The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-17 00:00:00

they put forward to guard and to see that others
observe. Some cases of police misconduct have
lately been brought under the notice of a magistrate,
and treated with the most extraordinary lenity.
This is not the way to manage matters to insure
the confidence of the public, or to win that respect
for constituted authority which is so very desirable.
The offences with which these men were charged
were such as to deserve some heavier punishment
than a mild reprimand, and it seems, indeed, strange
that nothing more was awarded to them. It is a
poor and pitiful excuse to urge on behalf of an
officer entrusted with a public duty to say that he
lost his temper. It may be true or not that he be-
came irritated and acted on the hasty impulse of the
moment ; but such conduct is most culpable, and
may involve the most serious consequences to indi-
viduals, besides militating against public order and
propriety. In one case a policeman cruelly as-
saulted a poor old man with little or no provoca-
tion ; indeed the gaoler told the magistrate that
the sufferer was in such a condition from the
bruises he had met with that it was advisable to
send him to the hospital. It is going a great deal
too far to excuse such conduct as this on the score
of loss of temper, and the example thus held out to
others not to restrain their indignation, or to put no
check on their temper if exposed to provocation—
real or imaginary—is very deplorable. There is
nothing which policemen should guard against with
more circumspection than the inconsiderate use of
their truncheons, and if the cases appear isolated
ones in which such abuses occur, it is not the less
incumbent upon the administrators of the law to
check them, and to interpose what checks they may.
The second case is one in which a policeman took a
man into custody on the charge of " interfering
with him in the execution of his duty ;" and yet it
was proved that the defendant had only remon-
strated with him for pushing a woman fiercely along.
In consequence of this affront the policeman be-
haved in the most violent and abusive manner, and
fiercely took him into custody. In this instance,
also, the magistrate affirmed that the policeman had
" lost.his temper," and all he did to mark his sense
of the aggravated offence was to discharge the pri-
soner. Another case was brought forward, in which
three policemen were detected drinking in a public-
house, and the magistrate observed that the commis-
sioners had fined or:would fine them for the offence.
If such grave derelictions from duty as these cases
just cited are to be passed over sub silentio, as it were,
on the part of the authorities, it is time that in-
quiries should be made into the matter. It is an
insult to the common sense and the right feeling of
the community that loss of temper should condone
grave interference with personal liberty, and savage
attacks on old and defenceless persons. Such an
interpretation of the law will not do, especially as
applied to those who ought to be its guardians and
protectors. There is but one remark to make in
sucl a case, and that is, that those whose infirmity
of temper engenders want of self-control and
proper respect for the decencies of society, have no
business to take a responsible office upon them, and
should be dismissed from the performance of duties
so ill performed for the interests of society and their
own credit.