§ MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS (Cardiganshire)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he is aware that a coachman named Alexander Nicholl applied to Mr. Partridge, on the 7th of March last, for a summons against police constable No. 5495 for an assault, alleged to have been committed on him without justification or excuse, on the evening of 5th March; whether Mr. Partridge is correctly reported to have declined to grant the summons unless the applicant obtained the consent of the Inspector of Police; whether the rights of individuals in obtaining summonses are different in the case of private persons and of police constables; and whether it is legal for Magistrates to make the consent of a superior police officer a condition precedent to the grant of a summons against a subordinate constable; if so, whether he will consider the matter with a view to an alteration of the law, so as to do away with such a condition, and to make the rights of parties applying for summonses against constables identical with those applying for summonses against private persons?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.I am informed by the learned Magistrate that it is not the fact that he refused to grant a summons in this case, unless the applicant obtained the consent of the Inspector of Police. The statement 1747 of the applicant failed to satisfy the Magistrate that there had been any-assault; nevertheless, in order that all the facts might be more clearly laid before him, the Magistrate suggested that the applicant should lay his case before the Inspector of the district, and then renew his application for a summons, if he desired to do so. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. The consent of the Inspector was not made a condition precedent to the granting of a summons.