SECOND READING. (Hansard, 9 June 1871)

THE EARL OF MORLEY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the 1st clause authorized the police to take possession of any stray dog, and to detain until claimed, the owner paying the expenses; notice was to be given to the owner, when he could be ascertained by the collar, or was otherwise known; and if the dog was not claimed within three days when the owner was not known, or within five days if he was, the dog might be sold or destroyed. The 2nd clause empowered any Court of summary jurisdiction to take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and, if satisfied of the fact, to order the dog to be destroyed. In cases where apprehension arose that that there were mad dogs in a district, the local authority was empowered to place restrictions upon dogs being at large within the district.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

thought the provisions of the Bill most extraordinary, arbitrary, and despotic in character. The Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament in order to meet complaints proceeding from the North of England, where hydrophobia was stated to be on the increase, and, if the Bill were confined to the object of preventing the spread of hydrophobia, he should not object to its principle; but the Bill provided that any policeman, or other constable, might take possession of any dog straying on the highway, and detain it until claimed by the owner. Now, anyone acquainted with a hunting county knew that nothing was more common than for hound puppies to be straying about the roads in the country; and those dogs were by no means dangerous. In cases where the owner of the dog so taken possession of was known to the police by reason of the dog wearing a collar, or by any other means, information was to be given him; and if, at the expiration of five days, he had not claimed the dog and paid for its keep, the dog might be shot. There could be no reason, if the owner happened to be known to the police, why it should be provided that the dog must be known by wearing a collar, or other means. According to the Bill, a dog was to be taken to be dangerous which had bitten, or which had attempted to bite anybody; but he should be sorry to see any Act having such language in it go out of their Lordships' House. It was also provided that the enactments of the Bill should apply to dogs "at large;" and he wished to know whether a dog walking about in the owner's yard or garden would be considered a dog "at large." By the 2nd clause any Court of summary jurisdiction might order any dog deemed dangerous to be destroyed; and though an appeal was allowed to the Quarter Sessions, and though the Quarter Sessions might decide that the dog ought not to be shot, yet that decision would be of little avail if, during the owner's temporary absence from home, the dog had already been condemned and shot. He mentioned those points to show that the Bill would require considerable alteration in Committee.