The live animals sold in the streets include beasts, birds, fish, and
reptiles, all sold in the streets of London.
The class of men carrying on this business--for they are nearly all
men--is mixed; but the majority are of a half-sporting and half-vagrant
kind. One informant told me that the bird-catchers, for instance, when
young, as more than three-fourths of them are, were those who “liked
to be after a loose end,” first catching their birds, as a sort of
sporting business, and then sometimes selling them in the streets, but
far more frequently disposing of them in the bird-shops. “Some of these
boys,” a bird-seller in a large way of business said to me, “used to
become rat-catchers or dog-sellers, but there’s not such great openings
in the rat and dog line now. As far as I know, they’re the same lads,
or just the same sort of lads, anyhow, as you may see ‘helping,’
holding horses, or things like that, at concerns like them small races
at Peckham or Chalk Farm, or helping any way at the foot-races at
Camberwell.” There is in this bird-catching a strong manifestation
of the vagrant spirit. To rise long before daybreak; to walk some
miles before daybreak; from the earliest dawn to wait in some field,
or common, or wood, watching the capture of the birds; then a long
trudge to town to dispose of the fluttering captives; all this is done
cheerfully, because there are about it the irresistible charms, to this
class, of excitement, variety, and free and open-air life. Nor do these
charms appear one whit weakened when, as happens often enough, all this
early morn business is carried on fasting.
The old men in the bird-catching business are not to be ranked as
to their enjoyment of it with the juveniles, for these old men are
sometimes infirm, and can but, as one of them said to me some time ago,
“hobble about it.” But they have the same spirit, or the sparks of it.
And in this part of the trade is one of the curious characteristics of
a street-life, or rather of an open-air pursuit for the requirements
of a street-trade. A man, worn out for other purposes, incapable of
anything but a passive, or sort of lazy labour--such as lying in a
field and watching the action of his trap-cages--will yet in a summer’s
morning, decrepid as he may be, possess himself of a dozen or even a
score of the very freest and most aspiring of all our English small
birds, a creature of the air beyond other birds of his “order”--to use
an ornithological term--of sky-larks.
The dog-sellers are of a sporting, trading, idling class. Their sport
is now the rat-hunt, or the ferret-match, or the dog-fight; as it was
with the predecessors of their stamp, the cock-fight; the bull, bear,
and badger bait; the shrove-tide cock-shy, or the duck hunt. Their
trading spirit is akin to that of the higher-class sporting fraternity,
the trading members of the turf. They love to sell and to bargain,
always with a quiet exultation at the time--a matter of loud tavern
boast afterwards, perhaps, as respects the street-folk--how they “do”
a customer, or “do” one another. “It’s not cheating,” was the remark
and apology of a very famous jockey of the old times, touching such
measures; “it’s not cheating, it’s outwitting.” Perhaps this expresses
the code of honesty of such traders; not to cheat, but to outwit or
over-reach. Mixed with such traders, however, are found a few quiet,
plodding, fair-dealing men, whom it is difficult to classify, otherwise
than that they are “in the line, just because they likes it.” The
idling of these street-sellers is a part of their business. To walk
by the hour up and down a street, and with no manual labour except to
clean their dogs’ kennels, and to carry them in their arms, is but an
idleness, although, as some of these men will tell you, “they work hard
at it.”
Under the respective heads of dog and bird-sellers, I shall give more
detailed characteristics of the class, as well as of the varying
qualities and inducements of the buyers.
The street-sellers of foreign birds, such as parrots, parroquets, and
cockatoos; of gold and silver fish; of goats, tortoises, rabbits,
leverets, hedgehogs; and the collectors of snails, worms, frogs, and
toads, are also a mixed body. Foreigners, Jews, seamen, countrymen,
costermongers, and boys form a part, and of them I shall give a
description under the several heads. The prominently-characterized
street-sellers are the traders in dogs and birds.
OF THE FORMER STREET-SELLERS, “FINDERS,” STEALERS, AND RESTORERS OF
DOGS.
Before I describe the present condition of the street-trade in dogs,
which is principally in spaniels, or in the description well known as
lap-dogs, I will give an account of the former condition of the trade,
if trade it can properly be called, for the “finders” and “stealers” of
dogs were the more especial subjects of a parliamentary inquiry, from
which I derive the official information on the matter. The Report of
the Committee was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, July
26, 1844.
In their Report the Committee observe, concerning the value of pet
dogs:--“From the evidence of various witnesses it appears, that in one
case a spaniel was sold for 105_l._, and in another, under a sheriff’s
execution, for 95_l._ at the hammer; and 50_l._ or 60_l._ are not
unfrequently given for fancy dogs of first-rate breed and beauty.”
The hundred guineas’ dog above alluded to was a “black and tan King
Charles’s spaniel;”--indeed, Mr. Dowling, the editor of _Bell’s Life
in London_, said, in his evidence before the Committee, “I have known
as much as 150_l._ given for a dog.” He said afterwards: “There are
certain marks about the eyes and otherwise, which are considered
‘properties;’ and it depends entirely upon the property which a dog
possesses as to its value.”
I need not dwell on the general fondness of the English for dogs,
otherwise than as regards what were the grand objects of the
dog-finders’ search--ladies’ small spaniels and lap-dogs, or, as they
are sometimes called, “carriage-dogs,” by their being the companions of
ladies inside their carriages. These animals first became fashionable
by the fondness of Charles II. for them. That monarch allowed them
undisturbed possession of the gilded chairs in his palace of Whitehall,
and seldom took his accustomed walk in the park without a tribe of
them at his heels. So “fashionable” were spaniels at that time and
afterwards, that in 1712 Pope made the chief of all his sylphs and
sylphides the guard of a lady’s lapdog. The fashion has long continued,
and still continues; and it was on this fashionable fondness for a
toy, and on the regard of many others for the noble and affectionate
qualities of the dog, that a traffic was established in London, which
became so extensive and so lucrative, that the legislature interfered,
in 1844, for the purpose of checking it.
I cannot better show the extent and lucrativeness of this trade,
than by citing a list which one of the witnesses before Parliament,
Mr. W. Bishop, a gunmaker, delivered in to the Committee, of “cases
in which money had recently been extorted from the owners of dogs
by dog-stealers and their confederates.” There is no explanation of
the space of time included under the vague term “recently;” but the
return shows that 151 ladies and gentlemen had been the victims of
the dog-stealers or dog-finders, for in this business the words were,
and still are to a degree, synonymes, and of these 62 had been so
victimized in 1843 and in the six months of 1844, from January to
July. The total amount shown by Mr. Bishop to have been paid for the
restoration of stolen dogs was 977_l._ 4_s._ 6_d._, or an average of
6_l._ 10_s._ per individual practised upon. This large sum, it is
stated on the authority of the Committee, was only that which came
within Mr. Bishop’s knowledge, and formed, perhaps, “but a _tenth_
part in amount” of the whole extortion. Mr. Bishop was himself in the
habit of doing business “in obtaining the restitution of dogs,” and
had once known 18_l._--the dog-stealers asked 25_l._--given for the
restitution of a spaniel. The full amount realized by this dog-stealing
was, according to the above proportion, 9772_l._ 5_s._ In 1843, 227_l._
3_s._ 6_d._ was so realized, and 97_l._ 14_s._ 6_d._ in the six months
of 1844, within Mr. Bishop’s personal knowledge; and if this be
likewise a _tenth_ of the whole of the commerce in this line, a year’s
business, it appears, averaged 2166_l._ to the stealers or finders
of dogs. I select a few names from the list of those robbed of dogs,
either from the amount paid, or because the names are well known. The
first payment cited is from a public board, who owned a dog in their
corporate capacity:
£ _s._ _d._
Board of Green Cloth 8 0 0
Hon. W. Ashley (v. t.[5]) 15 0 0
Sir F. Burdett 6 6 0
Colonel Udney (v. t.) 12 0 0
Duke of Cambridge 30 0 0
Count Kielmansegge 9 0 0
Mr. Orby Hunter (v. t.) 15 0 0
Mrs. Holmes (v. t.) 50 0 0
Sir Richard Phillips (v. t.) 20 0 0
The French Ambassador 1 11 6
Sir R. Peel 2 0 0
Edw. Morris, Esq. 17 0 0
Mrs. Ram (v. t.) 15 0 0
Duchess of Sutherland 5 0 0
Wyndham Bruce, Esq. (v. t.) 25 0 0
Capt. Alexander (v. t.) 22 0 0
Sir De Lacy Evans 3 0 0
Judge Littledale 2 0 0
Leonino Ippolito, Esq. (v. t.) 10 0 0
Mr. Commissioner Rae 5 0 0
Lord Cholmondeley (v. t.) 12 0 0
Earl Stanhope 8 0 0
Countess of Charlemont (v. t. in 1843) 12 0 0
Lord Alfred Paget 10 0 0
Count Leodoffe (v. t.) 7 0 0
Mr. Thorne (whipmaker) 12 12 0
Mr. White (v. t.) 15 0 0
Col. Barnard (v. t.) 14 14 0
Mr. T. Holmes 15 0 0
Earl of Winchelsea 6 0 0
Lord Wharncliffe (v. t.) 12 0 0
Hon. Mrs. Dyce Sombre 2 2 0
M. Ude (v. t.) 10 10 0
Count Batthyany 14 0 0
Bishop of Ely 4 10 0
Count D’Orsay 10 0 0
Thus these 36 ladies and gentlemen paid 438_l._ 5_s._ 6_d._ to
rescue their dogs from professional dog-stealers, or an average, per
individual, of upwards of 12_l._
These dog appropriators, as they found that they could levy
contributions not only on royalty, foreign ambassadors, peers,
courtiers, and ladies of rank, but on public bodies, and on the
dignitaries of the state, the law, the army, and the church, became
bolder and more expert in their avocations--a boldness which was
encouraged by the existing law. Prior to the parliamentary inquiry,
dog-stealing was not an indictable offence. To show this, Mr.
Commissioner Mayne quoted Blackstone to the Committee: “As to those
animals which do not serve for food, and which therefore the law holds
to have no intrinsic value, as dogs of all sorts, and other creatures
kept for whim and pleasure--though a man may have a base property
therein, and maintain a civil action for the loss of them, yet they
are not of such estimation as that the crime of stealing them amounts
to larceny.” The only mode of punishment for dog-stealing was by
summary conviction, the penalty being fine or imprisonment; but Mr.
Commissioner Mayne did not know of any instance of a dog-stealer being
sent to prison in default of payment. Although the law recognised
no property in a dog, the animal was taxed; and it was complained
at the time that an unhappy lady might have to pay tax for the full
term upon her dog, perhaps a year and a half after he had been stolen
from her. One old offender, who stole the Duke of Beaufort’s dog, was
transported, not for stealing the dog, but his collar.
The difficulty of proving the positive theft of a dog was extreme. In
most cases, where the man was not seen actually to seize a dog which
could be identified, he escaped when carried before a magistrate. “The
dog-stealers,” said Inspector Shackell, “generally go two together;
they have a piece of liver; they say it is merely bullock’s liver,
which will entice or tame the wildest or savagest dog which there
can be in any yard; they give it him, and take him from his chain.
At other times,” continues Mr. Shackell, “they will go in the street
with a little dog, rubbed over with some sort of stuff, and will
entice valuable dogs away.... If there is a dog lost or stolen, it is
generally known within five or six hours where that dog is, and they
know almost exactly what they can get for it, so that it is a regular
system of plunder.” Mr. G. White, “dealer in live stock, dogs, and
other animals,” and at one time a “dealer in lions, and tigers, and all
sorts of things,” said of the dog-stealers: “In turning the corners of
streets there are two or three of them together; one will snatch up a
dog and put into his apron, and the others will stop the lady and say,
‘What is the matter?’ and direct the party who has lost the dog in a
contrary direction to that taken.”
In this business were engaged from 50 to 60 men, half of them actual
stealers of the animals. The others were the receivers, and the
go-betweens or “restorers.” The thief kept the dog perhaps for a day
or two at some public-house, and he then took it to a dog-dealer with
whom he was connected in the way of business. These dealers carried on
a trade in “honest dogs,” as one of the witnesses styled them (meaning
dogs honestly acquired), but some of them dealt principally with the
dog-stealers. Their depots could not be entered by the police, being
private premises, without a search-warrant--and direct evidence was
necessary to obtain a search-warrant--and of course a stranger in quest
of a stolen dog would not be admitted. Some of the dog-dealers would
not purchase or receive dogs known to have been stolen, but others
bought and speculated in them. If an advertisement appeared offering a
reward for the dog, a negotiation was entered into. If no reward was
offered, the owner of the dog, who was always either known or made out,
was waited upon by a restorer, who undertook “to restore the dog if
terms could be come to.” A dog belonging to Colonel Fox was once kept
six weeks before the thieves would consent to the Colonel’s terms. One
of the most successful restorers was a shoemaker, and mixed little
with the actual stealers; the dog-dealers, however, acted as restorers
frequently enough. If the person robbed paid a good round sum for the
restoration of a dog, and paid it speedily, the animal was almost
certain to be stolen a second time, and a higher sum was then demanded.
Sometimes the thieves threatened that if they were any longer trifled
with they would inflict torture on the dog, or cut its throat. One
lady, Miss Brown of Bolton-street, was so worried by these threats, and
by having twice to redeem her dog, “that she has left England,” said
Mr. Bishop, “and I really do believe for the sake of keeping the dog.”
It does not appear, as far as the evidence shows, that these threats
of torture or death were ever carried into execution; some of the
witnesses had merely heard of such things.
The shoemaker alluded to was named Taylor, and Inspector Shackell
thus describes this person’s way of transacting business in the dog
“restoring” line: “There is a man named Taylor, who is one of the
greatest restorers in London of stolen dogs, through Mr. Bishop.” [Mr.
Bishop was a gunmaker in Bond-street.] “It is a disgrace to London that
any person should encourage a man like that to go to extort money from
ladies and gentlemen, especially a respectable man. A gentleman applied
to me to get a valuable dog that was stolen, with a chain on his neck,
and the name on the collar; and I heard Mr. Bishop himself say that
it cost 6_l._; that it could not be got for less. Capt. Vansittart
(the owner of the dog) came out; I asked him particularly, ‘Will you
give me a description of the dog on a piece of paper,’ and that is his
writing (producing a paper). I went and made inquiry; and the captain
himself, who lives in Belgrave-square, said he had no objection to
give 4_l._ for the recovery of the dog, but would not give the 6_l._ I
went and took a good deal of trouble about it. I found out that Taylor
went first to ascertain what the owner of the dog would give for it,
and then went and offered 1_l._ for the dog, then 2_l._, and at last
purchased it for 3_l._; and went and told Capt. Vansittart that he had
given 4_l._ for the dog; and the dog went back through the hands of Mr.
Bishop.”
The “restorers” had, it appears, the lion’s share in the profits of
this business. One witness had known of as much as ten guineas being
given for the recovery of a favourite spaniel, or, as the witness
styled it, for “working a dog back,” and only two of these guineas
being received by “the party.” The wronged individual, thus delicately
intimated as the “party,” was the thief. The same witness, Mr. Hobdell,
knew 14_l._ given for the restoration of a little red Scotch terrier,
which he, as a dog-dealer, valued at four shillings!
One of the coolest instances of the organization and boldness of the
dog-stealers was in the case of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly’s “favourite Scotch
terrier.” The “parties,” possessing it through theft, asked 12_l._ for
it, and urged that it was a reasonable offer, considering the trouble
they were obliged to take. “The dog-stealers were obliged to watch
every night,” they contended, through Mr. Bishop, “and very diligently;
Mr. Kelly kept them out very late from their homes, before they could
get the dog; he used to go out to dinner or down to the Temple, and
take the dog with him; they had a deal of trouble before they could get
it.” So Mr. Kelly was expected not only to pay more than the value of
his dog, but an extra amount on account of the care he had taken of his
terrier, and for the trouble his vigilance had given to the thieves!
The matter was settled at 6_l._ Mr. Kelly’s case was but one instance.
Among the most successful of the practitioners in this street-finding
business were Messrs. “Ginger” and “Carrots,” but a parliamentary
witness was inclined to believe that Ginger and Carrots were nicknames
for the same individual, one Barrett; although he had been in custody
several times, he was considered “a very superior dog-stealer.”
If the stolen dog were of little value, it was safest for the stealers
to turn him loose; if he were of value, and unowned and unsought for,
there was a ready market abroad. The stewards, stokers, or seamen of
the Ostend, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburgh, and all the French steamers,
readily bought stolen fancy dogs; sometimes twenty to thirty were
taken at a voyage. A steward, indeed, has given 12_l._ for a stolen
spaniel as a private speculation. Dealers, too, came occasionally
from Paris, and bought numbers of these animals, and at what the dog
foragers considered fair prices. One of the witnesses (Mr. Baker, a
game dealer in Leadenhall-market) said:--“I have seen perhaps twenty or
thirty dogs tied up in a little room, and I should suppose every one
of them was stolen; a reward not sufficiently high being offered for
their restoration, the parties get more money by taking them on board
the different steam-ships and selling them to persons on board, or to
people coming to this country to buy dogs and take them abroad.”
The following statement, derived from Mr. Mayne’s evidence, shows the
extent of the dog-stealing business, but only as far as came under
the cognizance of the police. It shows the number of dogs “lost” or
“stolen,” and of persons “charged” with the offence, and “convicted” or
“discharged.” Nearly all the dogs returned as lost, I may observe, were
stolen, but there was no evidence to show the positive theft:--
+------+---------+-------+----------+------------+------------
| | Dogs | Dogs | Persons | Convicted. | Discharged.
| | Stolen. | Lost. | Charged. | |
+------+---------+-------+----------+------------+------------
| 1841 | 43 | 521 | 51 | 19 | 32
| 1842 | 54 | 561 | 45 | 17 | 28
| 1843 | 60 | 606 | 38 | 18 | 20
+------+---------+-------+----------+------------+------------
In what proportion the police-known thefts stood to the whole number,
there was no evidence given; nor, I suppose, could it be given.
The dog-stealers were not considered to be connected with
housebreakers, though they might frequent the same public-houses. Mr.
Mayne pronounced these dog-stealers a genus, a peculiar class, “what
they call dog-fanciers and dog-stealers; a sort of half-sporting,
betting characters.”
The law on the subject of dog-stealing (8 and 9 Vict., c. 47) now is,
that “If any person shall steal any dog, every such offender shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof before any
two or more justices of the peace, shall, for the first offence, at the
discretion of the said justices, either be committed to the common gaol
or house of correction, there to be imprisoned only, or be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour, for any term not exceeding six calendar
months, or shall forfeit and pay over and above the value of the said
dog such sum of money, not exceeding 20_l._, as to the said justices
shall seem meet. And if any person so convicted shall afterwards be
guilty of the same offence, every such offender shall be guilty of an
indictable misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable
to suffer such punishment, by fine or imprisonment, with or without
hard labour, or by both, as the court in its discretion shall award,
provided such imprisonment do not exceed eighteen months.”