HC Deb 25 May 1865 vol 179 c859

Bill, as amended, considered.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, he was surprised to find the Government would not accede to the insertion of a clause (of which he had given notice) to repeal an old act of the Irish Parliament, forbidding the use and possession of certain kinds of dogs, unless the owner had £100 a year real property. He, however, would not divide the House, and left upon the Government the responsibility of retaining such a disgraceful law.

MR. COGAN

said, he moved to omit Clause 21. It gave an arbritrary, unconstitutional, and inquisitorial power, not only to a magistrate, but to every constable of police in Ireland.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 21.—(Mr. Cogan.)

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the proposal of the hon. Member had been disposed of by a large majority the other evening, and he therefore thought the clause ought not to be objected to now.

MR. W. O. GORE

said, he thought it unreasonable to press this Motion after the division and majority against it the other night, but the clause, he must admit, was rather loosely worded.

MR. COX

said, the clause was one which would not be tolerated for a moment in England. As it stood any man who kept a dog would be liable, if he were going to a dinner party, to be pounced upon by a policeman with the demand, "Where's your licence?"

Question put, "That Clause 21 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 10: Majority 28.

Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.