The London Journal

A Review of Metropolitan Society Past and Present

ISSN: 0305-8034 (Print) 1749-6322 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yldn20

The Day the Dogs Died in London

M. B. McMullan
To cite this article: M. B. McMullan (1998) The Day the Dogs Died in London, The London
Journal, 23:1, 32-40, DOI: 10.1179/ldn.1998.23.1.32
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/ldn.1998.23.1.32

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yldn20
Download by: [Laurentian University]

Date: 06 April 2016, At: 19:15

The Day the Dogs Died in London

M. B. McMULLAN

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

Of dogs in DOGgerel verse I sing, the late emancipation,

T'was in the Isle of DOGS they held its jovial celebration,
Determined dogs assembled they, each gay as Paddy Carey,
Yes,face toface, the canine race, appeared light, brisk and HAIRey.
Bow, wow, wow!
Each dog, they say,
Will have his day,
As dogs have now
A setter made a SET harangue, but rather too DOGmatical
A pointer a more POINTed one - its phrases fine were attic-all,
Quoth he, 'should donkey beating brutes with hostile view assail us,
'Before the beaks we'll have the SCAMPS offreedom who'd CURTAIL us.'
Bow, wow, wow
etc.
These verses appear on the front page of the 4th January 1840 issue of the Penny
Satirist- a periodical commending itself on its masthead as a 'cheap substitute for a
weekly newspaper'. 1 Above them was a cartoon showing disreputable dogs drinking,
smoking pipes, lounging about and jeering at ragged men and women with loaded
carts and barrows. The 'late emancipation' in the first line of verse, was the coming
into force, on 1st January 1840, of section 39 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839
which prohibited the use of dogs to pull carts in the streets of London.2 The men
and women in the cartoon are hauling the loads which five days earlier would have
been pulled by the dogs.
The prohibition applied only within the City and its liberties and it was not until
fifteen years later that the Cruelty to Animals Act 1854 extended it to the rest of
England and Wales.3 It is to this day illegal to use a dog to draw or help to draw a
load on the public roads.4
How many dog-carts were there in London in 1839 when the Act was passed? No
one knew but everyone could see there were a great many and that their number
was growing. William Sewell, Assistant Professor at the Royal Veterinary College,
asked in 1838 why there were more dogs in London than formerly, replied, ' ... the
employment of dogs in carts, which used not to be the case,.5 When the House of
Lords debated the matter, speakers confirmed from their own observation that the
practice was of recent origin but rapidly increasing; 'The evil ... ', said the Earl of
Warwick, 'has but recently commenced, and iflour Lordships allow it to go on, you
will find it difficult to deal with ... hereafter'.
No contemporary account I can find offers an explanation for this sudden
increase. Perhaps such carts could operate usefully only when the surfaces of the
London journal 23, (1),1998

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

THE DAY THE DOGS DIED IN LONDON

33

streets were reasonably good. The largest dog lacks the strength of a horse or a
donkey and the size of wheel dictated by a dog's stature would have made such carts
difficult to use in heavy mud or deep ruts. They could become generally useful only
as the streets of London began to improve in the second and third decades of the
nineteenth century. Once that had happened, a dog was cheaper to buy or hire
than a horse or donkey, cheaper to keep and, most importantly, a dog-cart did not
have to pay the tolls charged on carts drawn by horses or donkeys. Such provision
as there was for the taxation of dogs was ineffective.7 In the event the two Acts cut
off the development of the carts before they could really flourish with rubber tires
on tarred streets later in the century, though, of cours'e, the petrol engine would
have defeated them in the end as surely as it did the horse and the donkey.
The carts were then numerous for only a short period and this may be why little
is said of them in fiction, and newspapers rarely mention them until the time came
for their abolition. Yet the evidence is that by 1839 they had become the favoured
transport of the humbler tradesmen of London. In 1860 a contributor to the
magazine, Leisure Hour, remembered, 'Five and twenty years ago, the streets of
London were crowded with dogs to a much greater extent than they are now. The
city dog was then a beast of draught, and was seen harnessed to innumerable
equipages of bakers, costermongers, fruit sellers or razor grinders'.8 The Menageries,
a work of popular zoology published in 1831, tells us, 'In London within these few
years, the use of dogs in dragging light vehicles has become very general
.
many bakers ... have a travelling shop on wheels drawn by two stout mastiffs or
bull-dogs,' and how cat's meat vendors used them, ' ... at the well known cry of the

A dog carriage by George Cruikshank. courtesy of the National Canine Degence League.

34

M. B. McMULLAN

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

dealer, the cats of the district are in activity - anxiously peeping out of the doors for
the expected meal, and sometimes fearlessly approaching the little cart, without
apprehension of the supposed enemy who draws it'.9
There are more examples in the evidence given before the Select Committees
of 183210 and 183811 (the source of much of our knowledge of the carts); the
carrying of pig and sheep trotters from the fell-mon~ers and the butcher's trade
generally12 and the distribution of hearth stones.1 The Parish Officer of St.
Mary's Newington, Mr Simpson, tells of:
......
a man in Elliot's row, close by the Elephant and Castle, who has a
vehicle, made with two wheels as large as a cart's, and a short wheel in the
centre with a tiller, and .... not less than five dogs drawing it; and that man has
been
removing goods for poor people in the neighbourhood;
.
I saw him the other day with a chest of drawers and all the furniture of a family
drawn by five dogs.14
The construction of the carts ranged from the five-in-hand described by Mr Simpson and similarly well-designed vehicles with shafts, to mere wheel-barrows with
cords attached to the dog by a rough harness - the dogs often being auxiliary to the
efforts of its masters, or mistress. The main expense for the dog-owner was food, one
reason no doubt, why they were popular in the butcher's trade.
The carts carried people as well as goods. The Committees were told of the tradesmen themselves riding in them 15and according to the Leisure Hour it was 'not an
uncommon thing on a Sunday, to meet a whole family starting off to the country in
a dog drawn carriage; ... they would be seen returning at full gallop, uproarious
under the influence of drink and flying along at a pace that would distance a mailcoach.,16
This view of the dog-cart as part of a cockney idyll, was not shared by the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which insisted the use of dogs in this way was cruel
and should be prohibited.17 By 1839 the Society had already persuaded Parliament
to pass general laws against cruelty to animals and was employing inspectors to
enforce them. IS It was one of the host of improving societies set up and managed
by adherents of the evangelical movement which sponsored so many reforms. Not
everyone admired everything they did. The father of them all, the Society For the Suppression of Vice, was shrewdly attacked by the Reverend Sidney Smith who noting that
it concerned itself mainly with the vices of the poor - fairs, football, drunkenness,
holidaying and so on - suggested it should be renamed 'a society for suppressing
the vices of persons whose income does not exceed 500 per annum' .19This catches
exactly the resentment of the Penny Satirist and other critics at the campaign against
the dog-carts, a vehicle used only by the poor and uninfluential.
The evangelical movement, of course, tackled many real evils, including the slavetrade and slavery. When they turned their attention to the cruelties inflicted on
animals, it was not a trivial concern, as the evidence presented to parliamentary
committees shows. The minutes of these hearings still hold perils for imaginative
readers who may find themselves falling between the printed lines into the nightmare
alleys of London in the 1830s where cats were stolen and skinned alive to avoid
soaking the fur with blood by cutting their throats first. Dogs were also stolen for
their skins but no evidence was given of them being skinned alive. It is easy to

THE DAY THE DOGS DIED IN LONDON

35

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

Imagine why. The cruelty to dogs described in the evidence before the select committees, apart from organised dog-fighting, is the practice of driving them in carts.
There is evidence of beatings, over-loading, over-driving, starvation, neglect of
injuries, much of it showing cruelty, sometimes appalling cruelty, but not necessarily proving that the use of dogs in carts was cruel per se, as opposed to giving occasions for cruelty. There is an example in the Society's Annual Report for 1838:
.......
three boys, Edward Parfitt, John Pallmer and William Bellinger,
appeared before the magistrate, charged with having 'cruelly tortured certain
dogs'. John Rogerson deposed
he heard behind him a great shouting,
and the yelling of dogs; upon turning round he saw the three defendants, each
one in a dog cart, coming towards town at the rate of 10 miles an hour. They
were urging the dogs on by shouting and clapping their hands etc, .... the
poor dogs foamed at the mouth very much, they seemed quite exhausted. The
prisoners said they thought there was no harm in having a race ..... the carts
were full of hearth-stones. Mr Traill the magistrate said it was very cruel to race
dogs in carts, and that such a practice must be put a stop to. He would
therefore commit them to the House of Correction at Brixton for 10 days hard
labour.20
Leaving aside how easy it is to force dogs to race by shouting and clapping hands
(there is no mention of whips) if they are disinclined to do so, this heavy sentence
was imposed under the law in force before the use of dogs in carts was made a specific
offence. It is not surprising that very poor men and women struggling for a living in
the streets of London in an age when cruelty to animals and to humans was commonplace, did sometimes starve, savagely punish or heartlessly misuse their dogs.
They also starved, beat and otherwise misused horses and donkeys, as the records
of the Society show - and were prosecuted for it, but it was not suggested that the use
of horses and donkeys should therefore be forbidden. Why were the Society and its
supporters not content to prosecute those who mistreated dogs, without taking
from poor men and women the help of a dog to earn their living?
Many campaigners believed dogs so physiologically unsuited to haulage that using
them in carts was cruel in itself, even if they were otherwise treated with kindness.
Lord Brougham21 spoke vigorously in the House of Lords of ' .....
the very great
cruelty there is in using for the purposes of draught, an animal not framed for that
purpose. The dog was framed for totally different functions ... ,.22 The argument
led to considerable speculation. It was suggested that hard roads damaged dogs'
feet and that perspiring through their tongues made them peculiarly likely to suffer
if over-worked. Opponents of the measure spoke blandly of the ability of 'Scotch
lassies' to walk barefoot over sharp stones without discomfort, the use of sledge dogs
in cold countries and the apparent ability of fox-hounds to put up with a good deal
of exercise without unacceptable suffering.23 The Duke of Argyll said that 'the
greatest physiologist of the day', Sir Richard Owen24 did not support the abstract
proposition that dogs are unfit animals for draught, but the soft pads of the feet and
the peculiar condi tions of the roads of this country mean t 'their use must necessarily induce great suffering.'25 The Duke went on to tell the House, 'the proprietors
of dog-carts are a very immoral part of the community' and to speculate that the

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

36

M. B. McMULLAN

cruelty of driving dog carts 'produced a lower and more brutalised turn of mind. ,26
Such raw contempt for the cart-owners as a class was frequently expressed by those
supporting the prohibition.
The truth is that objections to dog-carts did not arise solely from concern for the
well-being of the dogs. Other interests and bodies of opinion supported the Society's
campaign for other reasons. The most important of these was the fear that the dogs
generated and spread rabies and the view they were a dangerous nuisance, particularly
to horse traffic.
Rabies commonly occurred in human beings, as it still does, as the result of the
bite of a rabid dog. Once lodged in the human body it led, inevitably and invariably,
to a death hideously painful to the victim and horrifying to the observer. Mr
Anthony White, a surgeon thirty years in practice, asked ifhe had ever been present
at such a death, replied, '
from about 12 to 15 times
there is no disease
whatever to which human nature is liable in which such great bodily suffering,
distress of mind, alarm, anxiety and desire to get out of existence prevail as
throughout that disease' .27 In 1839 the only treatment for a man, woman or child
bitten by a dog suspected of rabies, was the immediate burning of the area of the
wound with red hot iron, the use of acid to the same end, or the actual cutting away
of a large area of flesh.28 Nor was there any reliable way to tell whether an animal
was infected or not, except by awaiting the event.
Good reason, then, for the public to be terrified of the disease and for Parliament
to seek to reduce the number of dogs in the streets of London. The campaigners
went further and sought to prove a causal link between the employment of dogs in
carts and the disease. Professor Sewell, the veterinarian, was confident that rabies
was spreading because the carts over-exerted the dogs, made them prone to fevers,
and caused the disease by the pain and irritation of the feet. 29 Lord Brougham told
the House of Lords that medical men had no hesitation in ascribing the increase of
rabies to 'exhausting the strength and tormenting the physical powers of dogs by
their employment as animals of draught,.30
But an eminent veterinary surgeon, William Youatt, who specialised in the diseases
of dogs, disagreed.31 He confirmed that the incidence of rabies had been increasing, but attributed this to dog-fighting, particularly the practice of selecting
and training especially ferocious dogs for the purpose.32 He denied that ill-usage
alone could cause rabies. 'In my opinion,' he said, 'rabies is produced by the bite of
a rabid dog .... by the saliva and nothing else.,33 Mr Youatt, we now know, was right
about this and in 1854, when Lord Brougham campaigned to extend the prohibition to the rest of the kingdom, he said nothing further about rabies, though others still referred to the danger.
Perhaps because the campaigners could no longer confidently rely upon the fear
of rabies, the complaints about the danger of the carts to horse-traffic became
increasingly prominen t. Horses were still the main means of transport and anyone
who could afford to do so and many who could not, rode a horse or drove in one of
the bewildering variety of horse-drawn carriages. The animal was not just an item of
utility but an instrument of social display and an object of near worship to some
wealthy young men, their servants and hangers-on, as well as the foundation of a
huge industry. That these noble and valuable creatures should be inconvenienced,
even endangered, by the humble carts of disreputable tradesmen running about

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

THE DAY THE DOGS DIED IN LONDON

37

their legs and disturbing their nerves was intolerable. The article, 'The Dog Cart
Nuisance' in the Illustrated London News for July 1854, is typical in its outrage.34
The same indignation was expressed in speeches during the House of Lords debate
of the same month,35 while in the Commons Mr Frewen MP was vengeful, 'The
clause has been four times rejected in another place; accidents of a grave nature
have occurred in consequence; and I hope, therefore, that if it is rejected again,
those who reject it will be the sufferers. ,36
'Four times rejected' refers to attempts, made between 1839 and 1854, to pass a
law prohibiting the carts outside London, which were defeated in the Lords. In spite
of the hard work of the Society, some people still had the bad taste or strength of
mind to defend the carts. Lord Ellenborough37 in 1839, asked for sympathy for a
man who supported his wife and family on 18s a week by driving his cart fourteen
miles a day and who must pay tolls of 5s. 6d from his earnings if he had to use a
donkey instead of a dog.38 He proposed, in vain, that the carts should be allowed for
carrying goods at least.
In 1854, opposition was again voiced mainly in the House of Lords. Perhaps peers
had less to fear from evangelical lobbying. The carts had a lively champion in the
Earl of Eglington39 who, secure in his rank and estates, spoke his mind with patrician vigour (and appears to have been enjoying himself). He objected:
... first because it is a piece of uncalled for legislation; and secondly because
it will confiscate the property of a large number of the very poorest of the
community .... it would be cla"s legislation; ..... if they prohibited dog-carts
on what principle ofjustice they should allow goat carriages. Surely a child with
a hat as large as a parasol, and bow of ribbon as big as a sun-flower, sitting in a
goat-chaise, is quite as likely .... to frighten horses and upset the equilibrium
. d equestrIans.
.
~40
of un practIse
The Earl of Malmesbury estimated that in Sussex and Hampshire alone, at least
1,500 poor families were supported by dog-carts conveying fuel, market produce
and other articles. But, said he:
... dog-carts have been called a nuisance, and .... that was at the bottom of
the whole complaint. He did not deny that dog-carts are a nuisance to persons
riding, but that is no reason why they should be suppressed. He entreated their
Lordships to consider what will be the effect produced upon the public mind
if it goes forth that you are willing to sacrifice the interests of many thousands
of poor persons because they come 'between the wind and your nobility' .41
Outside Parliament, William Youatt, in his book TheDog, published in 1845, deplored
the cruelties sometimes inflicted on the dogs but saw no reason why they should not
draw carts. ' ..... we need only cross the British Channel to see how useful, and,
generally speaking, how happy a beast of draught a dog can be' he says and
contends that in prohibiting the carts in London, Parliament had confounded 'the
abuse of the thing with its legitimate purpose'. He hoped 'a kindlier feeling may
prevail' and the dog return to 'the discharge of the services which .... prove the
greatest source of happiness to him' .42 Youatt's prescription was for a system of
licensing, so that cruelty might be visited by loss of licence and livelihood.
His views raise the question of why it should be thought so very wrong to use dogs

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

38

M. B. McMULLAN

for haulage. They have always been used for hunting, herding, guarding, turning
spits and well-wheels and, of course, pulling sledges. The sight of dogs pulling
tradesmen's carts was commonplace in European countries, particularly Belgium,
Holland and Germany, until the Second World War.43 English tourists could buy
picture post-cards showing large, heavy shouldered, thick coated animals, harnessed
under carts, wearing the look of self-conscious virtue commonly assumed by dogs
when they think they are being helpful or know they are being photographed.
But the arguments for allowing the practice to continue were brushed aside. The
dog-carts were supported by a handful of independently minded individuals and a
satirical newspaper, but there was no organisation of self-interested supporters, no
movement to support agitators or leaders capable of influencing the legislators. It
would be hard to imagine a body of men and women less able to defend themselves
against respectable philanthropists and affronted horse-users than the dealers in
cats'-meat, sheep's trotters, fire-wood and hearth-stones, the pedlars and the like;
poor, illiterate and despised by respectable folk as rowdy and disreputable, as no
doubt they often were. One of the ragged women in the Penny Satirist's cartoon
muses, ' ... I wonder what the parliamentary puppies will emancipate next, before
the poor people, cats, I suppose will be the next object of their paternal care'.
In Jo Smith and his Waxworks a travelling showman gives an affecting, possibly
implausible, account of the effects of the law of 1854 for those who roamed the land
from fairground to fairground, their props and belongings in little carts.44 He says
that the prohibition on the use of dogs meant that the carts had to be pulled or
pushed by the showmen's wives, 'which certainly made poor men marry' but
exhausted the women. When a baby came, the feeding and carrying of the infant
while pushing the cart put an impossible strain on the mother who might be forced
to abandon her baby at a workhouse, 'that bread might be earned'. He blames the
philanthropists for this result.45
The 1839 Act made it illegal to use a dog-cart in central London. After the further
Act of 1854, the Society was able to say in its 1855 Report; 'Not a single dog is
employed in drawing a cart on a public road in the Kingdom'. So complete was the
victory, the very name 'dog-cart' soon came to mean not a cart drawn by a dog but
a species of two wheeled horse-drawn carriage fitted with boxes under the seats to
carry dogs, sporting dogs. In Kipling's story, The Wrong Thing published in 1910, a
Mr Springett is described as being ' ... so old he could remember when railways
were being built in the southern counties of Engl~nd, and people were allowed to
drive dogs in carts' - a man from a differen t age. 46
Jurisprudentially, the Acts are not remarkable. They make a criminal offence of
activity which until then had been lawful, a commonplace function of law-making.
What is unusual is that these laws were, it seems, about one-hundred per cent effective almost from the day they came into force. Laws, whether against murder or litter, are usually uncertain and uneven in their effects, in part because some forbidden
activities are more easily detected and suppressed than others. Landing an aeroplane
in a suburban garden is illegal. It is also easy to detect and the neighbours will be
eager to tell the police. Distilling whisky in the cellar without a licence is also illegal,
but does not advertise itself and does not interfere with the neighbours - they may
even be pleased. So the law against landing planes is pretty effective, the law against
amateur distilling is enforced only patchily.

THE DAY THE DOGS DIED IN LONDON

39

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

The carts moved goods about the public roads and there was no other profitable
use for them. The law almost enforced itself. Contrast this with dog-fighting which,
nearly two hundred years after it was first made an offence, still furtively continues.
Was it then a happy ending - the triumph of good men over a cruel practice,
however arbitrarily selected from amongst other cruel practices and however
unsatisfactory some of the arguments used to attack it? Small tradesmen might suffer hardship, but at least no more dogs would be whipped to haul heavy loads and
fat men. If the intention was to save from further torment the dogs which pulled the
carts, what was the effect on those dogs? Did they as the Penny Satirist supposed,
lounge about laughing as their former masters strained and heaved?
The article in Leisure Hour, tells us:
.... it proved no laughing matter for the dogs ..... thousands of them were
put to death. On the very morning that the Act became law, multitudes of the
huge powerful animals were shot, stoned, strangled, stabbed, drowned or put
to death in some ,vay or other, to save the expense of their maintenance, which
they were no longer allowed to earn. We saw one morning upwards of fifty of
them being drowned in the Surrey canal; and in a few days the whole breed of
draught dogs, which had been carefully fostered for that end alone, became
nearly extinct as to London.47
The Earl of Eglington foretold a similar massacre in 1854, 'It would be a real case
of inhumanity if you pass this clause,' he said, ' ... the effect will be that 20,000 or
30,000 dogs will be shot immediately, and I would certainly recommend your Lordships not to indu~e in pork pies near Farnborough or Tunbridge Stations for some
time afterwards'.
Lord Brougham put the number destroyed in London in 1840
at a mere three or four thousand.49 We can give the figures little weigh t, but there
is no reason to doubt that most of the dogs did die. They were big dogs, expensive
to feed and their owners were poor men and women who could no longer use them
to earn their keep. Dogs cannot be discarded by leaving them in the street, they
return to their masters. The measure, purporting to be for their benefit, resulted in
their slaughter.
NOTES
1.
2.

Penny Satirist Vol. 3 No. 142, 4]anuary 1840.

2 & 3 Viet. c.XCN. The penalty was a fine of not more than 40 shillings for the first
offence and 5 for subsequent offences.
3. C.60 S.2. This Act was often called The Dogs Act.
4. The current prohibition is in the Cruelty to Animals Act 1911 S.9. The maximum
penalty continued to be 2 for the first offence and 5 for subsequent offences. It was
later increased.
5. Parliamentary Papers, 1837-38(578) XV, Select Committee on Metropolis Police Offices, q.1632.
6. House of Lords Debates (HL Debs) 1 August 1839, col. 1055.
7. PPI837-38, XV, S.C. Metropolis Police Offices q.1686.
8. Leisure Hour Vol. IX, (1860),533,535.
London Dogs, Anon.
9. The Menageries, Vol. I, Ch. III, 46. Author unknown. Published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, (1831) in The Library of Entertaining Knowledge.
10. PP1832 (667), V, Select Comlnittee on Bill for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
11. PPI837-38, XV, Select Committee on Metropolis Police Offices.

40
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:15 06 April 2016

19.
20.
21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.

M. B. McMULLAN

PP1832(667), V S.C. Cruelty to Animals, q.91, 171,229.

PP1837-38, XV, S.C. on Metropolis Police Offices, q.1680.
ibid., q.1693.
PP1832(667), V, S.C. on Cruelty to Animals. q.90 ff, q.231 ff.
See note 8.
Founded 1824. Since 1840 the Royal Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I must
express my gratitude to the Archivist and staff at the Royal Society's headquarters for
their kindness and invaluable assistance. They are not in any way responsible for any
opinions or conclusions expressed here.
In 1822, 1835 and 1837. Further Acts additional to the 1839 Act followed in 1849, 1854
(passim), 1876 (vivisection) and 1911.
Edinburgh Review, (1809). Sydney Smith, proceedings of the Society for the Suppression
of Vice.
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Annual Report (1838),67.
Brougham, Henry Peter, (1778-1868), Baron, reforming Lord Chancellor, founded
London University, co-founder of Edinburgh Review, ceaselessly active as a proponent
of reform.
HL Debs. 1 Aug 1839, col. 1430.
HL Debs. 10 July 1854, col. 1430.
Owen, Sir Richard FRS (1804-1892) Internationally eminent physiologist and anatomist.
HL Debs. 10 July 1854, col. 1431.
idem.
PP1837-38, XV, S.C. Metropolis Police Offices, q.1611.
It was not until 1885 that Pasteur introduced his vaccine.
PP1837-38, XV, S.C. Metropolis Police Offices q.1636.
HL Debs. 1 Aug 1839, col. 1056.
1776-1847, practised in London and lectured at University College. Wrote authoritative
treatises on animals including The Dog (1845).
PP1837-38, XV, S.C. on Metropolis Police Offices, q.1702.
ibid. q.1710 ff.
The Dog Cart Nuisance, London Illustrated News, July 1854,111.
HL Debs. 4 and 10thJuly, 1854.
House of Commons Debates (HC Debs) 22June 1854, col. 639.
(1790-1871), Tory MP 1809, second Baron 1818, governor-general of India 1841, created earl 1844, first Lord of Admiralty 1846.
HL Debs. 1 Aug 1839, col. 1055.
(1812-1861) Archibald William thirteenth earl; lord-lieutenant of Ireland 1852.
HL Debs. 10 July 1854, col. 1429.
ibid. col. 1435. The quotation is from King Henry m Part I, I, ii.
The Dog, (1845),2.
Eg: Anthony Powell The Military Philosophers, Part V.
Bill Smith, Joe Smith and His Waxworks, (1896).
ibid. 31.
In Rewards and Fairies, (1910).
See note 8.
HL Debs. 10 July 1854, col. 1430.
ibid. col. 1432.