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

who had stolen a dog worth 201., the charge was not
made against him for stealing the animal, hut for steal-
ing his collar, which was worth 7s. 6 1., there being
some difficulty in punishing a person who hid stolen a
dog of that value. That person was convicted. and wag
then uodergoinz 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 he 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
th.s 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 line 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. BOUVERIE 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 foolish and unwise. It was untrue to suppose
that dogs were kept merely for pleasure. Look, for 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. MEMBER rose and complained that a penalty
of 201. was too heavy for the first offence of dog-steal-
ing, while that part of the clause which inflicted the
punishment of transportation for seven years for the
third 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
dowr in that way, because he thought many of them were
useful and valuable animals.

Mr. LIDDELL defended the clause. He proposed to
alter the penalty for the second offence from transporta-
tion to a fine of 20L, or imprisonment, with or without
hard labour, provided it did not exceed eighteen months.

Mr. WILLIAMS approved of the principle of the
Bill, but did not think it either wise or just to inflict the
punishment of transportation on a person who had been
convicted of dog stealing.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK said the dogs which the Bill
was intended to protect wore dogs of a most deteriorated
species.—(Laughter.) Dogs that were prized most were
generally the ugliest of their species, and it appeared to
him the only use of them was to engender hydro-
phobia.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HAWES moved that the clause be struck out
altogether.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause as amended 33
Against it
Majority

-27

The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. BOUVERIE objected to the third clause relatire
t) the punishment fur the concealment of dogs.
Mr. WATSON said that the Bill would rank with
tut (other Acts of Parliament which the Judges were
tir.)ry day in the habit of characterising as equally un-
*lse and anomalous.

Mr. LIDDELL thought that if the law in one instance
*as proved to be defective, it was the duty of every
Member in that House to endeavour to apply a remedy.
Mr. WATSON said that it was the duty of Govern-
ment, if a remedy were wanted, to apply it ; but he was
altogether opposed to this nibbling sort of legislation.
Mr. C. BULLER thought that if the Hon. Member
for Durham had merely brought in his Bill, making dog
stealing 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 justices of the peace and other magistrates.
The sd and 4th clauses were ultimately agreed to.
On clause 5 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY moved that certain words be omitted.

After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENE-
RAL, recommending 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 without oppo-
sition.
On clause 9 being proposed,
_

Mr. ESCOTT said that he' thought this clause had
better be confined to the Bill of last year, so as to obtain
a tabula rasa for future proceedings.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL trusted his Hon.
Friend would not persist in opposing this clause.
Mr. ESCOTT withdrew his opposition.
The Bill passed through Committee, the House re•
sumed, and the report was then brought up.