THE MUZZLING ORDER. [To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR. " ]
Sin,—You were good enough, in the Spectator of August 3rd, to publish a letter of mine on the muzzling order. I propose now to make a few remarks upon another phase of the question, if you think them worth publishing.
I allude to the power in the hands of the police of inflicting great personal annoyance and vexation on dog-owners. I will pass by the uncomfortable feeling of being constantly subject to police supervision, and suppose that a summons has been issued. At the Police-Courts, and before the Magistrates in Petty Sessions (I write from personal experience), the person so summoned is treated in the same manner and is subjected to the same indignities as if he had been engaged in a pothouse brawl, or had been drunk and disorderly. Of course, he can let the summons go by default, or he can employ a solicitor to defend the case, either way incurring considerable expense.
I live in a retired district. The nearest house to mine is my gardener's cottage, nearly half-a-mile distant, but in the public road. My dogs occasionally pay a friendly visit to my gardener's children. Here is a fine field for a zealous constable.
The majority of dog-owners will doubtless do all in their power to obey the law, but I think the Home Secretary and the Government will do well to reflect that too much police meddling is not agreeable to English people, and that they may show their displeasure at the polling-booth.--I am, Sir, &c.,
THOMAS WARRINGTON.
The Cottage, Potter's Bar, August 12th.
Previous page
