HC Deb 11 August 1890 vol 348 c497

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the law that in all cases of application for licence to remove or carry arms in Ireland, the Inspector General for Constabulary must be satisfied by proof, other than the word of the applicant, as to the ownership of the arms which he claims; what sort of proof is required, and how is the inquiry conducted; what sort of proof had the Inspector General, other than the word of Mr. Brown as against that of Mr. Pollock, upon which he decided to refuse Mr. John H. Pollock, of 25, Polmadie Street, Glasgow, a licence to remove some old and useless arms from his house in Glenlough, County Monaghan, to his residence in Glasgow; and whether he will order the issue of the necessary licence for removal to Mr. Pollock, and leave the dispute as to ownership of the arms to be settled between Mr. Pollock and Mr. Brown?

MR. MADDEN (Dublin University)

I am not aware of any enactment regulating the nature of the proof to be given in respect to the ownership of arms. The Constabulary Authorities report that the ground of refusal to issue a licence to Mr. Pollock was the fact that the arms were in the possession of Mr. Brown, who claimed them and refused to give them up. So soon as the arms are in the possession of Mr. Pollock the necessary licence will be issued to him.


Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this house belongs to Mr. Pollock, and why did the authorities interfere with him when taking the arms out of his own house?


No, Sir; obviously the proper person to whom the licence is to be granted is the owner of the arms.


The arms might have been taken away without the matter being mentioned at all to the authorities.


The position is that the arms were represented as lost.

MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary)

If a man has arms in Ireland without a licence, is he not liable to be prosecuted by the police?


Order, order!