Notes
Desborough Committee (DC)(Evidence 1920, pp. 184, 173). P.C. William Sinclair, Birmingham City Police, stated, «We believe that policemen have for years suffered in silence; they have had no medium through which they could voice their grievances excepting through a few friends in Parliament» (DC [Evidence 1920, p. 297]).
Steedman (1984, p. 93), Manchester City Police Roster Cards, 1900-1919. This trend continued from 1920 to 1939, with about twenty percent leaving with less than five years and fifty-five percent making it to retirement age.
Allen (1958, p. 133); Emsley (1996, pp. 97-98).
Manchester Watch Committee Minutes (MWCM) (1 March 1901, vol. 13, no. 103) copy of complete oath.
Liverpool called their chief the ‘head constable’ until 1919.
Letters to the Police Review complained endlessly about ‘anti-Romish domination’, Freemasonry, and nepotism within the Liverpool City Police. Even making allowances for exaggeration, letters from this city far outnumber those from anyplace else.
Policemen began communicating across force lines at the same time that the Chief Constables Association, also founded in 1893, was providing similar opportunities for those in higher positions of authority. The CCA, which included the heads of borough forces, compared local conditions in a national forum similar to the Review (Emsley, 1996, pp. 100-101).
Police Review and Parade Gossip (PR) (12 January 1900, pp. 15-16). Forty-six forces began at 24/-; twenty-two at 23/-; twenty-one at 25/-; fourteen began at 22/-; eleven at 21/-. A handful of forces made 26/- or 27/- a week and a couple made 20/- or 19/-. Very small forces paid both high and low wages so size alone was not the deciding factor. Larger than most forces, Birmingham had a strength of 700 men; Liverpool had 1460; Manchester 1031.
MWCM (22 March 1900, vol. 10, no. 71; 13 June 1900, vol. 10, no. 138); PR (30 March 1900, p. 154; 22 June 1900, p. 291).
PR (30 March 1900, p. 153). See also PR (12 April 1900, pp. 175-176). Some committee members did object that it was inappropriate to take this action in light of their not paying policemen a shilling or two more a week, but they were over-ruled.
PR (22 June 1900, p. 291).
Manchester City Police General Orders (MGO) (6 February 1901).
Superintendents and inspectors tended to petition separately, reflecting problems with cross-rank communication.
Liverpool Watch Committee Minutes (LWCM) (23 July 1900, pp. 172-176); PR (21 September 1900, p. 448); Liverpool Orders of the Watch Committee to the Head Constable (LWCHC) (26 November 1900).
PR (28 June 1901, p. 303; 25 October 1901, p. 508; 1 November 1901, pp. 519-520). Birmingham’s watch committee did approve pay increases for superintendents and inspectors in 1901, which did little for morale in the ranks. (PR [18 October 1901, p. 496]).
Birmingham City Police Orders (BPO) (23 November 1901, p. 574).
BPO (23 November 1901, p. 574).
PR (28 June 1901, p. 303; 25 July 1902, p. 351; 13 February 1903, pp. 75-76).
Birmingham’s day beats ran in split shifts, the first from six to ten a.m. and two to six p.m., and the second from ten a.m. to two p.m. and six to ten p.m. The men requested that eight-hour shifts be instated since split shifts forced constables to spend double tram fares every day travelling to and from work or else spending the four-hour intermediate period wasting time in the city. The policeman’s health was the unvarying defense for split shifts(Birmingham Watch Committee Minutes [BWCM] [15 July 1903, pp. 448-452]). The issue was revived in 1928. The watch committee replied, «eight hours continous [sic] tour of duty on the streets, with only a short interval for meals, would involve heavy strain upon a man’s physique and a continous [sic] lowering of the vitality, with a resultant increase in liability to sickness». In 1932, another request received a similar answer, adding that continuous shifts would require the expense of hiring relief for meal times. Finally, in 1937, the committee agreed to try eight-hours shifts on a trial basis for one year. In April 1938 chief constable Moriarity informed the committee that no difficulties had been experienced and the health of the men was sound (BPO [30 January 1928, p. 13779]; BWCM [6 April 1931, report no. 1, p. 3; 7 April 1938, report no. 5, p. 4]).
PR (7 August 1903, p. 381).
LWCM (14 May 1907, pp. 350-354). This budget is similar to many submitted to the Police Review by police wives.
PR (12 January 1906, p. 20).
PR (11 March 1904, p. 124). Pensioners could not be fired though they still risked losing their pensions, however, if watch committees decided they had violated their pension terms.
PR (1 June 1906, p. 261).
Sellwood (1978, p. 94).
BPO (1 August 1907, p. 116).
MWCM (January 1909, vol. 42, no. 77).
PR (17 January 1908, p. 34).
PR (10 September 1909, p. 442).
Birmingham Evening Dispatch as quoted in PR (11 February 1910, p. 70).
PR (10 September 1909, p. 442).
PR (22 October 1909, p. 507).
PR (22 October 1909, p. 507).
Emsley (1996, p. 133).
LWCM (12 February 1912).
The bad reputation of the ‘clerk track’ went beyond city boundaries. Inspector Thomas Dale of Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Police stated, when asked about the practice of improper promotion of office clerks, «I think Liverpool is the most prominent in the minds of the police generally.» (DC, Evidence 1920, p. 129). Unlike the copper plate found in most police record books, Liverpool’s records were often illegible, the clerks having their positions due to connections rather than skills.
MGO (7 April 1911); MWCM (20 February 1912, vol. 53, no. 183).
PR (8 March 1912, p. 111).
PR (8 March 1912, p. 111).
PR (31 October 1913, pp. 523-524). The possibility of internationally affiliated police unions made governments even more leery of allowing local ones.
Emsley (1996, p. 99).
PR (26 September 1913, p. 459).
In January 1914, a deputation of Manchester inspectors, sergeants and constables unhappy with changes in retirement qualifications decided to be represented by counsel in their dealings with the watch committee, hoping to give their petition more weight. Trouble began when the committee had granted new scales of pay effective January 8, 1914. Constables began at 28 shillings per week, reaching 35 shillings after six years (MGO [8 January 1914]). It was the first pay increase since 1901. However, the new scale upset advantages under the old scale for about three hundred men regarding when they could retire (PR [16 January 1914, p. 31]). These men, along with their counsel, petitioned the watch committee to correct the anomaly but the committee decided against any alterations to the new scale (MGO [31 January 1914, 3 February 1914, 14 March 1914]). The rejection rankled. A Review article described the continuing sense of grievance among the older men «at the mercy» of the watch committee (PR [5 February 1915, p. 67]). Their inability to have an impact on the committee, even when legally represented, helped push Manchester policemen towards becoming among the most active supporters of a union.
PR (24 October 1913, p. 508).
BPO (30 October 1913, p. 587).
PR (19 December 1913, p. 609); BPO (30 October 1913, p. 587).
PR (31 October 1913, pp. 523-524).
Emsley (1996, p. 99).
MWCM (25 April 1918, no. 106, vol. 76); November 1913 letter quoted in discussion of union appearing in 1918.
BWCM (8 October 1917, p. 159) copy of August 1914 Scale of Pay.
Immediately, Birmingham policemen in the military had a grievance because their wives received an allowance of twelve shillings a week while Manchester and Liverpool wives received fifteen. (BWCM [7 August 1914, pp. 114-115]; MGO [20 August 1914]; LWCM [12 June 1917, p. 476]). In Birmingham, children under age fifteen received 2/-, parents dependent on an unmarried son receiving 8/-. The Manchester and Liverpool rates were about the same.
Policemen had to get permission to enlist since forces could not afford to have too many men leave at once and since policemen had important duties on the home front. In December 1916, Birmingham had 300 men in the army and navy; 6 months later Manchester had 700 men in the services (BWCM [19 December 1916, p. 2]; MWCM [7 June 1917, vol. 74, no. 20]).
MGO (8 January 1914).
PR (22 October 1915, p. 507). See PR (18 February 1916, p. 75) for letters from Manchester and Liverpool constables.
MWCM (21 March 1916, vol. 70, no. 32).
PR (31 March 1916, p. 151).
MWCM (3 April 1916, vol. 70, no. 54); MGO (13 April 1916).
MWCM (4 January 1917, vol. 73, no. 19).
DC (Evidence 1920, p. 122); also PR (22 October 1915, p. 507). According to Ministry of Labour figures, building laborers wages had increased 115%, engineering laborers 152%, railway laborers 83% to 165%, and carters 86% to 120%.
PR (18 February 1916, p. 75; 31 March 1916, p. 151; 24 November 1916, p. 466).
PR (1 June 1917, p. 172); BWCM (16 June 1917, p. 103).
LWCM (12 June 1917, p. 476); BWCM (3 October 1917, p. 309). Liverpool children received 3/6d; Birmingham children received 3/-.
Birmingham constables had a bonus of 2/6d. a week; raised to 4/6d.; then to 9/6d (BPO [1 September 1915, p. 36]; BWCM [19 December 1916, p. 5; 16 June 1917, p. 103]) Liverpool: 3/- a week to men under £2 a week pay, 2/- to men over £2; changed to 6/- for married men, 3/- for single (PR [18 February 1916, p. 75]; LWCM [12 December 1916, p. 98]) Manchester: for extra day duty per week, 6/- a week for constables and 7/- for sergeants; bonuses began January 1917 at 7/- a week; then to 9/- and 12/- (MWCM [3 April 1916, vol. 70, no. 54]; MGO [13 April 1916]; MWCM [4 January 1917, vol. 73, no. 19; 16 August 1917, vol. 74, no. 133]; MGO [16 August 1917]; MWCM [15 November 1917, vol. 75, no. 56]; MGO [21 November 1917]).
PR (3 August 1917, p. 243).
MGO (5 August 1914, 27 November 1914, 22 June 1915).
BPO (8 January 1919, p. 403).
MGO (13 April 1916); LWCM (29 November 1917, p. 28); BPO (8 January 1919, p. 403).
PR (11 December 1914, p. 596).
BWCM (8 October 1917, p. 159).
PR (18 January 1918, p. 19).
LWCM (29 November 1917, p. 28); MGO (21 March 1918); MWCM (10 April 1918, vol. 76, no. 99; 7 August 1918, vol. 77, no. 65; 22 August 1918, vol. 77, no. 72). Liverpool bonus to 10/8d., 2/- child allowance, then to 13/4d (LWCM [29 January 1918, pp. 152-153; 28 May 1918, p. 342]) Birmingham to 13/6d and then to 20/- (BWCM [1 May 1918, p. 301; 22 July 1918, p. 345]; BPO [30 July 1918, p.87]).
MWCM (25 April 1918, vol. 76, no. 106).
MWCM (22 August 1918, vol. 77, no. 72); MGO (29 August 1918).
King (1988, p. 133).
Short accounts of the 1918 and 1919 strikes from the official point of view are given in Dixon (1966, pp. 5-20) and Nott-Bower (1926, pp. 283-302). The police point of view is given in Reynolds and Judge (1968). On the NUPPO, Allen (1958); on Birmingham, Shackleton (1983); on Liverpool, Bean (1980, pp. 633-653); also Sellwood (1978) and King (1988).
PR (13 September 1918, p. 292); also PR (6 September 1918, pp. 283-286).
King (1988, p. 134).
Dixon (1966, p. 6).
PR (13 September 1918, p. 293).
PR (6 September 1918, p. 286); Shackleton (1983, p. 65); Birmingham City Police Superintendent’s Reports and Confidential Letters (BRCL) (2 November 1918, pp. 500-501).
MGO (5 September 1918).
PR (13 September 1918, p. 293; 6 September 1918, p. 286); MGO (2 October 1918); PR (11 October 1918, p. 324) reprinted letter and reply in full under title, «The Manchester Ultimatum»; PR (18 October 1918, p. 334).
MGO (2, 8 October 1918).
MGO (10 October 1918); MWCM (17 October 1918, vol. 77, no. 117).
Liverpool City Police Chief Constable’s Orders (LCCO) (3-7 September 1918, pp. 21-23).
LCCO (7 October 1918, p. 39). The vote was 568 for keeping children’s allowance, 556 for adopting a flat rate, with 98 ballets blank (LCCO [15 October 1918, p. 42]). Only 1 222 men out of approximately 2 200 voted.
PR (18 October 1918, p. 334). Smithwick later became the constables’ representative to the Desborough committee and PS George Miles, another active member of NUPPO, the sergeants’ representative.
BRCL (2 November 1918, p. 502).
«Birmingham City Police Revised Scale of Pay (To date from 2nd September, 1918)»; BWCM (9 October 1918, p. 401).
BPO (7 October 1918, pp. 257-259); PR (18 October 1918, p. 334). The watch committee set up the arrangements for the police committee (BWCM [9 October 1918, pp. 261-263]).
BRCL (2 November 1918, pp. 499-502).
DC (Evidence 1920, PC William Sinclair, BCP, p. 299); PS William Clowes, BCP, representative committee secretary, also testified.
BPO (5 April 1919, p. 658).
MGO (5 September, 26 November 1918, 11 January 1919); DC (Evidence 1920, Inspector S. Latham, MCP, p. 169; P.S. Matthew Seaman, MCP, p. 174).
MGO (13 February 1919); PR (21 February 1919, p. 60).
LCCO (18 November 1918). Reynolds, Judge and Sellwood state that police authorities in Liverpool forbade formation of the boards but this vote result would contradict that conclusion.
PR (2 May 1919, p. 150).
In a typical exchange, Sir Francis Blake and Captain James O’Grady made short work of Mr. C. Courtenay Hodgson, Clerk of the Peace, Cumberland, who stated that police pay was satisfactory but then had to admit that men could not live on the current scale. (DC [Evidence 1920, p. 433]).
DC (Evidence 1920, p. 277).
DC (Evidence 1920, Alderman J. Swaish, Bristol, p. 262; Councillor C.F. Haigh, Leeds, p. 262; Mr. C. Courtnay Hodgson, clerk of the peace, Cumberland, p. 433; Mr. G.H. Gardner, New Scotland Yard, p. 64; pp. 110, 276-277).
DC (Evidence 1920, Inspector Samual Latham, MCP, p. 166; P.S George Miles, LCP, p. 186; Sergeant William Clowes, BCP, p. 295). Weekly earnings of other employments included corporation street sweepers, 55 shillings; tram drivers, 65 shillings; cotton porters at Liverpool docks, 68 and a half shillings; and London unskilled laborers, 68 shillings (DC [Part I,1919, p. 9]).
DC (Evidence 1920, pp. 184, 188, 303).
DC (Part I,1919, p. 8).
DC (Part I,1919, pp. 5,7,9,13).
BPO (30 May 1919, pp. 798-799); MGO (31 May 1919); LCCO (31 May 1919).
PR (8 August 1919, p. 318).
PR (13 June 1919, p. 226).
PR (15 August 1919, p. 328). Because of the prohibition against policemen belonging to any association discussing issues of pay, pension or conditions of service, the Chief Constables Association changed their bylaws to conform with the Police Act, 1919. The chief constables vehemently denied that their association was in any way a union (Chief Constables Association Annual Report, [4 June 1920, p. 9]).
BWCM (23 June 1919, p. 63; 23 July 1919, p. 88); BPO (31 July 1919, p. 968; 12 August 1919, pp. 1003-1004); MGO (30 July 1919); Allen (1958, pp. 136, 138-139).
BWCM (23 June 1919, p. 63); officially adopted scale and £10 advance on 23 July 1919 (BWCM [23 July 1919, p. 88]); MGO (30 July 1919).
MGO (5 August 1919).
PR (15 August 1919, p. 328).
Policemen complained about victimization in the latest round of promotions which passed over all union members, hardly surprising given Rafter’s hostility towards the organization (PR [2 May 1919, p. 150]).
DC (Evidence 1920, pp. 297-298).
‘A’ division lost 42 men, ‘C’ lost 38 and ‘E’ lost 39. For some reason, ‘B’ division only lost one man. 118 were regular police, one a police reservist. Two had twenty years experience or more, 22 had fifteen to nineteen years, 30 from ten to fourteen years, 49 from five to nine years, 16 had less than five years. A complete list of the men dismissed is in the BWCM (5 May 1920, pp. 13-22) and in BPO (2-3 August 1919, pp. 972-975). 112 of the men were married (PR [11 March 1927, p. 182]).
Shackleton (1983, pp. 71-73, 78); BPO (2, 3, 4 August 1919, pp. 972-975, 978-979; 3 August 1919, pp. 976-977; 15 August 1919, p. 1016). To reward men who stayed on duty, all disciplinary reductions in class were canceled in calculating the new scale of pay and, initially, dismissed strikers received no arrears in pay. This was changed in January 1920 since it was not legal (BPO [5 August 1919, p. 980]).
Birmingham City Police Roster Book (2 August 1919, PSC Edward Taylor, joined September 1896); Shackleton (1983, p. 63).
BPO (3 August 1919, pp. 976-977). Shackleton argues that «the intensity and genuiness of the commitment of the Birmingham trade-union movement to the cause of the strike was clearly demonstrated» in statements made after the strike was lost.(Shackleton [1983, p. 80]). Yet, no help was forthcoming until it was clearly too late to be of the slightest use. The National Union of Railwaymen met and decided against a sympathy strike though the Licensed Vehicle Workers’ Union requested the TUC and the National Transport Federation to take action to support the police strikers (PR [15 August 1919, p. 328]).
BWCM (4 August 1919, p. 95).
BWCM (15 August 1919, pp. 108-109; 1 September 1919, p. 120).
Birmingham Minutes of the Judicial Sub-Committee (5 July 1920, p. 163).
DC (Evidence 1920, pp. 1943-1949).
Bean (1980, pp. 641, 645). An initial count of strikers was a low three hundred, a result of men being off duty when the strike was called, making it unclear who was on strike, and of officers trying to protect men that they hoped would change their minds about striking (Liverpool City Police Strike Book [LSB][1 August 1919]).
48 sergeants and 907 constables were dismissed out of a total strength of 2,200. The average length of service for sergeants was 18 years. 80 constables had 20 years or more, 78 had 15 to 19 years, 171 had 10 to 14 years, 331 five to nine, 91 one to four and 159 under a year’s service. An additional 2 sergeants and 52 constables struck but reported for duty by 8:00 p.m. on August 1st. In a log kept of strikers in the ‘A’ division, the division rumored to be the fast track to promotion, 11 out of 50 sergeants struck, 3 later asking for readmission. 186 out of 234 constables struck, 80%, 47 asking for readmission. None of the strikers were readmitted. The official count was 12 sergeants and 184 constables (Short history of members of A div. during first ten days of police strike August 1st to 10th 1919, anon., n.d. ).
PR (8 August 1919, p. 323).
LSB (1 August 1919, report of John Leathom Flood, a Lever Brothers clerk present at the meeting; report of Birkenhead Inspr. Birch).
LSB (2 August 1919, report of the chief constable on disposition of troops and magistrates); Liverpool City Police Reports of Constables Injured (3-4 August 1919); Reynolds and Judge (1968, pp. 168-169); Dixon (1966, p. 18).
LCCO (7, 10 August 1919 and following); PR (18 March 1921, p. 150); LWCM (19 August 1919, pp. 453-455); LCCO (20 August 1919); LWCM (30 September 1919, p. 670). Pensioners were not released from duty until May 1920 (LCCO [5 March 1920]).
LCCO (1 August 1919); LSB (1 August 1919).
LSB (3 August 1919, report from Inspector N. Ford to Chief Superintendent ‘A’ Division).
LWCM (11 January 1921, pp. 442-445). Due to Summersall’s eye injury while on duty in 1918 which was progressing towards blindness, the chief constable agreed to «see what can be done in the matter» in spite of Summersall’s striker status.
LWCM (17 February 1920, pp. 486-487). He was given his pension since he qualified for it when he applied for it.
LSB (2 August 1919, report of the Chief Supt. of A Division on 3 strikers asking to be taken back; 4 August 1919, report of Inspr. Ford; 16, 22 August 1919, two reports of P.S. Mybroie).
LSB (3 August 1919, report from Inspector N. Ford to Chief Superintendent ‘A’ Division).
LSB (22 December 1919, chief constable’s order). For those who worked continuously, grants of four weeks pay were given; those recalled from leave or illness and worked extra hours, three weeks; those who remained loyal but did not work long hours, two weeks; those who returned to duty after striking and remained loyal, one week.
LSB (Police Orders, letter from Head Constable Caldwell to the Liverpool City Police). Nine strikers prevented from taking their pensions due to the war were allowed their pensions calculated on the pre-Desborough pay scale when the war officially ended in August 1921. Eight had 25 years service, one 26 years (LWCM [17 February, 11 May 1920, pp. 484-487, 689]; Liverpool City Police Pensioners Register [31 August 1921]).
In 1919 in London, just over a thousand policemen were fired for striking. The strike there was similar to Birmingham, with enough men striking to show dissatisfaction but not enough to cripple the force as in Liverpool (Reynolds, Judge, 1968, p. 143).
DC (Part II, 1920, pp. 23-25).
The federation was not restructured into a real negotiating body of the rank and file until the late 1940s in response to heavy attrition rates, before which time no proper negotiating or arbitration machinery existed. See Reiner (1978, pp. 30, 54, 88ff).
BPO (20 December 1919, p. 1554).
DC (Part II, 1920, p. 9).
DC (Part II, 1920, p. 10).
Haut de page