victim of a serious offence to take the person accused before a justice. To this
end, the constable wielded authority not available to ordinary citizens in ordin-
ary circumstances—powers to arrest and imprison, and to break into houses
in carrying out his duties. In addition, he had the authority to interfere in dis-
turbances and assaults, and to command those involved to remove themselves.
He could arrest people he suspected of evil living or being a threat to good
order—those, for example, who ‘walk in the Night and sleep in the Day’, as a
constables’ handbook put it.^19
In practice, there was a good deal of ambiguity about how such power should
be exercised. Constables were advised to act with discretion. Sir John Fielding
provided advice about avoiding charges of false imprisonment and unlawful
arrest; Saunders Welch added cautions to his account of constables’ powers
about how and when they should be exercised, leaning towards the view that
prudence was the best policy. Welch advised against arresting men involved in
an affray once the altercation was over, for example, and against interfering in
squabbles in alehouses between persons ‘giving verbal abuses very common
with people heated by liquor’. It was lawful for a constable to use force to put
down a riot, but he cautioned against using force except ‘absolutely in your own
defence’. In general, his advice to constables was not to ‘do all you may do, but
always do what you ought to do’.^20 That could hardly have cleared up any con-
fusion constables may have had about the extent of their powers in particular
situations. And the assurance of the City’s support against law suits which the
aldermen issued from time to time in laying new duties on the constables is likely
to have reinforced their reluctance to become too enthusiastic about upholding
the law.^21
The constables’ obligation to take action when a serious offence occurred de-
rived from their ancient role as leaders and spokesmen of their communities.
But by the late seventeenth century their role in the administration of the crim-
inal law had been enlarged and defined by a host of statutes, as they had become
officers of the Crown and agents of the magistrates. The constables of the City
exercised their powers at the command of the lord mayor and the Court of Al-
dermen, in effect under the bench of magistrates. But constables could choose
to a considerable extent how actively they would engage in many of the tasks
that might come their way, and unless they lived in a turbulent neighbourhood,
they could almost certainly keep their heads down and avoid too much trouble
if they so chose. Like every other official in a system of criminal justice in which
Constables and Other Officers 121(^19) The Compleat Constable(London, 1692 ), 15.
(^20) Fielding, Treatise on the Office of Constable, in Extracts from the Penal Laws, 321 – 67 ; Welch, Observations on
the Office of Constable, 6 – 10.
(^21) An order requiring constables to put the law against vice into effect in 1693 assured them that they
would have the ‘protection’ of the Court of Aldermen in this work (Rep 97 , pp. 153 – 61 ). For constables
being defended against suits for unlawful imprisonment and other charges, see Rep 95 , fo. 327 ; and
SP 44 / 81 , p. 344.