144 Before the Bobbies
nothing will be more satisfactory to the 'Ihlstees than to have an oppor-
tunity of proving to the Parish ... the difficulties under which the ltustees
labour in the exertion of their duty, from the limited extent of their funds.- The constant sense of those difficulties induces them to look forward
with great satisfaction to the Legislative measure about to be adopted for
the improvement of the Police of the Metropolis and its immediate
Neighbourhood ....
Written two days before Peel's Bill was passed by the House of Lords, these
trustees were evidently glad to be rid of their burdensome duties.^85 This
conflict and the reply of the Stoke Newington trustees above offers a good
example of the low morale that favoured Peel's police bill and the central
government's expanded role in law enforcement.
The unfriendly climate for select vestries was intensified by John Cam
Hobhouse, Radical MP for Westminster, in late 1828 when he brought
before Parliament a catalogue of ratepayer grievances. A Select Committee
was appointed and began hearing testimony in February 1829. The Commit-
tee met from February to May 1829, and in the spring of 1830 as well. The
Committee's final report recommended that parishes be allowed to establish
an elective vestry if the parishioners wanted one. The death of George IV,
and the subsequent Reform Bill crisis, delayed the passage of Hobhouse's
Vestry Act until 1831.^86
What was crucial about the campaign for vestry reform was the timing.
The Select Committee on the Police met in the spring of 1828 and the
Metropolitan Police Bill moved through Parliament during April, May, and
June 1829. This was exactly the same span of time during which public outcry
about parish vestry extravagance, privilege, and incompetence peaked. In the
powerful parish of St Marylebone, for example, the conflict between the
vestry and parishioners began in 1827 and lasted five years. A debate in
Parliament about a proposed new vestry Act for St Marylebone occurred on
17 April 1829, only two days after Peel first presented his Police bill. The
vestry and paving commissioners of Oerkenwell were also at loggerheads
over an Act that would have made the commission elective in May 1829.^87 At
the point when parochial opposition to Peel's Police Bill could have been
most effective, some key parishes which could have mounted an effective
opposition were hamstrung. They were too busy defending themselves
against charges of corruption and exclusivity.
These struggles also transferred some members of Parliament who had
previously upheld parochial authority to the side of centralization. Whigs
and Radicals like Sir Francis Burdett, Joseph Hume, Alderman Matthew
Wood, and J.C. Hobhouse had supported local authority. But they could
not condone the unrepresentative nature of select vestries. This forced
them to give up their old principle that parliamentary intervention in local