The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-11-05 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

THE WATCH COMMITTEE AND THE LATE
HEAD-CONSTABLE.

We must say that we have seldom approached a subject
with greater difficulty—with greater regret, that the
duty should be imposed upon us,—than we now approach
the consideration of the questions
hat issue between Mr.
Miller, one late Head-constable, and the Watch Corn•
mittee. Upon the appointment of this gentleman to his
onerous and important office, we imagined that we re-
cognised, in his character and reputed fitness, abundant
motives for his selection by the Watch Committee. We
advocated his claims accordingly ; and, up to a very
recent period, we have been under the impression that he
was fulfilling the expectations of that committee and of
the town Tie event of his retirement, even, we regarded
as only attribtrable to a mistake, on his part, of his duties,
arid a wrong impression as to the extent to which he was
subject to the controlling power of the Committee. Upon
this subject we knew that differences had arisen, which
we trusted that the good sense of Mr. Miller would ena-
ble him to reconcile with the perfect peribrmance of his
duty. Entertaining these views, we regretted the ne-
cessity which he felt of resigning his trust, and were pre-
pared to pert with him in the perfect conviction that he
had done his utmost to earn the respect, even although he
could not fulfil the expectations, nt the body by whom he
was appointed.
We would willingly have been left under these impres-
sions, as, we are sure, would the '\arch Committee.
But—oh what a curse it is to have injudicious advisers,
or a headstrong temper!—Mr. Miller has not been con-
tent with the considerate manner in which the reasons
for his retirement hive been sought to he placed before
the public by the Watch Committee, but has rushed into
print, with an evident inclination to provoke a contro-
versy and a sifting of the whole subject of his conduct in
the office which he held. With the letter from him which
has resulted it is now our duty to deal ; and being driven
by himself to the performance of that duty, he cannot
complain if we do it unreservedly.
Mr. Millecwishes it to be understood that the sole
ground of his offence is his disobe.yal of express orders
on the day of the laying of the foundation stone of the
docks at Birkenhead. Of the precise degree of his cul-
pability, here, more anon. In the meantime we must beg
to remind him that. although with the charitable intent
to allow his character to go forth to the world with as
little damage as possible, his admitted neglect, or viola-
tion of orders on this occasion was alleged by the Watch
Committee as the ground of their diss?rtisfaction with
him, it was not, as he must well know, the only ground.
Mr. Miller was not discharged because of his proceedings
on that day. A select committee had for a week pre-
viously, as was well known, through the press, and par-
ticularly well known to himself, been sitting to inquire
into the general conduct of the police, his own conduct
included. On the very day of his admitted delinquency,
the general committee had been summoned, by the secre-
tary's letter, dated four days previously, to, receive the
report of the special committee. It was received during
his absence from the duties prescribed to him on that
day; and we state without reservation that. wi h that re-
port before it, independent of any thing else, the Board
could have had no other alternative than that of enforcing
Mr. Miller's removal from his office. The late head coe-
stable therefore is a little disneenuous when he makes use
of the Board's kind consideration for his own future pros-
pects, to raise a charge of undtre severity against him.
And now, with respect to the circumstances under
which Mr. Miller went to Birkenhead, in direct contra-
riety to the orders of the Wateh Committee. We give,
at foot, his own statement, and proceed to supply the real
facts, which are a little tortured, and such parts of them
as it suits h s purpose to conceal suppressed by him.
An application was made to the Watch Committee of
Liverpool, by the Birkenhead commissioners, for a num-
ber of the force to attend on the occasion of the laying of
the foundation stone of the new docks, in order to prevent
any breaches of the peace which might occur. To this
application the Watch Committee acceded, by granting a
force of fifty men for the occosion, to be sent under the
superintendence of an inspector; and, on a subsequent
application from Mr Miller to be permitted to accompany
them, he was informed that the arrangements were already
made, and that an inspector was sufficient. The subsequent
proceedings of Mr. Miller are detailed in his letter sub-
joined : but some very important circumstances, bearing
materially upon the conduct of the chairman of the board,
whom Mr. Miller accuses of unauthorised interference,
are omitted to be mentioned. Mr. Miller says, correctly,
that on his return in the afternoon, he was reproved by
the daily hoard, then sitting. He was, in addition, in-
formed that he must for the remainder of the day confine
himself to the superveillance of the force in the town ;
and that the charge of the police attending at the Pier-
head and at Birkenhead was to be confided to Mr. Dow-
ling. A resolution of the daily board to that effect was
duly recorded in their minutes ; and yet Mr. Miller's
own letter acknowledges his contumacious disregard cf
its requirements.. He deliberately took upon himself to
perform Mr. Dowling's duties. He ordered an additionel
force to be sent over to Birkenhead; and, when remon-
s:rat d with by Mr. Lawrence and reminded of the res..
motion of the Committee, he persisted in refusing to faith.
draw that order. He argues in his letter, in defence Of
such refusal, that he was not subject to the individual
(Tders of the Chairman of the Watch Committee. We
say that he was at least bound to obey the resolution of
the Board itself, and abstain from interference with that
portion of the force which had been placed under the
erders of Mr. Dowling. We tell him mo:eover that Mr.
Lawrence had authority to interfere, bring null orised by
the Committee t s see their orders carried into effect ; and
we tell him, further, that Mr. Lawrence never did so in-
terfere as he has represented din doing. Mr. Lawrence
never sent back a man of the Force. Mr. Dowling, who was
in charge of the Porno, end to whom it wael ft tojudge of
the necessity of their proceeding to Birkenhead, did what
Mr. Miller states to have been so officiously done by thy
Chairman himself.

We are sorry that Mr. Miller has compelled us to enter
into these particulars, and much suspect that, in the pro-
ceedings which he has taken in this matter, he has been
misled by evil advisers. We know, and he knows himself
too, that the conduct of the board towards him has been
most considerate ; they were forbearing to the last. Wilful
men however—and he certainly appears a most wilful on.
will have their way, and must of course bear the conse-
quences. If Mr. Miller is not satisfied to do so—if he
wishes a public investigation into his case—let him de-
mand an enquiry into all the circumstances of his conduct
since he took charge of the force, and we are confident it
will not be refused him. Will he try this issue? It is a
more manly one than the course which he is at present
pursuing.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD.

SIR,—A. report of the Daly Bo ird of the Watch Com-
mittee having now been published as part of the proceed-
ings of that committee read at the last Council, wherein
I am charged with having " been guilty of a flagrant dis-
obedience of orders," I feel it necessary to the vindica-
tion of my character with the public to enter into an ex-
planation of the circumstances which led to my resigna-
tion of the offic... of Hea I•constable ; and I hope you will
allow me. the medium of your paper for that purpose.
I at once admit that my orders from the Daily Board,
with respect to the Birkenhead festival, were, that a force
of fifty men, under a superintendent. should he sent to
attend there, at,d, as readily, that I subsequently deviated
from those orders. But, under what circumstances, and
whether I was justified by them, or, at any rate, that
the committee are, not justified in using the strong expres-
sions above quoted, are points on which I confidently
appeal to the public.
Mr. Layct•ck had, previously to the festival, invited me
to breakfast wit h him on that day, which friendly invitation
I accepted. On the day before the festival, Mr. Laycock
called on me, at my office, and, after a few minutes con-
vereation and renewing his invitation, was leaving the
room, when Mr. James Lawrence and one or two other
gentlemen entered. A few words th-n passed between
them, Mr. Laycock saying, that he wished Mr. Lawrence
had permitted me to take charge of the force, and Mr.
Lawrence replying, that the committee had already granted
a force of fifty men ; and that he thought that, with a
suorrintendent, would be quite sufficient. It might be
inferred, from the report, that an application had been
made for my services, and a refusrl, "in the strongest"
terms possible," had been formally given by the Daily
Board. If so, I was not acquainted with it, and only
heard the passing conversation above alluded to.
In the evening I made what appeared to me sufficient
arrangements for preserving the peace in Liverpool ; and
the morning of the festival, I crossed over to Mr. Lay-
cock's, and with no other intention than of accepting
his invitation. and returning again to Liverpool about
ten o'clock. When the procession was forming, same con-
fusion occurred from the pressure of the multitude of
people, and I was then urged by several influential gen-
tlemen to marshall the procession. Fearing mischief
might ensue if this act were not at once promptly per-
formed, I consented, and gave my services, and, as the
first necessary step, I took the Liverpool force under my
own orders, thereby, as I admit, deviating fiom the di-
rections of the Daily Board. On my return to Liverpool,
I was called before the Daily Board and reproved for this
interference. I expressed my regret at having given
offence, but that 1 was not conscious of having acted
wrongly.
In the evening, between eight and nine o'clock, I re-
ceived official reports that the men who had been on duty
the whole of the day at Birkenhead were completely ex-
hausted ; and that the crowds of people in the streets,
and about the terry, rendered a reinforcement indispens-
able. I, therefore, acting on my own responsibility,
ordered an inspector and twenty men to proceed to Bir-
kenhead. When this additional force was on the point
of embarking, Mr. James Lawrence called at the Pentral
Station, and asked by whose authority these men were
sent. I answered, by my own. He desired me to with-
draw the order. I declined to do so, stating that I con-
ceived that 1 was carrying out the views of the committee
/).V supporting the force which they had ordered to go to
Birkenhead, and toat I did not consider lie was entitled,
in his individual capacity, to interfere. Mr. Lawrence
then left me, went down to the Pierhead, and, in direct
opposition to me, ordered the men to go back to their
beats, with the exception ()flour or five, whom he di-
rected to proceed to Birkenhead. Mr. Lawrence shortly
afterwards gave instructions for the withdrawal of the
whole force from Birkenhead. About midnight I again
saw Mr. Lawrence, when he informed me of this inter-
ference, and I then told him that he had compromised
me in the eyes of the whole force, and that I felt it was
impossible for me any longer to retain the office of Head-
constable with advantage to the public or with honour to
myself.

Had the report of the committee which is published
been confined to the result, namely, my resignation, or,
having entered into some detail, had it given an impartial
narrative of the above circumstances, I should have re-
mained silent ; but I cannot allow such reflections as it
contains to pass unnoticed. It is impossible for me, in
this limited space, to enter into any explanation of my
.general conduct. The committee and I differed as to the
extent of power and discretion which ought to be vested in
the Head-constable for the due and efficient performence