Interesting. But there's a couple of features in there that make me leery of relying on this.

First, the table there is tracking convictions at jury. Clearance rates, especially for property crime, have never to my knowledge been high; if we assume similar figures they'd be undercounting reported crimes (most comparable to the crime statistics we're familiar with) by a factor of three to five, and undercount committed crimes by more. That isn't necessarily a good assumption, though, and there's the rub: we can't use conviction rates to estimate crime rates unless we know something about how likely cases were to make it through the system.

Second, buried in the bottom of that page there's a sentence saying that about 17,000 summary convictions (excluding some minor fines) were imposed independently by police magistrates. No information on type, which means the table would further undercount crimes by some unknown proportion depending on how likely summary punishment was. But 17,000 is roughly four times the total jury convictions cited, so it'd probably be large.

I haven't been able to find another source going back to the 1830s yet, but this data suggests that as many murders were recorded in London in the late Victorian era as in the mid-Sixties, when population was about 20% higher. (Population in 1838 was much lower -- the city grew hugely over the 19th century.)