136 Before the Bobbies
testified for the select committee believed that the multiplicity of jurisdic-
tions and the varying quality of local policing contributed to rising rates of
crime and that the solution lay in a uniform, centralized police force under
government control. Peel had chosen his witnesses carefully.
Some local officials were willing to contemplate centralization because
they believed it would be more cost-effective. Peel argued that police reform
offered 'the cheapest and safest' way to combat rising crime.^47 The Hon.
Frederick Byng, vestryman of St George, Hanover Square, testified that
parish officials 'were suspicious of the expense' of a new police. However,
Byng also stated 'that people do not like paying for what is totally inefficient;
but the parishioners would not grudge money where the efficiency is appar-
ent'. Seijeant Scriven, chairman of the Surrey Quarter Sessions, and Sir
Thomas Farquhar, resident of St James, Piccadilly, both argued that central-
ization would allow the consolidation of police administration and thus lower
the cost. Scriven also argued that a more effective preventive police would
also reduce court costs. Farquhar stated: 'My idea is, that one great establish-
ment is always carried on at much less expense than many small ones; for
every parish having boards of paving, lighting and watching, must have
clerks, solicitors and inspectors; and all that machinery would be knocked
on the head ... .'^48
Most of the local officials who appeared before the Select Committee were
qu.estioned about the expense of current policing and what reactions there
might be to an uniform, centrally controlled system, particularly in regard to
the cost. They were usually asked if there would be an objection or feelings
of jealousy if the Government had control of a metropolitan police force.
The Committee also asked if there would be any objections if the new system
cost the same, or perhaps slightly more, than the present arrangement, given
the premise that the new system would be more effective. Alexander
Richmond, watch trustee for St Luke, Old Street, told the committee that
St Luke spent approximately £3000-£3500 a year on watching. Then the
question was put to him: ' ... supposing the expense of the new system did
not exceed 3500 l. or 4000 l. do you think there would be any objection on
the part of the parish to the adoption of such a system of Eolice as that
mentioned?' Richmond replied unequivocally: 'Decidedly not.'^9 Apparently,
if a new system of police delivered more effective protection at a comparable
cost, people would accept it.
The committee Report asserted that centralized policing could be
adopted, 'probably at a less expense, and with no new restraint on the liberty
of the subject'. The Committee believed that parishes which had efficient
policing would probably not pay any more under a new system than they had
under the old. Those with less effective or non-existent watch systems
'should contribute proportionably to the maintenance of an establishment
by which they will materially benefit'.^50 Thus, centralization was presented as