Lords Reject Anti-Circus Bill

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30678, 18 February 1965, Page 13

Lords Reject Anti-Circus Bill

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright) LONDON, February 17. Circus-loving peers in the House of Lords last night threw out a bill* seeking to end the Big Top industry on the ground of cruelty to animals. By 45 votes to 31, they re- : jected the arguments of Lord Somers who asked them to 1 pass a private bill to end the , training and exhibition of 1 performing animals. ' Lord Somers contended 1 that the only way trainers 1 could ensure that a circus animal did a trick absolutely on time was to use cruel ' methods. Asked how the bill affected ’ training one’s own dog to do '

tricks, Lord Somers said this was entirely different. A dog in his master’s home did his tricks of his own free will. He knew he would not be punished if he made a mistake. A circus baboon which tore its trainer's trousers at a show was punished so harshly that it went about for 10 days holding its jaw, he said. The story had been told him by a former circus trainer who was so revolted by what he saw behind the scenes that he resigned. The baboon was brought back from the big top, held by three men, while a fourth took steel shears and cut the fangs which did the damage flush with the other teeth.

The same trainer had seen heavy stools thrown at two lion cubs, bamboo canes rammed down their throats, blank cartridges fired at their noses and under their tails—the latter to make them move more quickly. Another report said the screams of elephants subjected to electric shocks were “more than a hardened criminal could stand.”

Lord Peddie, who said he liked going to the circus, thought it intolerant and impudent to say watching animals performing was degrading. Was it degrading to watch a horse or dog race? Lord Somers said he excluded horses to give his bill a better chance. He knew that horse-racing was a very popular sport.

Lord Stonham, joint parliamentary under-secretary at the Home Office, said the unnamed trainer’s statements were not recent They did not explain why the alleged cruelty was not brought to the notice of the police. An investigation by his department as recently as 1951 had reported against banning the exhibition of performing animals. It had no evidence of cruelty. Lord Stonham said that considering the hundreds of cases of cruelty to nonperfonning animals, the 40 years’ record of virtual immunity of the trainers of performing animals from successful prosecution was impressive evidence.