Collaboration, 1750-74 51enquiry reflected a desire for a greater degree of uniformity but combined
with continued local autonomy. The act was also a conduit for the spread of
local initiatives; reforms and practices developed in some parishes were
applied to all. This legislation represents the melding of local and central
reforms, showing the continuing dynamic of reform at the parish level and
the more active stance taken by national government evident in these years.
Heading the enquiry in 1772 was Sir Charles Whitworth, MP for Mine-
head. He was a consistent government supporter, chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee of the Commons from 1768 until his death in 1778.^34 Also
on the committee was Herbert Mackworth, a young barrister and MP for
Cardiff who was one of the more active members of the St Marylebone watch
committee.^35 Whitworth's committee gathered its information from vestry
clerks, not magistrates. Key players in this instance were the vestry of St
James, Piccadilly and its clerks, Thomas Thomas and Luke ldeson. When
Thomas informed the vestry that the House of Commons had summoned
him to attend the night watch committee, the vestry ordered the clerks to
draw up their proposals for reforming the night watch and to canvass the
other parishes involved for their suggestions and support.^36 Unfortunately,
we do not know the details of what those suggestions were but we do know
that these men were very active in soliciting and organizing parochial input
and support for Whitworth's efforts.^37
Whitworth's first committee accomplished nothing; the bill 'for the better
Regulation of the Nightly Watch and Beadles within the City and Uberty of
Westminster, and Parts adjacent' never got out of committee before Parlia-
ment rose for the summer.^38 The committee report and its resolutions,
however, were ordered to be printed and it reveals important information
both about how the parochial watch system of Westminster had evolved and
how other areas compared.
Within Westminster, the numbers of watchmen varied greatly, depending
on the size of the parish. St Mary-le-Strand employed only three while St
Martin-in-the-Fields had 85 watchmen. Salaries for watchmen also varied:
winter rates of nightly pay ranged from a low of 10d. in St Anne, Soho, to a
high of 1s.2d. paid in several parishes. Summer salaries varied from 8d. to
10d?^9 Outside Westminster, the united parishes of St Andrew, Holborn, and
St George-the-Martyr had the best paid watch. The vestry paid its 30 regular
watchmen 1s.3d. a night in winter and 1s. in summer. The six armed patrols
each received 1s.6d. and 1s.3d. respectively.^40 In terms of total expenditure,
St James, Piccadilly topped the list at £1497 per year while the tiny Savoy
spent only £17 annually. Watch rates ranged from four to six pence in the
pound. The committee commented that the maximum rate limits set by prior
watch acts had proved to be too low for several parishes by 1772. In 1771 the
StJames, Piccadilly clerk reported to the vestry that 'many of the Established
Watchmen had lately deserted their Watch Duties in this parish to go and