New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-12-24
THE GOYERyuENT OF LONDON.

The controversy over the proposed erection OF
Il municipality in London continues to be car
lied on with increasing energy and bitterness III
the press of that city. That the incorporation
of the huge metropolis will be effected Is the
general belief, even those who most oppose it
appearing to thing it hopeless to do much more
than register their protests. The old and pres
ent form of government, though it certainly has
answered its purpose remarkably well, cOnod-
ering its clumsy and mallcshift character, mnst,
in the natural course of evolution, be at some
time superseded by single centralized organi
cation. The NestlieS, though often ridculcd,
and not seldom justly, have at all times given
the people of London fair measure of order,
comfort and convenience and thus far (and
this is Of itself a strong point there has been
scarcely any misrepresentation of public funds.
1t is true that the Ncstrics have not been in
trusted with the administration of any extensive
Improvements. Undertakings like the Thames
Embankment and the metropolitan sewerage
system have been in the hands Of the Board Of
Works This Board has always been composed
of men of high administrative ability, and ii
has never been tainted by partisanship. But
the rapid spread of democratic theories and the
adoption of American political methods have
concentrated a formidable influence all Of
which is being eXerted in furthcrance of tho III
corporation scheme. The Liberals are strongly
in favor of it, partly because all the tcnets Of
their party lead them to rcgaid it as a move
ment in advance, and partly because they OK
pect through their organization to strengthen
themselves greatly by it,
The opponents of the measure argue that the
putting of such enormous administrative
powers in the hands of one body of men will be
dangerous in many ways. They point to the
examples of Paris and New-Y York, and say that
under the proposed municipality London may
become focus of sedition like the tirst-named
of these cities or focus of corruption, like the
second. The Saturday ReUieW says: "The cor
poratiOn of New York expends between six and
seven millions a year, and neglects all its adj
ministrative duties" Other papers intimate
that if the municipal government has the COM
mand Of the police force some 1000 disci-
plined men, it may, in the hands of some bold
demagogue, some day undertake to coerce Par
lament Of course all the possible objections
are put in the strongest light, and very lurid
pictures are drawn of the London of the future.
According to these prophets of evil it will be
combination of Paris under the Commune and
NewYork under the Tweed regime. and the
general effects will be heightened by a stimu-
latng dash of dynamite politics.
No doubt there are dangers involved in the
change, but our English cousins must have
strangely lost confidence in themselves if they
are daunted by these difficulties. 1t does not
seem to have occurred to them, however, that
one of their greatest dangers will be the almost
irresistible temptation offered by the prospect
of plundering London to our local political
cheUahers dinduStrie There are many of these
who might see in this incorporation of the great
city not merely an opportunity to feather their
nests as they have not been feathered since