116 Before the BobbiesDenied the opportunity to make major changes in the police of greater
London, Peel contented himself with smaller reforms, similar to what Sid-
mouth had done. In 1822, another act was quickly passed that reiterated the
authority of the police magistrates to suspend or dismiss watchmen, regul-
ated the hours of coffee shops and allowed the City of London to award
retirement pensions to their watchmen, beadles, and patrols.^69 In August
1822, Peel hired 27 men as a day patrol, to be on the streets until the night
watch, foot patrol, dismounted and mounted forces came on duty in the
evening. In contrast to the police office constables, the day patrol wore
uniforms of blue coats and trousers and red waistcoats. Peel apparently
believed that this would make the men take pride in their work and thus
be more diligent.^70 In 1829, John Wade commented that the day patrol had
'proved of the utmost utility ... but the number of men is much too small for
the service allotted to them'.^71
Thus the government took a much more active role in metropolitan
policing in the immediate post-war years. Sidmouth and Peel tried to
improve the level of professionalism and efficiency of the forces under
Home Office jurisdiction. The kinds of reform they could accomplish, how-
ever, were limited by political and fiscal constraints. Centralization was still
too controversial and funds too short for an overhaul of the metropolitan
police. The main arena, then, for police reform remained in the parishes.
With the government taking a more active interest in policing, sharing of
ideas for reform among parishes, police magistrates, and the Home Office
increased. The primary constraint for local authorities also continued to be
cost. Reforms pursued at the parish level reflect both the long-term trend
towards professionalization and the rising expectations that that trend had
created. The emphasis was on improving the personnel, discipline, and
preventative capability of the watch, with a new intensity and less tolerance
of ineffective methods and men. Paradoxically, the efforts of local authorities
to improve the accountability of constables highlighted problems that could
not be solved within a decentralized system.
Ironically, one of the common changes made in the 1820s was the intro-
duction of early and late shifts, a change required in the failed 1812 Night
Watch bill. This is further evidence that the objections raised by the parishes
to that bill had their roots in the expense and not the reform. With finances
generally less constrained after 1820, some parishes that had previously used
two shifts, and had given them up, reinstated them. The hours during which
the streets were policed expanded until in some places there were parochial
officers on duty 24 hours a day.
The united parishes of St Giles-in-the-Fields and StGeorge, Bloomsbury,
are an example. Having tried shifts in May 1807 through June 1809, the
vestry concluded that they 'had not been attended with the advantages
expected .. .'. and stopped using them. In November 1820, however, the