20 Before the BobbiesLegislature will think it worthy of their Notice ... .'^74 The anxiety that motiv-
ated this initial reform effort was thus not generated by riots or radicalism
but by the more common varieties of property crime that seemed to touch
more West End residents. This raises the question, then, of whether property
crime rates were indeed rising.
The work of J.M. Beattie and Douglas Hay on crime rates in the eight-
eenth century has demonstrated that two key factors affected levels of
property crime - war and food prices.^75 In periods of war and low prices,
levels of indictments for property crime were low, while peacetime and high
prices brought noticeable increases. The 1720s and 1730s were a period of
good harvests and relatively low prices, with only the occasional short-term
price rise. But these decades were also a time of peace. J.M. Beattie found
that 'the general level of indictments for property offenses remained at a
relatively high level over the quarter century of peace between the 'fteaty of
Utrecht in 1713 and the outbreak of war with Spain in 1739'.^76 The vestry-
men of Westminster in 1735-36 were responding to what must have seemed
like a long-term problem of higher property crime rates.
The career of the notorious Jonathan Wild must also have been seen as
symbolic of the problem. Wild built up a large-scale theft, protection, and
fencing racket. He developed a system in which his subordinates only stole
identifiable property. Wild then went to the victim and offered to 'recover'
the stolen property for a fee. Victims were usually happy enough to get their
goods back without the expense of a prosecution. Wild eliminated rivals and
kept his thieves in line by threatening them with arrest and damning testi-
mony. If he turned them in, Wild collected the statutory reward and the
unfortunate thief was hung at "JYbum or transported to the colonies. Wild
went to the gallows in his tum, however, in 1725, convicted of receiving
stolen property. It is likely, however, that Wild's activities did not so much
cause more crime as provide evidence for the existing higher rates of crime.^77
Another factor that must have had an impact on both the reality and the
perception of crime rates was the rising population of London as a whole. The
metropolis was growing in the years between 1720 and 1740 even though
deaths were consistently higher than births. London grew because of the
continual migration from the countryside of young adults, mostly in their
late teens and twenties. Those indicted for property crimes were more likely
to come from this age group than any other.^78 Thus both the growing popula-
tion and the increase in those of an age most likely to be accused of theft
undoubtedly enhanced the appearance and fact of rising property crime rates.
Additionally, local authorities in the 1730s had to cope with the beginnings
of the gin craze. This too contributed to the overall impression of increased
disorder and crime. The distillation and distribution of gin was not regulated
like beer and other alcoholic beverages and was thus readily available and
cheap. Gin was blamed for the apparent increase in crime and vice. The