HL Deb 10 July 1854 vol 134 cc1429-36

House in Committee, according to order.

Clause 1 agreed to.

On Clause 2, prohibiting the use of carts drawn by dogs, Lord LYNDHURST moved to add the words "or goats."

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF EGLINTON

moved to omit the clause. He objected to it on two grounds: first, because it was a piece of uncalled-for legislation; and secondly, because it would confiscate the property of a large number of the very poorest of the community. It had been said that the drivers of these dog-carts were the least reputable members of society. He had never heard that the drivers of cabs were regarded as a respectable class of the community, and upon the same ground they might be deprived of their means of livelihood. He did not, however, think these men so bad as was attempted to be made out, and, as a proof, he had received a letter from a deputy lieutenant of Hampshire, who said that he knew several of them—respectable men in their class— and one lad, who was supporting his mother and sisters, his father being dead, by the profits of a dog-cart. He opposed the Bill because it would be class legislation; for he could not understand, if they prohibited dog-carts, upon what principle of justice they could allow goat-carriages. Surely a child with a hat as large as a parasol, and a bow of ribbon as big as a sunflower, sitting in a goat-chaise, was quite as likely as any dog-cart to frighten horses, and disturb the equilibrium of unpractised equestrians. The objections to these dog-carts were, that the dogs were ill-used, that their feet were not calculated to go on a hard road, and that from their breathing through their tongue, they were often in want of water, which they did not get. With regard to the unsuitability of their feet to a hard road, it all depended upon the use of them, whether they were hard or soft; just as in Scotland they saw the Scotch lassies walking over the sharpest stones without shoes or stockings. As to the dogs wanting water, that might be granted; but so did fox-hounds in a hot run, and yet no one ever thought of stopping them to lap water. It would be a real case of inhumanity if they passed this clause, because the effect would be that 20,000 or 30,000 dogs would be shot immediately, and he would certainly recommend noble Lords not to indulge in pork pies near Farnborough or Tunbridge Stations for some time afterwards. As to horses being frightened, it had been well observed the other evening, that a bird flying out of a hedge would frighten some horses, and he had heard of a case of a horse that had a decided antipathy to passing a young ladies' boarding-school. He begged to move that the clause be negatived.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

wished to state shortly the grounds why he was disposed to vote in favour of the clause. In the first place, in reply to the observations which his noble Friend and Colleague (Earl Granville) made on a previous occasion, he did not admit that the onus probandi lay upon those who proposed this measure. Parliament had legislated upon the general subject of cruelty to animals, and upon the particular subject of the use of dogs for purposes of draught; and he contended the onus probandi lay upon the objectors to this Bill to show that what was considered injurious to the public and a nuisance within fifteen miles of London was perfectly harmless in other parts of the country. As to the argument about birds flying out of hedges and wheelbarrows being dangerous, and the impossibility at all events of legislating against the birds, this remark applied—that whilst there were many petitions to get rid of the particular nuisance of these dog-carts, there were no petitions to get rid of wheelbarrows. But it was not merely because these dog-carts frightened horses that they were objectionable, but because the use of dogs as animals of draught was an abuse, and involved great cruelty. When he heard the arguments the other day against extending the law to other places, he thought they might be the same, and he looked back and found they were precisely the same arguments which were used against the clause in the Metropolitan Police Act, that it would interfere with many persons obtaining their livelihood. He admitted that was a reason for not legislating hastily, but it was not considered a conclusive reason against the prohibition of dog-carts in and about London. The prohibition, too, was not confined to the crowded streets of London, but extended a considerable distance round the metropolis. In the evidence taken before the Committee of their Lordships' House in 1838, he found another reason, in the greater frequency of hydrophobia, which two veterinary surgeons attributed to the increased use of dogs in carts. In Scotland the habitual use of dogs as animals of draught was unknown. He did not insist that in no countries were they so used, but where they were used the condition of things was wholly different, as in the Arctic Regions, where they passed only over frozen ground. From the circumstance of dogs having soft feet and being unable to be shod, it was impossible that they could travel great distances over hard roads without being exposed to great torture and great suffering. He had asked the greatest physiologist of the day whether he thought, under the existing conditions under which dogs were used in England, they were fit animals for draught, and this was the reply of Pro- fessor Owen:—He points out the distinction between the abstract question of muscular power and fitness as an animal of draught, and he says:— It is notorious that dogs are used as animals of draught in Newfoundland and other countries, but the conditions are wholly different. The physical unfitness of dogs for use as draught animals is manifest by the absence of any visible defence of the foot, and their being supplied only with soft elastic pads. The analogy of the use of the Esquimaux dogs for traction along snow-clad surfaces does not apply to the drawing burdens over hard and hot roads in this country. It only illustrates the beautiful provision of nature, by which a carnivorous animal serves man where an herbivorous animal cannot exist. Professor Owen did not support the abstract proposition that dogs were unfit animals for draught, but he said that, owing to their structure and the peculiar condition of the roads in this country, their use must necessarily induce very great suffering. It had been said that proprietors of dog-carts were a very immoral part of the community. Of course there were many exceptions to that rule; but an employment which necessarily led to cruelty on the part of the drivers of these carts must react on the character of the men, and he should not be surprised if it did so react and produce a lower and more brutalised turn of mind. Upon a recent visit to Mr. Nash's reformatory establishment, not far from where their Lordships were sitting, he observed a number of tame animals, and he asked how they came there? Mr. Nash said, he had them on purpose to test the disposition of the inmates, for he always found there was no hope of amendment in a man who was cruel to animals. He supported the clause from the thorough conviction that the use of dogs as animals of draught in this country was necessarily attended with cruelty, as well as being a nuisance to the public.

LORD BROUGHAM

considered interference necessary because of the great prevalence of the practice of employing dogs for drawing, and would advocate the same measure with regard to goats if their use was as frequent and attended with as much cruelty. It appeared to him that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) did not object to the public benefiting by the destruction of 3,000 or 4,000 dogs, ten or twelve years ago, when their use was prohibited within fifteen miles of the metropolis, but did object to the public benefit- ing now by the destruction of a larger number. He (Lord Brougham) supported the clause, both on the ground of humanity and the ground of policy, that no distinction should be made between the metropolis and other places.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he was obliged, even at the risk of encouraging the notion of dissension in the Government, to express his dissent from the views of his noble Colleague. He had been so pointedly appealed to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), that he must be allowed to say a few words. He had no intention of treating the question with anything like levity, but if some little ridicule attached to it, that only proved it was not a very fit question for their Lordships' House. His noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) had acted in strict conformity with the opinion he had expressed, that the onus probandi rested with those who proposed the clause, and to a certain degree acted on that assumption, because he left the only reasonable ground—the danger to the public—entirely unacknowledged, and directed his observations to the cruelty to the animal, and read a letter from the very highest authority possible, from which it seemed that Professor Owen was of opinion the clog was adapted for draught, except that the construction of the foot rendered the animal unfit to move on hard and macadamised roads. Like his noble Friend, he also had consulted a scientific friend, the Professor of Comparative Anatomy at St. Thomas's Hospital, who, after expressing an opinion corresponding with Professor Owen's, of the foot being naturally formed of a very delicate and very susceptible surface, went on to remark that it was one of the most beautiful provisions of nature which enabled the different portions of the body to adapt themselves to outward circumstances, and instanced the foot of a pointer, which he found as tough and as Lard as anything well could be. Not one horse in fifty, standing at that moment at the numerous cab-stands of the metropolis, but was suffering from disease of the foot or hock, and he presumed there was no intention of legislating for their benefit. The great majority of those animals, long before they reached maturity, were diseased by being used on the hard pavements and macadamised roads. The question of hydrophobia had been introduced, but it led to nothing more than that one veterinary surgeon observed a great deal of hydrophobia in his neighbourhood, and he really thought it must be owing to the dog-carts. It was somewhat singular that with the great increase of dog-carts they did not hear of a great increase of hydrophobia. The noble Duke, because dogs were not used in Scotland, naturally took that as conclusive. But dogs were not only used in Newfoundland, but most extensively in France, in Holland, and in Kamschatka; and when it was said they only went over snow, he hoped their Lordships would not fancy it was the nice soft substance which a few days in the year they saw lying on the lawns round their houses. With regard to the demoralisation, if they took away the dog from the man, he must either buy a very cheap horse, more fit for the knacker's yard than for any work, or buy a donkey. And with a donkey, he might torture it with whip, goad, or spur, and not the slightest compassion would be felt for that animal even among the higher classes. A donkey was utterly unable to show the pain it was feeling, or its inability to draw a heavy load. But if a man ill-used his dog he defeated his own purpose of getting on. The dog could lie down and use the most expressive pantomime; and he doubted very much if, among the most degraded, the pressure of public opinion would not be elicited in the poor animal's favour. He was very fond of dogs, and so were most people, and he had no doubt the idea of using some dogs for any useful purpose would excite the horror and indignation of all their female relations. But they ought not to yield to these feelings. They ought to consider the abstract justice of the case—whether they would deprive poor men of an honest means of earning a livelihood, and whether they would enact a sumptuary law, not against the rich, but against the poor.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, there was one fact which he wished their Lordships to note before proceeding to a division. In the course of the debate frequent reference had been made to the circumstance that they had already interfered with the system of dog-carts within fifteen miles of the metropolis, and allusion had also been made to the fact that the system chiefly existed in Hampshire and Sussex. Now it was remarkable that in those parts of the country where the people had been brought into daily contact with the system, there was a very general—he might say a universal—desire that the law which had been passed with respect to the neighbour- hood of the metropolis should be extended to those districts where dog-carts still existed. The town-councils of Portsmouth, Southampton, Winchester, Newport in the Isle of Wight, and Salisbury, had made by-laws prohibiting the use of dog-carts in their respective boundaries; and when he stated that they could not have done so without the assent of two-thirds of their numbers, in addition to that of the Secretary of State for the time being, their Lordships would perceive that those by-laws could not have been passed by any temporary ebullition of humanity, but by a firm and deep-rooted conviction of the cruelty and danger of the system. There was one simple reason why a man might be more cruel to a dog than to a pony. The price of a dog was very low as compared with that of a pony, and with men of hardened feeling that would be a sufficient motive to induce them to ill-treat a dog, when they would not act in the same way towards a pony, which could neither be replaced so easily nor maintained so cheaply. It was thus in the slave trade. When poor negroes could be bought for a small sum, they were harshly and brutally used; but when they became valuable, they were treated well even by those who had not humanity enough to do so of their own accord. He had been informed that in those parts of the country where dog-carts prevailed the poor animals had been traced in some instances for a distance of twenty miles by marks of blood upon the road, and that it was no unusual thing for a dog to be driven forty or fifty miles upon a hard road until it was able to go no further, to be then destroyed, and to have its place taken by a new dog. He would give his cordial support to the clause.

THE EARL OF MALMESBUTRY

begged their Lordships to remember that in the two counties of Sussex and Hampshire alone there were at least 1,500 poor families supported by dog-carts conveying fuel, market produce, and other articles. He thought the argument of cruelty had entirely failed, and he objected to the clause because the law was sufficiently stringent already to punish offences of cruelty to animals. But dog-carts had been called a nuisance, and he knew that was at the bottom of the whole complaint. He did not deny that dog-carts were a nuisance to persons riding, but that was no reason why they should be suppressed. He entreated their Lordships to consider what would be the effect produced upon the public mind if it went forth that they were willing to sacrifice the interests of many thousands of poor persons because they came "between the wind and their nobility."

LORD FEVERSHAM

contended that the argument of cruelty had been fully made out. He was able to state that there were at the present moment some forty or fifty dog-carts in Gosport and its neighbourhood, and that the inhabitants generally were decidedly opposed to them. The magistrates of Portsmouth had prohibited the system at the other side of the harbour, and that prohibition had given great satisfaction throughout the town. He was convinced that the present Bill, if passed into a law, would confer an essential and important benefit upon the community at large.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

thought the clause was arbitrary, unjust, and oppressive; and he objected to it not only upon those grounds, but because it was opposed to the general tenor of English legislation.

On Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided: Content 43; Not Content 23: Majority 20.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.