Collaboration, 1750-74 55to hard labour for up to three months.^59 Whitworth took the provisions of
previous acts of Parliament relating to the night watch, incorporated in a
statutory form what some parishes had developed in practice, added some
innovations, and then applied them to Westminster and its neighbours.
There would be minimal uniformity for the whole district and yet also the
flexibility for each parish to adapt that system to its needs.
Whitworth campaigned hard for his bill. In addition to vestry clerks,
Whitworth lobbied the members of vestries, especially the powerful select
vestries of the West End, like StJames, Piccadilly. Whitworth sent copies of
the bill and his pamphlet and personal letters to vestries, keeping them
informed of the progress of the bill. For example, in January 1774, Lord
'ftevor told the vestry of St George, Hanover Square, that he had received a
copy of the Westminster night watch bill from Whitworth. The vestry con-
sidered the bill at their next weekly meeting. The Hanover Square vestrymen
found the reforms acceptable but insisted that implementation and admin-
istration of law enforcement must be left to vestries.
They also proposed some amendments: a minimum wage of £18.5s.Od.
per year for watchmen, paid 'at the Discretion of the Vestries of each Parish';
that the watch rate should be determined 'according to a Pound Rate
upon all Occupiers of Houses', not assessed on the yearly rent or value of
houses; that the meetings of the watch committees could be limited to the
first week of the month 'but that the particular day be left to the Discretion
of the Board'. Finally, the vestry was 'willing to admit additional Watchmen,
under the Name of Patrols; but as to the~articular Duty, they desire it may
be left to the Judgement of each Vestry'. The vestrymen also stated: 'They
are of [the] Opinion that a Qause should be added for the Protection of
Watchmen, etc. when on their Duty; and to make it highly Penal, to assault,
or resist them.'^61 They wanted watchmen afforded a legal status similar to
that of constables. Th assault an officer of the law in the course of his
duty was a more serious offence than assaulting a private person.^62
From these suggestions, this vestry was clearly jealous of its authority over
its night watch.
In April 1774, Whitworth notified the Hanover Square vestry 'that the
Committee on his Watch Bill would meet after the [Easter] Holidays and
that he would send Notice of the day'. The vestry ordered a fresh copy of
their suggestions sent to Whitworth and to those vestrymen who were
members of the House of Commons. The vestry instructed their clerk to
inform them that the vestry 'desires their Attendance' at the committee.
Whitworth had convinced the vestry to lobby on behalf of his bill.^63
In May Mr Parry, vestry clerk for Hanover Square, reported he had
attended the parliamentary committee meeting on the night watch bill. The
committee had adopted the recommendation that the minimum wage for
watchmen be expressed as an annual instead of a daily wage.^64 While