| Reviews / Comptes Rendus | Labour/Le Travail, 53

Reviews / Comptes Rendus

Haia Shpayer-Makov, The Making of a Policeman: A Social History of a Labour Force in Metropolitan London, 1829–1914 (Burlington, VT: Ashgate 2002).

STUDENTS OF LABOUR and working-class history occasionally encounter the police in accounts of industrial disputes, political dissent and plebeian culture. The "new" police emerged during the transition from commercial to industrial capitalism and there is growing literature on its role in class relations. One of the first modern constabularies in England for example, the Thames River Police, was organized to seize control of traditional labour practices surrounding the valuable West Indies trade. In labour studies, the police often are depicted as agents of control. Studies of the police as workers, and police organizations as work forces controlled by management, are rare. Thanks to Shpayer-Makov, we now know much about police workers in one of the world's most famous constabularies, the London Metropolitan Police (LMP). The LMP, founded in 1829, was not only a model for other jurisdictions in the Anglo-American world; it was also a large, complex and conflicted body of workers, governed by intricate formal and informal control mechanisms. Unlike other urban and rural police in England who were under the authority of local officials, the LMP reported to the Home Secretary.

The author argues that despite the working-class origins of recruits, and an initially authoritarian management style, by the time the LMP had grown to 22,000 men in 1914 occupational culture had created a distinct esprit de corps. In the 1830s and 1840s, the police had encountered considerable working-class resentment and resistance. By 1914, deployed in 22 divisions, the force policed a population of 7 million, most of which, according to Shapyer-Makov, accepted the police as a necessary service. As the public image of the force improved, so did its morale and personnel turnover rates.

Recruitment patterns changed somewhat over the decades, but they were distinct and fairly deliberate. The early commissioners favoured young, unskilled farmers and farm workers, who were thought to have the proper physical capabilities and temperament, as well as lack of urban experience, to be transformed into reliable constables. Semi-skilled workers and clerks were also valued. Unlike large North American police departments, sons rarely followed their fathers into the service. Veterans of the Royal Navy and Marines were prized recruits; ex-Army types were less valued because of their associations with drink and fast living. Candidates were expected to be literate and "respectable." Although native Irish and Scots were hired, most recruits hailed from southern England. By the early 20th century, regulations narrowed recruitment age to 21 to 27 and single men were preferred. And despite the intentions of the 1830s architects of the LMP, the force increasingly hired Londoners. Because of strict recruiting standards, most applicants were turned away.

In addition to initial recruitment and successful completion of a probationary training period, advancement depended upon written examinations. Compared to continental European constabularies, a distinct officer class was almost non-existent. According to the author, the LMP was a pioneer of the merit system, which was a tool for building worker loyalty and workforce stability. Despite the lure of a supervisory position (a patrol sergeant was responsible for roughly two dozen sergeants and constables), 80 per cent of the men who remained never advanced beyond the lowest rank. Few policemen reached the ranks of the middle class.

In order to attract and retain first-class police workers, administrators resorted to carrot-and-stick methods. Although a largely unarmed force under civilian control, the LMP was governed by a militaristic discipline and chain of command. Single constables, for example, had to live in section houses and opportunities to air grievances in a formal fashion were rare. Despite strikes in 1872, 1890, 1918, and 1919, affiliation with trade unions was illegal. The Police Federation, established in the wake of World War I unrest, was not a union and was not permitted to delve into promotion or discipline. As servants of the Crown, constables were expected to be neutral in terms of class relations and politics, which is why they were unable to vote.

Shpayer-Makov identifies vestiges of aristocratic paternalism, combined with the "middle class individualism" of the merit system, as the basis of management style. A contributory pension scheme began as early as 1839 but its scope was limited and decisions were made by management in a discretionary manner. Drunkenness continued to be the most common reason for dismissal and there is evidence that punishments became less severe over time. Nevertheless, even with the institutionalization of internal mobility, hostility toward the higher ranks flared up from time to time.

Despite official rules against protest, labour actions, contact with sympathetic Members of Parliament and evidence heard by Parliamentary committees revealed worker dissatisfaction. The most common act of resistance was departure. Of the 100,000 men who joined between 1829 and 1860, roughly half resigned and nearly a third were dismissed. Although pay was steady, the rate (below that of artisans and skilled workers) was a longstanding grievance, particularly as married policemen aspired to live in respectable working-class areas. They also resented having to live in close proximity to station houses. In addition, their spouses, in the interest of respectability, were forbidden from working outside the home. Given that most constables by the late 1800s were married, this meant hardship for police families. The 1890 strike resulted in legislated pension reform, which based eligibility not on age but total years of service. Patrol work with exposure to the elements and the risk of assaults and injuries, and 60-70 hour work weeks, were physically demanding. Health problems often led to early retirement, particularly in the 19th century when only a small minority of recruits succeeded in completing 25 years of service. Until 1910, the police had only one day off every two weeks.

But policemen received free medical services and financial assistance due to sickness, a rarity in most workplaces. Paid vacation leave also was available. The author explains that humanitarian reforms such as pensions, free medical care and sick pay enhanced the public reputation of the LMP as an "employer" and helped to build institutional loyalty. The end result of the "making" of policemen was that police workers increasingly identified with their occupation and their organization.

Surveillance and regulation of working-class culture had been one of the chief aims of the LMP when founded in 1829. Policemen were discouraged from frequenting the basic working-class social institution, the pub. To instill discipline and camaraderie, and insulate the rank-and-file from the community, the police authorities attempted to create a distinct police culture through recreation and leisure activities. These included the Police Christian Association, reading and recreation rooms, sporting activities, dances, banquets, music, amateur theatricals, and family activities such as picnics. Top administrators and social elites attended police events as spectators, but not participants, reflecting the British class system.

This reviewer has few quibbles with such a thorough study. One possible addition would have been greater discussion of the residential neighbourhoods of police families within the social geography of metropolitan London. Hopefully this work will encourage other historians of labour and the working class to take a second look at the police.


Greg Marquis University of New Brunswick, Saint John

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.