The Argus at KellyGang 2/4/1883
The circumstance that the Police Commission has terminated its labours bespeaks a lenient consideration for its last report. It is a great thing to close the erratic career of the body in question, for now the work of reform in the department can be practically undertaken. The main objection to the Commission was that it blocked the way with its interminable proceedings and its petty displays of personal feeling, but at last Ministers can read the evidence, can consult with the police officers, and can act-and action has been far too long delayed.
According to the precis which has appeared in our columns the main recommendation of the Commission is that the police force should be managed by three commissioners instead of as at present by one. Here an excellent idea has been marred in the process of adoption-the usual fate of ideas with this unhappy body. It is impossible to say whether the commissioners have been swayed by the London precedent, or by the evidence of the present head of the Victorian police, but in either case they have departed from the lines laid down for their benefit. They propose a board of officers of equal rank, but the advice tendered to them was that the force should have an individual head, this officer to have responsible assistance for certain purposes. The London system is stated by Mr HOWARD VINCENT as follows -"The metropolitan police force is administered by the commissioner of police of the metropolis. The commissioner and two assistant commissioners are appointed under the Royal sign manual, and exercise their powers by express statutory provision." The principle of three equal commissioners is not asserted here. And a reference to the evidence given by the present head of the Victorian force will show that Mr CHORLEY favoured something very different from the plan recommended by the Commission. His idea is that the chief commissioner of police should continue to discharge his present functions, but that two officers should be named to act with him as a board, by whom all appointments, promotions, and dismissals should be made. We should doubt the success of the plan suggested by the Commission. Their analogy of the audit commissioners is misleading, because the audit commissioners can to a great extent work independently of each other, and the examination of the accounts of one department is as important as the examination of the accounts of another. A railway board can also be understood, because the business details of an enormous mercantile department require to be matured by discussion. But a police force may be compared in many respects to an army, and like an army it will always need an individual commander. The details of the day are unsuited for the action of a board. On the other hand, Mr CHOMLEY's recommendation seems most valuable, and will demand the earnest consideration of the Government. It would more or less formally vest appointments and promotions in the hands of three responsible officers, and thus, it might be hoped, would do away not only with political patronage, but with the suspicion that political patronage is exercised, and the suspicion is well nigh as bad as the reality. It may be that it will always be found impossible to bring the police under the provisions of any general Civil Service Act as regards either patronage or pensions. Mr CHOMLEY'S plan would probably do all that is necessary, and at any rate seems worth a trial. No Minister could venture to override tho recommendation of the board, more especially if he was compelled to report to Parliament each instance in which he failed to confirm the official nomination. The board would be far stronger than the mere individual chief; and would seem stronger to the force, and as its power became obvious, so the current belief that the Minister does interfere in police appointments would die out.
The recommendations that men admitted to the force must be of fair education, sound physique, and good character are supposed to be in operation now, and do not call for comment. But the proposal to abolish the police hospital, and to leave the men to be treated in general hospitals or by private practitioners, in by no means to be hurriedly adopted. The police hospital is required for very much the same purpose that the army hospital is. It is a check upon malingering. Policemen, like other men, are by no means above shirking tedious outdoor duty in inclement weather, and in a special hospital suspicious cases can be and are studied, and imposture is detected, and consequently is kept down. An apparent economy in this direction might be dearly purchased by rendering more easy a practice which has to be always rigidly guarded against.
The detectives are again dealt with by the Commission. We had occasion to refer to the progress report on the detective department in severe terms, and our criticism appears to have been effective. We pointed out the absurdity of inviting the chief commissioner, who has to supervise the force, to act as the working chief of the one branch, as was originally proposed, and we urged that the proper plan was to place the detec- tives-or the plain clothes police under the superintendent of the city or tho district, so that the one officer might be responsible for the peace of the place. This scheme is now adopted. But though we could impart a little common sense to the commission, it was impossible to inculcate magbanimity. Mr LONGMORE is petty to the last. It is recorded of the last of the Stuart kings, that when proclaiming an amnesty he gravely excepted the fisher- men who stopped him on the coast, and somewhat indecorously handled the Royal person, and the Commission must needs have a parting fling at the expense of two or three of the detectives with whom they came into personal collision. The popular impression is that the men in question-who have worked their way to the front-are far more valuable to the community than are the members of the Police Commission and their pets among the criminal population ln his silly temper, Mr. LONGMORE virtually ignores the fact that the men are entitled before dismissal to have the charges against them stated and inquired into by a board. However, this may pass. The Commission at last is done with, and we may leave with confidence to Ministers the task of sifting the great rubbish heap of the report and its appendices.
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
