4 Collaboration, 1750-74
Starting in the 1750s, the central government's role in the arena of criminal
justice reform became more active.^1 Parliament and ministers began initiat-
ing inquiries and passing legislation, not merely endorsing local plans. The
successful efforts were those which John Styles describes as 'appropriate to
local circumstances.'^2 Reforms had to be acceptable to local authorities and
address their concerns as well as those of national leaders. This was espe-
cially true in Westminster with the passage of the 1774 Night Watch Act. This
act combined locally generated reform with the energetic leadership of a key
Member of Parliament, Sir Charles Whitworth, and resulted in a significant
piece of legislation. The act revised the basic night watch system to enhance
its crime prevention and detection functions, using the experience parish
authorities had gained since the 1730s.A first example of contrasting reform efforts occurred in 1751-56. In 1751,
the House of Commons appointed a committee to examine the criminal law,
the first such general investigation since the Restoration.^3 But while this
committee boasted a distinguished membership, including Prime Minister
Henry Pelham and Attorney General Sir Dudley Ryder, its recommenda-
tions regarding local law enforcement were never enacted.^4 In contrast, a
more limited bill proposed in 1756, addressing specific issues regarding the
appointment and duties of constables in Westminster, passed into law with
little difficulty. One key difference in these two episodes is that the 1751
committee addressed itself to a broad range of topics, including the poor law,
trial procedure, prisons, and non-capital punishments, as well as law enforce-
ment.5 The 1756 bill concerned only the constables of Westminster. Thus it is
possible that the changes recommended in 1751 were too sweeping and were
not 'appropriate to local circumstances'.^6
The 1751 committee did suggest innovations One was that metropolitan
parishes should pay the expenses for prosecution of every robbery or
attempted robbery out of their poor rates. This would surely not have been
popular with local authorities. The intent was to spur greater crime preven-
tion; its effect would have been to punish parishes with high rates of robbery
with higher poor rates. Another suggestion designed to encourage crime
prevention was to give wider powers of arrest to constables and watchmen.
They would have been allowed to detain anyone 'loitering and lurking
around the Streets', even if not actually committing an offence. This is
45