The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-12 00:00:00

LAND) BILL.

IR answer to a question froni Mr. LABOUCHERE,
The LORD ADVOCATE said he should bring on this Bill
on Tuesday next.
STATUTE LABOUR (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The House then went into Committee upon this Bill.
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive were agreed to.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved the insertion, at the end
of clause 10, of the following words : —" Provided always that
nothing herein contained shall be held to preclude
the imposing and levying of any assessment which by
any local Act applicable to any county or district in
which there are no tolls, is authorised to be imposed upon and
levied from any person, by reason of his keeping a korse or
horses, although such Ferson may not be the proprietor or
occupier of lands, buildings, or other heritable subjects as
aforesaid."

Mr. HUAIE thought the provisions of the measure required
some amendment, though he agreed generally in its principle.
The amendment was then agreed to.
The House then resumed.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again.
DOG-STEALING BILL.

Mr. LIDDELL proposed the second reading of the above-
named Bill, which would have the effect of imposing a punish-
ment of seven years' transportation for dog-stealing, on con-
viction.

Mr. HUME considered the Bill was very badly drawn up,
for the effect of clause the third proposed, that if a dog followed
a man he would be liable to be transported, and besides, the
Bill would expose any person to much inconvenience in case a
dog strayed by accident into his house, or was designedly left
there. The Bill provided, that any person in whose house
a strayed or stolen dog was supposed to be, would be liable to
be served with a search-warrant, and to appear before a ma-
gistrate to account for the presence of the dog on his premises.
Those who kept dogs ought to look after them, and no Act of
Parliament, in his opinion, was needed. Supposing he had a good-
natured cook in his house, who was in the habit of giving a
strange dog a bone now and then, which was very frequently
the case, and as the dog would most likely be in the kitchen,
a search-warrant might be issued, and he would be exposed
to great inconvenience entirely through the good nature of
his cook. There existed a system of smuggling on the bounda-
ries of France and Belgium, which was carried on entirely by
means of dogs trained for the purpose. These dogs are kept
and fed within the French territories, and whenever they are
taken within the environs of Belgium they are flogged most un-
mercifully. At the sight ef a douanier, or Custom-house officer,
and having parcels of tobacco, silks, and other articles tied round
their necks, they are immediately let loose, and off they scamper
safe with their smuggled
goods beyond the reach of the agents of
the law. It was owing to the possessors of dogs letting them go
astray from home, that they were lost.—( Laughter.) Every man
should lock up his dog until he wanted him.—(Laughter.)
If this Bill be wanted, let the Government bring it in. He
begged to move that it be read a second time that day six
months.
Captain BERKELEY said that dog-stealing had become an
intolerable nuisance in London, and therefore he hoped the
Hon. Member would persevere with his Bill.
Major BERESFORD said that if the Hon. Member for
Montrose had read the evidence, he wouot have spoken
upon this subject as he had. Dogs were ',Valuable property,
and had a right to be protected.
Mr. WARBURTON conceived that the punishment con-
tained in the Bill was disproportioned to the offence, when
he recollected the small offences for which people
were punished with transportation. What would the
Secretary of State for the Home Department say
of transportation, which had been lately substituted for
capital punishment, being made the punishment also for the
second offence of dog-stealing ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not remain silent after the
appeal made to him by the Honourable Member for Kendal,
especially as such silence would probably be misinterpreted.
As to the graduation of punishment, a few years ago sheep-
stealing was punished by death, and he never could understand
why the common law of this country should regard the posses-
sion of dogs as base property. He considered such a distinc-
tion insupportable and anomalous, and as the provisions of the
present Bill did not contemplate the removal of such objections,
and the recognising these domestic animals among the rights of
property, he should give his support to the second reading,
reserving for himself the right of examining more closely
into its details, previous to the Bill going into Committee.
Mr. WATSON said that the law had very wisely stated that
dogs, being of wandering habits, could not be the subject of
larceny. The words of the Act at present in force were,
that if any person should be found in possession of
a stolen dog, or the skin thereof, he should be liable to heavy
penalties. Surely that was enough.—(Hear, hear.) Before
the Committee of Inquiry up stairs several witnesses were
brought forward who had lost dogs, and the most distressing
case amongst them was that of a man who had lost a pug dog.
—( A laugh.) He opposed the Bill.
Mr. RICARDO also opposed the Bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that the Bill was monstrous and un-
just, and he would oppose it to the utmost of his power.
Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the Bill. Was a poor
man to be punished for being found in possession of a dog
which he had perhaps found starving in the streets, and which
from motives of kindness he had taken to his home.

Mr. LIDDELL said the attacks were as foolish and igno-
rant as any provision in the Bill. A Commissioner of Police,
who was examined before the Committee, said he thought the
present law was in a most unsatisfactory condition. It was
also proved before the Committee that 1,0001. had been levied
on the London public in one year by these artful dog-stealers.
Mr. FOSTER thought that it was a mere waste of the pub-
lic time to legislate on such a frivolous and absurd subject, and
he begged the House to observe the gravity of the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) as an evidence of the serious
light in which that Gentleman treated the subject. (Laughter.)
Mr. BRIGHT said that dogs were running about the
streets so numerously, that it was impossible to know whose
dogs they were. He considered that there was at present a
sufficient protection for that kind of property, and if this Bill
passed there would be an undue and an unnecessary protection
given, which would increase, rather than abate, the nuisance.
He thought, that if they adopted the principle with respect to
dogs, they should also apply it to another species of property
equally as valuable—he meant the domestic cat.—( Laughter. )
He had no doubt there were many ladies who would cordially
sanction the introduction of such a measure. He objected,
however, to that House legislating on such frivolous Bills, and
would vote, with great pleasure, against the clause.
After a few words from Mr. Liddell, Mr. Henley, and Mr.
Darby,
Mr. AGLIONBY said he could see no reason why dogs
should not be protected from the robber as well as any other
property.
'I he House then divided, when there appeared
For the second reading
23
Against it
Majority for the second reading
COUNTY RATES BILL
Sir J. Y. BULLER moved the second reading of the County-
rates Bill, the principle of which was to enable the County
Magistrates to appoint a Committee, selected from their own
body, who-in their turn should appoint a valuator and collector
of rates; from these officers they could ascertain the several
particulars which waultl enable them to determine and fix a
rate. Such being the main feature of the Bill, he would not
then enter into its details. Improvements or amendments could
be made on it when in Committee, and he therefore trusted no
opposition would be given to its second reading pro forma.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought the question of local taxation
was in a most complicated and unintelligible state, and any
measure which would place it upon a more satisfactory footing,
would not only be satisfactory, but invaluable. But regarding
as he did the present measure as one neither calculated to re-
move nor diminish the objections at present existing, he called
upon lion. Members to pause before they passed it into a law.
It gave the adjudication of apportionment into the hands of in-
terested parties, and as to rating, it made the mode of assess-
ment, according to the annual, instead of the intrinaig, value of
the property, and thus house property would be rated at double
the value of land, and according to the net annual value. But
such was 4 most unfair criteriotti andi litte the till itself! %sq.
- • -