The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-24 00:00:00

BILL.

Mr. FREWEN, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, said its object was to extend the power now exist-
ing in the metropolitan police districts for the destruc-
tion of dangerous animals, to the rural districts of the
country. His constituents were much annoyed, and put
to great inconvenience iu consequence of the law
not giving them any protection against the
attacks of mad dogs and infuriated bulls.
These grivances, however, were not confined to Sussex,
but were felt throughout the ;country; he therefore
hoped there would be no objection to the short measure
he now proposed to remedy the nuisance.
Sir F. THESIGEB said he had not been aware until
that moment of the public being so entirely unprotected
against the attacks of dangerous animals; bat he doubted
whether the propositions of the Hon. Member were the
most satisfactory for attaining the object he had in view.
He proposed to give to other persons than the owner
the right of disposing of an animal of this
description. Two credible witnesses were in
the first instance to go to a magistrate and de-
pose they had seen a mad dog, but, while on this mis-
sion, it might in the meantime be ranging about the
pariah at large, biting other animals, and perhaps many
people. He was then to give them a written mandate,
which they were to deliver to the constable of the parish,
who thereupon would go in search of the dog, and if
he succeeded in slaying it he was to get a reward of
2s. 6d., a kind of head money to stimulate him in
his exertions. Then it was required that in
certain cases all the dogs in a parish should
be muzzled, but it was a great hardship
to deprive innocent and well-behaved dogs of the pro-
tection which nature afforded them to protect themselves
against the attacks of mad dogs; or other dangerous
animals. The Hon. Member's Bill brought to his
mind the story of the quaker, who, in riding through
a village, was met by a whelping cur, to whom
he said, " I cannot kill thee, bat I will give thee a bad
name," whereupon he raised the cry of mad dog, and
the villagers being alarmed came out and knocked
the dog upon the head.—(A laugh.) He did
not think this was a subject in which there
was the least necessity for legislation. The
Learned Gentleman then alluded to the other pro-
visions of the Bill, and concluded by moving that it be
read a second time this day six months.
Mr. SPOONER said the Learned Gentleman had
amused the House by his entertaining speech, but he
had failed to point out any fault in the Bill which might
not be amended in Committee. The employment of
dogs in carts was a dangerous and increasing evil in the
country, and if not prohibited, ought to be paced under
some better control.
Mr. EWA RT opposed the Bill, considering that it
would not accomplish the object of the Hon. Member,
and would act very unjustly in its operation.
Mr. DEEDES said great doubt existed whether there
was any law which authorised magistrates to order the
destruction of unmuzzled dogs in hot weather, but for
his part he thought the magistracy ought to possess
such a power, and he hoped it would be formally sanc-
tioned by the Legislature. He did not wish to abolish
dog-carts in the country, but they ought to be placed
under the control of the police, for many of the carts
contained false bottoms, and they were frequently used
for felonious purposes.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. ELLIS thought it was high time that dog-
carts were put a stop to. They were not permitted
within the borough of Leicester, and he believed there
was not an inhabitant of that borough who was not
thankful that such a bye law existed in their town.
Mr. WODELIOUSE supported the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON was apprehensive that this Bi

would endanger public liberty in reference to dog-carts.
the dog cart interest was not represented in that House,
and he was informed it would be sacrificed.—(A laugh.)
They heard a good deal of the danger to life from the use
of dog carts, but there is just as much danger resulting
from the use of high spirited horses.—(Hear, hear.)
There was an impression abroad that dogs were intended
for uses of burden and drawing, but an anecdote which
came under his notice in the colonies, would illustrate
the fallacy of the objection.l IA Governor_ of a colony
wished to impress his subjects with the belief that bul-
locks could ,be rendered serviceable at the plough,
and he made use of some on his own grounds. A
Maroon captain then came to him, and said, " Masse,
God-amighty never intended the bull to
do
the work of a 'oss," but the Governor replied.
" Captain Palmer, let us see if a bull 'will
do the work of a horse, and if he will, dependbear,
and
upon
he was intended for the purpose."—(ll
laughter.) He was afraid the dog-cart interest had not
been fairly heard in the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir W. ,TOLLIFFE thought so too, bat some regula-
tion ought to be made toprevent or;eealtry to
.)Athe dog an
horse
had
d
accidents in the highways.:—(Hear,
a great antipathy to meeting a dog in a cart, and the
consequence was,
accidents were continually occurring
in districts where dog-carts were allowed.—(Rear, hear.)
He was, however, no advocate for their abolition, but
simply anxious to see them placed under proper regula-
tions.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. PACHE and Mr. FREWEN,
The Bill was withdrawn.