The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-29 00:00:00

SHEEP, &c., PROTECTION BILL.

Sir F. HEYGATE moved the second reading of this bill,
which, he said, was not a game bill, but one which had
been brought in in the interests of tenant farmers them-
selves. Ireland was formerly overrun with wolves, but
now it was overrun with dogs, which killed many sheep
without provocation. A medical gentleman had
written to him to say that in the course of
his duties he had to traverse a great many bye streets,
and that he was constantly attacked by these animals. He
proposed by the bill to compel owners of dogs to register
with the police all dogs, for which a payment of 2s. Gd.
would be charged. There were various other enactments
in the bill which he should be happy to alter in committee
if valid reason was shown for such a purpose.
STr R. PEEL said it was undoubtedly true that the coun-
try districts were literally overrun with dogs, but he did
not think that many of the enactments of the bill would bo
acceptable to Parliament. Tho hon. baronet had said that
the duties of the police were extremely light, but this he could
not agree to, and he thought that to throw on them the duty
of registering names of the owners of over two millions of
dogs was asking over much. (Hear, hear.) Why, such a
duty would be attended with immense trouble, because it
would compel the police to be continually running to a
veterinary surgeon to ascertain the age of certain animals,
because the hon. baronet, by his bill, said puppies under
six months were to be exempt from registration. (Laughter.)
How were the police to know 'the age of every puppy they
might meet with, except through the aid of veterinary
surgeons (laughter) ; and further, he objected to the bill,
because the constabulary, by the provision of the measure,
would have as much trouble thrown upon them, in hunting
through the country for all puppies under six months old, as
they had in taking the census or collecting the agricultural
statistics. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) Ho contended that
such would be the result of passing such a measure as that.
He admitted that something was necessary to put down
the existing nuisance, and with that view he had had com-
munication with certain officials in Ireland, and the result
was that he had drawn up the draft of a bill which he
thought would answer all the objects intended by the hon.
member opposite. He proposed that instead of the police
clerks of petty sessions should issue stamped licenses for
three years, charging 2s. for one dog, 2s. Gd. for three, and
ss. for a number exceeding that. At present the owner
of any dog was liable for the damage done by an
animal belonging to him, therefore there was no need
to re-enact such a provision. As he had already said, he
had prepared a means which he would introduce at the
earliest opportunity.
Col. DICKSON thought the tax proposed to be levied
on dogs by the hon. baronet, the Secretary for Ireland, was
too small. Ho thought it ought to be lOs for 1, 58. for 2,
and 2s. 6d. for a greater number.

Mr. BA.CIW4LI4 hopod the Jam gentleman would with•

draw his measure in favour of the one promised by the right
hon. baronet.

Lord NAAS suggested that the second reading of the
present bill should be agreed to, with the understanding
that, in the event of the bill spoken of by the hon. baronet
being introduced and approved of, it should be withdrawn.
It was absolutely necessary something ought to be done.
Mr. SCULLY said he had been a good deal in Ireland,
but he had never discovered that there was such a vast
quantity of dogs there as had been said. He had unfor-
tunately a good many sheep in Tipperary, but he hadn't
lost many by dogs. He supposed he must have been
favoured by the idle dogs. He very much doubted whether
the whole of the 15,000 sheep alleged to have been killed
by dogs was the fact. Ho recollected on one occasion when in
Ireland seeing an enormons animal hanging at the tail of a
cart, which had been shot for killing sheep. Why, in-
stead of a dog, it was, he believed, an enormous otter.
(Laughter.) If the English system of taxation for dogs
had been so successful, why not introduce it into Ireland ?
He entirely objectedto the principle of the bill. How was
the age of the dog to be determined—was it by looking at
his teeth ?
An HoN. MEMBER—Yes.

Mr. SCULLY—Supposing he was a great big dog—
(laughter)—the process would not be a very pleasant or
agreeable duty. (Laughter.) He objected to the bill alto-
gether, and he therefore moved that the bill be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. BRADY seconded the amendment.

The O'CONNOR DON supported the bill. The great
difficulty in administering the present law with respect to
damage done by dogs was the fixing of the ownership of
the animal.

Mr. M'MAHON objected to the bill because it sought to
tax persons in the better parts of Ireland for depredations
done in the wild portions of the country. He had never
heard of a surplus of dogs in Wexford, and all the house
that day had heard was that dogs run wild in Donegal
and Londonderry—(loud laughter)—and therefore a gene-
ral tax throughout the whole country was to be levied.
He highly objected to such an arrangement.
Mr. HENLEY said he did not know the number of dogs
or puppies in Ireland—(laughter)—but he knew that the
present measure was perfectly impracticable.
Sir F. HEYGATE, in reply, said if the house would
agree to the second reading he would postpone proceeding
with the measure until the right hon. baronet the Secretary
for Ireland brought in his bill.
The motion of Mr. ScULLY was then negatived without
a division, and the bill was read a second time.