View report page

78
due to the above-mentioned observations of Mr. Montagu Williams. Upon
this point, they direct me to remark that it is difficult to comprehend the
bearing of the observations without the full context, and in the absence of
any report of the case alluded to, or even a reference to the nature of the
proceedings, it is impossible to understand what evidence could have led to
their being uttered. They, however, appear to be of the nature of an obiter
dictum rather than a judicial deliverance, and were probably not intended
to carry the importance which the Commissioner has evidently attached to
them.
The Vestry conceive that the observations have been incorrectly reported,,
but as the Commissioner appears to have adopted them as embodying his
own opinion, I am to point out that the duties of Vestries in the Metropolis
are defined by statute, and the prosecution of brothel keepers is not even
inferentially included therein. If Mr. Williams intended to convey the idea
«
that it is the duty of Overseers to suppress disorderly houses, it is submitted,
with all respect, that he misapprehended their duties, which do not include
obtaining preliminary evidence, but are confined to prosecuting on complaint,
and then only if, in their discretion, they deem it a proper case to
take up.
The original Act, 25 Geo. 2, cap. 36, placed the duty of prosecuting in
such cases on the police force then existing, and the amending Act, 58 Geo.
3, cap. 70, merely gave the Overseers a discretionary power of prosecuting.
The Metropolitan Police Force was established twelve years after the date
of the last mentioned Act, and the appointment of Parish Constables (the
prosecuting authority under the original Act) has now fallen generally into
disuse, in consequence of the duties formerly discharged by them having
been practically, if tacitly, transferred to, or adopted by, the Metropolitan
Police. It is, in fact, the custom of this and probably many other metropolitan
parishes, to serve the notice directed by the Statute to be given to
the Parish Constable upon an Inspector of the Metropolitan Police acting
within the Parish.
The supercession of the ancient Parochial Police by the Metropolitan
Police Force was virtually admitted by the Commissioner some years since
declining to swear in as additional constables officers appointed by Metropolitan
Vestries.
In the memorandum accompanying your letter it is stated that the Police
have no funds at command to institute a prosecution against the keeper of
a brothel. It is submitted, however, that since brothel keepers may now be
prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts (see sec. 13 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1885), the same fund is applicable to cases of that