HL Deb 08 December 1926 vol 65 cc1345-54

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM asked His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the case at Clerkenwell Police Court on the first of this month where a man was charged with stealing a dog which he had sold to the University College School of Physiology; whether they are aware that a men was convicted at Bow Street on November the 20th for receiving two stolen dogs which he was taking to the University College School, and what steps they intend to take to stop this practice.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, the facts in regard to which I will briefly state. About a fortnight ago a man was charged at Bow Street Police Court with stealing a dog and Mr. Fry, the magistrate, made certain remarks after a detective had said that the prisoner had been supplying dogs to the London University College School of Physiology for six shillings each. Sentencing Henry William Hewett, 48, dealer, of Copenhagen Street, Caledonian Road, to six months hard labour for feloniously receiving two Irish terriers, valued at £7, and one month's imprisonment for cruelly ill-treating the dogs, Mr. Fry said: You are no doubt a cruel and unscrupulous man, and anything I can do to stop this sort of thing I will. I must not say too much because the people who employ you are not here and are not represented. Anyone who has heard this case must have a feeling of considerable uneasiness as to what is taking place. I have been told that a dog-stealer is employed by this school to supply them with dogs for physiological experiments.…I am informed that a number of valuable cats and dogs have been missed from this neighbourhood, and that a cruel and unscrupulous person is employed to supply animals to this school. That is the evidence. It has been often said in these Courts that if there were no receivers there would be no thieves. At 8 a.m. two valuable pedigree dogs are missed from outside a house. At 9 o'clock they are taken to this school in a sack under circumstances of great cruelty, and in twenty-four hours they would have been dead. No questions would have been asked. It must raise a feeling of considerable alarm among animal lovers to find that this has been going on for some time. Those were the statements made by Mr. Fry in convicting the man at Bow Street on November 20, I think it was.

Then on December 1 the College issued an explanation in which they said: That the man Hewett has never been an employèof the college; that Hewett is a live-stock dealer from whom the professor of physiology had bought animal's food for some time, and dogs since October 11 last; that Hewett's connection with the college was the same as that of any other outside tradesman. That the professor of physiology had no means of ascertaining that Hewett, as stated in the Police Court, had been convicted in 1914 of dog stealing. That the professor had always taken special precautions to prevent the delivery of stolen dogs, in that he required a written guarantee that all the animals so delivered by Hewett and by the other dealer with whom he traded were legitimately obtained. When any of your Lordships buys an article in a shop do you say to the shopkeeper: "I require a written guarantee that this article you are selling me has been legitimately obtained"? I venture to say that no one, unless he is of opinion that in all probability the article has been stolen, would put that question to any assistant in any shop to which he went.

Then I would draw your Lordships attention to the fact that these two dogs were stated to be of the value of,£7 each and were to be bought by the school for 6s each. If a diamond ring worth£50 is offered to you for a couple of sovereigns you generally have some suspicion that something is wrong somewhere. Apparently, however, this gentleman had no suspicion of that sort. Then the statement goes on to say:— That for some of these experiments dogs are essential. That the price paid, being a reasonable one for the kind of dog required, is not calculated to lead to abuse. That the dogs found in the possession of Hewett at the time of his arrest were so far as is known, not of the type required by the college; they were never offered to and were consequently not seen by, anyone at the college. They were not seen by any one at the college because the detective had stopped the man at the door of the college from taking them in. It was proved in evidence that he was going to take them to the college and that he would have received 6s. each for them.

Then the report of a further case appeared in The Times of December 2. It is headed: "University College again mentioned," and it is as follows— At the Clerkenwell Police Court yesterday George Phipps, 29, labourer, of Albert Street, Kilburn, was charged on a warrant with stealing a wolfhound mongrel, the property of Frederick Smythe, at Doughty Street, on November 19 When this particular man was charged he pleaded not guilty and elected to go for trial. The trial, I think, has so far not taken place and, therefore, I do not propose to say a word as to whether George Phipps was or was not guilty of stealing the dog. But on the arrest of this man a Mr. Smythe appeared. Mr. Smythe was the owner of the dog anti he said that the dog was last seen on his doorstep. After it had disappeared the witness made inquiries, and on Monday went to University College, Gower Street. He saw Dr. Verney, who asked him to call again. He then saw the Provost, Dr. Verney, and another professor, and the dog was given up.

According to the report, this question was asked and this answer given:— Mr. Dummett [the Magistrate]: None the worse for his adventure, I hope. The Witness: Well, the dog was suffering from a bruise at the base of the skull. It is recovering. A boy of fourteen, who said he was 'animal attendant' at University College, said he had known the defendant for about four weeks. He helped a man named Jackson to fetch clogs to the college. Counsel: Mr. Jackson often supplies dogs for the college?—Yes. He brought two on November 19?—Yes. I would remark here that it is curious that a boy of fourteen should be employed to look after animals. I do not suppose any of your Lordships would give the charge of your animals solely into the hands of a boy of fourteen. But this is what emerges from those two statements, that within a fortnight two cases of stolen dogs are brought forward and in both of those cases these dogs were going to University College.

The first two dogs fortunately were not delivered, because a detective, being opposite the College, stopped the man who was taking them. That man got six months' hard labour for receiving the stolen dogs, and he also got another month's imprisonment for cruelty to those dogs. Here is a case of another man doing this within a fortnight, notwithstanding the care which, according to the University College, they take of asking everybody they buy a dog from to sign a written guarantee that he has not stolen it. Within two weeks these two cases occur. When I was bringing in my Bill in the House of Commons to prevent dogs being vivisected Dr. Chapple, then a member of the House of Commons, gave as a reason against the Bill that dogs were cheap. These are his words— If we examine this question of cheapness, we find that the difference is not between 5s. and 7s. 6d., but between 5s. and £5.… It is a matter of getting animals for experiment at a price which can be paid, as compared with a price that cannot be paid. Of course if you steal the dogs you do not pay much for them. Dr. Chapple went onߞ It would cost £5 to get a suitable monkey. It is evident, therefore, that one of the reasons why it is necessary to have dogs is that they can be obtained cheaply. And now we know how it is they are obtained.

I will trouble your Lordships for a few moments with the evidence of Mr. Swan, M.B., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., before the Royal Commission. He was asked— In addition to that, is it not the case that dogs are more expensive than other animals, so that the very lowest motive, the motive of pocket alone, would cause them to prefer other animals? Mark his answer— You can steal a dog anywhere. He was then asked— You do not mean to imply, do you, that the dogs used in physiological laboratories are stolen and not paid for? He replied— I have stolen dogs in my early days.

On the 24th January, 1914, the Edinburgh Evening Dispatch had an article to this effect— With drooping head he trotted in on three legs, a picture of misery and dejection. On making an examination of the right foreleg, which was the one disabled, his master noticed a scar several inches long stretching from the paw to the first joint, evidence of a healed wound. He also saw that a new collar had been put on the animal's neck. He inspected this as well and observed written on the inside the words 'Surgical Department.' This set him thinking. What could it mean? His first thought was that the dog had met with an accident and had been kindly treated at the surgery, but he had his suspicions aroused when his attention was called to an advertisement in an evening paper offering a reward for the recovery of a lost Irish terrier dog slightly lame in the right foreleg and bearing, along with initials, the words 'Surgical Laboratory, New University.' A visit to the University elicited the information that the dog had been operated upon, bones being separated in his leg and a metal plate inserted and fixed with screws. After being confined for about five weeks the dog escaped and straightway sped home. The newspaper goes on to say— It appears the animal was purchased for a small sum in the belief that it was ownerless. A handsome apology was made for the mistake and the treatment the dog had received. The assurance was given that the dog would be all right again, but more than a week has now elapsed since the terrier returned home and still it is far from being its old self. It is dull and tired-looking and altogether different looking from the dog that was stolen.

I think it is clear that the habit of receiving stolen dogs is somewhat prevalent at these institutions. It is a matter which is very difficult to trace, but two cases have been brought to light in the last fortnight. There can be no doubt whatever that these dogs were stolen and would have been operated on and that a very small price was paid for them. Then we have the fact that in 1914 there was another similar case and the further fact that an admission was made before the Royal Commission on Vivisection that dogs were stolen, one witness having the honesty to say he had stolen them himself in his early days. I do not want to go into the question of the sufferings inflicted upon man's best friend, but what I want to say is that nowadays, with all the changes in human sentiments (about which we are always talking) and the desire to make this an improved world, at any rate if you have the misfortune to lose your dog you should be able to be certain it will not be sold to the Physiological School.

I do not know what steps the Government propose to take but it is quite clear, apart from any question of humanity, that the habit of buying dogs for a small price from an impecunious gentleman who calls himself a dog dealer should be stopped. Every one in your Lordships' House has probably said at times: "If there were no receivers there would be no thieves." It is not only that I object to the chance of my dog being stolen from me and operated upon, but it is that I object to people being encouraged to steal by the knowledge that when they have stolen something they will be able to dispose of it. I beg to ask the Question.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again so soon. My excuse must be my very strong feeling about this matter, and also the fact that I want to suggest to your Lordships one or two measures which I think may be of a remedial character. I lost a dog several years ago from my doorstep in London. Every one of your Lordships will realise the great distress which that causes to anybody, not merely because of the loss of a beloved companion, but also from the natural fear—I confess having this particular terror before me—as to what may be happening to an animal that has always been well treated. That is a thing that no owner or lover of a dog can contemplate with calmness.

What method can be devised to prevent this? So far two methods have occurred to me. If the supply of dogs for vivisection is legal, as the noble Lord opposite said—I am not going to discuss that, I am not myself an anti-vivisectionist—there is one method by which dogs might be supplied for this purpose and that is to take stray dogs which would otherwise be destroyed It seems to me that it would be far simpler and a most reasonable method that dogs which are going to be destroyed anyhow, which are the property of no one, should be used. That I understand is forbidden by law at present, but personally I should be glad to see that law repealed. If it cannot be repealed I suggest that it might be provided by Statute that dogs should not be used by physiological laboratories unless they have been bred by the laboratories themselves, that the laboratories should set up their own breeding establishments—one establishment for several laboratories, if you like—so that they might know the origin of the dogs and where they came from. They might then be prohibited from using any dog of which they could not trace the history from birth. That would prevent this particular evil. Speaking not only for myself but for all lovers of dogs I believe the public conscience has been roused by what has happened and is entirely in sympathy with the remarks both of Mr. Fry, the magistrate, and of the noble Lord opposite, and that it will not rest until something has been done to make it impossible in the future.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I will reply very briefly with regard to these two cases. As regards the first case it is still sub judice, but I understand it is not disputed that a dog was stolen from its owner and after passing through a great many hands was sold to University College who restored it to the owner as soon as it was identified. The case is not yet finished, but I think those are the outstanding facts. With regard to the second case, the case of the man Hewett—who seems a rather simple man if he stole a dog worth £7 and was willing to sell it for six shillings—the remarks made by the magistrate were made before he had heard what the authorities of University College had to say about the matter. My noble friend has read so much about the case that he has saved me the trouble of doing so. A great deal of this is an absolute reply to the indictment that University College encouraged the stealing of dogs. I do not believe it did that for a single moment. The University College authorities buy dogs for physiological purposes—I cannot go into the question now whether that is a wise thing to do or not—from recognised dealers, and not only that but they say they ask for a written guarantee that the dog has been honestly come by.

I think that in this particular case, that of the man Hewett, my noble friend rather tried to make out that he was generally engaged in stealing dogs worth£7 and selling them for six shillings. It is true that twelve years before he had been convicted of dog stealing, but the University College School did not know anything about that. Since then the police give him a very good character and the College had no reason to believe he was not an honest dealer in dogs, though an ill-advised one, I admit, from his own point of view. I fully join in the sympathy which has been aroused in this case. I should take any strong measures I could if I thought my own dogs were going to be stolen and experimented with. But these two instances do not make out a very strong case for the suggestion that this is a very prevalent thing, and the imputation that University College encourages it seems to me to be absolutely unfounded. I really do believe they have taken every precaution they possibly could to ascertain that dogs which are used for purposes of experiment are dogs which are not wanted and are honestly come by.

The noble Earl opposite has made two suggestions. I do not know whether my noble friend behind me agrees with them. He made one suggestion that dogs whose lives are in any case going to be put an end to, which are homeless and masterless and going to be sacrificed, might be used for these purposes in preference to dogs whose masters probably love them or which at any rate have not been condemned. I am told that in a year in London 25,000 dogs are destroyed. I fully agree with the noble Earl opposite that these are the dogs which should be used for this purpose, always admitting that dogs should be so used, and I have defended that in this House before. I have no right on this new suggestion to speak for the Home Office, but as far as I know they do not think it was a very wise provision in the Act of 1906, which absolutely prevented dogs that were going to be destroyed from being used for a useful purpose before they were painlessly destroyed. I do not know whether the noble Earl opposite saw the other day that in destroying dogs they were burned and subsequently poisoned.

EARL RUSSELL

Subsequently poisoned?

LORD DESBOROUGH

I read in the paper that an accident happened to the asphyxiating chamber, the top was blown off and the dogs were injured and subsequently poisoned. I would to more make an accusation against the Battersea Dogs' Home on that account than I should against the London School of Physiology that they were in the habit of buying stolen dogs or wishing people to steal dogs. I do not know what my noble friend wants. We cannot to-night alter the law relating to vivisection and he has not made any suggestion. But as to the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite I personally—and I believe the Home Office will agree—think it is a most excellent one and I hope something may be done in that direction.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I desire to ask my noble friend if he can tell us whether the Home Office intend to take any steps to stop the practice which has been going on of buying dogs for vivisection at very cheap prices from dog stealers. The case, as has been said, is all the more remarkable because here we have a dog valued at £7 sold for six shillings. I should have thought that mere fact was enough to put the purchasers on inquiry and to induce them to take steps to find out whether dogs were stolen. We are told they ask if the dogs am stolen, but surely if any mart is criminal enough to steal dogs he would be criminal enough to say they were not stolen.

LORD DESBOROUGH

There was a written guarantee.

LORD DANESFORT

A written guarantee! Probably the man would never be found out and the written guarantee would never be proved false. The idea that you can slop crime by asking a man if he is a criminal appears to me to be childish. I would ask my noble friend, if he cannot answer the question this evening, whether he will find out whether there is any method at all which the Home Office can adopt by which this practice, whether it is large or small, can be stopped.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, my noble friend has asked me if I could suggest any method by which this could be stopped. I would suggest that the Home Office should give instructions to the police to investigate the approaches to these different schools extremely carefully and to prosecute in any case in which they can find that a dog has been stolen or has been received knowing that it has been stolen, because the receiver is just as had as the thief. I will not go into the question raised by the noble Earl opposite about stray dogs, because that is really rather foreign to the Question which is now before your Lordships' House and which really only relates to stolen dogs. The question of stray dogs really comes more or less under the consideration of whether dogs ought to be vivisected or not. I would only say in regard to stray dogs that they may and probably in many cases do, belong to an owner, and are unfortunately lost; and in the second place, that stray dogs have just as much feeling as any other dogs.