POLICE.

The word Police has two meanings. According to the first, it is the science of regulating whatever belongs to the internal economy of a state; according to the second, or limited meaning, it is merely a system of preventive justice.

The first definition may appear so extensive, as to make it possible to confound the idea of the science of police with that of politics, or government, as defined by Aristotle to consist of the ordering of all things in the state towards the ultimate end, namely, the common happiness. But the distinction may be understood, by comparing the operation of police regulations in society, to that of a system of domestic order in a family. The members of a commonwealth, like those of a family, must conform their conduct to certain conventional rules, which the chief authority enforces amongst them, for their mutual advantage, in addition to the moral duties which belong to them in common with all men. A breach of an economical law of this description, is an offence against police. Thus, whilst an assault, or a theft, is an offence against the person, or property, of a citizen; treason, one against the sovereign power; or perjury, one against the administration of justice; vagrancy, gaming, bigamy, and the like, are understood to be offences against the public police, upon the ground that the tendency of such acts, without reference to the question of their immorality, is injurious to the economy of society.^[1. See an enumeration of offences treated by the English law as “against the public police or economy,” in Blackstone’s Commentaries, book 4, chap. 13; and Stephen’s Summary of the Criminal Law, chap. 11. ]

But it is the office of police, taken in a large sense, to go farther than forbidding certain injurious acts. It may employ indirect means to prevent the commission of crimes. It may seek to avert the will of the citizen from a breach of the law, by turning his inclinations into a direction conformable to the public interests. Thus, it may avoid the use of any punishment containing ingredients which might make it an object of desire; it may take all possible care that punishment shall be certain; it may cultivate religious sentiments in thepeople; it may instruct them in their moral and social duties, and provide them with the means of agreeable recreation.^[2. See, on the indirect means of preventing crimes, Bentham, Principles of Legislation, penal code, part 4. ] The object of such precautions is the same with that of punishment, namely, the prevention of crime; inasmuch as they tend to impress the citizens with a sense of right, acting educationally upon them, like the virtuous principles which a good father instils into the minds of his children. Hence the science of police has been described by a contemporary authority, as “the moral education of a people towards self-government.”^[3. Conversations* Lexico, vol. viii. 1835, art. Polizei ]

It is pretty clear, that police, in this extended sense of internal polity, comprehends the protection of society against not only physical, but also moral evils. The regulation of the highways, and internal navigation; the care of the public health; poor laws or corn laws, may be classed under it with no less propriety than public instruction, or religious establishments. The true ground on which an established church is defensible, is, its value as an instrument of police in this elevated sense; and the same test is applicable to national education, and other institutions, affecting the moral welfare of society.

The present state of moral and political science is not such as to enable us to define police with anything like precision. But if what has been said, does not convey an accurate notion of that which it is, it may point more plainly at that which it is not. No one, for instance, will expect to hear of police in relation to the external defence, or foreign policy, of a state. Few will confound its objects with those of the dispensations of justice which are directed to the maintenance of private rights, or to the security of the state itself, as a social existence.

The second, or limited definition, of police, considers it as that branch of the administration of justice, which operates directly for the prevention and detection of crime. It is the judicial function to hear and determine between right and wrong, and to sentence the offender to the punishment which the law has awarded him. But the judge cannot be brought into action, without an auxiliary power for securing the persons of offenders for justice; for checking crimes in the act of commission; and for watching the observance, or breach, of the laws. This is the preventive branch of justice; and the system of operations destined for the performance of these services, goes, in ordinary language, under the name of police. The object of such operations is of course included within those of the term police, in a larger sense, and preventive justice is therefore their more appropriate name. Under a good system of law, the powérs, means, and ends, of preventive justice, would be carefully defined; so that they should, in no case, be confounded with those of penal or executive justice, nor the same individuals be employed in the performance of duties essentially different. But this important distinction has rarely been attended to as it ought, and the efficiency of police establishments has been thereby not unfrequently impaired. At the present time there is, we believe, no instance of the police of a large city which, as a whole, can be said to be merely a preventive system; but a variety of functions are associated under the name of police, contributing to the preservation of the public peace, health, and convenience, but the classification of which is, for the most part, defective. There are, therefore, few perfect systems of police, either in the wide or the limited sense which, it has been seen, properly belongs to that word.

Before we proceed to point out the essential requisites of a good police system, it will be useful to take a review of some existing institutions of this nature.

From the earliest times, all nations which have established regular laws, have had amongst them police regulations. They form a prominent part of the institutions of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, and also of the Mosaic law. A special branch of the Roman law was applied to police. The Emperor Augustus, as is well known, introduced important changes into the police of the city of Rome, by withdrawing the powers previously exercised by the Praetors and Ediles, and constituting a magistrate under the title of Praefectus urbis, under whom were the magistratus minores, or curatores urbis, assigned for the protection of the several quarters into which the city was divided. In the reigns of Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian, very severe laws were enacted against female prostitution. The capitularies of Charlemagne are remarkable for the heavy penalties they inflict upon the same offence, which seems also to have been a favourite subject of regulation with Saint Louis, and [7:18:249]Charles VI. of France. In 1502, we find police regulations established at Nuremburg, relating principally to the censorship of books; and there are extant,, ordinances of police of the German empire, of the dates of 1548 and 1577, containing distinct ordinances for the empire, the circles, the counties, and the towns. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the science of police acquired a new development, by the introduction into France of the system of secret police, to which we shall presently refer. There does not appear any particular advantage in detailing at length the police legislation of antiquity, or of the middle ages. It will, we think, be more instructive to confine our statements to modem times.

The provision made for preventive justice by the old law of England, consisted in the powers which it vested in justices of the peace and constables, as also in individuals, when present at the commission of crime, or summoned by the hue and cry. The office of constable existed in the time of the Saxons, and the statute of Winchester (!3th Edward I.) expressly directed that two constables should be chosen in every hundred; that suspicious night-walkers should be arrested and detained by the watch; and that in walled towns the gates should be closed from sun-setting to sun-rising. These are called high constables; in addition to whom petty constables were instituted for every town and parish in the reign of Edward III. and especially empowered by the statute 5th Edward III. cap. 44, “to arrest persons suspected of manslaughter, felonies, and robberies, and to deliver them to the sheriff, to be kept in prison till the coming of the justices.” The hue and cry is the raising an alarm, and making continuous pursuit through the country, upon the commission of a felony, and was used as far back as the reign of Edward I., when it was comparatively easy by such means to discover a criminal flying from the law. At the present day, when the hue and cry is raised, every person, by command of the constable, is legally obliged, on pain of fine and imprisonment, to join in pursuit of the felon from county to county, or until they come to the sea; but it is now so rarely put in practice, that it may be considered as having almost fallen into desuetude. It is further an old rule of law, that every person present when a felony is committed, is authorized and required to arrest the offender. In early times, it seems to have been the custom for the freeholders of each county to elect “de probioribus et po-tentioribus comitatus,” to be keepers of the peace; but the statute 1st Edward IIL, cap. 16, gave such appointments to the crown, by whom they still continue to be made. When the keepers of the peace became authorized by the statute 34th Edward III. to try felonies and misdemeanours, they acquired the title of justices; and their judicial functions have been so vastly extended by modern statutes, that the mere conservation of the peace is now by no means the most important part of their duties. Such were the ordinary courses available, under the law of England, for the prevention of crime, and for bringing offenders to justice.

As population and property increased, it was found that the ordinary magisterial and constabulary force became more and more inadequate for the public protection. It is not necessary to refer to the Newgate Calendar, or the life of Jonathan Wild, to prove the total absence of any effectual security to individuals, in the last century, against outrage and depredation. It is within the remembrance of persons now living, that a journey could not be undertaken from one part of England to another without risk of highwayrobbery. The extent of crime in the metropolis at the close of the last century would be incredible, if it were not recorded upon respectable authority. Colqunoun, writing in the year 1800,^[4. Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis, by P. Colquhoun, LL.D·, magistrate, &c. London, 1806, seventh edition. ] estimated the value of the property purloined and pilfered in various ways, in and about the metropolis, at two millions sterling in one year. Some of the instances given would now appear very curious.^[5. The following is one :—“The wife of a well-known sharper, lately upon the town, is said to have appeared at court, dressed in a style of peculiar elegance; while the sharper himself is supposed to have gone in the dress of a clergyman. According to the information of a noted receiver, they pilfered to the value of L.1700 on the king’s birthday (1795), without discovery or suspicion." ] The same writer furnishes a statement of the number of prisoners discharged from the metropolitan gaols and hulks in the eight years, 1792 to 1799, the total of which is 21,893, being, on an average, 2734 yearly; a very considerable number in proportion to the then population. The almost innumerable ramifications of crime in London, as detailed by Colquhoun, may excite surprise at the little effort that was made in any quarter before he wrote to repress it.

The public office in Bow Street was for some time the only place in the metropolis where a police magistrate sat regularly, without the jurisdiction of the city of London. Seven additional police offices were established in 1792, by the act 32d Geo. III. cap. 53, and the Thames police-office in 1798. Previously to their establishment, the magistrates of the county of Middlesex, and city of Westminster, acted as occasion required, in the same way as the magistrates ordinarily act in other parts of the country.

The constabulary force of the metropolis, comprising that of the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark, and parts adjacent, is stated by Colquhoun at 883; that consisting of the constables attached to the police offices and the Thames establishment, at 157; and, adding to these 2044 beadles, watchmen, and patroles, employed by the city, and by the numerous parishes and trusts, the civil force of the metropolis, available for purposes of police, amounted, in the aggregate, to 3084 men.

The Parliamentary Finance Committee of 1798, in their Twenty-eighth Report, took a general view of the Police Establishment, in reference principally to its expense; but although that committee recommended several important reforms, and, in the same year, the Government had under its consideration a proposition of Mr. Colquhoun for the establishment of a central police board, and other remedial measures, no result followed. The progress of crime and demoralization, however, began gradually to attract the attention of the Legislature, and Parliamentary Committees inquired into the subject of police in the years 1812, 1816, 1817, 1822, and 1828. At the latter date the necessity for a new system had become very urgent. The metropolis was subdivided into a number of petty jurisdictions, each acting independently, and frustrating the efforts of the other; the local functionaries were miserably inefficient; the absence of union in the constabulary power offered facilities to crime and disorder; and in the event of any real or anticipated tumult, it was necessary to preserve the peace of the town by a military force. In 1829, the act 10th Geo. IV. cap. 44, was passed, “for improving the police in and near the metropolis ;” and pursuant to that act, a central office was established in London, and two commissioners appointed for the administration of a system of centralization, in lieu of the local functionaries. The metropolitan police district, according to that act, consists of about ninety parishes, and ultra-parochial places, in and surrounding the metropolis, comprising a population at present amounting to 1,515,592, but exclusive of the city of London and the river Thames. The active force employed under the commissioners at the close of the year 1837, was as follows :—

17 Superintendents at L.200 per annum each.

70 Inspectors at L.l, 10s. 6d. per week each.

342 Sergeants at L.l, 2s. 6d. per week each.

2992 Constables at 19s∙ per week each.
[7:18:250]

The horse patrol, formerly attached to Bow Street, and recently^[6. Under Act 6th and 7th, Will. IV. cap. 50. ] placed under the commissioners, consists of seventy-six men, mounted and armed.

There are at present in London nine police-offices, to each of which three magistrates are attached. These are, Bow Street, Queen Square, Marlborough Street, Marylebone, Hatton Garden, Worship Street, Whitechapel, Union Hall, and the Thames Police. Constables are specially attached to each office, sixty-three altogether, besides twenty-two surveyors, and seventy river constables, belonging to the Thames police.

The total expense of these establishments appears by the latest returns to be as follows :—
[table]

The expenses of the metropolitan force are defrayed principally by a rate levied with the poor rate, upon the inhabitants. A certain proportion, however, is paid out of the consolidated fund; but the advances by the treasury are limited to L.60,000 per annum. The expenses of the nine offices, including the Thames service, and also the commissioners’ salaries, are wholly defrayed out of the consolidated fund.

The city of London is not included within the metropolitan district, but retains its separate police, acting under the municipal authorities. Upwards of 1000 persons are employed as marshalmen, watchmen, and constables, and the total annual cost is returned at L.43,862, of which L.34,924 was levied by rates upon the inhabitants, and the residue paid out of the city revenue.^[9. See Parliamentary Return, 13th June 1836. ]

The functions of the metropolitan police force are exercised under the control partly of the commissioners, and partly of the magistrates. They are distributed throughout the district in seventeen divisions, distinguished by the letters A to V. In each division there are one or more station houses, in which prisoners are lodged in the first instance, on their being given in charge, or taken into custody, until they can be brought before the magistrates at the police offices. Prisoners consequently remain in the station-houses during the night, and also during Sundays. When the case comes on before the magistrate, he deals with it as the law requires, either by discharging the offender, committing him for trial or further examination, convicting him summarily, or holding him to bail.

λVhen a complaint is made to a police magistrate, he issues his warrant as he sees occasion, either to a constable attached to his office, or to one of the metropolitan force. The commissioners of police, although as magistrates they have the legal power to do so, are not in the habit of granting warrants; and the policemen cannot arrest without warrant, unless a charge is made, or an offence is committed in their presence. They have in fact little power beyond that of an ordinary constable, except that the police acts contain more express authority for the apprehension of suspected persons, than the laws which apply to the kingdom in general.

The means of detecting crime have been greatly augmented by the action of the central police establishment, but it may be doubted whether its operation is as efficient as it might be made towards the hindrance of crime, or the preventing its commission. Numerous receivers of stolen goods continue to carry on their business with impunity, and flashhouses still exist in the metropolis, where thieves are known to congregate to concert their plans. There are no authorised informers belonging to the police force.

The subjoined table, compiled from official returns, will shew the extent to which the central police force is brought into action in the course of the year.
[table]

The circumstance of more than half of the persons taken into custody, having been discharged without punishment, cannot fail to be remarked as indicating unnecessary detention to a serious extent. The remedy for this lies in an improved system of bail and recognizances.

Of the 64,416 persons apprehended in the year 1837, it appears that 5643 were charged with offences against the person, 180 with violent offences against property, 15,289 with larcenies and other offences against property co⅛mit- ted without violence, 1727 with malicious offences against property, 884 with forgery and offences against the currency, and 40,684 with offences of a miscellaneous character. Of this latter class, it is worthy of remark, that 21,426 were charged with drunkenness, 3103 as disorderly prostitutes, and 6842 as reputed thieves, suspicious characters, and vagrants. It should be borne in mind that these offenders are exclusive of those apprehended by the city police, and the constables attached to the offices.

The police magistrates are occupied not only in the disposal of the offenders brought before them, but in some matters not of a criminal character, such as the administration of the poor-laws, and other duties conferred by particular statutes. A reference to Burn’s Justice will shew the wide range of a magistrate’s duty. They have some few, but very limited, powers, in civil cases. They act, in some measure, ministerially, in planning the detection of offenders, and shaping the evidence towards their conviction. There are, however, good reasons for desiring that the magistrates should be entirely confined to their judicial functions.

The law of England has never· entrusted the constabulary, nor has it armed the central police, with any general power of personal surveillance over the people. The law which is the most stringent against disorderly or suspicious persons, is the vagrant act,^[10. 5th Geo. IV. cap. 83. ] which in fact authorises the magistrate to punish, without any direct proof of the commission of a crime; and the metropolitan police acts^[11. Geo. IV. cap. 44, and 3d Will. IV. cap. 19. ] have somewhat extended the description of persons who may be apprehended and dealt with as rogues and vagabonds, according to the first mentioned act. In so populous and wealthy a city as London, it is indispensable that summary powers should be vested in the magistracy for the protection of the public against those who live by depredation, and who have neither “a local habitation nor a name,” as securities for their good behaviour. It is officially recorded that in the year 1837, the number of depredators, offenders, and suspected persons, within the cognizance of the central police, was 19,919, being in the ratio of 1 to each 83 of the population[7:18:251]; and as the average length of the career of each offender is estimated at about four years, the danger to property from the existence of such a floating mass of crime is sufficiently apparent. Far from the apprehension of peril to the liberty of the subject, from a further extension of the summary powers of the magistrates, the better opinion seems at present to be, that they might be extended with advantage even to all cases of larceny.

There are in London at present about thirty common gambling-houses known to the police,and the average number of persons daily resorting to each is about twenty. The police has not, however, any summary control over them, but they are subject to indictment by any common informer. Colquhoun reckoned forty-three gambling-houses, including seven subscription-houses of the first class, and supposed the yearly aggregate of money won and lost in them to be L.7,225,000. There are no means of knowing what may be the amount of play in the club-houses of the present day, but we entertain no doubt whatever that Colquhoun’s estimate was altogether an exaggeration. The number of persons charged with gambling in London in the year 1837 was 366.

There exists no medical police in this country of the kind which we find specially established in some parts of the continent. The exercise of the medical profession is subject to conditions imposed by law. We have quarantine laws, under the superintendence of the officers of the customs revenue; and the laws which prohibit the sale of unwholesome food are rather enforced by the officers of markets, than by any branch of the police service. A Board of Health was appointed for a special purpose, during the late visitation of the cholera, but there has never been any permanent establishment of this nature. The inquiry, how far such an establishment would be expedient, suggests itself chiefly as regards female prostitution. The existing law only subjects prostitutes to punishment as in case of disorderly conduct, and houses of ill-fame are only liable to indictment, not to summary visitation. The consideration of protecting the public against the spread of diseases, has not hitherto entered into the policy of our legislation, so as to subject prostitutes to any medical visitation; nor are they restricted from walking the streets, or frequenting places of public amusement. We shall presently notice the very different way in which this matter is treated in France. In the mean time, it is satisfactory to mention, that the extent of prostitution in London is, in truth, nothing like that which the notions of some writers have formed of it. Instead of there being 50,000 prostitutes in the metropolis, as estimated by Colquhoun, the actual number known to the police in 1837 was as follows :—

Prostitutes, well-dressed, living in brothels, 895

Ditto, well-dressed, walking the streets, 1612

Ditto, low, infesting low neighbourhoods,...3864

Total, ....6371

The number of brothels, in which prostitutes are kept, was 933, having an average number of four in each; the number of houses of ill-fame to which they resort, 848; and that of houses in which they lodge, 1554. Such appears from the best authority to be the real state of the case.^[12. The statistics throughout this paper are quoted on the authority of official documents. ]

A daily police report of the proceedings, and of the informations received at the several police-offices, is printed for the use of the magistrates and officers; and an official newspaper, called the Hue and Cry or Police Gazette, is also circulated amongst the authorities, throughout the kingdom.

During the sessions of 1837 and 1838, a select committee of the House of Commons, appointed on the motion of Mr. Hawes, inquired into the state of the metropolis police, and recommended various important improvements in its management. Amongst these arc the consolidation of the several constabulary forces of the metropolis and the river Thames, including those of the city of London, under one authority; the confinement of the magistrates to judicial duties; the extension of their summary jurisdiction to all cases of larceny, and also to many civil cases; the augmentation of the officer’s power to arrest; the improvement of the bail system; and the better regulation of the police-offices, with a view to the public accommodation. Our limits do not permit us to discuss the advantages of these reforms. Suffice it to say, that they are of the utmost importance to the efficiency of the police service; and that until they are effected, the metropolis will not be adequately protected against crime and disorder.^[13. See the valuable Report of this Committee (Session 1838); also the Edinburgh Review, No. 134, Art “Police of the Metropolis.” ]

The English rural police is of two kinds; that established in the principal cities and towns, and that of the rural districts properly so called. In the former case, it is exercised by the municipal magistracies, and the constabularies acting under them; in the latter, it is vested in the justices of the peace, and constables acting under the old law to which we have adverted.

The cities and towns in which a police has been established upon the same system as that of the metropolis, are, Liverpool, Bristol, Bath, Hull, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Other towns have their police, more or less efficient, but regulated upon plans of their own, either prescribed by the municipalities, or by local Acts of Parliament.

The only instance that we are aware of, in which a special rural police has been established in England, is in Cheshire, by an act passed in 1829,^[14. Geo. IV. cap. 97. ] entitled “An Act to enable the magistrates of the county palatine of Chester to appoint special high constables for the several hundreds or divisions, and assistant petty constables for the several townships of that county.” This act has provided the county with a comparatively efficient constabulary, whose duties and conduct are prescribed and superintended with more accuracy and vigilance than in any other part of the country.

But, however efficient, within an isolated district, may be this or that police establishment, it will have little effect towards the prevention or hindrance of crime in the aggregate, unless a regular chain of communication be maintained throughout the country; unless vigilance be made to circulate; unless, in short, there be centralization. This consideration induced the Government to issue a commission, dated the 20th of October 1836, the commissioners under which were directed to inquire into the best means of establishing a constabulary force in the English counties, with an especial view to the prevention of offences, and with regard to any proceedings before trial by which the detention and apprehension of offenders might be rendered more certain; also to inquire into the public services which might be obtained from such a force, either in the preservation of peace, and due protection of property, or enforcing the more regular observance of law; and into the maimer in which such force should be appointed and paid. At the time we write, the commissioners have not made their report, but there is reason to believe that a very valuable one will soon be produced.

That it is perfectly practicable to organize a constabulary force for the whole kingdom, acting under a central authority in the metropolis, and governed by a gradation of superior and responsible officers, cannot be doubted. Nor is it much less clear, that the public morality, and the interests of property would be greatly promoted by such a measure. It especially deserves notice, that, in the rural districts, the [7:18:252]delinquents are almost entirely of the vagrant class, being either habitual depredators, or vagrants asking alms. Now, the only law for the constant control of these habitual delinquents, is the vagrant act before cited, which experience has shewn to be by no means sufficient. Few offences are committed within the view of a constable; therefore the constabulary seldom acts but upon information, and as there is no special obligation upon any one to communicate information, the enforcement of the law is so far dependent upon chance. Then, the ancient practice of pursuit by hue and cry having fallen into disuse, the vagrant depredators referred to, go from county to county, taking up their temporary abode in common lodging-houses, the number of which has much increased of late years, and so pursue their career with impunity. Of the habitual depredators within the cognizance of the metropolitan police in 1837, 2712 were known to be vagrant; in Bristol 605 were so known; in Hull 303; and in Newcastle 454. From 18,000 to 20,000 vagrants are annually committed to prison throughout the country. They assume different names as occasion requires, and to identify them, or ascertain their real history, is usually a matter of great difficulty.

One of the indirect means enumerated by Bentham for the prevention of crime, was a system of proper names, by which an appellation should be assigned to each individual, indicative of his family and birth-place, and distinguishing him from all other persons whatsoever. Bentham also recommended, in certain cases, the affixing marks on the skin, such as are imprinted by sailors on their bodies, with gunpowder, at the present day. The old law of England branded all laymen who had once been admitted to the benefit of clergy, by burning them with a hot iron in the brawn of the left thumb, in order to distinguish their persons for the future. Now, it is worthy of consideration, whether the rationale of branding is not still applicable to the cases of all offenders once convicted of crime? It is very desirable that all persons of suspicious character should, for a limited period after their liberation, be so distinguished from others, as to enable the police to have a knowledge of their movements. It is also desirable, for their own sake, as well as that of the public, that such individuals should, as far as possible, be kept away from immediate incentives to crime. To whatever perfection prison-discipline may eventually be brought, it is vain to expect that its reformatory influence can invariably be such as to subdue the frailty of human nature, and the seductions of present opportunities. The law of France has, therefore, as we shall presently show, placed the criminal, for a limited period after his discharge, under a certain surveillance of the Haute police, as a part of his punishment. The expediency of introducing such a system into the English law to any, and to what extent, is a point deserving of serious reflection.

Such a proposal must of course be understood as applicable only to persons actually convicted of offences. Any thing resembling a passport system for the whole population, innocent as well as guilty, would not only be incompatible with free institutions, but invincibly repugnant to the spirit and feelings of the British people. The question therefore resolves itself into one of punishment, the problem being to find that punishment, which having regard to the habits of the criminal, shall contain within it the maximum of prevention, combining the direct with the indirect method of hindering crime. Now, assuming, as the fact is, that imprisonment, according to the present system of secondary punishments, has not the qualities required, but is often neither deterring, nor reformatory, might not policesupervision be substituted, in some cases partially, in others entirely, for such imprisonment? Would not such police supervision be a peculiarly appropriate punishment for vagrants and other petty offenders, the terms of whose imprisonment are very short? and might it not be advantageous, even in the cases of graver offenders, to permit the commutation, under certain regulations, of a portion of the imprisonment, into police-supervision? We think that the principle of such alterations might be demonstrated to be beneficial, but then it would remain to be considered of what the proposed supervision ought to consist.

The liberated convict, who might be thus placed under police control, might properly be required to inform the police from time to time of his place of residence; to present himself to an officer periodically; to avoid all disorderly or tumultuous assemblies, and all places of public resort of a vicious character, to be specified to him by the police; not to enter any towns or districts, specially prohibited by the police, such as in many cases the metropolis, or other populous towns, or the localities of large fairs, or races, would be; and, above all, not to associate with other liberated convicts. Any breach of these conditions should subject the offender to summary imprisonment.

Such regulations might be objected to upon the one hand as too irksome, and, on the other, as not sufficiently stringent. It might be suggested to add to their severity, by prescribing absolutely the place of residence of the delinquent, by prohibiting him from all places whatever of public amusement, and the like. Care, however, must be taken not to draw the restraining cord so tight as to debar the convict from that which is harmless in itself, and may by possibility have a beneficial influence upon his character. But we acknowledge the difficulty of fixing the limits of restriction, a difficulty which occurs in every branch of police, and, until our knowledge of the science shall be advanced by experience, will continue to meet us at every step in legislation.

Whilst the formation of a general rural police in England is under consideration, it will answer little purpose to describe the nature of the constabulary, which now serves as a substitute for it. Its inefficiency is notorious. The fatal riot which took place at Canterbury^[15. We refer to the proceedings of Courtenay, otherwise Thom, in May 183θ. ] is a flagrant instance of the mischiefs which a single individual may bring upon society, when society has not taken measures of ordinary prudence for its own protection.

The constabulary of Scotland is under the control of the magistrates of the municipalities and counties, in the same way as in those parts of England where the principle of the central police has not been introduced. It is consequently wanting in almost all the requisites of an efficient system.

A regular police force was first established throughout Ireland under an act passed in 1814,^[16. Geo. III. c. 131. ] “to provide for the better regulation of the laws in Ireland, by appointing superintending magistrates and additional constables in certain cases.” Several other acts followed, which were consolidated by the act of 1836,^[17. Will. 1V∙ c. 13. ] and by this latter the constabulary is at present regulated. The lord-lieutenant appoints stipendiary magistrates and constables in the several towns, counties, and baronies in the proportions prescribed by the act, with an inspector-general and sub-inspectors for their superintendence. The following qualification for the constables is illustrative of the state of society in Ireland. They are required to be “of a sound constitution, able-bodied, and under the age of forty years, able to read and write, of a good character for honesty, fidelity, and activity, not a gamekeeper, wood-ranger, tithe-proctor, viewer of tithes, bailiff, or parish clerk, or a hired servant, or keeping any house tor the sale of beer, wine, or spirituous liquors by retail.” The stipendiary magistrates are fifty in number, with salaries va-ryingfromL.400 to L.1000 perannum. The office ofinspee-tor[7:18:253]-general is considered as a highly responsible one; his salary is L.1500 per annum. The following is a summary of the total amount of police force employed on the lst of January 1838; distinguishing the proportion of expenses borne respectively by the consolidated fund, and by the counties, cities, and towns, pursuant to the provisions of the act. ^[18. See Parliamentary Return, 11th May 1838. ] 1
[table]

It will be observed that the above force contains a variety of gradations of officers; and this is a principle of great importance in the organization of police establishments. It both regulates responsibility, and holds out the prospect of promotion as the reward of merit.

The lord-lieutenant is empowered to establish an additional special police force in any county or district declared to be in a state of disturbance. The peculiar condition of Ireland has rendered this provision requisite; but it is well known that it has not hitherto superseded the necessity of the large military force which, as an instrument of mere police, continues to be stationed in that country.

The City of Dublin has a special police force, with an office and two magistrates, acting for that metropolis and a certain surrounding district. Its powers and duties are analogous to those of the London central police; and it acts under the immediate authority of the chief secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant. It was established by act of Parliament in the year 1836.^[19. See act 6 and 7 Will. 4, cap. 29. ]

There are, in various parts of the United Kingdom, officers possessing limited powers of police for special purposes, such as the police of docks, railways, c. whose authority is defined by the particular statutes under which they act.

The nation, in whose history the operations of the police have been the most conspicuous, is modern France. A knowledge of the extent and effects of the police agency for the last century and a half is indispensable to a right understanding ofFrench history, and there are ample materials for an elaborate work upon the subject.^[20. See especially the following works: De la Marre, Traité de la Police. Dessessart’s Dictionnaire Universel de Police de 17° 6 à 1791. Peuchet, Archives de Police, 6 vols. Nouveau Dictionnaire de Police, par Elouin. Trebuchet, et Labat, Paris 1835; an interesting and valuable account of the whole of the internal arrangements of society in France. De la Prostitution dans la Ville de Paris, par A. J. B. Parent-Duchatelet. Paris 1836. ] Our present limits do not permit us to do more than trace superficially the origin of existing institutions.

From the commencement of the feudal regime, the provost of Paris was the highest municipal authority. He not only carried the sword at the head of a military force, but presided in the robe of a judge at the Châtelet, that ancient and venerable building to which the administration of justice was so long wholly confined. One of the ten chambers, or courts, of the Châtelet, was that of police, to which reports were made of all infractions of the police regulations of the city. The provost had under him two officers of the second rank, called the lieutenant-civil, and the lieutenant-criminel, besides the judicial and ministerial staff* of the Châtelet. There was also an independent police authority, called the bureau de ville, which took cognizance of all that related to the water, the quays, the ramparts, and the public festivals of Paris, and whose principal officer was styled the provost of merchants. For along period, the parliamentof Paris moderated these conflicting jurisdictions, and in 1667, their recommendations gave rise to the edict made by Louis XIV. in that year, whereby the functions of police were withdrawn from the civil and criminal lieutenants, and conferred on a new magistrate, who, under the name of lieutenant de police, became the representative of that jurisdiction which had previously been exercised by the authorities of the Châtelet. The bureau de ville, however, continued its functions as before. In 1674, the title of the new magistrate was declared by the king to be that of Lieutenant-General de Police, which continued to the Revolution.

The first of these officers was De la Reynie, famous for being charged with the execution of the edict which revoked that of Nantes in 1685. To him succeeded the Marquis D’Argenson in 1697, the creator of the system of secret police, which has ever since been more or less acted upon in France. D’Argenson employed espionage largely. He is described by Fontenelle, as having unparalleled powers of divination, and was undoubtedly a man of unusual sagacity. He had the merit of refusing to execute in Paris, the measures of persecution against the Protestants, which were being carried on in the provinces. The succeeding lieutenants-general were, Machault d’Arnouville (1718), Count d’Argenson (1720), Taschereau de Baudry (1720), Ravot d’Ombreval (1724), René Hérault (1725), De Manille (1739), Berryer (1747), Bertin (1754), De Sartine (1759). The activity of the last mentioned officer was very remarkable. He chose his inferior agents with judgment, and some curious proofs are on record, how accurately he knew all that was passing in Paris.^[21. See two anecdotes cited by Colquhoun, chapter 17∙ ] He was in the habit of furnishing to Louis XV. reports of a licentious character, describing the most scandalous indecencies committed in the capital, and a collection of them was found in the Bastille at the capture of that fortress-prison, in July 1789∙ The secret police was brought to great perfection by De Sartine, and he had his emissaries in every European state. He seems to have been both feared and hated by the people. The French police about this time excited the attention of other governments; and both the Empress Catherine II. of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria, having applied to the French government for information on the subject, De Sartine made for their use a collection of the ordinances and regulations then subsisting, which is still extant. An unfortunate event is recorded to have happened during De Sartine’s administration, which is illustrative of the evils of conflicting jurisdictions in matters of police. A fete, with fire-works and illuminations, was held in the Place Louis XV. on 30th ofMay 1770, in celebration of the marriage of the Dauphin with Marie Antoinette. The responsibility of the arrangements was divided between De Sartine and the provost of Merchants, and the consequence was, that a scene of confusion ensued, in which 132 persons were killed, and as many wounded. The parliament reprimanded both functionaries, and additional powers were soon afterwards conferrred on the lieutenant-general. To De Sartine, succeeded Le Noir (1774), D’ Albert (1775), Le Noir, (second administration 1776), and De Crosne (1785), who closed with the Revolution the list of lieutenants of police. Their office, and that of the provost of Merchants, merged in the comite permanent, who re-organized the municipality of Paris, and laid the foundation of the existing institutions, which take [7:18:254]their origin principally from the legislation of the revolutionary period. The secret or haute police, was acted on, as is well known, by the General Directory, and afterwards, with terrible effect, under the Emperor Napoleon. The unfortunate Due d’Enghien was one of its victims. The life of the celebrated Fouche, is full of interest and instruction under this head. Nottheleast remarkable circumstance in Fouche’s career; is the fact of Napoleon having been in the habit of employing several branches of contre-police, to watch the proceedings of his own police-minister.^[22. See Mémoires de Fouehé, Paris 1834. Témoignages Historiques, ou quinze ans de Haute Police sous Napoléon, par Destnarets, Paris 1833. ] Thus, he had a distinct police of the palace under the grand-marshall, of the city of Paris under the military governor, and of all France under the inspector-general of gendarmerie. The gendarmes throughout France had to transmit daily bulletins of all that took place, for the information of the Emperor. The general police under Fouché was evidently considered by Napoleon as a sort of rival of the Imperial power.

The law of France declares the police to be instituted “to maintain order and public tranquillity, liberty, property, and individual security.” Its principal characteristic is declared to be “vigilance ;” the objects of its solicitude are society en masse. ^[23. Code des Délits et des Peines, Ju ti me Brumaire, an 4, livre i. art- 16 and 17· ]

It is divided into administrative and judicial police. The administrative has for its object, the maintenance of public order everywhere, and in every part of the general administration. Its tendency is to the prevention of crime, and it causes to be executed all public laws, ordinances and regulations. It is exercised throughout France by the minister of the interior, in cases of general measures. In the departments, and in the communes, it is under the direction of the préfets, sous-prefets, and maires, and in Paris, under that of the préfet de police. These magistrates may prescribe such measures as are not contrary to the existing law, and make such orders, in respect of local police, as circumstances may require, any infraction of which is punishable according to the penal code.

The administrative is subdivided into general and municipal police. The latter term includes also the rural police. The general administrative police, comprises the regulation of passports, mendicity and vagrancy, prisons and public institutions, the press, religious worship, seditious language, public provocation to crimes, defamation of authorities, desertion, &c.^[24. See Arreté du ò Brumaire, an. 9, and Decree of 25th March 1811. ] To this head belongs the haute police, to which we shall presently advert. The objects of municipal police are the preservation of the public security, health, and tranquillity, in the public streets and passages, in regard to fires, inundations, the exchange, markets, theatres, and public places, the public edifices and monuments, the course of commerce, and collection of taxes.^[25. See the Arrets and Decree above cited, and the Laws of August 1790, and July 1791. ] It seems to comprise, with some additions, the functions of the ancient bureau de ville. The judicial branch of police is engaged in detecting the perpetrators of the crimes and offences, the commission of which has not been prevented by the administrative branch. It collects evidence, arrests offenders, and delivers them to the tribunals authorised to try and punish them. It is exercised under the authority of the cours royales. ^[26. Code d ’ Instruction Criminelle, art 8 and 9; also Code du 3 Brumaire, an- 4, art. 29. ] Although this branch is termed judicial, it would seem more correct to describe it, as that which secures offenders for justice, in contradistinction to the operations by which the act of crime itself is hindered from commission.

A special police service is established in the French ports, under the name of police maritime. All offences com mitted in ports or naval arsenals, whether committed by persons in the naval service or otherwise, are cognizable by the maritime tribunals established for the purpose. The crews of all ships of war in port, are amenable to these tribunals for all offences against naval discipline. Offences against maritime police are described to be; first, all such as are committed against public order, and the service of the arsenals, or in the contravention of the special rules made for the port; and, second, simple thefts below the value of six francs, committed in the arsenals. The penalties which the tribunals of police are empowered to inflict, are, imprisonment not exceeding three months, compensation under 100 francs, loss of wages, and expulsion from the service of the arsenal.^[27. See Law of 20th September 1792, and several Decrees and Ordonnances, especially those of 12th Nov. 1806, and 14th Oct. 1818. ]

The rural police of France is exercised by the juges de paix, and the mayors, under the superintendence of the préfets and sous-prefets, by the aid of gendarmerie." ^[28. See Law 6th October 1791. ] The préfets are the chief magistrates of the departments, and are appointed by the king. The duties of a prefect are so comprehensive, as to have been thus described by a legal writer, “Surveiller, reparer, féconder, voilà sa tache.” He watches especially over the property of the state, and the public security; the roads, rivers, and other objects of common use; and is the agent of all the operations of government in his department.^[29. See Law28 Pluvoise, an. 8, (1800), art-15. ] He has the power of requiring the aid of the officers of the judicial police, for all purposes relating to the prevention of crime. The rural police punishes thefts or injuries to natural productions, regulates gleaning, the fixing of boundaries between lands, the interment of dead animals, and a variety of matters affecting the cultivation of land, and likely to give rise to disputes amongst a population of small proprietors. Offenders against rural police are punishable by imprisonment, and by the enforcement of compensation, as amends for injuries done.

The principle of centralization, it will be perceived, exists in the rural police of France to a considerable degree. The mayors and local magistrates, being under the immediate supervision of the prefects, who are controlled directly by the Minister of the Interior, there are the means of obtaining a certain unity of action in its proceedings. But the chain of communication throughout France, for purposes of police, would probably be improved if the machinery were less complicated, and the number of subordinate functionaries were smaller. Complaints are frequent, in cases where local improvements or changes are required, or where individuals have to petition for the redress of a grievance, or for permission from Government to do some act, of the great number of hands through which such applications must pass, in order to their being consulted, before the requisite authority can be obtained. The public thus suffers inconvenience and delay, from the want of simplicity in the arrangement of the system. It is not in the administration of rural police, properly so called, that the French system suggests much worthy of consideration, but rather in respect of the Haute Police, whereby convicted offenders are brought immediately under official surveillance in all parts of the country. In Paris, the “préfet de police” is charged with the whole administration of his department.^[30. See Law of 28th Pluviose, an. φ 8, art 16. ] As regards the municipality, he exercises all the functions of the mayors in the communes, but is subject to no other control than that of the Minister of the Interior. The expenses of the prefecture are charged upon the city of Paris, but its jurisdiction extends throughout the Department of the Seine. The prefect is empowered to [7:18:255] make such regulations as he deems expedient, consistently with the existing laws. A summary of his functions will perhaps, be the best mode of conveying a notion of the extent of police interference in the French metropolis.

In respect of the general police, it is at the prefecture that passports are issued to travellers, and are visa'd on their arrival at Paris. Travellers remaining in Paris more than three days require permission for that purpose. All public establishments for the relief of the poor, or charitable purposes, are subject to police inspection. The prefecture may arrest all vagrants and mendicants. It superintends the police arrangements of the metropolitan prisons, and appoints certain of their officers. It carries into effect the regulations in force relating to hotels, lodging-houses, gaming-houses, and brothels. It prevents tumultuous assemblies, and coalitions of workmen. It puts in force the laws affecting the press, and restraining indecency and obscenity; superintends the construction of theatres, and keeps order within them; attends places of worship to prevent disorders there; takes cognisance of the distribution of gunpowder, and the use of arms; arrests deserters, and makes the arrangements at public fetes.

The duties of the préfet and his officers in regard to the municipal police, are still more multifarious than those of the general. The care of all roads and passages, not being the great roads of the kingdom, (la petite voirie ) and of the shops and stalls; the construction of scaffoldings, and the demolition of ruinous buildings; are committed wholly to the prefecture of police. Thus the police causes the streets and gutters to be cleaned; seizes dangerous animals; regulates the speed of carriages; and prevents their stopping the way. It preserves health, as far as possible, by removing all filthy or noxious accumulations; takes measures to prevent fire; and secures the requisite supply of water to the city. It verifies weights and measures; enforces the regulations of the markets, baths, hackney coaches, pawnbrokers, and the numerous other places and things in Paris which are subject to special rules; guards from injury the public buildings, monuments, fountains, &c., and requires their repair, when needful, by the proper authorities. In short, there is scarcely any part of the materiel of society, which isnot subjected to the supervision of the prefecture of police.

The establishment of the prefect consists of a numerous body of commissaires, inspectors, and peace-officers, in due gradation; and the gendarmerie are at his absolute disposal, who answer the best to the description of the constables of the London central police. It will be observed that the functions of the prefect of Paris and his officers are principally administrative; but they also act judicially, as the French law terms it, to a certain extent, in securing and collecting evidence against such offenders as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the tribunals of correctional police.

The French executive government has long exercised, and still seems to possess the right of exercising what is called the haute police administrative, in all cases where an individual has done an act considered by the executive as dangerous to the public safety, although not contrary to the existing law. This is the undefined power that has instituted the odious system of secret police, and has been made the instrument of so much tyranny and injustice. It is, in truth, no part of the established police system, but ra-.- ther an arbitrary power of ex post facto legislation committed to the Government, for supposed cases of danger which the law may not have foreseen. The “haute police administrative” is usually exercised by the Minister of the Interior, through the préfet de police, and occasionally by the Council of State.

The law has, however, clearly defined that department of the Haute Police, which takes under its control offenders ' discharged from prison, and watches over their conduct for a specified time. This constitutes a part of the punishment to which certain offenders may be sentenced, pursuant to the penal code.^[31. Code Penal, art. 11. ] It extends to both the higher and lower classes of delinquents. The effect of it is to give to the Government the right to determine certain places in which the offender is forbidden to appear after his discharge from prison. He is, besides, required to declare, before he is set at liberty, in what place he intends to reside; and thereupon he receives an order regulating his route to such place. On his arrival he must present himself within twenty-four hours, before the mayor of the commune, and cannot change his residence without informing the mayor three days beforehand, of the place to which he desires to remove, and receiving from him a new order prescribing his route thither. In case of breach of these regulations, the offender is liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years. The terms of surveillance vary according to the crime; but vagrants and mendicants are specially subjected to a surveillance of not less than five, nor more than ten years.

The provisions of the penal code of France have lately been modified, by dispensing with those enactments which required prisoners, on their discharge, to find security for their good behaviour, and in default assigned them a fixed place of residence. It was found, in practice, that very few indeed were able to find the security, and the restriction of the convict to a particular locality rendered him so notorious as to make it impracticable for him to obtain a livelihood. Some were actually reduced to such destitution as to be under the necessity of begging a temporary admission into prison. We have seen that, at present, the government only reserves the right of prohibiting certain places; and the list of such places comprises, Paris and its suburbs, Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Lisle, Strasbourg, Nantes, Brest, Toulon, Rochfort, LOricnt, and Cherbourg. Even to these places the convict is allowed access for any special reasons approved by the police. The number of discharged convicts thus under the surveillance of the Haute Police throughout France, was in 1833, about 40,000.^[32. Circulaire du Mitiisíre de t Interieur du 18 Juillet 1833, sur la Surveillance Légale des Condamnés Libérés; a document well worthy of reference ]

It has has been already suggested, whether a system of police-supervision might not be introduced into the English criminal law with good effect, and, in particular, as a valuable instrument of rural police. The working of the French Haute Police would afford, without doubt, some useful lessons towards fixing the proper limit of restriction. It demonstrates, especially, the wisdom of interfering as little as possible with the market for the labour of the discharged convict; and this is of the more importance in England in proportion to the greater density of population. In the United States, where the demand for labour is boundless, the emancipated convict transports himself to a distance from the seat of his crime, and obtains immediate employment without a stigma on his character. But in England and France the difficulty of earning a livelihood is comparatively so great, that caution is requisite, lest the tendency of any system of police surveillance to be established, should be to abridge the means of subsistence of the criminal population. The difficulty, however, is by no means one against which it seems impracticable to guard successfully.

The French medical police consists of the restrictions imposed by law upon the exercise of the medical profession, and the vending of secret remedies, which are liable to examination before they can be sold. The subject of prostitution belongs also principally to this head.

The law of France visits with punishment “every person[7:18:256] who shall have committed a public outrage on modesty.”^[33. Code Pénal, art. 330. ] But the law being silent in all such cases of prostitution as do not thus constitute a public violation of decency, the administration is placed in the delicate position of having to determine what may amount to such a violation. The police, therefore, whilst it prohibits the open scandal of prostitution; not allowing immodest women to appear in the street, or in public places, or any indecency to be openly committed; acts upon the principle oftolerat-ing houses of debauchery, and preventing by its surveillance, as much as possible of the injury arising to the public from such establishments. These houses are therefore licensed, and the number of them in Paris is about 220. Every female living in habitual prostitution is required to be registered by the police. Such as reside at their own houses are obliged to present themselves regularly, at stated periods, at the public dispensary for medical examination; and those inhabiting the maisons de tolerance, arc also regularly visited by the medical authorities. Every female carries with her a ticket, upon which the medical inspections are noted from time to time. All females known to the police as prostitutes, but unregistered (insoumises), are liable to arrest, and arc brought to the dispensary for examination.

The number of registered prostitutes in Paris appears to have gradually increased, from a monthly average of 1293, in the year 1812, to an average of 2902 in the year 1822, and of 3558 in 1832.^[34. Parent-Duchatelet, de lα Prostitution, &c. ] In the year 1834, the monthly average was 3786.^[35. Nouveau-Dictionnaire de Police. ] It does not of course follow, that the actual number of prostitutes has increased commensurately with the numbers registered; on the contrary, there is reason to believe it has diminished. But to determine this point accurately, we should have before us the comparative numbers, both registered and unregistered, for a series of years back; which, it would seem, there are no means of ascertaining.

There can be no doubt that the effect of these regulations has operated very beneficially upon the health of the registered prostitutes. It appears that the monthly average of disease amongst the registered women, wherever resident, upon a series of years, from 1812 to 1832, has varied from one in seventeen to one in thirty-four,^[36. Parent-Duchatelet. ] and that in 1834, it did not exceed one in 43;^[37. Nouveau Dictionnaire. ] whilst the proportion of the total number of the unregistered, or insoumises, arrested by the police from 1816 to 1828, who were found diseased, was as high as one in four,^[38. Parent-Duchatelet. ] and upon a monthly average of the year 1834, it was even higher.^[39. Nouveau Dictionnaire. ] The police regulations, therefore, confine the existence of disease in a great degree to the class of prostitutes who receive their visitors privately, without any official cognizance. There are no means of knowing the actual extent of licentiousness amongst the female population of Paris; but the police is, of course, not responsible for the disease resulting from it; and although it might be objected that the removal of disease, as a result of prostitution, is a sort of encouragement to immorality, still it must be remembered, that prostitution is, in large towns, an inevitable evil; that it is, to a large class of persons, an industry, and a resource against want; and that, it being wholly out of the power of police regulations to prevent it, the more it can be divested of its power of injuring society physically and morally, the lighter will be the evil of its existence.

In Belgium there is no centralized police, but it is subject to the local authorities. A recent law has placed discharged convicts under the temporary supervision of the police, in the same way as in France.^[40. Loi sur la surveillance des condamnés libérés, du 31 Decembre I8'>6. ]

The police of Prussia is also a matter belonging to separate jurisdictions throughout the kingdom. The landraths in the rural districts exercise powers resembling those of our justices of the peace. In the cities special boards are appointed, under the direction ofwhich the regulation ofbuild-ings, sewers, and supplies of water and of food are placed.^[41. Several German works on medical police may be consulted, especially, Franks, System einer vollstandigen Medicinischen Policei, 6 rois. 1784 to 1825. Niemann’s Medicinische Policei Wissenchaft, Leipsig, 1829. Consbruch and Ebrotnaier’s Allgemeine Encyclopoed. fur Atzte. bd. 10. Conversations·Lexico, vol. viii. art. Mediciniscke-Policei. ] The police superintends the examination of medical practitioners; the insurance offices; and the fire-engines. It exercises the usual functions for the prevention of crimes, and keepsa certain degreeof surveillance over vagrants and mendicants. Brothels are subject to visitation, and prostitutes to medical examination. There is no secret system of police in Prussia, analogous to that of France which we have described; nor does it, we believe, now exist, in any part of Germany.

The length at which we have described the police institutions of England and France, will render the less necessary a particular reference to those of the other European states, because little is to be learned from them; and in all countries, the institutions of which are marrear of civilization, the distinction between police, and other branches ofadminis-tration, is marked less and less strongly, until we descend to the point of barbarism, at which there is a confusion of all the functions of government, internal and external, civil and military, legislative, judicial, and ministerial, in one absolute sway; with comparatively inadequate security against foreign aggression, and none whatever for domestic peace. A good police system is, on the contrary, a distinguishing mark of the supremacy of organized law in the country where it is in force.

Having thus endeavoured to present such a sketch of existing institutions as our space will admit, it only remains to point out what we consider as the indispensable requisites of a good police system. These are,—

1st, Centralization, under one superintending authority, which may keep up a regular and certain channel of communication, throughout every part of the country, may secure uniformity of administration, and enforce vigilance and activity in the officers employed.

2d, The powers and duties of the police force should be so correctly defined, as to leave no room for doubt, when action is required. The whole charge, both of preventing the perpetration of crime, and securing offenders for justice, should be committed to it, with such miscellaneous functions as the legislature may properly entrust to it in addition. No person ought ever to act both ministerially in aid of police, and also judicially as a magistrate.

3d, The utmost care and caution are needful in fixing the extent of police interference, so that the amount of public advantage derivable from it, shall exceed that of the inconvenience sustained. This task is a delicate and difficult one; for police interference has, in some instances, been so wrongly applied as to defeat its own end.

4th, A good system of secondary punishments is essential to the efficiency of a police establishment. If the tendency of imprisonment is such as to excite to crime, it counteracts the most important object of police, namely, its prevention.

Other matters will probably have suggested themselves to the reader; but our limits do not permit us to discuss them at length. The requisites above stated may be considered as cardinal points, which cannot be disregarded without impairing the efficiency of any system of police to which they are wanting. (u. u. u. u.) [7:18:257]