§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
§ Mr. J. SAMUELWe ought to know what this Bill is about. No Member of the House requires more information than the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). So far as I know, he would never allow a Bill to go through without first of all ascertaining what is contained in the Bill. Up to the present he has not explained what is meant by this Bill with regard to the protection of dogs. He ought on this 1614 occasion to do what he has always done—that is, to take the Bill Clause by Clause, read, and explain it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere is only one Clause.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELI think that is a very important Clause. Last Session there were a large number of Members interested in the Bill. I believe there is a certain understanding between the hon. Baronet and my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth), that they are not to block each others Bills. Before we could allow this to pass we ought to have it clearly defined and intrepreted. It may be for the purpose of protecting dogs against muzzling.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere is nothing about muzzling.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELWe do not know what is in the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) brought in the muzzling order there was a great outcry against it. I should like to know what is contained in the Bill.
It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Adjourned at One minute after Eleven o'clock.