102 
[February, 
A Defence of the Dog. 
or even coursing, are necessarily degrading employments ; 
nevertheless, rather than seem to press a doubtful advantage, 
we prefer to admit the absence of strict and immediate utility 
in this division. And most cordially and unconditionally 
is it here confessed that the society of the prizefighting bull- 
dog and the cat-worrying and rat-pit terriers does not tend to 
elevate their masters. Likewise must Mr. Fernseed’s opinion 
of the validity of the “poor man ” argument be here 
thoroughly endorsed. The poor have so little to lose that 
they do not require dogs as guardians of property. Nor 
is seven-and-sixpence a sum which would deter any skilled 
labourer from keeping a dog if so inclined. 
As to the treatment of stray, ownerless dogs I consent, 
however sorrowfully, to your contributor’s sentence of 
“judicious butchery,” and I do so from the dog’s point of 
view no less than from man’s, seeing these negleCted curs — 
the chief, if not the only source of rabies — are lucky in 
being put speedily out of existence. Further, I fail to see 
the great hardship of enforcing, especially during the summer 
months, the wearing of muzzles, which, made of wire and 
properly fitted, are but a very slight infringement of the 
creature’s comfort and liberty. Particularly is this desir- 
able where dogs are allowed, as many are, to wander about 
alone, uncontrolled by their master’s presence. There are 
likewise certain canine crimes and misdemeanours that de- 
mand severe punishment. Sheep-worrying I would make a 
capital offence, as it is an all but incurable habit, correspond- 
ing to dipsomania in the human race ; it should certainly 
be competent to the guardian or the owner of the sheep to 
shoot the dog if caught in the aCt, or for the magistrate, if 
the offence is brought home, to order the brute’s destruction. 
The practice some curs have of rushing at and following 
horses and vehicles is decidedly dangerous as well as annoy- 
ing, yet, not being by any means absolutely incurable, the 
first few instances might be left to the master’s discipline ; 
but in confirmed cases, when he will not shut up the offender, 
he should at the least suffer heavy fining. A few sharp 
punishments should cure a young dog with any docility in 
his nature of this pernicious habit, and as a general principle 
an owner should be liable for any damage resulting from his 
dog’s misconduct ; that is to say, when it is not occasioned 
by wanton provocation on the part of the sufferer. 
But, after all is said, the existing law is not so inefficient 
as Frank Fernseed wishes to imply, which anyone may see 
by glancing over any summary of the law on the subject ; 
and, indeed, it would be difficult to increase its stringency 
