Bird Notes and News 



55 



Professor Arthur Keith, F.R.S., LL.D., F.R.C.S., 

 Sir George Kekewich, K.C.B., Commander Kenworthy, 

 R.N., M.P., George Lansbury (Editor of The Daily 

 Herald), Frank E. Lemon, J.P., Hon. Secretary Royal 

 Society for the Protection of Birds, Rev. J. Scott 

 Lidgett, D.D. (Joint Editor Contemporary Beview), 

 Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., D.Sc. (Birmingham 

 University), C. J. Longman, Robert LjTid, the 

 Rev. the Hon. Edward Lyttelton, D.D., Major the 

 Hon. Neville Lytton, O.B.E. 



J. Ramsay Macdonald, Walter de la Mare, G. A. 

 Macmillan, Charles Marriott, John Masefield, H. W. 

 Massingham (Editor of The Nation), Right Hon. Sir 

 Herbert Maxwell, Bart., F.R.S., D.C.L., T. Sturge 

 Moore, Sir L. Chiozza Money, Professor John Tilimro 

 (Bristol University), Professor Gilbert Murray, LL.D., 

 D.Litt., F.R.S.L.', J. Middleton Murray ■ (Editor of 

 The Athenceum). 



Vaughan Nash, C.B. (Development Commission), 

 Henry VV. Nevinson, Sir Henry Newbolt, Kt., D. Litt., 

 Professor Robert Newstead, M.Sc., F.R.S. (Liverpool 

 School of Tropical Medicine), W- R. Ogilvie-Grant, 

 F.Z.S., Professor C. W. C. Oman, LL.D., F.S.A., the 

 Rev. W. E. Orchard, D.D., Major S. W. Orpen, K.B.E. 



His Honour Judge Parry, Bernard Partridge 

 (Princiiml Cartoonist, Punch), Major H. Hesketh 

 Prichard, F.R.G.S., W. P. Pycraft, A.L.S., F.Z.S. 

 (British Museum, Natural History). 



Sir Arthur Quillcr-Couch, Kt., J. P., C.A. 



The Rev. Canon Rawnsley, D. D.,Vernon H. Rcndall, 

 Briton Riviere, R.A., Hon. Bertrand Russell, F.R.S. 



T. J. Cobden Sanderson, Owen Seaman (Editor of 

 Punch), Martin Seeker, Edmund Selous, Rev. J. H. 

 Shakespeare, Secretary Baptist Union of Great Britain 

 and Ireland, Charles Shannon, A.R.A., Montagu 

 Sharpe, Chairman Middlesex Sessions, Chairman of 

 Council of Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 

 George Bernard Shaw, Professor W. J. SoUas, D.Sc, 

 LL.D., F.R.S., J. C. Squire, Alderman Sir Richard 

 Stapley, Kt., J.P., J. St. Loe Strachey (Editor of The 

 Spectator). 



Archibald Thorburn, H. M. Tomlinson, R. G. 

 Trevelyan. 



T. Fisher Unwin. 



Father Bernard Vaughan, S.J. 



Emery Walker, F.S.A., H. G. Wells, Walter Winra?. 



Francis Brett Young, Israel Zangwill. 



The list might have been indefinitely ex- 

 tended had time permitted. Letters expressing 

 complete sympathy were received from the 

 Archbishop of Canterbury and the Arch- 

 bishop of York, Dr. Davidson adding that he 

 had written direct to the President of the 

 Board of Trade to express his entire sympathy 

 with the deputation, and that he " whole- 

 heartedly approves of the Society's action." 

 The Bishop of Hereford commented : " The 

 destruction of these beautiful birds is a shocking 

 example of the selfish ruthlessness of industrial 

 society, and not less of the deep vulgarity of 

 the fashionable world." Dr. Fleming wrote 

 a vigorous note on the subject in St. Columba'!^ 

 Magazine (August, 1919). Father Bernard 

 Vaughan expressed his pleasure that his name 



should be used in any way to help the preserva- 

 tion of bird life. Dr. Scott Lidgett wished 

 the Society success in its efforts. 



The initiation and promotion of the memorial 

 owed much to the energy of Mr. H. J. Massing- 

 ham. 



WHY THE GOVERNMENT BILL WAS 

 LOST. 



A considerable correspondence on the trade 

 appeared in the Observer in July, in the course 

 of which the following significant letter was 

 contributed by the Right Hon. Sir Charles 

 Hobhouse, who had charge of the Government 

 Bill of 1914 :— 



" ' A Trader ' assures j'ou ' that the Plumage Bill 

 of 1914 was only disposed of eventually by the over- 

 whelming mass of rebutting evidence which the 

 committee was able to supply to those Members of 

 Parliament who opposed the Bill.' This statement 

 is v/hoUy inaccurate ; the Plumage Bill of 1914 was 

 carried on its second reading, I think, unanimously, 

 but at all events by an immense majority in the 

 House of Commons. It was carried through Com- 

 mittee with, I think, only one important amendment. 

 It was opposed in that Committee by London Members 

 of Parliament who were alarmed as to the effect upon 

 their seats likely to be produced by the adverse votes 

 of aliens whose SM-eated industry would have been 

 displaced had the Bill become law. The opposition to 

 the Bill was engineered by a section of the London 

 Chamber of Commerce w!iose active Members were 

 either immediately, or only one generation remote 

 from, alien Jews. 



" The London East End Alcmbers above alluded to 

 threatened violent opposition to the Bill on Report 

 and third reading. The troubles on the Continent 

 loomed large, time would have been wanted to 

 prosecute the Bill successfully. Under these conditions 

 with much other useful legislation, it had to be with- 

 drawn. 



" I am perfectly willing to put at the disposal 

 of those interested in preventing the continued 

 slaughter and extinction of harmless and beautiful 

 creatures the evidence I accumulated in the course of 

 Committee proceedings in the House of Commons. 

 This would, I am certain, convince the public and 

 the present House of Commons that it is more than 

 ever necessary and just to carry the Bill in the form 

 in which it successfully passed through Committee 

 in the late House of Commons." 



CITY FIRM'S TESTIMONY. 



One of the partners in a large and well- 

 known business firm in the City of London 

 has addressed the following letter to the Prime 

 Minister and the President of the Board of 

 Trade :— 



" I understand that you have received a strong 

 appeal to re-introduce a Bill to prevent the cruel 

 destruction of many beautiful birds. 



