The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, June 25.
STATUTE-LABOUR (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG rose to address the House, but
from the excessive noise in the House, and the low tone
of the lion. Member, his remarks were wholly inaudible
in the gallery.
Several other clauses, with some verbal amendmeata
suggested by Mr. SMOLLETT and Mr. EDWARD ELucs,
jun., were agreed to.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, jun., moved an amend-
ment, that servants should be altogether exempted from
the tax, and that the clause affecting them should be
struck out.
Mr. I'. MAXWELL STEWART agreed with the
Hon. Member for St. Andrew's. He thought that the
Bill did not go far enough. He could not understand
why servants should be subjected to a contribution at
all. He should, therefore, gladly support the amend-
ment for their exemption.
Mr. LOCKHART said it was an important subject,
which required great consideration. He had not yet
made up his mind on the subject, and would recommend
postponement.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, jun., then withdrew his
amendment, as it appeared to him the House were not
a n
the
willing to entertain it.
The other clauses were then agreed to,
was brought
d
p
passed,rhe
HthoruouseghreCsuommedmi,taten.d
the
Report
end agreed to.

DOG STEALING
On the motion that the House gBILL.
this Bill, o into Committee oa.
Mr. DAVID DUNDAS objected to that portion of it
which made the offence of stealing such an article as a
dog punishable by transportation for seven years. H e
was of opinion that the present law was sufficient' y
strong for the punishment of such offenders, if magis-
trates would but carry it out in full force. By the stet.
section of the Act of George 11., magistrates were eta._
cowered to inflict a fine of 201. on a person convicted
Ac
magistrates might grant a warrant
stealing a dog. By the 63d section of the
authority to search for a dog which had
n.
arrant, and when
greMr.
at difficulty in obtaining a search givingbee ssi:ornle parse
cLaErrYyjnhgadit informedw that There was
obtained, of
Sir .JAMES
transportation would require their
punish-
ableDd
i.y seven years'
words before the House"ilA iiA wished to say
the Bill.
a few
wentinotfo Cs
toerualVgteaeedoon
The clause making the offenceg
otbn.atanidn Ltehaernla%d,,Maesmnboewr
(Mr. D. Dundes) must
great anomalies.—(Laughter.)
person
administered, there were
fie was credibly informed that in a case of a per
Thead
serious consideration.

who had stolen a dog worth 20/., the charge was not
made against him for stealing the animal, but for steal-
ing his collar, which was worth 7s. 6d., there being
some difficulty in punishing a person who had stolen a
dog of that value. That person was convicted, and was
thou undergoing transportation for the offence with
which he was charged. Sorely this proved that the law
was in an inefficient state, and that it required emenda-
tion. Then ho saw no reason why the punishment for
stealing a dog of the value of 201. or 301 should not be
equal to that to which a person who stole a " jack-ass"
rendered himself liable—(Laughter)—an offence formerly
punishable by death, but now by seven years' transpor-
tation. He hoped, therefore, that the House would
allow the Bill to go into Committee.
Mr. VIVIAN considered that the penalty of trans-
portation for seven years for the offence of stealing a dog
was not of that exorbitant nature supposed. He should
not have proposed such a punishment if the offence had
been a mere casual one ; but it should be recollected
that a great number of disreputable persons existed by
stealing dogs, and by levying a species of tax, in conse-
quence, on the community. The law at present in force
was not • sufficiently powerful to reach those persons.
That sentence, however, would only be carried out when
the judge had the fact before him that the prisoner had
been in the habit of stealing dogs, and he conceived it
was necessary that such an offender ought to be removed
out of the country for that period. Great difficulty was
experienced in serving a search warrant, as in London
there were receptacles for dogs which had been stolen ;
and as they were adr3itly moved from place to place,
the police had great difficulty in ascertaining the place
to serve it. He did not propose to remove that obstacle
entirely, but to give additional facilities to the authorities.
Mr. ESCOTT considered that the present law was
sufficient for all the purposes required. Nine persons
out of ten fell into the error that there was no law for
punishing persons convicted of stealing dogs, whereas
they were liable to a fine of 201., over and above the
value of the animal, which, in his opinion, was a sufficient
punishment.
The House then went into Committee.
The first clause was agreed to.
Mr. HAWES objected to the second clause, and pro-
posed its omission.
Mr. BOU VERIE seconded the amendment, and
thought dogs ought not to be considered in the light
of property. The law, as it originally stood, made this
distinction, and he did not see any reason for changing
the law in that respect.
Mr. LIDDELL admitted that the original law made
such a distinction, but he thought very unwisely so.
He would tell the Committee why he thought the dis-
tinction feulish and unwise. It was untrue to suppose
that dogs were kept merely for pleasure. Look, fur in-
stance,_ in the southern parts of England, where dogs
were kept for the purpose of protecting sheep. A more
useful animal than the sheep-dog could hardly be found,
and he could see no reason why the sheep-dog should
not be protected from the robber in the same way as
other valuable property.
. .

An HON. AIE3IBER rose and complained that a penalty
of 20/. was too heavy for the first offence of dog-steal-
jug, while that part • of the clause which inflicted the
punishment of transportation for seven years for the
thud offence was most monstrous.
Mr. WATSON agreed with the Hon. Member. If a
man stole all the dogs in the country, he would not
deserve to be punished so severely.
Mr. CURTEIS could not consent to hear dogs ran
slowr in that way, because he thought many of them were
useful and valu thle animals.

Mr. LIDDELL defended the clause. • He proposed to
alt.gr the penalty for the second offence from transporta-
tion to a fine of 201., or imprisonment, with or without
bard labour, provided it did not exceed eighteen months.
Mr. WILLIAMS approved of the principle of the
B';;, but chi not think it either wise or just to inflict the
Tanisimamt of transportation ois a person who had been
convicted of cbg
Mr. I'. BORTII\VICK said the dogs which the Bill
wais inte.nded to protect wlre dogs of a most deteriorated
tipeufes.—(Laughter.) Dogs that were prized most were
I.l.iieraily the ugliest of their species, and it appeared to
von the oly use of them was to engeud.•r hydro-
ph,bi4,—(Laughtt,r.)
Mr. HAWES /novel that the clause be struck out
s. to

;the C ornmit6ee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause as amended 33
Against it
. Majority
The clausc. was then agreed to.
BOUVER,IE objected to the third clause relative
the punishment for the coneeAlment of dogs.
fr. WATSON said that the Bill would rank with
«;ther Acts of Parliament .which the Judges were
• r )ry day in the habit of characterising as equally un-
svi.se and anomalous.
Mr. LIDDELL thou:l-ht that it the law in one instarce
VAs proved to he &let:aye, it was the duty of every
ne:oher in. that House to endeavour to apply a remedy.

WATSON mid that it was the duty of Govein-
;tient. if a remedy were wanted, to apply it ; but he was
atiogether opposed to this nibbling sort of legislation.
Mr. C. BULLER thcught that if the Hon. Member
for Durham had merely brought in his Bill, making dog
staling punishable like sheep stealing, it would have had
the effect of avoiding the necessity for all this discussion.
He did not admire the anomalous powers given by the
Bill to jitetices of the pf-2azo and other snagistra'es.
The 2,1 and 4th clawies were ultimately agreed to.
(--1 close 5 being pfoposed. _

Mr. N-LEY ni;.,v,,,cf that certain words be omitted.

After a 'few worth from the SOLICITOR,-GENE-
RAL, recornatending the Hon. Member for Durham to
accede to the motion, the motion, as amended, was
agreed to.
Clauses 6,7, and 8 were then passed withotit oppo-
siti‘)n.

On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. ESCOTT said that he thought this clause had
better he confined to the Bill of last year, so as to obtain
a tabula rasa for future proeeeding9.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL trusted his Hon.
Fri:: nd would not persist in opposing this clause.
ESCOTT withdrew his opposition.
TU:! Bill pass =d through Committee, the House re-
sumed, and the report was then brought up.