§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he thought it desirable that the House should agree to the Lords' Amendment. If those who had supported this clause originally should still think, as he did, that it was desirable, it might be brought in as a separate measure next Session. His view of the subject was this, not simply that the prohibition of dog-carts was desirable as a measure of humanity, or as a preventitive of danger—but that they were the vehicles of a great quantity of stolen goods—that they were the vehicles by which numbers of small plunderers and pilferers—apprentices in crime—were able to convey what they had stolen to some other town, where they sold it to receivers. Under present circumstances, however, he thought the House would do right in acquiescing in the Amendment.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was extremeley desirable to prevent dog-carts being used in the manner and by the description of persons he had referred to; but the truth was, that that object would only have been partially effected by the clause in question, because it would still have left persons at liberty to use those vehicles on highways. He would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better to insert a clause for the purpose in a Highway Act than a Turnpike Act.
§ MR. SPOONER
begged to say, on the part of the noble Lord the Member for South Shropshire (Viscount Newport), who introduced the clause originally, that his object had been to prevent the numerous accidents which were constantly occurring from their use. He hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) would turn his attention to the subject, and endeavour to provide a remedy.
§ Resolved—" That this House doth not insist on their disagreement to the said Amendment."