The Express.
London, England, 1863-04-22 00:00:00

HIM MM .& AT lAMB= MED.&

MN D&T —Karefas. 160......A11arre5. 41t.
Ibarcebew—Mornim Att. Oit.....ADerrass. IL Us.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL Z 2.

APART from the appeal to authority, the only
argument urged by Sir Gnome Gm in support of
the Bill for amslgarnang the City police with the
Metropolitan police is the limited area of the City,
and, therefore, of the municipal jurisdiction com-
pared with that of other cities and corporations.
The Right Hon. Gentleman pointed out, what is
no doubt perfectly true, that the Municipal Re-
form Act, while enlarging the municipal authority
in other cities and boroughs of the kingdom,
which had outgrown their ancient limits, and
thus including the new districts with the old under
one local government, had left the ancient boun-
daries and the local government of the City of
London untouched. This exceptional position of
the City in relation to the adjacent and outlying
districts of the metropolis is, no doubt, true as •
fact, though, as Alderman fironsr reminded the
House last night, the OM of the City was in this
respect hardly quite so unique as the advocates of
amalgamation represent it to be. The City of
Manchester, for example, partially surrounds the
borough of Salford, the dividing line running
through • densely populated district, yet
each has its own police force, under the control
of • separate local government, and the plan of a
divided authority over a force locally continuous
works without confusion or complaint of any kind.
The city of Manchester bas never attempted, in vir-
tue of its larger area, to usurp authority over the
adjacent borough, and any each attempt
would, it may be safely assumed, be
promptly and effectually resisted. But even
allowing the exceptional character of the City
in this respect to the fullest extent, it is
difficult to see how the fact of a limited central
area can be used as an argument in favour of the
proposed amalgamation. At first sight, indeed, it
would probably appear in the eyes of most un-
biassed judges to tell the other way. If through-
out the enormous extent of the metropolis the
system of local self-government in the matter of
police is represented in the limited area of the
City alone, this would seem to be a powerful argu-
ment in favour of maintaining it in full vigour and
efficiency. But how the oomparative imialluessof area
to which a system admirable both in itself and in
its results happens to be restricted, should be
arra as a reason for its destruction, we do not
understand. Had Sir Grozos Gm attempted
to show that the system was necessarily inefficient,
that it failed to provide the security for life and
property for which it was established, or was in-
compatible with the full enjoyment of this security
in the adjacent districts, his resecning would have
been intelligible. But be brought's° charge of general
inefficiencyagainst the City Police. On the contrary,
the Hone Sacarrzar's historical review of the
legislation and inquiries of the last thirty years
told rather in favour of the efficiency of the City
Police. When Sir R. Pm brought in his measure
in 1829, the City of London was excepted from its
provisions expressly because its system of local
defence was so greatly superior in efficiency to
that prevailing in the adjacent City of Westminster.
The system in both at the time was that of the old
watch. Under the new system, however, the Metro-
politest force soon became emporia to the old
City watch, and on this ground, ten years later,
Lord JOHN Ruseat.c proposed to extend the new
system to the City. The City, however, success-
fully resisted the proposal, and at the same time
wisely reformed its system of defence by substitut-
ing a highlyefficient police force for the old watch.
That system has worked so well that for upwards
of twenty yearn, until last night indeed, no attempt
at amalgamation has been subsequently made.
Now if • system of government ad-
mitted on all hands to be admirable in
itself, and proved by a quarter of a century's
experience to be efficient in practior, is to be sud-
denly assailed, and if possible destroyed, there
ought at least to be some strong reasons for suck
a summary proceeding. We fail to discover any
such reasons in Sir Growls Garr's statement.
The plea of economy recently urged in some quo&
ten he very justly dismissed in a sentence as not
only trivial bat irrelevant. The coat of the City
police is the affair of the citizens, and if they do
not complain, if, on the contrary, they are pa-

fectly s►tisfied, it is idle for others to urge that
there is any grievance on this rode.
After all, the only ground for the istroductite of
the Bill to be gathered from Sir GlOlOll Gases
speech, is the partial failure of the City police ar-
rangementa on the night of the illuminations. It
is quite true that Sir Geonog verbally disclaimed
being influenced by this motive, but it is, never-
theless, the only practical reason urged in support
of the Bill the Government have introduced. We
must say it appears to us as unjust as it is ungene-
rous that any attempt should be made to take ad-
vantage of the feeling which the accidents in the
City naturally produced. The failure of the arrange-
ments made by the Metropolitan police on that
night was even more conspicuous, though fortu-
nately not attended with any fatal result. It ought
to be remembered moreover that, only a few
months ago, during the garotting panic, the
authorities who now rashly condemn the City
police, as rashly denounced the Metropolitan force
as utterly inefficient, and for all practical pur-
poses worthless. Temporary failure of this sort,
even if it can be proved, is no valid argument
whatever in favour of organic change.