Why 1829? 131for St James, Piccadilly, who had been employed on the watch for 35 years.
Some witnesses from 1822 appeared again in 1828 - Sir Richard Birnie, the
Chief Magistrate at Bow Street, and other police magistrates and officers.
Henry Morton Dyer and John Rawlinson returned to speak of their experi-
ences both as stipendiary magistrates and vestrymen.^24 Never before had
Parliament paid so much attention to the parochial police.
The Committee heard evidence on many topics and from many regions of
the metropolis. Some witnesses gave evidence about tactics and techniques
of policing: were watchmen used in shifts, did they have watchboxes, were
patrols effective in preventing crime? The Committee asked most witnesses
if they favoured a more uniform, centralized police force for London, under
government control; responses were mixed. Although many vestrymen and
watch committee members approved of centralization, some police magis-
trates, like John Rawlinson, were less enthusiastic.^25 Peel's main concern was
to demonstrate that the lack of uniformity and coordination in local policing
arrangements contributed to the spread of crime. Witnesses gave mixed
reviews of local policing in 1828. Some parishes, like St James, Piccadilly,
and St Marylebone, were regarded as examples of excellence. Others, most
often in outlying regions like Thttenham or Baling, were described as having
virtually no police, with the exception of perhaps a solitary parish constable
or private watchman.^26
If Peel and the committee could establish lack of uniformity and coordina-
tion as the key problems, then the solution would clearly be centralization.
The committee Report acknowledged that Marylebone, Piccadilly, and
Hackney had police forces that were 'well conducted', but insisted that 'the
system as a whole is defective'. The efforts of well-policed parishes were
'defeated, in a material degree, by the indifference and neglect of their
neighbours'. Therefore:If each Parish had full power, by law, to establish an efficient watch; and if
each Parish exercised that power with the greatest judgement and discre-
tion; still there would be no unity of system and no security for mutual
concert and cooperation.The committee concluded, 'the presumption is very strong, even though they
had had no evidence as to particular facts, that the present system of provid-
ing by night for the Police of a great city and its vicinity, is in principle,
defective [Emphasis added]'. Thus, the problem was not amateur versus
professional, or corrupt versus honest administration; rather it was decen-
tralized control and local diversity versus centralized control and uniform-
ity.27
Peel finally got a Select Committee to recommend centralized policing for
London. It urged An 'Office of Police' should be established, under the
direct authority of the Home Office, 'upon which should be devolved the