8 



Bird Notes and News 



the Exhibition at Melbourne, with 23,000 

 signatures. The Dominions had discovered 

 the economic value of birds to the crops. 

 It had been argued that the Indian 

 Parrakeets were injurious, and ought not 

 to be excluded from commerce. On 

 4th March, 1910, the Bombay Chamber 

 of Commerce, after pointing out that 

 prohibition was resorted to, not only to 

 prevent beautiful birds being exterminated, 

 but also to prevent useful birds being 

 reduced in numbers, took separately the 

 species in which the London feather 

 dealers were interested, and showed how 

 each was distinctly beneficial to the 

 agriculturalists. Lastly they dealt with the 

 Parrakeet. 



" Their main food consists of the fruit of the 

 wild fig-tree and other berry-bearing plants and 

 trees which are of no use to mankind. They 

 occasionally appear amidst cultivation, but the 

 toll they exact in grain and garden fruit is com- 

 paratively insignificant, and the damage they do 

 in this way is probably exaggerated by those who 

 have an interest in their destruction. Unless the 

 ryot himself desires their extermination it is not 

 considered advisable to even make them an excep- 

 tion of the law. Besides, it may be pointed out 

 that Lord Morley has already laid it down in his 

 Orders to the Government of India, dated 2nd 

 July, 1909, that he would not create an exception 

 that might endanger the whole measure." 



So much for Parrakeets. The Bombay 

 Council knew as much about their birds 

 as the London Chamber of Commerce knew 

 about the birds which they were engaged 

 in smuggling into this country out of our 

 own Dominions, contrary to the expressed 

 wish of those Dominions. 



Mr. Hinds went back to the contention 

 that the trade had not had time to go into 

 the question. It was only on Friday that 

 the City awoke to the fact that the Bill 

 was going on, and so they had not organised 

 their forces. Many trade associations, 

 numbering thousands, had passed resolu- 

 tions dead against it. The Hon. Member 



proceeded to quote some figures apparently 

 to show that while the plumes were at 

 their best in May at nesting-time, and 

 began to wear and get torn and damaged 

 in July, the greatest quantity of feathers 

 came to London in October and November, 

 and therefore were not obtained till the 

 young birds could fend for themselves, and 

 the moulting season was over ; but time 

 had not allowed him to verify these state- 

 ments, nor could he say when the feathers 

 were collected. So far as could be 

 ascertained, the number and variety of 

 Paradise Birds in British New Guinea 

 increased ; trade only wanted them in large 

 quantities, and therefore no extermination 

 was going on. The trade claimed the right 

 to use the plumage of birds that were 

 plentiful. It did not use any birds that 

 were rare, and had accepted an arrange- 

 ment that these should not appear in 

 the imports. 



Major Guest said the Government had 

 been attacked for not adopting inter- 

 national action, and it had been stated 

 that nothing but international action would 

 be effective in dealing with this question. 

 The Government had tried to get inter- 

 national action, and though the proposed 

 conference had failed for the time being, 

 Germany and France had in their own 

 dominions taken steps to stop the destruc- 

 tion of birds. France had stopped the 

 traffic in Egrets from Madagascar, and 

 Germany had issued stringent regulations 

 in German New Guinea. The Member for 

 Oldham said that collectors did more harm 

 than those who killed for trade. This Bill 

 dealt with collectors, and if the Hon. 

 Members thought the provisions insufficient, 

 perhaps some of them would take means 

 to make them more efficient. The figures 



