Night Watch to Police, 1811-28 115The magistrates, exercising their new authority over parish watchmen,
suspended White for two months. A committee of the vestry then investig-
ated any complaints the parish officers had about the police magistrates and
the way in which they treated parish employees. The vestry committee made
a very full report, including 12 appendices giving details of specific cases. The
committee stated it could not
pass over the apparent desire of the police Magistrates to Criminate the
watchmen generally and without due foundation ... if the Magistrates, as
in the case of White, have the uncontrolled power of discharging or
suspending one of the best Servants of the Vestry, they [the Vestry] will
not be able to procure honest and deserving Men, who may be dismissed
without sufficient cause and investigation.The committee recommended that the vestry investigate the legality of this
power of suspension, but unfortunately for the vestry the Jaw was quite clear
on this point.^65 Piecemeal reform could create problems as well as solve
them. In this instance, an effort to improve the accountability of watchmen
only confused the Jines of authority and created conflicts between magis-
trates and vestries.
Lord Sidmouth retired from the Home Office in November 1821, to be
replaced by Robert Peel. Peel's commitment to a centralized police system
developed out of his experiences as Chief Secretary for Ireland, where he
faced the unique Irish problems of public order and crime.^66 While
Peel's career will be discussed more extensively below, it is appropriate
here to note that even Peel's enthusiasm for centralization could not over-
come the continued suspicion of most members of Parliament. One of
Peel's first projects in 1822 was the appointment of yet another Select
Committee on the Police of the Metropolis. Even though he chaired
the Committee himself, its conclusions did not endorse centralization. The
Committee concluded in its Report that 'constituted as the present system is,
the obstruction to public justice and to the maintenance of the peace exists
practically in a much less degree than might have been apprehended, and
certainly not to that degree which would warrant them in recommending any
fundamental change in it'.^67 The Committee voiced its opinion of centralized
policing in what has become a classic statement in defence of the pre-1829
policing system:
It is difficult to reconcile an effective system of police, with that perfect
freedom of action and exemption from interference, which are the great
privileges and blessings of society in this country; and Your Committee
think that the forfeiture or curtailment of such advantages would be too
great a sacrifice for improvements in police, or facilities in detection of
crime, however desirable in themselves if abstractedly considered.^68