Before the Bobbies. The Night Watch and Police Reform in Metropolitan London, 1720-1830

(^140) Before the Bobbies
Inefficient policing thus was not the fault of any one parish or group of
parishes, it was the basic structure that was defective.
In reference to the cost of this reform, Peel conceded that the new police
force would be funded by London's ratepayers but insisted that the expense
would not be much more than the present system and the improved security
would be worth the price. Peel also pointed out that since the improved
police would prevent crime, the number of prosecutions would decline, there
would be fewer inmates in local jails, and metropolitan taxpayers 'would also
be relieved from other parochial rates, which had been materially increased
by the expense and number of those prosecutions'.^62 Peel warned reformers
that only when a more efficient policing system was established could there
be any hope of stemming the rising tide of crime; then it would be possible
'to mitigate the penalties which attached to crime already'. He seemed to be
offering criminal law reformers a quid pro quo -police reform for further
reductions in the number of capital offences in the future. Peel's main focus,
and the theme to which he always returned, however, was the structural
defectiveness of the decentralized system of policing.^63
There was remarkably little discussion of Peel's bill. One MP reminded
Peel that London needed police protection during the day as well as the
night. Peel assured him the new police would have both day and night forces.
Another question was would parishes be able to opt out of its provisions?
Peel explained the bill was compulsory for those local authorities named in
it. The bill's passage was uneventful. Writing to the Duke of Wellington in
May, Peel said:
Pray pass the Bill through this Session, for you cannot think what trouble
it has given me .... It may be said, there has not been due notice to the
parishes. The answer is, the subject was taken up at the beginning of last
Session. The Report of the Committee was made last Session, and recom-
mended the very measure which is now introduced. The Bill was bro~ht
in this year on April 15, and a copy sent to the vestry of each parish.
Robert Peel must have felt relief as well as triumph when the king gave his
assent to ~ Act for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' in
June.
Peel's skill and hard work are not the only reasons why there was so little
opposition from the parishes to the Metropolitan Police Bill. Norman Gash
argues that 'the absorption of public and parliamentary interest in the
Catholic emancipation crisis diverted what might otherwise have been vexa-
tious opposition'.^65 While this may have been true for members of Parlia-
ment, some key parish vestries were distracted by a conflict that touched
them directly. The campaigns to make government more accountable to the
people put pressure on parish governments as well as Parliament in the
1820s, especially select vestries. Reformers and Radicals found parishes a