Before the Bobbies. The Night Watch and Police Reform in Metropolitan London, 1720-1830

(^12) Before the Bobbies
each parish would be rated to maintain the watch. Parish authorities were
then to levy a rate on those who paid the poor rates. The bill explicitly stated
that these ratepayers were no longer liable 'to any watch or ward by virtue of
the Statute commonly called the Statute of Winchester', a significant step
away from the tradition of personal service in local government.
If anyone neglected or refused to pay, constables could obtain a warrant
for the distraint and sale of that person's goods. Constables were also
required to keep accounts, which would be inspected and approved annually
by the magistrates. Peace officers were liable to the distraint and sale of their
goods or imprisonment if they did not present correct accounts. The final
clause stipulated that the bill would not infringe on the status and privileges
of the Corporation of the City of London.
The Nightly Watch Bill was approved by the House of Commons on
8 April 1720 but was voted down in the Lords. The Dean and Chapter of
Westminster Abbey opposed the Bill on the grounds that 'if the same should
pass, [it) will be very prejudicial to their ancient Rights and Privileges'. The
Burgesses of Westminster likewise petitioned against the bill because it
divested them of their authority over the watch, which they felt had been
used 'for the Ease and benefitt of the Inhabitants .. .'.^36
Supporting the Bill were the parishes of St James, Piccadilly; St Paul,
Covent Garden; St Margaret, Westminster; St Clement Danes; and the
Middlesex magistrates. The Piccadilly and Covent Garden petitions argued
that recent street robberies resulted 'from the Want of a regular and suffi-
cient Watch' and asked 'That Care may be taken to prevent the like Rob-
beries for the future'.^37 Uke these parishioners, the magistrates were
concerned about property crime and social order. The bill's proponents
came from both sides of the reformation of manners campaigns. Not all
magistrates supported the volunteer societies that sprang up to prosecute
those found profaning the Sabbath, drunk, cursing, or other 'lewd, enormous
and disorderly practices'?^8 Now, however, the growing concern about more
serious crime overrode previous divisions and at least 34 JPs were united in
their desire to remove control of the night watch from the Burgesses.^39 It was
to no avail-the Lords rejected the bill on 20 May 1720.^40 The Abbey and
the Burgesses won this round.
Even in defeat this bill illustrates some of the themes in police reform. The
first is the question of who is in charge. The 1720 bill proposed that justices
of the peace act as the governing body of the watch instead of the various
local bodies, not unlike the way the poor law was administered.^41 A signific-
ant part of the debate about police reform concerned the issue of who should
make policy, set regulations, and oversee funding for law enforcement.
Should police authority be in the hands of local officials, who had
better knowledge of local needs and would be more accountable to local
ratepayers, or should it be conferred on officials with wider jurisdiction, such