Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

there is much consolation in reflecting that the reality of the disaster has proved during the past two years much less serious than the anticipation-that if there has been much suffering, there have been also no inconsiderable compensations, and that, although the calamity which has befallen a province has been severe, the strength and stamina of the nation have been unimpaired. With these grounds of encouragement in the past, to despond for the future would be alike thankless and unreasonable.

CHAPTER VI.

The case of the City of London Police-Complaints of its inefficiency on the entry of the Prince of Wales and Princess Alexandra into London-Bill introduced by Sir George Grey to amalgamate it with the Metropolitan Police-Vigorous opposition of the Corporation to this measure-Appeal to the other municipal bodies to resist the invasion of corporate privileges-Debates in Parliament-Objection taken that the measure should have been introduced as a Private Bill-Being referred to the examiners it is so decided, and the Bill is dropped-The Exhibition Building of 1862 -Votes proposed by the Government for purchase of the structure and site-On the proposition of Lord Palmerston a vote for the latter is agreed to, but the purchase of the building is warmly opposed-An excited debate terminates in the rejection of the vote by a large majority-Fortification of the arsenals and dockyards -Objections taken to the outlay for this purpose by Sir F. Smith, Mr. Cobden, Mr. B. Osborne, and other members-Vindication of the measure by Lord Clarence Paget and Lord Palmerston-The required sum voted-Affairs of Ireland-Agricultural distress in that country-Alleged disproportion of taxation-Motion of Colonel Dunne for inquiry resisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and negatived -Question of land tenure and relation of landlord and tenant-Motion of Mr. Maguire for a Royal Commission-Opposed on the part of the Government by Lord Palmerston and rejected by a decisive majority-Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) BillAffairs of British India-Satisfactory advance of that country in commerce, revenue, and general prosperity-Remarkable improvement in the public finances-The Budget for India laid before the House of Commons by Sir Charles Wood-Highly favourable account of the financial and political condition of the country-Debate on the sale of waste lands and redemption of the land tax-Policy of the Government vindicated by the Minister-Law reform-Measures of the Session-Scheme of the Lord Chancellor for a comprehensive revision and digest of Common and Statute Law-Bill passed for relieving the Statute Book from a great number of obsolete Acts-Further reforms postponed-End of the Session-Parliament prorogued by Commission on the 28th of July-The Royal Speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor-Character and results of the Session-General review of the events of the year-Its commercial features-Changes in the money market-Large amount of speculative enterprise-Trade returns-Revenue-Conclusion.

THE most animated debates in Parliament are not always those which involve issues of great national importance. In most Sessions questions are found to arise which, although they have merely a local, or it may be only a personal, bearing, are discussed as warmly, and excite as keen party feelings, as measures involving the widest interests of public policy. Such was the case in the present year in regard to two propositions of the Government, which met with a

M

vigorous and, in the end, a successful resistance from their opponents in the House of Commons. The first was an attempt made by Sir George Grey, the Secretary for the Home Department, to set aside the jurisdiction, in an important branch of their administration, of that ancient and potent municipality the Corporation of London. Exempted originally from the Act by which the other municipal bodies of the kingdom were reformed and regulated in the reign of William IV., the City of London, though visited by a Commission of Inquiry, and made the subject of various attempts at legislation, had hitherto successfully withstood the attempts of Parliament to control its authority or regulate its finances; and it seemed as if repeated failures had made Ministers cautious of venturing on any further interference with the civic privileges. There was, however, one branch of municipal jurisdiction which had been peculiarly open to the charge of inefficiency and inconvenience. The City, comprising within its limits a very inconsiderable portion of the metropolitan area, maintained a separate police establishment, having a distinct organization, and no unity of action with the much greater force under the Police Commissioners of the Metropolis. The embarrassment arising from this circumstance, the increased expense and diminished efficiency of the double system, the facilities of escape which it afforded to criminals, and the actual danger which in any critical emergency might arise from the want of combination between the two forces, had been a matter of frequent animadversion and complaint, both in and out of Parliament. An occasion now arose which, in the opinion of many persons, afforded strong confirmation to these views, and made the application of some remedy imperative. At the entry of the Princess of Wales into the metropolis, of which a full account is given in another part of this work, much confusion and difficulty arose in conducting the royal cortége from London-bridge towards Temple-bar from the great pressure of the crowd, which impeded the advance of the procession, getting between and almost under the feet of the horses, clinging about the royal carriage, and occasioning considerable alarm to the attendants on the royal party. This disorder, it was alleged, was entirely due to insufficiency of force, or want of proper organization on the part of the City police, a charge which received colour from the fact that, as soon as the cortége had cleared Temple-bar, no further difficulty or interruption was experienced, the enormous crowd was kept under perfect control, and for the remainder of their progress the royal party were in smooth water. These accusations were, however, warmly repelled by the City authorities and their partisans; the alleged incompetency of their police was stoutly denied, and the blame of the confusion, which beyond all controversy had occurred, was thrown upon those by whom the arrangements of the procession had been, it was said, injudiciously devised. The subject excited a warm controversy in the public press-the City authorities loudly vindicated their own conduct, and called upon the other

municipal bodies of the kingdom to stand by them and make common cause against the calumnies with which they were assailed, and the interference with which their privileges were threatened. On the other hand, there was a strong demonstration of opinion adverse to the City, and pressing questions were put to the Ministers in Parliament as to their intention of doing something for the removing of a public inconvenience and scandal. A few days after the occurrence of the scene above described, a conversation took place in the House of Lords on the subject, originating with Lord Dalhousie, who asked whether the Government intended to take any steps to consolidate the Metropolitan and City police; the noble lord particularly dwelt on the shortcomings of the City police on the occasion of the recent royal procession, and urged the propriety of amalgamating the City and Metropolitan police services as the only means of preventing the recurrence of such scenes.

Lord GRANVILLE stated that the Home Secretary had written to the Lord Mayor in reference to the matter, but no answer had yet been received. Means had been employed, however, to gain the required information, but until it was obtained it was impossible to foretell what course the Government would pursue.

The Duke of CAMBRIDGE explained the steps he had taken to induce the City authorities to accept a military force for preserving order on the occasion of the entry of the Princess Alexandra into the City. He contended that the Metropolitan and City forces should be amalgamated, and under the control of one instead of two authorities. Having spoken very highly of the services of the Metropolitan force, he concluded by alluding to the employment of Volunteers in keeping order in a crowd, and deprecated any such employment.

Lord TAUNTON (who had been one of the Royal Commissioners of Inquiry, in 1838, into the municipal affairs of the Corporation) was strongly in favour of the amalgamation of the two forces, and hoped that the Government would introduce a Bill for that purpose before the end of the Session.

Lord OVERSTONE considered that the answer of Lord Granville was very unsatisfactory, and hoped that the strong feeling of both Houses of Parliament would stir up the moral courage of the Government to interfere with the City authorities on the subject.

In the House of Commons similar opinions were expressed by several members, among whom Sir De Lacy Evans took a prominent part, and much urgency was used to induce the Government to propose a legislative remedy. Under these circumstances the Home Secretary was induced to take up the subject, and on the 21st of April moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the amalgamation of the City of London police with the Metropolitan police. He observed that this was not a new question, and that the result of inquiries had shown a remarkable unanimity of opinion. The measure he was about to propose was not founded upon what had occurred on the 7th of March, though the mismanagement or want

of management upon that occasion proved that the opinions he had referred to were not theoretical, but were confirmed by facts. He read extracts from the Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Municipal Corporations, and of the Committee of that House, into the operation of the Metropolitan police in 1838, both concurring in the opinion that the police of the metropolis should be placed under one head, subject to the authority of the Secretary of State. He read likewise an extract from the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Corporation of the City of London in 1854, who came to a similar conclusion in favour of a combined system; all these authorities feeling that the City of London now formed only a small portion of that great area which constituted the metropolis. Adverting to the powers of resistance possessed by the Corporation of London when an attempt was made upon its supposed rights, he expressed a hope that the House would not be influenced thereby, but would exercise its own judgment, and consider whether the measure would conduce to the general interests of the public.

The measure was warmly opposed at this preliminary stage by the representatives of the Corporation in the House, among whom the Lord Mayor and Mr. Alderman Sidney were most prominent. The former declared that a more unconstitutional proposition than this had never been introduced into the House; it would place, he said, 10,000 armed men under the control of the Secretary of State. The police was essentially a local force, and he maintained that the City of London police was in every respect more efficient than the Metropolitan. Believing this, the Corporation would resist this attack upon their most cherished rights of self-government.

Alderman SIDNEY protested against a standing army of police in the kingdom under the authority of a Secretary of State. The City cost the country nothing for its police, and he wanted to know what was the reason of this great alteration, for which Sir G. Grey had assigned only the diminutive area of the City, the population of which was not, however, to be measured by the number of its actual residents. The Bill would raise a question in every city and borough in the country, which would perceive that it was one that affected their own interests. The measure would be flagrantly inconsistent unless it were applied to Manchester, and, if it was applied, it would be repugnant to the principle of local selfgovernment.

The Corporation did not want some efficient supporters in the debate, independently of its own members. Mr. Crawford, and the other representatives of the City, declared their intention of opposing the Bill. Sir George Bowyer, Mr. Hibbert, and Sir H. Stracey objected to it, as founded on the obnoxious principle of centralization, and inimical to local self-government. The City found also an able champion in Mr. Bovill, who observed that the matter did not affect simply the City of London; the introduction of the proposed system would be imme

diately applied throughout the country. There was no instance in which the City police had failed; they discharged their duties most efficiently. There was no paramount necessity for the measure, and, as to the expense, the City paid for its own police, and the citizens did not complain of the expense. The 7th of March was an extraordinary occasion. The proper step would have been to employ 400 Life Guards; but they could not be furnished. No blame, however, attached to the City of London.

On the other hand, Lord Alfred Paget, who, as one of the Royal Equerries, had been in close attendance on the carriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales on the occasion, delivered a temperate and unvarnished account of the confusion which had occurred, fully substantiating the fact, whatever the cause of it might be, of a deficiency of strength and organization on the part of the City police, which had well-nigh led to serious consequences, and expressing distinctly his own opinion that an amalgamation of the two constabularies was required.

Mr. Ayrton and Mr. Sergeant Pigott treated the question as one not really affecting the great principle of municipal selfgovernment or the rights of other corporations; and after a warm discussion leave was given to bring in the Bill.

No sooner was it introduced, however, than it encountered a strenuous opposition. The City, relying on the many powerful organs and influences at its command, threw down the gauntlet at once to the Government, and sounded the alarm of invaded privileges in every borough of the kingdom. The controversy was described as involving the dearest and most valued rights and franchises, which not only the municipal bodies themselves, but the great communities which they represented, and the public generally, for whose benefit they were held in trust, were concerned to uphold. The appeal, though somewhat mock-heroic and inflated in its tone, was not ineffectual. The municipal bodies in most parts of the kingdom responded to the call, and their representatives in Parliament were instructed, as they valued the favour of their constituents, to support the common cause. It gradually became evident that the Ministers had to deal with an active and determined foe, whose privileges, long maintained and many times ineffectually threatened, it would be no easy task to override. It began to be whispered among the supporters of the Government that it had been wiser in the Secretary of State to have left the City alone. The balance of opinion was already inclining to their side, when a technical objection to the Ministerial Bill was started, which appeared to offer no unwelcome loophole for retreat. It was suggested that the Bill, though brought in as an ordinary public measure, fell technically within the definition of a private Bill, and in that case, there having been a non-compliance with the Standing Orders as to notices and other matters, could not be proceeded with. This objection the Government had no alternative but to refer, as in all similar cases, to the decision of

« AnteriorContinuar »