120 Before the Bobbies
Measures taken to attract better men were also intended to lessen the
attractiveness of bribes and/or the temptations to commit extortion.
Increased attention was drawn in the 1820s to instances of police negligence
and corruption in the press and before the Parliamentary committees and
parochial authorities responded.^90 Better salaries were the carrot but local
authorities also used the stick of dismissal and/or prosecution for more
serious infractions. The trustees of St Luke, Middlesex, and the paving
commissioners of the West Division of Southwark funded prosecutions of
their own officers accused of extortion.^91 How successful such disciplinary
efforts were over the course of the decade is difficult to judge. As evidence of
the attitudes of watch authorities, they show less tolerance for corruption
and negligence of duty on the part of those policing London.^92
The most common disciplinary problems for watch authorities were drun-
kenness and sleeping on the job. In most parishes, a watchman was given two
or three chances to make mistakes, being let off with a reprimand or small
fine. But if he continued to drink or doze off, he risked dismissal. Drunken-
ness especially seems to have been a perennial problem and a sustained
effort was needed to punish these kinds of infractions.^93 Some watch com-
mittees were more willing to make the effort than others. The St James,
Piccadilly, watch committee left an impressive record of the complaints they
heard year in and year out, diligently handing out numerous fines and
dismissals.^94
Vestries and watch committees continued to tinker with watch operations,
always hoping to improve their preventive and detective functions. Beats,
watchboxes, lanterns, calling the hours, and weapons continued to be
debated. Regarding the latter, in most parishes, the beadles, inspectors or
superintendents, and sometimes sergeants carried firearms and the watch-
men carried staffs. One of the few times and places a local watch authority
did feel it had to explain why its officers carried pistols was in 1813 in the
Clink Uberty, Southwark. The watch committee insisted that the patrols
needed guns because Southwark was 'inhabited by a hardy Race of People
[on whom] a more gentle means of Thrror would lose its Effect'.^95 For the
most part, weapons were a minor issue, as was the question of uniforms.
Should the watch wear light coats so that they would be visible or should they
wear dark coats so as not to be seen? The preference in the 1820s appears to
have been for dark blue. One of the beadles employed by Clink Paving
Commission urged the use of dark coats so the watch would be 'less liable
to be avoided by Depredators who can now escape in consequence of the
Patrol being visible at a great Distance'. This is one of the rare instances
when one gets a glimpse of the watch officers and the ideas they had about
how their duty might best be performed.^96
There is little doubt, then, that by the 1820s the night watch was a
professional force. Constables, on the other hand, still represented a mix of