363

THE INCREASE OF DOG-STEALING

AND

ITS EVILS CONSIDERED.

BY GEORGE MANNING.

There is an old saying that "it was the last straw which broke the horse's back," which sad misfortune might, without doubt, have been prevented, had the animal's torturers considered his position before it was too late to save his life.

One would really suppose that the stealing of dogs, and the numerous necessarily concomitant evils arising from this species of crime, was a practice almost connived at by the legislature of this enlightened and sporting country; and that that noble and faithful animal, the dog, although placed at the top of the tree by all naturalists, was not worthy of a niche in the immense fabric of the laws of our constitution, sufficient to protect him from being daily abstracted with impunity from his possessor. Every one who knows anything, knows that horse-stealing, or the stealing of a sheep, or even a twopenny pocket handkerchief from the person of him who may be careless enough to allow it to hang half out of his pocket, constitutes a felony, and was, within a very short time, punishable with death. This punishment, however, has, by 2nd and 3rd of Wm. IV., cap. 62, been altered to transportation. But if any person shall steal a dog, let him be ever so valuable, the offender is only punishable by fine or imprisonment, the amount of which is, I believe, according to the following ratio :-For the first offence, the stealer shall pay, over the value of the dog, a fine not exceeding £20, or, in default, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six calendar months; for the second offence, imprisonment with hard labour, not exceeding twelve calendar months; and for the third offence, the like punishment and whipping. This amount of punishment is never likely to have the least effect in diminishing the evil complained of, as, from the high price which not only sporting dogs, but also those known by the designation of "fancy," can always command, as well in this country as on the continent, the offenders, who invariably calculate their chances pretty well before they embark in each speculation, can generally sell the dog for more than the amount of the fine, even if they had not other means for raising the wind to carry on their nefarious calling, namely, by receiving large sums of money to return the stolen dog, all the ramifications of which rascality I shall enter into and duly explain in the course of my observations on the subject.

The discrepancy and absurdity existing between the stealing of a horse and a dog become still greater, when we consider that we are

liable to a heavy tax for the latter as well as the former animal. Why should not the dog, I ask, receive a similar protection? or, in other words, why should not the possessor of a dog worth £5 be equally protected with the owner of a horse whose utmost value may only be forty shillings?

I have heard it remarked, that the law, as it now stands, is sufficiently stringent, if the magistrates would but act up to it; and that, were it more severe, they might be disposed to be still more lenient. If the law against dog-stealing is severe enough, it follows, as a matter of course, that the law against horse-stealing is too severe; and that the law, as regards the latter, is not too hard, is sufficiently evident by the wide dissimilarity in the security as property of one and the other. Where is the difference, whether in intrinsic worth or individual value, in the loss of either? Perhaps some of my readers may have considered, that the 4,000 guineas which the American government gave, a few years since, for that celebrated stallion Priam, was too much for any horse; and yet the purloiner of a knacker's "twentyfive shilling keffel" would be visited with the same punishment for the stealing of one as the other. What do you think, reader, of the late Lord Middleton, of Wollaton, in Nottinghamshire, giving Mr. Osbaldeston 500 guineas for five unentered hound bitches? and yet such property as this is to be left to the mercy of such fellows as the London dog-stealers to purloin, when they have an opportunity, to send them over by the French and Belgian steamers, to be sold to Louis Philippe, and other continental sportsmen, to hunt wild boars in a foreign land. I myself have seen valuable young hounds, which had been stolen from their quarters even before they had had their ears chopped off, drawing hand-organs and costermongers' carts about the streets of the metropolis, before the bill passed for the suppression of using dogs as animals of draught; but, thank heaven, that door has been shut against the rascals, as one of the minor markets for getting rid of this description of stolen property.

What would that health-promoting amusement, the chase, in its various branches, be in this country, if it were not for the assistance of the dog? To this faithful animal we are indebted for the protec tion of our lives and property, and for many other advantages, without which, man, in a wild or civilized state, would be but a helpless being. And yet for the dog, whether regarded as property or in humanity, the law is less stringent than in the case of a sheep, whose value rarely, if ever, exceeds the common market price as a commodity of daily consumption in the way of food.

This laxity in the laws, of which I have been speaking, has led to the organization of a system, of which robbery, extortion, and cruelty are the predominant features. "The canine fancy" is a regularly constituted club, with its office and its secretary, where all the members of this nefarious trade bring their prizes to be entered in a book by the individual in question. As soon as the dog lost is "chanted" (advertised), an agent immediately brings you tidings of your loss; but the man who actually steals the dog never appears himself, by which he avoids all risk of being "had up" or of "getting into trouble" in the business. You are then at liberty to redeem your

property, by paying a most exorbitant ransom, the amount of which is generally regulated, not according to the absolute value of the dog, but according to the state of your finances, the liberality of your disposition, and of your attachment to a favourite and long-valued companion; with all which little peculiarities in your composition the "Fancy" have previously, with some pains, made themselves thoroughly acquainted. If a dog is not "chanted" before he becomes all but starved, he is either killed for his skin, or conveyed on board one of the foreign steamers, where it is well known that the markets are regularly supplied by stolen dogs from England, embracing all species of the animal, from the stately blood-hound down to the diminutive spaniel of King Charles's celebrated breed. If in advertising a lost dog, one word is said about law, or any threats used as an intimidation for the restoration of the property, the dog is, in this case, immediately destroyed, and either buried, skin and all, or consigned to a watery grave, his brains being first knocked out against the battlements of one of the bridges leading over the Thames. I could relate numerous striking anecdotes illustrative of the stealing and restoring of dogs, but shall reserve them for a later period in these remarks, and proceed at once to a more important part of the business, which is to make a few observations upon a bill now preparing, by which it is intended to provide for the suppression of this daily increasing crime, not only in the metropolis, but also in many other parts of the country, accessible by the emissaries of this abominable gang of freebooters.

The majority of my readers are, perhaps, already aware that the bill above spoken of is to be brought before Parliament by Mr. Liddell, the respected member for Durham. By the passing of this act of Parliament, it is intended to place the dog upon the same footing as the horse, and other domestic animals whose services are valuable, both as regards profit and amusement, to man. That dog-stealing may be constituted a felony, and that the receiver of every dog known to be illegally obtained shall be considered an accomplice, and be visited by a similar severe sentence. The idea of first petitioning the House of Commons to have this act of Parliament passed, originated with that well-known and eccentric character, Mr. Bishop, of Bondstreet, the justly-celebrated gunmaker; the petition being signed by great numbers of the first nobility and gentry in the country. In his inner shop-or rather studio, as it may be termed-is held, at all seasons of the year, till grouse-shooting rather thins its daily attendants, a kind of sporting levee, where the merits of not only guns, but all descriptions of sporting dogs, are talked over by their various owners or admirers; the conversation being rendered doubly agreeable by the accompaniment of a large brown loaf and "ripe Stilton," and divers foaming pots of Barclay and Perkins's entire. Now "The Bishop," is, and has been for about thirty years-that is to say, as long as he has been "upon the town," or rather before the public- -an eccentric character: from his long attachment to all descriptions of fun pervading this great and tasteful metropolis, whilst his acquaintance with innumerable "queer characters" of every grade has given him an insight into society rarely to be met with in any man, however long an apprenticeship he

may have served. Many of the unfortunate attendants at the aforesaid levee, having been deprived of their favourite dogs by the hands of the dog-stealers on whom we have been descanting, applied, in the moments of their distress, to Mr. Bishop for his advice in the matter, himself having been a fellow-sufferer, and, to regain his favourite, having been mulcted by these harpies in a considerable fine upon the occasion. His knowledge of the town and of many of the " queer characters," of whom I spoke, has enabled him to get some of the stolen dogs restored to their owners, upon paying, through the medium of a third person, a most exorbitant and shameful ransom. This part of the transaction is generally negociated by a man who may be termed the Jonathan Wild of "the fancy:" who prefers neglecting his business by seeking after the enormous profits arising from the degrading and rascally negociations above alluded to. Since Mr. Bishop has become an accidental assistant in many of these canine transactions, not only has the levee become daily increased in the interior of the studio, but numbers of carriages may be seen in the morning, containing ladies, anxiously inquiring if anything has been heard about their Floras or Phillises.

The men who form the club which I mentioned at the beginning of these remarks, are in the habit of assuming all sorts of disguises to effect their purpose; and frequently the person who restores your lost dog is a well-dressed, puritanical-looking scoundrel who bags his share of the "swag," which, although divided amongst several who participate in the prize, is, from the exorbitance of their demands, pretty considerable. To illustrate the extent to which this rascally and barbarous system is carried, I will give the following letters and cases (being samples of dozens more which I could enumerate), as sufficient examples for the carrying out of my present purpose :—

LETTER ADDRESSED TO MR. BISHOP.

"DEAR SIR,-Being aware that you are having prepared a bill, to be presented to the House of Commons, for the purpose of preventing in future dog-stealing, for your information I beg to inform you that I have had my dog stolen three times within the last nine months; and had to pay each time three pounds for the restoration of my dog.

"Wishing you every success in endeavouring to crush such a set of fellows, who are prowling about the streets from morning till night in search of dogs, "I remain, dear sir,

"Yours, very truly,

"HENRY ASKHAM."

A second instance which I have to record is of a Miss Bethell, who has paid no less than seven times for the restoration of her favourite dog.

The following elegant specimen was sent as a reply to a reward of five pounds, offered for a spaniel bitch, which was lost on the 25th of January, and was to be brought to a Mrs. Miniers, No. 3, Royal Adelphi-terrace. It bears the post-mark of the New-cut, Lambeth :

MAM,-I know were you Dog is; if you offer ten pounds reward instid of five you Shall have it; if you dont then you Shant Have it. I can mak mor if She only Breed well. Tuttle-st., Vestminster."

"Mrs. Miner, 3, Royal-terrace, Adelphi."

The immense sums of money which have been lately paid for the restoration of stolen dogs is perfectly incredible: the large amount of £900 and upwards has been extorted upon those occasions alone where Mr. Bishop has personally interfered for the restitution of the stolen property, in some instances for dogs which have been stolen twice, and even more frequently. Amongst those persons who have been sufferers may be enumerated H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge, £30; Wyndham Bruce, Esq., £25; Capt. Alexander, 1st Life Guards, £22; and many others, too numerous to insert in these pages. So lucrative is this system of plunder, that bribes are continually offered to the servants of people of fortune to facilitate the designs of the thieves; an instance of which occurred to the butler of the Countess of Charlemont, who was offered £5 if he would cause her ladyship's favourite dog to be shut out of the house as if by accident, in order that the animal might be carried off, the rascals well knowing that a large ransom would be paid for his recovery: the honest butler, however, was proof against the intended abstraction of his canine charge.

So safe are these dog-stealers, from their well-organized plans and the anomalous state of the law, and so fearless of punishment, that the following case stands unparalleled in the history of unblushing impudence, robbery, and extortion. On the 10th of August, 1843, Mr. Bishop was waited upon at his own residence by one of the fellows of the class above alluded to, and who, in a jocular manner, remarked that it was the intention of certain parties (meaning the dogstealers) to go to Ealing, to get Mr. Thorne's three black setters. Mr. Bishop, without loss of time, called upon Mr. Thorne, in order to put him upon his guard, so that he might take steps to prevent the contemplated robbery; but Mr. Thorne thought his dogs so secure, that he took no further notice of the intimation. On the following Sunday, however, the dogs were gone, having been taken away from a close kennel, and lifted over a high wall. Mr. Thorne, upon ascertaining his loss, came up to London and applied to the police, who told him it would be useless for them to move in the matter, and referred him to a man named Taylor, who is known to be one of the chief instruments in the restoration of stolen dogs. Upon seeing Mr. Thorne, Taylor said, "I know what you are come about: I've heard of your setters being lossed, and I'll see what they can be got for." Mr. Thorne then left him, and, in a few hours after, he was visited by Taylor, who undertook to restore them for £12; but Mr. Thorne refused to give more than £10, and wrote a cheque for the amount, which he gave to Taylor, who then took his departure, and in a short time returned with the lossed dogs.

Although we have proved that this species of crime almost always escapes without punishment, yet I can relate one instance to the con