HC Deb 09 July 1844 vol 76 cc555-7
Mr. Liddell

rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to a Petition presented last Session, praying for further protection against the depredations of Dog Stealers in this metropolis, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of the said Petition with a view to the correction of the evils complained of therein. He was aware that he must labour under some disadvantage in bringing under the notice of the House a subject which might be deemed beneath its consideration. But he would remind the House that the subject was not a new one, but had been frequently complained of, as a grievance that called loudly for some legislative remedy. The admitted existence of the grievance, then, was his justification for calling upon the House to interfere. A Petition had been presented to the House, in the last Session, signed by several Peers and many Members of that House complaining of the great loss of property they had sustained by the practice of Dog Stealing, and praying for a change in the existing law, which did not afford any adequate protection. It was not necessary that he should go into any details to show the extent and frequency of this offence for it was perfectly notorious to every Member of the House. In fact, no man's dog was safe a moment—and the more valuable it was the more certain was it to be stolen, and should detection take place, the only punishment was a fine. In many cases a compromise took place, and the owner, glad to get his dog back, paid a large sum to the thief for his restoration, and thus was another offence committed, the compromise of a theft. In the last and the present years the money paid in this metropolis for the restoration of stolen dogs under a compromise amounted to 970l. collected by an organised gang of Dog Stealers. Now, according to Blackstone, it was a felony to receive any money for the restoration of stolen property; and it was the very offence for which Jonathan Wild was executed. It was not his object at present to propose any remedy, although he was prepared to suggest one. All he wanted now was an inquiry by a Committee, and he did not doubt that out of that inquiry would arise the remedy for the evil. He believed that the penalties under the existing law would check the practice if they were enforced; but they were not, as persons losing valuable dogs preferred getting the dogs back by a compromise. He did not mean to propose that under any circumstance, Dog Stealing should be made a felony, for he was not at all disposed to add to the list of felonies already in our Penal Code. He could not see why a man's property in a valuable dog, perhaps worth fifty guineas, should not be protected as well as a horse or a donkey. He would say no more at present than to throw out the suggestion that it might be advisable to give to the police a power of strict search, so as to enable them to trace out the property. He had spoken to many magistrates and other police authorities, and they all concurred that the law, as it at present stood, afforded no protection against the evil. He hoped, therefore, that the House would grant him the Committee, as he understood the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department would not oppose his Motion. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed, To inquire into the allegations of the Petition, presented upon the 20th day of June, in the last Session of Parliament, praying for further protection against the depredations of Dog Stealers in the Metropolis, with a view to the correction of the evils complained of therein.

Sir J. Graham

said, if his hon. Friend was really of opinion that previous inquiry was necessary on this subject, he should be unwilling to resist the Motion. He assumed, however, from what fell from his hon. Friend, that he did not seek an alteration in the existing law, and that he was prepared to recommend certain remedies, and, therefore, he did not himself think that previous inquiry was absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, if his hon. Friend wished to satisfy himself by previous investigation, although it might be inconvenient at this period of the Session, in the month of July—[A Member: "In the dog days."] Yes, and in the dog days, he would not oppose the Motion. If, however, it were a mere question of following these offenders he could not see that legislative interference was necessary, since he had no doubt that in any plan for the purpose consistent with the law, a Commissioner of Police would readily lend his assistance.

Mr. Liddell

said, he contemplated an alteration in the law, because the law as it now stood was inefficient. He was, therefore, prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose, bat he wished previously to fortify himself with the Report of a Committee. Motion agreed to.