Lords Sitting of 4 May 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DEWSBURY AND OSSETT PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Read 2a
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a
AMERSHAM, BEACONSFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to prevent the training or exhibition of three classes of performing animals—namely, chimpanzees and anthropoid apes, lions and tigers, and; the larger carnivora and bears. I may say at once that this Bill does not propose; to stop all performing animals, such as horses, which, as we know, perform in the Army and in the circus. It does not propose to touch the performances of dogs, sea lions, and so on. It is simply limited; to stopping the training and exhibition of the particular kinds of animals I have mentioned. The Bill is, in substance, the lame as the Bill which was passed through all its stages in this House in 1930, subject to this difference, that in the first place it includes bears, which were not included in the former Bill, and, secondly, it imposes certain penalties, which, by some omission I think, were lot put into the former Bill. Broadly peaking, the reason for this Bill is that these animals, as I shall hope to satisfy our Lordships presently, are wholly un-sited as performing animals. It is difficult, if not impossible, to train them without cruelty to the animals themselves and serious danger to their trainers and exhibitors.
720
May I tell your Lordships shortly what the history of this performing animals question is? In 1921 a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to enquire into this question. I served on that Committee myself. We sat in 1921 and 1922, took an immense amount of evidence from every side, and came to certain conclusions. I may tell your Lordships in a moment the nature of those conclusions so far as they may be material for this purpose. That Report was published in May, 1922. What happened after that was this. In 1923 and 1924 Bills were brought into the House of Commons for the purpose of giving effect to these recommendations of the Committee. Unfortunately, as we all know, Private Bills in the House of Commons are not very easy to get through, and there was a good deal of opposition on the part of what I may call the trade, and those Bills did not succeed in passing. Then, in 1925, the people who promoted these Bills felt it was better to get an incomplete Bill than nothing at all, and consequently there was passed through the House of Commons, and subsequently through your Lordships' House, a Bill of a very emasculated kind. In that Bill the recommendations of the Committee as regards these scheduled animals, as I will call them shortly, were not carried out at all, the only recommendation of the Committee that was put in being a recommendation that trainers and exhibitors of performing animals should be registered. Although that was an extremely incomplete Bill, the promoters thought it was better than nothing.
I may say in passing that a circular has been sent out by Mr. Bertram Mills, the well-known circus proprietor—and indeed circulars have been sent out by other circus proprietors—on this Bill to your Lordships. This circular of Mr. Bertram Mills speaks of this Act of 1925 as an agreed Bill. It was only agreed in the sense that it was the best that we could get at the moment, and it was very little. May I quote in that connection a statement which was made by the late Lord Russell in this House when he was speaking for the Home Office on this Bill of mine in 1930? He said:
"It was an agreed Bill in the sense certainly that it was cut down, as I think

721
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 ho a maintainable proposition."
So much for the agreed Bill which some of these circulars rely upon. The object of the present Bill is to amend that very imperfect Act of 1925 in the way I have mentioned.
May I now deal as shortly as I can with each class of the animals referred to in the Bill, and which I shall call the scheduled animals? First of all, as regards chimpanzees and anthropoid apes, upon them the Committee had the evidence of one of the most distinguished living authorities on animals—namely, the Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, a Fellow of the Royal Society. He said this:
"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. …I think it is monstrously wrong to train chimpanzees for public exhibition."
I am dealing now with chimpanzees alone. He went on:
"I have no doubt whatever upon that, from seeing nearly every chimpanzee that has been shown for public exhibition …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 dare say we all believe that. Our Committee had a very large amount of evidence upon this question of the chimpanzee, both for and against the prohibition of its training and exhibition, and we arrived at the conclusion to recommend that the training and exhibition as performing animals of chimpanzees and anthropoid apes should be prohibited. Unfortunately, that recommendation was not embodied in the Act of 1925, and the result is that the training and exhibition of these chimpanzees still go on, though I do not think to as great an extent as they did, but there were last year something like fourteen exhibitions of chimpanzees as performing
722
animals. One clause of this Bill seeks to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee as regards chimpanzees.
I now go on to lions and tigers. The evidence before the Committee showed that in all tricks by lions and tigers there must be cruelty to the animals and danger to the trainers and exhibitors. Again I will quote Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, who said:
" Even for simple tricks, lions arranging themselves on pedestals 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."
It is really very difficult in this country to detect cruelty in training, for this reason, that nearly all the training of these scheduled animals takes place abroad. Of course, it is impossible for us to get evidence of what happens, and we had a rather remarkable statement. by Mr. Lockhart, who was the equestrian director of Blackpool Tower circus, as to the methods employed in training abroad. What he said was this:
"Germans are the best trainers, perhaps because they are allowed to do things that would get us a very bad name."
When we remember that most of these animals are trained abroad we can have a, very good idea of what treatment they get in the course of the training. I have some evidence with me, but I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lord ships with it. The Committee recommended that the performances of lions and the larger carnivora should have the special attention of a committee of super vision which should be set up, and that that committee should have power to prohibit or modify arty performances of these animals which they considered undesirable on the ground of cruelty. Unfortunately, the Act of 1925 did not set up that committee of supervision as advised. It never came into existence, and consequently the exhibition of lions and tigers has gone on, although I admit to nothing like the same extent as before. Parliament must now deal with the matter.
As to bears, I have three statements by people who certainly are authorities in the matter. One is Mr. Carl Hagen-beck, the well-known trainer, who wrote a book called "Beasts and Men," and on page 136 of that book he says:

723
"Bears, although some of the most amusing of all performers, are responsible for more accidents than any other animals."
Mr. Bartlett, for many years head keeper at the London Zoo, who wrote an interesting book called "Wild Animals in Captivity," said:
" I have known more keepers and other persons killed or seriously injured by tame pet bears than by any other animals."
My last quotation is from Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake, the well-known animal breeder, who says in the Amateur Menagerie Club Year Book:
" The bear is the essence of treachery and one of the most dangerous wild animals in captivity."
As to cruelty in training, there is very little evidence—hardly any—of what happens because these animals are trained chiefly abroad.
I have a certain amount of evidence of what happens in Germany. I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with all of it, but may I read an extract from The Times of April 3 this year, showing how performances by bears are dealt with in Germany? This is what the Berlin correspondent of The Times says:
"There are still a few performing bears, led by gypsies or other itinerants, to be seen in Germany. The plight of these animals has led the Minister of Agriculture to forbid the issue of further licences to the owners of performing bears, to order the cancellation of those now in use, and to instruct police authorities strictly to enforce this ban."
I hope your Lordships' House will not be behindhand in repressing cruelty as compared with the police authorities in Germany.
I have been asked, what about recent convictions for cruelty to these animals? It is quite a fair question. There was a circular sent to many members of your Lordships' House in which it was said:
" The Home Office states that no case of cruelty in the training of performing animals has been made out since the Act of 1925."
I think that statement must have been made under a misapprehension. I am not blaming the Home Office, but I would like to refer your Lordships to two very recent convictions for gross cruelty to some of these performing animals, not, it is true, in the training but in the exhibition and management of them. The
724
first was on December 9, 1931, when a foreign owner was fined £5 and£11 costs for cruelty to a lion. The cruelty was of an almost incredible character. The lion was compelled to take part in a performance which was called "The Wall of Death." The lion was driven in a motor car around an arena, the atmosphere of which was charged with noxious fumes. The animal had its head hanging over one side of the car which was driven swiftly around the arena. That was the performance which went on day by day, and what was the result? The animal died subsequently from heart disease, nervous strain and carbon monoxide poisoning.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Can the noble Lord tell me where that conviction was recorded.
LORD DANESFORT: I cannot answer that at the moment, but I have it amongst my papers and I should be most happy to tell the noble Earl exactly where it took place. The other case was in May, 1931, when the Tnanager of an English circus at Rotherham—Carna's Circus—was fined £20 and seven and a-half guineas costs and the keeper was fined £1 for cruelty to seven performing lions. The evidence proved that the lions were kept for over nine weeks in excessively small travelling cages, cages in which they could hardly turn round or lie down. I agree that that cruelty did not take place at the exhibition of the animals, but it did take place in the course of the management of the animals. May I now very shortly state why there had not been more convictions for cruelty in this country? Cruelty takes place chiefly in the training places abroad and behind the scenes. It is very difficult to get evidence when cruelty takes place, because by the Act of 1925 no power was given to the inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to inspect training places or go behind the scenes during performances. As a result the inspectors of the society were put in a position of absolute impotence in the matter. As regards the police and the officers of local authorities, they are not allowed to go behind the scenes during performances. They have the power—which I do not think is exercised much—to inspect places where training and exhibition take place. But

725
what I wish to lay stress upon is that the inspectors of the society are absolutely debarred from going anywhere where they could find evidence of this cruelty. The training and exhibition of these lions, tigers and bears still go on, and since 1930 there has been, a slight increase.
I have spoken of the danger of these performances to trainers and attendants, and I have a very long list of cases of accidents, extending from 1926 to 1932. I am riot going to trouble your Lordships with many of them, but may I mention some of the more recent cases, cases which have occurred during the last few years, selected from a very large number? One case occurred in August, 1930, at Hastings. A foreign trainer was attacked by a Polar bear. He lost his eye and his ear and his leg was lacerated and he died of his wounds. Again in October, 1930, at Bath—
LORD JESSEL: May I ask what was the name of the man killed?
LORD DANESFORT: My noble friend will find the recurrence fully recorded in the Hastings Observer of August 30, 1930, and in the London newspapers. If he would like to have the name I can give it him afterwards. Then there was a case at Bath in October, 1930, where a foreign trainer had his arm badly mauled by a lion. That is reported ill the Bath Chronicle. In March, 1931, there was a case at Cardiff, where a foreign trainer had his arm mangled by a bear and only escaped by firing at him. Then there was this very bad case in March, 1932, at Manchester: a trainer was severely mauled by a lion and died in consequence of his wound. I will only give one other case. In December of last year of St. Helens, Lancashire, there was a foreign trainer badly mauled by a tigress. Is this the sort of exhibition which your Lordships' House is prepared to allow to go on?
There is a suggestion in some of the circulars issued by what I may call the trade, that if you stop these particular performances it will result in unemployment. I think that is a wholly unverifiable statement. There are other turns than these which are far more acceptable to the public, with horses, dogs, sea lions, elephants and the rest, whereas the particular turns I am speaking of
726
have rather ceased to be attractive. If I am told that the trainers will suffer, my answer is that most of these trainers are abroad and I do not know that we should be specially careful to preserve the employment of trainers in Germany. There is the further fact that the bulk of the trainers and exhibitors in this country are foreigners. I have a statement from the Home Office, with which no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, is familiar, in which it appears that there are in this country registered under the Act 113 foreign exhibitors and exhibitor-trainers—how many there are in Germany or elsewhere we do not know because there is not the registration—as compared with 77 British exhibitors and exhibitor-trainers. These numbers are subject to the remark that some of the trainers and exhibitors are registered in the case of more than one animal, so that the net number is less than that I have given.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: How many does the noble Lord say?
LORD DANESFORT: The number registered for scheduled animals is 113 foreign and 77 British, but, as I have said, some of these trainers are registered in respect of more than one animal. Personally, I do not agree, on the evidence I have seen, that there would be any increase of unemployment if you stopped these most unfortunate performances. It may be asked whether this Bill will not impose serious loss upon the owners or exhibitors. The answer is no. The evidence given before our Select Committee showed that this kind of exhibition has largely lost popularity and, so far from being attractive to the public, was often the reverse. It was said that the effect was that children were terrified. Naturally parents would not take their children to performances to be terrified if they could avoid it and many exhibitors have dropped these turns out of the programme. As examples, may I quote the cases of one or two typical exhibitors? There is G. H. Harrop, general manager of the Blackpool Tower Company for thirty years. He said:
"For many years I have not booked any performances of lions, tigers, etc. Children get terrified… I find no falling off in audiences in consequence of this, but an increased appreciation of the business."
Another circus man, Mr. Lockhart, equestrian director of the Blackpool Tower Company, said:

727
"I do not think it is worth the trouble of training lions to stand on pedestals and form pyramids. I have never seen them do anything else. Children are frightened."
The last opinion I will quote is that of Mr. Tressell, a former manager of the London Hippodrome, who 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."
These gentlemen say that this is not going to cause them serious loss and that in some cases it will probably be of benefit. Therefore, when I am told you are going seriously to injure these circuses I find great difficulty in believing it.
Upon the question of unemployment, perhaps I ought very shortly to mention one or two facts which have just come to my knowledge. There are only three large circuses exhibiting scheduled animals in this country—Bertram Mills, Sanger and Chapman. Bertram Mills is at present showing, as I understand, only one turn of a tiger trained abroad and exhibited by a man whose name I cannot read, but obviously that of a foreigner; he will not be much injured if these lion and tiger turns are stopped. Sanger has one group of lions trained and shown by a gentleman with a foreign name and he will not be much injured. Chapman has several scheduled animal turns. I have here a paper which shows what I have already said—that there are all these other turns open and there will be no loss to the circus man. Notwithstanding that the popularity of these shows has diminished the shows still go on, and I want your Lordships to prevent them going on.
I will now turn shortly to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 prohibits the exhibition or training as a performing animal of any of these scheduled animals. Clause 2 contains a saving for zoological societies or any other society or association which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes; so that there is no fear of the London Zoo being interfered with. Then there are certain penalties. Of course the amount of those will be open to discussion in Committee. There is also a provision in Clause 3 that where a person is convicted under that clause the Court may, in addition to or in lieu of imposing a fine, order that his
728
name be removed from the register. Those are the provisions of the Bill. I ask your Lordships to say that these exhibitions are discreditable, that they are cruel to the animals—some of them have been prohibited even in Germany—that they involve great danger to the trainers and in some cases to attendants, that they have ceased to be really attractive, and that they are unworthy of support in this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD JESSEL, who had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move, That the Bill be read 2athis day six months, said: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be not now read a second time, and I will very shortly give you my reasons. In the first place I wish to deny the statement that the 1925 Bill was not an agreed Bill. I think that if you look at the OFFICIAL REPORT you will find that it only got through the House of Commons because certain things were agreed upon, and therefore it can only be called an agreed Bill. Much of the noble Lord's speech was taken from the evidence given before a Select Committee as long ago as May, 1922, and things have changed a great deal since that time. What was the Report of that Select Committee? They did not prohibit all these various turns by animals such as chimpanzees and anthropoid apes.
LORD DANESFORT: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting. They recommended that performances by chimpanzees and anthropoid apes should be prohibited.
LORD JESSEL: I am glad of that correction. As the noble Lord says, those were the only animals prohibited. No other animals were prohibited, and the only things which the Committee did prohibit were performances by chimpanzees and anthropoid apes. One of the reasons for that was the evidence of Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, who said that these animals were very liable to sudden fits of temper. Are chimpanzees and anthropoid apes the only animals which are liable to sudden fits of temper? There are other animals and, I believe, some persons, who are liable to sudden fits of temper, and are your Lordships because of that going to shut them up and deprive them of the right of going on?

729
The noble Lord made a great point about the trainers. After all, the trainers can look after themselves. If your Lordships go to circuses, as some of you no doubt do, at times, you will see men doing all sorts of performances. What about the trapeze performer who carries out his performance as high up in the air as the roof of this chamber? Such a performer incurs danger. So do the men who do many other feats, in public circuses, of that kind. Surely those men can look after themselves, and really under the guise of an Animal Protection Bill I should not have thought it was necessary to make a point about the danger to the trainers.
LORD AMPTHILL: Will the noble Lord kindly speak a little more loudly, so that we can all hear him?
LORD JESSEL: I am sorry that my voice does not carry so far as that of the noble Lord, but I will do my best to speak up. As I have told your Lordships, all this evidence was given as long ago as 1922. The noble Lord makes very light of the damage that would be done to this very large trade, and I should like for one moment to give the figures of one circus alone, and that is the circus of Mr. Bertram Mills. This circus takes place at Olympia every year for five or six weeks, and provides direct and indirect employment for at least 5,000 people, with a cash expenditure in various ways of £80,000 per annum, including £12,000 for Entertainment Tax alone, apart from Mr. Mills's touring circus with a cash expenditure of £100,000 including £17,000 for Entertainment Tax. There are in addition several other large touring circuses, involving very heavy capital expenditure, providing employment for a very large number of people, and paying big sums in Entertainment Tax. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that this is not at all a small matter.
LORD DANESFORT: Was I correct in stating that Mr. Bertram Mills has only one animal turn at the present time?
LORD JESSEL: I did not see the circus this year, but last year at the circus there were a great many animal turns, and he offered to show me this year a great many animals that he has in training, and with which he is touring the country at the present moment. I have here a
730
list which comes from the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain, showing other circuses which always include wild animals in their performances. Mr. Mills dropped animal performances in 1930, and he received demands from the public that the animals should be included in the next year's circus, and for the last two years, I understand, these animals have been shown not only at Olympia but in the tours that the circuses made. So there evidently is a demand for these animals.
I am not going to deal at length with the question of the trainers, because I think they can look alter themselves, but in the paper which I have here, which is also furnished by the Association of Circus Proprietors, it is shown that a good many of these animals are trained by English trainers. I venture to think that if this Bill does go forward and is read a second time by this House, it should then be sent to a Select Committee, because in my opinion all these questions ought again to be looked into most carefully. There was a great divergence of opinion about these trained lions, because one eminent gentleman, Mr. Calthrop—I do not say that he has such knowledge as Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell—gave evidence that these animals could only be trained by kindness, and in the last debate in which a similar Bill was discussed Lord Auckland —I do not think he is here to-day—who has had considerable experience, said that you could only train animals properly by kindness.
LORD DANESFORT: What he said was that it was possible to train them by kindness, but that most of the trainers in this country are foreigners and the abuse of their animals is dreadful.
LORD JESSEL: He said on the other occasion that the only possible way in which they could be trained was by kindness. There is another point which I think ought to be very carefully looked into. The present Bill exempts the Zoological Gardens and other kindred institutions from the operation of the Bill. It does not seem to be at all right that there should be such an exemption. At present these institutions are inspected in the same way as any other place containing wild animals. Why, should you expect perfect human nature in a keeper because he is employed by the Zoological

731
Gardens, any more than you would in an ordinary trainer? I think that a most unfair proposal. Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell in one part of his evidence said it was better for the animals to go about the country rather than be in the same cage or the same place all the time.
I maintain that very few cases of cruelty have really been made out. The Home Office were applied to and as far as I can gather there have been no cases of cruelty since 1928. It does not seem to me at all necessary that another Bill should be passed, at all events without very careful examination before a Select Committee, on the very small amount of evidence given by the noble Lord this afternoon. There really is very little to go upon in regard to these allegations of cruelty. With regard to the particular case of Kossmeyer, the trainer who was killed by a bear, it seems that the circus was at Hastings and the bear was a large Polar bear which was being washed, and the trainer no doubt took undue risk during a spell of hot weather, when the temperature was very high. There was never any suggestion of cruelty to this animal. Everybody at the time was feeling the effect of the weather. There is no doubt that while Kossmeyer was washing the animal on the wet floor he slipped, which caused the animal to take fright and bite him.
I maintain that very little has happened since the Act of 1925 was passed to call for a revision, and I beg your Lordships not hastily to pass judgment, because many of you in this House are not as young as you were, and perhaps do not appreciate what pleases other people, especially young people. These travelling circuses go all over the country and the young people in the towns they visit have a chance of seeing them. Why should they have to go up to London or Bristol to see a tiger or a lion or an elephant? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is against me in this, but the noble Lord is very old-fashioned. He told me yesterday, when Lord Elibank was talking about the age of taxicabs in London, that he himself had bought a second-hand coach fifty years ago and it was going strong now. Therefore I do not think your Lordships can take him as a judge of these matters. If these allegations could be proved by proper evidence before a Select Committee, I
732
have no doubt that something ought then to be done, but if you recklessly pass this Bill you will do tremendous injury to a large number of people and deprive a lot of children and other people of harmless amusement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months"). —(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to me and stated that I am an old man, which is quite true, but that does not prevent me from having had experience of the past and having some knowledge of what children and other people enjoy. The noble Lord says that if you pass this Bill you will deprive a large number of people of the emoluments they get by exhibiting these animals to perform tricks. The Bill will only apply to chimpanzees, anthropoid apes, tigers, leopards, panthers, pumas, hyenas, cheetahs, and bears. I venture to say that there is nobody who would attempt to deny that you cannot make those animals go through tricks without cruelty. The idea that you can train them by kindness, if my noble friend will excuse my saying so, is really nonsense. It is quite impossible to train by kindness savage animals like lions and tigers to do tricks which are contrary to their nature.
What would happen if this Bill was passed? My noble friend says a large number of people would lose their employment. Why should they? What was the circus that we all used to go to in our youth? I can remember it perfectly well. There was the ring-master with a long whip, there were a certain number of horses and a certain number of ladies with short skirts who, having got on a nice, quiet, well-fed horse, cantered slowly round the ring. All these will still be there in the circus. Then there was the clown who, having got on a flight of steps, held up a hoop and said "Hoop-la!" and the lady jumped through the hoop, much to the entertainment of myself and other children who were there. That will go on as before. Then the clown had a row with the ring-master, who tried to hit him with his long whip, which used to amuse the children almost more than anything else, especially if the clown were caught by the whip. As a

733
matter of fact, the only thing that will be stopped will be the performances of these wild animals brought into the ring to do tricks which are contrary to their nature. Far better that the children should be brought up to consider kindness to animals than get their amusement from seeing those animals forced to do things contrary to their nature. My belief is that if this Bill is passed you will do no harm to the circus, and you may do some good to children.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jessel dealt so fully with the Bill itself that, though my name is down to move its rejection, I do not propose to deal with the Bill at all, except to try to point out what sort of organisation is at the back of this Bill. Now, your Lordships no doubt as well as myself have received a circular from the Performing and Captive Animals' Defence League, who write from Buckingham Street in London, and in that circular which we have received during the last week arguments—perfectly legitimate arguments—are put forward in favour of the Bill for our consideration. But that organisation is the same as the organisation that existed on the 22nd of January, 1931, just over two years ago, and the secretary is the same. That organisation when a previous Bill, the Bill of 1930, was before the House of Commons, took this line. They wrote to Sir Walter de Frece, Member of Parliament, in the following terms:
"Dear Sir,
PERFORMING ANIMALS BILL.
In view of the fact that you and other Members of Parliament are obstructing the passage of the above Bill in the House of Commons, the Performing and Captive Animals' Defence League is considering the advisability of issuing the enclosed in poster form and also, perhaps, as a leaflet."
What is the poster that that organisation then threatened Sir Walter de Frece and his friends with issuing?
"Who are these six M.P.'s? Their names are: Beaumont, de Frece, Macquisten, Clarke, Lang and Smithers.
They are preventing even a discussion of a Performing Animals Bill in the House of Commons.
They are fighting against prisoners and captives who have no means of defence.
But they are unwilling to face a public audience on the question.
What about it?"
Though we happily in this House, as we have no constituents, are likely to be free from threats such as that, I submit we cannot be blind to the nature of an organisation which sponsors a Bill like this and which issues circulars in favour of it, and which two years ago, with the same personnel as vice-presidents and the same secretary, wrote in that way to six Members of Parliament—a blackmailing communication, as I consider it—trying to prevent a Member of Parliament from exercising his own individual judgment, which he is perfectly entitled to do. A Member of Parliament, as your Lordships know better than I do, is responsible only to his constituents and not to people outside. I think, therefore, that when you come to vote on the Second Reading of this Bill you ought to realise what sort of blackmailing methods have been employed by this organisation.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I do not propose to trespass for more than a minute or two, but there are a few words I should like to say. I believe it to be quite impossible to train wild animals to perform tricks without cruelty. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, mentioned just now what Lord Auckland said in 1930. Let me read exactly what he did say:
"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."
What Lord Jessel suggested was that these animals were all trained by kindness. I suggest that every one of them is trained by gross cruelty. Anybody who has read any pamphlets on the subject must be appalled by th6 cruelty which is used. Take the case of bears. Bears are taught to dance by being placed in a tub which has a metal bottom and under which a, slow fire is lighted. It gets so hot that the unfortunate animal keeps on dancing about, and when it tries to get out of the tub it is bludgeoned with a wooden club.
LORD JESSEL: May I ask the noble Lord from what pamphlet he is quoting?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I have not got this particular pamphlet before me,

735
but I shall quote from the Performing Animals Atrocities pamphlet (revised 1933). Possibly the noble Lord may have had it. Bears have rings put in their noses. The nose is the most tender part of the bear, and there have been occasions when parts of the bear's nose have been literally pulled out. I will now quote one or two instances from this pamphlet. Here is a case of a trainer who was seen to train his bear by hitting him continually across the snout with a log of wood. He kept it up daily for three to six months until the bear "knew his master." There is a case of a witness who saw a lion being kept five days without food or drink between the trainings with trident and whip. Another case dealing with a bear:
"Another witness swears that she saw a bear who was being prepared for training shut up in a dark hole, chained by the nose, part of which had been pulled off. The chain was eight inches long, so that he could not turn or raise his head. At another exhibition she saw an elephant"—
but as elephants have nothing to do with this Bill I shall not quote that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, pointed out, there is no necessity whatever for these wild animal performances. They are no longer popular. He quoted what I think various authorities said to prove that the bookings for them have gone away to practically nothing in the last few years. I cannot see that there has been any good reason given why these animals should continue to be allowed to perform. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, remarked that it is very unfair that the Zoo should not come under the same supervision. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that they do not train animals to perform tricks at, the Zoo.
LORD JESSEL: I can show the noble Earl twenty postcards with pictures of performing animals at the Zoo.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: If they do teach animals to perform tricks there, it is only done by kindness, and it takes a very considerable number of years before they do it. My whole point is that the trainers of wild animals cannot afford to wait years in teaching them to perform tricks. He quoted an authority saying that it was very much better for wild animals to travel about the country. They are transported in little tiny boxes in which they have hardly room to turn. Surely the noble Lord cannot suggest it
736
is better for wild animals to be enclosed in a box of that description, being shaken about, possibly in darkness the whole time, rather than to roam about in the Zoo with an occasional transportation to Whipsnade? I do not think this Bill goes far enough. I should like to see all performing animals prohibited, but I recognise that this type of legislation must necessarily be piecemeal, and it is a case of half a loaf being better than no bread at all. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Seond Reading.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there are one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, I should like to ask about. The noble Lord quoted Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell. I would also like to quote from the same paper, which is the Report of the Select Committee. Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell said:
"My own belief is that wild animals have even higher capacities for training, if you know them, and you are absolutely kind to them, than domesticated animals."
Just one more quotation. Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell was asked:
"Could you say if animals suffer more in travelling circuses than they do when they are in your charge-I will not say suffer more,' but do you think they are as contented in travelling circuses as they are in the Zoological Gardens?"
The answer was:
"I think definitely that they do not suffer more; it is one of the very curious things that animals, lions in particular, that are taken about in travelling menageries often do extremely well, and breed extremely well, under conditions that seem to me very surprising."
As a matter of fact I think it is definitely established that they do well. As regards Sir Chalmers Mitchell's statement that chimpanzees could not be trained without cruelty, I would point out that the Zoological Gardens have got the finest troupe of performing chimpanzees in the world. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull said that no training goes on at the Zoological Gardens. Postcards are sold at the Zoological Gardens of the chimpanzees at tea.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I point out to the noble Lord that chimpanzees do not have to perform to a timetable at the Zoo.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not see what a time-table has to do with the contention that it is impossible to train chimpanzees

737
without cruelty. Reference has been made to foreign trainers and we were told there were 113 trainers in England. I have a reprint of an analysis supplied by the Home Office to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, in February, 1929. I do not know if the noble Lord has a later one.
LORD DANESFORT: I have one of 1933.
LORD CHESHAM: The number of British trainers in 1929 was 206. I do not know if that figure has gone down or up.
LORD DANESFORT: It has gone down as regards the scheduled animals; it is far less. As regards other animals I do not know.
LORD CHESHAM: It has been stated that it is difficult to obtain convictions because so many of these animals are trained abroad. Is the noble Lord who made that statement aware that at the establishment of one circus proprietor alone, that of Mr. Bertram Mills, during the entire winter months there are never less than 100 wild animals being trained there? I refer to the establishment at Ascot. Among the animals being trained there are lions and tigers, and the various animals included in this Bill. They have been there for a very considerable number of years, certainly since the Act of 1926 was passed, and I can only presume that inspectors have been there. Under that Act they are fully entitled to go there at any time and there has not been a single complaint of any cruelty with regard to these animals, roughly numbering 100, which have been there continuously for eight years or longer. There has been no complaint since the Act came into force.
It is said there cruelty behind the scenes. It is very difficult to get behind the scenes of most of the circuses I have attended. I do not in fact know where behind the scenes at a circus is. I cannot imagine it. I know that at Olympia, which is the circus I have mostly been to, you see the animals the whole time. Day and night training is going on. The place is open the whole time for the training and exercise of the animals, and practically anybody can obtain a pass to examine them and see what happens. There may be places where it is possible to get behind the scenes and look at them, but I have not the foggiest idea where
738
such places are, and I do not think that anybody else has. It has been said that it is impossible to get evidence of any cruelty that takes place behind the scenes of any theatre, but I would point out that hundreds of people are about behind the scenes at a theatre the whole time, such as the stage manager, the assistant stage manager, actors, actresses, firemen and so on. I think when you say it is impossible to get evidence of any cruelty you are rather implying that there are many hundreds and thousands of people who are condoning the most disgraceful cruelty behind the scenes in theatres. I cannot concede that.
Then it has been said that this Bill would not affect employment in any way. I have had it stated to me very definitely by circus proprietors that there is a big demand for wild animals. I think mention was made of the Tower Circus at Blackpool. I understand that for some years they did not have wild animals there, and that they lost so much money because of the large decrease in the attendances that they had to go back to baying wild animals.
LORD DANESFORT: Having lions and tigers?
LORD CHESHAM: I understand so. Anyhow, I am definitely assured that if you will not allow lions and tigers to take part in a circus you are almost prohibiting that circus. It was tried at Olympia, and proved a complete failure because the attendances went down. They require over £80,000 before they make one penny over their expenses, and it was found impossible to obtain that sum without including wild animals in the circus. There are a very large number of people who will not go to a circus unless wild animals are to be seen there. That is proved by the drop in the attendances where wild animals have been no longer shown at circuses. I think these people were referred to in a previous speech by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, as being "curious-minded" or words to that effect. Approximately half a million people go every year to the circus at Olympia, and I think it is rather a strong thing for the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, to say that there are half a million curious-minded people who go to see wild animals at Olympia every year.

739
I should like to read a quotation concerning Lord Lonsdale and the circus. It is a Press cutting from the Yorkshire Evening Post, which states:
" Lord Lonsdale, presiding at the in augurable luncheon of Mills' Christmas Circus at Olympia, said the circus afforded a remarkable demonstration of the results of training animals by kindness. I told Mr. Mills,' he said, that I would have to see and approve his various animal acts before I would consent to preside. I have done so. There is nobody who has taken greater trouble to see that everything that is shown comes under the realm of reasonable acts of kindness than Mr. Mills. "
I do hope sincerely that your Lordships will not give this Bill a Second Reading. I cannot see that any case has been made out for the necessity of it. Every precaution is taken under the existing Act, and this Bill would deal a very serious blow, for it would mean prohibition to a great many circuses—in fact to all the circuses in this country—and also would cause much unemployment.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, I am given to understand that a Bill was passed in 1930 through all its stages in this House dealing with this question, and that the Bill before us to-day includes bears in the Schedule, and gives new powers with regard to them and other animals. With regard to the question of tigers and lions and other animals being trained by kindness, is there any noble Lord who believes that they can be trained by kindness I do not believe there is a single member of this House who will give credence to support that contention. Not one of us believes it for a moment. It is absolutely entirely against the nature of tigers and lions to do these tricks. They can only be taught by starvation, or by some other horrible methods of torture, and we have heard from the noble Earl on my left one of the methods adopted to bring about the performance of the so-called dancing bear. I maintain that the time for these itinerant circuses and things of that sort has gone by. They are a relic of by-gone days, and a barbaric relic, a horrible relic. It is enough to make people turn in their graves almost to think of the awful torments meted out to these poor creatures. If trainers get mauled sometimes it is a jolly good job. Perhaps it would be better if it happened more often. We have cinemas and all sorts of things in
740
these days by way of entertainment, and it is not necessary to have the exhibition of what are called trained animals—trained, as I say, not by kindness, but by horrible methods.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening at this stage of the debate but I assure you it will not be for long. It seems to me that many persons who deal with the question of cruelty to animals lose all sense of proportion. People are so apt to judge questions of animals and their training from their hearts rather than from their heads. Animals trained to perform in circuses have to go through no more strenuous training than those individuals who perform in public. A ballet dancer has to train infinitely more seriously than any: animal. An opera singer has to do the same. People who want to perform for the films have to take a slimming diet and I agree that if you put a bear or a lion or a tiger on a slimming diet it would be very great cruelty. I know it because I have tried it myself. When we are dealing with this question of performing animals, may I remind your Lordships of a very old form of entertainment, the Punch and Judy show? I understand—although I am open to correction—that at the present moment it is illegal for a Toby dog to be a real dog. He has to be a sham dog. That has ruined a long-established, traditional form of entertainment The Toby dog was brought up in the profession. His ancestors had been for generations on the road. Because the Toby dog is not allowed to continue in the profession in which his great-great grandfather took part and which was no cruelty to him, one of the traditional amusements of this country has been ruined and has had to; give place to cinemas from America. I myself have on occasions seen a chimpanzee drink a whisky and soda. I could do it very easily myself. I dare say some of your Lordships have never done it, but I have done it often and could do it again. Let me make a quotation. I think I am quoting from Dr. Johnson, who said:
"It is not that he does it well that surprises, but that he does it at all."
LORD DANESFORT: Does what well? Drink a whisky and soda?
LORD CARNOCK: Yes, drink a whisky and soda, and he probably enjoyed it

741
very much. I do not see why a chimpanzee should be deprived of the pleasure of drinking a whisky and soda. After all, Louis XIV and Louis XV took ad their meals and drinks in public. The chimpanzee may be rather hysterical, but so may be people. Those of your Lordships who have trained polo ponies or who have hunted know perfectly well that it is impossible to train any animal except by kindness. Lions and tigers in their own homes are not particularly kind or gentle to any animal or human being they may meet, but I am convinced that there is not a lion or tiger which performs in this country which has not been trained by kindness. They are the type of animal in connection with which cruelty increases cruelty. The cruelty of which I think is the cruelty that would be caused by the unemployment which would fall on thousands of people if this Bill becomes law. That is cruelty. It may be undignified for a lion to ride round a circus ring on the back of a horse, but it is much more undignified for a poor man with his wife and children to go from doss house to doss house unemployed and penniless, and that is what this Bill would mean. I therefore beg your Lordships to remember the human beings who will be affected by this Bill rather than a few animals which are certainly not cruelly treated.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, so much has been said about the merits of this Bill, both for and against, that it only requires a very few words from me to indicate the attitude of the Government. That attitude is absolutely neutral. The noble Lord has given you the history of this Bill, which, as he said, is very nearly the same Bill that was passed three years ago in your Lordships' House with the exception of the penal clause and the addition of bears. The history of the Bill really dates from the Performing Animals Act, 1925. As the noble Lord said, that did not carry out all the suggestions of the Committee, but it did prescribe a system of registration for trainers and exhibitors of certain scheduled wild animals and laid down penalties for cruelty. On behalf of the Home Office I have to say that since the 1925 Act was passed no further evidence of cruelty has been brought to the notice of the Department. My noble friend mentioned two casts of convictions for
742
cruelty in 1931, but the Home Office have no record of them and have no knowledge of them. Perhaps the reason for that is that a conference of chief constables was held—as my noble friend no doubt knows —in 1928 and it then appeared that in the boroughs in which the majority of exhibitions of performing animals are held there was a systematic inspection of all exhibitions and the police had no observations to report.
In 1929, at the request of my noble friend, further inquiries were made of the police forces in places in which upwards of five trainers or exhibitors were registered, to ascertain details of the methods of inspection and whether any prosecutions for cruelty had been instituted. My noble friend has quoted some of the figures, and so I need not weary your Lordships with them. As a result of those inquiries about half a dozen cases of proceedings for cruelty were reported, only one of which concerned what are called the larger carnivora. In that case the summons was dismissed. No further returns have been called for since 1929. My instructions were that the Home Office were not aware of any convictions for cruelty to animals scheduled to the Act under the Act of 1925. I will accept what my noble friend said; I can only say the Home Office have no knowledge of them.
I am fully in agreement with the noble Lord in not appreciating the exhibitions of performing animals. I do not think I did even when I came under Lord Jessel's definition of youth. But that is very different from thinking that those exhibitions necessarily involve cruelty. Although some of us may not appreciate these exhibitions, there are apparently a great many people in the country who do, judging by the amount of literature which I, and I should think most of your Lordships, have received on the subject in the last few weeks. Most of this has come from proprietors of circuses and others who are naturally vitally concerned. Their side of the case has been put forward by the noble Lord who moved the rejection and by others, but so far as the Government are concerned I am not arguing the merits of the proposals in the Bill, and I can only repeat that the Government take an absolutely neutral attitude to the subject, going upon the fact that they have no knowledge of further cases of cruelty since the

743
Act of 1925, and that they think it right to leave to the free judgment of your Lordships whether the Bill should or should not have a Second Reading.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I desire to say a very few words in answer to the discussion. Lord Mount Temple announced that he was not going to deal with the Bill and he acted fully up to his promise. He referred to some society with which I have had nothing to do and of which I was never a member, which did some rude thing to some friends of his.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Which society circularised all members of your Lordships' House in support of the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: I was not responsible for their circularising members of the House. I believe they are against performances of all animals, while this Bill is confined strictly to the scheduled animals. But I really must disclaim responsibility for the improprieties or alleged improprieties of this society which my friend detailed in such effective terms. The Bill was not made by them, but devised largely by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and brought in at my instigation and that of some friends of the society. In regard to Lord Jessel I do not think he disputed a single fact which I gave in my speech. What he did say was that young people want to see these animals. Well, he gave no evidence of that and I have given the evidence of two or three circus proprietors who said that children were terrified.
LORD JESSEL: In 1922.
LORD DANESFORT: Oh! in 1922 children were terrified and now they are delighted! Well I have not any evidence of that. I dare say children like to see a zoo, but I am not trying to stop menageries which go about the country. So much for the children. Then I gave certain strong illustrations of the dangers to trainers and exhibitors from these animals and my noble friend Lord Jessel threw that over entirely and said he did not care about these trainers being subject to danger—let them look after themselves. But are we going to encourage a system of exhibiting and training animals which results in death or injury
744
to a large number of trainers and exhibitors, and then say, "If you like to be killed or injured that is your affair"? I look upon that argument as an additional reason why such performances should be stopped. I come to the case made out by Lord Chesham. He referred to some passages in the evidence of Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell about chimpanzees. Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell said he thought it was monstrously wrong to train chimpanzees for public exhibition. This gentleman therefore can hardly object to my Bill on the ground that it stops performances which he says are "monstrously wrong."
LORD CHESHAM: What I was really worried about was that Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell makes this statement before the Select Committee while the best place for performing chimpanzees in the world is the Zoological Gardens in London.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not know whether you can call a man a performing animal when he sits down and drinks tea or, which the noble Lord seemed to think more important, drinks whiskies and sodas. I think it is probable that the chimpanzee or any other animal, four-legged or two-legged, might be induced to sit at a table and take the food that he or she liked—especially an animal somewhat similar to ourselves, such as a monkey—without going through the kind of performance which I object to and Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell strongly condemns—performances which have nothing at all to do with what goes on at the Zoo. There is only one other point I wish to refer to in my noble friend's speech, which I agree was very well put. He asked why, if this cruelty goes on, people behind the scenes did not speak of it. The answer really to that is that persons cannot give evidence against their employers. We saw that in our Select Committee. We did not get a single employee to give evidence on cruelty; the evidence of cruelty was from former employees and people who had left the shows altogether. My answer to that point is that the employee really cannot give such evidence. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Knutsford, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Reading, M.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Zetland, M.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Leigh, L.

Buxton, E.

Barnard, L.

Monson, L.

Harewood, E.

Berwick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Iveagh, E.

Charnwood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.[Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Plymouth, E.

Denman, L.

Snell, L.

Rothes, E.

Dickinson, L.

Stanmore, L.

Yarborough, E.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Gainford, L.

Tenterden, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Woodbridge, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Ampthill, L.

Irwin, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Biddulph, L.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Carnock, L.

Joicey, L.

Carrington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dudley, E.

Chesham, L.[Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mount Temple, L.

Stanhope, E.

Newton, L.

Strafford, E.

Decies, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Desart, L.(E. Desart.)

Redesdale, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Remnant, L.

Churchill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Exmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham, V.

Faringdon, L.

Novar, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Templemore, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hawke, L.

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

INDIA: AN ARTICLE BY LORD LINLITHGOW.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY rose to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Marquess of Linlithgow, after his appointment as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee appointed for the consideration of the White Paper on Indian Affairs, allowed to be published in the public Press an article over his name expressing his views upon the White Paper, and to ask whether it is usual or desirable that a member of a Select Committee should express his views in public upon the questions submitted for the consideration of the Committee before the Committee has had the opportunity of considering or reporting upon those questions; and to move for Papers?
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting down this Question I had some
746
difficulty in wording it, and for this reason. It is quite clear that any Motion of this kind must bring in the name of one of your Lordships' House, personally, and my great desire was, and I hope I have succeeded, to put down my Question in a form which snakes it quite clear that it is in no shape or form a personal attack upon the noble Marquess whose name appears in the Question. It is a Motion put down on a question of principle, and on a question of principle which I suggest to your Lordships is of very great importance. As your Lordships know, a Committee was appointed to consider what is popularly known as the White Paper on Indian affairs. Among others the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, was appointed a member of that Committee and I understand that that Committee elected him their Chairman. After that appointment an article appeared in a paper known as Home and Empire, which emanates from, or at least is under the aegis of, the Conservative Central Office. That I took the trouble to find out before I came here this afternoon. That article is headed "India Tomorrow, by the Marquess of Linlithgow, K.T., G.C.I.E. (Chairman of the Joint Select Committee)."
Unless later it is thought necessary that I should, I am not going to say much about what that article contains. I want to put everything that I have to say before your Lordships without any feeling, and quite quietly, and I do not think I am wrong or can be criticised if I say that the article undoubtedly expresses the opinion of the noble Marquess, and shows that the noble Marquess has already come to an opinion upon the very questions which are the subject-matter of the discussions of the Committee of which he is Chairman. For that reason I am asking
"whether it is usual or desirable that a member of a Select Committee should express his views in public upon the questions submitted for the consideration of the Committee before the Committee has had the opportunity of considering or reporting upon those questions."
I think there can be but one answer to that.
Now, I have seen it stated that this article was written by the noble Marquess before he was appointed to this Committee. If I had not seen that statement I should certainly have supposed it. A carefully written article of this kind, expressing opinions after the most careful consideration, cannot be written in an hour or two. I should have supposed that it had been written before; it must have been written before. Furthermore, one knows that a certain amount of time is necessary for what is known as the "make-up" of the paper. I gather that the noble Marquess will say so, and I accept it at once; but that does not make the very slightest difference. He could have stopped this article if he had wanted to. It is published in a paper which, as I say, is intimately connected with, if not actually under the orders of, the Central Office of the Conservative Party. It could have been stopped perfectly easily. Instead of being stopped it had added to it the fact that he was Chairman of the Joint Select Committee.
Had the noble Marquess desired that the public at large should know his views by publication in the Press, he was perfectly at liberty to say that under those circumstances he did not want to become a member of this Committee. That was the reason given by certain other gentlemen, some in another place and one at least a member of your Lordships'
748
House, as one of the reasons why they did not want to serve, and would not serve, on the Committee, because by doing so they would, by all precedent, have precluded themselves from speaking in public. They thought that they would do better work by speaking in public, and therefore they refused. Either of those courses was open to the noble Marquess. He chose neither. He allowed the article to be published, and my Question says that he allowed it to be published, and at the same time he not only became a member of the Committee but he accepted the chairmanship of it.
I do not think I need point out the very unfortunate results that this must have. In this particular case it is doubly unfortunate. What is the position of our Indian friends who have been asked to come over here and discuss the matter with this Committee when, on landing on these shores, they find that the Chairman of the Committee has already made public what his views on the matter are? Surely nobody would think that that was happy. Then consider what the effect of this is going to be in this country. I suggested shortly before Easter that this Committee had been selected perhaps in a manner that was partial. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the House replied to me and reprimanded me for saying that, in language which I think he will not deny was vigorous, and he said: "This is an impartial Committee." That is the name that he gave to it, and "the impartial Committee" is, I feel, the name by which it will go down to history. It was the noble and learned Viscount who gave it that name: it is the Chairman of the Committee who has put that name into inverted commas. For these reasons I beg to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, the Question put down by my noble friend Lord Halsbury and the speech which he has just made give me an opportunity of making to the House a statement on the matter of which I gladly avail myself. When I wrote the article in question and when I sent it to the journal in which it appears I had no notion that I should subsequently find myself in the position of Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform. If I had known that

749
I was to be Chairman I should not have written the article. In point of fact I was unaware that my name was to be suggested to the Joint Select Committee for the honour of appointment to the chair until a few hours before the first meeting of the Committee. Immediately after my appointment as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee I caused inquiry to be made as to the feasibility of withdrawing the article. I was informed that the article had already been sent to press, that it was in type, and that to withdraw it would involve the complete disorganisation of the issue in which it was due to appear, as well as causing substantial pecuniary loss to the proprietors. In these circumstances, and as the views expressed in the article amounted to no more than those which I ventured to offer to this House on April 4, during the debate on the Motion to appoint the Joint Select Committee, I came to the decision, after full consideration, not to attempt to compel the withdrawal of the article.
When a copy of the paper in which the article was printed was placed in my hands I noticed that the fact that I had been appointed Chairman of the Joint Select Committee was mentioned in a line under my name at the head of the article. I immediately communicated with the publishers, and asked them to reconcile the fact that this had been done with their original assurance that to withdraw the article would involve a disorganisation of the issue of the paper. In answer to this inquiry I was informed that for technical reasons it is possible after the general body of the type is set, but before it is actually placed in the press, to change or to make additions to marginal details, such as headlines, and the like. I have no reason to suppose that that explanation is not entirely satisfactory. In the matter of my action, for which I shall take full responsibility and of which the noble Earl complains, I am content to leave myself in the hands of the House. I do not at all complain of the Question which my noble friend has put down or of the speech which he made. I am the first to recognise that he did both without the slightest personal reference of any kind whatever, but I hope he will not mind if I say that I do think he has presented this point to the House in a
750
guise that is out of scale and focus with the real significance of the incident.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, as I said, I did not bring this Question forward from any personal point of view, and of course I accept at once the explanation given by the noble Marquess. But I think I am also entitled to add this, that, while accepting his explanation, it does riot quite follow that I agree with the judgment that he exercised in the matter, because in my humble opinion the whole of this Indian question is of such vital importance that if it did any harm, which it well might, but which I hope it will not, it would be worth scrapping a dozen newspapers rather than make any unfortunate gesture of any kind. But, my Lords, after the explanation the noble Marquess has given, and after your Lordships have heard the whole of this question cleared up, I do not, of course, propose to divide the House.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, I hope your Lordships will allow me to intervene for a minute or two. So far as I understood the opening speech of the noble Earl, he was condemning from his point of view any observation—and all his argument led up to that—which any member of the Joint Select Committee might express.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: In public.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hope that is not going to be understood, because anything more unfair than that I cannot conceive. The noble Marquess who has just spoken has made his position quite clear. As your Lordships know I have spoken on several occasions, and have expressed very definite views, and also on the last occasion, with, of course, this qualification that if I was appointed a member of the Select Committee I must, of course, keep my mind open and, notwithstanding any views I had formed hitherto, must be prepared to revise them when sitting on the Joint Select Committee. I adhere absolutely to that view. But may I point out the difficulties in which we shall be placed 4 It happens, for example, that months ago I undertook to preside at a meeting where a well-known civil servant in India, Sir John Thompson, is going to address one of the Associations—for the moment I do

751
not recall which it is. Is there anything to prevent my doing that? I really cannot understand why I should not do so. I am to sit there, merely presiding—I should certainly not express any opinion on that occasion, and, if I did, I should make it dear that any views I have expressed in the past must always be taken subject to the conclusions I may come to after hearing everything that is said in the Select Committee.
May I give another instance? I was in New York last October and November, and I broadcasted on India through the International Broadcasting Society, and I also delivered addresses. One of these addresses I was pressed to allow to be published in a magazine in America called Foreign Affairs, and I undertook to do so. It will take some little time to revise, but it happens, as I gather, that it is to be published either this month or the beginning of next month. Am I to stop that article, an article in which I expressed the same views, only perhaps a little more judicially, inasmuch as I was trying to put the case to Americans who did not know much about it? I was not dealing with the debate as in this House. But is it to follow that that article must be recalled? I am very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding, and I hope your Lordships will come to this conclusion, or at least that it may be understood, that while it may be objectionable to take a leading part as a protagonist, particularly when sitting on the Select Committee, or express views without at the same time making the reservations I have already made, nevertheless it would place members of the Select Committee in a. very difficult position if they are not to be allowed to express views or take part in whatever discussion may be taking place.
I really do think it is not possible to let this debate pass without making the comments I have made, because the noble Earl who introduced the subject certainly made some strong observations in this respect—I do not mean personally at all, but as to what he thought desirable. I am most anxious that there should be no misunderstanding, because, after all, we are members of a Committee appointed by your Lordships' House, and I should be very sorry if there were any misunderstanding as to the action we may take. I hope it will be made clear
752
now. My own view, if I may venture to put it with all respect, is that in these matters every man must be guided by his own commonsense, good taste, judgment, and discretion, and that it must be left there, otherwise it will place us in a very difficult position.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I had intended to intervene in the debate before the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, got up to make his reply to Lord Linlithgow. I was merely waiting to see if there was anyone else rising, and if there were any more questions, before I said what had to be said, not so much on behalf of the Government, but in virtue of my position as Leader of this House. The noble Earl disclaimed any intention of making a personal attack but, of course, if a Motion had been carried such as he has put down, it would have amounted to a vote of censure on the noble Marquess, and as long as there was any question of that kind I have no doubt at all as to what story the Division Lobby would have told, if indeed two Tellers could have been found to tell against my noble friend. But that aspect of the matter is disposed of. The noble Earl has intimated his intention of withdrawing his Motion, and accepts the explanation given to this House.
There is, however, the very important point to which my noble friend Lord Reading has given expression, and which is in fact the actual point that is raised by the Question on the Paper—namely, whether it is desirable for any member of the Joint Committee to express his views in public. I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has stated exactly the course which your Lordships would desire members of the Committee to follow, and indeed the only reasonable or possible course to invite them to follow having regard to the circumstances of this particular Joint Committee. There are Select Committees which are set up, for instance, to hear promoters and opposers of Private Bills and matters of that kind, where the Select Committee is acting purely as a judicial body upon some question of private right. With regard to that I think everybody would recognise that it would be very undesirable for members of such a Committee to express a view before both sides had been fully heard, and then

753
only to express their view in the form of the Report they make to your Lordships' House. But really that bears no analogy to this Joint Committee.
This is a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament set up, not to try some question of private right between two individuals, but to consider and advise Parliament upon the very gravest matters of constitutional policy. We have deliberately chosen as members of that Committee members who belong to both Houses, who in most cases have had a long experience of India, who have not hesitated to express their present views with regard to the discussion of some of die matters at issue, and who have taken an active part in the series of meetings which led up to the formation of this Joint Committee and to the White Paper, which is one of the matters that the Committee will have to consider. It would ho gravely improper for any member of either House to accept membership of such a Committee with a mind determined not to listen to argument, but to remain, whatever other people may say, whatever evidence is called, whatever advice may be given by those invited to give advice from India, rooted in his own present opinion. That would be an impossible attitude. But equally it would be ridiculous for this House, or for the other House, to assume that those whom we have selected to act as members of that Joint Committee have no opinions upon the matters which are going to be discussed. It would be the more ridiculous because we deliberately chose twelve out of our sixteen representatives from people who have expressed' their opinions in the debates that have taken place.
The further point which the noble Earl then made that it was desirable to have people who had no opinions at all, was expressed by him when we discussed the personnel of the Committee and was conclusively rejected by your Lordships' House. That being' so, for my part I cannot conceive that it would be reasonable or in the public interest to expect that those members of the Committee who have been chosen from this House or from another place should regard themselves as muzzled with regard to India, until such time as their Report comes forward. Of course, they will consider everything that is put before them with an open mind, and will do their best to
754
reach a right conclusion and to give the right advice to Parliament when the time comes, regardless of whatever prejudices or opinions they may have had when they went into the Committee. Equally, of course, everybody knows that they have got opinions, and I think nobody would regard it is unreasonable that they should sometimes express' them, within, of course, such reasonable measure of discretion and good taste as the noble Marquess suggested.
The noble Earl referred to the fact that some persons who had been invited to join the Committee had refused to join it, and that one of the reasons they had given for their refusal had been that it would in some way prejudice them or hamper them in making public speeches. Another reason which they gave was that they did not think that they had enough representation on the Committee—I can hardly suppose that it would have been quite proper for them to accept and make speeches up and down the country if they had had a larger membership—but because they did not have as many representatives of their point of view as they desired therefore it became a matter of patriotic duty not to accept membership. I have regretted all along that they have refused to join us. I regret it all the more because they are, as the noble Earl says, desirous of expressing their views a good deal in the country. I should have thought that their views would have had greater value if they had chosen to hear both sides in the Committee than if they had refused to avail themselves of that opportunity.
I would remind your Lordships of this fact; when we are discussing that point, that the ultimate responsibility for deciding upon these matters rests not with the Committee but with Parliament, and it will be the responsibility of the members of this House and the members in another place each to make up his own mind on the proposals when they are finally submitted for our consideration, and if the rule is to be maintained, as the noble Earl seems to suggest, that no one is going to be allowed to express an opinion now for fear of prejudicing his impartiality when it comes to pronouncing a judgment, then we ought to have a complete muzzling of both Houses of Parliament until such date as the Government's proposals have been considered and decided upon. It is

755
just as much a responsibility, and a judicial responsibility, of a member of this House when the time comes to pronounce upon the proposals as it is a responsibility of the members of the Joint Committee to advise Parliament upon them when they have considered the evidence. The difference is that those who belong to the Joint Committee have a better opportunity of finding out the facts.
They are going, to our great advantage, to devote a great deal of their time to public service in investigating these matters, and we have chosen—I believe we have successfully chosen—the men who are most likely, most competent, and best fitted to perform that task. To attempt to say that they are to be muzzled during the period of that service seems to me to be an impossible suggestion. In the first place, it would certainly have to be a suggestion of the Committee and not of this House. After all, the Committee is there to decide upon the method which it is going to follow. I am quite sure that if any rule was thought desirable it would be for the Committee to be called together to make it, and not the members of one House, meeting separately, who would have to lay down what that rule should be. Speaking for myself, and I hope speaking for the great majority of the members of your Lordships' House, I think the general rule which the noble Marquess has expressed is exactly the right rule for the purposes of this case, and I hope very much that it will be the rule which is followed by those who share with him the privilege of the public service of belonging to that Committee.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in rising to ask for leave to withdraw this Motion I should like to make a personal apology to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I did not appreciate that he was going to get up, and therefore I got up quickly. There is one thing I do want to say in asking for leave to withdraw this Motion and that is this. There is one part of my Motion with which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has not dealt, nor did the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Reading) deal with it, and that is this. I am asking whether it is usual that a member of a Select Committee should express his views—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I say that there is just one observation I want to make before my noble friend withdraws his Motion and probably it would be right for me to make it now.
THE EARL OF HALSBLTRY: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to finish my sentence. I will not ask for leave to withdraw until the noble Viscount has made his statement. I was saying that there is one part of my Motion about which nobody has said anything. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not say anthing about it. I took a great deal of trouble to find out what had been the rule, and, as I am in-formed—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will the noble Earl permit me for a moment? I thought I made clear what I said—namely, that we were dealing with an unusual Committee and that there was nothing usual that would apply to it. May I remind the noble Earl that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House carefully pointed out that this was quite a different Committee from the ordinary-Joint Select Committee, and he said that in the ordinary course members would not be allowed to express views when a Committee was sitting. But this Committee with regard to India is a totally different thing from an ordinary Committee.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am sorry, but I do not think the noble and learned Marquess has quite apprehended what was said by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House. He was drawing a distinction as between this Committee and a Committee which was sitting as a judicial tribunal on a Private Bill. I am dealing with ordinary Committees, not Committees on Private Bills, and I asked the question whether it was usual. As I say, having made considerable inquiry, I was informed that it is the universal rule that once a person has consented to be a member of a Committee he should not speak or write about the matter before the Committee until the Committee has reported to the House. That particular point has not been dealt with. I shall ask leave to withdraw my Motion, but I understand the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, wishes to speak.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, this is a matter which affects not only this particular case, but is of very great general importance. While of accept fully what my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House said, I think it right to intervene in order to utter a word of caution. As I understand, the position is that your Lordships have agreed to the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine certain proposals or certain suggestions made in the White Paper and to report to your Lordships and to the other House of Parliament the conclusions at which they arrive. It is quite true that that Committee is chosen, not from people who have not expressed any opinions on the subject, but from people who are well qualified to understand the questions at issue and who consequently, as we all know, have in fact expressed opinions upon the subject. But it was said at the time—and I thought very rightly—that having in view the character of the people who had been selected, they might be trusted, none the less, without being unduly influenced by their previous opinions—I suppose they must be influenced to some extent—to consider afresh the whole of the subjects in dispute. That seemed to me perfectly reasonable in the very difficult circumstances in which we were placed. It was a perfectly reasonable proposal, and I was glad that the House accepted it.
We are now faced with the question what ought to be the attitude of the members of that Committee henceforth. I have not the slightest criticism to make upon what the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, has done. He has explained that it was done before the Committee was appointed, at any rate before he had been selected Chairman. The question is now whether we are to understand that they are to keep their minds quite free. They
758
may be super men—I dare say many of them are—and it may be possible for them to keep their minds perfectly free and at the same time to go about the country making strong speeches on the issues involved. I will come in a moment to what the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, said. I entirely agree with him in substance. It seems to me that anything like partisan speeches would be deplorable. I quite understand that they may desire to give to their fellow countrymen a purely objective account of the issues, but if they enter into the merits of the case they will find themselves in very great difficulties indeed. I should be against laying down rules, because I think it is impossible to lay down rules, but while I assent broadly to what was said by my noble and learned friend who leads the House and by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, I would venture very respectfully to emphasise the caution that any member of the Committee who speaks on the subject, pending the Report of the Committee, ought to be very careful not to give the impression that he is no longer open to argument on any of the issues involved.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think if there is a danger that he may be drawn into an expression of an opinion, he will find it better not to make any speech on the subject.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.