22 



BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



might not carry out what was desired. Birds 

 would continue to be killed in their own 

 habitat, and enquiries in the millinery shops 

 of London Avould probably show that a very 

 large number of feathered hats came from 

 Paris, and perhaps still more were sent from 

 Germany marked as from France. 



Lord Ashbourne said it was obvious that 

 a measure proposing to interfere with fashion 

 and to a certain extent with trade, must be 

 surrounded with difficulty ; but the intro- 

 duction of the Bill was the only practical 

 step yet suggested to bring the matter before 

 the notice of the public, and by that means 

 to influence fashion. This discussion would 

 put the matter in a practical shape before 

 the minds of men and women, and he could 

 not help thinking that by degrees fashion 

 would play a potent part in putting an end 

 to the destruction of these birds. 



The Bishop of Southwark was glad that 

 the noble and learned lord had given a warmer 

 expression of sympathy than Mas elicited 

 from the noble Earl who represented the 

 official mind in this matter. He did not think 

 we could rely very much on the influence of 

 opinion and fashion. This was not a new 

 matter. It had been for a long time before 

 leaders of fashion, and the great influence 

 to which the noble and learned lord referred 

 had been exerted, but the efforts that had 

 been made had failed. He hoped the treat- 

 ment which it was proposed to give the Bill 

 would not be a dilatory treatment, because 

 not only did the thing want doing but it 

 wanted doing quickly. 



Lord Avebury explained that the Bill 

 made it impossible for milliners to bring over 

 from Paris hats containing plumage ; and 

 as regarded Lord Beauchamp's statement 

 that it would be more efficacious to stop 

 export, a great number of these birds came 

 from South America, Russia, and China — - 

 countries from which it was impossible for 

 us to stop export. It was only recently 

 that these birds had been killed in such large 

 numbers, and it had been greatly owing to 



the fact that there had been such a profitable 

 sale in this country. Therefore, if we stopped 

 the sale in this country we should put an end 

 to a very important reason for the destruc- 

 tion. There was no wish to prevent the 

 agriculturists of the countries concerned 

 from taking any steps considered necessary, 

 but it was felt that on the whole birds did a 

 very great deal of good to agriculture. As 

 it was the opinion of the Leaders on both 

 sides of the House that it would be desirable 

 to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he 

 would be very glad to adopt that course. 



The Bill was accordingly referred to a 

 Committee, consisting of the Duke of Rutland, 

 the Duke of Bedford, the Marquess of Bristol, 

 Lord O'Hagan, and Lord Avebury. 



PRESS COMMENTS. 



" All sportsmen, naturalists, and we hope all 

 women, will welcome Lord Avebury's Bill. It 

 is a pitiable thing that, in spite of the example of 

 the Queen and of the War Office, where Lord 

 Lansdowne accepted a substitute for the ' osprey ' 

 plume, women should have continued to welcome 

 the fashion for egret plumes for hats." — The Outlook, 

 May 23rd. 



" The Bill should serve a verjr good purpose. It 

 should concentrate attention on the waste and 

 unspeakable folly involved in this destruction of 

 rare and beautiful life ; and help to shame people 

 out of wearing Birds-of-Paradise. Pretty hats 

 and bonnets are a necessity, a virtue in women, 

 but this millinery is monstrous." — Saturday 

 Review, May 16th. 



" We are inclined to think that to achieve the 

 ends of the Bill without penalising ourselves 

 international action will be necessary. We sincerely 

 hope that the Select Committee will speedily 

 recommend a practical measure." — Spectator, May 

 23rd. 



" It is to be hoped that the Government will use 

 its influence, as Lord Beauchamp suggested, to 

 bring about the prohibition of the export of skins 

 and plumes from the countries of supply. But the 

 two methods of checking the trade should be 



complementary, not exclusive This 



surely is a question on which any Government may 

 dare to be bold. Public opinion is divided about 

 vivisection ; it is not even absolutely unanimous 

 about some of the practices covered by the Spurious 

 Sports Bill. But this use of murdered beauty for 

 adornment has no articulate defender. There is 

 hardly even a fashion paper base enough to advocate 

 it outside its advertising columns."- — The Nation, 

 May 23rd. 



" It is impossible not to be surprised and difficult 

 not to be shocked at the enormous number of skins, 



