-38 



BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



nine years earlier, against the facts disclosed 

 by the feather sales. Between December, 

 1884, and April, 1885, he wrote, there had 

 been sold at the London mart 6,828 Birds- 

 of-paradise, 4,974 Inij)eyan Pheasants, 770 

 so-called Argus Pheasants, 404,464 West 

 Indian and Brazilian birds, and 356,389 

 East Indian birds of various kinds. He 

 added : 



" My object in bringing the slaughter of birds to 

 your notice is not an endeavour to excite feeHngs 

 <)f pity for them from a zoophilian point of view, 

 for one of our leading ornithologists tells me that 

 ladies who listen to his appeals are quite hardened 

 on such a point, but to endeavom- to check the 

 career of the money-grabbing wretch who by means 

 of his shooting scouts lays bare the tropical forests 

 •of their chiefest beauty. ... Is there no Society 

 willing to care for the beauty of the world ? " 



The Times in a leading article on the same 

 day strongly supported Professor jSTewton's 

 plea. The article has a curious interest just 

 now, as it shows in some of its comments how 

 far Bird Protectors and the Empire generally 

 have progressed in this matter in twenty-five 

 years. x4.fter expressing the conviction tliat 

 London was but a mart and exchange for 

 the bulk of these feathers, the Times 

 observed : 



" Whatever the destruction may be, it is manifest 

 that the English law can have no influence over it ; 

 and that even when birds are obtained from British 

 colonies it would probably be difficvilt to educate 

 colonial legislatures to the extent of inducing them 

 to afford the necessary amount of protection." 



To-day many voices in Greater Britain are 

 asking the Mother Country to support 

 colonial protective laws by refusing to admit 

 the plumage through her door. And the 

 Times, in a leading article (November 26th, 

 1910), makes the following reference to a 

 petition on the subject recently presented to 

 the Colonial Secretary on behalf of self- 

 governing Colonies : 



" The whole subject was threshed out two years 

 ago by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, 

 which considered Lord Avebury's Importation of 

 Plumage Bill. It was made abvmdantly clear by 

 the W'itnesses who then spoke on behalf of the 

 Colonies and of India, that the Bill had the hearty 

 sympathy of various Governments, and that it 

 would greatly strengthen their own hands. . . . The 



representations now made to Mr. Harcovirt will, we 

 doubt not, receive his own most sympathetic 

 consideration as well as the earnest support of a 

 large and increasing body of British opinion." 



Meanwhile a league, such as Mr. Musgrave 

 desired to see, had come into being in the 

 drawing-room of Broadlands, Hampshire, 

 famous as the residence, first of Lord 

 Palmerston and at this time of the dis- 

 tinguished philanthropists Lord and Lady 

 Mount-Temple. Its earliest members are 

 said by one well qualified to know, to have 

 been Lady Mount-Temple, John Ruskin, 

 the Rev. F. 0. Morris, Ihe Rev. George 

 Macdonald and his wife, the Rev. Basil 

 Wilberforce (now Archdeacon of Westmin- 

 ster), and Madame Antoinette Sterling. To 

 this powerful little band and its converts and 

 adherents Mr. Morris alluded in a letter 

 Vv'hich appeared in the Times four months 

 after that from Mr. Musgrave (December 18th, 

 1885). He quotes a communication from 

 Lady Mount-Temple in which she authorizes 

 him to use her name and promises to get as 

 many ladies as she can to join the " Plumage 

 League." 



Mr. Morris refers also to evidence given 

 by Sir Charles Dilke before the Thames 

 Conservators, to show that even the Wild 

 Birds Protection Act failed to save the 

 Thames Kingfishers from the plumage- 

 hunter ; other birds whose wings were 

 " ^v anted " were likewise shot, including 

 the Common Sandpiper. 



The Hon. Mrs. Boyle quickly wrote to 

 hail the Plumage League " with intense 

 thankfulness." 



" The l)arbarous fashion of wearing stuffed skins 

 of beautiful iimocent birds is becoming nothing 

 less than a vice. . . . Nothing can be more 

 contrary to the canons of taste in dress. No instance 

 of such a fashion can be jjointed to in any of the 

 older and nobler examples of costume which remain 

 to us in jDictures and engravings. The only parallel 

 that exists is the savage who ornaments himself 

 with skulls of his slain enemies." 



The Times supported the new League, 

 remarking in a leading article that " As a 



