Westminster, 1720-39 13as magistrates, centralized for the sake of better communication, more
administrative efficiency, and increased resources? By the late eighteenth
century, this debate about jurisdiction would be argued in terms of central
versus local government; for most of the eighteenth century, the debate was
among local authorities, as was the case in Westminster. The central govern-
ment, especially Parliament, was a resource for these authorities and an
arena where disputes and conflicts could be resolved. To be sure, Parliament
favoured the more prosperous at the expense of middling and lower-ranked
citizens. But this was not always the case, as the Burgesses found in 1720.
Conflicts about jurisdiction were the result of the mixed and overlapping
nature of English local government. Justices of the Peace were key figures
standing between central and local administration and particularly in the
administration of the criminal law. The Bench of Justices for each county or
borough met four times a ~ear, in Quarter Sessions, as a court for both civil
and criminal proceedings.^2 In petty sessions, with two or three magistrates
sitting, JPs had considerable authority in a wide variety of civil and criminal
matters.^43 Yet because of their positions as officers of the Crown, magistrates
were to a certain extent supervisors rather than executors of day-to-day
administration. Such everyday responsibility in London, outside the City,
fell to parish vestries.
Even with their broad responsibilities and power in local affairs, parish
authorities were dependent on local magistrates for final approval of rates
and the appointment of parish officers. If a ratepayer or pauper disagreed
with parochial officials, they could appeal for redress to the justices. While
the vestry often provided the immediate supervision of parish officials, their
actions were reviewed by magistrates. For example, the parish constable
might have been nominated for election by the parish inhabitants, or
drawn from a list of inhabitants, but the parish had no legal control over
him. His responsibility was to the High Constable of the hundred and to
the justices who appointed him and before whom he was sworn.... He
was a legitimate peace officer, an officer of the law, within his district, by
long and incontrovertible usage recognised as the proper minister of the
justices to execute their warrants and attend their courts.^44Local power and responsibility were shared between the magistrates and
parochial authorities; both were involved in policing, in the broad eight-
eenth-century sense and the narrower modem sense. They provided the
services of municipal government and were charged with the prevention
and detection of crime. The 1720 Bill was a general attempt to resolve the
question of jurisdiction over the night watch in favour of the magistrates. Its
failure was a measure of the growing power of parish vestries in Westminster.
Given the increasingly aristocratic make-up of West End vestries, they often
had direct access to Parliament. Many vestries made a point of having MPs