It is possible then that some watchmen became trusted and reliable figures—
more like college porters or hotel doormen than members of the flying squad.
Certainly, trials at the Old Bailey provide evidence of people calling out for the
watch’s help when they thought themselves in danger, or going to fetch the
watch when they thought they had been offended against and expected to be
helped. The woman we met earlier who was being followed late at night but
thought she and her companion were out of danger when they saw a watchman
in the distance was expressing some of the reliance that seems to have been
placed on the watch at the local level.^117 The watchman could be a valuable man
to the inhabitants of the small area he patrolled: helping them home at night;
waking them up when he found their doors or windows open, looking out for
signs of fire; and so on. His commitment to that duty was almost certainly nour-
ished by occasional tips and other rewards that filled out his meagre salary.^118
These perquisites, in turn, no doubt encouraged the watchmen to think of the
householders they served as their ‘masters’.
This language of dependency betrays the low esteem in which the post of
watchman was held and the limited authority it conferred. It helps to explain
why the watchman was something of a contemptible figure, a man who could be
mocked and made sport of with impunity. Watchmen had suffered at the hands
of the Mohocks in Anne’s reign, the gangs of upper class hooligans who exer-
cised their manhood by beating up people in the streets ofLondon.^119 The Mo-
hocks did not attack constables. Assaulting them was a reasonably serious
offence: at least it was likely to bring a charge and indictment, though not per-
haps a large fine. But constables were officers of the Crown. They took an oath
which conferred on them authority to keep the peace. Watchmen took no oath
and had little authority of their own. Their closeness to a small community,
lighting people home and doing other favours for tips, helped perhaps to di-
minish them further in some people’s eyes—an attitude expressed by a man in
his cups in Drury Lane one night in 1717 , who, when challenged by three watch-
men said to them ‘G–d d–mn you, You’ll dance all Day long after a Gentleman
to get a Pint of Drink of him’.^120
Watchmen were not, however, without support. They had—or were sup-
posed to have—a close relationship with the constables of their wards, who took
204 Policing the Night Streets
(^117) See above, text at n. 105.
(^118) One watchman knocked at a house at 4 a.m. to tell the owner his door was unlocked and got a tip
of 6 d. for his trouble from the man who turned out to be the burglar (OBSP, October 1738 , p. 144 (No. 3 ,
Pain) ). The cultivation of the relationships upon which those mutual favours depended perhaps explains
why watchmen apparently had a pact that they would not go into each other’s beats, upon pain of a fine
of six pence, ‘such a Forfeit’, one explained, ‘being customary among the Watchmen if one comes into
the other’s Beat’ (OBSP, January 1725 , p. 2 (Hewlet) ). Such a rule, if it was widely enforced, must have
applied in very specific circumstances. There are too many examples of several watchmen working
together for it to have been general.
(^119) Statt, ‘Case of the Mohocks’, 192 – 3 ; Guthrie, ‘No Truth or Very Little’, 40 – 5.
(^120) OBSP,January 1717 , p. 3 (Burdet and Winchurst).