SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE COMMON COUNCIL.
ANOTHER of our old institutions is doomed. Another time-honoured privilege is to be torn from the reluctant grasp of the Common Councilmen of the City of London, and the Lord Mayor will be left without even a dozen of police- men to be symbolized by the man in armour. What Sir Robert Peel could not do in the plenitude of his power, a third-rate barrister, as the Morning Advertiser politely denominates Sir George Grey, now threatens with every prospect of success. In this ominous, not to say alarming, conjuncture, the philosophic inquirer pores anxiously over the history of the past in the hope of discovering the fatal error in the august policy of the aldermen which has led them to such a catastrophe, and of warning them against similar weak- ness in the future. For at first sight it must be confessed their policy has not been deficient in prudence. Clinging to the traditions of their splendid history, they originally refused to part with their bedels, and constables, and watchmen. Within the bounds of the City the good old rule of Dogberry and Verges still prevailed, and " Charley's" were maintained for fast young men to bonnet. But when it became evident that the policeman was a popular institution, and that the ordinary Englishman preferred safety for person and property - to the poetry of the watchman's rattle, they hastened to reform their constabulary on the model of the new Metropolitan force. Yet the same Corporation, which thus deferred to popular feeling, haughtily refused assistance, even from the military, when a procession was to traverse their imperiwn in irnperio, and, as the event proved, en- dangered the safety of the Prince of Wales and his bride. Hasty observers have concluded that this apparent inconsistency was the result of a narrow desire to retain an exclusive privilege and to gratify their vanity by the exercise of a petty local power. For ourselves, we think more nobly of the aldermanic soul, and are convinced that their conduct has been the expression of a deep, though mistaken policy. The fact is the aldermen are too exclusively classical in their reading. They have drawn their maxims of state from Juvenal, and have allowed themselves to be wrapt in the literature of the past until they have forgotten the altered circumstances of Europe. They fancied that while they were not terrible to the cobblers they might in safety reek with the blood of the Lamite—or that, in other words, so long as the police force was efficient enough to satisfy- the scot and lot voters, it did not matter a straw about upsetting the Princess Alexandra. One cannot help regretting that so lofty and classical a prin- ciple of action should not have succeeded ; but even its warmest admirers must admit that it is scarcely suited to the times. Nowadays an abuse may last a long time if it wrongs only the poor and ignorant, but if it attracts public attention by molesting one of the great of the earth it is doomed. We sympathize with the aldermen's taste in literature ; but it is a pity that one of them could not tear himself from Juvenal to read Sidney Smith. The Canon foretold that railway accidents would cease directly a Bishop had been killed, and we very much fear that when the Princess of Wales put out her hand to prevent a man's head from being jammed against her carriage, the Corporation of London, so far as their exclusive police force goes, killed their Bishop. Into the minor causes which led to the confusion in front of the Mansion House it is scarcely worth while to enter. Yet it will be well to pause for an instant over what Alder- man Sidney—whose words carry instantaneous conviction to every unbiassed mind—pointed out in the House of Commons as the chief source of the mishap. The City authorities were not allowed to lead the procession further than Temple Bar. What was the consequence ? That every one thronged into the City to see the procession, while it still possessed its chief attraction. Thus all precautions were rendered unavailing, and the honours of the Corporation are shorn from them because they have sought, and successfully sought, for cen- turies to appear in majestic yet attractive state in the eyes of their countrymen. Alas ! it is not for their defects or short- comings that either nations or individuals or corporations suffer most. It is natural to desire to please, yet the Italian poet lamented the fatal gift of beauty which attracted the barbarians across the Alps :— " Yet Vane could tell what woes from beauty spring, And Sedley cursed the form that pleased a king."
Even the Lord Mayor Rose and the City aldermen cannot escape the common lot. They go forth in state to dazzle the populace by their splendour, and they prosper only too well. As Mrs. Kenwigs pensively remarked of the five Misses Kenwigs, they were "too beautiful," and, as a consequence, Sir George Grey is going to rob them of the management of the City police.
But one is glad to learn that the august victims endure their misfortunes with calmness and dignity, and, if we may adopt the language of Burke, "that beings born for suffering should suffer well." No sooner had my Lord Mayor re- ceived the letter, in which the Home Secretary recommended that the vacant post of Commissioner of City Police should remain unfilled until an Act which was speedily to be brought before Parliament should have been disposed of, than he summoned the Court of Common Council to partake his cares. Nothing cpuld surpass the dignity with which the o itraged councillors listened to that fatal missive. Some signs of disapprobation its conclusion elicited, but Mr. Deputy Harrison—vir pietas gratis—rose amid the troubled councilmen, and hushed every murmur as he announced that he "was prepared to treat the letter with every possible respect." He did not condescend to express any opinion on the questions which it involved. With majestic self-denial he declined to "raise a discussion on the matter of privilege," —he moved that it be referred to the Police Committee. A proposition so happily uniting prudence with dignity met with general support. Among the speakers in its favour was Dr. Abraham, who remarked that "they had been brought into a most unfortunate state of things by circumstances over which they had no control." This opens a world of conjecture. Certainly, we had understood Alderman Sidney, when he lamented the attractiveness of the City authorities, to allude chiefly to their carriages, and banners, and the liveries of their footmen ; but surely it cannot be said that the City has no control over these ? Can it really have been the personal love- liness of himself and his brother aldermen on which their Par- liamentary spokesman was insisting ? But no. Dr. Abraham was clearly carried away by his enthusiasm, or, perhaps, as his name would indicate, is of that ancient faith which would naturally not be much shocked at any misadventure which could, even in the most metaphorical way, be described as killing a Bishop.
Meanwhile, having respectfully expressed our deep sym- pathy with the Corporation in the position in which they are placed, we hope to be permitted to point out a few elements of comfort, which may serve in some degree as a set-off against the loss of power with which they are threatened. Their privilege, in the first place, is absolutely valueless— the exclusive right to hunt ticket-of-leave men with your own policemen within a small given district is one which can confer, as it would seem, no gratification on any human being but a professional thief-taker. Aldermen must be very differently constituted from other men, if they apply them- selves to the details of police administration with any real gusto. In the meantime their privilege, being an extremely inconvenient one to other people, brings them into perpetual odium. Whenever anything goes wrong, it will always be attributed to the defects of their exclusive force —and, in most cases, justly. A small force like theirs will always be managed more or less as a snug little family concern, and will thus be less efficient than a large, though not unwieldy one, like the Metropolitan police. Again, the mere existence of a little separate jurisdiction in the heart of another is in itself no small practical evil—the thief, whose haunts are well known to the police, and who can pretty Teadily be found when wanted, goes away into a sort of terra incognita as soon as he passes Temple Bar ; and however well the two forces may work together, can scarcely be traced from a mere verbal description. For these reasons, we think that their privi- lege is always likely to be a source of weakness rather than strength to the Corporation. And if anything of a desire for vengeance lurks in aldermanic minds, we may suggest to them that when Sir Richard Mayne has attained to universal dominion, he is not unlikely to find that he has lost a very useful buffer. His own little weaknesses may come then to be scrutinized with a more eager jealousy, and his didactic Scotland-yard proclamations cease to be passed over with the same easy toleration. Besides, let the Corporation bethink them of the conservancy of the Thames. They lost their privilege ; but what a deal of abuse they escaped at the same time ! True, they no longer go swanhopping; but are they the worse off on that account ? And if they do not mind a time-honoured fallacy like post hoc, propter hoc, they can always boast that so long as they conserved the Thames, it did not "smell so very bad." Above all, let them be assured that public opinion has long ago pronounced upon the subject, and that if they could, by any chance, succeed in postponing so very necessary a reform, they would only be hastening that evil day when the fate which has befallen every other corpor- ation in the United Kingdom shall overtake them—when they will have to account for the expenditure of the moneys they receive—when Mansion-house dinners shall be no more, and turtle and whitebait but a lovely dream.
Previous page
