Bird Notes and News 



11 



to determine whether or not the final chapter 

 in that story was to be written and whether 

 this country would join hands with the United 

 States in setting an example to the civilised 

 world. 



Mr. Bartley Denniss, avowing that cruelty 

 was abhorrent to him, and that he had never 

 killed a bird in his life, said that the trade did 

 not want rare birds, it was the collectors who 

 wiped them out. The Bill proposed to injure 

 a trade when the injury could be averted by 

 simply altering the schedule to a schedule of 

 birds to be protected. Of course if all birds 

 were to be prohibited then it was no use making 

 such a list ; but the people who knew that 

 there were birds useful to them which need not 

 be prohibited were the people dealing in them — 

 the trade. It was a fatal blot on the Bill that 

 it did not enable them to insert a clause com- 

 pensating the people whose trade would be 

 destroyed and the thousands of workpeople who 

 would be afiected. All that would happen 

 would be that the trade would be diverted to 

 the Continent — the birds would be gathered 

 just the same, the cruelty perpetrated just the 

 same. There was no danger of the extermina- 

 tion of the Egret, which produced nuptial 

 plumes four times a year in various parts of 

 the world, especially in Venezuela ; and 

 though there had perhaps been cruelty in the 

 past there was now none whatever, as the birds 

 there were amply protected. This hyper- 

 sensitiveness was a bad sign in the British 

 nation. There was no danger of the extinction 

 of the Birds of Paradise ; they were extremely 

 numerous, and the Dutch Government took 

 good care they should not become extinct. 



Lieut. -Colonel Archer Shee moved the re- 

 jection of the Bill. His chief argument was 

 that it would be impossible to exterminate 

 Hunoming-birds or Seagulls, and that it was no 

 more cruel to kill birds for their plumage than 

 to wear sheep-skins and rabbit-skins or to eat 

 oysters. 



Mr. E. S. Montagu said the Government were 

 extremely anxious to see this Bill passed. The 

 trade they desired to see exterminated was not 

 the feather trade, but the trade which existed 

 by the destruction of birds. He did not believe 

 that it would destroy any legitimate trade ; and 

 if it destroyed one which would result, gradually 

 but at an increasing speed, in a birdless world, 

 they ought to be only too glad to see it put an 

 end to. Some of the opponents of the measiu'e 

 said they would support it if it were turned 

 round. He never knew an opponent of a Bill 



who did not promise to support it if it were 

 framed in a different way. If the Bill was 

 going to destroy the trade in one way, it would 

 destroy it in the other. The real secret of the 

 matter was that the trade knew their method 

 to be unworkable. One set of people wanted 

 to kill the birds, and another set wanted to 

 prevent the killing of them. Let hon. Members 

 show by their votes what the House desired. 



Lieut.-Col. Sir M. Wilson said it was the 

 duty of the country to which the bird was 

 indigenous to protect it, not for us. Mr. 

 Gilbert also opposed the measure, urging the 

 great size and importance of the trade and the 

 hugeness of its warehouses, and was expatiating 

 on this theme when Colonel Yate moved that 

 the question be put. The Deputy Speaker, 

 however, declined to allow this, and at 5 p.m. 

 the debate stood adjourned. 



On the following Friday the time of the 

 House was fully taken up by Bills having pre- 

 cedence ; but on May 14th two other Bills 

 lost their place through technicalities, and the 

 Second Reading of the Plumage Bill was again 

 moved by Colonel Yate. The opponents, seeing 

 the impossibility of dragging on a discussion for 

 five hours, and knowing that a division could 

 have but one result, reserved further arguments, 

 and the Bill was carried by 61 votes to 8. A 

 motion to refer it to Select Committee was 

 rejected. 



IN COMMITTEE. 



The Bill was referred to Standing Com- 

 mittee C, to whose fifty members the following 

 have been added in respect of this particular 

 measure : Lt.-Col. Archer Shee, Viscountess 

 Astor, Capt. Bowyer, Mr. Bridgeman (Board 

 of Trade), Mr. Jas. Brown, Sir John Butcher, 

 Commander Dawes, Mr. Bartley Denniss, Mr. 

 J. D. Gilbert, Mr. J. F. Green, Mr. J. Hinds, 

 Mr. J. D. Kiley, Mr. J. E. Mills, Right Hon. 

 E. S. Montagu, Major Nail, Sir J. D. Rees, 

 Mr. R. Tootill, Mr. Aneurin Williams, Colonel 

 Yate. Mr. Turton is chairman. 



Among the methods adopted by the oppo- 

 sition, as in 1914, has been an effort to prevent 

 the formation of a quorum ; and unfortunately 

 circumstances played into their hands in this 

 matter. One meeting came after an all-night 

 sitting of the House, when Members departing 

 at 3.30 a.m. could hardly be expected to 

 attend again at 11 ; the adjournment was 

 then made until the following day, Wednesday, 

 a day never before chosen, and at this short 

 notice probably not possible to many. To 



