THE DOG AND THE LAW. 



555 



decided opinions ; for we find that he or- 

 dained " Quod nullus mediocris habebit 

 nee custodiet canes quod Angli Greyhounds 

 appellant," which means " that no one of 

 the middle class " (or perhaps more cor- 

 rectly, " lower order ") " shall be possessed 

 of or keep dogs which the English call 

 Greyhounds." 



It is probably unkno\vn to what sort 

 of breeds the little dogs referred to belonged, 

 but they were apparenth- insignificant little 

 toy dogs, for we are told that they were 

 regarded as so harmless that the mowers 

 took them into the fields with them. It 

 is certain that Spaniels (called bj' Budoeus 

 " canis odoriferus ") could not be kept in 

 the forest without a special grant. The 

 test in any case was one of size, and 

 foresters were provided with a fixed gauge 

 in the form of a hoop. Only the little 

 dogs which could creep through this were 

 exempt, and as the diameter of the gauge 

 was hardly more than seven inches most 

 of the privileged dogs must have been very 

 little indeed. 



The Mastiff, apart from these little dogs, 

 was the only dog allowed in the forest, 

 and he, except under special grant or 

 possibly by prescription, had to suffer 

 expeditation. 



In old British language, Mastiffs and all 

 other barking curs about houses in the 

 night, were called " masethefes," because 

 " they maze and fright thieves from their 

 masters." 



Every third year the Regarders of the 

 Forest — twelve lawful men accommodated 

 with ministerial functions — made inspection 

 of all the dogs within their jurisdiction, and 

 presented such Mastiffs as they found to 

 be unmutilated to the Court of Swainmote. 

 There being no official executioner appointed 

 by Forest Law, it became the practice of 

 the court " to cause the foresters within 

 whose Bailiwick the owTiers of such Mastiffs 

 dwelt, to bring them thither where the 

 court might appoint one to expeditate 

 them (the dogs)." 



The Thirty-first Canon of Canute tells us 

 that the lawing of dogs was called " Genus- 

 cissio," which was a cutting or laming of 



them in the hams, and therefore the old 

 foresters called it " hamling." But much 

 the more approved form of mutilation for 

 the object in hand seems to have been the 

 cutting off of three toes of the forefeet in 

 the following simple and effective, but 

 extremely brutal, manner. 



" A forefoot was placed on a piece of 

 wood eight inches thick and a foot square, 

 and then setting a chisel of two inches 

 broad upon the three claws, he struck them 

 off with one blow of a mallet." 



After such operation, apparently on both 

 forefeet, the dog was considered safe, and 



A DOG GAUGE OF CANUTES DAYS. 



" if any ]\Iastiff was found on any wild 

 animal and he (the dog) was mutilated, 

 he whose dog he was was quit of the deed ; 

 but if he was not mutilated, the owTier of 

 the mastiff was guilty as if he had given it 

 with his own hand." 



The fine for keeping an unexpeditated 

 Mastiff was not more than three shillings ; 

 but if hurt was done to any beast, the 

 master was punished according to the 

 quality of the offence. If one man had 

 two unexpeditated dogs, he was not amerced 

 three shillings for each, but so much for 

 both ; if, however, two men had jointly 

 or in common one such dog, each of them 

 was severally amerced. 



There cannot be the slightest doubt that, 



