tok DOG AND THE LAW. 
decided opinions ; for we find that he or- 
dained ‘‘ Quod nullus mediocris habebit 
nec custodiet canes quod Anglhi 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 unknown to what sort 
of breeds the little dogs referred to belonged, 
but they were apparently 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 by Budceus 
“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 owners 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 
ons! 
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 CANUTE’S DAYS. 
“if any Mastiff 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 owner 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, 
