Why 1829? 133are the same in every district; -why, then, should not the Legislature at
once, out of the various modes of parochial police, adopt that which is
best, and establish an uniform and consistent police practice through the
whole metropolis? There would be nothing new nor encroaching in
the attempt; the city of London and every parish has already submitted
to the interference of Parliament, as we have before observed, in the
regulation of watchmen, patrols, and coffee-houses.^32Wade proceeded to list the ~dvantages of a General and Consolidated
Police', all relating to the efficiency of London's police. First, Wade insisted
that good policing needed clear definitions of authority and responsibility.
With decentralized policing, 'an ill-defined mass of duties are attached to the
police, which creates a temptation to negligence, and holds up a screen for
misconduct'.^33 Second, he argued centralization allows for the establishment
of 'an uniform and consistent code of regulations and discipline through the
whole police department'.
Wade noted that centralization would make it easier to prevent corruption
among police officers 'by removing them periodically, or otherwise, from one
district to another'. Wade saw this as preventing undesirable 'connexions'
from developing between police and policed. In addition to improving the
honesty of the police, a centralized police force would enhance impartiality
because 'the head office' would be able 'to select and organize classes of
persons best qualified' for the various tasks and functions to be performed.
The public would then 'more readily submit to their inquisition, knowing
they proceed without fear or favour ... and that they were responsible to a
higher power for the just exercise of their authority'.^34 Centralized super-
vision would enhance the diligence, discipline and impartiality of watchmen
and patrols. 'The men would be instructed in their duty, they would know
they were placed under a vigilant superintendence, that they would be
protected in the proper discharge of their functions, and infallibly punished
for abuse or neglect.'^35 Wade welcomed the abolition of parish constables.
The use of deputies was more trouble than it was worth and the mixture of
amateur and professional constables did not enhance the effectiveness of
these officers as a body. 'We should esteem the new system extremely
imperfect, unless an effective substitute be found for this decayed remnant
of an antiquated institution.' Wade's clinching practical argument was that 'a
general police' would be cheaper. But cheaper did not necessarily mean
lower rates:
Should, however, the direct charge of the police be greater, the community
would be more than compensated in the augmented security of persons
and property, in the decrease of depredations, and diminution of the
expense of criminal prosecutions, so that a real saving would accrue to
the public ....^36