Police Protection 1887

[miss marple]

I am downloading an interesting cartoon from July 1887 Funny Folks magazine taking a satirical hit at the police.
The cartoon is titled Police Protection [ The new reading] and shows a middle class father Mr Tim Idity and daughter saying to low life thief [based on Bill Sykes]
''if you please Mr Sikes here are our watches and purses, and will you please see us safely past the policeman?
Policeman is at corner of street'
Perhaps Stewart Evans can through some light on it. What was the reading going through Parliament and how did it affect people's perception of the police?
Was their a general mistrust of police at that time?

Miss Marple

[Monty]

I suspect it is in reference to the Elizabeth Cass case, though I may be wrong.

This from a list of Government defeats 1886 - 1917. Here is the relevant text.


Miss Elizabeth Cass was born in Summer 1863 in Grantham, and grew up in Stockton, County Durham. She was employed first as a seamstress and then moved to London to be a dress designer early in 1887. She was employed by Mrs. Mary Ann Bowman and lived on her premises at 19 Southampton Row. On 28th June 1887, she went out in the late evening to do some shopping in the West End at Jay’s Shop at 243-253 Regent Street (the premises on the south-west side of Oxford Circus are now occupied by Benetton and French Connection). Jay’s were a respected retailer of silk and millinery, holding a Royal Warrant. The week had seen Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, celebrations of which were continuing, and London was thronged with people enjoying a month of record sunshine.

Miss Cass found that Jay’s were closed, and the pavement full of people. As she pushed her way through the crowd on Oxford Street to go home, she was suddenly arrested by PC DR 42 Endacott, of Tottenham Court Road Police Station. She was taken to the police station and charged with solicitation and prostitution, and the next morning she appeared at Great Marlborough Street Police Court before Robert Milnes Newton, one of two Stipendiary Magistrates. Newton (1821-1900) was an irritable man who had been Chief Magistrate at the court since 1866. PC Endacott gave evidence of the arrest and testified that he had seen her three times before in Regent Street late at night soliciting for prostitution.

Miss Cass’ employer, Mrs. Bowman, was called in her defence and testified that she had been in London only a few months, and had never before been out late at night. Further, she was a respectable woman of perfect character in a good job. Mrs. Bowman was unshakeable in her evidence. Faced with this, the Magistrate had no option but to find Miss Cass not guilty. However, he then added the following piece of advice:

Just take my advice: if you are a respectable girl, as you say you are, don’t walk in Regent Street at night, for if you do you will either be fined or sent to prison after the caution I have given you.
It was clear from this sentence that the Magistrate believed Miss Cass was really guilty, but had persuaded Mrs. Bowman to perjure herself to secure her acquittal.

The next day, 30th June 1887, Mrs. Bowman wrote to the Metropolitan Police headquarters to complain about the police’s action in the case. The day after, Llewellyn Atherley-Jones, Liberal MP for North-Western Durham, first raised the case in Parliament. Atherley-Jones was then aged 36 and a rising star on the radical wing of the Liberal Party; he was a Barrister by profession. Atherley-Jones enthusiastically took up the case of Miss Cass. On 5th July at question time he asked the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Rt. Hon. Henry Matthews, to order an inquiry into the case. Matthews, noting that no conviction resulted, gave what seemed to Atherley-Jones to be a flippant answer and Atherley-Jones then decided he would seek to raise the matter on the adjournment. By securing the support of forty MPs rising in their places, he won the right to hold the debate that evening.

Atherley-Jones was delighted (and we may suppose, surprised) to receive the support during the debate of Lord Randolph Churchill and Joseph Chamberlain. The last-named may have been partially influenced by malicious feelings towards Henry Matthews, who was a Roman Catholic and had earlier in his career been favourable towards Irish Home Rule. Atherley-Jones was again disatisfied with the Home Secretary’s reply and pressed the motion to the vote, defeating the government by five votes.

The Home Secretary accepted his defeat. He ordered the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Sir Charles Warren, to undertake an inquiry. PC Endacott was suspended on 6th July, it was claimed as a result of Mrs. Bowman’s letter. A few days later the Lord Chancellor began an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Newton. The Metropolitan Police inquiry opened on 11th July and after six days of hearings concluded on 26th July; the report was completed immediately and sent to the Home Secretary the following day.

The report was not published though it can be consulted in the Public Record Office. It was inconclusive in that it failed to make any findings as to whether the arrest was justified (calling for the evidence to be tested in a court under oath), but Sir Charles Warren did conclude “I am not prepared to say that I can see any grounds for accusing PC Endacott of wilful Perjury. However, that is a matter on which I think the Public Prosecutors should decide”. Mrs. Bowman and Miss Cass had already begun a private prosecution of PC Endacott for perjury, and after due consideration the Law Officers wrote to their solicitors offering to take over the case, or permitting the case to go ahead under their direction. They chose the second option. Colleagues within the Metropolitan Police raised a subscription to pay for Endacott’s defence.

Meanwhile the informal inquiry into the Magistrate had concluded in secret, with the decision to give Mr. Newton a formal reprimand. The Magistrate had relied for justification of his warning to Miss Cass on a statute which allowed a Magistrate to issue such a warning to a defendant who had been found guilty but whom the Magistrate felt was undeserving of any sentence, and the Lord Chancellor’s letter highlighted the severe mistake in law.

The Grand Jury found a true bill against PC Endacott for perjury on 13th September but the trial was postponed to the Michaelmas Term, eventually beginning on 31st October. On the second day, 1st November 1887, Miss Cass was called to give evidence; by this time she had celebrated her marriage, becoming Mrs. Langley. After her evidence Mr. Justice Stephen heard a submission (in the absence of the jury) from the prosecution and ruled that the case was confined to whether PC Endacott committed perjury in saying that he had seen Miss Cass three times before in Regent Street. The Judge further said that in his own view, there was no evidence that Endacott had been wilfully mis-stating the truth: the most likely explanation was that he had been making an honest mistake. The Solicitor-General accepted that view and withdrew the prosecution.

The defenders of Miss Cass were not pleased by this outcome. The inquiry and the trial had given the opportunity to PC Endacott’s legal representatives to make further assaults on her character, and Llewellyn Atherley-Jones insisted his original objection had been to the actions of the Magistrate. In his autobiography he claims he gave in to pressure from the Home Secretary not to press for Mr. Newton’s dismissal. Atherley-Jones made a name for himself with the case; he acquired the nickname “the Member for Miss Cass”. Many years later the Liberal Pall Mall Gazette’s Guide to the House of Commons was still referring to the fact that the nickname had once been applied.

A Bowden Endacott of 17 Gower Street had his electoral registration objected to in that year (see Times, 16th September 1887), though he was said to be a caretaker. This must be the same man. There is no record of what became of Elizabeth Langley - perhaps some of her descendants may remember?

The surviving papers on the case are in the Public Record Office in file HO 144/472/X15239 (relating to the Police inquiry) and HO 144/472/X15239B (relating to the prosecution of PC Endacott). The former contains the most important papers, including some of the public representations made - most expressing sympathy with Miss Cass, but one letter from Stockton in which allegations against her are made. This letter has endorsed on an attached Home Office memorandum the comment “Illegible and unintelligible”. Letters from PC Endacott’s solicitors making dark hints of evidence due to come from Stockton relating to Miss Cass are there. The most interesting document in the file is number 28, a Home Office memorandum attached to a letter requesting payment of the legal expenses of Miss Cass and Mrs. Bowman. On this, the Permanent Secretary (chief civil servant) of the Home Office, Godfrey Lushington, has written “I see no ground for giving compensation either to Miss Cass or Mad. Bowman. My own belief is that Miss Cass did solicit & that Endacott made no mistake.” This attitude from the Home Office, flying in the face of all the credible evidence, explains a great deal of the official reaction to the case from the start.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Miss Marple,

Two 1887 incidents spring to my mind.

First, the case of PC Endacott who falsely arrested Miss Cass for prostitution in Regent Street. Apparently this incident was the thin end of a much broader wedge.

Second, the widespread blackmailing ["protection"] of carriers and hauliers, and of prostitutes on Clapham Common and other parts of London, by elements of the Metropolitan Police.

Judy, or the Serio-Comic Journal, 3rd August 1887—



In February 1888, following a seven-month inquiry headed by James Monro, the police were completely exonerated.

It was all comprehensively covered in parliament and the press.

Regards,

Simon

[miss marple]

Thank you Monty, for that account of that absolutely fascinating case.
As today police versions are believed above those of other witnesses and then a woman's evidence is disregarded. The establishment is protecting itself
I knew that respectable woman could be arrested as prostitutes under the appalling Contagious Diseases Act of 1869 where virtually any woman in military towns could be accused of being prostitutes and forcibly examined to the extent that a girl had her virginity broken through one of these examinations and Josephine Butler did so much to repeal the act.
Even prostitutes would be scared of being labelled as such, there were obviously a lot more pros in the East End than are named, but those very poor women just did it sometimes. I wonder if the descriptions of Mary Kelly as well educated, an artist of no mean degree etc were just blarney,to show her in a good light, rather than focus on the 'unfortunate' side of her life.
Also did police in the East End bother to arrest pros unless drunkeness,violence or robbery were involved, they could not afford 'protection'

Maybe that is why no prostitutes came forward as witnesses in the ripper cases, and Pearly Poll disappeared.

Miss Marple

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you Monty, for that account of that absolutely fascinating case.
As today police versions are believed above those of other witnesses and then a woman's evidence is disregarded. The establishment is protecting itself
I knew that respectable woman could be arrested as prostitutes under the appalling Contagious Diseases Act of 1869 where virtually any woman in military towns could be accused of being prostitutes and forcibly examined to the extent that a girl had her virginity broken through one of these examinations and Josephine Butler did so much to repeal the act.
Even prostitutes would be scared of being labelled as such, there were obviously a lot more pros in the East End than are named, but those very poor women just did it sometimes. I wonder if the descriptions of Mary Kelly as well educated, an artist of no mean degree etc were just blarney,to show her in a good light, rather than focus on the 'unfortunate' side of her life.
Also did police in the East End bother to arrest pros unless drunkeness,violence or robbery were involved, they could not afford 'protection'

Maybe that is why no prostitutes came forward as witnesses in the ripper cases, and Pearly Poll disappeared.

Miss Marple

Police Guidelines in dealing with prostitutes

1. There is frequently considerable difficulty in dealing with prostitutes in the absence of any private complaint or express statutory provision regarding them. The latter is not unfrequently found in some local enactment. The exercise of great tact and patience in the matter is in any case necessary. Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they are prostitutes ; to justify their apprehension they must commit some distinct act which is an offence against the law.

2. Under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, s. 3, every common prostitute wandering in the public streets or public highways, or in any place of public resort, and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner, is deemed an idle and disorderly person, and liable to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

3. Police should observe if prostitutes, especially foreign women, are attended or watched by a souteneur or bully with a view to proceedings under the Vagrancy Act, 1898.

4. Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, every common prostitute, or night-walker, loitering, or being in any thoroughfare, or public place, for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, is liable to a penalty of 40s.

5. Under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, every common prostitute or night-walker loitering and importuning passengers, for the purpose of prostitution, is subject to a similar fine, or fourteen days' imprisonment in default.

6. A constable may arrest, without warrant, any person whom he sees committing one of these offences. It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute, and therefore the usual practice is that she should be cautioned the first time she is seen committing the offence, a note being made of the fact of the caution having been given.

7. The greatest care is necessary in dealing with prostitutes. Women arrested under the most compromising circumstances often stoutly protest their innocence, and any appearance of arbitrary action is rightly resented by the public. It is therefore essential for police to be quite sure of their facts—habitual frequentation night after night, passing and repassing, overt solicitation (especially of youths or elderly men), noisy or indecent behaviour—before arresting. Even although a gentleman accosted and complaining to the police may naturally refuse to charge the offender, he may possibly consent to give his name and address to the constable for the private information of the magistrate.

8. Police should carefully avoid being drawn into conversation with any prostitute, for unfounded charges and suspicions may easily arise therefrom. At the same time they should avoid bullying or unduly harassing these unfortunate persons if their conduct is orderly, and be acquainted with the address and way to any houses or shelters of refuge for them.

9. County and Borough Councils may make byelaws imposing a penalty upon every person who in any street or place to which the public have access commits or attempts to commit any act of indecency with any other person.

10. The police have no power to interfere with men and women talking together in the streets, so long as they behave themselves properly, and are not assembled together in such numbers as actually to cause obstruction in the thoroughfares; but if it is absolutely necessary to interfere, then it must be done civilly and firmly, without any offensive language or manners.

[miss marple]

Its seems by those Acts, that a prostitute has to actually be doing something, eg engaging with a punter, having sex, bothering people, but if a woman is walking along the street minding her own business she should not be arrested just for being in the street!

I checked Elizabeth Langley on the 1891 census, she married Thomas William Langley in 1887. He was born in Hartlepool and they moved back up north. In 1891 they are living in Burton on Trent.
I hope she had a long and happy life!

Miss Marple

[Bridewell]

Its seems by those Acts, that a prostitute has to actually be doing something, eg engaging with a punter, having sex, bothering people, but if a woman is walking along the street minding her own business she should not be arrested just for being in the street!

It is not actually an offence, in law, to work as a prostitute. The offences which apply are:
"Living On Immoral Earnings" (which was a concern for McCarthy).
.
"Brothel Keeping" (which was a concern for Barnett as 2 prostitutes working from the same premises would constitute a brothel).

"Loitering for the Purposes of Prostitution"

"Soliciting or Importuning For the Purpose of Prostitution."

Basically, a woman can be in business as a prostitute, provided that she operates as a sole trader, in private, and doesn't advertise her business. It is thus possible (though improbable) that MJK (if relying on regulars & word-of-mouth advertising) was, unlike the other canonical victims, operating within the law.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

new name

Hello Colin. Are you saying that prostitutes were importunates then? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Its seems by those Acts, that a prostitute has to actually be doing something, eg engaging with a punter, having sex, bothering people, but if a woman is walking along the street minding her own business she should not be arrested just for being in the street!

I checked Elizabeth Langley on the 1891 census, she married Thomas William Langley in 1887. He was born in Hartlepool and they moved back up north. In 1891 they are living in Burton on Trent.
I hope she had a long and happy life!

Miss Marple

Elizabeth Langley did indeed have a long life, and died in Burton in 1956, .she was 93 years of age.

Phil

[seanr]

Police Guidelines in dealing with prostitutes

1. There is frequently considerable difficulty in dealing with prostitutes in the absence of any private complaint or express statutory provision regarding them. The latter is not unfrequently found in some local enactment. The exercise of great tact and patience in the matter is in any case necessary. Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they are prostitutes ; to justify their apprehension they must commit some distinct act which is an offence against the law.

2. Under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, s. 3, every common prostitute wandering in the public streets or public highways, or in any place of public resort, and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner, is deemed an idle and disorderly person, and liable to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

3. Police should observe if prostitutes, especially foreign women, are attended or watched by a souteneur or bully with a view to proceedings under the Vagrancy Act, 1898.

4. Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, every common prostitute, or night-walker, loitering, or being in any thoroughfare, or public place, for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, is liable to a penalty of 40s.

5. Under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, every common prostitute or night-walker loitering and importuning passengers, for the purpose of prostitution, is subject to a similar fine, or fourteen days' imprisonment in default.

6. A constable may arrest, without warrant, any person whom he sees committing one of these offences. It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute, and therefore the usual practice is that she should be cautioned the first time she is seen committing the offence, a note being made of the fact of the caution having been given.

7. The greatest care is necessary in dealing with prostitutes. Women arrested under the most compromising circumstances often stoutly protest their innocence, and any appearance of arbitrary action is rightly resented by the public. It is therefore essential for police to be quite sure of their factshabitual frequentation night after night, passing and repassing, overt solicitation (especially of youths or elderly men), noisy or indecent behaviourbefore arresting. Even although a gentleman accosted and complaining to the police may naturally refuse to charge the offender, he may possibly consent to give his name and address to the constable for the private information of the magistrate.

8. Police should carefully avoid being drawn into conversation with any prostitute, for unfounded charges and suspicions may easily arise therefrom. At the same time they should avoid bullying or unduly harassing these unfortunate persons if their conduct is orderly, and be acquainted with the address and way to any houses or shelters of refuge for them.

9. County and Borough Councils may make byelaws imposing a penalty upon every person who in any street or place to which the public have access commits or attempts to commit any act of indecency with any other person.

10. The police have no power to interfere with men and women talking together in the streets, so long as they behave themselves properly, and are not assembled together in such numbers as actually to cause obstruction in the thoroughfares; but if it is absolutely necessary to interfere, then it must be done civilly and firmly, without any offensive language or manners.

What date is this guidance from? - as it gives reference to the Vagrancy Act, 1898 it cannot have been the guidance in use in 1887 and so may very well include amendments to the guidance following the cases such as the arrest of Miss Cass.

Sir Charles Warren testified at the official inquiry into Cass arrest that the Police Regulations act of the metropolis, a constable is empowered to take into custody anyone soliciting if it is done in the their view and that the magistates had decided that the testimony of one constable was sufficient.
Which in affect meant any constable had the power to unilaterally decide a woman was guilty of soliciting and label her a common prostitute. The only evidence needed was their own opinion.
That state of affairs surely led to situations where a woman walking the street minding her own business may be arrested and even found guilty of the crime of soliciting.

The enquiry into the Ms Cass arrest was on the 11th of July, 1887. On the 19th of July 1887, Sir Charles Warren issued a police order that Constables should only arrest women for soliciting if a member of the public formally brought the charge for the annoyance or another member of the public who could prove the annoyance. Given the timing, this change surely came about in response to the Cass case and the public opinion on it.

[Trevor Marriott]

This passage is quite relevant and it may indicate why these women had different aliases

A constable may arrest, without warrant, any person whom he sees committing one of these offences. It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute, and therefore the usual practice is that she should be cautioned the first time she is seen committing the offence, a note being made of the fact of the caution having been given.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

It may indicate why women would use different aliases, but were these regulations in force in the 1880s? - at the enquiry into the arrest of Ms Cass in July 1887, under questioning Superintendent Cutbush said a woman could be recorded as a common prostitute by the constable's own knowledge or if the woman described herself as such, with no mention of a prior caution for the offece.

The stipulation 'It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute' may have been a change to the guidance after 1887. So when did it become necessary to prove that an arrested woman was a common prostitute?