10 



Bird Notes and News 



India, and, as regards foreign countries, 

 no Act could have the slightest effect. It 

 was said that there was growing a feeling 

 in favour of the Bill in almost every 

 European country, not excepting France, 

 which would be stimulated by the action 

 of England.* This was the sort of stuff 

 that was circulated by sentimental friends 

 of the Bill, and was absolutely contrary to 

 facts. 



Mr. E. S. Montagu said it was impossible 

 to take seriously the accusation that the 

 Bill was being rushed. For years the 

 matter had been before the House of Com- 

 mons, a Select Committee of the House 

 of Lords had sat upon it, and he believed 

 the opinion behind the Bill was so over- 

 whelming that it was comparable to the 

 public opinion behind no other measure. 

 The assertion was made that if this Bill was 

 passed the trade would be driven to France. 

 If so, it was a little curious that the French 

 trade should have taken the trouble to 

 draw up, print, and circulate, and send 

 to every Member of the House a request 

 that Parliament should not pass the Bill! 

 The fact was that, as soon as the demand 

 for feathers in this country was destroyed, 

 following the lead of the United States, as 

 soon as other countries in Europe were 

 free to join, then the trade in France would 

 diminish so much that it would be im- 

 possible for her to resist coming into 

 line with the generality of civilization. 

 He had taken some pains to study the 

 Economic Committee that had been referred 

 to, but it was really not worth con- 

 sidering. It did not contain the name of 

 a single ornithologist. The distinguished 

 scientists who were members were experts 

 on fish, or protozoa, or the coloration of 

 * See R.S.P.B. Plumage Campaign Leaflet No. 3. 



shrimps. The only ornithologist, Mr. 

 Lutley Sclater, was put on by the British 

 Ornithologists' Union to hold a watching 

 brief, and as soon as that Union discovered 

 what use had been made of his name they 

 called upon him to withdraw from the 

 Committee, which he had done. Professor 

 Cossar Ewart also had withdrawn, as had 

 several others ; and as soon as these other 

 distinguished scientists knew that their 

 names were being used to oppose the Bill, 

 he believed they would all withdraw. The 

 Committee claimed to have "protected" 

 seven birds. Three of these, the Lyre-bird, 

 Bower-bird, and Rifle-bird, were strictly 

 protected in Australia, and could only be 

 obtained with difficulty, and by smuggling. 

 The Chatterer hardly came in at all. The 

 Flamingo and Spoonbill were not wanted. 

 The seventh was the Cow-Egret. This also 

 was protected in its countries of origin, 

 India and Egypt, and therefore illegally 

 exported ; but the trade thought they 

 must put an Egret on the list in deference 

 to public opinion, and accordingly put on 

 one that was already protected, and the 

 plumes of which were of little value. This 

 was the result of eighteen months' activity 

 on the part of the Committee! It might 

 be that future generations would inherit, 

 owing to the march of civilization, a world 

 poorer in respect of natural life than at 

 present, but it was out of harmony with 

 England's history that citizens of this 

 country should be allowed any further 

 part in this cruel and wanton destruction. 



Mr. Hills urged the Government to start 

 without a moment's delay the getting of 

 an international agreement, as essential to 

 the successful working of the Bill. 



Mr. Hobhouse moved the closure, which 

 was carried by 284 to 27. 



