HL Deb 13 March 1930 vol 76 cc899-919

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill is to prohibit the training and exhibition as performing animals of two classes of animals—namely, the anthropoid apes on the one hand and lions and the larger carnivores on the other. The general ground on which this Bill is founded is that these animals, as the evidence which I shall produce will show, are wholly unsuitable for training and exhibiting as performing animals, and that they cannot be so trained and exhibited without cruelty and danger to the trainers in attendance. May I say at once that this Bill does not purport to touch, and does not I think touch, such societies as the Zoological Society of London and similar institutions, but if it is desired to have a specific Amendment dealing with that point I should be quite prepared to accept such an Amendment, if the House approves, in Committee.

May I tell your Lordships very shortly the history of the matter? In 1921 a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons, of which I was a member, to consider the whole question of the training and exhibition of performing animals. That Committee sat in 1921 and 1922 and took a very large amount of evidence from a great variety of people. In 1922 they made their Report, to which I shall refer in a moment, and in 1923 and 1924 Bills were introduced into the House of Commons and also into your Lordships' House to give effect so far as might be to the recommendations of that Select Committee. Time was not available for getting those Bills through the House, and in 1925 the promoters realised that in order to get a Bill through the House of Commons in view of the opposition which was offered by exhibitors and others, many of the recommendations of the Committee would have to be dropped. They thought, therefore—and I think rightly—that it was better to get an incomplete Bill through both Houses than to get no Bill at all. Consequently an agreed Bill was introduced into the House of Commons and was passed by that House and by your Lordships. It became the Act of 1925. This Bill seeks to amend that incomplete Act of 1925 to the limited extent I have mentioned.

Let me now refer first of all to the case of the chimpanzee and the anthropoid apes. Perhaps the most important witness who appeared before our Committee was Dr. Chalmers Mitchell, as he then was, Fellow of the Royal Society, now Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, the distinguished secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and I should imagine one of the greatest living authorities on animals of all sorts and descriptions. I should like to quote a short passage of his evidence. He said:— For many years past I went to every exhibition where performing animals were shown on the stage, and whenever I could I went behind the scenes and made the acquaintance of the animals and sometimes of the trainers. Then, a little further on, he said:— I think it is monstrously wrong to train chimpanzees for public exhibition. I will tell your Lordships in a moment what he said about lions and the other carnivora.

He went on to say:— I have no doubt whatever upon that, from seeing nearly every chimpanzee that has been shown for public exhibition. Then he went on:— Chimpanzees happen to be what I might call almost hysterical animals. They are liable quite suddenly to rather violent fits of temper, and, as a chimpanzee has got both hands and feet and very powerful teeth, a chimpanzee in a temporary rage is not a convenient animal to deal with…I would include with the chimpanzee an orang or a gorilla or any type of the large man-like apes. We had considerable evidence before the Committee to show that the training and exhibition of these chimpanzees and larger apes was accompanied by serious cruelty. Of course there was a certain amount of counter evidence on the other side, but the Committee weighed the evidence on both sides and they referred to the matter in their Report, which I have here if any noble Lord cares to see it.

In paragraph 9 of the Report they say:— Chimpanzees and the larger apes are unreliable owing to their hysterical temperament, which at times causes them to lose all self-control and become dangerous. Undoubtedly they have in some instances been rendered tractable by the most brutal treatment. The recommendation of the Committee upon that point was that the training and performance of chimpanzees and anthropoid apes should be prohibited. Notwithstanding that recommendation, the exhibition and training of these apes go on, though I believe the number is much diminished. So much for anthropoid apes.

I turn now to the lions and the larger carnivora. The evidence before our Committee showed that in all tricks on the stage by lions and the like there must be cruelty to the animals and danger to the trainers and attendants. Again I will quote Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell. He said this:— Even for simple tricks, lions arranging themselves on pedestals— perhaps your Lordships knows what that means; it is a very simple form of trick, but lions do not always appear to like it— and so forth, there is gross cruelty behind that. There must be cruelty to the animal and danger to the man.…It should be stopped. I think you could have no stronger evidence than this, from a man who is absolutely impartial in this matter. He is not concerned one way or the other with these exhibitions, and he has had enormous and almost life-long experience of this kind of training and exhibition. I might say that lie was perhaps, in some ways, far the most important witness whom we had before our Committee.

It is rather unfortunate that it is very difficult, and often impossible, in this country to detect cruelty in the training. The evidence showed that in 1914—I have not the figures for recent days—lions and wild animals were mainly trained abroad, especially in Germany and Austria, and often by cruel methods that would not be tolerated in this country. An important piece of evidence given us showed why the lions and so on were trained in Germany. This came from a Mr. Lockhart, equestrian director of the Blackpool Tower Circus, who had direct personal experience. He said this:— Germans are the best trainers…perhaps because they are allowed to do things which would get us a very bad name. I have a number of figures that were given in evidence before the Committee as to the relative number of foreign and British trainers. The foreign trainers numbered 110 and the British trainers 18. The evidence of Mr. Lockhart as to the reason why these animals are trained in Germany was confirmed by a retired actor-manager, who gave evidence before us, and by others.

I come to the report of the Committee regarding lions. In paragraph 9 they say:— The training and exhibition of savage animals, such as lions, tigers and so on, involve a certain amount of risk and danger to the trainer, who must necessarily enforce obedience— your Lordships will notice the word "enforce"— to his authority, but it by no means follows that discipline can never be maintained without cruelty. In other words, though cruelty as a rule is necessary, sometimes, apparently, discipline can be maintained without it. As to the Committee's recommendation, they did not recommend a total prohibition of the training of these particular animals, but they recommended that the training, exhibition and performances of all the larger carnivora should have the special attention of a committee of supervision which the Select Committee recommended should be set up, with power to the Committee to prohibit or modify any performance which they considered undesirable on the ground of cruelty. Unfortunately that committee of supervision was never set up. It could not be set up without Parliamentary authority, which was not received, and consequently it now rests with Parliament itself to deal with the matter. I ask your Lordships to deal with it by prohibiting this training and exhibition, which, as Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell says, inevitably involves cruelty and danger.

The question of danger to trainers is a little beside the question of cruelty, but I think the danger to the trainers, if it is proved—as it is—shows the undesirable nature of these exhibitions. I have many cases reported by inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1928 and 1929, in which lions were asked to do these tricks and, in several cases, attacked the trainer and injured him more or less severely. I have here, if any of your Lordships care to see it, a long list of cases of injury to trainers in the years 1926 to 1928, some of them abroad and a good many at home. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the places or the dates, but I can give the details to any of your Lordships who desire them.

I think I ought to refer, however, to a most extraordinary scene that occurred during the course of an exhibition of these wild animals at the Tower Circus in Blackpool in October, 1928, when there were a large number of lions, bears, tigers and other animals performing in a closed ring. A free fight ensued between these animals, fortunately with no loss of life, but with a very extraordinary result. I take the description of this scene from extracts that I have from the Blackpool Gazette for October 18, 1928. I have the paper here if any of your Lordships would like to see it. The scene took place in the Tower Circus in Blackpool. The trainer was a Mr. Trubka, who came from Czecho-Slovakia. I believe that my noble friend Lord Auckland, who has great experience in these matters and who is going to support my Bill, knows the gentleman personally. Be that as it may, the "turn" was this: there were ten lions, which posed on pedestals and jumped through hoops; seven bears, which were drawn round the ring in carriages by dogs; two tigers; one puma; and two dogs.

The description of the scene in the newspaper—I will not read the whole of it, but only the important part—states:— The lions started the fight, in which almost all the animals joined, to the general consternation…. Lions, tigers and hears became a pack of snarling and roaring antagonists…. One of the most thrilling incidents was a lion and a polar bear rolling about the floor like a large football. I am rather glad I was not present in that arena. The trainer, Mr. Trubka, who was evidently a gallant fellow, with a whip and a stick in his hand tried to restore order. He was unsuccessful, and eventually the hose pipes were turned on and the animals returned to their cages. Is that the kind of exhibition which your Lordships' House views with approval, or which you would like to see continued in the future, to the consternation of audiences and, I think, the great discredit of the whole affair?

I pass from that to deal with this point. It might be asked by those who had not studied the subject: Will not the prohibition of these performing animals impose some hardship upon the exhibitors of lions and other similar animals, and on those who take part in the performances, if the exhibitions are stopped? The answer is "No." The evidence which the exhibitors themselves gave before our Committee showed that this sort of exhibition had lost its popularity and was no longer an attraction, but often the reverse. It is not popular with the general public, although it appears in some cases to have some attraction for some strangely constituted audiences. It has the effect of terrifying children, and many exhibitors drop these shows out of their programmes.

I may quote the evidence of Mr. Harrop, general manager of the Blackpool Tower Company, where I presume that exciting scene took place. He said that he had been general manager for thirty years, during which for twenty-seven years he had a circus: For many years I have not booked any performances by lions, tigers, etc. Children get terrified…I find no falling off in audiences in consequence of this, but increased appreciation of the business. The same evidence was given by Mr. Lockhart, equestrian director of the Blackpool Tower Company, and by Mr. Tressell, formerly manager of the Hippodrome. The last, named said:— I have had experience of pretty well every lion show in the world, but lion shows have rather fallen into desuetude as regards popularity. Similar evidence was given by Mr. Bostock, the proprietor of the menagerie and various music halls. Therefore, it cannot be said if your Lordships accept the Bill, that so far as lion shows are concerned there is going to be any hardship upon those who, though not in such large numbers, still unfortunately exhibit these animals.

The last point on which I need ask for your kind attention is this. Some of your Lordships may be disposed to ask whether there have been prosecutions for cruelty to these animals since the Act of 1925. The answer is that so far as I am aware there has not. The reason of it is perfectly simple. There is the greatest difficulty in getting evidence of cruelty. Why? The cruelty does not take place on the stage in the presence of the audience and the public, but it takes place in the training places and very often, as the evidence before the Committee showed, behind the scenes. Inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have no right either to go into the training places or behind the scenes during the performances. In some cases, some years ago, I believe they were allowed to go into the training places, but always upon notice being given, and you can imagine the value of an inspection of that character. Further than that, even the officer of the local authority, although given by the Act of 1925 power to go into training places under certain conditions, was expressly prohibited by the Act from going behind the scenes during performances. Therefore, you will see that there was practically no opportunity of getting evidence which would justify prosecution as regards cruelty behind the scenes.

As regards training places, what I have already told your Lordships as to the number of animals trained in Germany and abroad will explain why we cannot get evidence of cruelty in training abroad, and even in the case of training places in this country, although local authorities' officers are allowed to go into training places, the power is rather strictly guarded. They are only to go at reasonable times, and your Lordships can imagine how very difficult it would be, except by a very skilfully planned surprise visit, if it were allowed, to obtain evidence of cruelty in those training places. Therefore, I beg your Lordships to think that I have made a case showing that there must be cruelty in the training and exhibition of these classes of animals; that the exhibition and training still go on; and that there is no hardship upon exhibitors and others, at any rate as regards lions, in stopping performances which have ceased to attract the public to a large extent, or, as some say, to any extent. In conclusion, I would say that this country always has been, and is, in the forefront of other nations in regard to its treatment of animals, and this House has now an opportunity of showing its desire to take part in the great work of preventing cruelty to animals and to enforce those ideals which I am glad to think are more and more taking root deeply in this country. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Danesfort.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I venture to say a few words on this subject, because my colleagues on the Council of the Zoological Society of London have asked me to be in my place in this House when this Bill was introduced. I need hardly say that our Council, the secretary of which is Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, a quotation from whose evidence has been read, have no objection to this Bill in principle, but I was glad to hear my noble friend say that he drew a very sharp distinction between animals in zoological gardens and animals on the stage or in music halls or circuses. There is a difference between the two methods of keeping wild animals. If wild animals are being made to perform at circuses it is an absolute necessity that they should be ready daily, or twice a day, to go through their performances at stated times. They have to be ready for their turns, and to go on the stage according to the programme. Now, animals are apt to be very capricious. They are quite ready to do all sorts of things when in the mood, but at other times, as was explained in Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell's evidence, which was read, it is very difficult indeed to bring them up to the scratch and to get them to carry through their performance. When animals are kept in a zoological garden, and not for regular performances, they are very easily led to do things which are very interesting to us, and which are really amplifications or specialisations of their natural instincts.

Your Lordships have often seen seals trained to catch their food from keepers' hands, or trained to go to a special place where their food will be. In particular, the higher monkeys are extremely imitative, and become quite ready to do all sorts of things—sit at table, put on clothes and take them off, and so forth—and all things of this kind are educational, and show how far the instincts of animals may be developed by domestication. If you are going to keep animals in zoological gardens it is necessary to domesticate them as far as possible, and the higher apes are tameable and affectionate, and they are much happier when they are in a domesticated condition when kept in zoological gardens. In order to get them into that condition a certain amount of training is obviously necessary. So that I think that in order to give effect to what my noble friend said he wished to do, this Bill would require some slight amendment in Committee.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence on the occasion of my first speech in this House. I do not think there is very much that I can add to what has been said, but I have owned and trained practically all kinds of carnivorous animals which are usually shown in circuses, music halls, and other places, and I have listened to trainers boasting of the brutalities which they found it necessary to inflict on the animals which they train. I maintain that most animals can be trained by kindness, and kindness alone. I have proved this beyond a doubt in my own experiments and training. I think some noble Lords have seen a few of ray animals, and they can testify that they show a response to kindness. Most of the trainers in this country are foreigners, and the abuse of their animals is dreadful. I think they might just as well be prohibited from exhibiting their animals in this country, and go back to their own countries and have their exhibitions over there.

The animals are interesting to us. We like to see them in zoological gardens and places of that sort. They are friends and companions, and I think we should give them as much comfort as we possibly can. They are abused in being transported from one place to another, being kept in shipping boxes which are scarcely larger than the animals themselves. They are often under-nourished. Their food is probably not fresh, and it is given to them in boxes where the food becomes foul as soon as it is put in. The reason why the animals which are trained by the professional animal trainers are subjected to abuse is that those trainers cannot afford to keep them the necessary length of time to train them by kindness. It generally takes anything from one to two years to train a lion by kindness, and the trainer has neither the patience to do this nor the money to support the animal during that time. I hope that your Lordships will support this Bill.

LORD JESSEL had given Notice of an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very sorry to have to oppose my old friend Lord Danesfort by asking your Lordships to reject this Bill. It is always difficult to talk on this subject when naturally so many members of your Lordships' House and the outside public must at the first blush be quite in favour of this Bill. But I would like to remind your Lordships that there is a long history attached to this question, and that it culminated in a lengthy inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1922 and in the Bill which passed your Lordships' House in 1925. That Bill was described by the Minister who represented the Home Office at the time as an agreed Bill, and therefore I do not think it is quite fair to the House to introduce this Bill again as if no legislation existed on the subject and no evidence had been taken in the past. Very little fresh evidence has come out.

The owners of these shows have a great grievance against Lord Danesfort because he introduced this Bill as long ago as December last, and they have not known where they were. The noble Lord who has just spoken, and whom I congratulate on his maiden speech, has given his personal experience and has told you that it takes at least a year to train any of these big carnivora, and naturally these men have felt that they were in an extreme difficulty in not knowing whether the Bill was going to pass or not. They remind me of the unhappy traders in this country, who are still in doubt as to whether the McKenna Duties are going to be taken off, and I am sorry the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Colonies is absent, because I might have reminded him of the state of uncertainty that prevails in the minds of the planters of Jamaica at this moment.

I maintain that the Bill of 1925, which allows inspection and licenses all these trainers, gives ample security against any of the grosser offences which no doubt took place in earlier years. Again, if there is an evil I think it is going to cure itself. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill said that from the evidence that had reached him there was no doubt that the popularity of the spectacle of lions and tigers being brought before the public was on the wane. If that is the case surely there is no necessity to bring in a Bill of this kind. I have been looking rather closely into the Bill. It will be found that among the animals to which it refers are chimpanzees and the anthropoid apes. I do not quite know why chimpanzees are specifically mentioned as well as anthropoid apes became they are a class of anthropoid ape; and I have always understood that they were the most gentle and the most docile of all apes. Then again lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, pumas, hyenas and cheetahs are included. I should have thought the hyena was extremely difficult to train, but the cheetah, as many of your Lordships know, has been more or less a domestic animal from time immemorial and has been used largely for hunting in India and other parts of the East. If one reads the history of India one will find that some Eastern monarchs have had not one cheetah but several hundreds at their disposal, which shows that they are more or less capable of being domesticated. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who supported this Bill in his maiden speech, said frankly that all these animals could be trained if sufficient time were given.

May I direct your Lordships' attention to some recent statistics. The Variety Artists Federation wrote to the Home Office on the matter only last year and, with that courtesy and fairness which always distinguishes our public officials of the Civil Service, the Home Office replied in these terms:— The Secretary of State thinks it right to inform you that, in response to a recent request from Lord Danesfort for information as to the operation of the Act, particularly in regard to details of any prosecutions thereunder, and as to the method and system of inspection of premises, etc., which had been adopted by various authorities, inquiries have been made of the police authorities of those areas where upwards of five trainers and exhibitors are registered. I am to enclose a statement showing the result of these inquiries which has been furnished to Lord Danesfort, and of a statistical analysis which was also sent to him, indicating the places of registration and nationality of trainers and exhibitors registered under the Act. It has been said that nearly all these trainers and exhibitors are of foreign origin and I will deal with that point in a moment.

I may say that there has been no case in which a conviction has been obtained during the four years up to 1929. In the proceedings instituted in London by the London County Council against registered persons the summons was dismissed in each case. The statement furnished to Lord Danesfort by the Home Office states that inspectors of the London County Council are required to visit every place of entertainment at which performing animals are exhibited. It is their practice to secure a seat from which the best view of the performance can be obtained, and animals are inspected in their housing and training quarters. On an average two inspections are made weekly by each officer. It is very nice to be an inspector of the London County Council and to have the best seat, but this also shows that it is not true to say that these animals cannot be inspected while they are under training. Anybody who has visited Olympia knows that you can go behind and see the animals in their cages at the back. Therefore, I do not think that can be justified—

LORD DANESFORT

May I be allowed to correct my noble friend on that point? There is an express provision in the Act of 1925 that the officer of the local authority shall not go behind the scenes during the performance. I will give my noble friend the reference.

LORD JESSEL

It does not matter.

LORD DANESFORT

It does matter very much, because that is one of the reasons why there has been no conviction—want of evidence. Subsection (2) of Section 3 says that no constable or officer of the local authority shall be entitled under this section to go on or behind the scenes during a public performance of performing animals.

LORD JESSEL

All I can say is that this report from the Home Office says that the animals are inspected in their housing and training quarters and that on an average two inspections are made weekly by each officer. Another very important point and one which I think will interest your Lordships a great deal more than the last point is the question of nationality. The Home Office paper shows that the total number of exhibitors is 148, of whom 102 are British; and that out of a total of 314 exhibitors and trainers 206 are British. It will be seen, therefore, that two-thirds of the exhibitors and trainers are not aliens but belong to this country. I need hardly remind your Lordships that this is a very big industry. There are no less than five great circuses in this country belonging to Mr. Bertram Mills, Mr. Champion, Mr. Bostock, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Sanger. They carry on a very large business and employ a great many people. If your Lordships think fit to sanction this Bill, unless an Amendment is inserted in it that it shall not come into law without due notice—that is to say, for a period—it will undoubtedly put a lot of people out of employment.

I do not believe that this cruelty is practised. It has been stated in your Lordships' House this afternoon by a noble Lord who knows the habits of these animals better than anyone, that you cannot train them without time. There have been no successful prosecutions since the Act of 1925 was passed. I think that is the great test. That Act was an agreed measure and this Bill is very unnecessary in view of what has taken place. I have had great experience of this matter in a way and I know very well how extremely fair the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals are. When I was at the War Office as Deputy Director of Remounts I was in constant communication with them and I know very well what good work they are doing. But I think that rather too much has been made of this matter. There was a Parliamentary bargain in 1925 and I maintain that a great deal of the evidence that has been brought forward is not new. On that evidence your Lordships and another place were induced to pass the Act of 1925. Therefore, I think that this Bill is totally unnecessary. What makes me believe that the more is that the noble Lord who introduced it told your Lordships that in the experience of those who had to deal with shows, exhibitions of big animals were becoming more and more unpopular with the public. For those reasons I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months"). —(Lord Jessel.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL)

My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty's Government I with to take no very definite line upon this Bill, but only to put before your Lordships certain considerations affecting the matter. Like the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, I want to begin with the history. As your Lordships have heard, a Select Committee of the House of Commons considered this matter. That Committee reported in 1922. The Bill that was passed and became the present Act, was not passed until 1925. That Act differed from the recommendations of the Select Committee, as I think the noble Lord pointed out, in certain rather important respects. The Select Committee said that they thought that the anthropoid apes ought to be prohibited from exhibition. The Act does not prohibit any animal from being exhibited, but merely provides for the registration of trainers. The Committee wanted to set up the system of a supervisory committee which, I think perhaps not unnaturally, the Government did not adopt. Instead of that they gave power to the police and the local authority to inspect, as the noble Lord who has just sat down said, the animals' training quarters and their lodging quarters.

But there is, as the noble Lord pointed out just now when he interrupted, that very important proviso under Section 3 (which gives the power of entry and inspection) that no constable shall be entitled to go on or behind the stage during a public performance of performing animals. I can quite understand that that might have been argued for, and no doubt was argued for on practical grounds, by the people who exhibit these animals. They might have said, possibly with a great deal of truth, that the presence of strangers at the moment when animals were about to do tricks would upset the animals and put them off their performance. That might likely be true. On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that that is precisely the moment at which you would expect to find some instance of cruelty, and in that respect the evidence of Dr. Chalmers Mitchell has already been referred to. I have read the Report of this Committee of 1922, and Dr. Chalmers Mitchell, as has been pointed out, said that he could not imagine that it was possible, without cruelty, to make an animal perform at a set time in a set performance. It was contrary to its whole nature, and, in his view, it must involve cruelty. He did use the very language that has been quoted to your Lordships about the anthropoid ape.

That is the position as far as the recommendations of the Committee and the existing legislation are concerned. Now the noble Lord seeks to-day to go further by prohibiting altogether the appearance of chimpanzees and anthropoid apes, lions, tigers, leopards, and so on. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill, seemed to me to make two inconsistent statements in the course of his speech.

LORD JESSEL

No.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Lord says "No," but perhaps he had better wait to hear what they are. In the earlier part of his speech he said this matter might well be left alone because it was obvious the industry was doing of itself all that was intended. Yet in the latter part of his speech he said this was a very important industry which was going to be interfered with. If the noble Lord can reconcile those two statements he is cleverer than I am. That is the position before your Lordships to-day. The view of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary is that it is not very long since this matter was last considered—that is to say, that there was legislation only five years ago.

Perhaps before I come to that I ought to say a word about the statistics. This return of statistics has been furnished to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and apparently is in Lord Jessel's possession too, and it shows that there have been, I think, one or two prosecutions, but no successful prosecution, for cruelty. Whether or not it is likely that there would be any, in all the circumstances I cannot help feeling that there is some justification for the attitude taken by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill; but, although it might not be cruelty that a magistrate could normally deal with, it obviously must involve very great discomfort to the animal to be kept in a dirty cage and kept at a railway station for a long time in a comparatively small cage.

For my own part I should, so far as I am personally concerned, deprecate the exhibition of these animals altogether, and I cannot understand the taste of an audience that desires to see them. I am very glad to believe, as the noble Lord who introduced the Bill said, that it is true that the more educated taste of audiences nowadays derives no pleasure from seeing animals in unnatural captivity, and performing unnatural tricks. But my right hon. friend does feel that it is rather a short time since the legislation on this matter, and that it might be wiser if some further time were to elapse. The Act that was passed has been referred to as an agreed measure. It was an agreed Bill in the sense certainly that it was cut down, as I think your Lordships will agree, to the very minimum, in order that it might have the opportunity of passing in another place, but that it was agreed in the sense of any Parliamentary bargain which was to last for all time seems to me not to be a maintainable proposition.

A circular has been sent out by the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain and Ireland which seems to me to contain some statements that cannot be justified. The Showmen's Guild say they consider that this Bill is a gross breach of faith, and that they cannot understand why this move is being made by Lord Danesfort. I should think they are probably the only people in the country who cannot understand that. But really, to refer to it as a breach of faith seems to me to be an expression that is quite unjustifiable. There is not, and there obviously never would be, any Parliamentary bargain that cruelty to animals, if Parliament were satisfied it existed, should or could be allowed to continue. But it might be wiser perhaps if the noble Lord would adopt the suggestion I make. Assuming he got the Second Reading to-day—a matter about which the Government are entirely neutral—I would suggest that it might be wiser if he were to take no further stage of this Bill now, but would introduce it in the following Session at a much earlier stage. It is, of course, quite obvious, I am afraid, that it would have no chance of passing in another place this Session.

Introduce it at a much earlier stage, and then, perhaps, endeavour to get a Joint Select Committee to sit upon the Bill, and agree to it, so that there might be a reasonable chance of its becoming law, or of some Bill of this character becoming law. I think to take the Second Reading to-day would not really carry it further towards the Statute Book, because your Lordships know very well that it would not have a chance, I am afraid, in another place, where there was apparently great opposition before. So far as I am concerned, personally, my natural tendency would be to prohibit these exhibitions, and at any rate to go as far as the Report of the Select Committee, but the Government are taking no definite line on this matter, and leave it entirely to the judgment of your Lordships when you have heard the considerations that have been put forward. My right hon. friend does, however, suggest that in view of the recent character of the legislation it might be wise to wait a year or two before anything more is done.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, might I say a few words upon the suggestion which has just been made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? He will remember that my noble friend Lord Jessel made a great point of this. He said these people have been kept in suspense, that Lord Danesfort introduced this Bill last December, and had not proceeded with it earlier. I think my noble friend compared these people with the people who are waiting to know what is going to happen to the McKenna Duties, and said it was a very great suspense and very hard upon them. If the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite is carried out that this Bill be read a second time and nothing further done until next year, this period of suspense will be very seriously augmented, and the objection which my noble friend Lord Jessel raised, that these people would not know where they are, would be intensified. Therefore, with every disposition on this occasion to be on the side of the noble Earl, I think, on further consideration, he will see that it would be better if we are going to proceed with the Bill at all, to do so now.

With regard to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Jessel, let me point out that this Bill does not alter the whole of the Act of 1925, but only deals with certain animals. The Act of 1925 dealt with all animals. This Bill deals only with certain animals. I would ask noble Lords what advantage is it to anybody that they shall see lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, hyenas, and cheetahs exhibited on the stage? What good does it do to anybody? It is evident that at some time or another there must have been a certain amount of cruelty in training these animals and it is also evident that keeping them in small cages, as they must be, and moving them about and compelling them to do their tricks whenever they are wanted, and not at the moment they feel inclined to do them, must entail a certain amount of cruelty. And it is no good to anybody. I hope my noble friend will see—I am a little doubtful upon the point myself—that there is a slight amendment made exempting zoological gardens, because I should not like to see zoological gardens included in the Bill. There is one other point upon which I wish to say a few words. My noble friend Lord Jessel said, I think, that there were five circuses touring the country.

LORD JESSEL

Five big ones.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Five big ones, and that the result would be to cause very serious unemployment. But is that so? Take these large circuses. What is to prevent them doing what circuses did in my youth? They always had horses. I remember the ladies on the backs of the horses jumping through hoops. All that sort of thing could go on and would be a good thing, because it would teach children to be fond of horses and to desire to ride and to take some interest in that pursuit. That could go on. Therefore, all those people who are employed now could still be employed and the only people who would not be employed—and they cannot be very many—are the trainers who train these particular wild animals. As I said before, what on earth good is it to anybody to see a lion or a tiger performing tricks? It is unnatural, there is nothing to be gained by it, and I certainly hope your Lordships will pass this Bill.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I will not detain you more than two or three minutes, but I should like to refer to one or two of the arguments used by my noble friend Lord Jessel. I confess I think most of his arguments were anticipated by me and answered, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again, but there were one or two things which he said which may deserve passing notice. First he said it wars not fair to introduce this Bill. I think the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has completely disposed of that. Then he gave the number of exhibitors as returned by the Home Office. What I gave was the number of trainers of lions and these large carnivora, who were foreigners. He told us simply about exhibitors or trainers, but he did not tell

us whether they were trainers of dogs or seals or any other animal. He did not touch the point as to how many of these are foreigners, and in the absence of anything to the contrary I shall assume that the figures given in evidence, which were night then, are substantially right now.

On another point, I think he was hardly fair to my noble friend Lord Auckland in what he said. Lord Auckland said that you could by long, careful treatment train animals by kindness, but it would take a year or two, and he went on to say that in the case of these professional trainers they did not give that long and careful treatment of animals. They had to do it rapidly, and the result was that they had to use cruelty. That was really the gist of the statement of my noble friend Lord Auckland, and he speaks with great authority as having been a trainer of these animals himself. I think that in that matter perhaps Lord Jessel gave hardly sufficient weight to, or indeed explanation of, Lord Auckland's speech.

I do not want to go into all the other matters—they have been mostly disposed of—but I should like to say a word as regards the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we could read the Bill a second time and not proceed with it. I think that would be a dangerous course. If your Lordships are willing to give a Second Reading to the Bill, as I hope you will, and to go through the remaining stages in this House, I hope—it may be rather too much to hope, but I hope—that somehow or other time may be found to pass it through the House of Commons. My noble friend shakes his head, but I never despair in these matters when one is on the right side and has a good case. At any rate, I should like, if possible, to have the opportunity if the Bill passes your Lordships' House of trying to get it through the House of Commons.

On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Plymouth, E. Mersey, V.
Russell, E.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Liverpool, L. Bp.
Clarendon, E. Bertie of Thame, V.
Denbigh, E. Bridgeman, V. Alvingham, L.
Iveagh, E. Chaplin, V. Auckland, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Dulverton, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gainford, L. Redesdale, L.
Charnwood, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Somerleyton, L.
Clwyd, L. Leigh, L. Stanmore, L.
Danesfort, L. [Teller.] Marley, L. Swaythling, L.
D'Arcy de Knayth, L. Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.) Thomson, L.
Dickinson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Beauchamp, E. Carnock, L. Hemphill, L.
Grey, E. Decics, L. Jessel, L. [Teller.]
Iddesleigh, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.] Shandon, L.
Lucan, E. Templemore, L.
Stanhope, E.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.