An Expanding Watch, 1748-76 39By 1766, some residents of Southwark were tired of the poor condition of
their streets. 'Several Merchants, 'fradesmen, and other Inhabitants of the
High-street of the Borough of Southwark' petitioned the House of Commons
in January 1766 for the power to collect a toll and rate the residents of their
street to pave, light, clean, and watch the streets.^67 In February, the inhab-
itants and shopkeepers in StMary Newington; StMary Magdalen, Bermond-
sey; and the inhabitants of the parishes of StGeorge, St Saviour, St Olave,
St John, and St Thomas all added their petitions for the same public
services.^68 Like their neighbours in the East End, the residents of Southwark
conceived of the night watch as one aspect of the larger problem of the
public streets. But in Southwark reform initiatives did not come from paro-
chial officers. Instead, the demand for change came from merchants, traders,
and just plain 'inhabitants', reflecting both less energetic parish officials and
the commercial character of local elites. This effort to improve street poli-
cing in Southwark became another arena for the disputes between the City
and Surrey. The City of London petitioned to have a clause inserted in the
bill that would have allocated 'a reasonable Proportion of the Toll proposed
to be raised by the said Bill' for 'paving, cleansing, and enlightening' its
streets. The motion lost on a division by a margin of 241-9 and the bill
passed without further difficulty.^69
The result of this act was the creation of the East and West Division
Paving Commissions. The East Division included the parishes of St John
and St Thomas, part of St Olave and of St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey.
The West Division consisted of the parishes of St George, St Saviour, St
Mary, Newington, and the section of the Borough High Street that was in
St Olave. The act designated the commissioners for both Divisions - 124
inhabitants, divided between the two commissions on the basis of residence.
The MPs for Surrey and Southwark were appointed as ex officio members for
both divisions, as were the treasurers of St Thomas's and Guy's Hospitals
and three City of London officials.^70 It was a common practice for vestries
and improvement commissions to select politically and socially prominent
residents even though they might never attend meetings.^71 But their pres-
ence on the commission, even in absentia, was a recognition of their import-
ance as local leaders and allowed the other working commissioners to call on
their support in Parliament, at Quarter Sessions, or when dealing with the
central government. Clearly the act recognized the interests of both the City
and county. Like select vestries, the East and West Paving Commissions were
self-perpetuating. To be eligible to be a commissioner, a man (or his wife)
had to possess land valued at £50 or a personal estate of £1000. The men
who made up these commissions were thus not small artisans but from more
middling ranks of society. The fact that one did not have to be a landowner
to qualify for this position was another concession to the mercantile and
financial character of the local elite.