HC Deb 12 March 1877 vol 232 cc1755-6
SIR WILFRID LAWSON

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Devonport Watch Committee still adhere to the practice of forming a Committee to select what reports, against publicans and beer retailers, shall be allowed to be summoned before the magistrates; and, whether the above practice has not been more than once condemned by Captain Willis the Inspector of Constabulary, and also by the Home Secretary himself; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS,

in reply, said, he had received information from the clerk of the Devonport watch committee, relative to the practice of that body as to cases against publicans and beer retailers brought before the magistrates. According to it, the reports of the police were read at the regular weekly meetings, and proceedings were directed to be taken in those cases which did not appear to be of a frivolous character, and with regard to which there appeared to be evidence sufficient to secure a conviction. The committee had called his (Mr. Cross's) attention to a communication which they had received from Lord Normanby, when Home Secretary, who took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the practice which prevailed at that time. Their opinion was that the justices did not appear to have any legitimate control over, or interference with, the watch committee, but that the committee did not possess any exclusive right of directing information to be taken out against offenders. It also appeared that the subject had been noticed by Sir James Graham. As far as he (Mr. Cross) was concerned, though the practice which prevailed at Devonport might be legal, he was bound to say that the exercise of the discretion which that practice involved did throw upon the watch committee great responsibility. He also thought that the Reports of Captain Willis, as well as the evidence given before the Select Committee on the Superannuation of the Police of last Session, would cast considerable doubt as to the manner in which that discretion was exercised. He (Mr. Cross) had himself stated last year that, in his opinion, it was an isolated case; but if it were not so, it would be his duty to take some steps in reference to it. He hoped the practice would not be carried to any excess.