was sparse and there was neither a need, nor sufficient funds for a professional police force.As was the case in eighteenth-century England, the role of keeping the peace and enforcing the law fell upon local magistrates. See Chapter Six for a full discussion of the role of magistrates.1
From its founding, Upper Canada was divided into admin–istrative districts, and each district operated with a great deal of autonomy. In 1788 there were four districts. As the population grew new districts were created. By 1841, there were twenty.2 Each district had a Clerk of the Peace, a sheriff, and several magistrates.
Magistrates (formally known as Justices of the Peace) had both administrative and judicial functions. They were, in effect, the local (district or county) government. They set tax rates, appointed local officials, paid salaries, enforced local regulations, held court, and generally maintained public order.3
The magistrates were assisted in these duties by the sher–iff4and civilian part-time constables5 appointed for duty on an annual basis see( Chapter Six for a full discussion of the roles of the magistrate, sheriff, and constable). Other than inspecting roads, bridges, and chimneys for safety purposes, the sheriff and his constables did not actively go looking for criminal activity, as we expect our police to do now. The sheriff’s job was to enforce the will of the court by summoning jurors for jury duty, mak–ing arrests, looking after the gaol, and maintaining order in the courthouse.6 Constables followed orders received from mag–istrates, generally including executing search warrants, making arrests, delivering prisoners to gaol or court, and serving subpoe–nas on witnesses.7
Expenses for the administration of justice were covered by taxes and fines. For example, the inhabitants of the Town of York were divided into income classes for taxes. In 1798 there were 112 taxpayers in ten classes. The lowest class paid 1s. 3d. per year (twenty-six people), the highest class paid 18s. 6d. (three people).8
Investigation
Most minor crimes were probably never reported due to the inconvenience involved and the fact that many Christian com–munities, especially evangelical denominations, forbade their members from using secular courts to settle conflicts between members. They were supposed to try to work it out between themselves, and if that failed get help from the church. In the case of Presbyterians, the minister and church elders were in charge of disciplining members. In Baptist churches all church members shared the responsibility to oversee each others’ behaviour and to help settle disputes. We do not know as much about Methodist disciplinary procedures, as they didn’t keep records of their disci–plinary proceedings.9
Lynn Marks’ study of church disciplinary records provides the following example:
The records of Norwich Baptist church include a lengthy discussion of the case of William G., who was accused of treating his wife very badly. Both his wife and two witnesses testified that he had spoken very abusively to her. Mrs H., who lived in the same house as the Gs, stated that “when she went into their room Mr G. would appear to be very pleasant to his wife, but witness saith that Mr G. did nights after he had got to bed scold his wife and threaten her, saying he could break her bones and he should be justified in so doing.” As a result of G’s “hard threats and tyran–nical behaviour to [his] wife,” as well as his refusal to support her any longer, and his further refusal to come before the church to answer charges on these matters, the Norwich church “withdrew [their] Christian hand of fellowship” from him.10
The criminal justice process generally began with the vic–tim bringing attention to the crime by making a report.11 This involved travelling to the nearest magistrate to file an “informa–tion”: a signed statement containing all of the information the person could provide concerning the offence. In the very early days, this might mean travelling one hundred miles or more [160 km]. As time progressed, magistrates were appointed throughout the districts, so that in theory, everyone had easy access (at least one within each township by the 1830s).
Information of Carson Mosier, 11 January 1835, Criminal Case Files,Western District Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Archives of Ontario, RG 22-110.
If the accusation involved a suspicious death or fire, the coro–ner would launch an investigation (assuming there was a coroner available, if there wasn’t the magistrate would perform his role).12 The coroner had authority to summon and hear testimony from witnesses, call on medical personnel for their opinions, and gather whatever other evidence he required. He could then call a coro–ner’s jury13 to examine the evidence and make a verdict concern–ing the cause of death or the cause of the fire. Most of the evidence was gathered by examining witnesses and recording their state–ments, usually called affidavits or depositions. See (Chapter Six for a full discussion of the role of the coroner and the coroner’s jury.
Inquisition on the body of William Henry Cooke, 13 May 1836, Coroner’s Records,Western District Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Archives of Ontario, RG 22-1826.
Warrant of arrest for Charles Ragan on charge of larceny, 11 January 1835, Criminal Case Files, Western District Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Archives of Ontario, RG 22-110.
If the crime did not involve a suspicious death or fire, respon–sibility for the investigation would fall on the local Justice of the Peace with the assistance of the sheriff and his constables. Professional police forces began to appear in the late 1830s.
For relatively minor matters, the magistrate would issue a summons for the suspect to appear before him, or before the rel–evant court on a certain date. For more serious crimes, he would issue a warrant for the arrest of the suspect. The warrant would then be given to a constable with instructions to locate the sus–pect, place him or her under arrest, and deliver him or her to the district or county gaol.
Making an arrest could sometimes be difficult, even haz–ardous. Constables had no special training, were unarmed, and often had to travel great distances in rotten weather to locate and apprehend a suspect. In the Newcastle District alone there were at least fifty incidents (likely many more that weren’t prose–cuted) in which constables or bailiffs were assaulted or threatened between 1813 and 1840.14
When William Wadsworth, a Queenston consta–ble, threatened Barney Woolman with a prose–cution while a card game was going on in a local tavern, Woolman punched him in the mouth, loosening a tooth. “As you are going to take the Law of me,” he said, “I will give you something to take the Law for.” Woolman pleaded guilty to assault and battery and received a token fine of one shilling and costs.15
Recognizance of Joseph Willcox, Bail Book of William Dummer Powell, unbound papers, 1803, Baldwin Room, Toronto Public Library, L16.
Here you see the style of cause, “King vs. Joseph Willcox,” the charge “libel,” the name of the defendant, Joseph Willcox, the amount of his recognizance, “£200,” the names of his two sureties, Benjamin Davis and Joseph Sheppard, both of the Township of York, Husbandmen, and the amount
