Why 1829? 137either a cheaper way of policing the metropolis or, at least, a more effective
method at the same cost. With rising local rates always a. problem, this
argument was persuasive for many local officials and ratepayers.
Some parish leaders found the case for centralization persuasive because it
promised efficiency and some because it promised cost-effectiveness. Others,
suffering from low morale, were persuaded by the hope of sharing a fatiguing
burden. They were willing to relinquish an important responsibility because
they were tired of what seemed to be a thankless task. The Hon. Frederick
Byng testified that he had spent two years on the watch committee of St
George, Hanover Square, working to improve the night watch. Asked if he
thought there would be any objection from the parishes to a unified, cent-
ralized police, Byng replied: 'I should think the parishes would be most glad,
for the trouble is very great; and almost all parishes think their watch is
inefficient, and that it might be benefitted, but they do not know how.' Asked
more specifically about possible objections from parochial officials about
relinquishing their authority over the watch, Byng stated, 'the persons who
undertake it, like myself, are very willing to give up their self-imposed duties.
We are only subject to abuse, or criticism, and get no thanks certainly.'^51
Alexander Richmond of St Luke was also asked if there would be any
objection to uniform, centralized policing. He replied emphatically:
I should think it would meet the approbation of every enlightened inhab-
itant who has paid any attention to the attempt we have made [to
improve local policing). I consider we have gone as far as an imperfect
system will admit; and I speak from personal observation [Emphasis
added]. 52What wore these men down was the daily grind of providing basic police
protection for their neighbours. These watch officials were convinced that a
centralized government-controlled police was the solution to the problem of
spreading crime. They had done all they could and were content, even
pleased, to transfer the burden to the shoulders of the Home Secretary. 53
Other parishes were faced with the prospect of taking on new burdens of
policing if the central government did not. Established in 1826, the Metro-
politan Roads Commission removed many of the turnpike watchmen in
outlying areas as an economy measure. The areas directly affected included
Hackney, Marylebone, Highgate, Hampstead, Stamford Hill, Bethnal Green,
Kilburn and Camden. When local officials complained to the Commission,
they got little satisfaction. Even the Home Office got a fairly curt reply. In
November 1827, Under-Secretary Thomas Spring Rice forwarded a letter to
the Commission which complained about the removal of the watchmen on
the Kilburn roads. The Commission ordered that Rice be told it 'considered
it inexpedient to continue the employment of Watchmen upon the Maryle-
bone district .. .'.^54 Parishes wrote the Home Office, asking for extensions of