THE MUZZLING ORDER.
[To THE EDITOZ OF THE "SPECTATOE."3 Sin,—A lady who is so very sure, as Miss Isabel Fry seems. to be, of her right to call those who differ from her " foolish " and " senseless " is not likely to see that there are more sides than one to this muzzling question. I do not write for her benefit, but some of your readers may care to know how this question strikes a Magistrate. Here is an order which in the course of one year (Sir M. W. Ridley could only give the figures for 1895 last July,—they have probably been greatly exceeded since) brought into the police-courts 31,434 persons, the great majority of whom had never been summoned before.. They were respectable, law-abiding citizen, mixed up with the ordinary rabble of the "drunken and disorderly." Everyone will admit that this is a very serious matter—serious on account of the enormous amount of vexation and loss it has caused to the persons concerned—and even more so on account of the odium incurred by the police in the execution of a most obnoxious duty. I believe I am right in saying that Magis- trates as a rule detest dealing with these summonses, not only on account of their trivial character, but because they feel that a regulation which bears hardly on one class of dog-owners and exempts another is stamped with injustice. We are informed by Mr. Long that by persevering with his order he expects to stamp out the very rare disease of hydro- phobia. Then comes the question, Is it right that an official should be allowed to try experiments at such a cost ? Dog- haters are, no doubt, pleased to see dogs muzzled. They would be still more pleased if they could be exterminated. But I suppose that is not as yet the view of the majority of this nation ; and I think it is by no means senseless to ask Mr. Long to invent some regulation which will not throw into revolt all who both own dogs and love them. It is well known to those who study the subject that there is any alternative.—I am, &c.,
Previous page
