5 The ‘New Police’ and public order during the nineteenth century
Once the Metropolitan Police had been established in 1829, magistrates started to request their assistance rather than resort to the use of troops or special constables. Between 1830 and 1838 a total of 2,246 police officers were sent from London to the provinces to quell rioting (Vogler, 1991, p. 97). Aided by the new inventions of the telegraph and the railway, officers could move swiftly around the country in response to threats of disturbance, often arriving in hours rather than days. In some cases, however, police squads sent to the provinces continued to cooperate with troops.
Figure 7: A handbill depicting police violence at demonstrations in Hyde Park in 1855 Source: Digital image held in the department. Origin unknown.
As counties and boroughs set up their own new police forces, these became involved in maintaining public order. For much of the nineteenth century, however, local and central authorities continued to veer between deploying the police and troops to quell riot and public disorder. Both approaches were sometimes successful but at other times drew public reproach. This can be seen in the reactions to police violence at a riot in 1855 and the use of troops at a riot in 1887.
In 1855, legislation had been introduced to parliament to ban shops trading on Sunday, often the only day working people had off. Protest meetings were held in Hyde Park with Karl Marx estimating at least 200,000 people had attended (Harrison, 1965, p. 223). During one demonstration, police used their truncheons to beat the crowd and took 72 prisoners. Their actions were later condemned (see Figure 7). A barrister witness declared ‘it was a truncheon riot’, and the Commissioners of a subsequent enquiry noted:
We have deemed it our duty to report misconduct on the part of various members of the police
The Times was even more condemnatory:
… we pay the police to protect our houses and our pockets, and not to break our heads. They are our servants and not our masters.
Thus, use of civilian police to control large demonstrations did not necessarily result in an absence of violence. Similar problems were encountered in 1887, as you will learn in Activity 3.
During the mid-1880s there was a prolonged economic depression and a series of severe winters. By 1885, hundreds of unemployed were hungry and sleeping rough in Trafalgar Square, which became the focal point for political demonstrations organised by both left- and right-wing organisations. In February 1886, police lost control when two counter demonstrations clashed. Only about 66 officers were deployed, with crowds in the thousands. The commanding officer on the day was in plain clothes and got lost (and pick pocketed in the crowd). Violence broke out along Pall Mall with windows smashed and looting of shops. Several days of panic ensued.
Figure 8: Mounted police charge protestors during the ‘Bloody Sunday’ riot of 1887 [Description: Black and white engraving: Police officers mounted on horses wearing helmets and capes charge into a crowd of frightened men who are attempting to run away.] Source: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/mounted-police-charge-into-the-crowds-of-protestors-in-news-photo/78242617?adppopup=true
By November 1887, the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Charles Warren, was determined to take more decisive action when large-scale disorder seemed once again imminent. He banned all processions and demonstrations in and around Trafalgar Square, and by 12 November 2,000 police were present. Clashes with demonstrators ensured at multiple points which left 200 civilians in hospital by the end of the day. Troops were called in later in the afternoon to calm the situation, which they did without use of weapons. The events of 13 November 1887 were later dubbed ‘Bloody Sunday’.
Activity 3 The ‘Bloody Sunday’ riot of 1887
Read the excerpts below taken from a long article from The Times newspaper printed the following day. As you read, consider whether or not you feel the police acted appropriately in their banning of processions and demonstrations and their use of force. What was the overriding opinion of The Times reporter to the actions of the police?
From: ‘The defence of Trafalgar Square’, The Times, Monday 14 November 1887.
The text reads as follows:
The Defence of Trafalgar Square
Serious Riots in London (From our reporter in the Square)
At Waterloo-place a mounted superintendent riding forward informed them that they could proceed no further in procession. To this no heed was paid. On they marched, with banners flying and band playing. Major Gilbert, who was in command here, at once gave orders to the police to charge the head of the procession. He had only a small body of men with him. Staves were drawn and some hard knocks were, I am told by an eye-witness, exchanged. A great number of men in the procession carried sticks, and these were freely used. But the police soon triumphed. The processionists were after some minutes in retreat, leaving some of their banners and musical instruments in the hands of the police.
Soon after 4 o’clock things were at their height in the vicinity of Trafalgar-square, and a desperate and concerted attempt was made to break through the police into the centre. About 200 men headed, it is said, by Mr Cunninghame Grahame, M.P., rushed across from the corner of the Strand near Morley’s Hotel and went full tilt at the police, who were drawn up four deep at the corner of the square opposite. It was a very determined onslaught and evidently made by men acting together according to a preconcerted plan. For a few moments there was a hand-to-hand tussle and fists were to be seen uplifted high and being freely used. Some of the attacking party had sticks but it was mainly a battle of fists. The police momentarily lost ground owing to the rush of their opponents, and it seemed as if the line would be broken and an entrance effected. Other constables, however, were soon to the rescue and the attackers were beaten back. A moment later and they were in full retreat. Reinforcements of police were hurried up and staves were drawn, but the attempt to break into the square was over, and it was not repeated. But though the police so far had shown text missing from image All had been on duty for nearly 12 hours. Sir Charles Warren’s arrangements proved admirably effective, and though it was beyond his power to prevent the unfortunate and discreditable scenes of yesterday, he was at any rate succeeded in showing that the Metropolitan Police Force is able to enforce his proclamations and strong enough to cope with the most determined efforts to override the law.
Discussion
The Times reporter appears to feel the police use of force was justified and appropriate, as did many politicians. However, the day was subsequently named ‘Bloody Sunday’ which reflects that many others felt that the police response was disproportionate. This, then, is an example of the divisive nature of policing such events.
Large-scale and occasionally violent clashes between police and demonstrators were a feature of every decade of the nineteenth century. Police experience and tactics were developing, but only gradually. Troops were still be used on occasion, a tactic which continued into the twentieth century.