146 Before the Bobbiestake from this Commission the Jurisdiction of the Nightly Police and would
place the same in the hands of three Justices under the direction of one of his
Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State'. However, they merely resolved that
their clerk 'be authorized to suggest to Mr Peel any alterations that may appear
desirable'. The 'Ihlstees for St Luke, Middlesex, were aware of the bill, but
their minutes indicate merely a practical response: if the bill passed, the watch
committee was authorized to demolish the watch house.^91 Unlike 1734, 1774,
1785, and 1812, there were no attempts to contact other parishes, to discuss
opposition strategy, even to canvass opinion. The vestry clerk for Soho brought
the bill to the attention of the vestry in early May. Subsequently and, 'after
much discussion', the vestry decided 'that altho' this Vestry objects to the
principle of the Bill yet that no opposition be offered to it the Secretary of
State [Peel] having intimated to the vestry Clerk that all opposition to the proposed
measure would be useless [Emphasis added]'.^92 One has to wonder how many
others were told the same thing by Peel.
Parliament received only two petitions opposing the Metropolitan Police
Bill. One was from the Commissioners for Paving, Lighting, and Watching
the Estate of the Skinners' Company, one of the 18 watch authorities in St
Pancras.^93 The other, from Hackney, voiced serious misgivings about the bill.
Hackney had had an open vestry for some time and was not caught up in the
controversy over select vestries. At a meeting in April, 161 'Gentlemen of
respectability', drafted their petition. They were satisfied with their police
and did not like the idea of it being taken out of local hands. '[T]he Parish
cannot be so well protected by Men who have no local interest to serve, who
are unknown to the Inhabitants and who in consequence are strangers to the
Localities of the parish.' Their double watch in the winter provided seasonal
employment for parishioners who otherwise would have had no work, 'prin-
cipally Gardeners and Ground Workmen with large Families'. The resolu-
tions noted that most of the money spent on the wages of local police
officials remained in the parish, spent in local shops. Finally, the petition
expressed a fear that Peel's reform would cost more and provide less protec-
tion. It concluded with a definitive defence of locally controlled policing:
That it is the Opinion of this Meeting that a Night Watch to be really
effective requires the constant Superintendence of persons resident on the
spot to whom any inattention or neglect can be immediately made known
and be remedied, and who from their having property at stake in the
parish have an interest in making such Watch efficient, and further that
the present System is so intimately connected with the peace safety and
comfort of the Inhabitants from the confidence they repose in the present
management, that this Meeting can only compare the annihilation of the
Hackney Watch Board to the case of a Family deprived of the manage-
ment of its own concerns ....^94