PERFORMING ANIMALS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—In your current issue there are three replies attacking Lord Lonsdale for his opinion upon trained and exhibited animals, and as one who is greatly concerned, I beg to submit a brief reply applicable to each one, and I will first refer to Mr. L. Noble's letter, as that is the shortest. I suggest that this gentleman's references may be largely discounted, as indeed, most of such charges of cruelty may be, by the fact that this particular instance of a horse being whipped many years ago cannot now be investigated. But Mr. Noble admits that no one prevented him seeing the alleged cruelty which I hope, if he had seen to-day, would result in his bringing a charge against the horse-trainer, who would be subject to a very heavy penalty and, worse still, his name might be taken off the Register either permanently or for a specified period.
I may seem like a David facing another Goliath when I dare challenge the actions and sincerity of the £100,000 per year R. S. P. C. A. with its favourite ages-ago charges against exhibitors of animals, and my objection so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, will be equally direct and to the point. We can see through the artificial fug they have created in order to bolster up general belief in a present-day system of secret cruelty which, however, could never be concealed or go unpunished if it actually existed. And upon these allegations they have adopted a policy of sweeping away, without compensation from their huge funds, the livelihood of many artists whose capital and employment is represented by their animals.
The serio-comic element of their parliamentary efforts in this direction is seen by an Amendment Bill passed through the House of Lords by Lord Danesfort (who is also upon the Council of the R.S.P.C.A. and whose photograph, by the way, I have before me in the act of shooting birds, and who has, by such sports, probably maimed more creatures than the total number of trained animals in Great Britain). This Bill gives exclusive privileges to zoological societies for unrestricted exhibiting and training, but would, contrariwise, force other animal exhibitors out of business.
I, therefore, claim that this alone is an outward and visible proof of insincerity that will react upon them and bring about a denouement of a Goliath-like nature.
It is also timely that reference should be made to the " Jack London " literature which they issue with so much authority upon the subject of cruelty to performing animals. This gentleman was certainly a wonderful writer of fiction, but one who actually knew very little about the subject, and who copied from a 4d. booklet, entitled The Confessions of an Animal Trainer (a story paid for to a down-and-out circus hanger-on) producing, in regular sequence, from its pages a well-padded book called Jerry, the Brother of Michael, which is still the fictitious basis upon which most anti- performing-animal propaganda exists.
_ I suggest that any unbiased reader, desirous of information upon the subject, should apply personally to any circus manager or exhibitor of animals, and gather first-hand know- ledge for themselves after which they would be better able to disdain the £100,000 per year cruelty-subscription-collecting rivalry, and I trust be happier in themselves by devoting a proportion of their time and money to suffering humanity. It seems unnatural and inhuman that animal societies should outnumber even societies for little children by about ten to one.—I urn, Sir, &c.,
JOSEPH WOODWARD,
Member Variety Artists' Federation. 18 Charing Cross Road, W.C.2.
Previous page
