§ LORD CARRINGTON moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which, he said, was a non-contentious measure, intended to consolidate nine Acts of Parliament, passed from 1839 up to 1871. The Bill was required on account of the increase of rabies in some portions of England. There were 96 cases last year, and the cases had increased this year to 150. The reason, to a great extent, why the increase was so marked was on account of the number of stray dogs wandering about the country without any sort of control, and the difficulty of dealing with them. If a police officer had any reason to believe that a dog found in a highway was a stray dog, he might seize it. If no application was made for such a dog, or no owner was known, after three days it might either be sold or destroyed. A police officer 1245 might destroy any dog found in a high way which he had reasonable ground for believing to be affected with rabies. That gave all over the country a power at present only in the hands of the Metropolitan Police. He should be perfectly prepared to reconsider the words of the clause dealing with offences, so as to make it clear that the Bill in no way interfered with sporting dogs.
§ VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsupposed the the police would have no power of interference in places of public resort.
§ LORD CARRINGTONsaid, the Bill was necessarily left rather vague so as not to hurt the susceptibilities of people who were dog fanciers and that class of persons.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought three days rather short notice for the murder of a favourite dog. He had known several instances of friends of his who had lost favourite dogs, more friends than animals, and had not been able to recover them for more than three days. Of course, there was the alternative of sale, but practically many dogs were unsaleable, and it was shocking that people should lose their favourite dogs if they could not recover them within three days.
§ LORD CARRINGTONdid not think there would be any objection to meeting the noble Duke's wishes. The time was that allowed in the Metropolitan Streets Act, but there would be no difficulty, unless, indeed, on the ground of expense, to extending it to a week if necessary.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEwas afraid that some of the clauses of this Bill would be the subject of much heart-burning and anxiety. He did not quite catch what the noble Lord said in answer to the question put to him as to a dog found in the highway or place of public resort. Surely he had not been advised that that would meet the case of a dog being in a private field. He understood the point taken was to ask whether it was intended to go beyond the case of a dog being found in the highway or in a place of public resort, and whether, if a policeman saw a dog in a field, no matter what the character of the dog, he had the right to go in there and seize it? He thought it was on the first clause that there would be a great deal of anxiety and perturbation of mind. If a policeman in a country district found a dog, and making 1246 up his mind that it was a stray dog because there was no owner in the immediate neighbourhood, took him to the police barracks and three days afterwards murdered him, to use the expression of the noble Duke, a good deal of heart-burning would be occasioned in the country districts with which he was most acquainted. The people would not understand a dog being treated as a stray dog because no owner was with him, dogs being in the habit of going into the fields themselves. This was a matter as to which the Bill would have to be examined very carefully. Again, it was a question whether the interval of three days, at the expiry of which a stray dog could be killed, was not too short. He also thought some machinery should be provided for publishing advertisements in reference to the place where stray dogs, when impounded, would be kept, otherwise people would be hunting in vain for their dogs, and the three days would have elapsed before they learned where the animals were kept. He did not wish to interfere with the passing of the Bill, but hoped the points he had mentioned would be considered, remarking that such a measure ought to be made as cautious and prudent in its wording as was possible.
§ Bill read 2a.