Bird Notes & News 



ISSUED QUARTERLY BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY 

 FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS 



Vol. IX.] 



SUMMER. 1921. 



[Nc 



The Plumage Bill — and After 



The Importation of Plumage (Proliibition) Bill 

 was passed by the House of Commons on 

 June 10th. Possibly, in consequence of the 

 agreement entered into between promoters and 

 opponents, it might be more fairly called the 

 Importation of Plumage (Eegulation) Bill, 

 since this is what the opponents hope to make 

 of it ; and there is some truth in the trade 

 contention that they have asked for such a 

 Bill for the past ten years, but have not found 

 former promoters of legislation willing to 

 accept a compromise. The promoters no 

 doubt feel that had they not accepted the 

 " amending " clause the measure would have 

 been choked by a continuous flood of frivolous 

 amendments and interminable talk. They 

 therefore grasped the chance of legislation 

 which if not the Bill was a Bill : and hope for 

 the best. 



It is impossible to say that the coming Act 

 is wholly satisfactory. The modifying clause 

 agreed to requires that, in place of entire 

 prohibition of import of wild birds' plumage, 

 a Board of Trade Advisory Committee shall 

 consider all applications for admitting or 

 rejecting the plumage of this or that bird. 

 The Committee is to consist of ten members, 

 viz., " an independent chairman, two experts in 

 ornithology, three experts in the feather trade, 

 and four other members." This means that 

 while three representatives of the trade which 

 draws its money from this business are to be 

 upon the Committee for ever, there is no 

 slightest guarantee that Bird Protection will 

 have a single representative. The expert 

 ornithologists may or may not come within 

 that category ; there are distinguished experts 

 who would conceivably not care if a hundred 

 species of birds were brought within the 

 definition of " rare " if they might bag the 

 survivors, whose love for the bird as a living 

 creature is wholly non-existent and who would 



agree with the trade itself that unless some 

 obvious value attaches to skin or feathers the 

 object of a bird's creation is incomprehensible. 

 The " four other members " depend entirely 

 on the feeling and judgment of the Board of 

 Trade. The Board of Trade is an admirable 

 Department of State, and in men like Mr. 

 Sydney Buxton (now Earl Buxton), Sir Auck- 

 land Geddes, Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, Mr. W. C. 

 Bridgman, and Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, 

 the cause of science and of humanity has had 

 exceptionally able friends. But it is pre- 

 eminently a Board of Trade and not of science 

 or humanity ; and it is impossible to say how 

 far trade and trading interests may in the 

 future swamp all other concerns. The position 

 is therefore that the defendant — a trade with a 

 back record it does not wish scrutinised — is to 

 be on the jury in perpetuity, in cases affecting 

 its own gains, while the complainant — the 

 Bird Protector, with no axe to grind save that 

 of humanity in its widest sense— depends upon 

 favour for representation. Sir Charles Yate 

 fought this manifest wrong stoutly and most 

 reasonably. 



The feather-trade show their hand plainly. 

 Their champion, Colonel Archer Shee, was 

 ready to dictate their duties to the Board of 

 Trade before any clause empowering the 

 Board had been passed. They should, he 

 informed Committee D, " take into considera- 

 tion the question of cruelty first, and secondly 

 the question of extermination." To these 

 two questions the trade have persistently 

 hitched their wagon, and these they have, 

 with equal persistence, tried to assure the public 

 are the only questions. If a bird is plentiful, 

 and if it is not tortured in the killing, what in 

 the name of fortune is there to be said ? If 

 there are a million of the species, is it not 

 unreasonable to refuse the trade 900,000 ? If 

 " cruelty " cannot be proved, is it not fair 



