134 Before the BobbiesWade argued that earlier constitutional concerns no longer applied in- Fears that a government-controlled police would be the equivalent to
a military force were 'purely illusive' because centralization represented
merely 'a supplement to the police reform of 1792, when the corrupt volun-
teer justices of the metropolis were converted into a responsible and efficient
magistracy'. Londoners had a choice between the decentralized system, that
was a 'poor frittered, disjointed, imbecile thing, without union, organization,
or concert: or it shall be one united, energetic establishment, acting for a
common purpose, and under real responsibility for the lives and property of
two millions of persons'. He acknowledged that a difficult period of adjust-
ment lay ahead but insisted that the benefits would justify the change.
Finally, Wade addressed the traditional charge that a centralized police
would only increase government patronage.
... we see no cause for apprehension. The dissolution of the yeomanry
corps, the reduction of the militia staff, and the measures in contemplation
for the curtailment of the 'dead weighf sufficiently evince that Ministers
are not at all tenacious of influence when in competition with the public
interest; and certainly such reductions call for reciprocal confidence on the
part of the people.^37
Wade's views are an important indication that constitutional arguments did
not have the urgency they once had.
Another changed circumstance in the late 1820s was that pamphlet wri-
ters, Select Committee witnesses, and Peel himself were increasingly critical
of police magistrates and their officers. Some, were critical of the lack of
coordination between the eight different offices and between police offices
and the parish forces.^38 Sir George Stephen commented: ' ... there is scarcely
to be found a more idle or inefficient person than a police officer' who only
showed enthusiasm for his duty when there was the prospect of a profit.^39
Most of the testimony heard by the Select Committee about police magis-
trates and their officers was negative. Police office constables were said to be
lazy, on better terms with criminals than they should be, and jealous of
parochial officers, especially where the parish police were diligent in their
duty.^40 Joseph Thomas, an active constable for Covent Garden, commented
on the: 'wonderful apathy in the police officers .... men conscious that every
conviction I carried to Bow-street was a tacit reproach upon them for not
doing their duty .. .'.^41 These complaints echo those heard about parish
watchmen in earlier decades.
Peel was primarily concerned about corruption among police officers and
the apparent passivity of police magistrates in the face of the evidence.^42 This
must have been particularly galling to Peel, in light of the previous efforts he
made to improve the police under government control. Bishop, a well-known
Bow Street officer, had helped recover stolen jewellery worth £800 by