![[History Index]](../logo.gif){kind=logo}
Any
comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The
Editor
©
C. Carswell 2004
[Note this extended essay was given by the Author for inclusion on this site - some reformatting has been necessary to convert to HTML - footnotes are removed to end. ]
By Conal F. Carswell
With grateful thanks to Dr Fenella Bazin, Roger Sims and Dr Stephen Smith
By the end of the eighteenth century, the authority of the Church of England was greatly diminished, which can be seen as a continued, if fluctuating, process from disputes with the State in the fifteenth century.1 The effect of these controversies became particularly apparent after a series of court cases, concluding in 1719, between the Earl and the Diocesan authorities, tacitly and then explicitly, over who had ultimate dominion, pre-empting the Church's decline in subsequent Governorships according to how far the State would recognise the Bishop's jurisdiction.2 Although punishment was undertaken with infrequent zeal through the system of ecclesiastical circuit courts by threat of fines, humiliating penances, imprisonment and in rare cases, Excommunication, it was not pursued on the same scale.3 Censures that had made attendance of Church and Catechism obligatory were increasingly viewed as too harsh or unnecessary and where-as the system had always relied on implicit support from communities, this facilitation was being withdrawn; partly due to the declining role of the State, whose soldiers and gaolers had customarily carried out Church sentences. 4 In practise, attendance had not always been enforced. However, services were less well attended and had become more casual and perfunctory with the emphasis on social spectacle.5 Moreover, though essential in rural areas and many businesses even in the 1840s, a great number of clergy were ignorant of the Manx language or encouraged it to be used more sparingly in services. 6 The Church's protracted financial difficulties also inclined local clergy towards preaching to their dwindling parochial faithful, rather than revitalising parishes with missionary and community labours. Acrimony was further stirred by inadequate accomodation that meant some Church- goers were excluded from their congregations.7 The Church of England continued to be the predominant influence on the lives of most parishioners, but there were an increasing number of secular style schools as well as those run by the more lay orientated Methodists, though non- Church schools were not run successfully until the 1860s.8 Attendees numbered only a few thousand in the two decades since its main inception in the 1770s, but this belied the immense popularity of the movement and the change they effected, which was more remarkable to the island’s ecclesiastical authorities that had never experienced the success of a dissenting movement' .9 For although attendance of 'Church and Chapel' frequently went together, complementary influences inevitably led to questions about preference, encouraging criticism of the Church and stimulating socially conscious politics. Thus, by the end of the Ward episcopate, town chapels held services at times that clashed with those of the established Church.10 Furthermore, the proliferation of Friendly Societies, though sometimes affiliated to the Church, provided more informal financial and benevolent support that the latter would or could not give.11
There was similar disaffection with secular government since the Manx Parliament became a local legislature with limited, although undefined, powers with a typically negligible influence on Whitehall edicts. British offiicials used this political and fiscal control to secure and maintain huge revenues to the detriment of the island's infrastructure.12 Although this caused growing resentment amongst reformists and the reactionary public, the diminishing status of insular government was not fully understood. This led to further antagonism when reformers made urgent demands of their seemingly intransigent and incompetent representatives, while unbeknownst to them, the Governor, the only real conduit of power, had already or would surely receive a rebuttal to proposals from an intractable Whitehall.
Animosity increased due to community insecurities surrounding unprecedented emigration, coupled with the arrival of numerous debtors and half-pay officers attracted by the low prices, as well as an Irish contingent, that brought about conflict over labour costs, fuelling rapid population growth.13 By the early 1800s, the negative effects on crime and inflation due to seasonal tourists and long-stay visitors, initially composed of gentry diverted from their customary European tour but later predominantly from neighbouring manufacturing districts, were also beginning to be recognised. The reality and fear surrounding epidemics such as typhoid and smallpox was likewise prevalent and more conspicuous due to newpaper coverage and influx of people into towns. In addition, economic fluctuations brought re-current fear of starvation and widespread dissatisfaction. 14
The first act to deal with policing after Revestment, An Act for the better Regulation of the Interior Police of the Island, and the Recovery of Small Debts before the High Bailiffs, gave High Bailiffs, as nominal heads of police, new jurisdiction over the four market towns and all its minor officials. Accordingly, they were able to set any rules they felt necessary as regards safety and cleanliness of the streets. In reality, this extra supervisory role made the High Bailiffs' office more cumbersome, especially considering the myriad bureaucratic tasks already entailed. Their schemes were supposed to be implemented by the primitive police force, who were thus saddled with administrative duties unrelated to crime. Failure to perform these labours was highlighted by their strident and vocal critics because technically, according this act, they were their only tasks.15 Responsibility for hearing cases of debt was divided between Deemsters and High Bailiffs. The latter was to hear all cases involving sums below forty shillings; hence, at least in theory, more serious cases were dealt with by the Deemsters who would not have to struggle with the logistics of calling witnesses and Advocates when making circuits to hear petty monetary cases. Consequently, High Bailiffs were to hear the majority of debt cases as most were over lesser sums, again diminishing time spent on police issues. Moreover, the act failed to establish rates of pay or guidelines on behaviour for Chief Constables and Constables. The Constables only duties, according to their oaths, were to obey the Governor or Lieutenant Governor, '...and all magistrates Captains of Towns[,] Chief Constable and other superiors for the preservation of Peace.' 16 Fundamentally, the act emphasised that the evolution of Manx policing was negligably shaped by frequently vague and impotent legislation. Rather, the police force developed incredibly sporadically with a badly concocted series of ad hoc provisions, arising long after exigencies, depending more on levels of custom duties and informal practices. Periodic riots and disorders illustrated how ill-equipped the police were to cope with demands made upon them. By 1809 The Manks Advertiser noted the flagrant violations of the peace and hoped that a nominal subscription could be taken for the prosecution of offenders. 17 In 1811, further disturbances, as a result of the disbandment of the Manx Fencibles, forced the High Bailiff of Ramsey to write to the Governor requesting use of non-commissioned officers and yeomanry troops stationed in the north part of island, whilst the Governor sought assistance from 2nd Battalion of the 6th Regiment infantry. 18 In 1821, mobs in Douglas, Ramsey and Peel, threatened merchants and attacked their houses. The police were able to suppress the rioters by seizing five or six rioters, but only with the help of the military and a civil force. The rioters then overowered this combined force and twice managed to rescue a number of prisoners.19 Three years later, as a consequence of several riotous assemblies in October, Governor Smelt received negative reports from all four towns, 'all evincing that the state of the police was not sufficient either for the protection of the property of the Inhabitants ... or imprisonment of notorious persons.' 20 Smelt decreed that until there was a sufficient police force and adequate military force to assist the civil powers the High Bailiffs should swear in all respectable persons, including Captains of Parishes, officers and Coroners as Special Constables. He recognised this as a temporary solution and in order to further his case for reform with the Home Office asked two gentlemen from the Council to prepare a draft bill.21 In 1825, unrest was spurred by Bishop Murray's attempts to collect tithes on calves, fish and green crop, i.e. potatoes and turnips, which constituted the mainstay of native diet. His claims were likely to cause disquiet, especially since he decided to re-levy on a much more expensive rate per acre than in England, during a year of meagre fishing and potato yields, post war fall in selling prices and rise in the advancements of rent. Further provoked by the slighting and often belated manner in which tithes were collected, there were assaults on the agents of the Duke of Atholl, Constables and military personnel in Kirk Rushen with farmer's stacks set on fire, the breaking of the Proctor of the Duke of Atholl's windows, widespread riots and disturbances in Jurby, Ballaugh, Kirk Michael, and Patrick .22 Although three of the ringleaders were arrested, one of them was rescued by a crowd. The Civil authorities again needed military force to execute warrants against the offenders, but were unable do so as parishioners hid in the countryside .23 The authorities were unsuccessful in their efforts to restore order partly because the Captains of the Parishes and the Manx Yeomanry Cavalry, who were normally enlisted to help maintain order, were helping to organise the people's actions.24
After disturbances in Ramsey in 1837 and further Spud Riots in June 1838 25 the Editor of the Herald reasoned that, 'the inefficient [policemen] can surely be replaced by those who were able and dare do their duty, and the peaceable and well disposed can easily be sworn in special constables, and the troops, too, cannot be better made use of them being quartered in the town.' 26
However, despite the patrols of Special Constables, two officers and six Constables in Douglas, there were more riots throughout October and November 1838, as there were in Peel. Accounts vary, but it appears that a small number of women and grown boys attacked the houses of suspected exporters of potatoes in Douglas, breaking their windows in the six principal streets. i.e. Sand Street, King Street, Bignell Street, North Quay and Church Street. Despite the reading of the Riot Act, there was a confrontation between police and the crowd in Sand Street, wherein the authorities were repelled with stones whilst trying to disperse them. When several civilians were fired upon and wounded, High Bailiff Quirk sent a special messenger to Castletown to send for more soldiers. During the subsequent trial of four suspected protagonists, both the residing magistrate and Attorney-General were disposed to be lenient. Presumably this was because a harsh sentence might have provoked further violence with which the police could not hope to tackle and perhaps from some sympathy with their complaints. Thus, the men were discharged and the authorities let it be generally known that if there were similar breaches of the peace and such persons were convicted by a jury the Governor could return a sentence of a £500 fine and three years imprisonment .28 However, to any contemporary observer this must have seemed an unlikely prospect due the slight risk of being identified let alone apprehended by the reluctant police. Moreover, those arrested were unlikely to be convicted by what would have been a highly sympathetic jury. Hence, though riots and disturbances occurred sporadically, they were becoming more frequent and encouraged by poverty of organisation and incompetent policing.
One of the constants faced in post Revestment policing was the minor vandalism that included the destruction of gates, windows, door knockers, plundering of gardens and the stealing and injury of poultry and sheep. However, rarely did these crimes come to court or scarcely were suspects arrested because there were too many areas or gardens to cover with so few policemen, such crimes were very frequent and roughly simultaneous i.e. at night and that with the exception of the latter, were considered of lesser significance, though roundly punished. If criminals were apprehended, it was usually because proprietors had placed private patrols or voluntary policemen paid for by subscription to watch their residential area, shops and mills. These efforts were supplimented by forming vigilance associations, such as the Douglas Association for the Prosecution of Felons and the Association for the Prevention of Crime in Ramsey, which offered rewards for information and money for prosecution. 29
The overwhelming majority of crimes were drink related, to some extent, it was believed, as a result of the number of pot-houses.30 For example, there were around 82 taverns in Douglas in 1837, 31 grocers who sold spirits, and 13 inns and hotels, not including those who sold liquor illegally." Considering that Douglas only really consisted of three or four main streets, the Douglas High Bailiff was not exaggerating when he said that there were ten times too many public houses. 32 This pattern was repeated throughout the island where there were approximately 500 taverns in the island by the 1830s. Despite this, there was a low level of imprisonment in regard to these crimes. For example, in1830 drink related crimes accounted for 2% of imprisonments, in 1835 1% and in 1845 3% of the figures. 34 This was partly due to the fact that drink appears to have been accepted as a mitigating factor by juries. Furthermore, most cases were solved by placing the troublesome individual in holding cells and setting them free in the morning. This is confirmed by comparison with the Police Charge Book that reported the number of prisoners who were kept in the local holding cells which did not necessarily come to court. This records drink related crime totalling 81% of the crime in 1863-'64 .35 However, 1850 and 1855 saw drunkenness account for 15% and 41% respectively of imprisonments.36 As to the potential supply of alcohol, it seems that the number of both public houses and the number of grocers who sold spirits in Douglas between 1837 and 1846 may have significantly decreased, although the number of wine and spirits merchants appears to have increased nominally. There were also nominal increases in the number of grocers selling spirits in Peel, from 10 to 12, and in the number of taverns in Ramsey, from 21 to 23, but the number of grocers in Ramsey and number of taverns in Peel, as in Castletown, and those other establishments such as inns and hotels, either remained the same or decreased significantly. 37 If these figures are reliable, it implies that the number of drink related convictions was increasing despite the apparent decreases in the number of the establishments where drink was available. Therefore, the most likely explanation is that the rise in population, as well as the number of visitors and resident strangers, i.e. those born off the island and now permanently relocated, meant that the crime rates and the number of criminals escalated, hence the police were able to arrest an increased aggregate, though still insignificant percentage of offenders. Thus, the officials from all the four towns wished for an increase in manpower to combat problems to related to these crimes, though High Bailiff Bluett of Douglas stated that he did not think any reasonable increase would prevent infringement .38
By the mid to late 1830s the Herald noted, '...robberies to a great extent are becoming very prevalent in this town and neighbourhood. There is scarcely a week but we have to recall the sufferings of some individual by loss of property. It is very evident that strong measures must be resorted to for the prevention of these thefts...' 39
Even in Ramsey, where the population was much smaller and most people were known to the police, robberies had reached, 'an alarming rate,' of between seven and eight in a very short period .40 The apparent frequency of robbery contrasts with the figures that illustrate a level of imprisonment, which, if one takes grand larceny as some attempt of burglary, fluctuated between 0% and 5%.41Similar might be said in cases of assault that only fluctuated between 0% and 6% in the annual figures gathered in 1830 and those gathered in 1845; though one should note that there was a massive upsurge in 1850 to 29%, before returning to a more normal actual figure in 1855, a trend repeated in 1863-'64.42 By way of comparison, the local court appearances in the Ramsey Magistrates Order Book of 1865 and that of Peel for 1871, records that assault accounted for 53% and 68% of each of their 59 court appearances respectively. 43
According to the Herald, 'nine out of every ten thieves in Douglas were juveniles and nineteen out of every twenty crimes ... were that of petty thievery.' 44 The Manx Liberal reported, 'The streets and towns continue to be infested with juvenile thieves, who watch every opportunity for plunder, in which they are only too successful. 45 However, of those imprisoned for petty theft in 1850 and 1855 there were only four cases and two cases respectively who were under eighteen. Even if we then take the figures for all the imprisonments in that year, only 7% and 4% respectively of those were under eighteen. 46 The rare occurances of transportation are more inkeeping with contemporary perceptions, revealing that between 1830 and 1870, 20 out of 96 tranportations were of juveniles for the offence of grand larceny.'' However, there is another discrepancy between the figures gathered between 1830 and 1855 in which the level of imprisonment for petty theft remained relatively constant between three and thirteen in actual cases per year, where as the 1863-'64 figures, show petty theft totalling 53 actual case S.47 Even the latter figure is low and this was probably because with the increasing population in the towns pick-pocketing and petty thievery was the easiest crime to disguise, for which one was even less likely to get caught as the police failed to patrol the towns.
There are also particular problems when dealing with statistics drawn from an era with divergent cultural values and definitions. For instance, the papers often commented on crimes perpetrated by gentleman, but this term could mean different things in different social levels. Thus, in the absense of local gentry a shopkeeper or doctor could become a gentlemen. 49 Similarly, the fourth most criminal element in the island arrest figures for 1863-'64 were a re-offending core of 'prostitutes.' But in the context of Victorian morality 'prostitute' could be an catch-all phrase for a female who associated with criminals or less desirable members of society. This appears more likely as the cases recorded against supposed 'prostitutes' were mainly drink related with women detained for safety after having been found drunk and incapable, rather than for indecency or transgression of some quasi-legal moral code. It is also the case that women were directly or tacitly re-categorised from criminal to mentally ill or deprived. In this way, the offence was connected with female sexuality and was used to re-emphasise women's secondary position in society and reinforce the perception that criminals were predominantly male. 51 This might help explain the ratio of male/female criminals between 1830 and 1870 that remained relatively constant at 80% to15% in 1832; 88% to 12% in 1842; 87% to 13% in 1852; and 78% to 22% in 1863-'64. 52
The crime that resulted in the greatest number of imprisonments was that of debt closely followed by Writ of Contempt. Between 1830 and 1845 the figures fluctuated at the high level of between 21% and 45% and between 6% and 23% respectively of imprisonments. By 1850, there were no cases of either. The reason for this maybe because earlier in the period the Constables were mainly responsible for serving writs, often relating to debt. For the inadequately paid Constables these writs were a necessary source of income and were useful because they were so frequent. It was in their interests to make arrests for debt and at the same time this would prevent them from pursuing other crimes. Unlike other crimes where persons would attempt to escape detection, debtors could have a summons sprung on them with no warning. To this effect, the Law of Arrest was exploited by Advocates in favour of natives over 'strangers' so that a payment of a few shillings allowed an arrest to be made and goods seized with no more evidence than swearing in front of a court the suspicion that the person was going to leave the island .53As process could be instigated so cheaply, cases were undertaken lightly and often over lesser amounts. In 1827 and 1828, for example, 53% and 21% respectively were for debts under £10.54 The insular government's own figures for 1827 illustrate the futility of prosecutions for debt, when of the 179 cases that came to court, judgements were only recovered on 47 of them, 32 cases were bailed or withdrawn and in 100 instances there were not enough effects recovered to satisfy the plaintiff, in which event, as the law stood, they were imprisoned till they were satisfied. None of the prisoners fees were recovered in 1827 or 1828 and only in one case in 1828, with there having been no instances in 1827, were costs recovered .55 As resources shifted from the pursuance of debtors, it was no coincidence that figures for crimes such as assault, petit larceny, and drunkenness increased dramatically; though there is also some evidence that these crimes were on the increase independently.
The most commonly suggested cause of crime was a decline in moral standards brought about by inadequate education. One correspondent complained about the reluctance to promote education, '...the only effective means by which the public morals can be improved, and popular crime diminished.' 57 He continued,
'Are they insensible to the great and imperative truth, that, by education, the faculties of the human mind are expanded and enlightened, and the dispositions of the heart formed and matured? The instruction of the people, therefore, is an object of infinite moment, being in a manner the foundation of all virtue among men, and of good order in society. 58
Educational neglect resulted in 'mental darkness' on the island and the dramatic claim that, '...more men were] signing their name with X in a couple of parishes than in whole of Britain.' 59 The Times observed, '...men of some substance ... in a jury box, where were to be tried the issues of life and death, who could only sign their marks to their verdicts.' 60 In fact, native tradesmen, from whose ranks the police were drawn, were noted for their, 'intellectual poverty.' 61 This would accord with High Bailiff Laughton's account of Constable Leece Clucas being genuinely confused in his search for an Old Testament, by instead bringing to the court the oldest New Testament he could find .62A Manx Farmer commented that the proper funding and competent masters needed for the island's schools was not forthcoming as ignorant parents were satisfied for their children to receive the same meagre education they had received. Their efforts to provide education for their children were depreciated during economic decline, when children had to stay at home because parents could not afford the fees. Partly due to their poverty, many masters were paid in kind. i.e. with cheese, butter or some other form of goods. 63 This discouraged people from pursuing the profession in the island, or if they did, it did not attract men of sufficient calibre. In this, the situation was comparable to that of the police, as was the fact that manual labourers could easily surpass a teacher's total salary and that teachers couldn't afford the necessities of life.64 Other problems were the, '...unroofed schoolhouse and salaried minister who does not deign to teach, and to endowments for the education of the poor almost without end, that are converted to other purposes.' 65 The Herald also highlighted that school masters were not seeking out their pupils, let alone the poor, orphans, and the ignorant, who were unable to pay the fees. Few parents could afford the high fees of private education and even within the original structure of seventeenth century parochial schools, other more recent establishments and charity schools, there were less than 2000 pupils in 1831.67 There was, however, an expansion in the number and popularity of Sunday Schools that resulted in the increased distribution of religious literature by various societies, some of which was written in the more widely accessible Manx language. This was probably the medium that reached the most people and at least encouraged the ability to be able to read scriptures. Unfortunately these flourished at the expense of day schools, which in any case reached fewer than 4000 people in 1821 when the island's population was 36,000. Under Bishop Short, the use of questions to allay the mechanical austerity of the the monotorial system, inspection of Masters plans and how they were executed, frequent visiting and encouragment to keep accurate records allowed gradual, more substantive improvements to be made. Educational reforms in the 1850s and the provisions of the 1851 Education Act also increased the limited scope and quality of education on the island. Principally, they established a minimum teachers wage and the means of rate assisted education, giving teachers the chance to increase their salary by £30 per annum through gaining certificates of competency, setting levels of quarterage dependent on the ability of parents to pay and financial rewards for the training of yupil-teachers, as well as facilitating the restoration and renewal of school houses. Even so, progress could be set asside the fact that out of 703 convicted criminals in 1867, 261 could neither read or write. 69 Of course, there were different levels of literacy for particular crimes. Only 19% of those held on charges of petit larceny in 1863-'64 could read and write. Presumably, this was probably because they were professional criminals who habitually stole because they had little material prospects, as opposed to 'casual' criminals whom were arrested because of drinking to excess with no preconceived notion of committing crime. If one examines the most prevalent crimes in 1863-'64: drunk and disorderly, drunk and incapable and breach of the peace, they attained significantly higher levels of 44%, 44% and 41% respectively of those who were able to read and write; though it is worth noting that, though they may have been able to read and write simple phrases and their names this is not to say they were literate .70 Nevertheless, The Manx Liberal decided that,
'...it must admit, however reluctantly, that the most exemplary education is not always a security against the continuance of criminal action. A long and melancholy list could be produced of persons who were not only carefully instructed in useful and elegant literature, but also in the great fundamental truths of Christians ... who yet pursue vicious courses until their career was terminated by the public executioner.' 71
In regards to the economy, The Mona's Herald observed that, '...good harvests, good fishings, and the consequences of employment of our labourers, with bread for all, banishes crime to a good degree.' 72 In the 1840s and 50s, for example, the low prices of bread, groceries and clothing and the relatively constant prices of oatmeal, milk and potatoes, as well as the end of the licence system, meant that the purchasing power of the average working man significantly increased. The quality of housing for the poor also improved, particularly in the towns and especially since 1840. In the early 1840s wages rose from between £10 and £12 per annum to between £12 and £14. Between 1847 and 1851 this rate roughly doubled due partly due to the repeal of the Corn Laws, which previously kept prices at an artificially high level. Moreover, there was an increase in duties on spirits and decrease in duties on tea, that seemingly combined to bring about a reduction in the drinking of spirits and increased consumption of tea. This permitted general health to improve and for workers to save more freely. The increasing numbers of tourists resulted in more employment. Large numbers of Manxmen were also emigrating to America and Australia, attracted by the gold discoveries. As a result, demand for workers rose as did the level of wages at home. 73 Concurrently, between the early to mid 1840s, there was a noticeable decrease in the annual imprisonment of criminals from about 280 to 150.74 However, few subscribed to the view that economic distress drove people to crime. Instead, commentators believed that criminality should be viewed in the context of moral weakness, especially that of the lower classes, whose temptation towards depravity installed by the poor example of parents and peers was merely heightened and prolonged during idleness and economic crisis. 75 Accordingly, one paper suggested a moral and religious home provided by Christian benevolence that would provide potential or convicted criminals with employment which they hoped would reduce crime. 76 Similarly, the Times solution was free educative institutions and to encourage the efforts of temperance societies and religious societies that had previously tempered immorality. 77 Thus, the fact that the majority of the population were still quite impoverished, expressed in concerns with the housing and welfare of the poor and the numerous charitable sermons and subscriptions taken on their behalf, was not inconsistent with this view.78 They believed there would always be immorality amongst the lower classes and to lesser extent other classes, only in varying proportions. A more causal relationship could have been drawn by the fact that paupers accounted for 7% of criminals in 1863-'64, whilst Hucksters shops abounded throughout the period, where scores or accounts of credit were kept, as they were in Public Houses.
Other writers wished the law to be applied more vigorously, to provide better protection for law abiding citizens or as greater deterrent for criminals. One paper observed that, 'The laws are sufficiently coercive and distinctive .... [but] require to be administered with promptitude and efficiency, otherwise they will remain a dead letter.' 80 They were displeased at the leniency of sentences. As regards petty theft, they observed that for the first offence a person would receive one month in Castle Rushen and one shilling fine and be kept warm during the winter months with shelter and regular meals from whence they were released in time for the main season of visitors when stealing was in abundance." However, with the exception of the extremely poor, no-one would be pleased to be deprived of their liberty and lodged in Castle Rushen, a forbidding place, where meals were hardly adequate. In fact, other articles suggested that imprisonment was not always appropriate. In any case, imprisonment was largely ineffective in the long term goal of reformation and despite punitive sentences singularly failed as a deterrent. For example, 7% of criminals imprisoned in 1830 committed 21% of the crime and 10% of criminals imprisoned in 1835 committed 26% of the crime. 81 If one was to take the period as one block sample, rather than these one year samples, the number of re-offenders and the crimes they committed would be far greater. These figures were probably accentuated by the fact that offenders drew increased attention from the police and the greater difficulty in finding employment due to the stima attatched to criminality, which in-turn made it more likely they would re-offend. 82 Thus one journalist observed in 1857, '...what had never occurred at that court [General Gaol Delivery], so far as our observations and experience attended ... that thirteen prisoners were arraigned for felony and higher species of crime, from which 11 out of 13 were found guilty., 85 Another suggestion, that transportation should have been used more readily, was a prohibitively expensive solution. For instance, in 1833, the Chief Constable, Mr Chesterman, was re- imbursed twenty-four pounds, nineteen shillings and 6 pence for expenses, '...incurred in the Conveyance of the three male Convicts from this Island to the Hulks.' 86 When one bears in mind the salary of the Constables and Chief Constable of £10 and £20 per annum and their already depleted number this was neither cost nor time effective. Moreover, as observed on other occasions, fresh supplies of criminals were always arriving or were graduating into crime locally. This solution became even less credible once newspapers had highlighted the appalling treatment of Manx prisoners on the way to London in 1825. Perhaps opinion was also effected by reports of the excruciating conditions on the journey to the New World that had begun to filter back from emigrants.
Previously, though statutory penalties were amended in 1832 and more thoroughly revised in 1852, serious crimes such as arson, burglary, coining, forgery, robbery and sheapstealing were not generally prosecuted successfully by typically moderate juries because the penalty was death, transportation for life (or no less than seven years) or a combination of fine, imprisonment and possibly corporal punishment." Consequently, in 1816 it was said that there had only been two capital crime convictions in the previous 50 years. When there was a conviction for sheapstealing in 1818 it caused a great and awful sensation with sympathy shown for the executed man by Coroners, Superannuary Constables and a great concourse of people attending the funeral." Likewise, the Acting Attorney-General and the Deemster had to omit Capital charges when a jury refused to convict in the in the wake of offenses commited during the 1825 riots. 90 To ensure a higher rate of prosecution in cases of larceny the distinction between petit and grand larceny was introduced in the 1830s so that goods stolen to a total value below ten shillings could only be tried for petit larceny and thus receive imprisonment and a fine, as compared to transportation for no less than fourteen years in the case of grand larceny. Even this legislation found practical difficulties, as it appeared that either the jury would deliberately under-estimate the value of stolen goods or ignore the advise of the magistrate and refuse to prosecute. High Bailiff Laughton also complained that juries were confused or perhaps uninterested by legal technicalities and the ebb and flow in debates, which used a form of rhetoric that the public were unuse to engaging, hence, they gave verdicts on a whole subject rather than legal specifics.91 In reality, the problem may have been more linguistic than rhetorical. For whilst defending the ringleaders in the wake of riots during 1821, the defending Advocate, in reply to his opponents objection to addressing jurors in Manx stated, '...he could not so far lose sights of his clients interests as to speak to the jury in a language but little understood by them.' 92 Another obstacle was that too often jurors retained sympathy for one party, who they might have known or, Laughton further asserted, the jurors could be more easily intimidated in this small community. The right of the person under trial to challenge twenty of the jurors meant that prisoners could practically pick the jury, he claimed, thus emphasising these negative trends.93
Perhaps the most pressing indirect cause of crime was that Whitehall hoped and pretended to believe that laws alone could curb swelling disorders without additional funding that permitted enforcement of their provisions. This can be seen most clearly in relation to the House of Keys attempts to tackle disorders in A Bill for Imprisonment of Rioters, Tumultuous Assemblies and Suppression of Robbers of Shipwrecks of 1826 and 1836, brought about by rioting in 1825 and 1835. These acts allowed for the appointment of as many Justices of the Peace to deal with disturbances as were thought necessary from amongst those who owned land of £100 per annum, that convicted felons could be transported for life and if any of the rioters were killed, maimed, or hurt in their apprehension, the constituted authorities who were responsible were indemnified against prosecution. 94 Nevertheless, rioters gathered the following year to prevent the exportation of potatoes from Peel. Perhaps they had never heard of this acts. For, as was noted in 1865, the proclamation of acts at Tynwald in English and Manx, `...affords little information to the people of the Island.' 95 Maybe they were swept along by the excitement of the crowd. More likely, rioters could not believe they would be apprehended by the small number of Constables feasibly paid out of police funds, who would probably not intervene due to well-founded fears for their lives and property. 96 However, this primary cause of police failure in a succession of failures was rarely remarked upon by contemporaries.
Before the 1760s, policing was mainly carried out by soldiers, under the direction of the Governor, as a part of their military duties to assist in keeping the town in good order. As the role became distinct from military jurisdiction and more generally supervisory of town and parish with the identification of the office of Petty Constable and Chief Constable towards the end of the eighteenth century, additional men were needed to fill vacancies. In this undertaking, authorities increasingly drew on men of tradesman backgrounds for a role seemingly envisaged as that of patrolling night watchmen. 97 Partly due to this perception, latter-day Constables and Chief Constables, unlike their military colleagues, received no training nor was any offered. Furthermore, this definition took no account of the increasing demands and potential evolution of the office, which quickly became a matter of contention.
Governor Shaw suggested that the dubious practices employed by the police in the 1780s were the result of meagre pay that had remained at the same rate for 150 or 200 years. He considered pay especially low considering the labour and trouble involved and called for legislative remedy in order to raise fees. Similarly, in a petition from the Gaoler of Castle Rushen and the Constables of the island for an increase in salary in 1806 complaints were made, '...that the salaries of the Gaoler and Constables remain the same as they were many years since, when the necessities of Life were so much cheaper than at present.' 99 In addressing the petition, Governor Smelt commented that the policemens' case was well deserving of notice and that a small increase should be made. Like his two predecessors, he observed that the Gaoler and Constables offices were, 'very laborious,' and needed an increase in pay so as, 'to prevent their following any other Lines.' 101 For example, Constables at Castletown were serving an increasing number of civil processes to make up the deficit; though the principle profession pursued by policemen appears to have been that of tailor and shoemaker. The low level of pay on offer is illustrated when in 1839 it was asked whether the men could have a weekly subsistence allowance. This was necessary as, '...few if any of these newly appointed have sufficient funds to carry themselves to the next quarter day.' 102 Similarly, when the High Bailiff put the men on shifts it had to be abandoned shortly after as the new hours were inflexible for the necessary pursuit of their other professions. 103 As shifts could not be sustained, the watch-houses were often closed. Accordingly, the Governor said,
'I fear however that we never will have an efficient police force for the island unless the rate of payment can be raised as to enable the public to the whole of the men's time., 104
Few men would accept these distressing conditions and those that did were usually tradesmen of, 'bad character,' who did so because of their relative poverty.105 Consequently, successive Governors found it impractical to dismiss men for neglect of duty. Furthermore, as the office was principally viewed by Constables as an additional way to earn money, they were often in the public houses and generally being slovenly. After the riots of 1838, a resident commented that the Peel Constables were, '...the most shy of creatures - the most difficult beings to met with on all occasions of duty could possibly be imagined.' 106 One writer enquired, '...where were the police that are permitted such occurrences to take place? Truly, echo must answer where? or rather the kitchen of some public house, by the fire of which theX would be found cosily seated enjoying their tipper might answer "Here."' 107
By December 1845, the Governor had dismissed one Constable in Douglas for intoxication and was, 'about to dismiss the Chief Constable of the district of Ramsey for the same fault.' He noted that as a whole, '...accusations of the same nature [were] made against the police...,' and that he was going to have to investigate the Chief Constable of Douglas, Thomas Cleater, for the like.108
Lack of choice dictated retaining many old men in the service, so that by 1845 Constable Edward Harrison, Chief Constable Thomas Cleator, and Constable Thomas Christian had served 28, 35, and 30 years and were 59, 70 and 67 years old respectively. 109 Such men were not worth the increased pay offered in 1851. Therefore, it was recommended that they were superannuated or allowed to continue at their present pay while fit for duty. 110 In fact, a sample of approximately one third of the force who served between 1830 and 1860 reveals that the average age of men when they joined the force was thirty eight. In rural areas the average age was forty three. It was especially difficult to find efficient country Constables as, 'No person, except one resident in the locality, would be likely to accept the office of Constable for the small salary given and a person so long resident in a small place ... becomes so much mixed with the people in business and otherwise ..... he has not the independence which a Constable ought to have for the due discharge of his duty.' 111
The latter observation could and was made of Constables in towns; especially in Ramsey and Castletown where Constables seemed more likely to serve in the locality where they born. Certainly the Constables' small salary made it more likely they could be financially influenced to determine a particular matter. 112 Notably, the Chief Constable of Douglas, Thomas Cleater, was alleged to have committed fraud in April 1841 by sequestering fines rather than registering them at the Rolls Office."' Sporadic increases of pay for Constables from £10 to £20 per annum in 1853 and to £30 per annum in the 1860s with the Chief Constables' increase from £25 to £40 per annum in the same period, were insufficient to counteract the likelihood of corruption and other consequent, systemic flaws due to years of under-funding. 114 These flaws were materially reflected in the fact that town Constables uniforms, which consisted of a long blue coat with shining buttons and matching trousers, a black top hat and a black belt, were not waterproof. Rural Constables were bereft of even these poor clothing until well into the 1850s.115 Island pay was also, 'very low compared with England where it runs from 14 to 18 Shillings a week, the highest of our petty constables Do not get quite 8 Shillings the smallest not 4 shillings.' 116 As a result, many of the young of the island were instead attracted to the Liverpool Constabulary. 117
Another result of poor finanaces was the neglected condition of Castle Rushen. This was especially troublesome as it was the only permanent gaol on the island, thus negatively affecting prisoner health and the ability of the authorities to secure them."' There were significant structural repairs in 1813 and 1827 as well as renovations between 1833 and 1847. However, considering the overall limitations of it's size and design with an increasing numbers of convicts from 1817 onwards and the additional space afforded for the confinement of lunatics in the 1840s, this became increasingly difficult and prison conditions remained wholly inadequate."' Likewise, the lock-ups in the four towns were unsuited for anything other than as a temporarily holding cell for a couple of people. The Ramsey cells, for instance, were in a neglected condition as early as 1810. Similarly, the Douglas lock-up of the 1830s, that adjoined the court house on the present site of the Imperial Hotel, was scant improvement on the dungeon in the nearby fort. The premises in Fort Street, under the Seneschal's office, that the Douglas Police moved into in 1841 were little better. For example, the Douglas cells, as described in 1854, consisted of a small room with an enormous fire in the midst of August, with low, black and dirty walls, that had not been whitewashed for the last year. The windows were un-cleaned: there were only two wooden forms and a loose board to answer the purpose of seat and beds; there was no bedding or coverlet and one of the benches was broken and both were shamefully dirty, as was the floor, perhaps because there was no toilet. 120 Consequently, there were several daring escapes from Douglas cells and similar escapes from Peel and Ramsey, as there were from Castle Rushen.121 Matters were made worse by the Constables' peculiar lack of vigilence. Hence, when a Butcher named Roberts was apprehended by police on a charge of robbery and confined in the watch-house, the officers left the key in the lock. The prisoner,
'...Considering this a favourable opportunity ... lost no time making his exit; which having accomplished, he locked the door, pocketed the key, and thus made prisoners of his guard, who looked unutterable things as they grinned through the iron grating, whilst the man of pork made the best of his way as fast as his feet could carry him.' 122
The stations were modified throughout the 1840s and 50s, notably by putting in gas and water in Castletown station, with provisional repairs done to Ramsey and Douglas stations in 1846, also the year that a new station was built in Peel. 123 In 1856, the Douglas police relocated to St George's Hall in Athol Street. The structure was only sixteen years old and was a remarkably well built. In addition to two cells provided, there was a basement and yard where an extra two or three cells could be built.124 However, country areas did not even have temporary holding cells. Understandably, this made rural Constables unwilling to do their duty when the only place to take drunks and disorderlies was their own home, where their children and wife resided, who might feel threatened and where they had valuables that might be damaged or stolen. This being acknowledged by the High Bailiffs, one of them suggested to the Governor six lock-ups: at Ballasalla, Port St. Mary, Laxey, Crosby, and Ballaugh, near Kirk Andreas, as well as a house for the Constables to reside. 125 Even so, rural areas were even less well protected than the towns. One would have to send miles for a Constable, who arrived when he pleased, with no magistrate nearer town to grant a warrant. 126 This was unfortunate as areas such as Bride and Ballaugh were also inflicted with burglars and highwaymen.127 In fact, the police did not even patrol the outskirts of Douglas which was a matter of complaint some 40 years later. 128
As well as being impinged upon by their other professions, the police were supposed to perform numerous minor tasks barely related to crime. According to testimony made by the Chief Constable of Douglas, Thomas Whittam in 1791, his duties included serving processes from the Court of Chancery; arresting debtors and serving processes in case of contempt for non-appearance in Court of Chancery, the Deemsters, the Vicar General and High Bailiff's Courts. His office would occasion the conduct of persons to court for which he would receive a fee of one shilling Manks and four pence for every parish after he had travelled through after the third. He would also issue Governor's passes or licenses to quit the island, receiving two pence Manks for delivery of each licence. 129 Constables were directed to keep order at public meetings, lectures, exhibitions and at disembarkings of passengers from the boats. Rural Constables were usually in attendance at parish fairs and where strong drink was in evidence. Both rural and town Constables were supposed to prevent idle and disorderly persons making a noise in or near Churches and Chapels at the times of Divine service. 130 In addition to patrolling the town and apprehending criminals, it was considered their duty to regulate the markets that included such things as: checking that bread and butter and other market goods were of due weight to make sure people were getting the exact amount for which they paid; removing unfit food, sometimes lifting or dragging it into Douglas Bay; preventing merchants buying up potatoes, turnips and the like in bulk for resale by Hucksters at extortionate prices; as well as closing public houses on time; recovering goods from shipwrecks; enforcing the removal of cesspools early in the day; to stop people throwing rubbish in the streets and making sure they swept outside their houses; preventing carts or carriages obstructing public ways and excluding building materials from the public ways or limiting them to a reasonable proportion, among other things.131 Frequent criticism appears to have provoked occasional vigour in these duties at the expense of matters directly related to crime. 132 Critics seldom mentioned that it was actually the duty of the inhabitants and proprietors to clean around their property once a week and the police merely to enforce these obligations. However, their critical hysteria is more understandable when we consider the contemporary belief in the connection between epidemics and neglect of all, rather than specific, sanitary regulations with little if any idea of how this affected disease. Accordingly, when recording some of the measures undertaken to combat the Cholera epidemic of 1833 The Manx Sun noted the Chief Constable was told to attend to the cleanliness of Douglas with particular attention to whitewashing houses. 133
Policemen also failed to perform those duties with a more obvious bearing on crime. One writer inquired, '...whether the police have attended their respective beats. If so, how is it they are never seen any where else than in a cluster in the market place.' 134 A Parishioner of Braddan commented, 'I presume they are kept as zoological curiosities, for I don't think I met one in the streets on duty, all the time I was in town.' 135 The situation led one correspondent to advise that females should not go out unaccompanied after dark and generally that, 'all well-disposed persons to avoid being out from nine after 10 o'clock at night, if they can; and if they must to provide themselves with a means of self- defence against the attacks of these barbarians.' 136A correspondent remarked 'There is not, I believe, in any part of her Majesty's Dominion, a more lazy and useless set of policemen than in Douglas.' 137 The Liberal often commented on the inefficiency of the police, with one writer asking that surely, '...those gentlemen who march about our streets dressed in blue coats "all buttoned down before," who are called conservators of the peace, ought to evince a little more energy and activity.' 138 According to one correspondent, Ramsey was infested with, 'bare-headed prostitutes and drunken blackguards,' who were fighting 139 and committing acts of vandalism, yet were given no hindrance from the authorities. One Peel resident complained that the authorities did not interfere with criminal activities and consequently the town had become a city of refuge for criminals. He observed that often, when characters had been apprehended, they were discharged without trial, even when, as in one case, the stolen goods were found in their possession. The reason for this was that unless a Constable actually saw a crime he should and could not interfere, except, as in this case, to recover goods.140 This is confirmed by other cases and the instructions handed out to the Constables by the High Bailiff. They were only to apprehend people if assault was committed in their presence or there was visible evidence. If the parties involved were known to each other they were not to intervene, unless they were of bad character. If both parties accused each other then it was better to have nothing to do with it, they were told. 141 Hence, there is probably some truth in Mr J.E. Martin's observation during his childhood in Ramsey in the 1860s that, 'they [the policemen] would be putting a word on there and a word on here - never taking anyone in though.' 142 These directions do not appear to have been based in statutes; but it was a way to practically deal with rising crime and ensure the Constables time was not taken up in petty disputes.
In 1793, Governor Shaw criticised the, '...slovenly & irregular manner,' in which Coroners, Lockmen and Constables carried out their duties. 143 It was a matter of particular public grievance when Constables detained persons for twenty hours with no affidavit or proof. However, these sharp practices continued throughout the period, later resulting in the 'atrocious violation' of a respected singer by some of the Constables of Douglas. On this occasion, the papers decided that the, '...conduct of this clan of men has long been ripening for public investigation.' 144 The papers charged that they were never to be found when they were needed and that they treated debtors like felons, rifling through their trunks, as well as private and family papers, without warrant. The Constables were, 'taking on magisterial authority to trample with brutal ferocity on the rights and feelings of the people. It seems prisoners were often detained under only the ipse dixt of an officer without coming before a magistrate. 146 The Herald noted that since the new appointments in 1836,
'...men have been arrested, or dragged from their families, and, without trial before judge or jury, have been shut up in a dungeon not fit for the confinement of a day, and then, after remonstration, imprisonment in Castle Rushen Gaol, held 2 or 3 days or longer. Is this the law of the land?' 147
The Manx Liberal too condemned the practise of sending a man to prison without a hearing. 148 Notorious thieves were also let go by the police without the sanction of the High Bailiff and policemen apparently aided compromises between parties in cases of larceny. 149 For example, one prisoner was charged with the offence of stealing fourteen pounds. However,
'The prosecutrix was induced to compromise, as I was told, from a compromise that ten pounds of the stolen money should be refunded, which if she persisted in proceedings she would never receive; however, she was only paid two pounds by the negotiators, and has no better security for the failure than a verbal promise.' 150
This was one way to filter out cases from the already full courts; but it meant that these criminals were free to commit further crime. This was the reality of a system that relied on private prosecution where individuals funded the cost, rather than civil authorities. Thus, 22% of the cases before the Peel Magistrate in 1871 were settled before judgement was given. 151 In crude terms, we can see how this negatively effected the notion of law as a deterrent when comparing the Summary Courts (that heard the overwhelming majority of cases) and the Castle Rushen Gaol Records. There were over 600 appearances in the Ramsey Justices' Court in 1865 and in the Douglas Magistrates Court of 1853 respectively, whereas there were between 150-290 imprisonments per year in the all island gaol between 1830 and 1855. 152 Evidently, flaws in the system meant there were relatively few successful prosecutions and criminals were encouraged by a dubious distinction between the actual and practical application of law.
Policing was also negatively effected by the prejudices of its Constables. For example, policemen dispersed Mormons who attacked the laxity of the Church of England, though the police had no right to interfere where there was no breach of the peace. 153 They also hindered processions of temperance movements, mostly likely because of their fondness for alcohol and sense of mischief. In cases of violent confrontation, sometimes instigated by them, they arrested visiting 'strangers 1s rather than natives who appeared simply to be defending themselves or their rights. On one occasion Chief Constable Cleater and Constable Christian beat a Cumbrian man with stick and fists while within their custody inside the police station. 155 These attitudes resulted from the increasing influx of strangers that made natives protective of their interests. This hostility was emphasised by competition for work with Irish immigrant labourers and rivalry between Manx, Cornish and Irish fishing crews at Peel. 156 Conversely, although Man was connected via twice weekly boat services from Liverpool by the 1820s this typically took between eight and ten hours and could be prevented by regular prevailance of inclement weather or delayed so that it took a daunting twenty hours. 157 Accordingly, there remained a certain insularity in island attitudes. Commenting on local opinion in the 1840s High Bailiff Laughton said, 'We were all Manx to the backbone, and looked [with] suspicious askance at 'strangers'. Who, for reasons best known to themselves, might have intruded upon us from the outside world.' 158 Prejudice was upheld legalistically in practises such as the Law of Arrest. It was said that, 'Manxmen...were entitled to every privilege of Englishmen ... an Englishman was not privileged as a Manxman here.' 159 However, native and resident strangers dominate the arrest figures for 1863-'64, practically to the exclusion of visitors to the island. 160 This was presumably because in the small amount of cases feasibly investigated and solved by the police, if there were witnesses or informants they are more likely to have known or to have recognised local inhabitants, particularly, as was apparent, there was of a core of re-offenders.
Police mediocrity partly stemmed from the performance of High Bailiffs, the official heads of police. These magistrates were not necessarily suited to their policing role, for which they had little time as their duties were already quite extensive, including cleansing, regulation of taverns and registration of deeds, in addition to judicial affairs. Being a district magistrate their attention was further divided between town and country. 161 The Times commented on the Douglas High Bailiff that,
'His character as an upright and independent judge is unquestioned and unquestionable; but as first magistrate of this town we require the undivided attention of a gentlemen not distracted by a multiplicity of conflicting offices, and in all regards, attend to his duty.' 162
However, the High Bailiff of Ramsey's character was called into question as he was dismissed for malpractise in 1830. 163 Due to the fact that each High Bailiff was usually appointed for life and from the rank of potentially qualified long practising Advocates, any in coming man would often be elderly or late middle aged by the time he was High Bailiff. Generally, therefore, they appear to have been less disposed, as apparently befitted the aloof Victorian minor gentry status, towards being physically and organisationally active in pursuing crime. One writer commented that,
' ...we do hope, that when the magistrate of this town [i.e. the High Baillif of Douglas] returns to the island, he will see the importance of looking into these matters personally, and no longer satisfying himself by merely overlooking the town from his breakfast table, at Harold Tower.' 164
The Douglas High Bailiff's performance, though probably exasperated by Constables tardy execution of orders, was hindered by his pompous manner. Thus, on several occasions, he refused to issue warrants or confer affidavits because it was not his duty, now that he had been promoted. In the meantime, while these wranglings continued, the criminal escaped across the water. 166 A journalist noted that,
'...the High Bailiff is above attending to the proper duties of his office - but if he is so loaded with dignitaries and distinctions that he considers little matters of this kind, he has no right to receive the salary.' 167
His laisez-faire approach may partly be explained by class prejudice. The Manx Sun asked,
'What have the police been about? They are alive enough when the offenders are of the lower orders. A score or two of ruffians could not witness a set-to half a mile from town without their knowing it. To say the least, it does look very suspicious... 168
The profusion of officials concerned with maintaining their own jurisdiction and status resulted in overlapping de facto authority. Thus, 'considerable difficulty arose from the jealousy amongst themselves [the Deemsters] and between the Justices of the Peace and the High Bailiffs of the Towns which prevented the authorities acting cordially together. ' 169 Furthermore, despite changes to established jurisdiction in 1777, '...the Deemsters were still called upon to try petty police cases and squabbles of all kinds.' 170 This led Governor Hope to deem the Magisterial Bench, 'totally inefficient.' 171
During the riots of 1840 The Manx Liberal questioned the adequacy of the Douglas High Bailiff and criticised the non-appearance of the three magistrates, the Justices of the Peace. They noted that the High Bailiff only intervened at the eleventh hour, despite the prior warning he had been given. When he did arrive, he was to be observed, 'floundering like "a triton' 'mongst the minnows," not half as useful as the old chapel clock - for it kept striking the hours if nothing else.' 172 The paper stated that the towns-people, '...should well content ourselves to dispose of the High Bailiff, as his efficiency has not given very general satisfaction.' 173 Reflecting on the upheavals one writer concluded, '...the authorities seem to have little power themselves, and the people appear to have as little confidence in them, or fear or respect for them.' 174 They were not applying the laws available and when dealing with rioters, such as they did, were not tackling the root cause - that was, the second-rate police system. In Peel and Douglas, it was claimed, there was no effort to discover the daring offenders, so that further riots followed in their wake in Ramsey and Douglas. The reward for information offered by the Governor simply formed, 'the ornamental patches to the ragged conduct of our authorities.' 175 The High Bailiffs incompetance was felt to be particularly galling in light of an increase in salary from £25 to £100 per annum, which meant that in 1848 they received about as much as six or eight policemen. 176 As those in the higher echelons accounted for so much of the police funds similar was said of the Inspector of Police, Walter William Bellion. Governor Hope considered that,
'...there.is no doubt that an efficient Inspector of Police at an adequate Salary would be a very useful officer, and would probably tend much to increase the efficiency of the Force, but I doubt very much whether at a Salary of £60 I could obtain one who would be of any real use as Inspector.' 177
He continued: 'the late Inspector was undertaken on the understanding he was a good officer ... but certainly since I have found him he has never been fit for the office of Inspector.' 178 He concluded he would rather have no Inspector than a poor one and use the money to increase the pay of others or increase their number. 179 On a related matter, the Treasury noted that,
'With reference to the proposal to increase the pay[men]t of the Chief Constable to £200 per annum. I am to state that considering the total number of the Force and the appointment of a Superintendent it would appear doubtful whether the Additional Appointment of an officer of the Rank of Chief Constable is really required....180
Similarly, when Governor Pigott suggested an increase in the number of police from nine to twenty with a concurrent increase in weekly wage from 12/6 to 20 shillings each, he proposed that the increase should be taken from the salary of the Attorney General whose services, 'were no more needed than that of the Pastia of Egypt.'181 A Looker-On considered that,
'All our present officials appear the wrong men for their places. There is our High Bailiff, the picture of weakness and inability - he ought to have been a clergyman, and not the head of police and punisher of crime.
Commenting on Inspector Sayle's mildness, he observed that he could have been an excellent scripture reader, that is, if he and his force did not have a well-founded reputation for drunkenness."' Inspector Bellion, who was supposed to monitor the island's police, was also criticised for not exercising control over the police stations by going round and inspecting them, partly, again, due to lack of funds over the doubt that his travelling expenses would be paid. 184
The appointment of George Patrick Goldie as Head of Police in the re- organisation of 1863 was further cause for complaint. The Herald asked,
,...what are the prospects of Police improvement among us, from the late changes said to be in progress? Why, we have a gentlemen farmer - a Key - one whose antecedents promise no energy or efficiency in any department, either legislative, administrative, or ministerial, placed at the heads of the Insular police...
The paper maintained that Goldie was appointed through patronage and his office was a sinecure. They suggested the role should have been given to a Metropolitan detective, a force whose standards were well regarded, who could demonstrate and implement professional methods of policing, which was necessary because no serving Manx officer was competent to be his Lieutenant. 186
The educated 'middle-class' reformers whose views were represented in the papers, potentially held back reform of the police by their rigid stance on reform of the House of Keys. Essentially, Tynwald consisted of the Legislative Council and the House of Keys. When the two branches sat together, they were known as Tynwald Court. The Keys, like the Legislative Council, were entirely composed of officials and were all appointed for life. It was presided over by the Lieutenant Governor. The other eight members were the Clerk of the Rolls and the two Deemsters, the Attorney-General, the Receiver General and the Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man, all of whom were appointed by the Crown, together with the Archdeacon and the Vicar- General, who were appointed by the Bishop. 187 Without public accountability, this system enabled a sustained form of nepotism and myopia. Conversely, The Mona's Herald claimed that Britain, 'could not make a retrograde movement, but that public opinion must continue to advance and acquire with greater force, until the will of the people becomes the law of the land."" The former stated that,
'...[the Keys] ought to be done away with, as utterly inefficient to secure the interests of the growing community, and out of character with the institutions of the mother country. Do these gentlemen consider themselves to be the representatives of the Manx public, and if so, why do they not attend to the interests of the public?' 189
They contended that the House was a feudal, self-elected body, imposing upon its most faithful subjects penalties which the worst feudal authorities dared not and if it would not reform from the inside, reform should be imposed.190 Reformers campaigned against the secrecy involved in procedures, so that Bills could be published in the newspapers and the public could attend debates, on which they were both successful. The pressure they exerted resulted in measures to prevent looting of shipwrecks. They saw the Keys corruption in all matters and with good reason. This could be seen in the case of the wreck of the John Fairfield. It appeared that although goods had been illegally retrieved from this ship, those involved refused to give them to the Lloyd's Agent, the legal owner, (who had threats made against him and whose premises had been robbed), without a fee. The Water-Bailiff, George Quirk, the government's representative, ruled not only that this fee should be paid, but that the plaintiff, the Lloyd's Agent, should pay costs of the suit. When the paper justifiably criticised the Bailiff, proceedings of Ex-Officio were issued against the paper for defamation of the Water Bailiff, a practise which was only supposed to be used when danger was perceived to the government. This measure was instigated by the acting Attorney-General, who was the brother of the allegedly defamed, Keeper of the Manorial Roles and High Bailiff of Douglas. The case was finally dropped due to the intervention of the Attorney General, James Clarke, who was one of the few officials who did not live on the island and thus was not one of the Manx clique. One of the motivations behind proceedings was to silence the reformist paper who had become a mouth-piece for dissent. For instance, The Mona's Herald criticised the Water-Bailiff because he also held the office of Receiver-General and Clerk of Council and thus indirectly and directly could appoint thirteen people in the Manx hierarchy. "' They observed that more than half of licenses were distributed amongst thirty individuals in an island when the island's population numbered 40,000. 192 The Liberal likewise perceived that the complacent 'Rusty Keys' as they were derogatorily called, 'were enemies worthy of our sword.' 193 Similarly, the Times addressed the issue of the, 'self- appointed, irresponsible cabal,' and criticised the insolent and arrogant way they dealt with memorials for reform. 194 In later years the editor of the Herald, Robert Faragher, was involved with three libel court cases in the 1840s against Advocate, banker, company director, and member of the House of Keys, George William Dumbell, that resulted in the former's imprisonment on two occasions. 195
The Liberal and Herald were particularly vociferous on matters of policing, perceiving it as a viable area upon which to attack the Keys on the principle that taxation without representation is tyranny. 196 They remarked on a meeting about a proposal for a levy for Douglas police that,
'most of our citizens placed their negative on the design by absenting ... How strange it appears, with a perfect knowledge of the utter contempt in which the great majority of the House of Keys are held by the public, that an endeavour should be made to bolster up their illegal authority by admitting their right of taxation.' 197
They prejudicially noted that past subscribers had lost money and concluded, 'I would therefore recommend to the inhabitants of Douglas the propriety of buttoning their pockets, when they observe a gentleman approaching their door with a sheet of paper in one hand and a pen in the other."199 They reiterated that, 'as the House has no power to levy a rate of itself, it has no power to delegate that right to others."' Reformers organised an active and vocal caucus that tried to influence the general public not to support both private and governmental levies, though the latter were already naturally adverse to them for more selfish reasons. At the same time, they criticised the Keys for delaying various incarnations of the Police Bill.200 The Times commented that, '...the attainment of political reform nessitated years of indomitable perseverance.' 201 Therefore, a certain amount of flexibility was needed to allow lesser, but nevertheless important, political and practical achievements during this prolonged struggle.
However, reformist papers did report police successes. For instance, they remarked on Constables efficiently attending to their duties by checking doors were locked at night; apprehending criminals and recovering goods and commented favourably on the intelligence sharing between Manx Police and those from surrounding counties, even as far a field as Germany, handing criminals back to Manx jurisdiction and aiding direct Manx efforts to retrieve criminals in their 'districts' e.g. Cumbria and Liverpool. 202 But, for every one favourable report there were a fifty or more unfavourable, giving some credence to Governor Hope's repeated assertion that these criticisms were exaggerated, certainly as regards to the blame apportioned to the men rather than the system. Hopes argument was reinforced by the assertion of one writer that, '...never have I had occasion to see any want of attention on the part of the very few police constables,' thus inferring that the fault lay in the deficiency of their numbers.
Matters came to a head in the 1860s with a further spate of criticisms in the papers, that fluctuated between anger and desperation. The Lawn lamented,
'Of what use are your present officials? Nobody cares for them, and they care for nobody. During the dark winter nights, when your prowlers have been let loose in society, where has been the magistrate of high bearing and irresponsible character - Where the Chief Constable? Unless something be done speedily and effectively, we shall have not merely to arm ourselves with revol.vers, but form our VIGILANCE COMMITTEES, and do duty alternatively by dozens or scores, as the exigencies of the case require.' 205
Another writer deplored the numerous robberies and urged measures of self- protection. He stated,
'The people of our town have long since come to know, that relying on an inefficient and ill-paid police for safety and protection, was but leaning on a broken reed; which would fail them in the hour of trial. Our Douglas police has quite enough to do without being troubled to protect the town's-people and their property from the ravages of the midnight burglar. 206
He suggested the securing of windows with cross bars and bolting doors and window shutters, as well as keeping a gun loaded with powder and dried peas. Revolver from Patrick went further stating that he would have something harder than dry peas in his gun and threatened to kill any burglar invading his house. 207 One observer was annoyed that bye-laws as regards to cleansing were not enforced, that there were recurring fights in the principal thoroughfares on Sunday evenings with lawless mobs traversing the town without being dispersed and that the police's neglect of watching meant a danger of fire. However, the real blame settled on the government,
'...whose evident duty it is to see that suitable arrangements are made and effectively carried out, [who] either do not know or care to know how life, property, and public convenience are not to be protected and fostered.' 208
Within these criticisms lay some of the reasons behind their inefficiency; specifically, their deficient pay, that the people themselves were not careful enough to prevent crime and the police had such a wide remit of duties in contrast to their numbers it was not surprising that burglaries and other crimes were not detected. Accordingly, the Herald suggested that there should be relays of Constables, day and night, so that for every two weeks of night duty there would be one week of day duty. These changes would prevent tiredness with the job and one particular area of responsibility and therefore curb slovenliness. There should be a series of eight beats, they suggested, to make the town more manageable and fully protected. They proposed that there should be two superannuates to fill up beats when they were vacated by the sick or when Constables were on leave.209 To ensure the Constables were doing their duties, the Chief Constable was to visit the Constables at regular but unexpected times. There would also be two Inspectors, one for the night the other for the day, to collect statements at the end of shifts. Perhaps their most thoughtful proposal, in addition to the crucial proposal for compensation for full-time work as a policeman, was that funds received from keeping order at public exhibitions could be diverted to relief of Constables in sickness, superannuation and injury. In addition, there would be weekly compulsory contributions deducted from their pay and a portion of the fines for drink related crimes and assault also to be diverted .210 They proposed that one shilling extra a week should be given for men taking on the extra duties of fire- fighting, to be co-ordinated with the efforts of the community.211 Furthermore, they suggested a period of indenture to learn police duties and responsibilities. 212 However, apart from the basic proposals of a series of beats and making the police a full-time occupation, none of these measures were adopted.
In June 1828 The House of Keys informed Governor Smelt that,
'The Keys agree to the general Principle of the police force and Justices Bill, subject to any alteration which maybe upon future discussions or conference thought necessary, but they think the said Bills if now passed, could not effectually be brought into operation until the salaries of the several Police Officers be increased according to a scale some considerable time ago forwarded by the Governor to his Majesty's Government.' 213
In essence, they agreed with the need for an increase in police wages and by inference the ineffectiveness of wholesale improvements without more funds from Whitehall. Furthermore, Colonel Murray supported the views of the Herald in stating he considered that the Keys, as presently constituted, did not have the power to levy taxes, a sentiment supported by Mr Forbes. In any case, he did not suppose that just over 40,000 individuals would want to be taxed because a few had petitioned for it. Nevertheless, he believed the island needed fully protecting and hoped that the Imperial Government would lend a hand towards the support of an extra police force, where it was wanted. However, Mr Quayle opposed this view and stated that the House did have the power to tax. The Speaker added that he doubted not that the Government would give grant and so forgo necessity of levy. 214 Previously Mr Quayle had questioned whether the people would allow a tax upon the land. Mr Drinkwater commented on this matter that it was, '...a very serious thing to charge towns a rate.' Mr Speaker observed that, 'it was easier to get rates imposed, then to get rid of them.' More specifically, Mr Crellin considered £2 too low a sum for the proposed levy and that it should be £3 minimum. On the other hand, Colonel Murray noted that the most miserable house gained in Douglas was let for 1 shilling a week. One can see at least three important opposing views: whether they had a right to levy a tax in the first place; whether they actually wanted to impose a levy; and if they did, what the rate should be .215 It is no surprise that legislation was delayed and remained in limbo; especially so because only a minority had petitioned for a levy.
Nevertheless, the Keys failure to at least discuss reform and even press the Governor and Whitehall for it was foolish. With the precedent of reform in England and its other dominions in the 1830s and 40s, it was reasonably likely to happen in the near future and in doing so might have secured more power, certainly as regards revenue and the principal of Home Rule, for the island. It also gave potential excuse, at least as given to the papers, for the Imperial Government to refuse to subsidise the police or for any other scheme because the Keys were self-elected and remained irresponsible. 216 The Keys may have been reticent about this matter partly because, as the Governor and the Home Secretary informed them, if there was to be any reform it would be on the basis that a representative of the island would be sent to the Commons, a suggestion that temporarily drained the reform movement of public support .217 As regards the police, as in many other matters, they appear to have either ignored calls for debate or to have been paralysed by internal opposition, entrenched in their stance against the justified, if sometimes exaggerated, barracking of reformers until they tried to implement levies in relation to cleansing, watching and lighting in the late 1840s. However, these measures were opposed and defeated by the people and the misguided arguments of reformers. In the latter case this was because they believed that the implementation of a levy would reinforce the position of the Keys by acknowledging a hierarchy of power. In practise, the Keys were the already the widely recognised constituted body who levied taxes for maintenance of streets, highways, spirit licences, dog taxes, carriages amongst other things and thus it does seem that the matter of policing was politicised by a minority, which in the 1840s and 50s centred on efforts to municipalize Douglas's administration. 218 This was particuarly unfortunate as in this instance the Keys were acting on the needs of the people in the towns and the island as a whole.
Although the influence of the newspapers should not be over-emphasised, out-spoken and constant criticisms of the police did little to motivate the already socially lethargic people.219 One contemporary commented,
'I doubt whether your efforts, strenuous and valuable as they have hithero been, can avail in obtaining the object sought for, and so much desired by all, namely, a true representation of the inhabitants of this island, though the House of Keys, by having its members elected by the people, unless the latter aid you in the cause, by coming forward and expressing their sentiments and wishes on the subject, by a petition to the British Government. For my own part I must confess, I cannot in any other way perceive the slightest probability of a successful result; the every-day remark that "what is everybody's business is nobody's" is strongly exemplified on this subject ... It is indeed too often to be remarked here, that ... too much apathy and want of public spirit pervades the inhabitants, who are seldom observed to take any interest or use the least exertion for its removal, unless they happen to be immediately concerned therein, or to be affected personally thereby. 220
The Manx Sun chimed harmoniously that Manx parishioners, 'know nothing about, or care one rush for political changes.' Rather, 'they wished to live in peace and quietness.' 221 Consequently, although adequate opportunities were given to object to proposals for legislation, few or no protests were generally made by the people. It was commonly observed that although several petitions to pray for reform of the House of Keys were collected over the years, the number who signed them was disappointing. This was related to the fact that there were Chartist and trade union sympathies in the island there was a lack of a working class movement. 222 Hence, though there were a wave of strikes in 1845 and public meetings to establish a trade union which were reasonably well attended, it failed to stir long term interest or actual membership; although there was some continuation of craft trade unionism from the 1840s onwards .223 T.E. Brown drolly acertained that,
'It was impossible to make a real Manxman into a Radical; it was beyond the power of all the agiators or all the papers in Christendom. The Manx Radical - if such a thing existed - must be a heterogeneous being; - a ridiculous animal being inconsistant with his native character. A Manxman, to be true to his native character, must be conservative ... if he pretended to be a Radical, he could in reality be nothing better than a hybrid hanging between the two.'224
He remarked more seriously that one of the worst features of the island character was opposition to necessary and salutory reforms in santiation and improvements in agriculture. 225 Indeed, there had been significant opposition to proposals concerning a rate for cleansing, lighting and watching in 1848, as there was in 1863.226 The former act had been passed, but legislation made the power to levy for these basic amenities optional. Notably, not one of the towns adopted this measure and it was repealed in Douglas, until a cleansing rate was levied in the 1860s.227 Such feelings were reflected in the debates over the provision of a Lunatic Asylum in the 1850s. High Bailiff Laughton noted that the general body of rate-payers, '...assembled in great force to oppose the proposal, or, in fact any proposal, which would involve the payment of one shilling of Manx money. 228 Similarly, few attended meetings in an attempt to establish a police force or contributed to subscriptions. 229 One writer wryly commented that The Association for the Protection of Property ultimately failed because, 'the motives of the most purest are not always followed by active co-operation. 230 Presumably this was due to disillusionment with police performance, but mostly because of their objection to any kind of levy. One writer observed that,
'It is evident that the state of riot, insubordination, and robbery for which the principal town of this island was lately so notorious, has never reached the ears of government, otherwise they would now be furnished with such an ample Police force as would give its frugal inhabitants a taste of local tax which they have never contemplated.' 231
In fact, the Home Secretary pointedly asked after having been asked to fund police reform, '...whether there is not an Act of Tynwald in force, which empowered the Town to raise a Rate for the improvement of the Police.' 232 Viscount Palmerston wrote,
'I don't see why the public sh[ould] n't pay for the Police of the Isle of Man. The Manx Men may as the Governor says have a Prejudice against having fo[r]ced [levies], but this same Prejudice prevails in the rest of the United Kingdom and if the Manx Men cannot make their minds up to be taxed for the Protection of their own Persons & Property they cannot well expect that the Public of England s[houl]d choose to be taxed for the Protection of other Mens Persons & Property.' 233
The Governor replied that if the government could not convince the inhabitants of the necessity of sewage and lighting,there was little hope in persuading them to support an amendment for extra police.
One reason behind opposition to police funding was that the welfare of islanders still relied on a successful harvest. Even when there was sufficent produce the fear of shortages induced disquiet and serious outbreaks of violence. Moreover, with farming methods barely changed in centuries, poor wages and the limited scope of industry meant that, in any given year, most parishioners were hardly above subsistence level .234 Hence, in a meeting to discuss a levy for police, it was stated that even three pence in the pound, between seven and eight pence annually or even a shilling a year, was a hardship to most people. Therefore, they were little interested in the luxuries of a rate when it could be spent on basic food items. Apathetic attitudes were also reinforced by the epidemics of smallpox, dysentery, measles, typhus and cholera that visited the island throughout the nineteenth century. For example, between October and November 1837 there were upwards of a hundred deaths by smallpox in Douglas, the grief of which was compounded by the difficulty in securing burial space. 237 In 1832, cholera killed upwards of ninety people in Castletown out of a population of 2000 .238 These occurences consumed the thoughts of parishioners and re-newed fears of salvation. Hence, the Primitve Methodist District Reports for 1833, 1834 and 1835 noted the 50% increase in membership, of whom 75% were lost after the epidemic had abated .239 Fear of cholera was especially prevalent, because unlike smallpox, there was no available means of inoculation and no consensus on the cause of the infection. Thus, we can only begin to appreciate the effect on contemporaries who witnessed:
'...All day long the dead cart seemed to be going its rounds from house to house, and the cry heard, "Bring out your dead, bring out your dead!" ...In Douglas was the greatest mortality; and at night in St. George's churchyard the burial of the dead ... was a mournful and appalling sight - never to be forgotten. There, by dim lanterns held in the hand, or suspended from the trees, the graves were dug, and in many cases the uncoffined bodies heaped in one after the other, and no stone ever to record more than one word - CHOLERA.' 240
Evidently, these experiences had far more impact than debates over political reform or the police and thus frequently became a non-issue, if it ever had been one in the physical and internal lives of parishioners.
There was also outward hostility towards the police, partly arising from the numerous detentions for petty theft or drink related offenses. This typically affected and aggrevated the poorer sections of community as they spent much of their time on the main streets, where their actions were most likely to attract the attentions of the police. Consequently, assaults on policemen seem to have been quite common. For example, it was reported that after a great struggle in Great Nelson Street when a Constable secured the arrest of John Skelly a servant from Lezayre, '...a number of women who had collected in the street, interposed their authority on behalf of the vagabond by attacking the Constable, which enabled the thief to get up.'241 In April 1844, when a Mr Moore summoned the police to protect him from his son-in-law, John Skeally. The latter, once he was handcuffed, called-up his brothers who assaulted Constable Lee. Upon attempting to rise, Lee was run at and struck a violent blow upon his head with handcuffs. This small victory redoubled the vigour of the attack so the brothers were able to rescue the defendant from the Constables. Skeally then attempted to stab one of the Constables with a knife, while one of the brothers brandished a hook. In this instance, it is not surprising that when bystanders were called upon for aid, they declined, even though this risked the displeasure of the Attorney General who told the Constables to make a list of those who had refused to assist and to fine them heavily. 242 However, the atmosphere of the towns and inadequacy of the police made it unlikely that the public would assist. Consequently, after disturbances in Douglas where fights were dispersed, 'some of the parties who suffered in the street, and previously others in the vicinity, have been induced by a bribe to shield the guilty from the merited punishment, thus paralysing the efforts of the police.' 243 Shopkeepers and other sufferers of crime would not prosecute because of the cost, and the fact that, if they won at all, the Advocate's fees would mean a return of less money than had been stolen. When a reward was offered for the discovery of perpetrators in the outrages in Peel a writer commented that,
'The state of society in this place, so notoriously opposed to the laws, that, were the reward trebled, it is not likely any one would claim it, from the well known expectation that he must be prepared for an injury, even, perhaps to the cost of life.' 244
Another writer observed that, 'burglaries and petty larcenies - may, in many instances, lie in part be attributed to the carelessness of housekeepers, who too frequently leave their doors on the latch during the night-time.' 245 One night in Douglas, 'the Inspector of Police, in going about his rounds, found four dwelling-houses, and the building of a public institution in this town, all left open.' 246 In Castletown, the Superintendent of Police with a Constable, perambulated the town for the purpose of discovering some of the numerous petty deprecators and offenders of petty thefts. While doing so they noticed the absence of fastening at the back-doors of several houses. In one instance, '...the police carried away a coat and some minor articles, to see if they would be claimed., 247
However, the citizens of Douglas did pay towards the voluntary police and petitioned the Governor for police reform. Other towns-people organised associations for protecting property that dealt with the costs of prosecutions and rewards for information. On one notable occasion, when the Chief Constable of Ramsey was assaulted by a man known as Big Pee he succeeded in rising after a short struggle, with the assistance of his neighbours, by whose helpful efforts he also captured the miscreant .248 Unfortunetly, sympathetic and pro-active towns-folk were in an emphatic minority. 249
Population increase also made the logisitics of Constables supervisory role more difficult. When the modern police force was being created there were around 24,924 residents on the island, which had almost doubled by 1831 to 41,751. Peel's population increased from 1729 inhabitants in 1831 to 2818 in 1861, with comparable increases in Ramsey, whilst Castletown's population expanded from 1723 residents in 1831 to 2365 in 1861. The growth was exceptionally obvious in Douglas which in the 1780s had not even had 3000 inhabitants, though by the late 1840s the number approached 10,000 increasing to 12,389 in 1861.250 In fact, by 1850, Douglas, Peel,
Castletown and Ramsey accounted for nearly half the total population of the island 251 To these figures one can also add 10,000 arrivals weekly in the summer in comparison to only nine police available in Douglas who were supposed to supervise them. In Ramsey, during the 1850s, though the population numbered almost 3000 there were still only four peacekeepers.251 By 1861 there were no less than 100,000 visitors a year, of those 25-30,000 plus were a floating population who remained for a portion of the year, whose stay resulted in a considerable amount of drunkenness and related crimes in consequence.253 Furthermore, certain beats had a marked disadvantage, roughly coinciding with greater population density, which in Douglas concentrated around Lord Street, Church Street, Great George Street, Great Nelson Street and Factory Lane. Though partly resulting from the methods of the census, it was evident that of the ten districts into which Douglas was divided in the 1841 census, population numbers varied considerably between 256 and 1310, excluding those who lived in the House of Industry, though typically numbering over 600. Similarly, Castletown's districts, not including barracks, varied between 604 and 864, Peel's between 532 and 900 and Ramsey's between 350 and 639. Criminals could more easily disappear through alley ways and housing in these densely packed areas and it was generally more difficult for the police or bystanders to observe crime, particularly since these figures do not even take account of those visiting from surrounding parishes to conduct their business, especially on market days, as well as tourists and seasonal workers.254 The increasingly transitory population of fishermen, labourers, visitors and particularly miners, who by the 1860s made around 20% of the population, made it more laborious to pursue those who had committed crimes or those who were the victims of crime as well as increasing the number of crimes amongst themselves. 255 For example, a man named Cain alias Satan was committed to the Black Hole because he had entered a Liverpool trawl boat and carried off a quantity of tea and sugar. Although he was caught in the act and was detained, he was not prosecuted because by the time the matter came to court, some two days later, the boat and the crew from which he had stolen had gone and so there was no one to cover the expense of prosecution. 256 The same problems occurred when dealing with tourists to the island. It was often the case that by the time legal summons had been issued criminals had already escaped to Cumbria or Ireland. Furthermore, as transient workers or tourists were less well known in the community as a whole, this impaired their potential identification as suspects by the police.257
Police effectiveness was severely impinged by the stringent financial control of the Home Office. Although the Keys and the island's administration were usually lambasted for the failings of the police, the power to rectify the situation resided mainly with the Imperial Government. In practically all matters the Governor sought the approval of the Home Secretary, whom in effect resided ultimate judicial and executive power, on both the amount spent and the provisions made before legislation came into law. Correspondence between the Governors and Home Secretaries throughout this period reveals that ordinarily Whitehall did not wish to spend additional revenue, especially when its beneficial effects were to be felt outside English counties.258 Revenues were hoarded with little return to the island. Excluding the revenue they secured from rents and duties from crown property in the island, the Imperial Government retained a surplus revenue from the island of between £23,000 and £144,840, at an average level of £112,974 in every decade total during the period 1796 to1866,259 In regards to constitutional reform, the Governor was told by the Home Secretary,
'...not to lose sight of the question of Revenue ...[for] the House of Keys to be reconstituted on popular principles ... an assembly so formed would scarcely be satisfied of the application of the Revenues [that] continue to be vested in the Government here - Still less would it be inclined to acquiesce in the present arrangement by which the surplus is merged in the general funds of the Country.' 260
Perhaps because he was appointed by Whitehall, the Lieutenant-Governor's comments on constitutional reform often echoed the opinions of the Home Secretary. Hence, after slighting the reform movement and propagating accusations of fraud in their petitions, the Lieutenant-Governor concluded that reform would produce, 'no solid good,' and the real reason for petition of reform was the 'ulterior motive of leading and disposing of public revenues.' 261 Though Governors and Lieutenant- Governors repeatedly pressed for reform of the police in regard to an increase in pay and the number of men, particuarly during the incumbancies of Hope and Ready, they did not see or did not wish to contemplate the wider political and fiscal consequences of their stance on reform of the House of Keys. 262 Thus, opposition to police funding was propogated by the Home Secretary, often on the advice of the Attorney-General and sometimes seconded by the Governor. Although the Crown gave practical advice on construction of clauses for legislation, compositon of meetings, right of appeal and the manner in which Justices of the Peace were appointed, it appears that the real reason for the majority of objections, disguised amongst typically flimsy objections, was financial incursions. In the case of the legislation in 1830 it was said that, '...the proposed regulations would [have] deprive[d] the Crown of such fees in all causes transferred to the High Bailiff and would have left the Deemsters in possession of their present salaries with reduced salaries.' 263 However, this did not take account of the fact that incumbants of this office had been underpaid for decades or that Deemsters were the equivalent of higher court judges and therefore should be paid more than High Bailiffs who dealt with more straighforward cases. We see similar obstruction with the Attorney-General's subtle qualification in regards to the Police Bill of 1830 that the number of peace-keepers or quasi-magistrates suggested, i.e. 5, 'seems very large - For "not less" read "not exceeding." 264 In this way, he ensured that insular government had no room for manoeuvre, so that future initiatives on police expansion, if not blocked, were strictly limited. In the same vein, Sir George Grey's Secretary wrote,
'It would be difficult and even unjust to make an exception in favour of the police force in the Isle of Man, when many other persons similarly situated are subject to the same pressure. Under these circumstances Sir George Grey trusts you will agree with him, in the opinion that it would not be desirable at present at least to comply with the application for the constables employed in the police force in the island.' 265
In essense, it was more equitable to do nothing for anyone, which conveniently meant not expending any additional revenue with similar disingenuous responses given in regards to prison maintainence. When, in 1839, additional expenditure was approved for the increase in the High Bailiffs salary and augmentation in the number of police it was covered by importing an extra 2000 gallons of brandy, 5001b. of black tea, 500 pounds of refined sgar, duties on which were to be increased and out of Moneys from the fine fund .266 The plans were therefore only really approved because the Treasury did not have to expend any revenue. However, because the principal of increased funding was under debate, plans were authorized grudgingly and after protracted pressure. When police finances were subsequently under discussion, Sir George Grey, even when agreeing that police numbers and pay were insufficient, disagreed where the money should come. He argued that funds should not come from the large surpluses of custom duties from the Consolidated Fund that were plaid to the English Treasury by the island, but directly via the inhabitants of the island. Of course, the latter approach was not always possible. Treasury officials pointed to the fact that, as in 1853, an increase in Tariff did not necessarily produce an increase in revenue. 268 This led Whitehall to become more entrenched and insistant on a levy on the Manx people. Hence, there was the rather desperate measure of the Governor and Head Constable in suggesting a reduction in number of police and increase in the pay of the Chief Constables to press for the principle of higher pay. However, this was impractical and undesirable because their wages were already substantially higher than the Constables, who formed the backbone of the force .269 Even so, although Home Office Civil Servants and the Home Secretary disliked the idea, Treasury officials seized upon it, insisting they would only increase pay if numbers were reduced.270 Clearly, acquiescence by the Home Secretary did not necessarily mean swift consent from the Treasury, if at all.271 One sees remarks made by Home Office Civil Servants such as, 'I am afraid there is not much chance of the Treasury acceding to this [proposal], but I suppose the attempt must be made. 272 or, 'Shall it be recommended to the Treasury?' 273 and, '...as to the number & pay of the Police - as the Saddle, I suppose the Treasury must be consulted.' 274 Consequently, police revenue remained at a stagnating £185 per annum between 1777 and 1837. Between 1838 and 1852 it increased to £565 per annum and from 1853, until 1862, was £745 per annum. These insignificant rises meant that the force was always underfunded and was never able to keep up with other professions in regards to pay or numbers more akin to the expansion of population. 275
Despite numerous disturbances and major riots in 1811, 1824, 1825, 1834, 1835, 1837, 1838 and 1840 Whitehall also sought to deplete the military presense, latterly, as a concurrent consequence of the increase in size of the police force; even before such changes had been augmented. Governor Hope reflected that,
'I did not in the least bit contemplate the removal of the Military force, or I should have felt it my duty in place of an increase to the constables who are here a body of unarmed men to have recommended the establishment of a regular organised police.' 276
If the necessary reforms were not forthcoming Hope stated that he could not be answerable for the peaceable and orderly conduct of government. Nevertheless, after being reduced from a full company to a detatchment of men in 1834 it was depleted in 1861 to thirty men. 277 Governors Hope and Pigott expressed further anxiety about maintaining order in the mountain districts whose inhabitants were disaffected and potencially disorderly due to the effects enclosure, that was set to remove grazing and digging for turf and peat in addition to other rights traditionally enjoyed by the commoners. This was especially significant as during the 1850s, this military 'force' mainly consisted of invalid soldiers and pensioners sent from Depot Battalion. Governor Hope stated that this was inconsistant with the preservation of the welfare of the inhabitants as enshrined in colonial rights.278 The reduction of this military presense left only a volunteer corps of some 230 men, but as these were made up of the general public they were ineffective during widespread popular dissent .279 Of the thirty or forty Specials engaged during the riots of 1840s in Douglas many, 'would have [had] such immense difficulty in protecting themselves as to be quite unqualified to perform that said office for any other in use of "civil war" or other popular commotion.' 280 The High Bailiff of Ramsey observed that the number and quality of Special Constables sworn in to deal with riots in that town during 1837 was ineffective as having initially been appointed in 1821 half of them had died and many of those remaining were too old, leaving only fifteen men. 281
However, after receiving several negative reports from the High Bailiffs in 1863 the Home Secretary finally approved more substantive changes to the police force. The force was amalgamated under one Head Constable, George Patrick Goldie, supposedly allowing for a more efficient co-ordinated service and pay was retrospectively increased by £2 10s per annum each from the 14th July 1863 in compensation for not serving civil processes. 282 Additionally,An Inspector [John Sayle] was appointed to Douglas at a rate of £45 per annum, and a Sergeant (Chief Constable) to each of the other towns at £40 per annum. Twenty permanent Constables would also be engaged at £32-10-od. per annum each and twelve Rural Constables would be engaged at £10 per annum each. 283
If a rural Constable was to serve full-time during a particular year he was to receive the same rate as an town Constable. Alternatively, at the Head Constable's discretion, two part-timers could serve for six months or three men for four months when the greater number of visitors came to the Island. Rural Constables were to be kept in constant supervision to guard against frivolous arrests and ensure that duties were performed satisfactorily. Their position was made more secure by acquiring permanent housing in their district .284 The Head Constable could appoint detectives, recognising the distinction between certain types of crimes and dividing the burden of cases, which was an important measure in fighting crimes such as burglary. Constables were allocated pencil and note-pads to improve accounts at trial and aid successful prosecution. 285 However, the total number of the new force was now thirty- eight, which was still woefully inadequate to deal with the population as a whole. For instance, there were only three extra policemen in Douglas and although formal beats were now assigned and the town divided into districts, in practice this had been the case for at least twenty years. 286 Furthermore, pay was inadequate, no training was provided and Constables were still expected to enforce bye-laws relating to cleansing. Neverthless, this was a significant improvement and recognised the need and went some way in providing a permanent police force. The judicial system was also in better shape due to the Petty Sessions and Summary Jurisdiction Acts of 1864. Police could now search for stolen goods on suspect's premises. Arrested individuals could be held while police gathered evidence and could be arrested, without warrant, if they were caught in a criminal act. It also tightened the rules of evidence generally and as regards to guidelines about juries, to guard against exploitation. Thus, in order to arrest a suspect there had to be written evidence under oath and only then could someone be summoned by a Justice. In Petty Sessions, no evidence would be heard unless the suspect or their legal representative was present and cases could be dismissed if the magistrate considered the evidence deficient. In relation to cases of debt over twenty shillings, a suspect had the right of appeal against a prison sentence when he or she could not pay a fine. 287 These laws would not decrease the number of criminals or crimes, but they did support the police with a more credible and effective framework.
Police reform was hindered by an overlapping of financial, political and social factors that were both intentionally and unintentionally obstructive. Firstly, it was derailed by the British Exchequer's primary concern with retaining revenue which meant that the Governors, who also hindered the process by questioning the need for political change, nor the House of Keys could fund proposed expansions. To this end, Whitehall refused to sanction the reform of the Keys, who with legitimate authority and autonomy, could have disposed of revenues more freely. For their part, the self- elected and for the most part inept Keys were not seriously inclined to discuss reform. In consequence, the growing reform movement would not accept levies to support the police imposed by what they believed was an illegally sanctioned body. Though political reform was eventually approved in the 1860s, allowing the Keys limited control of surplus revenues, the island's a-political environment meant that, despite increasing public support, suffrage was essentially pushed through by a middle class minority, hence suffrage was based on a conservative franchise, amplifying the country's characteristically conventional tendancies.288 The resultant class of politicians were hardly receptive to change or much to be distinguished from their predcessors, (most of the former members, like Dumbell, were returned), thus there were few of vision or ability. However, the idea of municipal government might have been implemented earlier. After this was enacted improvements were made with regards to sanitation, compulsory vaccinations, house numbering, rating powers, criminal law, harbours, transport, i.e. railways and tramways, and in the regulation of births, marriages and deaths. Favourable effects may also be indicated by the increasing professionalism of the Police once municipal government had relieved the High Bailiffs of many of his duties in the 1860s and 70s. 289
Notwithstanding their concerns, reformers could have had a more efficient police supported by levies and still have campaigned for constitutional amendments. Their efforts to discredit the authorities scuppered precious opportunities and may have encouraged the already frugal and generally politically inactive people. However, parishioners should accept the most criticism for their lackadaisical and confrontational attitudes, especially opposition to any kind of taxation. They were also open to bribery and intimidation, sometimes withholding information as well as refusing to prosecute due to the expense. In addition, their naivete by leaving doors unbolted encouraged crime.
Diminutive finances meant that the police were untrained, only available on a part-time basis and had little reason to take professional pride in their office. With poor guidance policemen often took an arbitrary or illegal approach to the law. There was also an unfortunate, if understandable, focus on administrative tasks to the detriment of more important duties. Scant pay resulted in a preposterously small number of policemen in proportion to that of the towns population and the country as a whole. Therefore, even if the Constables had been of a higher quality and generally younger it would have been difficult to supervise their district adequately as some beats coincided with a particularly high population density. It also meant unsatisfactory provision as regards the prison and watch-houses, which helps explain the number of escapees, the total of which may have been much higher than reported.
These deficiencies were compounded by uninspired and cautious direction from the High Bailiffs and Justices of the Peace who were paid a large proportion of a meagrely funded justice system; especially when one considers the benefits that might have occured if, stripped of this role, their additional pay could have been disbursed amongst policemen. The Attorney General's pay might also have been reduced and re-distributed considering he was merely a legal adviser to the sovereigns power and that during the 30s, and at other times, he did not live on the island. Blame may also be attached to the Inspectors and Chief Constables who by setting a better example with closer supervision, more careful planning and organisation may have increased the execution of Constables duties, partly counteracting the difficulties that arose from low pay.
Poor performances by Special Constables could have been alleviated by advertisements in the newspapers that could have attracted more recruits, perhaps from the reformist and pro-active camp, which might have allowed for a selection process and scrutiny of candidates rather than acceptance of every volunteer. In order to keep their numbers adequately high there might have been a rota, rather than leaving their numbers to decline until the next emergency when the shortfall came apparent.
If one of the causes of crime was lack of educative provisions the Government and the Church must also be culpable here. From the Bishopry of Hildesley until that of Ward and Short there was a marked decline in standards of education. 290 It was not until the 1850s that sustained efforts were made to regulate schools, though arguably, real change was not effected until the 1871 Education Act which re-affirmed the principal of compulsory education and marked the creation of school boards .291Again, however, despite parliamentry grants, the positive effects of organisation were limited by lack of funds. The number of those attending schools was effected by economic downturns; specifically, whether parents in the fundamentally agrarian community felt they could afford to send children to school. 292 In this respect, the financial well- being of islanders may have increased by lowering the price of staple goods that were kept unnaturally high at times. This goal may have been aided by investment in agricultural technology and methods like swing ploughs and crop rotation which had been used hesitantly by substantial Manx landowners since the turn of the nineteenth century. 2" As times of economic fluctuation apparently resulted in more crime, the government might also have pioneered large scale works programmes, rather than the disparity of work and small business that prevailed. More governmental efforts should have been made to mechanise and expand profitable industries like ropemaking, sailmaking, and woollen manufacture, that already occurred in the island and whose goods could be easily exported .294 They could also have taken more concern over the welfare of employees, including increasing the pay and less-crowded housing, some 295 aspects of which could be seen in the Laxey Mine and Tromode Mill developments. In the long term, economic prosperity would make direct taxation and therefore increased funding for police more likely.
Severe statutory penalties and flaws in rules of evidence, as well as those governing juries, which partly explain a dearth of prosecution, were amended infrequently and piecemeal, despite the clear potential for widespread unrest from the early nineteenth century onwards. Some progress was made with proportional penalties for specified crimes, though more radical changes should have been effected that may have allowed a more focused approach to particular crimes, which could have been aided by the keeping of reliable statistics. Funds secured from licences that originally went into highways could also have been diverted to that of law enforcement, which would have provided a large and reliable source of income and would have enabled a higher quality force to deal with the problem more effectively.296 Statutary reforms, though they did not provide enough men to plausibly enforce their provisons due to lack of funding, would have deliniated a practical blue- print, in effect a legal statement of intent, in readiness for future police expansion.
Within the provisions for reform in 1863 the papers were right to criticise the appointment of a Key, considering his cursory training in England and the undynamic performance of that body to the position of Head of Police; though they should have applauded the principal of training for which they had been calling. Despite insufficient pay it should have been possible to attain the services of a retired, reputable ex-Chief Constable from England or at least a professional man aware of the methods of his superiors. The insular forces could have learned from his leadership and organisation, which by example and practice could have garnered some respect within the force and from the public. In not pursuing this policy, in tandem with other reforms, some of which were suggested by The Mona's Herald and feasibly demonstrated elsewhere in the British Isles, the potentially positive effects of fundamental reform were not to be felt by the police force or the island as a whole for many decades.
1 Moore 1900, 356 & Gelling 1998, 41.
2 Kelly 1960, pp.324-351.
3 Craine 1955, pp.130-131 &Radcliffe 1979, 75.
4 One observer claimed that Presentments were inherently lenient
towards the wealthy and in most cases
hardened those it punished. Hence, once there was a forum for debate, i.e. the
media, many critical letters appeared, principally in the 1830' and 40s. The
Bishops were generally respected, although complaints were made that there was
such a quick succession of Bishops in the 1830' and 40s and thus the Church
suffered from a further lack of direction and an apparent commitment to the
community.
5 Manx Sun, 6th August 1844, p.4, Gelling 1988,
6pp.63-91, Platten 1999, 74 & Harrison 2000, 358.
Cowin 1902, 47, Kissack 1988, 8, Platten 1999, pp.76-77 & Harrison 2000, 360.
6 Manx Sun, 6th August 1842, p.4.
7 Manx Sun, 8th August 1829, p.4, Kissack 1988, 8 & Harrison 2000, 359.
8 Bird 1991, pp.241-254 & 268.
9 Chapman 1971, pp.2-6.
10 Diary of Reverend William Kermode, 1st May 1839,p.23, Bird 1991, 247 &Harrison, 2000, 360.
11 Belchem 2001, 394 & Manx Sun, 19th May 1838, p.4. & 9th June 1840, p.4.
12Cain 1996, 201.
13 A significant Irish presence became evident during and after the Irish Famine of the 1840s, so much so that one area of Douglas became known as Irish Town. Manx Sun, 7th November 1846, p.4. & 2nd June 1848, p.4.
14 Diary of Events, A. W. Moore, 1812, p.7, 1814 p.13, 1819 p.19, 1820 p.21.
15 Gill 1883, pp.327-330.
16 Oaths of Constables, With Signatures, 1765-1810
17 Manks Advertiser, 3rd June 1809, p.3
18 Governor's Letter Book, vol. II, 29th March 1811, pp.80-82, & 26th May 1811, pp.84-85.
19 Governor's Letter Book, vol. III, 5th October 1821, pp. 124-126.
20 Council Minutes, vol. 1, 15th November 1824, pp.430-431
21 Council Minutes, ibid.
22 61.Diary of Events, A. w. Moore, 1811, p.5, 1813 p.9, 1814, p.11, Craine 1955, pp.199-206 & Creer 2000, pp. 53-
23 Governor's Letter Book, vol. III, 4th November 1825, pp.299-301.
24 Governor's Letter Book, vol. III, 14th December 1825, pp.315-319.
25 Mona's Herald, 21st February 1837, p.3.
26 Mona's Herald, 21st February 1837, p.3.
27 Mona's Herald, 27th November 1838, p.3.
28 Mona's Herald, 1 1th December 1838, p.3.
29 The voluntary police was instigated in 1833 and lasted for
three years - though it always suffered from a lack of
funds and quality of men - only gathering 300 signatures from the inhabitants
of Douglas in initial canvassing.
Perhaps the voluntary forces most important function, apart from actually putting
men on their respective beats and
augmenting some type of police force, was helping to establish night watches
from the late 30s onwards. This was
crucial from the point of view that night time was when most of the crimes took
place. Manx Sun, 28th February
1834, p.4, Mona's Herald, 13th August 1839 p.3 & The Manx Quarterly Journal
1908, No.5, pp.456-460.
30 Mona's Herald, 15th November 1833, p.2 & Manx Sun, 7th March 1834, p.4.
31 Pigot's Directory (1837).
32 Mona's Herald, 27th November 1838, p.3.
33 Moore 1900, 580.
34 Accounts of Prisoners, vol. 1, vol. H, vol. III & Offence Book, vol. 1, vol. H.
35 Police Charge Book, 1863 - 1870.
36Accounts of Prisoners, vol. II &Offence Book, vol. 11.
37 Pigot's Directory (1837) &Slater's Directory (1846).
38 Council Minutes, vol. III, 7th January 1852, pp.193-227.
39 Mona's Herald, 6th February 1838, p.3.
40 Mona's Herald, 31st October 1837, p.3.
41 Accounts of Prisoners, vol. 1, vol. H, 111 & Offence Book, vol. 1, vol. H.
42 Another factor that may have contributed to the rise in
the number of burglaries was the apparent move from
opportunistic to more planned and professional break-ins. In the 1830s we mainly
see windows broken, and goods
grabbed, or a door or window left open as a means of entry. By the late 1830s
and early 40s criminals were cutting
sashes from windows, boring holes to remove hinges, carrying bunches of keys
for different locks, removing bolts
with cutters and picking the locks. Offenders Book, nol. 1, nol. 11. and Police
Charge Book, 1863 - 1870.
43 Justice Order Book, Ramsey, 1864-1870
44 Mona's Herald, 9th March 1853, p.3.
45Manx Liberal, 29th October 1836, p.3.
46 Accounts of Prisoners, vol. 1, vol. H, vol. IV & Offence Book, vol. H, vol. 111.
47 Craine 2000, pp.133-147.
48 Accounts of Prisoners, vol. 1, vol. II, vol. IV, Offence Book, vol. H, vol. III & Police Charge Book, 1863 -1870.
49 Best 1979, 268.
50 Elmsley 1987, 153.
51 Elmsley 1987, 53
52 Accounts of Prisoners,vol. 1, 11 and Offence Book, vol. 1,11.
53 Mona's Herald, 3rd June 1833, p.2.
54 Governor's Letter Books vol. III, 1st April 1829, pp.423-429.
55Governor's Letter Books vol. 111, ibid.
56 Mona's Herald, 18th September 1850, p.3.
57 Mona's Herald, 8th August 1834, p.3.
58 Mona's Herald, 8th August 1834, p.3.
59Mona's Herald, 18th July 1834, p.3.
60Isle of Man Times, 13th February 1847, p.2.
61Manx Liberal, 19th April 1845, p.2.
62Laughton 1916, pp. 162-163.
63Mona's Herald, 8th August 1834, p.3.
64Bird 1991, pp.231-233.
65Mona's Herald, 16th October 1838, p.3.
66 Mona's Herald, 16th October 1838, p.3.
67 Bird 1991, pp.234-235.
68 Bird 1991. pp. 252-271.
69 Diary of Events, A.W. Moore, 1868, p.108.
70 Police Charge Book, 1863-1870.
71 Manx Liberal, 10th September 1836, p.3.
72 Mona's Herald, 18th October 1848, p.3.
73 Manx Sun, 4th April 1846, p.4 & Moore 1900, pp.552-558.
74 Accounts of Prisoners, vol. I, vol. II, vol. HI, & Offence Book, vol. I, vol. H.
75 Mona's Herald, 22nd December 1841, p.3 &Elmsley 1987,
pp.58-70.
76 Mona's Herald, 4 February 1857, p.3. & 12th January 1857, p.3.
77 Isle of Man Times, 13th February 1847, p.2 &Mona's Herald, 16th January 1850, p.3.
78 Manx Sun, 26th October 1824, p.4, 28th September 1826, p.4, 10th November 1828, p.4, 2nd March 1839 p.4.
79 Police Charge Book, 1863 - 1870 &Cowin 1902, 42.
80 Manx Sun, 5th February 1828, p.4.
81 Mona's Herald, 9th March 1853, p.3.
82 For example: breach of the peace received between one day
and one month; fighting and disturbing the peace
around seven days; and abusive and threatening language between seven days and
two weeks. If one considers the
addition of fines, costs and fees, which could be ten shillings for grand larceny,
or even two pounds for threatening
language, and ten shillings in fees for riotous and disorderly, (while bearing
in mind typical wages), these
sentences were relatively harsh in terms of physical liberty and material punishment.
Account of Prisoners, nol. 11.
83 Accounts of Prisoners, vol. I.
84 Elmsley 1987, pp.173-174.
85 Mona's Herald, 12th January 1857, p.3.
86 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 18th December 1833, p.342.
87 Creer 2000, pp.62-64.
88 Gill 1883, pp.384-391.
89 Diary of Events, A.W. Moore, 1816, p.16.
90 Craine 1955, 208.
91 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 10th April 1848, pp.536-542.
92 Diary of Events, A W Moore, 1821, p.31.
93Laughton 1916, pp.86-87.
94 Gill 1886, pp.88-95.
95 Gill 1888, 777.
96Mona's Herald, 5th January 1848, p.3.
97 Increasing distinction may be indicated by the dismissal
of John Callow, Chief Constable of Peel, for
obstructing the quartering and accomodation of troops. It should, however, be
noted that Chief Constables were
often ex-military men, certainly until the 1830s. Governor's letter Book, vol.
1, 25th May 1781, pp.29-30.
98 House of Keys Journal (Legislative), vol. 1, 18th December 1793, pp.225-228.
99 Governor's Letter Book, vol. H, 24th April 1806, p.33.
100 Governor's Letter Book, ibid.
101 Governor's Letter Book, vol. II, 24th April 1806, p.33.
102 HO 98/81, 14th October 1839.
103 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VI, 11th November 1851, pp.270-277.
104 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VI, 11th November 1851, pp.270-277.
105 House of Keys Journal (Legislative), vol. 1, 18th December 1793, pp.225-228.
106 Mona's Herald, 11th December 1838, p.3.
107 Mona's Herald, 20th December 1848, p.3.
108 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 9th December 1845, pp.31-36.
109 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 9th December 1845, pp.31-36 & 5th May 1847, pp.352-353.
110 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VI, 1 1th November 1851, pp.270-277.
111Governor's Letter Book vol. VI, 12th January 1860, pp. 18-24.
112Governor's Letter Book, ibid. It may be indicative that
strict punishment for the crime of larceny by policemen
was provided for in the Criminal Code of 1872 as well as attempts to bribe Court
officials. Gill 1891, pp.212-260.
113 MS 1460c
114 MS 420/15C
115 Governor's Letter Books, vol. VI, 24th January 1855, pp. 161-162 &Turnbull 1984, 42.
116 HO 98/81, 25th November 1839.
117 Governor's Letter Books, vol. X, 16th February 1864, pp.135-145.
118 Governor's Letter Book, vol. I, 30th March 1781, pp.8-10 &Serjeant 1961, pp.279-282.
119 Serjeant 1961, pp.285-287.
120 Mona's Herald, 30th August 1854, p.3.
121 Mona's Herald, 19th September 1843, p.3.
122 Mona's Herald, 29th August 1843, p.3.
123 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VII, 9 November 1853, pp.80-82.
124 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VH, 6th November 1856, pp.536-539.
125 Governor's Letter Book, vol. X, 16th February 1864, pp.135-145.
126 Mona's Herald, 6th December 1833, p.3.
127 Mona's Herald, 20th August 1846, p.3.
128 Govenrment Office Papers, Box 21, 19th June 1903.
129 Manx Society, vol. XXXI, pp.260-261.
130 Turnbull 1984, 42.
131 Mona's Herald, 12th July 1842, p.3, 9th July 1853, p.3,
Manx Sun, 20th November 1840, p.3, &
Instructions for Ramsey Constabulary Force (1840).
132 Mona's Herald, 25th May 1841, p.3.
133 Manx Sun, 6th September 1833, p.4, Manx Sun, 4th September
1832, p.4, Manks Advertiser, 22nd November
1831, p.4, and Forrest 1894, p.12, Manx Sun, 23rd November 1838, p.4. &
Government Office Papers, Box 22,
21st January 1895.
134 Mona's Herald, 20th August 1846, p.3.
135 Mona's Herald, 30th August 1842, p.3
136 Mona's Herald, 6th December 1848, p.3.
137 Mona's Herald, 14th February 1844, p.3
138 Manx Liberal, 24th June 1843, p.3.
139 Mona's Herald, 30th August 1854, p.3.
140 Mona's Herald, 21st January 1852, p.3.
141 Instructions for Ramsey Constabulary Force (1840).
142 Radcliffe 1989, 74.
143 House of Keys Journal (Legislative), vol. 1, 18th December 1793, pp.225-228.
144 Manx Sun, 5th February 1828, p.4.
145 Manx Sun, ibid.
146 Mona's Herald, 23rd January 1835, p.3.
147 Mona's Herald, 17th December 1838, p.3.
148 Mona's Herald, 17th December 1838, p.3. & Manx Liberal, 28th June 1845, p.3.
149 Mona's Herald, 29th October 1838, p.3.
150 Manx Liberal, 18th June 1842, p.3.
151 Magistrates Order Book, Peel, 1871-1892.
152 Justice Order Book, Ramsey, 1864-1870 & Douglas Court Order Book, 6th November 1852 - 9th July 1859.
153 Cowin 1902, pp.24-25 &Laughton 1916, pp.50-52.
154 Resentment of outside intervention may have been one of
factors behind the failure of The Isle of Man Times,
whose editors advocated the idea of, 'Union with England, free Municipal Institutions
in the Isle of Man, coupled with the continuance of out present Fiscal privileges.'
Isle of Man Times, 5th June 1847, p.2.
155 Mona's Herald, 3rd May 1842. p.3, 20th September 1854, p.3 &Creer 2000, pp.93-95.
156 Governor's Letter Book, vol.. IV, 9th June 1835, pp. 139-140, vol.. IV, 29th March 1839, pp.351-352, & vol.. IV, 18th September 1839, pp.367-369.
157 Diary of Events, A.W. Moore, 1812, p.7, 1819, p.20, 1821, p.27, 1838, p.66.
158 Laughton 1916, 53.
159 Mona's Herald, 1st October 1842, p.2.
160 Police Charge Book 1863 -1870.
161 The High Bailiffs jurisdiction constituted four parishes
each, within which were the four towns. For example,
the Castletown High Bailiff's jurisdiction coveredMalew, Santon, Arbory and
Rushen and the Douglas High
Bailiff's that of Lonan, Conchan, Braddan, andMarown.
162
Isle of Man Times, 6th February 1848, p.2.
163 HO 98/76
164 Mona's Herald, 3rd September 1839, p.3.
165 MS 420/13C 29th October 1847.
166 Mona's Herald, 2nd August 1848, p.3, & 30th October 1850, p.3.
167 Isle of Man Times, 6th February 1848, p.2.
168 Manx Sun, 8th October 1841, p.4.
169 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 9th December 1845, p.20.
170 Governor's Letter Book, ibid.
171 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 9th December 1845, p.20.
172 Manx Liberal, 3rd October 1840, p.3.
173 Manx Liberal, ibid.
174 Mona's Herald, 11th December 1838, p.3.
175 Mona's Herald, 11th December 1838, p.3, & Governor's
Letter Book, vol. IV, 23rd November 1838, pp.337-341.
176 Isle of Man Times, 6th February 1848, p.2., & 26th February 1848, p.2.
177 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VI, 15th October 1849, pp.270-277.
178 Governor's Letter Book, 15th October 1849, pp.270-277.
179 Governor's Letter Book, ibid.
180 HO 45/6920, 21st June 1864, 2955.
181 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 9th January 1860, pp. 13-15.
182 Mona's Herald, 25th January 1860, p.3.
183 Mona's Herald, ibid.
184 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 9th December 1845, pp.31-36.
185 Mona's Herald, 21st October 1863, p.2.
186Mona's Herald, 21st October 1863, p.2.
187 Cain 1996, 202.
188 Mona's Herald, 21st October 1862, p.2.
189 Mona's Herald, 8th November 1833, p.3.
190 Mona's Herald, 3rd August 1833 p3.
191 Mona's Herald, 8th August 1835, p.3.
192 Mona's Herald, 13th June 1834 p,3.
193 Manx Liberal, 26th October 1844, p.3.
194 Isle of Man Times, 20th February 1847, p.2.
195 Chappell 1971, pp.21-27.
196 Mona's Herald, 17th January 1834, p.3.
197 Mona's Herald, 16th January 1836, p.2.
198 Mona's Herald, ibid.
199 Mona's Herald, 13th March 1835, p.3.
200 Mona's Herald, 17th January 1834, p.3.
201 Isle of Man Times, ibid.
202 Mona's Herald, 9th April 1836, p.3 &Laughton 1916, 94.
203 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VI, 11th November 1851, pp.270-277, & vol. IX, 23rd January 1860, pp.18-20.
204 Mona's Herald, 8th February 1860, p.3.
205 Mona's Herald, 1 1th January 1860, p.3.
206 Mona's Herald, 19th October 1861, p.3.
207 Mona's Herald, 19th October 1861, p.3.
208 Mona's Herald, 19th October 1861, p.3.
209 Mona's Herald, 6th November 1861, p.3.
210 Mona's Herald, 20th November 1861, p.2.
211 Mona's Herald, 18th December 1861, p.2.
212 Mona's Herald, 30th October 1861, p.2.
213 Governor's Letter Book, vol. HI, 12th June 1828, p.393.
214 Mona's Herald, 26th December 1835, p.3.
215 Mona's Herald, 27th February 1835, p.3.
216 Mona's Herald, 24th March 1839, p.3.
217 Mona's Herald, 26th March 1838, p.3 and Manx Liberal, 29th April 1848, p.3.
218 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 30th December 1845, pp.61-64.
219 In the four months since it's first publication, The Mona's
Herald sold 620 weekly and had a readership of
5000; the Sun founded ten years previously under its then present proprietor
sold 205 weekly and had 585 readers
and the Advertiser sold 180 weekly and had 400 readers. By 1848, another reforming
papers, The Isle of Man
Times, had the largest insular circulation of a Manx journal. Mona's Herald,
10th December 1833, p.3 & Isle of
Man Times, 22nd January 1848, p.2.
220 Mona's Herald, 22nd November 1833, p.3.
221 Manx Sun, 22nd November 1845, p.4.
222 Fyson 1992, 395.
223 Belchem 2001, 280.
224 RobertFargher's Scapbook, c.1860, p.8.
225 RobertFargher's Scapbook, ibid.
226 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 2nd May 1863, pp.589-596.
227 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 2nd May 1863, pp.589-596.
228 Laughton 1916, 70.
229 Mona's Herald, 9th February 1841, p.3.
230 Manks Advertiser, 20th October 1829, p.4.
231 Mona's Herald, 21st August 1834, p.3.
232 HO 45/6920, 22nd November 1862, 16307.
233 HO 45/3477, 29th April 1853.
234 Governor's Letter Book, vol. VI, 1st December 1851, pp.287-292.
235 Forster 1992, 25.
236 Mona's Herald, 20th March 1835, p.3.
237 Mona's Herald, 21st November 1837, p.3 & Manx Sun, 20th September 1833, p.2.
238 Manx Sun, 5th March 1833, p.4.
239 Chapman 1971, 14 & Harrison 2000, 361.
240 Forrest 1894, 26.
241 Manx Sun, 5th March 1841, p.4.
242 Mona's Herald, 24th April 1844, p.3.
243 Manx Sun, 8th October 1841, p.4.
244 Mona's Herald, 13th November 1838, p.2.
245 Mona's Herald, 16th February 1841, p.3.
246 Mona's Herald, ibid.
247 Manx Sun, 19th February 1841, p.4.
248 Mona's Herald, 8th December 1847, p.3.
249 HO 45/6920, 23rd January 1860, 2 & 27th February 1860, 1467. Mona's Herald, 8th December 1847, p.3.
250 1841 & 1861 Census for Douglas, Ramsey, Peel, and Castletown & Moore 1900, 646.
251 Mona's Herald, 3rd January 1849, p.3.
252 Mona's Herald, 7th April 1858, p.3.
253 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 2nd May 1863, pp.589-596
& Governor's Letter Books, vol. X, 16th February
1864, pp.135-145.
254 1841 Census.
255 Turnbull 1984, 83 & Belchem 2001, 418.
256 Mona's Herald, 2nd January 1836, p.2.
257 This was partly rectified by the Petty Sessons Act of 1864
which stated that if adetainee was unknown to the
police the trial could continue based on a description of the allegedoffence
and person. Gill, 1888, 175.
258 The Governors and Lieutenant Governors in this period were:
RichardDawson, 1775 - 1790; Alexander Shaw,
1790 - 1804; Lord Henry Murray, 1804 - 1805; Col. Cornelius Smelt, 1805 - 1832;
Col. John Ready, 1832 - 1845;
The Honourable Charles Hope, 1845 - 1860; Francis Stainsby-ConantPigott, 1860
- 1863 & Henry Brougham
Loch 1863-1882.
259 Moore 1900, 648.
260 Governor's Letter Book, vol. V, 17th November 1848, pp. 61-65.
261 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 10th February 1845, pp.536-542, & vol. V., 17th November 1848, pp.61-65.
262 House of Keys Journal (Legislature), vol. 1, 21st February
1785, pp.128-131, 18th December 1793, pp.225-228,
Governor's Letter Book, vol. H, 24th April 1806, p.33, vol. 111, 4th November
1825, pp.229-301, vol. IV, 13th
November 1838, pp.337-338, 29th March 1839, pp.351-352, 2nd July 1839, 363-364,
vol.. V, 15th May 1847,
pp.353-354 & Council Minutes, vol. 1, 15th November 1824, pp.430-431.
263 HO/98/76 & Governor's letter Book, Vol. III 19th March
1830, pp.430-478.
264 HO 98/76.
265 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 12th May 1847, pp.354-355.
266 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 2nd July 1839, p.63 &Mona's Herald, 16th February 1839, p.3.
267 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 28th November 1851, pp.283-4,
vol. IX, 26th November 1862, p.322, & HO 45/6920, 22nd November 1862.
268 HO 45/ 6920, 9th August 1866, 11746.
269 HO 45/6920, 9th June 1866, 33, & 6th July 1866, 34.
270 HO 45/6920, 9th June 1866, 33, & 6th July 1866, 34
& 9th August 1866, 11746.
271 HO 98/81, 26th November 1838.
272 HO 45/6920, 30th April 1863, 15.
273 HO 45/6920, 16th February 1864, 25.
274 HO 45/6920, 9th March 1865, 31.
275 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 2nd May 1863, pp.589-596.
276 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 2nd May 1863, pp.589-596.
277 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 27th April 1861, p.268.
278 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IV, 18th September 1839, pp.367-369, & vol. IX, 7th November 1861, pp.335-337.
279 Governor's Letter Book, vol. IX, 27th April 1861, p.268.
280 Manx Liberal, 26th September 1840, p.3.
281 Council Minutes, vol. H, 20th January 1837, pp.160-161.
282 Mona's Herald, 26th September 1863, p.3.
283 Tumbull 1984, 61.
284 Turnbull 1984, pp.61-62.
285 Turnbull 1984, pp.58-62.
286 Mona's Herald, 4th November 1863, p.3. For instance, from
1841 we know of at least two beats in Douglas,
one from the Victoria Hotel to the Bridge, the other, up Bridge Street to return,
then through Cattle Market Street,
and so on to Big Well Street. From there toAthol Street and return by the quay.
Manx Sun, 5th March 1841, p.4.
287 Gill 1888, pp. 125-148 & pp.149-176.
288 Fyson 1996, 395.
289 Moore 1900, pp.566-567 & pp.686-700.
290 Bird 1991, 250.
291 Bird 1991 (vol 11), pp.9-11.
292 Gill 1886, pp.274-278.
293 Forster 1992, 25.
294 Bawden, Garrad et al 1972, pp.26-27.
295 Bawden, Garrad et al 1972, pp.201-202.
296 Gill 1886, pp.14-22.
TABLES TO SHOW THE AVERAGE AGE OF POLICEMEN WHEN THEY JOINED THE
FORCE
|
Chief |
|||||||||||
|
Constables |
Year Born |
Appointed |
Age |
Served |
Place of Birth |
||||||
|
Bennet, |
1810 |
1853 |
43 |
Ramsey |
Ballaugh |
||||||
|
Claudius A. |
|||||||||||
|
Chesterman, |
1783 |
1830 |
47 |
Castletown |
England |
||||||
|
John |
|||||||||||
|
Cleater, Thomas 1773 |
1810 |
36 |
Douglas |
Braddan |
|||||||
|
Coole, James |
1785 |
1829 |
54 |
Peel |
Peel |
||||||
|
Douglas, John |
1779 |
1830 |
41 |
Ramsey |
Ramsey |
||||||
|
Keggin, Robert |
1809 |
1847 |
38 |
Ramsey |
Malew |
||||||
|
Sayle, John |
1813 |
1845 |
32 |
Douglas |
Douglas |
||||||
|
Average: |
42 |
||||||||||
|
Rural |
|||||||||||
|
Constables |
Year Born |
Appointed |
Age |
Served |
Place of Birth |
||||||
|
Cain, John |
1793 |
1841 |
48 |
Andreas |
Andreas |
||||||
|
Caugherty, |
1803 |
1854 |
51 |
Ballasalla |
Malew |
||||||
|
Henry |
|||||||||||
|
Champion, |
1807 |
1841 |
34 |
Malew |
England |
||||||
|
Abraham |
|||||||||||
|
Clark, Thomas |
1795 |
1841 |
46 |
Ballaugh |
Ballaugh |
||||||
|
Gillion, James |
1807 |
1841 |
42 |
Lonan |
Ireland |
||||||
|
Kaighan, |
1767 |
1820 |
53 |
Michael |
Michael |
||||||
|
Thomas |
|||||||||||
|
Qualtrough, |
1819 |
1841 |
22 |
Port St. Mary |
Rushen |
||||||
|
Henry |
|||||||||||
|
Taggart, Samuel 1793 |
1839 |
46 |
Santon |
St. Marks |
|||||||
|
Average: |
43 |
||||||||||
|
TownConstables |
Year Born Appointed |
Age |
Served |
Where Born |
|||||||
|
Callow, William 11821 185 |
30 |
Peel |
Onchan |
||||||||
|
Cannell, John |
1823 1845 |
23 |
Castletown |
Castletown |
|||||||
|
Christian, |
1779 1833 |
54 |
Douglas |
Douglas |
|||||||
|
Thomas |
|||||||||||
|
Clucas, Leece |
1805 1841 |
36 |
Peel |
Patrick |
|||||||
|
Collins, George |
1813 1841 |
28 |
Douglas |
England |
|||||||
|
Colquit, Edward 1796 1841 |
45 |
Castletown |
Castletown |
||||||||
|
Crow, William |
1829 1851 |
22 |
Peel |
Castletown |
|||||||
|
Harrison, James |
1811 1841 |
30 |
Castletown |
Castletown |
|||||||
|
Karran, |
1784 1831 |
46 |
Douglas |
Lonan |
|||||||
|
Christopher |
|||||||||||
|
Kennedy, Henry 1830 1856 |
26 |
Peel |
Patrick |
||||||||
|
Kermode, John |
1819 1853 |
34 |
Douglas |
Arbory |
|||||||
|
Kermode, |
1773 1825 |
52 |
Douglas |
St. Marks |
|||||||
|
Richard |
|||||||||||
|
Kewin, Thomas |
1800 1841 |
41 |
Ramsey |
Ramsey |
|||||||
|
Killey, John |
1821 1841 |
20 |
Ramsey |
Maughold |
|||||||
|
Lee, John |
1795 1841 |
46 |
Douglas |
German? |
|||||||
|
McMullin, |
1814 1841 |
27 |
Douglas |
Ireland |
|||||||
|
William |
|||||||||||
|
Preston, |
1803 1847 |
44 |
Ramsey |
Arbory |
|||||||
|
Thomas |
|||||||||||
|
Reid, William |
1778 1820 |
42 |
Castletown |
Castletown |
|||||||
|
Skillicorn, |
1824 1845 |
21 |
Ramsey |
Ramsey |
|||||||
|
Thomas |
|||||||||||
|
Wright, John |
1827 1849 |
22 |
Castletown |
Castletown |
|||||||
|
Average: |
34 |
||||||||||
|
Absolute Average: |
38 |
||||||||||
Accounts 9191/9/1 1760-1803
Castle Rushen Gaol Papers - 9783/1-2
Accounts of Prisoners,
vol. I., Apr. 1825 - Sept. 1836
vol. II, Sep. 1836 - Nov. 1844
vol. III, Nov. 1844 - Feb. 1850 9783/3/1
Offenders Book, vol. I., Apr. 1849 - Jul. 1855 9783/5/1
Offenders Book, vol. II, Dec. 1852 - May 1865
Council, Proclamations and Orders, Minutes - 9191/4/1-4
3rd Apr. 1772 - 14th Feb. 1824
23rd Apr. 1824 - 20th Oct. 1847
22nd Feb. 1848 - 29th Dec. 1857
10th Feb. 1858 - 30th Sep. 1870
Pigot & Co's Directory and Topography of the Isle of Man, (1837), London.
Slater's Commercial Directory of the Isle of Man, (1846), London.
Governor's Correspondence - 9845/1/1-10
17th Mar 1781 - 20th Nov. 1807
17th Oct. 1803 - 20th Aug. 1817
16th Aug. 1817 - 29th Aug. 1832
11th Dec. 1832 - 11th Jul. 1845
27th Aug. 1845 - 11th Jun. 1849
11th Jun. 1849 - 25th Nov. 1853
29th Nov. 1853 - 31st Dec. 1856
Ist Jan. 1857 - 29th Dec. 1859
2nd Jan. 1860 - 12th Oct. 1863
4th Oct. 1863 - 11th Mar. 1865
Government Office Papers -
Miscellaneous Nineteenth Cenutry Police Papers, Ace. 9845
Box 19, 21, 22
Ace. 9864, Box 38
Oaths of Constables, with signatures, 1765-1810
Isle of Man Census -
Census 1841, 1841 (on microfilm) CEN 1 & 2
Census 1851, 1861, 1871 (on microfilm) CEN 4-12
Census 1881, (on microfilm) CEN 13-16/17
Keys Journals -
9191/2/1-5
17th July 1760
13th Aug. 1763
22nd Mar 1854
12th Mar 1861
................1865
18th March 1853
25th May 1852
10th Aug. 18 60
17th June 1865
...............1867
Manuscripts: Diaries
Diary of Reverend William Kermode, 1584A.
A.W. Moore, Diary of Events, Public & Domestic, 1811-1892,167A/168A.
Scrapbook of Robert Bowring Fargher, 5435B.
Manuscripts: High Bailiffs
Who is the Chief Magistrate of Castletown? 2089B
Maps -
pDG.1.L. or PDG 2-3.L. J. Woods, 1833. A Map of Douglas, Isle of Man, 2 inch
3 chains. 36ins times
241/2
Manks Advertiser N43 - N48
Manx Liberal MN728 - MN730 (1801 - 1864)(1836 - 1850)
Manx Sun/Rising N50 - N61 (1821 -1864)
Mona's Herald N80 - N93 (1833 -1864)
(Originals)
Isle of Man Times 30th Jan. 1847, vol. I, No.2 - 2nd Nov. 1850, vol. XV, No.730
Isle of Man Parish Registers, circa 1610-1883 (on microfilm) PR1-PR30.
Records of Isle of Man Constabulary - Acc. No. 9310
Police Charge Book, 1863 - 1870
Police Charge Book, 1870 - 1878
Reports - 9191/15/1 1836- 1882
Tellet Papers 9880 c.1816 - 1860
Douglas Court Order Book, 6th November 1852 - 9th July 1859
Justice Order Book, Ramsey, 1864-1870
Magistrates Order Book, Peel, 1871-1892
HO 45 Home Office: Registered Papers, 1839 to 1979 (I.O.M.)
- Registered Papers 1841 - 1855
HO 45/3477 Date 1851 Police force- Registered Papers 1856 - 1871
HO 45/6920 Date 1860 - 1864 Police force: increase in pay of chief constable; and adoption of metropolitian Police standard cloth
Date 1865 - 1866 Police force: decrease in numbers and increase in pay
HO 98 Home Office: Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Isles of Scilly: Correspondence
and
Papers, 1782 to 1849 (I.O.M.)
HO 98/76 Date 1829 - 1830 Letters and Papers
HO 98/81 Date 1839 - Letters and Papers
Gill, J.F., (1883), The Statutes of the Isle of Man, vol. I.: From A.D. 1417 To A.D. 1824, London.
Gill, J.F., (1886), The Statutes of the Isle of Man, vol. 11: From A.D. 1824 To A.D. 1859, London.
Gill, J.F., (1888), The Statutes of the Isle of Man, vol. III: From A.D. 1860 To A.D. 1871, London.
Gill, J.F., (1891), The Statutes of the Isle of Man, vol. IV: From A.D. 1872 To A.D. 1878, London.
International Genealogical Index - F. 0001 - F. 0015, A-Z, Isle of Man circa 1610-1883. Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
Instructions for the Ramsey Constabulary Force, (1840), Douglas.
Robertson, R. (1794 repr. 1970), A Tour Through the Isle of Man; to which is Appended a Revision of Manks History, Frank Graham.
The Examination of Mr Thomas Whittam, Chief Constable of the Town & District
of Douglas, in the
Isle of Man, Taken the 3rd of October 1791, in 'The Constitution of the
Isle of Man, Manx Society,
(1902) vol. XXXI, No.61, pp.260-261, Douglas, Isle of Man.
The Examination of Mr Matthias Taggart of Castletown, Gentleman & Constable and Captain of the Garrison of Castle Rushen, in 'The Constitution of the Isle of Man, Manx Society (1902) vol. XXXI, No.51, pp.244-245, Douglas, Isle of Man.
Bawden, T.A., L.S. Garrad, J.K. Qualtrough & J.W. Scratchard, (1972), Industrial Archaeology of The Isle of Man, David & Charles: Newton Abbot.
Belchem, J. C., (1992), Radical Entrepreneur: William Shirref and the Manx
Free Press of the 1840s,
Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, vol. X No.I.
Belchem, J. (2000) The Onset of Modernity, 1830-80 in A New History of the Isle of Man, vol. V, The Modern Period 1830-1999, J. Belchem (ed.), Liverpool University Press.
Best, G. (1979) Mid-Victorian Britain 1851-75, Fontana.
Bird, H., (1991) An Island That Led - The History of Manx Education (vol. 11), Manx National Heritage.
Briggs, A. (1959) The Age of Improvement, Longman.
Cain, T.W., (1996) Constitutional Reform in the Twentieth Century, Manx National History and Antiquarian Society, vol. X, No. III, pp.201-224.
Chapman, E.V. (1971) The Story of Methodism in the Isle of Man - Interim Report, Manx Methodist Historical Society.
Chappell, C. (1981) The Dumbell Affair, Stephenson and Sons Ltd.
Cowin, J. (1902) Remiscense of Notable Douglas Citizens and a Review of Manx Men & Manners Fifty Years Ago, Clucas & Fargher.
Craine, D. (1955) Manannin's Isle: A Collection of Manx Historical Essays, Manx Museum and National Heritage.
Creer, H. (2000) Never to Return: The Story of Manx Prisoners Transported to the Penal Colonies, Manx Heritage Foundation.
Elwell, T.E., (1908), The History of the Manx Police, The Manx Quarterly Journal, No. 5, pp.456-460. S.K. Broadbent & Co.
Elmsley, C., (1987), Crime And Society In England 1750 - 1900, Longman.
Elmsley, C. (1996) The English Police: A Political and Social History, Longman.
Forster, R.E.C., (1962) The Reformist Movement In 1837, Manx National History
and Antiquarian
Society, vol. VI, No. III, pp.379-387.
Forster, R.E.C., (1992) Aspects of Manx Emigration, 1750-1850, Manx National
History and
Antiquarian Society, vol. X, No. I, pp.23-32.
Forrest, K.A., (1894) Manx Reminiscences, James Brown & Son.
Fyson, R.C., (1992) Bronterre O'Brien: A Chartist in the Isle of Man 1844-1847, Isle of Man and Natural History and Antiquarian Society, vol. X, No.IV, pp.393-401.
Gelling, J., (1988), A History of the Manx Church 1698-1911, Manx Heritage Foundation.
Harrison, A. (2000) Religion in the Nineteenth Century in A New History of the Isle of Man, vol. V The Modern Period 1830-1999, J. Belchem (ed.), Liverpool University Press.
Kelly, B.H. (1960) Some Reflections on Church and State in the Time of Bishop Wilson, Manx National History and Antiquarian Society, vol. VI, No.III., pp.324-340.
Kissack, R. (1988) John Wesley and the Coming of Methodism in the Isle of Man, Isle of Man Methodist Historical Society.
Laughton, F.H., (1916) High Bailiff Laughton's Reminiscences, Douglas.
McLeod, H. (1996) Religion and Society in England, 1850-1914, Macmillan.
Moore, A.W. (1900), A History of the Isle Of Man, (in two volumes), Manx Museum and National Trust.
Platten, J.A. (1999) Mid-Seventeenth Century Church Court Presentments in the Isle of Man: Social Control or Salvation for Sinners?, (Unpublished MA Dissertation), The University of Liverpool.
Radcliffe, J.W. & C.K. (1979) A History of Maughold, Manx Museum and National Trust.
Radcliffe, C.K. (1989) Shining by the Sea: A History of Ramsey 1800 - 1914, C. Radcliffe.
Serjeant, W.R. (1961) Castle Rushen Gaol, Manx National History and Antiquarian Society, vol. VI, No.1111., pp.277-294.
Slack, S. (1996) Streets of Douglas - Old and New, Mannin.
Turnbull, G., (1984) The History of the Isle of Man Constabulary, Douglas.
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||