756 Modern Cynolatry. [December, 
Here are the very words “ Let the Legislature forbid 
muzzles and chains ; let public parks in all cities, at least 
for certain early hours of the day, be open to all dogs for 
exercise and liberty.” 
And now as to the “ utmost possible average of crime ” of 
which dogs may be guilty. I find it on record that in the 
first six months of the year 1865 no fewer than 354 persons 
suffering from bites by dogs were treated in the London hos- 
pitals. This would give for the whole of the year 708, and 
if we suppose, — which is surely no exaggerated estimate — 
that as many more were treated in private practice, we shall 
have in round numbers a yearly total of 1400 persons injured 
by dogs in London alone. Or, taking the entire population 
of Great Britain and Ireland at ten times that of the metro- 
polis, we find the gross number of the sufferers rise to 14,000 
yearly ; — decidedly more, I submit, than “ one out of ten 
millions,” and certainly more than the worst-managed lead- 
mine, or lucifer-match manufactory, or railway company 
injures in the same length of time, leaving “ ten years ” out 
of the question. 
Nor are these injuries always trifling. Before me lies the 
account of a deplorable case which occurred at Salford on the 
9th of July last. A large black Newfoundland dog, 
belonging to a grocer in Howard-street, suddenly sprang 
over the wall in front of its owner’s premises, ran along the 
street, seized a little girl named Caroline Cobb, and began 
worrying her. Two men, after a great deal of trouble, suc- 
ceeded in driving the brute off. The child was severely 
wounded upon her neck, face, and body, and was disfigured 
for life.* It was stated that the dog had on previous occa- 
sions bitten people, and frequent complaints had been made 
to the owner about its savage character. The usual defence 
— in my opinion utterly irrelevant save as a mere legal 
quibble — was attempted, tow it, that the dog had never, to its 
owner’s knowledge, bitten any person. The judge gave a 
verdict for the plaintiff for £30 and costs. I should like to 
ask the mothers of England whether a mere money penalty, 
which was all the court could inflict, should in such a case 
be regarded as at all adequate ? In my opinion the destruc- 
tion of the noxious brute and a few months’ hard labour for 
the owner would be certainly not too severe a punishment. 
* What worse could happen in a country over-run with wolves? Moreover, 
he friends of the maimed child might shoot a wolf, but the law does notallow 
them to shoot its equally dangerous cousin. If they poison it the newspapers 
<. all them “ cowardly assassins.” 
