A Police Genealogy

https://taplink.cc/hyperboreanwisdom

A Police Genealogy

"Corruption was born at the same time as the police."

Jean-Marc Berlière (*)

From a legal point of view, three phases can be distinguished in primitive times. “In the early years, the state is conceived exclusively as an association of families united to fight against the foreigner. Public revenge, as a result, strikes the citizen who does not perform military service, who is guilty of high treason, who provokes foreign war by violating a peace treaty; these crimes are punished by the magistrate, but the magistrate does not punish the crimes committed by a citizen against his fellow-citizen, he does not force a citizen to observe the contract he has concluded with his fellow-citizen; crimes committed by a citizen against his fellow citizen, contracts between fellow citizens are a private matter; it is to those who have suffered damage, it is to their family that the exercise of the right of revenge belongs,and if they prefer a judgment, this judgment must be arbitral: it will not be rendered or executed without the consent of the guilty or the debtor.

“At this primitive age (…) man believes in the persistence of the personality after death. But he does not conceive in the other life a supreme justice of which he does not have the idea in the present life. When he has a clear idea of ​​the future life, he sees it as analogous to this life, with its social inequalities, its injustices and its struggles (1) ... "

In the second age, “the magistrate took away from individuals the right of vengeance, the right to take justice by force, and one conceives in the other life a divine justice analogous to the justice of the magistrate; but divine justice is more perfect: it repairs errors, it fills the gaps in the justice of the magistrate. The Egyptian funeral ritual shows us the belief in divine justice in the other life at a date well before the civilizations of Greece and Rome. We can conclude that at the same date in Egypt, the magistrate punished the crimes committed by citizens against their fellow citizens and forced citizens to execute contracts concluded with their fellow citizens… (2) ”. The conclusion, we will see shortly, is all that is more accurate.

At the third age appears a state organ in charge of maintaining order and the detection and repression of crimes: the so-called public force.

The police are not, contrary to appearances, the oldest profession in the world. With the oldest profession in the world, it characteristically presents one thing in common: it is typically practiced in the city, as the etymology suggests.

The term “police” comes from the Middle French pollice , itself from the Latin politia , which is the Latinized form of the Greek politeia, "Citizenship, administration, civil policy", that is to say the order of social and political relations in a polis (3) and, in fact, the police, as we will have the opportunity to explain in the present study, can be considered in many respects as the "condition for the existence of urbanity" (4).

The first uses of the term in French are in accordance with its etymological meaning: it first means "regulation" (13th century) (5), then "good order, good administration" (1365), "administration, legislation ( d ' a city ) ”(emphasis added) (1426),“ set of rules imposed on citizensin order to maintain order and security ”(emphasis added) (1584),“ set of rules of a state ”(1606). In the middle of the 17th century, "police" took on the meaning of "administration ensuring the observance of the rules which guarantee public security" (1651); in the edict of March 15, 1667 establishing a lieutenant general of police in Paris (1667) and which expresses for the first time the intention to separate the police from justice, that of administration ensuring "to ensure the rest of the public and individuals, to protect the cityof what can cause disorders "(it is us who underline), from where derives the direction which the term took in the XXth century:" set of organs and institutions of the public force, responsible for ensuring the maintenance of public order by preventing offenses from being committed and by investigating, recording and enabling the offenses to be punished. "Resumed by the law of September 29-October 21, 1791, the distinction between police and justice will be formally established by articles 19 and 20 of the Code of 3 Brumaire year IV, which speaks of" judicial police "and" administrative police ". The object of the latter is to seek and ascertain criminal offenses, to identify the perpetrators and to gather the evidence, while the purpose of this is preventive (6).

The development of the police is part of the formation of the modern state through administrative centralization and the parallel rise of liberalism (7), under the sign of security and freedom (8) as a mode of behavior of the populations (9). The history of security and freedom can be interpreted “as the joint history of a double movement: a movement of centralization of the police accompanying a movement of opening of human groups to the world. The more men free themselves from their family, their clan, their territory, the more they become captives of a public organization (State) which acquires functions that were formerly managed by the father, the chief and / or the local authorities. Centralization accompanies the exit of men from holistic and lineage societies (,ethnically homogeneous and autarkic] and heralds the advent of [cosmopolitan] societies with impersonal relationships ”(10). During this process of domestication and pasteurization, the monopoly of legitimate violence was gradually confiscated from clan leaders or fathers by the state. The first part of this study will focus on retracing this evolution, or, rather, involution.

Egypt did not go through the first of the three ages which have been described above. “Private revenge is inconceivable there; there is no system of composition (or redemption of revenge). Any offense disturbs the public order that it is up to the Power to preserve, it is he who, through his judicial organs, prosecutes (on denunciation, except in serious cases), who judges, who punishes, and who apply the penalty ”(11). Hence the existence of a police force in the modern sense at a relatively remote time in this country.

Until the end of the Old Kingdom (2613-2181 BCE), monarchs had personal guards to protect them and enlisted others to watch their sites. Nobles hired trusted Egyptians from respectable backgrounds to ensure their protection and guard their valuables. During the 5th Dynasty (2500-2300 BCE), kings and nobles began to choose their personal guards from among the military and former military as well as from warriors of foreign nations, such as the Medjay, a Nubian tribe. Armed with wooden sticks, they were responsible for guarding public places (markets, temples, graves) and often used trained dogs and monkeys to apprehend criminals (12). In rural areas,they banished troublemakers and persuaded the population, through corporal punishment if necessary, to pay taxes; in the event of a strike, they could be led to ask more or less politely the workers to resume work illico presto (13).

The Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BC) saw the creation of the first standing army and a reform of the judicial system under the reign of Amenemhat I (c. 1991-1962 before our era). Court cases were heard by a group of scribes and priests who, after evaluating the evidence and consulting the gods, gave their judgment. It was easy for those who could afford it to corrupt them. The post of professional judge was therefore created to counter this. Well-versed in law, judges were paid by the state, so well paid that they were considered incorruptible. The creation of professional judge posts resulted in the development of courts and the recruitment of a host of bailiffs, scribes, investigators and interrogators as well as the formation of a court police.At the start of the New Kingdom (c. 1570 - c. 1069 BCE) this police force was better organized and the judicial system as a whole was perfected. The police officers exercised the functions of prosecutor, interrogator, bailiff and also administered sentences. The police were responsible for enforcing national and local laws, but there were special units, which had received training as priests and whose job was to enforce temple law and protocol. These laws were often aimed not only at protecting temples and tombs, but also at ensuring respect for the rules of decency before and during all services and ceremonies (14).this police force was better organized and the judicial system as a whole was improved. The police officers exercised the functions of prosecutor, interrogator, bailiff and also administered sentences. The police were responsible for enforcing national and local laws, but there were special units, which had received training as priests and whose job was to enforce temple law and protocol. These laws were often aimed not only at protecting temples and tombs, but also at ensuring respect for the rules of decency before and during all services and ceremonies (14).this police force was better organized and the judicial system as a whole was improved. The police officers exercised the functions of prosecutor, interrogator, bailiff and also administered sentences. The police were responsible for enforcing national and local laws, but there were special units, which had received training as priests and whose job was to enforce temple law and protocol. These laws were often aimed not only at protecting temples and tombs, but also at ensuring respect for the rules of decency before and during all services and ceremonies (14).The police were responsible for enforcing national and local laws, but there were special units, which had received training as priests and whose job was to enforce temple law and protocol. These laws were often aimed not only at protecting temples and tombs, but also at ensuring respect for the rules of decency before and during all services and ceremonies (14).The police were responsible for enforcing national and local laws, but there were special units, which had received training as priests and whose job was to enforce temple law and protocol. These laws were often aimed not only at protecting temples and tombs, but also at ensuring respect for the rules of decency before and during all services and ceremonies (14).

The pharaoh was commander-in-chief of the army and the police, but in practice his vizier was the highest official in the judiciary. The vizier chose the judges and appointed the chief of police, whose title, "chief of the Medjay", was a holdover from the days when the police force was made up mainly of Nubian warriors. The "chief of the Medjay" was still an Egyptian, who employed other Egyptians as deputies, to whom many subordinates were attached, while the Nubians continued to compose the personal guard of the pharaoh, to watch the markets and other public places and to protect the royal trade caravans. All were ultimately responsible to the vizier, with the exception of temple police officers,who were under the supervision of the head of the temple where they officiated. Other police units were established, some to guard the caravans, others to protect the border posts, still others to monitor the royal necropolises, supervise the transport and the daily work of slaves (especially in the mines) or monitor important administrative buildings. They were placed in posts.

As scarce as the documents are available on the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1069 - 664 BCE), a time of civil wars and anarchy in which the police force and the judiciary were still functioning, they still contain ample evidence that scribes, judges, and police officers could then be easily purchased. During the XXIst Dynasty, founded by Nesbanebdjed I (c. 1077-1051 BCE), police officers were accustomed to receiving bribes and extortion was also one of their specialties. A person accused of a crime was presumed guilty until proven guilty and, since the testimony of a police officer was taken much more seriously than that of a citizen,it was in everyone's best interests to be on good terms with the local police, as illustrated by the advice given by a father to his son regarding the attitude to adopt towards his “herald”. district in the Papyrus of Boulaq IV (formerly known as the Papyrus of Any): "Make friends with (him)." Don't make him mad at you. Invite him to eat at your place, Do not reject his requests; Say to him, 'Welcome, welcome here.' (15) "'Be welcome, be welcome here.' (15) "'Be welcome, be welcome here.' (15) "

Under the Ptolemies, the police system had acquired great efficiency, including with regard to corruption. During the three centuries that this dynasty lasted, victims of crime called on local police officers to investigate, organize trials, arrest, interrogate and sometimes even imprison the perpetrators. In Ptolemaic Egypt, “(the) history of the criminals, the police and the maintenance of order in the choraEgyptian is mainly that of government organizations and officials. The kingdom's rulers had established a vast network of interconnected police officers in towns and villages to monitor their populations. They made arrests, detained suspects, opened investigations, attended crime scenes, gathered evidence, condemned homes, confiscated property and even held trials, often without instructions from their superiors. The supervision of these officials extended from the smallest colonies in the Egyptian hinterland to the headquarters of the central administration in Alexandria. The police occupied all points of the geographical or administrative hierarchy (village, toparchie, meris, nome) and the officials communicated with each other quickly and efficiently. Senior officials ensured that the police and their supervisors in the countryside followed their orders and that government affairs were conducted expeditiously and comprehensively ”(16). However, the Egyptians, as a good number of period documents show, were far from satisfied with their police: unnecessary violence during searches, seizures and investigations, unauthorized requisitions of property, arbitrary detentions, arbitrary refusal of release. , mistreatment during tax collection, the list is long of the grievances they set out against its representatives and which sometimes found an echo in royal decrees (17).

A profound difference separates the Roman procedure from the Ptolemaic procedure and also from the modern procedure: “it is in principle in Rome that the State does not impose itself to settle the disputes which arise between citizens. Submission to public justice is purely voluntary; the parties must agree to request a judge (18). The threshold of the Roman house is impassable for the magistrates of the city… (19) ”.

In Rome as in Greece, the only penal system originally was that of private vengeance (20): the injured individual, or, failing that, the people to whom he belonged, took his / her own vengeance, the struggles between individuals had no public character. There was only tribal law. With the development of the city, custom gradually created intertribal law, from which gradually emerged "public law" (21), a consequence of the ascendancy that the demos had taken over the generations.(22). “There is no triumphant city which does not seek and, most often, does not succeed in (..) completely destroying (the ancient internal law of the tribe). It necessarily succeeds, since it can triumph only by destroying the political organization of the family. The cases which, formerly, belonged to the law of the family, are all absorbed by the law of the city, some by the old intertribal law become a private law, which, with the decline of the family authority, governs individuals. and no longer groups, the others by public law ”(23). The tribunal thereby becomes the place where the citizens exercise power, which until then was held by the heads of the clan, the fathers of families; these cease to have any power over their children, who now come under the citizens' court,where they must answer for their acts according to a code of laws identical for all. “(T) he court establishes political and civic power. It establishes the power of the City (that is to say all the citizens). He establishes the City as the place of power ”(24).

But the city, by "slowly replacing (uant) a (legal) link for the personal link that blood had established until then between the members of the clan (...), must face the most pressing social problem that can arise: to constrain its members to resolve, by means other than recourse to violence, the conflicts which arise between them, more numerous than ever, since within the city their interests are diversified and entangled ”(25) . For this, the city relied on religious sentiment.

Homicide came (26) to be associated with a taint, contagious taint: it was supposed to be transmitted to the entire community, which then had to be purged by various sacrifices (27). “Spilled blood is considered a harmful principle that contaminates the whole city: the religious feeling of which the murder was the object for the victim's family alone is shared by the whole group, with which it makes it an obligation to associate. to revenge or, in general, to secure atonement '”(28). The public repression of homicide “supposes, if we compare it to the previous regime, a process of social integration through which the city is realized. An individual is killed: until then, that only concerned his parents; now the group feels reached enough to collaborate with them,but also to fix the reparation which is due to them and which is due to them. This indicates (…) a weakening of family solidarity… ”(29).

At the same time, the idea was put into circulation that the State suffered in certain cases from the harm caused to one of its members and that it was up to it to punish the culprit (30). "The theory of public action, which makes the solidarity of the social body and the interest of the city prevail over the interest and passion of the individual, absorbed the theory of private vengeance" (31). The public repression of the murder replaced the regime of private revenge, the execution of the murderer was done by the authorities and not the business of the victim's family. The exercise of public vengeance was entrusted to magistrates; the sentence, imposed until then by the victim or his companion, was pronounced by the state court.

The shift from private revenge to legal process in Rome began in the time of the Twelve Tables (450-449 BCE). This decline had four phases (32): 1 ° The State established itself as the sole judge of the legitimacy or not of private revenge, which, in the small number of cases where it remained authorized (33), was subject to formalities (34); 2 ° the State sanctioned the pacts of transaction between the victim and the offender, by which the latter paid a ransom to avoid revenge; 3 ° the State forced the victim to be satisfied with a ransom for certain not very serious crimes (for example, in the Twelve Tables, the furtum nec manifestum , the offense of os fractum [breaking a bone] could no longer give rise to vindictafrom the offended, but only to a pecuniary composition); 4 ° the State substituted the pecuniary composition ( poena ) for the vindicta for the expiation of all the crimes (35).

From the “organized prohibition of homicide” (36) there resulted a distinction, established in Rome in the Law of the Twelve Tables (37), between two classes of offenses.

Originally, only conspiracies against the state or crimes against religion were qualified as social crimes; for the great crimes of this type, a religious expiation had been established in the name of the public interest: “one believed in a certain solidarity of the citizens between them, the infraction of a single individual being supposed to attract the celestial anger on the whole people ”(38). Later, the list of crimes grew longer and the strengthening of social power in the field of criminal law was manifested, in Rome as in Athens, by the distinction in two classes of all reprehensible acts committed, either against property, either against individuals: on the one hand, the crimina publica and, on the other, the privata delicta, which were sort of the fossilized substance of private revenge. The repression of the former (39) belonged to the public authority before the criminal courts; they were punished by fine, exile or death. The prosecution of the latter (simple theft, theft with violence, insult and contempt, damage caused to others by fraud or fault) was left exclusively to those concerned and took place before the civil courts; first punished by flogging, they were then punished by a pecuniary penalty.

Neither in Rome nor in Greece, however, was there a state service responsible for investigating offenses and ensuring the repression of their perpetrators: there was no judicial police. When an offense had been committed, the investigation of the case - the arrest of suspects, the gathering of testimony and evidence, the confiscation of property, the preparation and organization of trials - fell to the victim.

"The Athenians never imagined that public security could be based on a body of citizens who would hold a monopoly on violence" (40). In the city-states of ancient Greece, "(t) he security of the whole city depended on each of its members, who had the basic right to be armed" (41).

The functions of "police" were entrusted to the Eleven. They looked after the courts, prisons and, more generally, criminal justice, assisted by ten astynomoi , responsible for the maintenance and cleanliness of the city of Athens and the port of Piraeus and ten agoranomoi , who ensured order in the market and ten other metronomoi , who ensured that weights and measures were respected. In order to fulfill their functions, the magistrates depended in part on the army, which considered itself primarily responsible for the external security of the city-state. Thus, they had to rely even more on a body of public slaves called demosioi ( Skythai , Toxotai etSpeusinioi ). Made up of about three hundred men of Scythian, Thracian and Getic origin at its foundation between the end of the Persian wars (478 BC) and the peace of Callias (449 BC), that of the Skythaithere were perhaps a little more than a thousand at the end of the fifth century BC (42). They were "equipped (...) at the expense of the State, in the fashion of their country, with a tunic with long, sticky sleeves, open at the front and tight at the waist with a belt, rather wide slit pants or anaxyrides. on the side, and boots going up to mid-leg. As a hairstyle, the Scythians wore, in the barbaric manner, the high pointed cap, a sort of hood, completing their denunciation by this detail, as well as by the motley colors of their clothing, their foreign origin. Such a uniform, so different from the Greek costume, suddenly pointed them out to the attention and fear of those who would have been in the mood to fight ”, especially since they were armed with a whip (43) .They performed their duties not only in the daytime streets (at night, the Athenians roamed the unlit streets of the city by the light of a torch carried by a slave, at their own risk and peril), but also in all places of public meeting, at the assembly of the people, at the Council, at the Areopagus, in the courts, at festivals and processions, etc. They were only authorized to act on the orders of the magistrates. Posted at the entrance to the courts, they made the heliasts who arrived after the opening of the proceedings turn around, while, inside the court, they expelled any disturbers. In the Assembly, if he wanted a citizen to go up to the rostrum without having been authorized to do so or without respecting etiquette, or that, once at the rostrum,he arrogated to himself the right to give advice when he was incompetent (44), they snatched him away by using the whip (45), a punitive practice all the more humiliating for citizens since it had originally been reserved for slaves: thus the free men had not been delivered from the harsh treatment that Xerxes had subjected them to, to them and to the other Greeks of free birth, by forcing some of them, who were dependent on him, to dig under the blows of this instrument the channel of Mount Athos (beginning of the 5th century before our era) (46), that the better to let them be freely inflicted thereafter. Thethus the free men had not been delivered from the harsh treatment which Xerxes had subjected them, to them and to the other Greeks of free birth, by forcing some of them, who were dependent on him, to dig under the blows of this instrument the channel of Mount Athos (beginning of the 5th century BC) (46), only to let them be freely inflicted thereafter. Thethus the free men had not been delivered from the harsh treatment which Xerxes had subjected them, to them and to the other Greeks of free birth, by forcing some of them, who were dependent on him, to dig under the blows of this instrument the channel of Mount Athos (beginning of the 5th century BC) (46), only to let them be freely inflicted thereafter. TheSkythai were further charged with arresting wrongdoers (47), without being authorized to investigate misdemeanors or crimes (48). They only occasionally assisted the Eleven in their criminal justice tasks; legal proceedings were not very frequent, arbitration internal or external to oikos making it possible to settle or at least to smooth out the majority of the problems (49). “'Slaves', they (the demosioi) (were) evidently in name and under military discipline; but (they were) highly privileged slaves. The security of the city (could) depend on their loyalty. In times of war, they (were) only auxiliaries. As police officers, they did not (have) it hard and their position (was) envied by all workers and servants ”(50). Their body was dissolved in the first quarter of the 4th century BC, due to the financial difficulties that the Athenian city was going through (51).

Recruitment of police officers from the lower classes - slaves, freedmen and low-born citizens, some with criminal backgrounds - persisted in Rome.

"Nothing like the modern police existed in archaic Rome" (52). In republican Rome, the main police functions were essentially exercised by the magistrates themselves and by their subordinates ( apparitores et publici ). The censor was in charge of supervising morals, the praetores to dispense justice, the aedilis among others to supervise the markets, to confiscate or destroy everything that was smuggled there and to impose fines on offenders, the tribunes of the plebs could arrest those they considered to represent a threat to "public" order; as for the capital tresviri, they did not have full criminal jurisdiction or jus prensionis (right of arrest) and acted on behalf of their superiors. Their functions were to organize fire-fighting, guard prisons and watch over executions. They carried out night patrols to maintain order and, among other things, helped the city officials to burn forbidden books. It is possible that they were instructed by the praetor to settle certain civil proceedings of a semi-criminal nature, in which private citizens acted as prosecutors. They also had to collect the sacramentas(deposit of money that each of the parties in conflict placed in the hands of the Pontiffs at the start of a trial; that of the loser was confiscated) and examine the request for exemption made by those who refused to be part of a jury. Caesar increased their number to four; Auguste brought him back to three. During the imperial era, most of their functions passed into the hands of praefectus vigilum (53).

First organizer of urban services, Augustus (54), in 7 BC, divided Rome into fourteen districts ( regiones ), each made up of vici supervised by vicomagistri, who, in addition to their administrative and religious functions, were responsible for fire protection. In 6 of our era, following a particularly serious fire, Augustus transformed this brigade into a body of vigilantes . First six hundred in number, the vigils were made available to the tresviri nocturniand aedile curules, then they were organized into seven cohorts, forming a total of one thousand men; each cohort was commanded by a tribune. They were distributed in the fourteen regions of the city, at the rate of two per region and shared between fourteen guardhouses located under the walls and at the gates of Rome. Each cohort was in charge of fire rescue and, especially at night, of protecting two neighborhoods. Their leader, discussed above, had the title of praefectus vigilum , which had the rank of knight. He exercised criminal jurisdiction in cases of arson and offenses committed against the law overnight. The vigilswere mostly recruited from among public slaves or freedmen. As a further measure to bring order to the dangerous streets of Rome, which numbered over a million inhabitants, Augustus created three police cohorts, which were part of the army and were placed under the command of the prefect. These cohorts could call in case of need to the Praetorian Guard, the only body of troops tolerated within the enclosure of the Urbs , where, even under the Empire, neither the regular troops, nor the cavalry nor even the infantry. 'were allowed to take up their permanent quarters.

Until the end of the "Republic", the Romans were reluctant to engage in the prevention, detection and prosecution of common crime, which they considered to be a civil offense to be tried out of court. The Romans did not know of a "public ministry". As in Greece, many private crimes were only prosecuted at the request of the injured party (55) and the corresponding actions often ended in a settlement, otherwise they were judged either by judges delegated by the lender, or by arbitrators ( arbitri) (56); the prosecution of public offenses belonged to the citizens; "There did not exist in Rome of magistrates specially appointed to the instruction of the criminal trials, before the judgment" (57). But since, in order to succeed, one needed personal and financial resources, connections and a lot of will, "it was customary to provoke a denunciation by promising a reward" (58). Mutual aid, at least for those who could not afford to offer it, was an absolute necessity. Any individual assaulted or threatened with theft or any group witnessing a crime or a physical assault could and even, in certain cases, was legally obliged (59) to seek help by different types of cry: endoploratio(literally: ritual curse) (60) (cry uttered by the victim of a flagrante delicto to attract the attention of neighbors), the convicium (cry uttered by one who arrested someone to bring him to justice) (61) , which will be found in Norman England under the name of " hue and cry ", the quiritatio (so named because of the formula which accompanied it: " Adeste , Quirites ") (62). In these cases, murder in self-defense was authorized under certain conditions, defined by the Twelve Tables (63).

The establishment of a permanent police directorate in Rome and its surroundings dates back to Tiberius. “Its immediate task was, on the one hand, the preventive police, in view of which it had under its surveillance the circus and the other monuments assigned to public shows and also the markets, in particular the weights and measures, the shops of money changers and in general all the commerce which was carried out on the public highway and in the public places; on the other hand, a criminal justice, energetic and prompt, appropriate to the needs of the big city, in particular on the slaves and the lower people, which had been in this form unknown to the Republic. The circle of punishable acts was not the circle of acts prescribed by law; to all appearances, it depended on the prince's arbitrariness or, if you prefer,his representative in this area, the prefect, to intervene in cases where the public interest seemed to require it. As proof, we can notice that the prefect even received complaints from slaves, without rights in the strictness of the law, against the masters who mistreated them and that he imposed criminal penalties on unfaithful tutors, subject in law only to prosecution. civil. The circle of persons against whom the préfet could act cannot have been delimited by law either. He intervenes, for example, without distinction of persons, against the exercise of the right of association made without legal authorization and from an early time, it was denounced people of senatorial rank politically dangerous ”(64).The goal of the city prefecture was to maintain public tranquility in the capital. “The supporters of the old constitution, nominally reinstated by Augustus, could rightly say that the exceptional power, exercised in particular by Mécène in the open crisis between Caesar and Antony, (there) was perpetuated (…); andcertain vestiges indicate the repulsion perfectly founded in principle and in practice which this institution provoked (it is us who underline) ”(65).

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE, the Eastern Empire retained some of the oldest Roman institutions - for example, the main policing authority was the koiaistor(Hellenized equivalent of the Roman quaestor) (66); its main task was to watch over the large numbers of foreigners residing in the capital. Apart from the Byzantine Empire, the towns having almost disappeared, all forms of police had almost disappeared too. The maintenance of order was ensured either by the military, often simple armed bands, or by the community itself. The legal codifications of the beginning of the “middle ages”, like the Salic law, show that almost all the infractions were regarded as forms of tort on which it was for the parties to decide informally. The conflict resolution mechanisms established in England at this time provide an excellent example of how law and order was maintained before the development of modern policing.

For a long time, in England as in Germany, the clan was the only organization capable of protecting the life and property of its members and of obtaining redress for offenses committed against them. Justice consisted in blood revenge, after all attempts to settle the conflict amicably had failed. The revenge of blood was, not assuredly a right (67), but a sacred duty that no law had yet dared to prohibit. Every free man was required to protect himself and his own. He exercised it through private warfare. The weak state had no part in settling conflicts between clans.

It seems that, in Germany, it was in the 5th century AD and in England in the 7th century AD (68) that the clan group lost its function as the sole guarantor of the peace and safety of its inhabitants. members for the benefit of the State (69), even if it continued to carry all its weight in the administration of justice: only the support of a clan enabled a man to sue and to bring together enough individuals vouching for the oath to be taken in court (70). In England, the first laws, written around 600, were seen as "weapons" of the State (71), by which it intended to arrogate to itself the monopoly of arbitration in disputes between individuals or clans. The vengeance of blood, as in Rome and Greece in antiquity, was thus limited by the laws;some protected the murderer's clan against reprisals from the parents of his victim and others established the pecuniary composition, compensation that the author of an offense had to pay to his victim, or, in the event of death, to his clan (72 ) and which was originally informal. In some cases, part of the composition was paid to the king and the lord - on the grounds that they had lost, respectively, a subject and a vassal.

Our kings, a British apologist for royalty declared in the 19th century, sought, assisted by their grand council, remedies for the disorders caused by the incessant struggles between families and a particular system ended up being born from the measures which they adopted (73) : unknown to the Germanic peoples (74), this system was called in the middle of the 12th century frithborh , renamed plegium liberale and translated into Norman by franc plege (75).

Even before the Norman Conquest, the law had come to require that local communities prosecute criminals and delinquents and hand them over to the royal courts. To give substance to this first " community policing ("Community police"), a new territorial organization was established, which "only served to tie the various localities more closely to the state" (76). England, apparently under the reign of Alfred (959–975) (77), was thus divided into shires (counties), each shire into hundreds (hundreds) and each hundred into tithings (tens), each of these divisions being supervised, the shire by a shire-reeve or sheriff ( scirgerefa , keeper); the hundred by a hundred man (centurion); the tithing bytithingman (dizenier) or borsholder .

All these divisions would work together to found a mutual guarantee system on the reciprocal obligation to maintain order and safety and to prosecute evildoers and criminals and bring them to justice.

The heart of the system (78) was constituted by the tithing . “The members of a tything (…) were (…) a perpetual bond for each other (…). This guarantee consisted in that throughout the kingdom these ten men were responsible for each other, in the sense that, if one of the ten committed a fault, the nine others had to bring it to justice so that he paid with his property or with you. If he shied away from justice, the tythinghad the means to justify any participation in his crime or his flight; failing which, if the delinquent's assets were insufficient, the other members of the tything were forced to complete the fine (…) ”(79). They had, them or whoever crossed his path, a month to find the fugitive (80). It was the duty of anyone to whom harm was done or who witnessed a crime to shout ( hue and cry) and his neighbors were required to come and assist him in the pursuit and apprehension of the offender. Anyone who joined in the pursuit had a right to arrest the fugitive, even if he turned out to be innocent. If he bore clear proof of his guilt on his person and resisted capture, he could be killed on the spot; if he allowed himself to be captured, he would stand trial. Cnut's law declared any individual who let a thief escape without hue and cry liable to the same penalty as that incurred by the thief, unless he was able to clear himself of any suspicion of complicity with him. . According to common law, any individual who saw a murder or an act of robbery committed, without prosecuting the criminal or hue and cry, was indeed punishable (81). By an act of parliament, the obligation to hue and crywas extended to other offenses. The main thing was flagrante delicto as much as possible, but the Clarendon Constitutions (1166) required localities to declare "anyone accused or generally suspected of being a thief or murderer or anyone hiding thieves or murderers" ( 82). The indictment, originally private, was replaced by a system of indictment in the name of the king, led by "(t) he prompt incarnation of state power in the Norman kings" (83). The duty to prosecute offenses in the king's name before justice was organized for this reason in a manner analogous to that of testifying on the continent and was frequently confused with the duty to testify (84). The impeachment jury, originally composed of four men from each tithing, was then taken from a certain number of honest and just men ( probi et legales homines ) (85), then, at a still later period, it was composed exclusively of royal officials, which will be discussed below: the justices of the peace (justices of the peace). The institution of the prosecution is, however, a recent creation in Great Britain, where until the 19th century there was no prosecutor for most crimes and it was the victim or a relative who brought the prosecution. , investigated and pleaded the case (86).

Under William the Conqueror, with the exclusion of priests, every free man had to belong to a tithing : "... all laymen, unless they own a freehold[the tenure of free men] of a certain extent, was required to place himself under the tutelary regime of the surety of his lord, or to engage with other small owners in the relations of solidarity of a mutual guarantee and collectives. Anyone who was neither a grand thane (servant of the king), and as such exempt from the Frank-pledge , nor a member of a tything , was outside the law ”(87); the heirs of the free man who was not part of a group ( tithing or hundred ) were not entitled to a worm(compensation), if he was killed; if he was accused of a crime, he could not support his innocence by relying on a witness. By making the system of mutual surety compulsory through excessive judicialization, it is very likely that the Normans sought to establish a stricter policy towards those they had conquered and to weaken their family ties (88).

The law on compulsory mutual surety was based on the principle "according to which the best guarantee of the obedience of each man to the government should be sought in the confidence that his neighbors had in him" (89). The duty to make sure it was respected fell on the sheriff, "The agent of the monarchy" (90), who held for this purpose twice a year an itinerant court called sheriff's tourn (91). Criminal justice and criminal justice were originally focused in his person during his tour (92). He was at the same time judge, peacekeeper, executive officer and receiver of rents: in his judicial capacity , he treated and judged small civil trials, directed the elections of the counties and had to provide the names of the elected officials; as a peacekeeper, he could apprehend all those who breached the peace and compel each to provide a guarantee for his conduct. He had to ex officiohave the felons and other criminals placed in secure detention and could prosecute them or, to defend the country, convene the levy en masse, posse comitatus ; as an executive officer of the higher courts ( ministerial capacity ), he had to execute all the procedural decrees of the royal courts; in civil proceedings, he had to carry out postponements, arrest, receive sureties; when the affair came to its solution, he had to convene the jury and compose it; when she was tried, he had to see to her execution. He was to have imprisoned in criminal cases, compose the jury, keep the accused and execute the judgments; as receiver of royal pensions ( king's bailliff), he had to safeguard the tax rights in his constituency; take possession of confiscated or dormant property, recover fines (a large part of which went to bishops, counts and lords) (93), property that has been violated, maritime wrecks, straying cattle and other small treats (94).

The Magna Carta withdrew the placita coronae (royal criminal cases) from him, except in cases of private indictment for misdemeanor ( appeal ). The direction of capital proceedings and judgment in criminal cases also eventually escaped him. Of his previous criminal powers, all that remained was a police power ( conservation of the peace ), the journal des franc-tenanciers (view of frank pledge ), taking first steps in sedition cases, lifting hue and cry , criminal police duties in cases of false weight and petty police offenses; of his original financial powers he retained only the collection of income which had not passed to other financial employees. The sheriff's office was, like the Frank-pledge system , in full decline in the time of the Plantagenets, where he had to share his powers first among others with the royal commissioner judges and colleges of the royal courts (95), then with the justices of the peace: to reign, to divide, of course, but also to multiply the institutional duplicates.

The justices of the peace, appointed in 1361, under Edward III (96), were mostly from the gentry, a social class whose power was strengthened and extended as that of the old noble families, decimated by the Wars of Roses in the 15th century, was shrinking. Under the Tudors, the gentry exhibited "a 'persistent tendency ... to give only half of their allegiance to public affairs and the other half to their private profit.' The office of justice of the peace offered the gentry the possibility of reconciling its two allegiances, while consolidating its social and economic power, in particular, but not exclusively, at the local level ”(97). The justices of the peace, who “then (have) (…) the sole origin of their power in the royal commission” (98), were the eyes and ears of the monarch and of the parliament in the counties,where the barons remained very powerful.

We can understand that the powers that the royal power entrusted to justices of the peace as part of its centralizing policy could have been very extensive. They were at the same time peacekeepers, administrative officials, magistrates of the correctional police, investigating magistrates and judges in civil matters. As peacekeepers, they were required to ensure the maintenance of public peace according to common law, by taking preventive police measures, by arresting those guilty in flagrante delicto and by issuing police orders. arrest. It was their duty to dissolve seditious and illegal meetings and to clear the roads of beggars and vagrants. They could demand a surety of the peace) from any person threatening others and a surety for the good behavior) pamphleteers, night prowlers, notorious thieves and regulars in brothels (99). As administrative officials, they had regulatory power in district affairs, especially tax promulgation, poor tax confirmation, adjudication of tax claims, district coffers, etc. They held higher authority over the administration of local municipalities, the administration of the poor, the organization of road maintenance, the administrative measures of the militia, the administration of prisons, madhouses ( 100). To this were added new criminal powers: the industrial police, in particular the surveillance of hostels and taverns as well as roading, the police of roads, rivers and coasts, hunting and fishing,the morals and entertainment police, responsible for the surveillance of gambling houses and disorderly houses and the repression of drunkenness and public insults (already punished by fine, imprisonment or pillory by thecommon law ); the labor and subsistence police, responsible for regulating the weight and price of bread, the salaries of artisans, day laborers and domestic or farm servants; the police of hotels, brasseries, taverns and restaurants (101); without forgetting the press legislation. “This new part of the police function developed (a) most completely under the Tudors [16th century] into a deeply branched system (…) which completely corresponds to the police systems which in the days of the old regime developed. on the continent ”(our emphasis) (102) and which no longer had much to do with the frank-pledge , a system of“ conservation of peace ”, that is to say of protection people and goods.

The justices of the peace had under their authority high constables , whom they had the power to commission, to take the oath and to supervise. The high constables , direct heirs of the hundredmen , had under their command petty constables or constables of the vill . As evidenced by the old proverb "where is a constable, there is a township", the constable was, like the demosioi and vigilantes in antiquity, a necessary creation of the city.

At night, the streets of London, like those of other major cities in Britain, were poorly or poorly lit, increasing the risk of theft, burglary and physical assault in that space of time. The concerns raised by these risks had been partly assuaged by the establishment of a curfew, on the signal, given by the ringing of a bell, from which the city gates were closed and the streets emptied. Anyone who was out at night without reason or permission was suspicious and was considered a potential criminal (103). To make the curfew more effective, an ordinance of 1233 imposed the appointment of night-watchmen(night watchmen), with the function of "arresting those who enter villages at night and walk around armed"; the Assizes of Arms (1252) added: "those who disturb our peace" (104) and demanded the appointment of constables to prevent and prevent any violation of public order. The primary function of the constables was night watch ( ward-and-watch ). The statute of Winchester (1285) carries that it will be elected two constables by canton ( hundred ) and orders that "the suspicious people who will walk at night will be arrested and detained by the guard" (the watchmen ). The statute of the 5th year of Edward III (in 1332) authorizesconstables (without forcing them to do so) "to arrest those suspected of murder, felony and theft and deliver them to the sheriff , to be held in prison until the arrival of the judges". Each parish (administrative subdivision, originally ecclesiastical, of the county ) was to have at least one constable and every parishioner, except members of the nobility and almost all those of the gentry, was under the obligation of to fulfill this office there for one year (105). Elected by a group of parish representatives, he was neither salaried nor even remunerated (106).

The office of high constableswas purely administrative. As an auxiliary employee of other authorities, he had to perform special services according to particular laws, especially to execute the orders of coroners (officers charged, on behalf of the Crown, to take information, with the assistance of 'a jury, on the causes of any kind of violent death, unnatural or mysterious, on the discoveries of treasures and the debris of shipwrecks), of the administration of the militia for the barracks, the team, etc., of military administration in similar cases; provide assistance to tax officials in the event of home visits and foreclosures. As an executive officer of the justices of the peace, he had to put into action the plethora of decrees and judgments ( precepts , warrants, orders , convictions ) that they issued.

The constable petty was a peace officer. He had a particular duty to maintain public safety, namely to walk his constituency, to hold hands there in the observation of the laws, to avoid the crimes there, to protect the inhabitants there against violence, to ensure that the Sunday festival and the regulations on public drinking establishments, arrest drunks there, defend prohibited swears, visit suspicious houses, prevent forbidden games there, arrest vagrants, dealers and unlicensed hawkers there, seize objects suspected of being stolen, etc. (107). Of these functions, in the exercise of which the petty constablesdo not seem to have stood out for their efficiency and probity (108), ensued an independent right of arrest. They could arrest on their own ( arrest ) anyone for a felony or a breach of the peace committed in their presence, or if they had reasonable cause to suspect that a felony had been committed. In these cases, they could call on any third party to help them, who was obliged to assist them under threat of an arbitrary penalty in the event of refusal.

The municipal administration was even authorized to attribute to the inhabitants the rights and duties of constables in cases of urgent necessity (109), in which cases, like the constablesat the time of their appointment, they had in principle to take an oath (110). Locke would later summarize this British practice of maintaining order, saying that "although every man in society has forsaken the power he had to punish himself for breaches of the laws of nature in application of his own judgment. private, it should be noted nonetheless that by handing over to society this right that it had to judge offenses (...) he at the same time gave the right to society to use its own strength for the execution of judgments whenever she needs them, for these judgments are in fact her own judgments, whether made by him or by his representatives ”(111). Until the creation of the Metropolitan Policein 1829, however, it was not exactly to "society" that man "(gave the right) to use his own strength for the execution of judgments whenever it needed it", but to his municipality and only to its municipality.

Until the 18th century, England was “a network of weakly connected and necessarily self-sufficient groups. It was a collection of areas isolated from each other by characters such as different dialects and economic interests. Some communities were so isolated that local currencies had to be put into circulation when the stock of central money ran out. The problems of central coordination were such that each county tended to manifest a significant political autonomy, autonomy maintained and jealously guarded by the local elites. English counties were dominated by their own miniature governments ”(112). The particularities were reflected in the structures of “peace keeping”. The jurisdiction was local, the authority of the justice of the peace,although it was the key cog in the administrative centralization initiated under the Tudors, did not extend beyond the limits of its constituency; the service was free; because the magistrate did not withdraw any salary from his functions and the citizens had to discharge personally or through substitutes the duties imposed on them by the law, the application of which therefore remained mainly a private matter (113). There was no official body responsible for enforcing it (114).the application of which therefore remained mainly a private matter (113). There was no official body responsible for enforcing it (114).the application of which therefore remained mainly a private matter (113). There was no official body responsible for enforcing it (114).

These principles were not long in colliding with the changes which the increase in the British population towards the end of the 17th century brought about in manners, particularly in London, where, owing to the favorable economic conditions which reigned there, many poor immigrants flocked. to seek fortune there. The more the population increased and, with it, the crime, the more difficult it became to track down and apprehend delinquents, especially since they were organized and exercised violent reprisals on those who tried to get in their way. ; especially since they were sometimes one with the representatives of the law (115); all the more so since, despite, it must be emphasized, the mayor's repeated exhortations,residents were increasingly reluctant to fulfill their duties by patrolling the streets alongside theconstables (116): effective in rural areas, where all the villagers knew each other well, the relics of the frank-pledge systemwere no longer so in the gray anonymity of cities. Under these conditions “the magistrate's task became (more and more) difficult and unpleasant; it followed that, little by little, the men in high places in the world, all those who exercised important and lucrative professions, sought to escape the obligations of the law. They were replaced, as magistrates, by people of an inferior class who, in the almost irresponsible power of the justice of the peace, saw only the illicit advantages they could derive from it; their rapacity soon earned them the sad nickname of 'Trafficking Judges'. The people suffered the most from this state of affairs, because where they sought protection, they found only oppression and venality ”(117). Furthermore,defendants found guilty hardly suffered the consequences of their actions, and most crimes were not even defined (118).

However, property was the main concern of residents and the public administration (119), which is why theft was considered a serious crime, along with counterfeiting. Lawsuits were expensive and time-consuming, without guaranteeing the return of stolen property. As a result, victims of thefts were made to pay individuals to investigate and provide evidence of the guilt of suspects with a view to conviction (120) and, from the 1690s (121), the authorities they themselves began to offer rewards to those actively contributing to the arrest and conviction of accomplices in treason or those guilty of specific serious crimes, such as highway robbery and counterfeiting (122).The awards were advertised in the daily print media, which was in full swing from the end of the 18th century.

Such initiatives gave rise to a new profession: the thief-taker ( thief-taker ) (123). Many of them were criminals who, under sentence of death, could be pardoned for having helped convict other defendants, that is, for having betrayed their peers. The conviction of perpetrators required an excellent knowledge of the world of crime, which the administrations did not have and for which they were ready to pay the holders (124). The thief-takersskilled workers acquired considerable power and reputation in the world of the judiciary and in the world of crime (125) or, one would be tempted to say, in the world of the magistracy and crime, thus doubling their earnings. On the one hand, they were paid by the so-called public authorities to reveal information which could lead to the arrest and prosecution of criminals; investigate crimes; find and apprehend criminals; provide evidence that could lead to the conviction of the accused. On the other hand, they offered themselves as intermediaries between the criminals and their victims, proposing to the latter to restore to them, for a fee, the goods that they had stolen from them. To round off their profits, the thief-takershad several tricks up their sleeve: they incited criminals to commit crimes so that they could then arrest them, pursue them and receive the reward (126); they blackmailed them (127) or protected them against remuneration, informing them in advance that constables were about to search their homes (128); the cherry on the cake, they did not hesitate to bring innocent people to justice (129). Several thief-takers , including the most famous, Charles Hitchen (1683–1725) and Jonathan Wild (1682 or 1683 –1725), were prosecuted for active corruption; some convicted and hanged, others acquitted. When the illegal activities of thiefs-takerswere brought to the attention of the public, who until then had a certain sympathy for them, this turned into hateful rage, to such an extent that those who, following their conviction, were exposed in public did not last long. life saved only by the intervention of constables (130). Despite the growing unpopularity of the thief-takers , rewards continued to be paid to encourage new vocations. "The reason the thief-takers were tolerated for so long was that any action taken against them risked exposing the pervasive corrupt system of the administration of criminal law in the metropolis" (131).

To encourage victims to report crimes, magistrates in the City of London and Middlesex had established "rotation offices" in the 1730s, where Londoners could be sure to find a magistrate at set times. One of these offices had been established in Bow Street near Covent Garden by Sir Thomas De Veil (1684–1746) in 1739. It had been taken over by playwright, poet, novelist and magistrate Henry Fielding (1707–1754) ) and his brother Magistrate John Fielding (1721–1780) in 1748, shortly after De Veil's death. Forced to interrupt his career as a playwright by the Licensing Act(1737), Henry Fielding employed his pen in political controversies and in the all-out defense of public liberties, for, once obtained in 1749 "a small pension with the place, then not honorable, of justice of the peace for Westminster and Middlesex, and the freedom to derive as much profit as possible from them by the most odious means ”(132), to defend them only in verse. "The customs of Fielding, who was never difficult in choosing his company, could not be improved by that to which his position condemned him"; and he “(lowered) completely (…) his spirit to the level of his place” (133). Depraved, he saw only depravity around him and made it his mission to curb it. Libertine, he sought to guarantee the maintenance of public freedoms by restricting that of individuals by law, civil law and, above all,religious law (134). "Freedom by law" was his motto (135), which he reserved in particular for the so-called lower classes. "An immense torrent of luxury" swept over the country and the consequent excess of "immoral pleasures" "changed the Manners, Mores and Habits of the People, particularly of the lower classes" (136). Money itself, especially in the hands of the so-called lower classes, undermined civic-mindedness and the law and the greed and license it engendered fueled threats to and crimes against property. Responsible handling of money was a problem in all walks of life, but, while the rich were able to control their own vices by upholding the gentleman's code of honor,the nouveau riche or those who had simply seen their standard of living increase, with nothing curbing their low instincts, contributed significantly to the increase in violence and crime (137). Fielding was not ignorant of the vice and immorality of the powerful. He satirized the magistrate and the politician by showing that their careers mirrored that of criminals. He condemned criminals, exceptthief-takers , while excusing the magistrate and the politician. Social order was threatened by the immorality, license and criminality of the populace. "Riots and tumultuous assemblies, he warned, are dangerous for public peace" and constitute a threat to "civil government and all civilized life". The mob, the "fourth estate in the community" was a "licentious mob" who "broke into people's homes, looted their homes and burned their property" (138).

In his polemical writings he criminalized the poor of London - their ways, their pleasures, their hobbies and their institutions. Public morality being in his eyes inextricably linked to private morality, he advocated regenerating mores (of the so-called lower classes) through strict censorship of public activities, stricter regulations on the trade in beverages, pawn shops and lenders. money, public houses and homeless and vagabonds and crime prevention by means of the police.

In 1750 he, his brother John and magistrate Saunders Welsch set about reforming the private policing methods employed by the thief-takers.. Their objectives were four in number: (1) the establishment of an efficient private police force capable of investigating and funded by official state authority; (2) establishment of a criminal intelligence system and information gathering apparatus; (3) the creation of a coherent and integrated police administration center; and (4) developing a public awareness and education program on crime prevention and police work. It was the year before that he and his half-brother John had drafted an organized police force (139), in the form of a handful of men (there were six at the start) recruited from among the thief-takers (140) and constables . She received the nickname " Bow Street Runners From the name of the street where Henry Fielding's office was located. The task of the Runners was to patrol (141), investigate crimes, catch criminals, and recover stolen goods. The objective of this new system was to deter criminals from taking action by persuading them that they would inevitably be spotted, prosecuted and arrested; to make them feel like they were under constant surveillance, the Fieldings collected and disseminated information on crimes and suspects to the public and organized horse and foot patrols on the main roads. The Runnersmade a comfortable living from the fees they received for their services, the rewards they received from the state for the convictions they secured, and those they received from victims for identifying suspects. In addition, the Runners, although contract employees of the Fieldings, had not lost the habit of offering to the victims to return to them for remuneration the goods which had stolen from them; therefore, covered or not by their employers - the integrity of Henry Fielding himself was questioned by the English actor, playwright, theater director and producer David Garrick (1717-1779) (142) -, "he not surprisingly, the Bow Street detectives were more successful in recovering stolen goods and making deals than in arresting thieves ”(143). The umbilical cord between police and crime will never be cut, as we will have more opportunity to see in the second part of this study.

A year after Henry's death, John published Plan for preventing robberies within 20 miles of London(1775); the plan was to patrol the highways for about 30 miles around London and, according to the newspapers of the time, he did indeed deliver a fatal blow to a gang of thieves. In the fight against crime, John Fielding saw prevention as "a matter of surveillance and deterrence through effective detection" (144); "(I) t is much better to prevent even one man from being a thug than to apprehend and bring forty to justice," he said in An Account of the Origin and Effects of a Police set on Foot, etc.(1758), very probably the first work in English to use the term "police" (145). The working classes in particular were to be subjected to "a general preventive machine" with "civilizing effects" and "severe and solemn punishments" (146). The lower classes, considered as a whole to be more intoxicated by alcoholic drinks and gambling than by work, could be civilized by vaudeville, song and the tabloid. When it came to the media, Fielding believed that they could participate effectively in crime prevention by reporting on criminal matters, denouncing those who had done something wrong ( naming and shaming) and calling on citizens to hunt down criminals. Another of the Fieldings' contributions to the training of the modern police was precisely the suggestion they made to the various magistrates of the country to share their information on the criminals and to the authorities to create a “National Reporting Center”, which was partly made possible. through the possibility of placing advertisements about wanted criminals and stolen goods in a growing daily print media (147). The Fieldings, like their successors, also sought to develop methods of classifying and cataloging information on the haunts and habits of criminals and "fu (rent) (among) (the) first to formulate a method for 'on the one hand to distinguish the criminal from respectable society - spatially,physically and morally - using surveillance as a classification tool for maintaining order in the streets "(148), on the other hand" strict surveillance of people and things "and" description and (a) diagnosis minute details of an individual's life ”(149). The reforms they instigated did indeed lead to greater surveillance of the London population, particularly in the workplace. "Londoners, whether employed as weavers, butchers, watchmakers, tailors, shoemakers, charcoal burners or dockworkers, were increasingly subject to the discipline of capital 'under the eye of one authority'" (150) .on the other hand "a strict surveillance of people and things" and a "careful description and (a) diagnosis of the details of an individual's life" (149). The reforms they instigated did indeed lead to greater surveillance of the London population, particularly in the workplace. "Londoners, whether employed as weavers, butchers, watchmakers, tailors, shoemakers, charcoal burners or dockworkers, were increasingly subject to the discipline of capital 'under the eye of one authority'" (150) .on the other hand "a strict surveillance of people and things" and a "careful description and (a) diagnosis of the details of an individual's life" (149). The reforms they instigated did indeed lead to greater surveillance of the London population, particularly in the workplace. "Londoners, whether employed as weavers, butchers, watchmakers, tailors, shoemakers, charcoal burners or dockworkers, were increasingly subject to the discipline of capital 'under the eye of one authority'" (150) .whether they were employed as weavers, butchers, watchmakers, tailors, shoemakers, charcoal burners or dockworkers, were increasingly subject to the discipline of capital 'under the eye of a single authority' ”(150).whether they were employed as weavers, butchers, watchmakers, tailors, shoemakers, charcoal burners or dockworkers, were increasingly subject to the discipline of capital 'under the eye of a single authority' ”(150).

Initially, the public was hardly favorable to the Runners , not only because they had not forgotten the bad practices of the thief-takers , but also because, instructed by the example given by the lieutenant general of police created by Louis XIV at the end of the previous century and whose activities will be explored in the second part of this study, he assimilated any professional police force to the armed and repressive arm of despotism (151). The providential arrest of a notorious gang of thieves in 1753 (152), coupled with the incessant advertising campaigns of the Fieldings for their Runners(153), largely contributed to bringing him back to better feelings towards them, so much so that, in late 18th century England, the first reaction of victims of an attack or theft was to report the crime to a "rotation office" and not, as before, to call upon a thief-takerto find the author - which, in the end, was in many ways almost the same. Whether the Fieldings responded to or created a public demand, the point is, they turned policing into a business. They “were adept at making 'symbolic products' because what they bought and sold were not only tangible security products, but also 'outward signs of security'. They made the police as an object of consumption arouse 'emotions', that the feeling of safety and security exhilarates. They identified consumers with specific values, tastes, customs, hopes, fears and behaviors.They differentiated and socially ordered consumers according to their social value (…). They struck a chord with the new consumer society, stimulating and channeling desires and fears while offering solutions for their greater benefit that had to be bought ”(154).

Who says commercial service also says specific and specialized personnel: whereas the "conservation of peace" implied tasks as diverse as the surveillance of the prisons and the guilds and the application of the laws relating to prostitution, cleaning and street lighting, commerce and the movement of goods, disposal of corpses and supplies and were therefore not limited to the suppression of disturbances of public order (155), the Runners were officers in office well-defined, which were all more or less those of the modern police. They were certainly not policemen (it seems that the word " policeman Appeared in 1790), but, without the subsidies that the Crown awarded to the Fieldings' enterprise, they would not have been able to exercise (as such) (156). This company was the laboratory of the state police.

The belief that a specific government agency could and should regulate people's behavior is precisely central to the views of the Scottish merchant, statistician, magistrate Patrick Colquhoun (1745-1820) on the police in A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis (1806), a treatise which “influenced police theory as much as Karl Marx's Capital economics” (157), revolutionizing the entire philosophy and structure of law enforcement.

This proposal first ran up against tradition and constitutional scruples. As noted above, the British feared that a government-led police would become an instrument of political repression, as the French police then were, and they still clung to the old principle that it was to residents of local communities, who as constables , who as watchmen , who were responsible for maintaining order. Public order and safety remained primarily the responsibility of local justices of the peace, constables and the watch-and-ward supported by citizens, possesand, in the event of riots, by the army or the yeomanry, a cavalry force made up largely of landowners. The investigation and investigation of crimes and misdemeanors, even with the extension of the prerogatives of constables since the fourteenth century, remained a private matter which had to be handled by the victims themselves.

Colquhoun justified his point of view by demonstrating by A + B (158) to his readers that the London police force was completely unsuited to the task assigned to them. He made the first systematic and detailed analysis of crime, its origins and its alleged costs. He then reviewed the agencies that were supposed to fight crime and highlighted their shortcomings. Finally, he argued that it was possible to resolve these difficulties by separating the police and judicial functions from these bodies and by placing police activities under the direction of a single body. Thus, according to Colquhoun, the police, which he describes as a “new science” (159), would become a new branch of government, with four main functions:1) maintenance of public order and safety; 2) prevention and detection of crime; 3) the correction of morals (160), "the adaptation of Laws more particularly to the manners of the People, by the careful examination of the state of the Society, so as to bring the lower orders, so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities that lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).2) prevention and detection of crime; 3) the correction of morals (160), "the adaptation of Laws more particularly to the manners of the People, by the careful examination of the state of the Society, so as to bring the lower orders, so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities that lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).2) prevention and detection of crime; 3) the correction of morals (160), "the adaptation of Laws more particularly to the manners of the People, by the careful examination of the state of the Society, so as to bring the lower orders, so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities that lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162)."The adaptation of Laws more particularly to the ways of the People, by the careful examination of the state of the Society, so as to bring the lower orders, so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities which lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162)."The adaptation of Laws more particularly to the ways of the People, by the careful examination of the state of the Society, so as to bring the lower orders, so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities which lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities which lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).so to speak imperceptibly, to better Habits, by gently limiting the propensities which lead to Idleness and Debauchery; by removing temptations, which by their nature generate harm, and by establishing incentives for positive and useful activities ”(161); 4) surveillance of the population, in particular the so-called lower classes, at work and in the places of entertainment that they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).in particular the so-called lower classes, at work as in the places of entertainment they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).in particular the so-called lower classes, at work as in the places of entertainment they frequented, using techniques borrowed from the French police, which he admired (162).

Colquhoun observed that it was to the indigent that most of the attacks on property and other crimes were to be attributed (163). He made a clear distinction between poverty and destitution. Poverty “is the condition of every man who can only live on his work, but to whom his work provides subsistence. This state is a necessary element of the social constitution. If it is an evil, we must at least admit that it is the source of much good; for it is poverty that overcomes the natural inertia of man; and which, by the efforts which it makes him make, engenders the wealth and all the pleasures of civilized life. Poverty, moreover, does not imply suffering. But suffering is the appendage of indigence (,which is) the state of one who lacks means of subsistence and cannot obtain it through his work ”(164). Indigence, which fed idleness and consequently crime against property, had to be combated and eliminated, while poverty was to be encouraged, for it was "a particularly necessary and indispensable ingredient in society, without which the nations and communities could not exist in a state of civilization. This is the lot of man. It is the source of wealth… ”(165). Hence the proposal he made for the institution of a police for the poor (166), a proposal which was in keeping with the logic of nascent Whig liberalism, “a historically specific set of discursive, legal, administrative and institutional practices,which crosses and seeks to coordinate the dimensions of the State, philanthropy, households and the economy, with the objective of promoting particular forms of conduct of life ”(167). In the same vein, “(b) ar the term police, [Colquhoun] means all the regulations of a country which apply to the comfort, ease and safety of the inhabitants, whether it concerns their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and penal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, andhouseholds and the economy, with the objective of promoting particular forms of management of life ”(167). In the same vein, “(b) ar the term police, [Colquhoun] means all the regulations of a country which apply to the comfort, ease and safety of the inhabitants, whether it concerns their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and penal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, andhouseholds and the economy, with the objective of promoting particular forms of management of life ”(167). In the same vein, “(b) ar the term police, [Colquhoun] means all the regulations of a country which apply to the comfort, ease and safety of the inhabitants, whether it concerns their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and penal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, and“(B) ar the term police, [Colquhoun] means all the regulations of a country which apply to the comfort, ease and security of the inhabitants, whether it is their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and penal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, and“(B) ar the term police, [Colquhoun] means all the regulations of a country which apply to the comfort, ease and security of the inhabitants, whether it is their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and penal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, andwhether it concerns their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and criminal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, andwhether it concerns their security against the calamity of indigence or the effects produced by moral and criminal offenses ”(168); in short, all the modes of control and prevention that can be implemented to maintain the social status quo: the “social police” (169). The following passage from his Treatise on the Police will suffice to convince us of this definitively: "Why the whole nation, andespecially the capital, would it not be considered, at least as regards the vagrants and the poor by accident, as one and the same family, and placed under the inspection of people worthy of this honorable trust, and who could devote all their time to this object? If such an institution were to take place, and if, in order to provide for its maintenance, each parish first paid a sum equal to the value of the accidental assistance which it has furnished in the last five years, with power to use these funds at to establish in different quarters, industrial houses or work rooms, where the poor received the whole of their wages, and moreover good food, it is very likely that the expenditure of the parishes would gradually decrease, and begging would end. by disappearing entirely inthis city . The poor, modest and honest would be discovered in their obscurity, and rescued, while the idlers and libertines, who make a trade of begging, would be forced to work to earn their living. The proposed institution is of the utmost importance in the political economy of the nation, whether viewed from the point of view of humanity, or from that of the moral of the people, which is the basis of all good government (…). The assistance of the legislature is absolutely essential to give this branch of the police the necessary vigor and effect. It would be easily obtained, if the plan itself were well understood; and this measure would then become as popular as it would undoubtedly be useful (…).Labor is absolutely necessary for the existence of governments ; and as it is only from the poor that one can expect it , this class of men, far from being pernicious, becomes on the contrary, by means of wise regulations, useful to every nation, and strongly deserves attention. beneficentof those who are at the head of public affairs ”(emphasis added) (170). Colquhoun's objective was “the mobilization of the police as a means of creating a social environment conducive to the development of a market economy and in particular the 'free movement of labor'. "Believing, like Smith, that the protection against destitution does not lie in a distributive policy but in greater overall productivity, he advocated a policy which 'draws on as much of the industry as possible, the best and the surest way to produce national happiness and prosperity '. In sum, in Colquhoun's mind, the role of the police should be to complement and facilitate the division of labor and the realization of the disciplinary potential of the market.It was to protect the property of the 'free and independent man' from the indignation of the poor and mobilize the poor to participate in the labor market for their own good - gaining their independence - and for the benefit of society. societyas a whole ”(emphasis added) (171). For Colquhoun, private property was a matter of public interest. His main concern was "the effects of crime on the general public and the damage caused to the state or the community at large by crime" (172).

The thefts of sugar and other colonial commodities from the West India Company in the Port of London gave Colquhoun an opportunity to show what he was capable of. One of the Scottish magistrate's French preachers sums up the quasi-apocalyptic picture that the latter had drawn up of the situation in his Treaty on the London Police (1797): “(T) he depredators who robbed merchant vessels (…) had a methodical and learned organization, divided by Weapons and by regular professions. The light piracy ( Light-horsemen ) was in charge of the nocturnal expeditions; heavy piracy ( Heavy-horsemen) were responsible for daytime shipments. There were brigades of thieves, coopers, locksmiths, hammers, takers, boatmen-carriers, storekeepers-receivers, etc. Each evening, detachments of these bodies were ordered for the coup de main projected on such ship, at such precise hour, and the spoliation was carried out with the whole, the silence, the promptness and the intrepidity of a military enterprise. "(173). Two capital details are, however, ignored in this sketch: first, the predators were not always what we thought, then, if the number of thefts did indeed increase, the cause was not always what we believed. imagined then on the continent.

A plan to monitor shipping on the Thames was devised in 1797 by Essex farmer, inventor and justice of the peace John Harriott. Thanks to this plan and to the legal advice of the jurist and utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (174), Colquhoun succeeded in convincing the West India Company to finance the first preventive police of the Thames, to which the government agreed in March 1798. The July 28, 1800, parliament perpetuated the Thames River Police and made it a public police by passing the Depredations on the Thames Act 1800 (175), which Bentham had helped Colquhoun draft. Institutionalization of the Thames River Police, originally financed by merchants, marks a reversal of the conception that the economically upper classes had of the role of the State: for them it was no longer a question of defending their movable, real estate and land interests against the State, but to defend them within the framework of the extension of the supervisory powers of the police, that is to say of the State.

The Thames River Policewas made up of four departments, all under the supervision of a magistrate superintendent: a judicial department, where magistrates presided for the sole purpose of taking cognizance of offenses committed on ships, boats or boats, on the Thames or in its surroundings, to render decisions and convictions in cases of misdemeanors and to refer more serious offenses to court; a preventive police department; a dockers staff office ( lumpers), also responsible for preventing looting; a department responsible "among other things" for accounting; for a total of 1120 uniformed employees paid for their services by public funds and by contributions from planters and traders of the West India Company. The marine police were therefore divided “into two main departments: one focused on policing tasks in the modern sense; the other centralized towards the payment of wages and towards the strict organization of the working day. The two formally separate dimensions (sic) of social power in capitalist, political and economic societies were therefore condensed and nested in an assumed manner. Economic exploitation was co-constructed with political domination based on the modern principle of the monopoly of legitimate violence.A register of 'lumpers ' who worked at the port were kept by the office of this police. The resources of the Thames River Police made it possible to rationalize the length of working time in a logic of maximum productivity ”(176). Even before being responsible for paying salaries, it was incumbent on him to fix them and "to teach the working class to accept their treatment without flinching and to respect the sanctity of private property" of the economically upper classes (177) . Not just any treatment.

For a long time, in Britain as on the Continent, workers had been paid both in kind and in cash. Farm workers were paid part of the threshed grain as extra wages, miners received a fuel allowance and steel factories often provided their employees with it on favorable terms (178), dockers were allowed to appropriate “( solid or liquid samples ( dipping ) or waste (s) of valuable goods ( sweeping)) ”(179). Long tolerated, this "margin of illegality" (180) was no longer so. Noticeable from the beginning of the 18th century, or even the end of the 17th century, the tendency of some employers to criminalize anything that came under customary law and, therefore, in particular, the aforementioned practices increased markedly in the 1770s; the Bugging Act (1749), preceded by the Winders and Doublers Act (1688), the Weft and Thrum Act (1701) and the Clicking Act (1723) and followed by the Watch Scraping Act, had already met some of their expectations in this regard (181), by replacing the fine usually imposed for the corresponding offenses with a prison sentence (182). "The increasingly dominant bourgeois class felt that the activities in question were at odds with the basic purpose of work, which was to earn wages and be paid in money" (183). The workers were not fooled. “(A) u within (these) commercial networks (…) a population in the process of proletarianization opposed the hierarchical reorganization of production by trying to preserve what remained of non-capitalist social relations, which were anchored in norms of communal ownership of space and subsistence goods. This resulted in a multitude of collective actions ”(184),“Tolerated or organized illegalisms” (185) that Colquhoun, like the mercantile class for which he was in a way the spokesperson, considered on the contrary to be “crimes against property”. TheThames River Police should therefore not be understood only as an attempt to suppress “thefts” committed on the docks: it was first and foremost a means of putting pressure on the workers to agree to the substitution of cash wages for wages partly in cash and partly in kind (186), a decisive stage in the commodification of labor.

Bentham (for whom it was "more economical to completely destroy the spills than to give them to or let them be carried away by one of the individuals who work in or near the place where they occur") (187) also advocated the commodification of labor, arguing that the process was a necessary condition for the proper functioning of any mercantile society and that this type of society brought both poor and rich more advantages than disadvantages. Bentham agreed with the three proposals, taken up at Fieldings, of Colquhoun's plan for a professional police force, namely the organization by a central police office of an intelligence service to collect information on crimes and delinquents,the maintenance of a register of known offenders and criminal groups and the publication of a Police Gazette, of which Bentham was to be the editor, to facilitate the detection of crimes and promote moral education of the community by publicizing the sentences and the punishments incurred. Bringing the crimes and the corresponding sanctions into the public arena was a direct consequence of Bentham's "liberal" assumptions of utilitarian morality, to which he gave legal form.Bringing the crimes and the corresponding sanctions into the public arena was a direct consequence of Bentham's "liberal" assumptions of utilitarian morality, to which he gave legal form.Bringing the crimes and the corresponding sanctions into the public arena was a direct consequence of Bentham's "liberal" assumptions of utilitarian morality, to which he gave legal form.

In his Introduction to the Principles of Morality and Legislation(printed in 1780 and first published in 1789) Bentham explains that an action is good when it is useful and that utility is the property of an action or an object to increase the sum of happiness or to decrease the sum of the evils, either of the individual, or of the collective person on whom the object or the action influences. Interest is therefore the principle of the actions of the individual and it consists in obtaining the greatest possible amount of happiness. The interest of society is the sum of the interests of all the individuals who compose it (188). An action therefore derives its justice, its morality and its legitimacy from its usefulness. From the fact that utility is what produces the most pleasure and the least pain, it follows an examination of the elements allowing to appreciate the different kinds of pleasures and pains,examination which Bentham calls a "moral arithmetic". To apply his theory, he analyzes the effects of actions and more particularly observes harmful actions, which alone are the objects of legislation. "'He is from the government,' he said,like medicine; its only business is the choice of evils; all law is evil, for all law is an offense against liberty; there are therefore two things to be observed, the evil of the offense and the evil of the law, the evil of the disease and the evil of the remedy. ' Now, an evil rarely comes alone; in the course of its march, it takes various forms, which can be summed up in three main classes. The evil of the first order is that which affects such or such assignable individuals, for example the injured person, his family, his friends. The evil of the second order has its source in the first and spreads over the whole community, over the whole of society. Because when a crime has been committed, the news flies from mouth to mouth, the circumstances are revealed, the idea of ​​danger awakens, we are alarmed. Danger and alarm are second-order evil. But there is more ;when the alarm arrives at a certain degree, when it lasts a long time, its effect is no longer limited to the passive faculties of man, it deadens the active faculties, throws them into a state of depression and torpor, and into their thus taking away their vitality, can produce a complete disorganization of the company. It is third-order evil ”(emphasis added) (189). The question then arises of knowing what are the means at the disposal of the legislator to determine men to carry out the most useful actions and the fewest actions harmful to society. Bentham's answer is that he can act on men through punishment, which is the pleasure or pain attached to keeping a law. As good and evil can be distinguished into four classes (physical, moral,political and religious), the sanctions are also of four kinds: the physical or natural sanction, which one can experience in the ordinary course of things; the moral or social sanction that one can experience on the part of other men; the political or legal sanction, which one can experience on the part of the magistrates; religious sanction, which consists of threats and promises of religion. Bentham is of the opinion that the sanction which has the most influence on the conduct of individuals is the social sanction.religious sanction, which consists of threats and promises of religion. Bentham is of the opinion that the sanction which has the most influence on the conduct of individuals is the social sanction.religious sanction, which consists of threats and promises of religion. Bentham is of the opinion that the sanction which has the most influence on the conduct of individuals is the social sanction.

Hence the need for constant surveillance of all by all, not only because, according to Bentham "(w) e are all potential delinquents" (190), but also, again for the liberal philosopher, for a question of reduction. costs (191). “The population must (…) watch itself so that the interest of each person corresponds to the collective interest (…). Everyone must be an observer and judge of others, thus exercising permanent control over the actions of others ”: this is what he calls the“ court of public opinion ”(192), located within the confines of the 'State; because the State “can promote this general mutual surveillance by establishing standards and criteria (in the commercial field by quality standards, or 'certificates of authenticity' for example),or by the production and dissemination of information on individuals that will be accessible to all. More generally, he can contribute to the setting of social norms and strengthen the security of interactions between individuals ”(193), that is to say ensure that these interactions present as little danger as possible for him.

Bentham's theory of penalties and rewards derives his Masonic-Biblical project (194) for a “house of penance”. He set out the principles in Panopticon: or, the inspection-house Containing the idea of ​​a new principle of construction applicable to any sort of establishment, in which persons of any description are to be kept under inspection; and in particular to penitentiary houses, Prisons, Houses Of Industry, Work-Houses, Poor Houses, Manufactories, Mad-Houses, Lazarettos, Hospitals, And Schools(1791). To establish them, he starts from the optimal example of “(the) education (…), (which) is only the result of all the circumstances to which a child is exposed. To watch over a man's education is to watch over all his actions; it is to place it in a position where one can influence it as one wishes, by the choice of the objects with which one surrounds it and the ideas that give birth to it. But how can a single man be enough to watch over a great number of individuals perfectly? How could even a large number of individuals perfectly watch over one? If we admit, as we must, a succession of people who take turns, there is no longer unity in their instructions, nor continuity in their methods.It will therefore be readily agreed that an idea as useful as it is new would be one which would give a single man a power of surveillance which, until now, has outstripped the combined forces of a large number ”(195). One principle can "(put) men in the dependence of one, by giving this one man a sort of universal presence within the confines of his domain" (196): inspection - in its etymological sense of looking by examining and controlling. The style of construction which allows the inspection to "extend to every individual among the prisoners, at every moment of his life and consequently to every portion of the space which contains him" (197) is as follows: " … A circular building, or rather two buildings nested one in the other.The apartments and the prisoners would form the building of the circumference on a height of six floors: one can imagine them like cells open on the interior side, because a not very massive iron mesh exposes them entirely to the sight. A gallery on each floor establishes communication; each cell has a door which opens onto this gallery. A tower occupies the center: it is the home of the inspectors; but the tower is only divided into three storeys, because they are so arranged that each one dominates in full two storeys of cells. The inspection tower is also surrounded by a gallery covered with a transparent louver, which allows the inspector's gaze to dive into the cells, and which prevents him from being seen; so that at a glance he sees a third of his prisoners,and that by moving in a small space, he can see them all in a minute ”(198); "The sub-inspectors, the subalterns of all kinds (are put) under the same inspection as the prisoners: nothing can happen between them which is not seen by the chief inspector" (199), who "can be himself supervised by the magistrate, who, arriving unexpectedly in the prison, is informed, in an infallible and true manner, of the real position of those who are detained there ”(200). "The inspector, invisible himself, reigns like a spirit"; "... even if he is absent, the opinion of his presence is as effective as his very presence" (201), but this spirit can, if necessary, immediately give proof of asubalterns of all kinds (are placed) under the same inspection as prisoners: nothing can happen between them that is not seen by the chief inspector ”(199), who“ may himself be supervised by the magistrate, who, arriving unexpectedly in the prison, is informed, in an infallible and true manner, of the real position of those who are detained there ”(200). "The inspector, invisible himself, reigns like a spirit"; "... even if he is absent, the opinion of his presence is as effective as his very presence" (201), but this spirit can, if necessary, immediately give proof of asubalterns of all kinds (are placed) under the same inspection as prisoners: nothing can happen between them that is not seen by the chief inspector ”(199), who“ may himself be supervised by the magistrate, who, arriving unexpectedly in the prison, is informed, in an infallible and true manner, of the real position of those who are detained there ”(200). "The inspector, invisible himself, reigns like a spirit"; "... even if he is absent, the opinion of his presence is as effective as his very presence" (201), but this spirit can, if necessary, immediately give proof of aof the real position of those detained there ”(200). "The inspector, invisible himself, reigns like a spirit"; "... even if he is absent, the opinion of his presence is as effective as his very presence" (201), but this spirit can, if necessary, immediately give proof of aof the real position of those detained there ”(200). "The inspector, invisible himself, reigns like a spirit"; "... even if he is absent, the opinion of his presence is as effective as his very presence" (201), but this spirit can, if necessary, immediately give proof of areal presence(Emphasis added) (202). Failure to see if it is being watched or not, anyone in the panopticon acts as if it was and gradually comes to make a habit of watching himself. Vertical surveillance (surveillance of detainees and subalterns by the inspector and supervision of the inspector by the magistrate), coupled with horizontal surveillance (supervision of the guards by the guards and, possibly, of the detainees by the inmates) in addition to self-monitoring, the ultimate objective of disciplinary power. “With the panopticon (…) a real subjugation is born mechanically from a fictitious relationship. So that it is not necessary to have recourse to means of force to force the condemned to good behavior, the madman to calm,the worker at work (…). He who is subject to a field of visibility, and who knows it, takes over the constraints of power; it becomes the principle of its own subjugation ”(203).

“(D) n the panopticon, the master's eye is everywhere”. But who is the master? The panopticon “automates and deindividualizes power. This has its principle less in a person than in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, looks; in an apparatus whose internal mechanisms produce the relationship in which individuals are caught. The ceremonies, the rituals, the marks by which the more-of-power is manifested in the sovereign are useless. There is a machinery which ensures the asymmetry, the imbalance, the difference. It does not matter, therefore, who exercises the power(Emphasis added) (204). There is more: the panopticon atomizes power; both overseers (of others and of themselves) and supervised (by others and by themselves), all panoptic people have the impression of being their custodians and, as none is worthy and capable to exercise it, the result is a generalized corporalism (205), typical of democratic peoples.

Bentham's project failed at the time (206) only to be more successful in the long run. Few panoptic prisons were built, but the panoptic system, "paranoid dream of our society, (...) paranoid truth of our society" (207), ended up being transposed from the prison world to institutions such as schools, barracks, the factory, the hospital during the nineteenth century (208), before finding its consecration in urban remote monitoring set up from the end of the twentieth century.

The success of Colquhoun's professional policing project would not wait that long.

Scorched by the riots which had not ceased to break out in London or in its surroundings since the 1760s, riots, according to Franklin while vacationing in the country in 1769, “about wheat; riots over the elections; riots over the wheat; riots over the elections; riots over workhouses; riots by coal miners; riots of weavers; riots of coal carriers; riots by sawyers; riots by Wilkes supporters; riots against presidents of [municipal] governments; riots of smugglers during which officers and customs employees were assassinated, which forced the King to arm ships and troops to shoot! »(209), riots provoked, he does not mention it,some by industrialization and mechanization, others by the increase in the price of foodstuffs, others again by the excessive quantity of imported products (210), all, in the higher spheres, agreed on the need to reform the organization of law enforcement, but neither the Tories nor the Whigs wanted, or appeared to want to hear of a centralized police force, the former because they claimed fear that it would undermine the powers of local justices of the peace and undermine communal rights and customs, the latter because they said they feared that it would result in an extension of the prerogatives of the Crown or the government in matters of executive power ;the radicals preferred there voluntary associations of citizens and the popular classes saw in it an instrument of their oppression (211); one or two lawyers denounced there "a tyrannical system, an army of spies and informants, for the destruction of public freedoms and the disturbance of private happiness" (212); the formation of urban militias such as theCity of London Associatio n and the Westminster Military Society following the aforementioned riots - between 1744 and 1856 there were more than 450 in England and Wales, mainly in urban areas (213) - seemed to point in the same direction (214). For these reasons, in 1785, the London and Westminster Police Bill which William Pitt had presented to Parliament to endow the country with a "national" force distinct from the army (215) failed, the justices of the peace having considered that the The project was "untimely and totally unnecessary" and, moreover, was "a dangerous innovation and an encroachment on human rights and security" (216). In 1793, while some rioters had attacked and destroyed recruiting offices throughout London and paved the king's carriage, others attacked the Bank of England, the Corn Exchangeand the prison of Cold Bath Fields , to protest, less against the outbreak of the war of the First Coalition than against the collapse of trade, the shortage of work and the lack of food which this war had caused and which they were suffering. reprisals from royalist agitators (217), the city ​​patrol which the Court of Common Council had agreed to fund nine years earlier, albeit as an expedient temporary, was abolished, two years after it had been given a uniform (a round hat and a gray coat), on the grounds that it constituted an unnecessary burden on the finances of the city. The established powers leaped the better to retreat.

In 1792 MP Francis Burton introduced a bill in the House of Commons to establish eight regular and duly constituted courts in Middlesex and London, more or less modeled on the Bow Street Office; fifty-two in number, the magistrates, appointed by the government, would receive a salary of £ 400 a year; that of the six gendarmes each would have under his command would be £ 30 per year (218); each of these offices would cost £ 2,000 per year to run. Although no central administration had been set up to coordinate their activities, as the Fieldings had advocated forty years earlier, all were nevertheless under the supervision of the Home Secretary and a royal commissioner. The Middlesex Justices Act(1792), supported by Tory Prime Minister William Pitt, was adopted easily, mainly because of the fear of crowds in the government and in the socioeconomic class it represented. The functions of the magistrates were very varied, because they had to judge in summary matters matters relating to customs, excise, game laws, hawkers, pawnbrokers, friendly companies, roads, cars, carts and more. carriages, Quakers and those who refused to pay tithing, trade disputes, disorderly houses, nuisance, vagrancy, etc. (219). The riots that broke out across England in the early 1810s in reaction to industrial mechanization strained their nerves.

“The great agglomerations of workers had completely changed the conditions and character of industry. From patriarchal and domestic that it had been, it had become collective and manufacturing, and the work of the working classes was going to be the antagonist of this other power which was called capital. Formerly the intermediary, the entrepreneur, exercised a sort of supervision over those he employed, and these in return easily accepted the transactions offered to them. With the creation of machines, the establishment of factories and factories, labor became a contract between the boss and the mass of workers, by virtue of which the latter had the power to charge the highest possible price for their work. Close to each other in their factories,the workers were formed into associations from which the Trades Unions were to emerge. The law defended the coalitions of workers; however, they had known how to work together to demand wage increases ”(220). In 1810, spinners from half a dozen English towns went on strike. "More than thirty thousand workers abandoned the factories, the public peace was outraged, the magistrates were powerless to defend the properties and the heads of establishments were reduced to hiding or to escape by flight from these excesses and this violence. . This first strike, led by a congress established in Manchester, had for object, like all those which followed, the increase of wages and was supported by a common fund whose subscriptions amounted to 1,500 pounds per week and on which an allowance of 12 schillings also per week was distributed to each striking worker. The leading committee pretended to equate the wages of the countryside with those of the city, which was unreasonable since the conditions of manufacture and the situation of the workers were not the same. The strike eventually perished from starvation and the workers were forced to accept wages much lower than they had been before it ”(221).The strike eventually perished from starvation and the workers were forced to accept wages much lower than they had been before it ”(221).The strike eventually perished from starvation and the workers were forced to accept wages much lower than they had been before it ”(221).

New disorders, much more savage, broke out from the end of 1811 in the counties of Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Lancaster and York. “Bands known as Luddits, after their leader Luddam, a native of Leicestershire, smashed looms and machinery everywhere in their path and laid waste not only workshops and factories, but farms and the countryside. The Government was obliged to take the most energetic and severe measures; a great number of these wretches were hanged, and it was only with the help of punishments that it was possible to restore public peace ”(222), after six years of agitation. Despite the fact that the Thames River Police, which we have seen to be an embryo of state policing, was occasionally used to control turbulent crowds in the metropolis (223), the Third Report of the Committee on the State of the Metropolitan Police (1818) rendered the following conclusion on a national preventive police project: “It is undoubtedly true that it is better to prevent crime than to punish it; but the difficulty is not in the end but in the means and, although your Committee can imagine a police system which could achieve the desired end, in a free country, or even in a country where it is accepted that the social relations are unrestricted, such a system would necessarily be odious and repugnant and no government could establish it. In despotic countries,it has never yet succeeded to the extent intended by those who formulated the theory; and, among a free people, the very proposition would be rejected with reluctance: it would be a project which would make each servant of each house a spy for the actions of his master and all classes of society would spy on each other. others ”(224). The distrust of a centralized police force is no less evident in the Fourth Report of the same commission, which met in 1822 at the request of Tory Robert Peel (1788-1850) to examine his plan to reorganize the police system. British: “It is difficult to reconcile an efficient police system with this perfect freedom of action and this absence of interference which are the great privileges and benefits of society in this country;and Your Committee thinks that the confiscation or reduction of these benefits would be too great a sacrifice for the betterment of the police ”(225). These were the last sensible words spoken by parliamentarians.

Workers' unrest resumed in 1824, when Clyde's spinners quit work by order of their Union , whose leaders claimed workers were working for less than the regular rate. The strike was no more favorable to them than the previous ones. Despite these repeated failures, strikes became more frequent.

In 1828 Peel, who became Minister of the Interior, obtained the creation of a commission to investigate the state of the police and the increase in crime in the metropolis. His report, delivered in July 1828, was the first to officially recommend for the first time a radical reform and an extension of the police. The main recommendations were the creation of a central police office under the leadership of two magistrates freed from all other functions, the amalgamation of all regular police forces in the London area (except the City) and the financing of the new institution partly from local taxes and partly from the public treasury.

In 1829, following the erection of recent machinery, the mule Jennies, who, producing more, had provoked further reductions in wages, the coalitions of workers ceased work; the movement was accompanied by riots, breakdown of machinery and even murders (226). The rioters were still beating the pavement, among other things, when, in June of the same year, the bill “for the improvement of the Metropolitan Police” presented by Peel to the House of Commons was adopted “without opposition, and almost no debate ”(227), following a speech“ filled with statistical recitations of the rise in crime in London ”(228) and charges against the system that Lord Shelburne, one of Peel's predecessors in Home Office, had described nearly fifty years earlier as "imperfect, inadequate and lamentable" (229).

The Metropolitan Police Actbrought about the creation of the metropolitan police (230), an administrative police prefecture (231) and companies organized half militarily. This organization was imported into the big cities, then was extended to the countryside. The term "police" definitively replaced that of "conservation of the peace".

At the head of the Metropolitan Police was an inspecting superintendent , a real police prefect placed under the direct authority of the Secretary of State for the Interior; under him there were superintendents , plainclothes inspectors , serjeants , simple constables and policemen., all sworn in and full-time employees (232); like the thief-takers and Bow Street Runners before them, they could be rewarded financially, either by the administration or by the individuals concerned, for the arrest of criminals and the discovery and return of stolen objects (233) . Wearing the uniform was compulsory; he had been carefully chosen so that the Peel police were not confused with the military police that they were and that is how the policemenmade their first patrol (234) in the streets of London on September 29, 1829 wearing a navy blue suit with a civilian cut and wearing a top hat; they were not armed (235) and their only distinguishing feature was the word "police" on the copper buttons of their suits. Police stations ( stations ) were first established in Great Britain.

The policemen were recruited following an internship, during which they had inculcated the doctrine of Peel police matters. Maintaining public order was now conceived of as a "science", which had to be taught before being practiced (236).

The doctrine was based on nine principles, several of which betray the mark of pastoral power (237): 1 ° The fundamental mission of the police is to prevent crime and disturbances; 2 ° The ability of the police to perform their functions depends on public approval of the actions of the police; 3 ° The police must ensure the voluntary cooperation of the public in the voluntary respect of the law, in order to be able to guarantee and maintain the respect of the public; 4 ° The degree of cooperation which can be obtained from the public decreases in proportion to the need to resort to physical force; 5 ° The police seek and maintain the favor of the public not by worrying about public opinion, but by demonstrating absolute impartiality in the service of the law;6 ° The police shall only use physical force to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the law or to restore order, when persuasion, advice and warnings are insufficient; 7 ° The police must at all times maintain a relationship with the public which embodies the historical tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, because the police are only members of the public who are paid to perform their duties. full-time functions which fall to each citizen in the interest of the well-being and existence of the community; 8 ° The police must always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never give the impression of usurping the powers of the judiciary;9 ° The criterion of the effectiveness of the police force is the absence of criminality and disorder and not the visible evidence of the action of the police to face it (238).

The surveillance to which the police officers on duty were subjected by their superiors was supposed to encourage them to respect these rules (239), in addition to which they were required to devote all their time to their service and that, once actually in service, they are constantly silent (240). They could be fined, imprisoned or even fired for misconduct, negligence in service, excess of power, breach of professional duties or corruption. During the first years, a third of them were actually dismissed for one or other of these reasons (241).

Popular opposition to the police and policemen was immediate and fierce (242). Among the epithets including the new constableswere rigged, those of " Peelers " and " Bobbies Were the least offensive (243). Peel himself was portrayed as a tyrant, like the thief of the poor (244) and accused, worse than wanting to import into England the "police tyranny" under which the French people had bent under the Ancien Régime, of preparing a coup. of state in favor of the Duke of Wellington (245), whereas, as he wrote to him on November 5, 1829, he only wanted "to teach people that freedom does not consist in being robbed by organized gangs of thieves and to let drunken women and vagrants take possession of the main streets of London at night ”(246), nor, incidentally,“ to kite in the street ”,“ to ride a rolling hoop in the street ”or“ knocking on doors without a valid excuse ”(247).The working classes and the poor were not fooled by the operation of charm that Peel had mounted towards them by giving orders so that thepolicemen were chosen from among the ranks of the people (248) and saw the police "more as an element of control than a group of protectors" (249). He also noted that, as the patrols were less numerous, the streets had become more dangerous (250), so that this observation made by a parliamentary rapporteur just before the establishment of the Metropolitan Policeremained valid: "if a foreign jurisconsult wanted to get an idea of ​​the organization of the police in the capital, he would arrive at the conviction that it had been imagined by a corporation of thieves with a view to ensuring their society as much as possible. of profits possible with the greatest sum of security '”(251). Popular legend, largely maintained by supporters of the Peel Police Bill, has it that London's surveillance forces have been fragmented, ill-organized and incompetent, being made up largely of elderly and incapacitated cripples. to earn a living differently. In fact, the patrols could be increased,reduced or completely redeployed virtually overnight in a way that would no longer be possible once the heavy bureaucracy of the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police interposed itself between the people and the police ”(252).

“Parliament's turn on the police was the result of decades of turmoil, inside and outside Parliament. The change in London's demographic and political landscape from 1750 had made the police more attractive. Londoners had grown accustomed to the idea of ​​a professional force of ' thief-takers'. Circumstances and publicity did the rest. In the aftermath of the riots caused by the divorce lawsuit brought by George IV to his wife Caroline, a commentator had insisted that one of the functions of the police was to 'stand between the criminal and his crime'. The police could not only bring the criminal to justice, they could also prevent crime by directing the conduct of people. George Mainwairing, a supporter of the police, had explained in 1821 that the supreme advantage of the police was that (…) the coercion they exerted was moral and not judicial. According to another commentator, who called himself (…) a lawyer, the police had a moral role as protectors of freedom. He found a medical metaphor to describe the function of the police.'In the hands of good government, [she] resembles those noxious poisons which, when skilfully administered, produce the greatest benefits' ”(253). Under the guise of fighting crime, it was to “(1) govern through an essentially impersonal bureaucracy that seemed to represent more the 'general interests' of society as a whole rather than those of the ruling class; (2) "(to ensure) a deeper and finer penetration of formal control into daily life" (254), especially in that of the "dangerous classes". To use the medical metaphor, to anesthetize them.Under the guise of fighting crime, it was to “(1) govern through an essentially impersonal bureaucracy that seemed to represent more the 'general interests' of society as a whole rather than those of the ruling class; (2) "(to ensure) a deeper and finer penetration of formal control into daily life" (254), especially in that of the "dangerous classes". To use the medical metaphor, to anesthetize them.Under the guise of fighting crime, it was to “(1) govern through an essentially impersonal bureaucracy that seemed to represent more the 'general interests' of society as a whole rather than those of the ruling class; (2) "(to ensure) a deeper and finer penetration of formal control into daily life" (254), especially in that of the "dangerous classes". To use the medical metaphor, to anesthetize them.especially in that of the "dangerous classes". To use the medical metaphor, to anesthetize them.especially in that of the "dangerous classes". To use the medical metaphor, to anesthetize them.

The monopoly of legitimate violence, for lack of valuable combatants , had been confiscated by the state (255).

References

(1) H. D'Arbois de Jubainville, Comparison between the Celtic oath and the Greek oath in the Iliad. In Alex. Bertrand and G. Perrot (under the direction), Revue archeologique, 3e série, t. XIX, January-June 1892, p. 22-3.

(2) Ibid., P. 23.

(3) In ancient Greek, however, “police” was said to be “astynomia”, a name composed of asty (lower town, as opposed to polis, upper town ”) and nomos (law).

(4) Michel Foucault, Security, territory, population. Cours de 1977-1978, Éditions Gallimard / Le Seuil, Paris, 2004, p 344.

(5) It is significant that the first employment of "police" in French (c. 1250) was reported in a book on urban life : Georges Espinas, The Urban Life of Douai in the Middle Ages, A. Picard, t. 3, 1913, p. 148.

(6) MF Laferrière, Cours de droit public et administratif, 2nd ed., Revised, corrected and augmented, Joubert, 1841, p. 298; Faustin Hélie, Treaty of criminal investigation, 2nd ed., Completely revised and considerably increased, third book: of the judicial police, t. 3, Paris, 1866, p. 5. Concerning the separation between judicial police and administrative police, the following considerations could not be more enlightening: “There is in our history an important fact to follow, through its successive phases, it is the separation of the police and justice. The functions of police and justice have been merged in the same people, from the counts of the Franks kings to the seigniorial and royal judges. A first effort was made in the 16th century by Loyseau and the Parliament of Paris,to remove the police from the judges of the lords: the author of the Treaty of the Lordships (ch. VII) posited as a principle that the right to make regulations of general police belonged only to the king and to the parliaments; that the provincial police belonged to the bailiffs and seneschals, that the city police belonged to the royal judges: and the parliament, by a decree of regulation of December 1561, forbade the seigneurial judges to make police acts. But this new doctrine attacked only feudalism; it did not establish in principle the separation of the functions of the police and the judiciary. The edict of Amboise, of June 1572, attempted to dispossess the royal judges of the police; the resistance was great and the confusion was maintained [1577]: in a decision of the council of September 28, 1584,the chancellor of France is said at the same time head of justice and chief of police. It was Colbert who alone was powerful enough to effect the separation by the edict of March 15, 1667: 'And as the functions of justice and the police are often incompatible and too wide to be properly exercised by a sole officer, we would have resolved to share them, considering that the administration of contentious and distributive justice required an entire magistrate, and that, moreover, the police which consist in ensuring the rest of the public and individuals, in purging the city of what can cause disorder, of procuring abundance and of making everyone live according to their condition and duty, also demanded a particular magistrate who could be present at all.'The edict wants that the civilian lieutenant and the lieutenant-general of police which is then instituted, exercise their functions separately and distinctly, each one in what concerns him. It contains the regulations for all matters which are attributed to the police ”(MF Laferrière, p. 295-6) What does this mean, except that the administrative police are (originally conceived as) a parallel police ?

(7) Contrary to popular belief, liberalism and bureaucracy, even historically, are intertwined. "It takes a thousand times more paperwork to maintain a free market economy than the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV", notes David Graeber (quoted in Alexandre Flückiger, [Re-] faire la loi: Traite de Légistique à l'ère du droit flexible, Stämpfli Editions, 2019, p. 106) in The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy (Melville House, Brooklyn and London, 2015; see https://www.politis.fr / articles / 2015/10 / david-graeber-lindigne-qui-sattaque-a-la-bureaucratie-liberale-32579 / & nbsp ;; https://www.bastamag.net/Le-neoliberalisme-nous-a-fait- enter-the-era-of-total-bureaucracy). “How,” asks another reader of Graeber rhetorically, “can one call ultra-liberal a world where bureaucracy triumphs, where each of us spends a considerable part of our time filling out forms, doing paperwork, and where tax punctures with every transaction? (…) Are we really suffering from full financial deregulation and a worrying disengagement of the State when banking, accounting, energy and environmental standards pile up in unprecedented proportions and when central banks are constantly intervening? Is it so liberal, this world where 'you need a diploma, four certificates and above all no right to make mistakes to create an SME in hairdressing or in the renovation of roofs' and where, to become a VTC driver in France,has recently had to face an obstacle course evaluated at 288 days and answer questions no doubt whispered by a historical actor seeking to limit the number of competitors to taxi drivers? »(Mathieu Laine, Saving the Free World, Plon, Paris, 2019). “The victory of laissez-faire was not that of the reduction of state interventionism. Between 1830 and 1850 we witnessed an explosion in the administrative functions of the State. Even a laissez-faireist like Chadwick [English reformer who was secretary to Jeremy Bentham; see infra], on child labor in factories, on the organization of the administration of public health, etc.] will evolve in the face of the manifestations of hostilities to which it will be the object during the economic recession of 1837,the effects of which will be considerably worsened by the reform of the poor laws. He will be the author of a report on the health condition of the working classes in Great Britain advocating the establishment of a public health system, which will be initially rejected by the Conservative government and then adopted by the Liberal government in 1848. The program of state interventionism had been detailed in a precise manner according to the utilitarian principles by Jeremy Bentham which required more administrative intervention, because according to Polanyi's elegant formula 'laissez-faire is not a means to do things is the right thing to do '(1983: 189). Doing the laissez-faire implies overflowing administrative activism. Bentham is part of the tradition of logical positivism ahead of its time. For him,There are three things that are essential to the success of the economy: inclination, knowledge and power. While inclination is the property of the entrepreneur, knowledge and power are administered more efficiently by government than by private individuals. This supposes a considerable development of the administration: 'the liberalism of Bentham means that parliamentary action must be replaced by that of administrative bodies' (Id.; Bentham was so liberal that he judged that "public happiness should to be the object of the legislator, and general utility the principle of reasoning in matters of legislation ”, Larousse - Grand Dictionnaire Universitaire du XIXe siècle, t. 10, part. 1, Paris, 1872, p. 330).The reform of the old poor laws will be part of a context of political reaction led by Parliament with the crisis which followed the end of the Napoleonic wars (suspension of the habeas corpus, Libel Act, repression of the Chartist movement, etc.) which will leave hands free to the growth of administrative power. Here we find analogies with the establishment of the NPM [New Public Management] and its 'liberal bureaucracy', to use the expression of David Giauque (*), which resulted in a considerable increase in regulation ”( Claude Rochet, Getting out of the process of bureaucratic euthanasia of the State: a research program,Here we find analogies with the establishment of the NPM [New Public Management] and its 'liberal bureaucracy', to use the expression of David Giauque (*), which resulted in a considerable increase in regulation ”( Claude Rochet, Getting out of the process of bureaucratic euthanasia of the State: a research program,Here we find analogies with the establishment of the NPM [New Public Management] and its 'liberal bureaucracy', to use the expression of David Giauque (*), which resulted in a considerable increase in regulation ”( Claude Rochet, Getting out of the process of bureaucratic euthanasia of the State: a research program,http://claude.rochet.pagesperso-orange.fr/pdf/ROCHET_Speenhamland.pdf, p. 8-9). In the latter part of the twentieth century, neo-liberals such as Hayek severely criticized what they called Bentham's "constructivist rationalism" for its responsibility for the growth of state bureaucracy and the formation of the welfare state, " constructivist rationalism ”whose origin they traced back to Descartes and Hobbes and the success to the philosophers of the“ Enlightenment ”. For Hayek, the constructivist mentality is characterized by 1) the belief in a socially autonomous human reason capable of conceiving civilization and culture; 2) a radical rejection of conventional traditions and behavior; 3) a tendency to animist or anthropomorphic thinking; and 4) the demand for a rational justification of values."The core of this movement is not so much a precise political doctrine as a general mental attitude, a demand for emancipation from all prejudices and all beliefs which cannot be rationally justified, (attitude which) is expressed perhaps best in B. de Spinoza's statement that 'there is no free man except one who lives only according to the precepts of reason' ”(FA Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978, p. 120). “The characteristic error of constructivist rationalists is (…) that they tend to base their reasoning on what has been called the synoptic illusion,that is to say on this fiction that all the facts to be taken into consideration are present in the mind of the same individual and that it is possible to build, from this knowledge of real detailed data, a desirable social order ”(id. Law, legislation and freedom. A new formulation of liberal principles of justice and political economy. Vol. 1: Rules and order. Paris, PUF, 1973, p. 16, cited in p . 6, note 52)

(*) The expression was used from the time of Bismarck who reports that it was synonymous with “intimate adviser liberalism” (Otto Bismarck, M. de Bismarck, deputy. (1847-1851), R. Boll , Berlin, 1881, p. 12).

(8) The equation between a strong state and the security and freedom of its citizens has been established by liberal politicians as well as liberal thinkers. With regard to the former, for example, Thatcher declared in 1980: "We need a strong state to preserve both freedom and order, to prevent freedom from collapsing and order from becoming despotic. by stiffening. The State, let us not forget, has certain duties which are categorically its own: for example, to enforce the law, defend the nation from external attacks, protect the currency, guarantee essential services. These are the things that only a government can do and that a government must do. We have often said that the state should be more deeply concerned by these issues than it has been hitherto.But a strong State is very different from a total or absolute State ”(quoted in Rudy Amand, Un filet pour faire société: sociologie des ramendeurs dans le Calvados, in Florence Odin and Christian Thuderoz [eds.], Des mondes DIYés: arts and sciences put to the test of the notion of DIY, Presses Universitaires et Polytechniques Romandes, p. 259)

A contemporary French liberal economist and politician is no less affirmative: “Political liberalism calls for a strong state which protects the freedoms of all citizens and especially those of the weakest. Because for the true liberal to ensure the freedom of the weakest among the weak within the company, it is to assure his freedom and that of the company. A strong sovereign state which ensures public security is therefore the prerequisite of a liberal society: there is no freedom, especially for the weak, without absolute security within the whole of society ”(Christian Saint -Etienne, The ambition of freedom: manifesto for the liberal state, Economica, 1998, p. 6). Michel Foucault disentangles the threads of this twisted and opportunist logic: “… in the old political system of sovereignty,there existed between the sovereign and the subject a whole series of legal and economic relations which committed and even obliged the sovereign to protect the subject. But this protection was, in a way, external. The subject could ask his sovereign to be protected against the external enemy or against the internal enemy.

“In the case of liberalism, it is quite another thing. It is no longer simply this kind of external protection of the individual himself that must be assured. Liberalism engages in a mechanism where it will have to arbitrate the freedom and security of individuals around this notion of danger at all times. Basically, if on the one hand liberalism is an art of governing which fundamentally manipulates interests, it cannot - and this is the flip side of the coin - manipulate interests without at the same time being a manager of dangers and security / freedom mechanisms, the security / freedom game which must ensure that individuals or the community will be exposed to dangers as little as possible.

“This, of course, has a number of consequences. We can say that after all the motto of liberalism is 'live dangerously'. That is to say that individuals are perpetually put in a situation of danger or rather, they are conditioned to experience their situation, their life, their present, their future, etc. as carriers of danger. And it is this kind of stimulus of danger that will be, I believe, one of the major implications of liberalism. A whole education of danger, a whole culture of danger appears in fact in the nineteenth century, which is very different from these great dreams or these great threats of the Apocalypse like plague, death, war, etc. he political and cosmological imagination of the Middle Ages, of the seventeenth century, was fueled. Disappearance of the horsemen of the Apocalypse and, on the contrary, appearance,emergence, invasion of daily dangers, of daily dangers perpetually animated, updated, put into circulation by, therefore, what one might call the political culture of danger in the 19th century and which has a whole series of aspects.

“For example, you take the early 19th century savings bank campaign, you see the emergence of detective literature and journalistic interest in crime from the mid 19th century, you see all the campaigns concerning disease and hygiene, look at what is also happening around sexuality and the fear of degeneration, degeneration of the individual, of the family, of the race, of the human species, finally of everywhere you see this stimulation of the fear of danger which is in a way the condition, the internal psychological and cultural correlative of liberalism. No liberalism without a culture of danger.

“The second consequence, of course, of this liberalism and this liberal art of governing, is the tremendous extension of the procedures of control, constraint and coercion which will constitute the counterpart and the counterweight to freedoms. I have insisted enough on the fact that these famous great disciplinary techniques which take charge of the behavior of individuals from day to day and down to its finest detail are exactly contemporary in their development, in their explosion, in their dissemination through society, exactly contemporary with the age of freedoms.

“Economic freedom, liberalism in the sense that I have just said and disciplinary techniques, here again the two things are perfectly linked” (quoted in Guillaume le Blanc and Jean Terrel [ed.], Foucault at the Collège de France: un route, Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, Pessac, 2003, p. 208-9).

(9) See Michel Foucault, Security, territory, population: courses at the Collège de France, 1977-1978, Editions Gallimard, 2004, Jean-Luc Metzger, Penser avec Foucault to understand the extension of power under a neoliberal regime. In Sociological and anthropological research [Online], 47-2, 2016, posted May 05, 2017, consulted December 01, 2020. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rsa/1755 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.1755; Jérôme Lamy, Liberal sources of biopolitics. In History notebooks. Revue d'histoire critique [Online], 123, 2014, posted on 01 April 2014, consulted on 01 December 2020. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chrhc/3509 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/chrhc.3509 .

(10) François Facchini and Olivier Hassid, The centralization of the security offer in France: economic efficiency versus political efficiency. French-speaking international conference, The police and the citizens, National Police School of Quebec, 2005, Nicolet, France. Ffhal-00270737, p. 3.

(11) Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin for the comparative history of institutions, vol. 55, De Boeck Supérieur, 1936, p. 23.

(12) Toby Wilkinson, The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, 2008.

(13) Paul François, The Egyptian city in the New Kingdom, Study report for License 3 (UE5R) from the École Nationale Supérieure of Architecture of Lyon. Under the direction of Benjamin CHAVARDES, 2013, p. 21.

(14) Margaret Bunson, Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Facts On File, 2013, p. 310.

(15) Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2: The New Kingdom, University of California Press; 2nd ed., Review, 2006, p. 143.

(16) John Bauschatz, Law and Enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, p. 329.

(17) Id., The strong arm of the law? Police corruption in Ptolemaic Egypt. In The Classical Journal vol. 103, n ° 1 (October-November 2007), 2013 [p. 13–39]; see, on the history of the police in ancient Egypt, Jon E. Lewis, The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness Ancient Egypt. Running Press, 2003; Ian Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. new ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003; David. P. Silverman (ed.), Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, 1997; Helen Strudwick, The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Sterling Publishing, 2016; Marc Van De Mieroop, A History of Ancient Egypt, 1st ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2010; Toby Wilkinson, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2011 [repr. 2013].

(18) Édouard Cuq, Les institutions juridique des Romains, E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie, Paris, 1891, p. 406-7.

(19) Ibid., P. 365.

(20) The following assertion sums up the point of view of many evolutionary historians, jurists and sociologists on private revenge: “the barbaric principle is private revenge; the intermediate principle, public vengeance; then you arrive at the civilized principle: no vengeance, neither private nor public; but in the heart of the offended, charity and forgiveness of injuries; and for the good, for the social guarantee, justice, but with correction, with pity. This is the principle already laid down long before by Christianity; civil society is getting there after more than eighteen centuries ”(Ortolan, Law of the historical development of humanity [Second article]. In ML Woloswki (under the ed.), Revue de loi et de jurisprudence, 2e série, t . 11, January-June 1840, p. 251). Gold,this point of view is largely caricature: "The violence of the feeling of revenge is an ordered violence, it is subjected to rites of which we glimpse some: the vocerò, the imprecation on the grave, the declaration of war which is done by traditional formulas and by carrying a spear at the funeral. In the state of passion which is that of the parents of the victim, there is, at the same time as an exaltation maintained by its obligatory expression, a fundamental element of diminution and 'dishonor' which makes it an exasperated mourning; revenge, etymologically, is the safeguard of honor '. Until the release produced by a compensatory murder, the qualified avenger suffers from a 'shame' which ritually results in prohibitions or vows (abstinence from food, etc.),which is translated mythically by the images of the torment, of the disease, of the persecution exercised by the ghost of the victim or the demons emanating from her: so that there is not a radical difference, as to the religious state, between an avenger who has not yet acquitted himself and a culprit who must undergo atonement. As for the being to whom revenge is addressed and whose function it is to satisfy, it is also represented by mythical images: blood, for example, to which a religious virtue is attributed; but particularly the dead person himself, a privileged symbol. It is to him that one addresses himself, near his tomb - by reawakening his energy if necessary by ritual abjurations; it is for him that his own fight, and he fights with his own; and revenge sometimes takes the aspect of a sacrifice dedicated to it:the murderer is executed on the grave of his victim ”(Louis Gernet, Le droit penal de la Grecie Ancienne [Introduction by Riccardo Di Donato, in Italian]. In Punishment in the

cited. Corporal punishment and the death penalty in the ancient world. Rome Round Table [9-11 November 1982] Rome: French School of Rome, 1984 [p. 9-35] [Publications of the French School of Rome, 79], p. 14-5). Moreover, it is not true that the vendetta was interminable: “The donation of a girl is a means of paying the price of blood, the poiné. Marriage puts an end to the vendetta and transforms two enemy groups into allies united by a private pact of peace: the philotès. »(Jean-Pierre Vernant [edited], Problems of the war in ancient Greece, Mouton & Co, 1968, p. 12).

(21) “Public law” is put in quotation marks because what this concept covers has no exact equivalent in Greco-Roman antiquity. “(T) he same that the Roman Republic does not designate a political organization, but an objective of well-being for the populus, the jus publicum is not public law, understood as law of the general interest. Yet the ferments of public law in the current sense are there, under Augustus, called Dominus, the Emperor is not master of the Empire in the sense of private law, it is not his thing, he had the charge of the public interest '. Later, Livy assimilated jus publicum to taxation, a privilege of the State. In the same sense, J.-P. Coriat notes the 'flourishing in the third century of a true tax law, expression of public law in the current meaning of the term'. However,despite the proven and repeated use of the word, the meaning to be given to it remains uncertain. In these conditions, to use the expression a posteriori of 'public Roman law' to designate the study of the political and public institutions of Rome, even of the whole of Roman law, is an abuse of language. While we must be careful not to add a modern meaning to the res publica, such a precaution applies to jus publicum ”(Didier Blanc, Les births du droit public. Pour une genealogie en forme de trilogie. In Revue du droit public, no. ° 5, 2017 [p. 1165-83], p. 1176). Public law developed from the end of the 15th century, “fruit of a triple conjunction: the emancipation of religious political action; the transition from the medieval feudal state to the centralized administrative state;the collapse of the idea of ​​the unity of the West for the benefit of dynastic or national states ”(ibid., p. 1179). It has its roots in the "God of the Bible." 'It is a historical fact that the Mosaic law constituted the public and private law of a society and even of a State. James Ellul thus leans on verse 8, 2, Chronicles 9: 'It is because your God loves Israel, and wants to make it subsist forever, that he has made you king over him so that you will do justice. and justice '. The king, sovereign is the source of law and justice materially under public law. This passage is aimed at King Solomon, but if one considers that the history of Israel begins with Abraham, the birth of public law is contemporary with the first patriarch, around the nineteenth century BC. God assigning to Abraham,'first modern legislator (…) to seek the common good', the human figure, although mythical, of the founder of public law takes shape. Some even see in the Bible the exposition of fundamental elements of the general theory of the State such as the separation of powers or the constitution. It remains that it is difficult to ignore the famous and celebrated image of a god offering to men, through the intermediary of Moses, the Tables of the Law, as the episode of the Decalogue reported by the Bible gave rise to multiple representations. Obviously since the legislator exists the public right is there, the God of the Bible is the ancestral model of the legislator, binding like the Sumerians right and god. This relationship is in reality an identity, God and law merge into one,the divine essence carries as attributes that of making law by the sole incarnation of the power of one's word ”(ibid., p. 1171-2).

(22) Gustave Glotz, The Greek City, La Renaissance du Livre, 1928, p. 17. “The rule which subordinated genes to a general interest was not devoid of all sanctions. To go beyond the rights limited by custom was to expose oneself to divine vindictiveness (όπις θεών). But the religious conception never does more than sublimate a more human conception. The fear of the gods was, at bottom, the fear of a social force which acquired more power day by day. We were afraid of the demos. This name applied to all the genes grouped together under the same scepter, whether it is the country or the inhabitants. The demu phatis or phèmis, public opinion, exercised an influence from which no genos could escape. She exerted through nemesis a pressure capable of preventing a crime or of forcing the criminal to atone.It did not, it is true, have an appointed organ; it was not represented by a person or by an official body. It cannot, however, be said that it was purely moral; for in extreme cases, when the passions were overexcited, indignation burst into violence and carried away all obstacles. In law, the genos remained sovereign; in fact, he often had to give in to an anonymous and collective will which could place a formidable weapon in the hands of the king ”(ibid.).he often had to give in to an anonymous and collective will which could put a formidable weapon in the hands of the king ”(ibid.).he often had to give in to an anonymous and collective will which could put a formidable weapon in the hands of the king ”(ibid.).

(23) Jacques Lambert, Private vengeance and the foundations of public international law, Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1936, p. 117-8.

(24) Jean-Yves Chateau, Philosophy and religion: Plato, Euthyphryon, J. Vrin, Paris, 2005, p. 64. Permanent courts (questiones perpetuae) existed in Athens from ancient times. “There were (…), in addition to the Areopagus, ten courts of law known as the decasteries. Four of them knew of various kinds of murder (…). The first of these courts of law was the one formerly called the Court of the Ephetes, and later known as the Court of Palladion, because it sat near the temple of Pallas. It was made up of fifty Athenians of the class, Eupatrids. She was judging the causes of unintentional murders. There, as at the Areopagus, it was the archon-king who introduced the cause;the priestly intervention of this magistrate seemed here even more important than with any other tribunal: for the judgment to be rendered was less a condemnation than the solemn declaration of sacred protection. The culprit was bound, it is true, to leave his country for a certain time, to follow the path prescribed to him, to keep his ban until he had satisfied the family of the deceased; then he was bound, on returning to Attica, to purify himself by expiatory sacrifices because of the filth which the shed blood always imprinted in the eyes of religion. But it is evident that this law, which dates back to ancient times, was intended to abolish private vengeance in cases where it could not be replaced by the rigors of social justice.The exile of the involuntary murderer was only a refuge against the first resentments of the family of the deceased; the pecuniary composition and the holy atonement at the foot of the altars then came to serve as its aegis against a vengeance which, after the accomplishment of these formalities, would have ceased to be legitimate and would even have been accused of sacrilegious impiety… ”( Albert du Boys, Cours de droit criminal, 5th lesson. In L'Université Catholique, t. 7, Paris, 1839, p. 104). See, on the subject of the faecal tribunal, JF Bilhon, Du Gouvernement des Romains, Paris, 1807, p. 156 and Henry Poignand du Fontenioux, On the evolution of the idea of ​​a permanent tribunal of arbitration through the ages and its future, French company of printing and bookstore, 1904). In Rome, the first permanent tribunal, created by Numa,“The first founder of Roman law” (Jacques Ellul, Research on the conception of sovereignty in primitive Rome, in Le Pouvoir, Mélanges offered to Georges Burdeau, 1997, LGDJ, p. 274), at the instigation of a Sabine chief, was that of the faeces, priests chosen from the first patrician houses and whose function was to judge political offenses, to perform the rites relating to relations with foreigners, in particular the opening and cessation of hostilities, peace treaties (Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité antique, 13th ed., Paris, Hachette et Cie, 1890, p. 191).priests chosen from the first patrician houses and whose function was to judge political crimes, to perform rites relating to relations with foreign countries, in particular the opening and cessation of hostilities, peace treaties (Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité antique, 13th ed., Paris, Hachette et Cie, 1890, p. 191).priests chosen from the first patrician houses and whose function was to judge political crimes, to perform rites relating to relations with foreign countries, in particular the opening and cessation of hostilities, peace treaties (Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité antique, 13th ed., Paris, Hachette et Cie, 1890, p. 191).

(25) Jacques Lambert, op. cit., p. 7.

(26) Contrary to what Charles Daremberg and Edmond Saglio assert (Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, t. 3, 2e partie, 1877, Hachette, p. 1405 et seq.), It is not that the notion of stain is absent from Homeric literature, it is that, whatever Louis Gernet may say about it (Researches on the development of legal and moral thought in Greece: [semantic study], Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1917, p. 226 et seq.) and Robert Parker (Miasma, pollution and purification in early Greek religion, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983), it applies to war and not to homicide, as Bernard Eck demonstrates (La Mort rouge - Homicide, war and defilement in ancient Greece, Les Belles Lettres, 2012),based on four passages from the Iliad and on the epithet of Arès miaiphonos (“defiled by murder” or “who kills while defiling”) (see Irene Salvo, [review], Bernard Eck, La mort red: homicide, war and defilement in ancient Greece. Collection of Ancient Studies. Greek Series, 145. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2012. In BMCR,https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013.02.06/). Moreover, Gernet and Parker underestimate the influence of the Delphic cult in establishing the doctrine of defilement in Greece. “It is under the influence of Apollo in Delphi that the homicide becomes an impure act requiring purification (hatharmos). A decisive influence, which was not limited to changing the conception of blood crimes ”. Now, a fundamental point, “(t) he Greek cities, it is a well-known fact, trace their constitutional rules to the oracle's response: the authority of the oracle was the basis of civil rights, indisputable which made legislative choices sacred and legitimized the fundamental rules of civil life. And one of them demanded that the murder should be followed by purification. The shed blood, the oracle had said, causes a stain which must be removed,because otherwise it spreads, contaminating all those in contact with the homicide (…). With Homer, the blood is not impure. Whoever has killed is forced to abandon his homeland, but only to avoid revenge. Abroad, he is welcomed without fear and without any concern of the sacred type: Telemachus, in the Odyssey, welcomes the homicide Theoclymene on his ship, without worrying in the least about performing expiatory rites. It was only at a later time that the theory of defilement was born. " (Eva Cantarella, The Death Penalties in Greece and Rome, translated from Italian by Nadine Gallet, Albin Michel, 2000, p. 75-6). An idea of ​​the influence of the oracle on the politics of the Greek cities is given in MP Foucart (Mémoires sur les ruins et histoire de Delphes, Paris, 1865, p.144-8).

There is more: Auguste Bouché-Leclercq (History of divination in antiquity, t. 3, Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1879, p. 52-3) convincingly showed that Dionysianism exerted a strong influence on the Delphic cult and that the prophetic mania of the Pythia, nicknamed "the bee of Delphi" (ibid., p. 44), did not derive from Apollo - a god who, he points out, was at Delphi "symbolized, at the oriental way, rather than represented (as it was elsewhere), by a column ”(ibid., p. 8) - but of Bacchus and his orgies. Moreover, according to legend, the site of Delphi - which archaeological research traces back to the Neolithic era - was originally dedicated to Mother Earth.

(27) “If the parents of the victim alone have the capacity to prosecute the murderer, the city feels obliged to assure them their revenge: it is associated with them in the 'prohibition' which they send to the accused to appear in sacred and public places - conditional excommunication that she takes on her own account. The punishment of the guilty is for her a liberation. The very dosage of responsibility, (once) the social constitution (will have ordered) the distinctions between intentional, involuntary, excusable homicides, corresponds (ra) to degrees of collective religious sentiment. This feeling is reflected in the idea of ​​defilement: the fear of the dangerous forces which emanate from the shed blood, the purifying virtue of criminal law,the common peril to which unjustified acquittals such as the convictions of innocent people would expose - so many commonplaces that judicial eloquence will never cease to exploit. Capital execution and exile are essentially means of religious protection. In Athens, throughout the classical period, there will remain, as the living symbol of the prohibition of homicide, the Prytaneion court where animals and inanimate objects which have caused the death of man are 'judged'; and the guilty instrument or stone are ritually expelled from Attic soil, as is, after a fictional trial before the same Prytaneion, the ax which has just slaughtered the ox of the Dipolies: the same scheme is imposed on the drama legal and religious drama. - More or less impersonal numina of vengeance, such as Erinyes, Semnai, etc.,remain installed in religion, in the place which law itself recognizes in them and by the consecration which it indirectly grants them: the Areopagus judges the murderers near the sanctuary of the Semnai, where rites are performed in connection with the trial ; and Aeschylus could not have drawn up the terrifying image of his Furies if these demons had not maintained all their power over souls at the moment when the city imposed its jurisdiction… ”(Louis Gernet and André Boulanger, Le genie grec dans la religion, La Renaissance du livre, 1932, p. 163). “The prohibition of homicide includes in the idea of ​​contagious contamination a mythical translation of this feeling whose penalty is the discharge. But what is no less revealing are certain religious dramas which rub shoulders with the penalty and which shed light on it.The rapprochement is express in a ritual that tradition maintains in Athens, that of the Bouphonies: the ax which struck the sacrificial victim is judged and rejected outside the borders or into the sea by the court of the Prytaneion (…). On the other hand, annual ceremonies, in several cities, have for object the expulsion of scapegoats represented by men - who are sometimes convicted criminals: walked through the city of which they carry the 'defilements', they are then driven out, and in certain cases executed according to procedures such as stoning or precipitation into the sea which are those of the primitive penalty. It will suffice to indicate here what the religious transpositions imply:the fixing of responsibility on a subject has a liberating effect on the other members of society ”(Louis Gernet, op. cit, p. 17). On the subject of precipitation, in Athens in the barathron, in Rome from the top of the Tarpeian rock, “(i) n the Precivic practice, (it) had been one of the ways in which the consecrated victim was handed over to the gods. In other words, it had been a form of human sacrifice. Subsequently, it had been used as an ordeal: the one who was suspected of religious crime was thrown from a height, so that, if he was guilty, he died by crashing to the ground or by drowning in the waves. The gods would take his life only if he was guilty; if he was innocent, they saved him, preventing him from dying. Like all ordeals,the rush was at the same time a trial, a death sentence and an execution. It is therefore no coincidence that, in the city, it was originally used as a death penalty for religious offenses. It was not only a punishment, it also had an expiatory function, it saved the community from the risk of the taint that the accused would inevitably have spread in the city if he had not been eliminated ”(Eva Cantarella, op. . cit., p. 314).it saved the community from the risk of the taint that the accused would inevitably have spread throughout the city if he had not been eliminated ”(Eva Cantarella, op. cit., p. 314).it saved the community from the risk of the taint that the accused would inevitably have spread throughout the city if he had not been eliminated ”(Eva Cantarella, op. cit., p. 314).

(28) Louis Gernet, op. cit., p. 23.

(29) Ibid.

(30) Édouard Cuq, op. cit., p. 334.

(31) Arthur Desjardins, States-General (1355-1614), A. Dunand and Pédone Lauriel, Paris, 1874, p. 352.

(32) The transition from private revenge to legal proceedings in Athens is known in more detail. Originally, “two conditions suffice to justify the right to private revenge: the accomplishment of an act contrary to the law, the existence of a wrong caused to another. We are not at all concerned about the guilt of the agent: whether the wrong was committed by a human being or by an animal, whether an injury was done intentionally or inadvertently, it does not matter (...), the victim think only of taking revenge for the wrong she has suffered, whoever the author and whatever the cause ”(Édouard Cuq, op. cit., p. 335). “It doesn't matter whether the murderer is a murderer or a reckless, the victim of unintentional error or the perpetrator of necessary homicide. Intention in ancient Greece was not taken into consideration;the damaging fact alone was taken into account, stripped of all its psychological modalities ”. “This enlightens us (…) on the ancient origins of crime and shows us that it is independent of what we call morality. Its primitive, essential character, that which it will retain in spite of progress, is not that it is an immoral act, but an act contrary to the customs of the group, harmful to its interests ”(Joseph Maxwell, Le concept social du crime: its evolution, F. Alcan, 1914, p. 74, 85)is not to be an immoral act, but indeed an act contrary to the customs of the group, harmful to its interests ”(Joseph Maxwell, Le concept social du crime: son evolution, F. Alcan, 1914, p. 74, 85 )is not to be an immoral act, but indeed an act contrary to the customs of the group, harmful to its interests ”(Joseph Maxwell, Le concept social du crime: son evolution, F. Alcan, 1914, p. 74, 85 )

The preoccupation of "determining and balancing guilt: intentional murder, manslaughter, excusable homicide, so many categories which may have emerged in private arbitration, but which are now formulated and imposed," crept into the law. . (Emphasis added) (Louis Gernet, op. Cit., P. 24.).

Then the sentence was proportioned to the guilt of the agent and was redeemed in money. Whereas, in Homeric times, "revenge was a social duty, which could not be avoided by those who wanted to remain among the agathoi" (Eva Cantarella, op. Cit., P. 55, cited in Marielle de Béchillon, Le mari , the lover and the law in the plea of ​​Lysias On the murder of Eratosthenes, Pallas [Online], 83, 2010, posted October 01, 2010, consulted November 17, 2020. URL: http: // journals.openedition.org/pallas/11599 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/pallas.11599.), “Social conscience (seems) (to have) started to consider positively the choice of the one who accepted the ransom and had slowly decided that, once made, this choice had to be final: in other words that the poinè was a variant of revenge ”(ibid., p. 59, cited in ibid.).

A further step in the confiscation of the monopoly of private vengeance by the law “seems to have been taken with the establishment of the gerontes, the council of elders, who were responsible for verifying that the ransom had indeed been paid. If they agreed that this had been the case, then the revenge of the offended would become illegitimate. Otherwise, implicitly, the gerontes, gave the authorization to kill the offended. The latter no longer acted exclusively on his behalf, for his sole interest. 'The sentence (of the gerontes) conferred upon him an implicit power of attorney to use physical force in order to ensure compliance with a rule of conduct that the social community deemed fundamental for its survival' ”(Marielle de Béchillon, op. ).

Dracon and Solon directed all their efforts to destroy the right of private revenge.

To this end, Dracon set up judicial bodies to which "it is (...) to verify whether the required external circumstances exist so that the act of revenge, determined by law, is legitimate" (ibid.). It was under the impetus of his legislation (v. 620 before our era) that “the passage from personal vengeance to legal procedure” took place (Louis Duyau [under the ed.], Revue des revues et publications d ' academies, 15th year, 1890, p. 164). “To push the injured party to go to court, Dracon determined the conditions for resorting to private revenge or composition. To break up the family groups he distinguished in each of them circles of more or less close relatives and even, in certain cases, he required parents called upon to make a decision that it be taken unanimously;it appeals in the genos to individualism ”(Gustave Glotz, op. cit., p. 140). "The different kinds of homicide are treated, not doubtless not as public crimes which immediately provoke the intervention of the State, but as crimes for which the family of the victim can obtain the punishment by the State and not. can obtain it only through him: afflictive punishment - death, perpetual banishment, temporary exile - which never has the character of a wergeld, although private transactions have not been prohibited by law. In this sense, we can say that there is a public repression of the murder ”(Louis Gernet, op. Cit., P. 22-3).no doubt not as public offenses which immediately provoke the intervention of the State, but as offenses for which the victim's family can obtain the punishment by the State and can only obtain it through it: afflictive punishment - death, perpetual banishment, temporary exile - which never has the character of a wergeld, although private transactions have not been prohibited by law. In this sense, we can say that there is a public repression of the murder ”(Louis Gernet, op. Cit., P. 22-3).no doubt not as public offenses which immediately provoke the intervention of the State, but as offenses for which the victim's family can obtain the punishment by the State and can only obtain it through it: afflictive punishment - death, perpetual banishment, temporary exile - which never has the character of a wergeld, although private transactions have not been prohibited by law. In this sense, we can say that there is a public repression of the murder ”(Louis Gernet, op. Cit., P. 22-3).In this sense, we can say that there is a public repression of murder ”(Louis Gernet, op. Cit., P. 22-3).In this sense, we can say that there is a public repression of murder ”(Louis Gernet, op. Cit., P. 22-3).

Solon (c. 740 - c. 658 before our era) continued the work of undermining begun by Dracon, by formally forbidding private revenge and, even more, by creating public action. “Modest means of application, in principle: it appears that it was only provided for certain crimes for which the individual victim could not obtain compensation by his own means. But these offenses are, for example, the ill-treatment of a loved one or the reduction in servitude of a debtor: procedural innovation means that, henceforth, the solidarity of the civic group plays over the discipline of the family or the protection of a boss. On the other hand, the generalization of the actio popularis with all its consequences will characterize the penal procedure of the following centuries.The second Solonian innovation is the creation of people's courts: here again, the starting point is modest, and the developments considerable. These courts first have to function only conditionally: what is open to the parties is the right to appeal to them from the judgment of a magistrate, because magistrates continue to 'judge' and this is only a century later at least that the courts will replace them completely in this office. But the organ is created: the tribunal is an emanation and even a direct expression of the new sovereignty which is being established (the name which designates it, helied, is an old name of the assembly). The organization of a justice expressly conceived as state justice has yet another meaning and another effect:in the judgment of the crimes which are pursued only at the diligence of the injured party, the phase of the arbitration is exceeded. The mass of private crimes enters into the law of the State: essentially distinct from that of public crimes, it is none the less close to it, ordered with it in the unity of a system, and this neighborhood produces interference, and as induction effects in both directions ”(ibid.)

(33) At the time of the Twelve Tables, wrongs committed by a potential person are classified into four classes, according to the mode of repression they include: 1 ° Private revenge continues to be permitted for the breach of a limb, and for overt theft committed by a slave. 2 ° The exercise of revenge is entrusted to the magistrate of the city for the manifest theft committed by a son of a family. 3. The exercise of vengeance is left to the domestic magistrate in the event of insult. 4 ° The right to private revenge is set aside for wrongs which simply give rise to pecuniary compensation combining the characteristics of a fine and an indemnity ”(Édouard Cuq, op. Cit., P. 374).

(34) “The ancient procedure includes all the formalities to be observed in order to be authorized to do justice to oneself. These formalities are more or less complicated depending on the case. To understand its meaning, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are at a time close to that when the victim of an injustice himself took revenge for the wrong he had suffered. From now on, the right to private revenge is subject to certain restrictions: it is subordinate to the fulfillment of certain solemnities. The least that we require is the prior affirmation of the right that we want to exercise. Before doing justice, we must pronounce aloud the formula consecrated citizens. Submission to public justice is purely voluntary; the parties must agree to request a judge. If the defendant refuses to join,the plaintiff can make use of a procedure which will remove from his adversary any pretext for evading the debate: he will provoke him to assert his right under the faith of the oath and to deposit a sum which will be lost if his assertion is recognized unjust . The respondent had no plausible reason to reject this proposal ”(ibid., Pp. 40-7).

(35) See René Cagnat and Georges Goyau, Lexique des antiquités romaines, Thorin, 1895, p. 308. In Rome, the law allowed the pater familias of whom one of the alieni iuris (individuals under his power) had committed an offense to choose between the payment of an indemnity (composition) to the victim or the noxae deditio, a procedure by which he abandoned the culprit to the victim (see René Dekkers, De Visscher [Fernand], Le regime romain de la noxalité. - From collective vengeance to individual responsibility. In Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, t. 26, fasc. 1 -2, 1948 [p. 263-6]).

(36) Louis Gernet, Le droit penal…, p. 24.

(37) Théophile Rouquette, Legal excuses and justifying facts in criminal matters, Toulouse, 1866, p. 12; René Roland, From the spirit of criminal law to different periods in antiquity, Arthur Rousseau, Paris, 1880, p. 261.

(38) Théophile Rouquette, op. cit., p. 12.

(39) Under the res publica two in number, namely crimes against persons and political crimes, they multiplied from the 1st century BC (see Emile Morlot, Précis des institutions politique de Rome, Dupret , Paris, 1886, p. 211-2).

(40) Paulin Ismard, Democracy against the experts. Public slaves in ancient Greece, Éditions du Seuil, 2015.

(41) Ibid.

(42) Ibid. ; see also Jean-Christophe Couvenhes, The introduction of Scythian archers, public slaves, in Athens: the date and agent of a cultural transfer, in Bernard Legras (ed.), Cultural transfers and rights in the Greek and Hellenistic world : proceedings of the international colloquium, Reims, 14-17 May 2008, compiled by Bernard Legras, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris, 2012 [p. 99-118].

(43) Oscar Jacob, Public slaves in Athens, Liège, 1928, p. 55; Karl-Wilhelm Welwei, Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst, Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, 1974.

(44) Paulin Ismard, op. cit. ; see also Lydie Bodiou, Chemin Making: Myths, Cults and Society in Ancient Greece: Mixtures in Honor of Pierre Brulé, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2009, p. 65. The demosioi were ridiculed by Aristophanes, Eupolis, Cratinos and others, to the point of "in (coming) to embody a character promised to great posterity: the Pandora, clumsy policeman, cowardly under his matamore appearance and constantly ridiculed by those he is supposed to pursue. The Scythian archer of Aristophanes inaugurates in this sense a long series of pathetic police officers which leads, passing by the gendarme of Guignol, to Dupont and Dupond d'Hergé. Soft, timid, sometimes obscene and often bordering on drunkenness, the Scythian archer undoubtedly presents himself as an anti-model in relation to the citizen ”(Paulin Ismard,op. cit.). Demosioi only made people laugh at the theater.

(45) Marie-Madeleine Mactoux, Slave, whip, ritual, in Lydie Bodiou et al., Op. cit. [p. 59-70].

(46) George Grote, History of Greece, vol. 6, translated from English by A. -L. de Sadous, Paris, 1865, p. 307-8.

(47) Paulin Ismard, op. cit.

(48) John Bauschatz, op. cit., p. 18-9.

(49) Patrice Bun, [review] Virginia J. Hunter, Policing Athens: social control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320 BC In Revue des Études Anciennes, t. 96, 1994, n ° 3-4 [p. 624-5].

(50) William Stearns Davis, A Day in Old Athens: A Picture of Athenian Life, University Press of the Pacific, 2004, p. 56.

(51) Oscar Jacob, op. cit., p. 76.

(52) Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando and Kaius Tuori (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, p. 298.

(53) Cosimo Cascione, Tresviri capitales: Storia di una magistratura minore, Naples, Editoriale scientifica, 1999; Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, t. 2, S. Hirzel, Leipzig, 1888, p. 638, 601, 718; J. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, t. 3, Marroni, Leipzig, 1885, p. 347.

(54) Auguste would also have created a sort of judicial and security police (Léon Homo, Rome imperial et urbanisme dans l'Antiquité, Albin Michel, Paris, 2014, p. 149; Robert Sablayrolles, Libertinus miles. Les cohortes de vigils, French School of Rome, Rome, 199).

(55) Pierre Subra, On the influence of the victim's consent on the existence of a crime and the responsibility of the perpetrator, É. Privat, 1906, p. 10; “If the victim consented to be injured, there was no further prosecution. In this case, we could apply the maxim: 'Volenti non fit injuria.' In our legislation, on the contrary, criminal law is essentially public order ”(ibid.).

(56) François Duverger, Manual of investigating judges, t. 1, 3rd ed., Paris, 1862, p. 3.

(57) Ibid., P. 9.

(58) Édouard Cuq, op. cit., p. 344.

(59) Hélène Ménard, Convicium et clamor: la justice romaine facing the cries of the crowd, in Frédéric Chauvaud and Pierre Prétou (eds.), Public outcry and judicial emotions. From Antiquity to the present day, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, 2013 [p. 211-20].

(60) Annette Ruelle, The anathema while singing. Scandale, fascinatio et fatalité, in Laurent van Eynde and Sophie Klimis (under the direction), Literature and knowledge (s), Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Brussels, 2002 [p. 127-73], p. 152.

(61) Henri Batiffol, Choice of Latin expressions, 3rd ed., Paris, 1866, p. 177; see also Annette Ruelle, op. cit.

(62) Max Conzémius. Private Security in Ancient Rome, Pétange, 2013, Education.lu .

(63) See Hélène Ménard, op. cit.

(64) Theodor Mommsen, Le droit public romain, vol. 5, Diffusion de Bocard, 1984, [E. Thorin, 1896], p. 367-8.

(65) Ibid., P. 366.

(66) See Nicolas Oikonomidès, Social and Economic Life in Byzantium, Ashgate / Variorum, 2004 p. 223.

(67) “It is true that the beginning of punishment by the state appears first of all in the form of a regulation of 'private' revenge, but we should not (...) assume that punishment by the State is in a way the continuation of a private revenge. In fact, the first suppresses and replaces the second, but it only does so gradually, just as in actu rights are only formed gradually. Private revenge belongs to the state of affairs in which the rights are not yet actualized, in the sense that the powers that a man should be able to exercise for the good of the society are not yet guaranteed to him by the society. As they are updated, the exercise of private vengeance must cease. A private right of revenge is an impossibility; for, insofar as revenge is private, the individual,by exercising it, exercises a power which does not derive from society and is not regulated according to social good and such power is not a right ”(Editorial. In Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. I, n ° 1, May 1910 [p. 1-43], p. 20.

(68) William A. Morris, The Frankpledge System, London, 1910, p. 16.

(69) Katherine Fischer Drew, The Lombard Laws, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 7.

(70) Ibid.

(71) Alan Beckley, The Evolution of Community Policing from its Origins in the UK, in CJ Jansen and Bernard H. Levin (eds.), Neighborhood-driven Policing: A Series of Working Papers from the Futures Working Group, 2005, p . 35.

(72) According to Tacitus' testimony, the Germans authorized the redemption of a homicide by delivering a certain number of head of cattle to the family of the victim. “A similar use is found in Gaul after the invasion, either because it was imposed on the country by the newcomers, or because it was the natural effect of social disorder and the powerlessness of public authority to punish crimes. It is not that all Germanic laws have admitted it; the codes of the Visigoths and Burgundians punished the crime of homicide with death; several ordinances of the first Frankish kings struck him with the same penalty. However, the redemption of crime became more and more prevalent; the Salic law and the law of the Ripuaries formally authorized the culprit to escape any penalty by compensating the victim;it was called entering into arrangement or composition, componere. The wergeld was not the same as the composition. Also we find it even in the codes which do not authorize the redemption of the crime. The true meaning of the word wergeld is indicated to us by the laws themselves. They translate this term from the Germanic language by the Latin expression pretium hominis. The wergeld is therefore the price that is worth man. We read in the Burgundian code: 'He who killed another man while defending himself is not guilty; he will only have to pay the parents half of the price that the person of the deceased was worth, that is to say 150 gold pieces if he was noble, 100 if he was of poor condition, 75 if he was of lower condition. ' The wergeld was therefore not a penalty; it was not a fine; it was still less the price of the blood spilled.By this word was simply meant the price that man was worth during his lifetime. This is how the wergeld is found in many cases where there is no murder. 'The kidnapper of a young girl, says the law of the Frisians, will have to pay her her wergeld, that is to say the price that she is worth according to her rank of noble girl or simply free girl ?.' - 'If a man has consulted wizards, says the Lombard law, he will pay a fine equal to half of his price.' - 'Whoever tears up another man's letter of franking, says the Salic law, will pay that man's wergeld.' - 'He who has taken a false oath, says the Frisian law, will pay his own wergeld.' We still read in the Salic law that the count who will have neglected his duty of justice will be punished with death, unless he redeems his life 'what it is worth'.The simple copyist who has altered an act out of ignorance is condemned by Lombard law to pay his own wergeld. This wergeld was independent of the penalty; on the contrary, it was the penalty that settled on him. In the case of murder or injury, the composition rose in proportion to the wergeld of the victim. If it was, on the contrary, a simple offense, the fine rose or fell in proportion to the wergeld of the culprit. It was therefore a rule in the societies of that time that each man had his price determined and fixed by law. All the legislations did not admit the composition, but all had the wergeld, that is to say the tariff of each human life ”(Fustel of Coulages, History of the political institutions of old France, 1st part: L ' Roman empire. The Germans. Merovingian royalty, 2nd ed., review,corrected and augmented, Librairie Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1877, p. 543-5).

(73) Henry Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. 3, new ed., Raabé, Brussels, 1840, p. 32.

(74) William A. Morris, op. cit., p. 5.

(75) Ibid., P. 2.

(76) Edouard Fischel, The Constitution of England, translated on the second German edition compared with the English edition, t. 2, C. Reinwald, Paris, 1854, p. 13.

(77) William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1, 19th ed., JE Hovenden, Esq., London, 1836, p. 114; AM Chambeyron, Constitutions et chartes: Notions elementaires de droit politique, Paris, 1854, p. 78.

(78) This system of mutual guarantee seems to have passed through various states, which Henri Hallam describes as follows: “First the accused was obliged to give bail for his appearance in court. Then his parents became guarantors of the payment of the composition and the other fines that he might have incurred. They were even liable to imprisonment until full payment; this imprisonment could be commuted to a certain sum of money. Later, people already convinced or infamous were forced to give bail for their future conduct. It was during the reign of Edgar [v. 944—975] only that we find the first general law which places every man in the condition of a guilty or an accused, by forcing him to provide a surety which answers for his appearance whenever he is called in. judgment.This provision is continually repeated and confirmed in later laws of the same reign and that of Ethelred [v. 966 - 1016]. Finally the laws of Canut impose the double obligation to provide security and to belong to a hundred and a tything… ”. A law of Henry I (1069–1135) ordered that every male individual of twelve years of age or over and of free status was obliged to enlist in some tithing. In the middle of the thirteenth century, the jurisconsult Bracton extended this obligation, not without tolerating exceptions, to any individual of the male sex of twelve years or more and of servile condition. At that time, Frank Pledges were in fact made up mostly of villains (Franpledge, Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 11, 1911, p. 34).

(79) Henry Hallam, op. cit., p. 35. While asserting that “(t) his guarantee consisted in that throughout the kingdom these ten men were responsible for each other, in the sense that, if one of the ten committed a fault, the nine others had to bring him to court so that he could pay with his property or with his person. If he evaded justice, the tything had the means to justify any participation in his crime or in his flight; failing which, if the offender's assets were insufficient, the other members of the tything were forced to top up the fine ”, Hallam points out that“ (it) is wrong that (more than one) perpetrator (have) thought that 'the members of a tything were, as to their conduct, subject to mutual responsibility, and that the' company, or its head, could be sued,and compelled to make reparation for the crime committed by one of its members' (…). The members of a tything were in effect nothing more than a perpetual bond for one another ”(ibid.). This distinction is difficult to grasp.

(80) John Lingard, History of England, from the First Invasion by the Romans, vol. 1, Philadelphia, 1827, p. 295.

(81) Edouard Fischel, op. cit., p. 15. Hence the abuses to which the frank-pledge system gave rise: "if the members were negligent in finding the culprit, or if they allowed him to escape, they were liable to certain sanctions and, in the event of of theft, compensation. This compensation was, in the case of cattle rustling, so extensive that, like modern day fire insurance, it encouraged owner negligence, and it is not uncommon for the abuse to have been even more severe. Responsibility for the tything extended to the entire village community and even to cases where it was not certain that the offender was a member of the tything. If, within a period of one month and one day,the community in whose territory a person had been murdered could not find their murderer, they were obliged to pay a sum of forty-six marks, of which forty went to the king and the other six to the relatives of the person killed, if they did not failed to find the murderer and bring him to justice within a year.This increased severity with regard to the frith-borh and even to the name itself, however, was only noticeable in Norman times ... ”(emphasis added) (JM Lappenberg, A History of England Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, new ed., Vol. 2, George Bell and Sons, London, 1884, p. 409-10).

(82) John Philip Dawson, A History of Lay Judges, The Lawbook Echange, Ltd, 1999, Union, NJ, p. 121.

(83) Rudolph Gneist, The Communal Constitution of England's History, translated under the direction of the author, vol. 4, A. Lacroix, Verboeckhoven et Cie, Paris, 1870, p. 18.

(84) Ibid. “When the Franks lived in Germany, they did not feel the need to draft their laws or their traditions (…). They believed that the presence of a determined number of witnesses was sufficient to protect the memory of a judicial fact from all uncertainty, or to give to a natural and simple fact the authority of a legal act. The imperfection of material means strengthened national customs on this point. This opinion produced singular effects worthy of remark. The witnesses being, in many circumstances, no longer simple narrators of the facts, but real judicial officers, the authority of their functions grows with all the less difficulty, as each one, being able either to be a witness or to need witnesses , contributed to the strengthening of this authority.We would seek in vain to form to ourselves a just and complete idea of ​​what was serious, solemn and, so to speak, abstract in judicial testimony as it existed among the Franks; and this people, by retaining its old word of admiration to designate the action of testifying in court, as they conceived it, has sufficiently shown that they had searched without success in the language of the Romans for a word which clearly reproduced their thought. .has sufficiently shown that he had searched without success in the language of the Romans for a word which clearly reproduced his thought.has sufficiently shown that he had searched without success in the language of the Romans for a word which clearly reproduced his thought.

“The drafting of the Salic law gave a legal character to this way of considering judicial testimony; for if this law does not mention all the cases in which testimony was used, at least it does not cite a single act of civil or criminal procedure in which it does not serve as a principle.

“A title of this law is entitled, De testibus adhibendis; and the two articles which compose this title show that the obligation to testify by oath, at the first requisition of a person who needed this testimony, was a general and narrow obligation. Many other provisions of the Salic law confirm this observation; thus all postponements had to be made in the presence of witnesses and affirmed by them. (Tit. XLII, art. 11; LI, 3; LIX, 1.) The same applied to requests for payment. (LII, art. 1.) The formalities relating to donations were carried out in front of witnesses. If the donor did not deliver all the objects included in his donation, three witnesses had to swear by oath that they had been at the first plea, and that they had witnessed the donation;they had to pronounce the name of the donee and that of the donor. Three other witnesses also testified that the donee, after having retired to the donor's house, had fed at his table three guests who had been introduced in the presence of witnesses. Finally, three other witnesses attested to the act of public apprehension made before the king or in a plea, and the accomplishment of other formalities. Hæc omnia, says the law in closing, novem testes debent adfirmare, XLIX ”and the completion of other formalities. Hæc omnia, says the law in closing, novem testes debent adfirmare, XLIX ”and the completion of other formalities. Hæc omnia, says the law in closing, novem testes debent adfirmare, XLIX ”

"The establishment of feudalism gave the ideas and customs of the French a new character, changed the principle and form of government, and, by subjecting the administration of justice to the will of the lords, withdrew all their force from custom. who had reigned in the judicial courts of the first and the second race. Each lord was sovereign judge of the men who lived in his fief; he arbitrated the penalties and determined the rules, always very expeditious, which were to be followed in the bosom of his court. How then to suppose that in opposition to such an absolute authority, the evidence by witnesses could have been maintained with its former preponderance? But what has long existed among a people never ceases completely. His ideas,its mores and its laws can undergo the most profound alterations, but not betray their origin, nor prevent that there from breaking out in the bosom of new mores some sign which reveals the energy of old mores. The authority of jurors ceased to exist under the regime of feudal laws, and evidence by witnesses was apparently confined within proper limits; but the idea that there existed in the investigation, that is to say in the solemn questioning of certain individuals on the existence of a right, of a use or of a fact, a kind of a virtue incomparably superior to the merit of any other means of judicial procedure, continued to subsist despite the laws so exclusive of feudalism. The record or the testimonial investigation, without dominating all the legislation, became one of the essential principles,and if twelve jurors were no longer allowed to have a guilty declared innocent, if evidence by witnesses ceased to be the only means of reaching the knowledge of the truth, at least we continued to look at the record as the best way to get there. The feudal laws of France and England show that the lords left evidence by witnesses in the enjoyment of all the influence which was compatible with their right of sovereignty, and that thus a considerable portion of the judicial power continued, under the reign of feudalism, to belong to the litigants ”(Auguste Arthur Beugnot, Les olim, or: Registers of judgments rendered by the king's court under the reigns of Saint Louis, of Philippe le Bold, of Philippe le Bel, of Louis the Hutin and Philippe le Long, t. 1, Paris, 1839, p. 948-9, 951-2). However,the obligation to testify in court, whose foundation was fides (Jean-Luc Lefebvre, Prud'hommes, curial oath and court record: Local management of public acts from Liège to Artois in the early middle ages, De Boccard , 2006, p. 408). was not formulated in written law until the end of the 12th century (Bruno Lemesle, Conflits et justice au Moyen Age, PUF, Paris, 2015); the clergy were exempt (Gustav Schnürer, The Church and Civilization in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, Payot, 1933). Testifying in court remains a legal obligation today. When a person is called as a witness in court by the judge, he cannot avoid it, under penalty of being fined.The local management of public acts from Liège to Artois in the early middle ages, De Boccard, 2006, p. 408). was not formulated in written law until the end of the 12th century (Bruno Lemesle, Conflits et justice au Moyen Age, PUF, Paris, 2015); the clergy were exempt (Gustav Schnürer, The Church and Civilization in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, Payot, 1933). Testifying in court remains a legal obligation today. When a person is called as a witness in court by the judge, he cannot avoid it, under penalty of being fined.The local management of public acts from Liège to Artois in the early middle ages, De Boccard, 2006, p. 408). was not formulated in written law until the end of the 12th century (Bruno Lemesle, Conflits et justice au Moyen Age, PUF, Paris, 2015); the clergy were exempt (Gustav Schnürer, The Church and Civilization in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, Payot, 1933). Testifying in court remains a legal obligation today. When a person is called as a witness in court by the judge, he cannot avoid it, under penalty of being fined.Testifying in court remains a legal obligation today. When a person is called as a witness in court by the judge, he cannot avoid it, under penalty of being fined.Testifying in court remains a legal obligation today. When a person is called as a witness in court by the judge, he cannot avoid it, under penalty of being fined.

(85) The Count of Franqueville, The Judicial System of Great Britain, vol. 2: Civil and criminal procedure, J. Rothschild, 1893, p. 241.

(86) Daniel Klerman, Settlement and the Decline of Private Prosecution in Thirteenth-Century England, In Law and History Review, vol. 19, n ° 1, spring 2001 [p. 1-65].

(87) Edouard Fischel, op. cit., p. 13-4.

(88) Johann Martin Lappenberg, op. cit., p. 333 and sqq. “The famous law of the frank surety (frankpledge), indicates Edouard Fischel (op. Cit., P. 13), (…) tended to strengthen the guarantees of the already existing mutual responsibility of the family, the municipality and the community. town ”, but, as the English historian himself remarks afterwards,“ (c) each father answered, previously already, of the conduct of the members of his family, his slaves and his guests ”(ibid., p. 13) (emphasis added), so that we do not see how the State could have reinforce this mutual accountability in anything.

(89) “The maxim that the best guarantee of every man's obedience to the government was to be sought in the confidence of his neighbors” (Henry Hallam, View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages, vol. 2, WJ Widdleton, New York, 1872, p. 271). More than irony, it is the sarcasm which the Frank-pledge, or rather the abuses to which it necessarily gave rise, inspires the English legal historian and jurist FW Maitland (1850–1906), in the following remark: " The duty imposed by the frank-pledge system to summon his neighbor to answer the charges that had been brought against himself could well turn into a duty to tell stories about him ”(quoted in Peter Hamilton, Espionage, Terrorism and Subversion: An Examination and a Philosophy of Defense for Management, Peter A. Heims Limited, 1979, p. 255).

(90) WA Morris, the Medieval English Sheriff to 1300, Manchester University Press, 1927, p. 1. “With the sole exception of royalty, no secular dignity is older” in England (ibid).

(91) This tribunal was held only once a year, on St. Michael's Day, from 1217.

(92) Although the Constitutions of Clarendon (1166) insisted that the prudential powers of the sheriff were universal, few were the men who witnessed the sheriff's turn.

(93) JA Fleury, History of England, 2nd ed., T. 1, Bookshop of Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1863, p. 108.

(94) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., t. 2, A. Lacroix, Verboeckhoven et Cie, Paris, 1868, p. 247-8.

(95) Alan Beckley, The Evolution of Community Policing from its Origins in the UK, 2004 [p. 35-38]. http://futuresworkinggroup.cos.ucf.edu/docs/Volume%201/vol1Beckley.pdf , p. 35.

(96) See, concerning the organs competing with the sheriff's turn instituted by the Crown, Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., t. 3, p. 40. The juxtaposition of criminal courts on the sheriff's turn is said to be due to the dispendosity of the institution and the venality of its representatives. "Is the register of municipal guarantees complete?" did all vigilantes appear at the session? in relation to house break-ins, thieves, and other felons and people without confession; false weights and measures; on day and night watches; maintenance of roads, bridges, etc. It was obviously a very expensive procedure, and one regarded as the heaviest burden of the judicial service, this double annual appearance of the centuries before the sheriff, whose financial position became an inexhaustible source of emoluments,and whose inferior employees allowed themselves for their own account all kinds of extortion and demands for illegal emoluments ”(ibid., p. 41). Certainly, but the sheriff's successor, the justice of the peace, was no less venal than him (see JM Lees, A Handbook of the Sheriff and Justice of Peace Small Debt Courts with Notes, References, and Forms, William Blackwood and Sons , Edinburgh, 1884; Candace Gregory, Sixteenth-Century Justices of the Peace: Tudor Despotism on the County Level,William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh, 1884; Candace Gregory, Sixteenth-Century Justices of the Peace: Tudor Despotism on the County Level,William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh, 1884; Candace Gregory, Sixteenth-Century Justices of the Peace: Tudor Despotism on the County Level,http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1990-1/gregory.htm .

(97) Candace Gregory, op. cit.

(98) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., t. 3, A. Lacroix, Verboeckhoven et Cie, Paris, 1869, p. 45-6.

(99) Édouard Fischel, op. cit., p. 151-2.

(100) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., p. 47.

(101) “In the Middle Ages, hostels and brasseries were regarded as the exercise of an entirely free trade, the notoriously disorderly or noisy abuse of which alone made them fall among the number of common nuisances. This is only by the stat. 5 and 6 Ed.VI, vs . 25, that the industrial licensing police system was introduced for all retail sales of spirit liquors. Such concessions must be made by the justices of the peace, who also obtain considerable deposits from the hosts, and in extreme cases have the power to rule the inn. Since the time of the Stuarts there has been added an obligation to pay excise, excise, having the character of an industrial tax, which therefore becomes the subject of very lucrative and very extensive tax laws ”(ibid., P. . 161).

(102) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., p. 45.

(103) Paul Griffiths, Lost Londons Change, Crime, and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, p. 333.

(104) Robert M. Rich (ed.), Essays on the Theory and Practice of Criminal Justice, University Press, Washington DC, 1978, p. 50.

(105) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., p. 54.

(106) Corentin Segalen, The English police: model or counter-model of European national police? DEA in contemporary history, under the supervision of Jean-Noël Luc, University Paris IV - Sorbonne, 2005, p. 11. The constable could hardly claim defrayal of expenses.

(107) Rodolphe Gneist ,, t. 4, p. 33, 36, 38.

(108) This is because their appointment was generally compulsory and their work unpaid (Clive Emsley, Policing and its Context, 1750-1870, Macmillan, 1983, p. 24). “The constable's position is viewed, at best, with disinterest, more often with disgust. The servitudes which this charge imposes, make these men neglect their own affairs, which leads them to ruin ”(Mark Haem, The repression of banditry in Great Britain in the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries. In Revue du Nord, t. 59, No 234, July-September 1977 [p. 365-375], p. 366; Policing in London, https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Policing.jsp#individualstext). The situation for watchmen was hardly different (JM Beattie, Policing and Punishment in London, 1660-1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of Terror, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001 [p. 226–256]). “A professional criminal, hanged in 1753, John Poulter, relates that when he made a robbery with his gang, and a watchman happened, one of them took him for a drink a little further… But what could these 'Brown Bills' (as they were nicknamed for their rusty halberds), decrepit and unable to fight! John Pearson, in a fanciful 'job posting' defines them this way: 'We are asking for a hundred thousand men for the London guard. Only those who are 60, 70, 80 and 90 years old, one-eyed in one eye and seeing very little in the other, are admitted for this lucrative situation,crippled with one or two legs, deaf as a pot, with asthma spasms which tear them to pieces, the speed of which goes hand in hand with that of a snail and whose strength of the arms could not stop an old washerwoman having in his forties and returning from a day of intense labor at the washhouse, whose constitution is worn away by hard service, either in the army, or the navy, or in exhausting work, or by the effects of a gay life and dissolute, and such that he will never see or hear what relates to their duty, or what does not relate to it unless they are greased their paws or that they are paid for that '”(Mark Haem, op. cit., p. 366). Towards the end of the 16th century, however, "The legislature, to encourage officers and others to fulfill their duties in arresting and prosecuting evildoers,thought it his duty to grant them "a battery of resounding and staggering rewards. “These rewards, which apply to ten different offenses, should no doubt excite the zeal of the officers; but one can question whether they have not on the contrary contributed to the increase of a multitude of crimes which, although less considerable, cause the greatest evils to society ”(Patrick Colquhoun, Treatise on the London Police , translated from English on the 6th edition, vol. 2, Paris, 1807, p. 110).cause the greatest harm to society ”(Patrick Colquhoun, Treaty on the London Police, translated from English on the 6th edition, vol. 2, Paris, 1807, p. 110).cause the greatest harm to society ”(Patrick Colquhoun, Treaty on the London Police, translated from English on the 6th edition, vol. 2, Paris, 1807, p. 110).

(109) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., t. 4, p. 33-4, 46.

(110) All individuals were further legally required to report crimes of which they were aware and to respond to all calls for help - which were usually phrases such as "Stop the thief!" "," Murder! Or "Fire!" - by participating in the pursuit, search and capture of criminals (Policing in London).

(111) Quoted in Anne Mandeville, The United Kingdom's Public Order Maintenance System: European Model or Cultural Exception, t. 1, Publibook, Paris, 2014, p. 167.

(112) Paul Rock, Law, Order and Power in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century England, in Stanley Cohen and Andrew Scull (eds.), Social control and the State, 2nd ed., Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1985, p . 193, cited in Anne Mandeville, op. cit., p 159.

(113) Policing in London.

(114) Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker, Tales from the Hanging Court, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2007.

(115) Ibid., P. 17, p. 2. "No person in a respectable position willing to fill the office of constable, the custom is established to pay replacements, taken, therefore, from among people who did not have any of the qualities for which the law had. imposed this burden on the wealthy classes. These substitutes were most often accomplices in the crimes that it was their duty to prevent. They lived on extortion, on taxes levied on vice; the wretched creatures who exercise their profession in the streets, paid them a royalty so as not to be hampered in their shameful industry. In some parishes, to reduce the poor tax by the same amount, the poor, old and disabled were taken as night guards. The houses where these guards established their quarters, instead of being the terror of criminals,were sentins of vice: - they were most often used as places of prostitution, or concealment for stolen objects. More than one local police chief was known to be a thief himself; they were assiduous in the courts of justice, quick to make a false witness to ensure a conviction, because any conviction gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).- they were most often used as places of prostitution, or concealment for stolen objects. More than one local police chief was known to be a thief himself; they were assiduous in the courts of justice, quick to make a false witness to ensure a conviction, because any conviction gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).- they were most often used as places of prostitution, or concealment for stolen objects. More than one local police chief was known to be a thief himself; they were assiduous in the courts of justice, quick to make a false witness to ensure a conviction, because any conviction gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).More than one local police chief was known to be a thief himself; they were assiduous in the courts of justice, quick to make a false witness to ensure a conviction, because any conviction gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).More than one local police chief was known to be a thief himself; they were assiduous in the courts of justice, quick to make a false witness to ensure a conviction, because any conviction gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).because any conviction gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).because any condemnation gave them the right to a reward, at least to the reimbursement of their expense report. It is said of a constable, cumulative if there was one, that having arrested a criminal, he wrote the defense himself, appeared before the court as the main prosecution witness, and then came to give his testimony in favor of the character of the accused! »(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).»(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).»(Statistics. The London police and the Dublin police. In Amédée Pichet [edited], Revue Britannique, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853, p. 158-9).

(116) Virginia Suzanne Balch-Lindsay, An Orderly Metropolis: The Evolution of Criminal Justice in London, 1750-1830, BA, MA, A Dissertation in History, 1998, p. 52-7.

(117) British Review, t. XIII, 7th series, Paris, 1853,, p. 156.

(118) Tim Hitchcock and Bob Shoemaker, op. cit., p. xxv.

(119) Tim Wales, Thief-Takers and their Clients in Later Stuart London, in Paul Griffiths and Mark SR Henner (eds.). Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2000 [p. 67–84].

(120) Policing in London.

(121) “The Highwayman Act of 1692 provides a reward of 40 pounds to anyone who stops and results in the conviction of a highwayman. Forgiveness is given to any bandit who becomes an informant on the condition that he is not already in prison. In 1699 and 1706, the Tyburn Ticket'Acts offered a reward of 40 pounds and exemption from parish duties to anyone who successfully contributed to the conviction of a bandit. A ticket is issued to the informer; this ticket exempts him from the office of constable… These papers, very appreciated are sold at high prices… ”(Mark Haem, op. cit., p. 368).

(122) Policing in London.

(123) Tim Wales, op. cit., in particular p. 69, 73-74; Ruth Paley, Thief-takers in London in the Age of the McDaniel Gang, c. 1745-54, in Douglas Hay and Francis Snyder (eds.), Policing and Prosecution in Britain 1750–1850, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989; JM Beattie, op. cit., in particular p. 227, 231; Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 3; Patrick Colquhoun, op. cit., p. 107-8. There is evidence that thief-takers have been in operation since the end of the 16th century, but the question of whether they were paid by individuals or by the authorities has not been resolved (JM Beattie, op. Cit., p. 228-9).

(124) Tim Wales, op. cit., p. 68, 73.

(125) Ibid.

(126) JM Beattie, op. cit., p. 240.

(127) Ibid., P. 230.

(128) Ibid.

(129) Tim Wales, op. cit., p. 68.

(130) JM Beattie, op. cit., p. 228.

(131) Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker, London Lives: Poverty, Crime and the Making of a Modern City. 1690-1800, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015, p. 230.

(132) Henry Fielding, Tom Jones, t. 1, Paris, 1835, p. xiv.

(133) Ibid.

(134) Guyonne Leduc, The constraints as conditions of freedom in the periodicals and the essays of Henry Fielding, in Paul-Gabriel Boucé (ed.), Constraints and freedoms in the Great Britain of the eighteenth century: colloquia, Publications of the Sorbonne, Paris, 1988, p. 63. For Fielding, "individuals are driven to behave well by the coherent system of rewards and punishments presented to them by Christianity" (ibid., P. 79).

(135) In ibid., P. 11.

(136) Malvin R. Zwiker (ed.), Henry Fielding, An Inquiry Into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers and Related Writing, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988, p. lxv.

(137) One of the main concerns of Colquhoun and of the economic and social class for which he served as a sort of spokesperson was to prevent the people from taking justice into their own hands, even if the facts which led them to to rise up were condemned (Guyonne Leduc, op. cit., p. 83). In 1714, the Parliament of Great Britain, as an extension of the right of assembly laws which had been passed under Charles II, passed the Riot Act, under which "any meeting of twelve or more persons, illegally assembled, and which would not have separated an hour after the formal summons of a justice of the peace, who proceeds there by reading the riot-act, is guilty of felony, without possible mitigation of the sentence for the benefit of the clergy;whoever demolished chapels or houses before the reading of the customary proclamation, or prevented the justice of the peace from reading this, also incurs the penalty of felony, like the persons who, after an hour, would find themselves still to form a gathering of twelve or more, with an intention hostile to the laws ”(Edouard Fischel, The Constitution of England, translated on the second German edition, compared with the English edition by Ch. Vogel, t. 1, C. Reinwald, Paris, 1864, p. 179; entered into force August 1, 1715, the Riot Act was repealed in England and Wales by section 10 (2) and part III of schedule 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967). Fielding took a strong stand in favor of the Riot Act in A True State of the Case of Bosavern Penlez;Penlez was a wigmaker who was executed in 1749 for taking part in a shortly before a riot in the Strand following the robbery of a sailor by a prostitute; the rioters threatened to destroy all the public houses (Guyonne Leduc, op. cit., p. 83).

(138) See John L. McMullan, The New Improved Momied Police: Reform, Crime Control, and the Commodification of Policing in London. In The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, n ° 1, winter 1996 [p. 85-108].

(139) See Gerald Newman, 'Bow Street Runners'. Britain in the Hanoverian age, 1714–1837: an encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis., London, 1997.

(140) In 1751 he published a pamphlet entitled Inquiry into the Causes of the late Increase of Robbers, in an attempt to restore the image of the thief-takers, by striving to show that they provided invaluable assistance to the police and risked their lives by bringing criminals to justice: the bad conduct of a few should not make people forget the services they rendered to the community ...

(141) On the subject of the quasi-military organization of the “Runner” patrols, see Charles Tempest Clarkson and J. Hall Richardson, Police !, London, 1889, p. 44-5.

(142) Mark Haem, op. cit. p. 370. Fielding is said to have personally known three hundred thieves (ibid.).

(143) John L. McMullan, op. cit., p. 104.

(144) Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, p. 33.

(145) Francis M. Dodsworth, The Idea of ​​Police in Eighteenth-Century England: Discipline, Reformation, Superintendence, c. 1780–1800. In Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 69, n ° 4, 2008 [p. 583–605], p. 589.

(146) Quoted in Roy Coleman and Michael McCahill, Surveillance and Crime, SAGE Pulications Ltd, 2011, p. 48.

(147) Frank McLynn, Crime and Punishment in Eighteenth-century England, Psychology Press, London and New York, 1989, p. 34. It can be pointed out more or less anecdotally, although this detail says quite a bit about the character, that John Fielding also developed a project to "save" abandoned young girls and send "desperate" young boys to the navy. (Mark Haem, op. Cit., P. 370).

(148) Roy Coleman and Michael McCahill, op. cit., p. 48.

(149) Quoted in Kris Castner, PanCOPticon: Policing in the Eye of 21 st Century Surveillance Technology. Thesis, sl, May 2012, p. 12.

(150) John L. McMullan, op. cit., p. 102.

(151) Mark Haem, op. cit., p. 365.

(152) Frank McLynn, op. cit., p. 32.

(153) Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker, Tales from…., P. 31.

(154) John L. McMullan, op. cit., p. 103.

(155) Sébastien Richard, The Squad of Bow Street Runners under Sir John Fielding (London, 1748-1780). Brief, University of Quebec at Montreal, 2013, p. 64; see also Francis M. Dodsworth, op. cit.

(156) Sébastien Richard, op. cit., p. 28; according to Guyonne Leduc (op. cit., p. 82-3), they were even remunerated from secret funds from the Treasury.

(157) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 82, n ° 3, article 7, autumn 1991 [p. 690-712], p. 690. Colquhoun's views on "preventive policing" were greatly influenced by Bentham's distinction between poverty and indigence in Jeremy Bentham's Essays on the Subject of the Poor Laws (Michael Quinn [Ed.], The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Writings on the Poor Laws, vol. 1, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001, p. Xx; see also LJ Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981, p. 214 ff; Giuseppe Campesi, A Genealogy of Public Security: The Theory and History of Modern Police Powers, Routledge, 2016, p. 195 p. 195; see also infra, note 165).

(158) His argument rested largely on statistics which were subsequently shown to be - like all statistics - "extremely dubious, even fabricated" (Iain McCalman, An Oxford Companion to the Romantic Age , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, p. 68).

(159) “The police in this Country can be considered as a new science whose properties do not consist in the Judicial Powers which lead to Punishment and which belong only to the Magistrates, but in the PREVENTION and DETECTION of crimes, and in these other functions which relate to internal regulations for the good order and the comfort of CIVIL SOCIETY. (Patrick Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis, 7th ed., Corrected and considerably enlarged, 1806, p. 8).

(160) See David R. Johnson, American Law Enforcement: A History, Forum Press, 1981, p. 14.

(161) Patrick Colquhoun, A General View of the National Police System, London, 1799, p. 29.

(162) Mark Neocleous, Social Police and the Mechanisms of Prevention: Patrick Colquhoun and the Condition of Poverty. In The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 40, n ° 4, autumn 2000 [p. 710-26], p. 723, note 5.

(163) Essay on the principle of population by Malthus, 2nd ed., Guillaumin et Cie, Paris, 1852, p. 490, note 2.

(164) British Library, t. 40, Geneva, 1809, p. 28.

(165) Quoted in René Coste, Which economic system? J. Duculot, 1971, p. 128. The Report of a Committee on the Subject of Pauperism (1818) of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in the City of New York echoed Colquhoun's distinction between poverty and indigence. “Poverty (as defined by a distinguished writer [Colquhoun]) is that state and condition in society, where the individual has no surplus labor in reserve, and therefore no property, but what is derived from the constant exercise of industry, in the various occupations of life; or in other words, it is the state of each one who must work for his subsistence.

“Poverty is therefore seen as a necessary and indispensable ingredient in society, without which nations and communities could not exist, in a state of civilization. It can even be seen as the source of wealth, for in poverty there would be no work, and without work there would be no wealth, no refinement, no comfort, no benefit for those who have riches ”(emphasis added).

(166) The idea of ​​a police for the poor in England dates back at least to the Tudors. It was under this dynasty that the labor policing system founded under the Plantagenets became "legislation intimately connected with public safety policing and assistance to the poor" (Rodolphe Gneist, La constitution communale de l'Angleterre, t. 2, Librairie Internationale, Paris, 1868, p. 63). The object of Elizabeth I's Poor Laws (1601) was half charity and half police, which read as follows: “The inspectors of the poor, by consent of two justices of the peace, will give work, or rather will put to work the children whose parents do not appear to them to be able to support them, as well as any person, married or not, without means of subsistence,and without industry to procure it. And it will be formed, by means of a tax on the inhabitants of each parish, a store of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron and other materials, to make the poor work ”(E. rnst Freund, The police power, public policy and constitutional rights, Callaghan, 1904, p. 155; Louis Simond, Voyage d'un français en Angleterre, vol. 1, 1816, p. 299). As for the New Poor Law (1834), “It is clear that (their) authors (…) recognized the need for a police force (instead of the army) to suppress the disturbances linked to the adoption of this law, but the connection between the police and this law was much deeper than the need to suppress riots and resistance. To be effective, the new law required an intensification of the crackdown on vagrancy.The police had the responsibility, under the common law and the vagrancy law (1824), to control vagrants (…) ”(see Mark Neocleous, op. Cit., P. 718), although in the practice, the control and the limitation of the movements of vagrants remained the responsibility of the local communities, organized in unions of parishes, even after the County and Borough Police Act (1856), which made obligatory the constitution of a police force on all the territory, had been adopted (ibid.). The County and Borough Police Act, however, was not intended to control vagrancy, but to abolish vagrancy altogether and, for that, gave the police the means to criminalize any means of subsistence other than wages. . “Not only was begging severely hampered, but also common customs and rights,such as occasional work for remuneration in kind, grazing livestock on public roads, pilfering wood, picking fruits or vegetables for consumption or sale, fishing in rivers without a license, hawking and selling on the run, all fell under the law, only to end up being eliminated. In conjunction with the new police, the new Poverty Law was explicitly designed to impose wage labor on the active population, as it suppressed all material aid to anyone except the poorest and made illegal subsistence practices contrary to the development of the new. relations of production ”(ibid.). As the heart of Colquhoun's proposals was the monitoring of work through the political and police management of poverty,it can be considered as a precursor of the new law on the poor (ibid.).

(167) Mitchell Dean, A genealogy of the government of poverty. In Economy and Society vol. 21, n ° 3, August 1992 [p. 215-251], p. 218. “From a genealogical point of view, the policing of the poor in the 17th and 18th centuries made a fundamental contribution to the trajectory of what would later be called social policy. It does this by constituting the poor as an object of observation, comparison and information gathering. Through this process, it begins to assess the lifestyles of working people and poor families in terms of the benefits or burdens they represent for the cause of national well-being. Consider the number of poor people as representative of national well-being and condition this relationship on their ability to lead a 'regular and industrious life',it is to take provisional measures with a view to delineating an area of ​​personal conduct and of family and personal responsibility… ”(Mitchell Dean, The Constitution of Poverty: Towards a genealogy of liberal governance, Routledge Revivals, 2011 [1991], p. 67).

(168) Patrick Colquhoun, A Treatise on Indigence, London, 1806, p. 82.

(169) The expression “social police” seems to have appeared for the first time in the tenth volume of the Encyclopédie methodique, published in 1791; in the Anglo-Saxon world, that of “social police” is only encountered from the end of the 19th century). We must not lose sight of the fact that “the figures who appeared after the birth of the welfare state and who played a central role in social policy - the agents responsible for enforcing the law of the poor and the agents of social security, social workers, probation officers and 'official' government administrators (policy) - from this point of view, are as much a part of the policing system as uniformed police officers ”(Mark Nucleous, op. Cit., P. 720).

(170) Patrick Colquhoun, Traite sur…, p. 73-6.

(171) Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, p. 80. "The police, in this regard, would not be content to limit themselves to the disciplinary power of the market and, if necessary, to mitigate it, but would first of all help to shape the market" (Mark Neocleous, op. Cit. ., p. 718).

(172) Mark Neocleous, op. cit., p. 717.

(173) Charles Dupin, Voyages dans la Grande-Bretagne, Part 3, vol. 1, Paris, 1824, p. 22. The archives bear witness to thefts perpetrated by subaltern officers of the Customs service (watchmen, junior officers) and, as for the dockers, most of them were content to commit petty theft (Tri Tran, Thefts in the London docks in the 19th century). century. In Revue Française de Civilization Britannique [Online], XII-3, 2003, consulted November 16, 2020. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1610 ; DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.4000 / rfcb.1610 ). See also Peter Stone, The History of the Port of London: A Vast Emporium of All Nations, Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2017.

(174) Jack-of-all-trades and sickly inventive, Bentham conceived a multitude of other projects, many of which, like that of the panopticon, have been taken up and completed, either in whole or in part, under a reworked form, after his death, whether or not his successors acknowledged their debt to him. This is how his project for the conservation of all animal and plant species (Pierre Amédée Pichot [ed.], Jérémie Bentham, his memoirs and his system. In British Review, 5th series, t. 13, 1843, p. . 40, note 1) was partially produced by the designers of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (2008), dubbed 'Noah's Ark Plant' and co-funded by the Norwegian government, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, l seed industry, the genetics industry, the UN and the World Bank.The goal is the monopoly of seeds as a food and commercial weapon (see Thierry Brugvin, The illegal power of the elites: Essais - documents, Max Milo Éditions, Paris, 2014).

Another of his projects is worth mentioning here: called Pauper Management, it was made public in Outline of a Work entitled Pauper Management Improvement, seven years after that of the panopticon. The two projects were complementary. The two buildings, that of the "house of penitence" and that of the asylum for the poor had a pavilion in their center from which the inspector could exercise his surveillance in all parts at the same time. They differed only in form: the "house of penance" was strictly circular, while the other was a circular polygon. Both were in the private sector. The Pauper Management would be the property of a joint stock company named National Charity Company, instituted on the model of the East India Company and managed, like this one,by a board of directors elected by the shareholders. This company would have a capitalization of four to six million pounds sterling raised by private subscription. It would receive from the government an annual subsidy equivalent to the poverty tax. Each of the poorhouses would be owned and managed by the private sector through a system of contracting out. Each was intended to house two thousand poor people. Bentham planned to build two hundred and fifty initially and, after twenty-one years, five hundred.Each of the poorhouses would be owned and managed by the private sector through a system of contracting out. Each was intended to house two thousand poor people. Bentham planned to build two hundred and fifty initially and, after twenty-one years, five hundred.Each of the poorhouses would be owned and managed by the private sector through a system of contracting out. Each was intended to house two thousand poor people. Bentham planned to build two hundred and fifty initially and, after twenty-one years, five hundred.

The fill rate would be maximum because of the power of the National Charity Company "to apprehend any person, able-bodied or not, having neither visible or transferable property, nor honest and sufficient means of subsistence and to detain and control it. employ… ”(quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Bentham's Utopia: The National Charity Company. In The Journal of British Studies, vol. 10, n ° 1, November 1970 [p 80-125], p. 88).

(175) David Arthur Jones, History of Criminology: A Philosophical Perspective, Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 64.

(176) Jean-Christophe Gascon, Criminal law and state regulations in England and London on the threshold of the Age of reforms: tools for a historical sociology. Memory. University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, 2019, p. 146-7.

(177) Roy Coleman and Michael McCahill, op. cit., p. 50.

(178) Mark Neocleous, op. cit., p. 718.

(179) See Tri Tran, op. Cit.

(180) Michel Foucault, Surveiller et punir, Gallimard, Paris, 1975, p. 98.

(181) See RSA Journal, vol. 140, n ° 5424, December 1991, p. 347.

(182) Virginia Suzanne Balch-Lindsay, op. cit. p. 44. Offenders were sentenced to three months; in the event of a repeat offense, six months in prison and, in the event of a second offense, deportation to America.

(183) Mark Neocleous, op. cit., p. 719.

(184) Ibid.

(185) Gilles Deleuze, Foucault, Les Éditions de Minuit, Paris, 2013 [1986].

(186) Mark Neocleous, op. cit., p. 718.

(187) In a similar vein, Bentham supported the unpopular "enclosures" movement, one of whose aims was "to transform commoners with collective interests into individualized consumers and employees. In other words, to transform them into market creatures ”(David Bollier, The rebirth of the commons: For a society of cooperation and sharing, Charles Leopold Mayer, 2014, p. 54). The passage deserves to be quoted in full: “To put it bluntly, the king, the aristocracy or the landed gentry have appropriated the pastures, forests, game or water traditionally exploited in the form of common by the villagers and declared them private property. The enclosures sometimes monopolized these resources with the official approval of the British Parliament,or sometimes simply took them by force. To exclude the commoners, it was customary to expropriate them from their land and to erect barriers or hedges. Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure Commoners did not poach on King's land. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more alluring as they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:In order to exclude the commoners, it was customary to expropriate them from their land and erect barriers or hedges. Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure Commoners did not poach on King's land. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more alluring as they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:In order to exclude the commoners, it was customary to expropriate them from their land and erect barriers or hedges. Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure Commoners did not poach on King's land. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more alluring as they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:it was customary to expropriate them from their land and erect barriers or hedges. Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure Commoners did not poach on King's land. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more alluring as they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:it was customary to expropriate them from their land and erect barriers or hedges. Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure Commoners did not poach on King's land. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more alluring as they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure Commoners did not poach on King's land. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more alluring as they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:Sheriffs and other henchmen made sure commoners did not poach on the king's lands. For the privileged minority of medieval England, the enclosures were all the more attractive because they were an easy way to get their hands on more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:the enclosures were all the more attractive because they were an easy way to get hold of more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:the enclosures were all the more attractive because they were an easy way to get hold of more wealth and power with the full approval of the law. They could help barons in difficulty or the ascending gentry to consolidate their political power and increase their holdings of new lands, new water resources, new game fields. An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:An anonymous eighteenth-century protest poem sums it up very well:

The law locks up the man or the woman

Who steals the goose from the common

But leaves the wicked free, much worse,

Who steals the common from the goose.

The law demands atonement

When we take what is not ours

But does not demand anything from the sires and ladies

Who take what is yours and mine.

The poor and the miserable do not get away with

conspiring to break the law;

It must be so but they are the victims

Of those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or the woman

Who steals the goose from the common

And the geese will lack common

Until they come to take it back.

The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

But leaves the greater villain loose

Who steals the common from off the goose.

The law demands that we atone

When we take things we do not own

But leaves the lords and ladies fine

Who take things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don't escape

If they conspire the law to break;

This must be so but they endure

Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

And geese will still a common lack

Till they go and steal it back.

“As the enclosures spread through the English countryside, the Commoners found themselves in serious trouble. They depended on wood from the forest for their fire and stubble, as well as acorns to feed their pigs. They depended on shared fields to grow their vegetables, and open meadows to collect wild fruits and berries. Access to the commons thus formed the basis of an entire rural economy. Prevented from exploiting their commons, the villagers had to migrate to the cities, where the nascent industrial revolution turned them into wage slaves if they were lucky, or beggars and needy if they were not.Charles Dickens drew on the social upheavals and injustices engendered by the enclosures to write Oliver Twist and his other novels. An important goal of the English enclosures was to transform commoners with collective interests into individual consumers and employees. In other words, to turn them into market creatures. The 'satanic factories' of the Industrial Revolution, in the words of the poet William Blake, wanted obedient slaves, entirely dependent on their wages. One of the most overlooked aspects of enclosures is precisely how they have separated production and governance. In a common, production and governance were closely associated, and all the commoners were part of both. After the enclosures, the markets took over production,and the state took charge of governance. The modern liberal state was born. And even though this has led to significant progress in terms of material production, these gains have been obtained at a terrible cost: the dissolution of communities, the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity of self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.The modern liberal state was born. And even though this has led to significant progress in terms of material production, these gains have been obtained at a terrible cost: the dissolution of communities, the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity of self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.The modern liberal state was born. And even though this has led to significant progress in terms of material production, these gains have been obtained at a terrible cost: the dissolution of communities, the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity of self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.And even though this has led to significant progress in terms of material production, these gains have been obtained at a terrible cost: the dissolution of communities, the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity of self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.And even though this has led to significant progress in terms of material production, these gains have been obtained at a terrible cost: the dissolution of communities, the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity of self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity for self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.the emergence of deep social inequalities and the erosion of the capacity for self-governance. Governance became a matter of government, the realm of professional politicians, jurists, bureaucrats, and economic interest groups. Democratic participation was confined mainly to the right to vote, which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.which was moreover limited to men (and even, at the beginning, to owners). The enclosures also served to deprive people of direct contact with the natural world and to impose social and spiritual isolation on them.

“During a period of about 150 years, from the end of the seventeenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century, about one-seventh of all common land in England was thus carved out and privatized. The result was the entrenchment of deep inequalities in English society and an explosion of urban poverty. The foundations of the modern market order were being established, and the masters of this new world did not need the commons. The distinctive features of this new order would be rather individualism, private property, and free markets.

“… For millennia people have been bound together by community, religion, kinship and other types of social or moral ties. All economic systems were based on systems of reciprocity, redistribution or home economics, and people were made to produce things through 'custom and law, magic and religion'.

“However, between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries, as enclosures spread, production and profit became the fundamental organizing principles of our societies. Instead of being intended primarily for domestic use in a stable social setting, production was reoriented towards private gain and accumulation. This rupture required redefining a number of resources - notably land, labor and money - as commodities. Polanyi calls them 'fictitious goods' on the grounds that human life and natural ecosystems cannot really be divided into fungible and substitutable units. Nevertheless, the markets require that the gifts of nature,labor and money are treated as commodities so that they can be priced and become objects of trade and speculation.

“These 'commodity fictions' quickly spread to other areas, with the result that everything became an object of buying and selling. Food, water, fuel, wood for domestic use and other basic resources - once available as of right through the commons - could now only be acquired through the market, for a fixed price. ”(Ibid., P. 52-5). This other in-depth analysis of the catastrophic consequences of the “enclosures” for the English peasantry will not be too much: “The enclosures are (…) first of all a reorganization of land ownership, the regrouping and redistribution of the lands of a parish: we make open fields and commons into closed properties, we reunite the scattered plots and divide the undivided fields into compact domains,independent of each other and surrounded by continuous hedges. This had been practiced for a long time, but on a much smaller scale than in Bentham's time. Before the 18th century, they were rather 'wild' enclosures: the legislator opposed them, citing the argument that they caused the depopulation of the villages concerned (because arable land was converted into pasture: from in his time, Thomas More already noticed that sheep raised for the wool industry ate men). In the 18th century, the reverse happened: enclosures were legalized and encouraged by acts of Parliament. Their number grew at an accelerated rate, eventually causing a real tidal wave: from 33 acts of Parliament between 1720 and 1730 to 642 between 1770 and 1780, 906 between 1800 and 1810;Alongside these decisions by Parliament, more and more enclosures are practiced through 'amicable' redemptions. Why this irresistible movement? This is because the aristocracy has converted to agromania: it wants to undertake the methodical development of its estates, improve crops, practice systematic breeding, enrich itself by supplying cities with meat. The open field system constitutes an obstacle to the application of new methods: many lands remain uncultivated, are abandoned to sterility; those which are cultivated are often badly cultivated and in a primitive way, the subjection to the common routine prohibits any experiment, the fallows represent a waste (persistence of the triennial rotation). Hence the offensive of the large landowners;they are the ones who take the initiative in petitions addressed to Parliament.

“In the redistribution of land, the loser is first of all the small independent farmer: the best go to the richest. In addition, he is obliged to surround his new property with hedges, which costs labor, money, and to participate in the general costs of the enclosure, which are often considerable (irrigation, road construction, drainage etc.) . From where discouragement and indebtedness, with for foreseeable result the sale of his plot to the rich owners: these had moreover requested the act of enclosure with the avowed aim of grabbing the lands of the small peasants; this explains their disappearance throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. As for the cottagers and day laborers, there is no longer any question of them living on wasteland or benefiting from it:they will disappear and the propertied class misses no opportunity to remind the poor that they had no legal title to the enjoyment of the commons. This is not all: the decline of small crops is followed by the extension of pastures, the number of workers required therefore decreases. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the enclosures sometimes provoke riots or violent reactions from the common people.

“The enclosures are therefore not a simple redistribution of existing land, but a real restructuring of land tenure in a capitalist sense, the consequence of the desire of the strongest to treat their property as capital. By reducing manpower, they lower costs; by applying new methods they increase production and profits. They free themselves from routines and waste, but are much less concerned about the social cost of the operation, that is to say about the disappearance of customary institutions protecting the individual, and of men who matter little in their eyes. alongside yield and productivity growth. The landowners converted to competition because they envied the commercial bourgeoisie and its successes,now that they have constituted themselves in doubles their mimetic rivalry causes the social exclusion of third parties, small peasants and day laborers; this is what Dumouchel called the social institution of scarcity. Strange paradox: there is still so much land but it is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of all, production is increasing but the poor do not derive any benefit because there is less work. The very means by which we claim to fight against scarcity, the productivist multiplication of goods and objects, creates scarcity, the methods by which we increase agricultural production institute scarcity of land and subsistence. The large owners say they are convinced that the increase in production can only be a benefit for all.But what was obvious for them and has become so for us: the increase in productivity, the rationalization of agricultural work, the simplification of tasks, the reduction of the effort provided for an equal return, the elimination of unnecessary travel, all this only goes without saying when work becomes the means of something else, when it is conceived from a productivist perspective and when it is necessary to produce more or at less cost for the market. For those who at that time were living on a subsistence economy, the rationalization of work makes no sense because it is not the means of anything else, it is simply part of life, the land does is not only a production space, but above all the world that men inhabit. With the enclosures, the earth becomes a set of exclusive objects,private property in the absolute sense: the old village community and the traditional obligations of solidarity no longer have any reason to exist. The restructuring of property provokes the exteriority of the villagers: the other side of it is for the peasant the obligation to produce more in order to compensate for the loss of his right of access to the communes; solidarity is therefore no longer required, even generosity is becoming rare. As for the rich owners, they are the ones who, in a good productivist conscience, have created social exclusion; third parties, peasants who lose their independence, workers who fall into a state of poverty, are no longer entitled to the indifference of the doubles. Not that they are particularly resentful of the poor, they do not do them any overt violence, they simply ignore them:we have no duties towards them, moreover they had no legal right to the enjoyment of the commons. It is the violence of scarcity; an invisible, faceless violence, that of indifference.

“But things are not so simple: the poor do not disappear as easily from the face of the earth as the open fields and the commons. They would be expected to leave their villages to seek their salvation in the nation's labor market (especially since the creation of a land market by enclosures is in line with capitalism which, to triumph, also requires the presence of a competitive labor market). In fact, in 1795, the Act of Settlement was greatly relaxed; this one, dating from 1662, had established a system of parish serfdom which prevented the mobility of work: any individual who changed residence could at any time be returned to the parish where he had his legal domicile. To expel him,it was not necessary that he was in a state of poverty requiring immediate assistance and making his presence onerous for the parish where he had just settled; it was enough that the eventuality should be regarded as probable. The Act of Settlement thus implied an extraordinary rigidity in the distribution of the labor force, constituted an obstacle to the physical mobility essential to the functioning of a market society. The Liberals have long raged against this system. Adam Smith saw in it the height of absurdity: he prevents people from finding useful jobs and forbids the capitalist from finding employees; it deprives the worker of a chance to earn his living and condemns him to poverty and parochial assistance if there is no work on the spot. In 1795,a new law deprived local authorities of the right of preventive expulsion: only people without means of subsistence, effectively falling under public assistance, can be returned to their country of origin; in the event of illness or infirmity, they are entitled to a delay. There was synergy between this new law and the enclosure movement: both went in the direction of the creation of a market society. But here is where a phenomenon comes into play which went against the institution of a national labor market: in the same year, the judges of Berkshire meeting in Speenhamland decided to grant top-ups. according to a scale indexed to the price of bread, so that a minimum income had to be guaranteed to the poor regardless of their earnings.To determine the level of the supplement, the number of children would be taken into account: at the same time, therefore, a system of family allowances was instituted. No man was to fear hunger: the parish would support his family no matter how low his earnings. It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): it did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when you had a job you were helped as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.the number of children would be taken into account: at the same time, therefore, a system of family allowances was instituted in a way. No man was to fear hunger: the parish would support his family no matter how low his earnings. It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): it did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when you had a job you were helped as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.the number of children would be taken into account: at the same time, therefore, a system of family allowances was instituted in a way. No man was to fear hunger: the parish would support his family no matter how low his earnings. It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): this did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when one had a job one was rescued as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.a kind of family allowance system was instituted. No man was to fear hunger: the parish would support his family no matter how low his earnings. It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): this did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when one had a job one was rescued as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.a kind of family allowance system was instituted. No man was to fear hunger: the parish would support his family no matter how low his earnings. It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): it did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when you had a job you were helped as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): this did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when one had a job one was rescued as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.It was an innovation compared to the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601): this did not provide for supplements and forced the poor to work for wages. In the Speenhamland system, even when one had a job one was rescued as long as the salary was lower than the family income that the scale allowed. In fact, the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.the edict recognized a right to live independently of work, it proclaimed the right to assistance in the form of an unconditional right to assistance incompatible with the wage system.

“There were several reasons for taking such a measure: the dislocation caused by the war with France, the bad harvests of 1794 and 1795, the famine and the exorbitant price of bread causing riots, the extremely harsh winter of 1794-95 , the development of a Jacobin movement in the country. The sight of France was sobering: Speenhamland was initially inspired by the fear of a popular uprising, it was an insurance against the revolution, a measure conceived as circumstantial. But this emergency measure was to last, it even spread very quickly in the countryside and was not repealed until 1834, when the Poor Law was reformed. There were other reasons for this. First, it's obvious that Speenhamland somehow offset the effect of the enclosures:the system of allowances spread especially very quickly in the regions where they had wreaked havoc. The big farmers had another motive than that of alleviating the rural distress resulting from the enclosures. In fact, they did not want a nationwide labor market: it would upset local conditions. Indeed, to ensure their production, they needed a reserve of labor on which they could draw at any time: the countryside requires much more labor in spring and autumn than during the off-season. ; in addition, there is occasional work requiring the presence on site of a reserve constantly available to the farmer.Ensuring this availability means maintaining rural workers during periods of idleness with a view to their employment in peak or emergency times: thus making them dependent on parish assistance. Speenhamland was to prevent the depopulation of the countryside, its success was partly explained by the fear of farmers of having to compete with urban employers, that is, of having to pay more substantial wages as a result of emigrations which would have been the logical effect of the enclosures ”(Fernand Tanghe, The useful benefactor of the poor, Presses de l'Université Saint-Louis, 1987 p. 577-614).its success is partly explained by the fear of farmers of having to compete with urban employers, that is to say of having to pay more substantial wages as a result of emigrations which would have been the logical effect of the enclosures ”(Fernand Tanghe, The useful benefactor of the poor, Presses de l'Université Saint-Louis, 1987 p. 577-614).its success is partly explained by the fear of farmers of having to compete with urban employers, that is to say of having to pay more substantial wages as a result of emigrations which would have been the logical effect of the enclosures ”(Fernand Tanghe, The useful benefactor of the poor, Presses de l'Université Saint-Louis, 1987 p. 577-614).

(188) Bentham will deepen these "principles" in Punishments and Rewards (1811) (Theory of punishments and rewards, 1811, 2 vols.). “… Man is guided by the search for his personal satisfaction and wants to maximize it always and everywhere. It is a calculator which seeks the maximum of pleasure and the minimum of pain, a small economic machine which wants to increase its profits and reduce its costs. On this basis, all of society, all institutions, all laws and standards must adapt to this data:the goal of all the institutional apparatus and the main objective of the government is to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number by regulating and orienting behavior so that the satisfactions of individual interests lead to the greatest possible sum of happiness for the community. In other words, if we are all 'economic men' governed by our interests, then the government of society should take it into account. The new system of laws, the scale of rewards and sanctions, the institutional functioning must be designed in such a way that everyone calculates their own interests well, pursues their private ends while taking into account the interests of all.This means that individuals must be both very free in their decisions and in their choices, but that they must be the most strongly dissuaded from acting in a direction contrary to the interests of the community and the most strongly encouraged to make the choices. the best for all. This is the paradox: the supposedly free choices of selfish calculators are constrained from within by hopes of rewards and punishments linked to the normative system instituted and maintained by the government. Everyone calculates and decides for themselves, but the parameters of individual choice are largely determined by the normative framework that has been set by political power. We can see a paradox here. It is explained as follows: if each individual pursues his personal interest,we cannot trust him since he will spontaneously defend his only selfish interest. It is therefore always necessary that it is under surveillance, and that the government intervenes in an indirect way in its choices, so that by pursuing its selfish interest, it also contributes to the greater collective good (…). It is therefore for the utilitarian philosopher to build a system of power which leaves individuals free to make choices according to their own maximization calculations, and this in accordance with the principles of economic liberalism of the time, while directing behavior towards the general interest, which means constantly keeping an eye on 'potential delinquents'. Freedom and security [see supra, note 8] are therefore two sides of the same political practice. The social space is now fluid,but each agent who can circulate there freely, establish the relations he wishes, develop his 'business' as he pleases, must have internalized in his calculation of pleasures and pains the relative weight of the punishments and the probable rewards as a consequence of these acts. "(Christian Laval, Monitor and prevent. The new panoptic society. In Revue du MAUSS, vol. 2, n ° 40, 2012 [p. 47-72])

(189) Heinrich Ahrens, Cours de droit naturel ou de Philosophie du Droit: fait After The State, 5th ed., Revised and considerably increased, Bruylant-Christophe et Cie, Bruxelles, 1860, p. 50.

(190) Quoted in Christian Laval, op. cit.

(191) In his Memoir on the Penitentiary System (1877), the first director of the penitentiary (panopticon) in Geneva insisted on the financial advantages of the panoptic plan in these terms: “The first advantage of the central gallery or inspection room is to offer an easy means of surveillance which, by that very fact, saves custody costs ”(quoted in Opinions expressed by the general councils of the departments, in their session of 1838, on the reform of the prison regime, Paris, 1838, p. 157). In the same vein, in the letter attached to the copy of the Panopticon that he had sent to Garran de Coulon (see infra, note 205), Bentham wrote with some exaggeration: "Let me build a prison on this. model, and I make myself a jailer: you will see, in the Memoir itself, that this jailer does not want a salary,and it will cost the nation nothing ”, Works of Jeremiah Bentham, t. 1, Bruxelles, Hauman et Cie, 1840, p. 223),

(192) Christian Laval, op. cit.

(193) Ibid.

(194) Basically, the panoptic system is nothing other than the technological application of the Old Testament notion, then taken up by Freemasonry, of "the eye that sees everything" and it is 'moreover the very meaning of the neologism forged by Bentham (pan = all + opticon = eye) to designate his invention (see https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/isis-3/ , A. Tentative de determination of the channels of transmission of the symbol of the seeing eye in Freemasonry). Bentham admitted that the panopticon had been inspired by the plans for shipbuilding workshops that he had drawn while in the service of Catherine of Russia (see Philip Steadman, Samuel Bentham's Panopticon, https: // discovery .ucl.ac.uk / id / eprint / 1353164/2/014% 20Steadman% 202012.pdf & nbsp;; Christian Welzbacher, The Radical Fool of Capitalism: On Jeremy Bentham, the Panopticon, and the auto-icon, The MIT Press, 2018, p. 17), his brother Samuel who was a freemason (Matthew S. Anderson, Samuel Bentham in Russia, 1779-179. In The American Slavic and East European Review, vol. 15, n ° 2, April 1956 [p. 157- 172], p. 159). However, to develop it, everything suggests that Bentham drew as much from (Judeo) Christian ideology as from Freemasonry imagery. Indeed, he put Psalm 139: 2-3 ("You know when I sit down and when I stand up, You penetrate my mind from afar; You know when I walk and when I lie down, And you penetrate all my ways ”) highlighting the sketches of the Panopticon that he sent to various governments (Jacques-Alain Miller, La machine panoptique de Jeremy Bentham. In Ornicar, n ° 3,May 1975 [p. 3-36]; see also Gertrude Himmelfarb, The Haunted House of Jeremy Bentham, in Richard Herr and Harold T. Parker [eds.], Ideas in History, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1965, which states that, "by comparing the table (attributed to) Bosch (The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Human Stages) and Bentham's drawings, one is struck by their almost identical composition: replace the tables of sins with cells and the iris with the observation tower and you have the plan of the panopticon ”. Bentham could not have been unaware of this scene, if not by Bosch's painting itself, at least by the many similar representations which decorated the English churches of the time (Stewart R Clegg and Cary L Cooper [eds.], The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior, vol. 2, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA,2009, p. 272, p. 283, note 2 and fig. 16.1 and fig. 16.2). Bentham's use of the theological expression "real presence" to denote the presence of the inspector also speaks volumes about his source of inspiration. In one of the letters, entitled "Advantages of the plan," which he sent from Russia in 1787, he also endowed the inspector with one of the attributes of God: "I flatter myself that there is no longer any I doubt the fundamental advantages that I attribute to it: namely the apparent omnipresence of the inspector (if theologians allow me the expression) combined with the extreme ease of his real presence. (Jeremy Bentham, Selected Writings, Yale University Press, 2011, p. 287).Bentham's use of the theological expression "real presence" to denote the presence of the inspector also speaks volumes about his source of inspiration. In one of the letters, entitled "Advantages of the plan," which he sent from Russia in 1787, he also endowed the inspector with one of the attributes of God: "I flatter myself that there is no longer any I doubt the fundamental advantages that I attribute to it: namely the apparent omnipresence of the inspector (if theologians allow me the expression) combined with the extreme ease of his real presence. (Jeremy Bentham, Selected Writings, Yale University Press, 2011, p. 287).Bentham's use of the theological expression "real presence" to denote the presence of the inspector also speaks volumes about his source of inspiration. In one of the letters, entitled "Advantages of the plan," which he sent from Russia in 1787, he also endowed the inspector with one of the attributes of God: "I flatter myself that there is no longer any I doubt the fundamental advantages that I attribute to it: namely the apparent omnipresence of the inspector (if theologians allow me the expression) combined with the extreme ease of his real presence. (Jeremy Bentham, Selected Writings, Yale University Press, 2011, p. 287)."I flatter myself that there is no longer any doubt about the fundamental advantages that I attribute to it: namely the apparent omnipresence of the inspector (if theologians allow me the expression) combined with the extreme ease of his real presence. (Jeremy Bentham, Selected Writings, Yale University Press, 2011, p. 287)."I flatter myself that there is no longer any doubt about the fundamental advantages that I attribute to it: namely the apparent omnipresence of the inspector (if theologians allow me the expression) combined with the extreme ease of his real presence. (Jeremy Bentham, Selected Writings, Yale University Press, 2011, p. 287).

(195) Jeremy Bentham, Panoptique, Works of Jérémie Bentham, t. 1, 3rd ed., Brussels, 1840, p. 225.

(196) Ibid., P. 226.

(197) Ibid., P. 229.

(198) Ibid.

(199) Ibid.

(200) Ibid.

(201) Ibid.

(202) Ibid.

(203) Michel Foucault, op. cit., p. 204; this passage could be understood as a premonition of the effective influence that a virtual space like the Internet has on the material world and those who live there.

(204) Ibid., P. 203.

(205) "The tyrant tyrannizes thanks to a cascade of tyrannies, tyrannized no doubt, but tyrannizing in their turn" (Marcel Conche, cited in Bernadette Gadomski, La Boétie thinker masked, Paris, L'Harmattan, 2007; see also Christian Laval , op. cit.). It should be noted that Bentham began his literary career by writing two texts "On Torture" (see WL and PE Twining, Bentham on Torture. In Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 24, 1973 [pp. 305–56]; reprint. In Bikhu Parekh [ed.], Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments, vol. 2, Routledge, London, 1993 [pp. 512–65].

(206) Bentham (himself) worked tirelessly to develop and implement his plan for a panoptic “house of penitence”. In March 1792 he was finally able to present it to the British government, and in 1794 the British Parliament passed a law authorizing the construction of a panoptic penitentiary (Janet Semple, Bentham's Prison: A Study of the Panopticon Penitentiary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993; Leslie Stephen, The English Utilitarians, vol. 1, Continuum, London, 2005; Thomas Mackay, A History of the English Poor Law, vol. 3, PS King and Son, London, 1899). Ten years later, the first stone had still not been laid. George III, offended by some of Bentham's writings, scuttled the project for good, by vetoing it. However, as early as 1791 Bentham had sent the Panopticon,in the form of a memoir composed by the Geneva publicist Étienne Dumont, to the lawyer and politician Garran de Coulon (1748-1816), then member of the legislative assembly and of a committee for the reform of criminal laws and " the directory of the department of Paris […] soon distinguished this project in the crowd of those offered to it for the reform of prisons and hospitals. It seemed to go beyond those who had so far obtained the most approvals, either in terms of economy or of public safety: it offered a whole new guarantee for the guard and the keeping of prisoners and for the effectiveness of the means of reform. Its adoption was therefore unanimous, and measures were taken to put it into effect… ”(Jérémie Bentham and Étienne Dumont, Treaties on Civil and Criminal Legislation, vol.3, Bruxelles, Hauman et Cie, 1840, p. 194), when France declared war on Austria… the project was engulfed in the revolutionary vortex. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, several prisons were built on the model of the Panopticon, but none, except, it seems, the penitentiary of Geneva, completed in 1825 (Official Bulletin of the deliberations of the Grand-Conseil de the Republic and Canton of Neuchâtel, vol. 26, Montandon Frères, 1866, p. 133), was not identical.completed in 1825 (Official Bulletin of the deliberations of the Grand-Council of the Republic and Canton of Neuchâtel, vol. 26, Montandon Frères, 1866, p. 133), was not identical.completed in 1825 (Official Bulletin of the deliberations of the Grand-Council of the Republic and Canton of Neuchâtel, vol. 26, Montandon Frères, 1866, p. 133), was not identical.

(207) Michel Foucault, Dialogue on Power, Dits et Écrits II, 1976-1988, Quarto Gallimard, 2001, p. 474.

(208) There is no doubt that Bentham regarded the panoptic system as susceptible of being extended to social organization, as this passage from the preface to the Panopticon proves: "If one could find a way to master everything that can happen to a certain number of men, to arrange everything that surrounds them in such a way as to operate on them the impression that one wants to produce, to be sure of their actions, of their connections, of all the circumstances of their life, so that nothing could escape or thwart the desired effect, it cannot be doubted that a means of this kind was a very energetic and very useful instrument which governments could apply to different objects of the highest importance ”(Jérémie Bentham, op. cit., p. 225; see Guillaume Tusseau, Sur le panoptisme de Jeremy Bentham.In Revue Française d'Histoire des Idées Politiques, 2004, t. 1, n ° 19 [p. 3-38], particularly From prison panopticism to political panopticism: the matching of projects).

(209) Cited in Michel Gigeac (under the direction), State, powers and disputes in the French and British monarchies and in their American colonies. Circa 1640-circa 1780, Armand Colin, 2018.

(210) In 1719, the English weavers molested in retaliation all the women wearing linen clothes from India (Mark and Marie-Pierre Haem, Criminels et bandits anglais: Les ancestors de Jack l'Eventreur, Éditions Jourdan, Brussels and Paris, 2018).

(211) See EP Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, Pantheon Books, 1963.

(212) John Prince Smith, An Account of a Successful Experiment for an Effectual Nightly Watch, London, 1812, p. 17.

(213) Virginia Suzanne Balch-Lindsay, op. cit., p. 228.

(214) See ibid., P. 224-5.

(215) The Dublin Police Bill, inspired by the Pitt Bill, was adopted by the Irish Parliament in 1786 and resulted in the creation of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which served as a model for Quebec's first provincial police (Jean-Noël Tremblay, The profession of police officer and management, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, 1997, p. 15).

(216) Virginia Suzanne Balch-Lindsay, op. cit., p. 247-8.

(217) Ibid., P. 300.

(218) Ibid.

(219) Ibid., P. 321; Charles Tempest Clarkson and J. Hall Richardson, op. cit., p. 34-5.

(220) French Consular Bulletin, 1877, Paris, p. 269.

(221) Ibid.

(222) Ibid.

(223) Virginia Suzanne Balch-Lindsay, op. cit., p. 332.

(224) Quoted in Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, op. cit., p. 38.

(225) Ibid.

(226) Coalitions of workers in England. In Amédée Pichot (edited), Revue anglaise, t. 4, Brussels, 1859, p. 305.

(227) Anne Mandeville, op. cit., p. 329, note 133.

(228) Ibid., P. 326. It cannot be ruled out that he made the figures speak like the ventriloquist his puppet (Clive Emsley, The English Police: A Political and Social History, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2014 [Hemel Hempstead, 1991], p. 25.

(229) Quoted in Ruth Paley An Imperfect, Inadequate and Wretched System? Policing London Before Peel, in Clive Emsley, Theories and Origins of the Modern Police, Routledge, 2017, p. 296.

(230) The Metropolitan Police served as a model for the US police (John L. Worrall, The Politics of Policing, in Michael D. Reisig and Robert J. Kane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Police and Policing, Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 53).

(231) Rodolphe Gneist, op. cit., t. 4, p. 52; the separation of the administrative police from the judicial police had been advocated by Colquhoun as early as 1796 (Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, op. cit., p. 40).

(232) The police officers and constables were paid at the expense of the taxpayer. “To collect the necessary and important costs, a 'police rate' is levied throughout the district on the 'real visible property', the maximum of which must never exceed 3 1/2 per cent. C. income, as assessed for district tax. By 3 and 4 Guill. IV, c. 89 was born a system of state subsidies very fertile in consequences. On the certificate of the Minister of the Interior, that the tax and arrears have actually been paid in a parish, the Ministry of Finance grants subsidies from the consolidated fund, at the beginning with the reserve, that the total sum does not exceed annually ment 60,000 liv. st.The system of state subsidies up to a quarter of overheads then became one of the main elements to ensure the subsequent centralization of the administration of the police, and a model for a similar procedure throughout the country ”(Rodolphe Gneist, op. Cit., T. 4, p. 52).

(233) Statistics. London Police and Dublin Police. In Amédée Pichet [under the direction], op. cit., p. 165. “Police officers were authorized to claim a reward for the detection

and conviction of offenders, offered by law, by proclamation or by a

third. When a project for a new Police Gazette was presented in 1827, it was suggested that half of the space should be reserved for advertisements describing stolen goods and offering rewards for their return. Even after the creation of the New Police in 1829, the awards continued to be advertised in the Police Gazette, and restrictions on their publication were remarkably few. Police officers were therefore equally free to receive the usual twenty shillings for the arrest of a deserter and to accept large sums (up to £ 500) offered by individuals for the capture of a particular offender. With regard to the legal rewards which, in the event of conviction of an offender, were due to the person by whom he was apprehended or prosecuted,Police officers were generally not allowed to lay accusations, but in practice they often did, especially when the injured party could not be located or was too poor to prosecute. It was also common for an officer to 'cooperate' with the prosecutor. Here again, he was naturally bound to do so, if he witnessed the prosecution in any part of the case. Each of these circumstances gave the police the right to receive or at least share the reward. If a police officer acting on information provided by a third party found an offender and was entitled to a reward, his informant could claim a share. In some cases, the government was required to pay a reward to a police officer,if the individual who had promised it to him had discarded (…). So many services were specifically remunerated that it would have been difficult for a police officer or constable not to be entitled to certain allowances or gratuities each year ”(L. Radzinowicz, Trading in Police Services: An Aspect of the Early 19th Century Police in England, In University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 1, November 1953 [pp. 1-30], pp. 5-6, 9).1-30], p. 5-6, 9).1-30], p. 5-6, 9).

(234) “During the night, they do not stop making their rounds for a moment; they must constantly walk, and it is forbidden for them to sit down to rest. Jurisdiction is divided into divisions, subdivisions, sections and rounds, each with a serial number and carefully drawn boundaries. Each round has its special constables who must accomplish their evolution in a given time, following a route imposed on them; as soon as the round is over, they start it again, so that the squad sergeant knows every minute of the day the precise place where he will find each of his men, barring an extraordinary event. There are no roads, streets, alleys, alleys, or courtyards in all of London (except the City), Middlesex County, and the 218 parishes of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Hertfort counties ,15 miles distant from Charing-Cross, forming a whole of 700 square miles, and a circumference of 90 miles (144 kilometers), containing a population of two and a half million inhabitants, which is not constantly visited day and night by police officers. The rounds vary considerably in their extent; the beautiful districts, inhabited by wealthy people, are visited at long intervals; the constable has a vast expanse to cover. But the circle is narrowing due to the increase in population, the character of the inhabitants, the nature of the constructions and the importance of the property. In a six-mile circle, of which St. Paul's Cathedral is the center, a policeman's round varies between seven and twenty minutes, and some places never go unattended. ”(Ibid. 163-4).

(235) They did, however, have access to firearms and other weapons (Maurice Punch, Shoot to Kill: Police Accountability, Firearms and Fatal Force, The Police Press, 2011, p. 26).

(236) Marcel Le Clère, La Police, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1964.

(237) See, regarding pastoral power, <https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2019/10/28/le-pouvoir- panic-3 /> .

(238) John S. Dempsey and Linda S. Forst, An Introduction to Policing, 8th ed., Cengage Learning, 2014, p. 8. In a document which provides a definition of consent policing and information on the philosophy and historical principles of policing in Britain and which was published on December 3, 2012 on its website , the UK government's Home Office reaffirmed its agreement with this hypocritical approach, explaining that “police power comes from the common consent of the public, as opposed to state power. It is not an individual consent ”. He adds, more cynical than Peel: “No individual can choose to withdraw consent from the police or a law. "

(239) “Any police officer must account for his conduct and the manner in which he has exercised his ministry to the police judges placed in an independent situation, in open court, as well as to the jurors and to the judges presiding over the assizes. , which decide, after a completely impartial assessment, whether such act, carried out by the agent, returned or not within its right. Any police officer is also subjected, when called to testify before the police judge, to the rigorous interrogation which any witness may undergo, after his testimony, the accused or his defense, and is thereby forced. to bring to light all his acts, without excepting any ”(C. -J. - A. Mittermaier, Treatise on Criminal Procedure in England, Scotland and North America,augmented by the author's additions and translated by A. Chauffard, E. Thorin, Paris, 1868, p. 129.

(240) Charles Tempest Clarkson and J. Hall Richardson, op. cit., p. 65, 68.

(241) Larry J. Siegel and John L. Worrall, Introduction to Criminal Justice, 14th ed., Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014, p. 164; see concerning the two commissions formed in 1833 by the House of Commons to investigate accusations of malpractice brought against police officers (M. Cragoe and A. Taylor, London Politics, 1760-1914, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, chap. 2 .

(242) La Revue anglaise (t. XIII, 1853, p. 162), in an attempt to discredit, by passing them off as thick backward brutes, all those who opposed Peel's New Police, a fine game of recall that, “(i) n 1833, at the People's Assembly held at Coldbath-Fields, three police officers in the performance of their duties were stabbed; one of them died of his wounds; there was a judicial inquiry, and the jury declared this to be an excusable homicide. The verdict which should have qualified this crime of intentional murder was, it is true, overturned by the higher court… ”She forgets to point out that this gathering, although prohibited, was peaceful, until, ignoring the procedure to follow in such a case,the police charge on the three or four thousand individuals present and surround them, to prevent them from leaving the place where she was standing (see David Goodway London Chartism 1838-1848, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, p. 123-4) . It was precisely because the police had not followed the procedure that the homicide was initially deemed "excusable".

(243) Others were “raw lobsters”, “Peel's bloody gang” and “Blue Devils” (Julian Symons, A Pictorial History of Crime, Crown Publishers, 1966, p. . 14). As for "Peeler" ("peeler"), the authors of Police! point out (p. 63) that "it is unusual that (…) was used in the 16th century to designate a thief".

(244) “Many, wrote an English literary man in the mid-nineteenth century, are those, in this enlightened age, who are genuinely impressed by the idea, despite the much-vaunted 'progress of intelligence' and the fact that the ignorance recedes, that the bipedal animals described, not in natural history but in political economy, as policemen, peelers, bobbies, etc., 'are not of the people', but were created by wicked 'food eaters. 'taxes' and 'agents' to enslave the people ”(John Russell, The Jesuit in England; with the horrors of the Inquisition in Rome, Blayney and Fryer, London, 1858, p. 243).

(245) Charles Tempest Clarkson and J. Hall Richardson, op. cit., p. 63.

(246) Quoted in WL Melville Lee, A History of Police in England, Methuen & Co, London, 1901.

(247) These acts were among those which had been criminalized by the Metropolitan Police Act (Ian K. McKenzie, Law, Power, and Justice in England and Wales, Praeger, Westport, CT and London, p. 56 1998.

(248) ) See David S. Wall, The Chief Constables of England and Wales, Routledge, 2020.

(249) James F. Richardson, Urban Police in the United States, Kennikat Press, 1974, p. 14.

(250) Alena Pospíšilová, Police Role in Society at the Beginning of 21st Century, 2010, pp. 27, 28. According to Ruth Paley, op. Cit., The number of law enforcement personnel was halved after the Metroplitan Police Act was passed. been adopted.

(251) Edouard Fischel, cited in Charles Valframbert, Municipal regime and local institutions in England, Scotland and Ireland, Marescq Aîné, Paris, 1873, p. 278.

(252) Ruth Paley, op. cit.

(253) Virginia Suzanne Balch-Lindsay, op. cit., p. 403.

(254) Randall G. Shelden and Pavel V. Vasiliev, Controlling the Dangerous Classes: A History of Criminal Justice in America, 3rd ed., Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, Il, p. 65.

(255) See, regarding the first vibrations of this famous formula by Max Weber in 7th century Germany, Michel Coutu and Guy Rocher (eds.), The legitimacy of the state and the law around Max Weber, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2005, p. 33 and sqq.