of the Town’s Quarry. The consequences of Long’s piecemeal
excavation underlay the Select Vestry’s claim, by
"…taking
away the privilege of a garden and likewise the excavation being so
dangerous from the nearness of the Quarry that the Township can not let
the property [i.e. dwelling house] as before." (40)
The
outcome of the reductive claim is unrecorded but the quarrying continued
apace until in March 1840 it was stated that,
"…the
approach to the Town Prison is in a dangerous state and quite unfit to
take there any prisoners in the night",
prompting
the Select Vestry to call upon Long to make,
"…a
good and proper fence and wall not lower than five feet high and eighteen
inches thick." (41)
However,
as indicated, the lease was terminated in 1844 due to the wholesale
demolition of the Wildbore mansion and accompanying buildings in order to
enable complete excavation of the underlying limestone, a decision which
indicates the value attached to the sale of limestone at that period. (42)
With
the expiration of the lease the Vestry became mindful to construct a
purpose built gaol. A resolution of 15th August 1843 instructs the Clerk
to,
"…enter
into the next fortnights notices to members of the Select Vestry to take
into consideration the erection of a prison of the Township."
(43)
A
little over a month later it was reported that John Carter, the Select
Vestry Chairman, had waited upon the Wentbridge Magistrates to broach the
subject and had been advised that the town should make its own
arrangements pending the forthcoming Pontefract Sessions at which an
application could be made to the Upper Osgoldcross Division of the West
Riding. (44)
At
the annual towns meeting to nominate and elect the Parish Constable, held
in February 1844, it was publicly agreed,
"That
the Constable do call upon the Acting County Magistrates with a view to
obtaining the consent of five who may be willing to give proper Notice
required by the Act to the Clerk of the Peace so that the necessary
assistance may be had at the next Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be held
at Pontefract for the purpose of building a Lock-Up House or Prison in
Knottingley." (45)
The
resolution was reinforced the following month when the customary town
meeting to elect members of the Select Vestry decided,
"That
application be forthwith made by the Chairman of the Meeting [John Carter]
to the proper Authorities for the erection of a prison or lock-up to be
built in the said Township of Knottingley in pursuance of 5th/6th
Victoria, cap 109, entitled ‘An Act for the Appointment & Payment of
Parish Constables." (46)
However,
the proposal appears to have been abandoned shortly thereafter when the
Select Vestry entered into a leasehold agreement with Joseph Atkinson to
use part of the Manor House built in the seventeenth century by the Ingram
family, as a prison for the township. (47) The town continued to use this
site as a prison for more than a decade but in February 1856 it was
resolved,
"That
Joseph Atkinson be seen by the Overseer to reduce the rent of the prison."
(48)
Atkinson
seems to have refused the rent for in March that year the Select Vestry
gave notice for the surrender of the lease and in April 1857, the prison
site was given up. (49)
In
February 1846, it was decided to issue two pairs of handcuffs to each of
the Parish Constables to be delivered to their successors upon the
transference of office. (50) Prior to that time it would appear that the
Town Constable was in sole charge of such apparatus, the most recent one,
for unspecified reasons, being not too keen to surrender the same upon
expiration of his period of office. In February 1840 the Assistant
Overseer and Vestry Clerk, Isaac Smith, was instructed,
"…to
call upon John Shillito in the name of the Select Vestry and order him to
give up the key of the Prison with the Constabulary apparatus belonging to
the Township in his possession, as per inventory. Should he refuse to do
so he be summoned before the Magistrates." (51)
Shillito’s
intransigence may have its origin in the restructuring of the system which
occurred in January when William Moorhouse became the nominal Chief
Constable in succession to Edward Gaggs, with Michael Bentley as Town
Constable assisted by two deputies. While Shillito’s annual tenure of
office was nearing its end he may have felt a sense of grievance at not
being reappointed. The fact that Shillito was also given one month to quit
the house he currently occupied seems to suggest that he held a grace and
favour residence, perhaps the house adjacent to the prison had become used
for such purpose. For whatever reason Shillito clearly felt a sense of
grievance, hence his uncooperative attitude. (52)
The
post of Constable was not without its dangers, but despite the recent
legislation allowing payment to be made to Parish Constables, those
serving in an ancillary capacity at Knottingley received no official
remuneration for more than a decade later, on the 17th February 1853, it
was resolved by the Select Vestry,
"That
we recommend to the meeting assembling this evening for the appointment of
Constables to nominate as usual without salaries for the present year."
(53)
It
is interesting to note that from 1840 two deputy constables were elected,
an indication perhaps of the increased potential for disorder arising from
the expansion of the township and the volume of business conducted
therein. The two appointed in 1853 to serve during the ensuing year were
John Howard and John Shillito. Of the six remaining nominees, one, George
Archdale, had been specially appointed in October 1851, to act as ‘Police
Officer’ in the township for a trial; period of one month at a salary of
15 shillings per week. (54) Despite the brevity of the experimental
period, Archdale appears to have given satisfaction for the following
month the Select Vestry had met to,
"…take
into consideration whether a policeman shall be employed by the Township."
(55)
It
was decided however, that public notification of the proposed measure
should proceed any decision and it was not until the 24th December that a
somewhat clumsily phrased resolution announced,
"That
the Township engage a policeman is the opinion of the Select Vestry."
(56)
It
is debateable what most influenced the Select Vestry, a practical regard
for the protection of property in common with the prevailing orthodoxy or
concern for the debasement of moral standards within the town which,
recently promulgated by,
"the
most respectable authority"
had
engendered a Vestry resolution that,
"…stringent
measures shall be adopted for the suppression of drunkenness, vice and
immorality now so unhappily prevalent in the Town and neighbourhood."
(57)
It
is interesting to note that a generation later a statistical survey showed
a higher incidence of bastardy, petty crime and illiteracy within
Knottingley than in any of the neighbouring settlements. (58)
It
was not until March 1854, however, that a decision was taken to approach
Mr Ward of Pontefract who was requested to,
"procure
us an efficient Policeman who shall have £1 per week and the Constable
business that may fall into his hands." (59)
The
approach seems to have been unsuccessful however, for at the end of March
it was further decided to approach Seymore Clerk Esq., General Manager of
the Great Northern Railway Co., at his King’s Cross office, London,
"to
provide us a policeman." (60)
The
decision concerning the appointment and remuneration was confirmed on the
16th March 1854, and was approved at the town’s meeting the same month
which also resolved that the policeman should be employed for,
"the
protection of Property and the promotion of more regular order in the
Township." (61)
By
May 1854, Joseph Hey had been appointed as policeman for the township at
£1 per week with,
"uniform,
coat, trowsers, (sic) one pair of boots and one hat per year and one top
coat in two years." (62)
Hey
being requested to send immediately,
"the
requisite credentials as to character from the Watch Committee at Halifax."
(63)
The
precise details of the policeman’s duties are not listed but a
resolution that,
"The
Policeman to manage the Tramps",
indicates
the volume of transient people entering the town and the responsibility of
the policeman to reduce the potential demand for parish relief by moving
on vagrants. (64)
Earlier
reference to the assumption of ‘Constable business’ suggests that the
Select Vestry envisaged the transfer of duties of the Parish Constable to
the new law enforcement officer. Such acts as the serving of statutory
notice in respect of arrears of rates, distress warrants, and myriad civic
duties in addition to upholding the law and safeguarding property, were
henceforth the province of the Town Policeman. The transition appears to
have been less than a smooth operation. A statement in August 1854,
"That
the Policeman, Mr Joseph Hey, as was understood at the time of his
appointment, to have the whole of the business of the Township",
suggesting
some conflict arising between the Parish Constable and the Town’s
Policeman, perhaps to the detriment of latter who had therefore complained
to the Select Vestry. (65)
Initially,
the Vestry appear to have been at some pains to accommodate every whim of
the Policeman. In June 1854, it decreed,
"That
Mr Hey have a pair of boots or shoes as he pleases",
and
the following May a local tailor, George Lock, was engaged to make Hey’s
uniform with 5 shillings being added to the originally agreed price of
£3,
"to
improve his bargain."
Again,
in May 1856, the Policeman’s attire was the subject of consideration by
the Vestrymen who concluded that,
"Nos.
2 & 4 patterns for the Policeman’s clothes of John Johnson be
accepted." (66)
In
December 1855 the Vestry agreed to allow the Policeman a mileage allowance
for attending the Magistrates Court, a task previously undertaken by the
Parish Constables for which payment was discretionary. (67)
A
further glimpse of the Policeman’s work which had previously been the
province of the Parish Constable is provided by the order of the Select
Vestry that the Policeman should,
"…serve
all summonses for the Township and to account to the Overseers for all
monies received on account of the…rates." (68)
And
again, in 1857,
"That
the Policeman execute the distress warrants obtained last Saturday."
(69)
The
record also affords a view of the role of the Policeman in enforcing order
within the town. In October 1856, the officer was instructed to,
"…confine
Thomas Brook and take him before the Magistrate if he get drink again."
(70)
>Other
examples indicate the routine duties conducted by him. Thus, in October
1855,
"That
Thomas Webb be apprehended and committed for neglect [of] family."
(71)
The
order confirms Hey’s assumption of the duties of the Parish Constable
for a similar order in August 1850 had directed that,
"William
Copley and Thomas Webb be laid hold of for monies owing",
and
shows in addition the persistence of offenders such as Webb. (72)
The
variable nature of the Policeman’s work is revealed by a decree of the
Vestry in 1854,
"that
any persons detected firing squibs, crackers or fire works (sic) of any
description will be prosecuted." (73) Plus ca change…??
Again,
in August 1858,
"Mr
Edward Shaw complains that Sarah Foster and her children are a nuisance to
the neighbourhood", (74)
revealing
that problems caused by ‘neighbours from heel’ is no new concept.
Contemporaneous
with Hey’s appointment was that of John Scorah whom the Vestry employed
on a twelve month contract at a salary of £1 per week, to collect the
rates of the township and hopefully, claw back outstanding arrears. (75)
The apparent strategy adopted by the Select Vestry was to send the
formally attired Policeman as the awesome embodiment of the law, to
recalcitrant ratepayers and thereby make them more receptive to the
demands of the Scorah. In some cases the visit of the Policeman obtained
instant payment, an act which left him open to charges of corruption and
misappropriation. In May 1856, for instance, Hey was requested to attend
the forthcoming Vestry meeting to answer a charge of embezzlement made by
Charles Abson, landlord of the Anchor Inn, Aire Street. At the meeting
held on 31st July 1856, Hey was cleared of the charge that he had
appropriated money paid in lieu of rates by Abson. (75) Nevertheless, from
thereon indications appears of an attempt by the Vestry to curtail the
degree of freedom of action previously enjoyed by Hey. A resolution of
July 1856 even attempted to proscribe Hey’s freedom of movement when a
regulation that the Policeman be required to consult the three senior
Vestrymen and also make provision for his duties to be covered in the
event of his being required to leave the town, was rescinded in favour of
the more peremptory one,
"That
the Policeman shall not leave the Township." (77)
A
further sign of disquiet on the part of the Authorities is seen in October
1856, when both Scorah and Hey were summoned to the Vestry meeting for
examination of some unspecified business which adjudged from the context
of the meeting concerned some aspect of their duties. (78) Although on
that occasion no immediate action was taken by the Vestrymen, it may not
be entirely unconnected with the later decision,
"That
the Policeman’s services be discontinued and to be paid up at the close
of the week." (79)
Scorah
continued to serve as the Collector of the Rates and appears to have taken
over some of Hey’s duties, pro tem, using the services of his son to
assist in the serving of summonses. (80) The initiative was squashed in
February 1857, however, when the Select Vestry concluded that,
"Mr
Scorah be requested to employ some more able and confidential person
instead of his son." (81)
Whether
Scorah’s nepotism was a factor which exerted an adverse influence in the
minds of the ratepayers of the town is conjectural but upon the expiration
of his term of office in April 1857, his desired reappointment was denied
at the town’s meeting and the following month James Brown was appointed
as Town’s Constable. (82)
A
memorandum concerning Brown’s appointment stresses his status as an
Assistant Overseer with responsibility for the collection of the town’s
Poor and Highway Rates at a salary of £40 per year. (83) No mention is
made of additional duties and as the annual salary was considerably less
than that previously paid to Hey, it may be that Brown’s duties covered
only the non legal aspects of the work undertaken by Hey. The designation
of Brown as Constable when two incumbents had been elected as Parish
Constables earlier in the year, may have been a ploy to ensure a degree of
authority in his role as Collector. (84) Furthermore, it is known that
Brown relinquished office when the system of Rates collection was
reorganised in March 1859. (85) A successor to Hey as Town Policeman was
eventually appointed, however, for a Select Vestry minute dated 8th
September 1862 states,
"That
a note of compliant and remonstration be sent to the Policeman for his
laxity in not removing the nuisances and obstructions of (sic) the
footpath." (86)
The
traditional system of convening a special public meeting each February for
the purpose of nominating and electing Parish Constables continued until
1870. (87) Thereafter, the process was transferred to the annual town’s
meeting at the end of March, becoming part of the proceedings of the
election of the members of the Select Vestry. (88) The system continued
until 1893 in which year eight ratepayers sought nomination for the last
ever appointment to the office of Parish Constable, local government from
the following year being under the aegis of the newly constituted
Knottingley Urban District Council. (89)
From
the 1860’s however, the enforcement of law and order had been undertaken
by the County Police Force. In the following decades the Police Station
was located at Farnhill Court, (which became colloquially known as Police
Station Yard) a group of privately owned cottages situated at East Parade
to the west end of the Flatts in Aire Street. In 1881, the owner was Ann
Farnhill and the occupier of the Police Station and presumed Constable was
Charles Hill who appears to have succeeded one Thomas Elcock. (90) Six
years later the ownership of the property had changed but the building was
still being used as the town Police Station. At that time the occupant was
Robert Douthwaite who was the successor to James Brent. (91) Douthwaite
was still resident there in 1894 but the property is merely designated as
a cottage. (92) It was not until two years later, in 1896, that the
recently constituted West Riding County Council erected the present Police
Station at Weeland Road.
©2005 Dr. Terry Spencer
| INDEX |
INTRODUCTION
| CHAPTER ONE | CHAPTER
TWO | CHAPTER THREE | CHAPTER
FOUR |
| CHAPTER FIVE | CHAPTER
SIX | CHAPTER
SEVEN | CHAPTER
EIGHT | CHAPTER NINE
| CHAPTER TEN |
|
