16 Before the Bobbies
In 1727, Joseph Cotton, Deputy Steward of Westminster, paid an unan-
nounced visit to St Margaret's watchhouse and reported that he found 'neither
Constable, Beadle, Watchmen, or other person (save one who was so Drunk
that he was not capable of giving any Answer) Present in, or near the said
Watchhouse'. Cotton also found that none of the Burgesses for the parish had
been near the watchhouse for six months, 'a manifest breach of the ... By
Laws'; every Burgess and Assistant Burgess for the parish was fined five
pounds.^55 In 1728, the Westminster justices demanded to see the watch
accounts, because of complaints from residents, including the King, about
the number of robberies, the amount of rates, and the lack of watchmen.^56
Even some of the constables exhibited little respect for the Burgesses. In
1733, when they summoned a constable to answer an accusation that he had
assaulted one of the watchmen, the constable 'did then use many unbecom-
ing Speeches and threatenings' and even sent out for liquor, 'which he drank
of with as little respect as though he had been in a common Alehouse ... '.^57
Clearly, the Burgesses were fighting a losing battle to maintain their hold on
the night watch of Westminster. The conflict came to a head over the power
to tax.
In early 1734, the Burgesses asked Parliament to grant them the power to
levy a watch rate. They pointed out that by virtue of the Act of 27 Elizabeth
I, they were empowered 'to make Orders and Ordinances, for the govern-
ment of the Inhabitants' and with that authority had established a night
watch. They gave the Commons the by-laws of 1720 by virtue of which the
Burgesses had raised more than £5000 in one year and outlined the difficul-
ties they had in collecting these rates: 'several Persons so rated refused to
pay the said Assessment; alledging, that they were not obliged to pay the
same'. Because of its questionable legality, much of the rate had gone
uncollected. With decreased funds, the Burgesses had had to reduce the
number of watchmen. They even submitted a 1728 letter from Secretary of
State Lord Townsend, expressing the King's concern about the number of
robberies in Westminster and His Majesty's desire that the High Steward and
Burgesses remedy the problem.^58 After determining that the Burgesses'
claims about their lack of authority to levy a watch rate was true, the
Commons allowed them to bring in a bill. 59 However, it was killed in short
order. The vestries of StJames, Piccadilly, and StGeorge, Hanover Square
collaborated in mounting swift and effective opposition to the bi11.^60
Within months, however, the issue of the nightly watch of Westminster was
before Parliament again. This time, the proposal came from the vestries. In
early February 1735, the vestry of St George, Hanover Square, concerned
about the 'many Robberies outrages and enormities' in the parish, decided
the problem was caused by the lack of 'a strong and regular Nightly Watch
and [because] there is no Law now in force relating thereto, but the Statute
of Winchester ... '. The vestrymen proposed a bill 'for the better regulating