28 



Bird Notes and News 



that is going on in the country of the Apure 

 and the Arauca ; of the money made by 

 the owners of the breeding-grounds or 

 " garceros " by hiring out the privilege to 

 kill the birds in the nesting-time, and of the 

 " ever-diminishing number of the birds." 



In their endeavours to jockey with the 

 plain truths of the case, the trade have 

 found themselves on more than one occasion 

 between the devil and the deep sea. Thus, 

 for example, they protest (1) that France 

 is thirsting for the British Bill which will 

 transfer the business to Paris " without 

 saving a single bird " ; (2) that the feather- 

 workers of Paris (estimated now at 5,000, 

 and now at 50,000) will lose their livelihood 

 through the British Bill because the Paris 

 trade will be killed ; (3) that French traders 

 are alarmed not because fewer feathers will 

 be used but because they Avill have to be 

 sold cheaper and therefore profits will be 

 less ; (4) that the ostrich-feather trade also 

 will be ruined ; (5) that the Bill is a con- 

 spiracy to promote the British-Colonial 

 ostrich-feather business at the expense of 

 the Parisian fancy-feather trade ; (6) that 

 the trade in London has " nothing to do 

 with the people who kill the birds," cannot 

 control supplies, and is therefore not answer- 

 able for the slaughter ; (7) that the trade 

 are the only people who can protect the 

 birds and ought to be entrusted with the 

 task. The list might be indefinitely 

 lengthened ; for if the many tergiversations 

 of these apologists have proved nothing else 

 they have proved that there is no trust 

 whatever to be put in any one of their 

 statements. 



The Government Plumage Bill passed 

 through Committee and was reported to 

 the House, with certain amendments, on 



May 19th, ten weeks after the Second 

 Reading. The committee was Standing 

 Committee B, with 17 Members specially 

 added, comprising 8 of the 297 Ayes, 

 8 of the 15 Noes, and one who was not 

 present at the Second Reading. From the 

 first it was evident that the tactics of the 

 opposition lay mainly in efforts to delay 

 the measure by every possible means : by 

 every " amendment " that could be devised, 

 by inordinately long speeches, and even b} r 

 the trick, practised on two occasions, of 

 quitting the room to prevent the forming 

 of a quorum. Vigorous efforts were made, 

 inside and outside the House, to confuse 

 the issues, to float suppositions that feather 

 pillows would be illegal, that the ostrich- 

 feather trade would be involved, that 

 ladies would be challenged and molested 

 in the street, etc., etc. An attempt was 

 also made to rouse the suffragists, by the 

 argument that man-made laws should not 

 interfere with women's dress ; but this 

 deceived only the " extreme left " of the 

 suffragettes, the main body appreciating 

 the insult conveyed in the jeer that they 

 must be allowed " either votes or feathers." 

 A motion to have " person " defined as not 

 including women, which would have pro- 

 vided an eminently convenient loophole for 

 the business to be " carried on as before," 

 was rejected, though a portion of it re- 

 mains, declaring a " person " not to be 

 a woman unless she is importing or selling 

 plumage. 



In the Report 42 amendments and new 

 clauses appear against the following names : 

 Mr. Glyn-Jones, 19 ; Sir E. Cornwall, 15 ; 

 Mr. Denniss, 4 ; Mr. Watt, 1 ; Mr. Mooney, 

 1 ; Mr. Timothy Da vies, 1. These were 

 mostly the joint work of Messrs. Davies, 

 Denniss, Hinds, Glyn-Jones, and Sir E. 



