The Politics of Security in Liberal Society: Responsibility for Crime Prevention in Mid-Victorian Britain

This chapter analyzes the relation between private security and notions of individual responsibility in mid-Victorian Britain. Across the nineteenth century, the security landscape of British city centres was transformed: the gradual separation of residential from commercial property meant many proprietors no longer supervised their premises outside of business hours, while the formation of preventative police forces and the diffusion of brand-name security devices offered alternative, impersonal security solutions. Using the Cornhill Burglary of 1865 - a raid on a highly-fortified jeweller’s shop in the City of London - as a case study, the chapter traces emerging fault lines in the politics of security. Both the police and the security industry received criticism for failing to prevent the break-in, yet most commentators emphasized the ultimate responsibility of the proprietor to supervise his premises personally. Reflecting concerns about the retreat of the affluent from city centres - and the consequent loss of moral oversight of the lower orders - the absent proprietor was subject to stinging moral censure. The public commentary surrounding the Cornhill case discloses a politics of security in transition, articulating between a paternalist ethic of personal superintendence and moral guardianship, and reliance on impersonal, technical and commodified forms of protection. By excavating competing discourses of responsibility in the mid-Victorian period, the chapter illuminates the varied political complexion of self-government in liberal society, and the difficulties of governing oneself as a liberal subject.