Transcription of the Article from the Liverpool Mercury, Friday 15 February 1839
REWARDS TO POLICE-OFFICERS
At the Police-office, on Friday last, a publican by the name of George Upton was summoned before the Magistrates on an information, charging him with having, at eleven o’clock on the night of the 14th ult., a number of prostitutes and men in his house, who were fighting and creating a great disturbance. There was a second information for a similar offence, said to have been committed on the 6th ult. When the informing police officer had stated his charge, Mr. Hall inquired from him whether he expected any reward for the information which he had laid. The police-officer replied that he expected 5s, whether conviction took place or not. He afterwards stated that, on the last occasion on which he brought an information, the offending party offered him £10 to quash it; that he refused the bribe and laid the information; that the party was convicted in the penalty of 2s. 6d. and costs; and that he received a reward of 5s., and the witnessing police-officer 2s. 6d.
Mr. Hall then said, after some observations upon the particular case before him, that he had committed to writing a few remarks upon the subject of rewards to police-constables, which he had done in order that no erroneous interpretation of his opinions and statements might go forth. He then read a written statement, which, after alluding to the proceedings of the Watch Committee and the Council, proceeded as follows:
“The observations which were made by me in this place were based upon the testimony of policemen (officers as well as privates) at various times, and in various cases, in open court. According to the evidence uniformly given by them in answer to questions put by prisoners and persons informed against, by professional gentlemen acting as advocates, and likewise by myself, the system of rewards appeared to me such as materially to affect the credit of the policemen who were examined, in the absence of any corroborative facts.
In this office, a Magistrate unites the functions of judge and jury; and if he finds that there are grounds for thinking that witnesses, be they constables or not, are or may be influenced in their testimony by the hope of reward, he must of necessity have some doubt in his mind, and, doubting, he is bound by every principle of law, justice, and common sense, to give the benefit of such doubt to the party accused, whether that person is to suffer in person or pocket.
It was again and again distinctly admitted, on different days and on different occasions, that if they (the constables) should succeed in convicting, they looked for the same pecuniary reward as they had received on former convictions. Others said, still more undisguisedly, ‘We get nothing if the prisoner is acquitted.’ One policeman, who has been some time in the force, stated, ‘I never but once convicted a prisoner before you, and I then got half-a-crown.’
These statements and similar ones will be in the recollection of professional gentlemen and others, who are in the habit of attending here. The questions were distinctly put and distinctly answered. In consequence of the statements here made on oath, this rule was pursued by me and others—whenever a party charged admitted the offence, he was convicted; if he denied it, and there was no confirmatory evidence, he was acquitted. In all cases, save one, my brother Magistrates and myself received the testimony, and in that solitary instance, we deemed it unnecessary to go further, being satisfied with the statements on oath of a superintendent, who never received rewards.
Having thus shown on what grounds I proceeded, I will now very briefly advert to a statement in the case submitted by the Watch Committee to counsel, and which constitutes the very essence and pith of the question.
‘I find this statement therein, and counsel must of necessity have been influenced by it in their consideration of the matter:—“Neither in felonies nor in informations is the reward made dependent on commitment or conviction.” No such statement was ever made to me by the constables examined. Their evidence was directly the reverse. They who received the rewards swore that, in their opinion, they depended on conviction and commitment. They who gave the rewards say “they do not depend upon conviction.”
Nothing, therefore, stated in the cases by counsel militates against any one expression I ever uttered respecting what fell from the officers from time to time. Upon other parts of the cases, touching the policy and justice of the system alleged in the report to be that which is really adopted by the Watch Board, it is not my intention to say one word, inasmuch as such matters never came under my notice here, and I know nothing of the facts which form the groundwork of the report, beyond what I have read in the cases. I have no wish to do more than to prove that, in the absence of any communication on the subject from the Watch Committee, I had nothing to guide me but the facts disclosed upon oath in this office, in answer to questions put by me in consequence of complaints made by prisoners brought before me; and, in observing on the system, as it appeared here, I think I did only my duty as a Magistrate, holding my appointment under the Crown.
Even now, whatever the system may be—still, if the officers swear that they look for reward in one event alone, namely, that of conviction, I must distrust their evidence; and I never can conscientiously convict when I have a doubt founded on fair and rational grounds.
I lament much to have occasion to say anything at any time which may give the slightest offence; but I could not avoid making observations on the facts detailed in this court. My desire always has been, and still is, to maintain a good understanding and harmony with public bodies, in like manner as I have done with my brother Magistrates, between whom and myself there has been nothing but kind feeling. I do hope that these remarks of mine will show that counsel have not controverted any principle for which I contended, and that I have not been placed in a false position.”
Mr. Hall then stated that he should place this record of his sentiments (which he had read) in the hands of Mr. Shuttleworth, in order that it might be referred to should occasion require.
Analysis: What is the Article About?
This article discusses a case heard at the Liverpool Police Office, where a publican named George Upton was charged with allowing disorderly behaviour in his establishment. The case, however, evolved into a broader discussion about police rewards and their influence on law enforcement practices.
The key points raised include:
- Police officers receiving rewards (monetary incentives) for successful convictions, regardless of the validity of their testimony.
- Concerns over bribery and corruption, with one officer admitting to being offered £10 to drop a charge.
- The credibility of police testimony, as some officers explicitly admitted they would receive nothing if a defendant was acquitted.
- Legal and ethical implications, as Magistrate Hall expressed doubts about convicting individuals based on potentially biased police testimony.
The Role of the Police in 1839 Liverpool
In 1839, the modern police force was still in its infancy. The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 had only recently established a professional force in London, and provincial cities like Liverpool were developing their own policing structures. The Liverpool Borough Police had been formed in 1836, but bribery, corruption, and improper practices (such as police officers profiting from convictions) were common concerns.
This article highlights a key issue in early policing: whether financial incentives for officers led to justice or simply encouraged convictions regardless of guilt. The case reflects wider Victorian concerns about justice, law enforcement, and police accountability.
For historians and family historians, this article is valuable as it provides insight into policing practices in Liverpool during the early Victorian period. It could be relevant for those researching ancestors involved in law enforcement or the justice system during this era.
The Liverpool Mercury
The Liverpool Mercury, established in 1811 by Egerton Smith, was a prominent English newspaper based in Liverpool. Initially a weekly publication, it catered to the city’s bustling port activities and commercial interests. Over time, the newspaper expanded its focus to include both national and international news, extending its reach to regions such as Lancashire, Wales, the Isle of Man, and London.
Following Smith’s death in 1841, the newspaper was managed by his widow and son. In 1858, the Mercury transitioned to a daily publication schedule, with an extended edition released on Fridays. By 1880, it proudly advertised its weekly edition as comprising seventy-two long columns, positioning it among the largest newspapers globally.
The Liverpool Mercury was renowned for its in-depth coverage of local social issues. Regular columns, notably those by Hugh Shimmin in 1855–56, shed light on the challenges of urban life, including poverty and degradation. Successive editors leveraged such articles to spearhead political campaigns advocating for improvements in housing, public health, and moral reforms within Liverpool.
In 1904, the Liverpool Mercury merged with the Liverpool Daily Post, resulting in the formation of the Liverpool Daily Post and the Liverpool Mercury. The inaugural edition of this combined publication was issued on 14 November 1904.
Throughout its existence, the Liverpool Mercury maintained a steadfast commitment to reformist and Liberal principles, significantly influencing public opinion and championing social progress in Liverpool and its surrounding regions.
Bribery, Rewards, and Justice: 1839 Liverpool Police Under Scrutiny
#LiverpoolPolice #VictorianCrime #History #19thCenturyJustice #Corruption #LiverpoolHistory #PoliceReform #Bribery #LegalHistory
