48 Correspondence , Notes, etc.


THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AVICULTURAE SOCIETY.


Sir, —Mr. Horton and I, in our joint letter which appeared in your

issue for October, were careful to avoid personalities; and I think it is to

be regretted that you have not followed a like course in your reply. But,

evidently feeling that little could be said in defence of the new rules on

their merits, you follow the proverbial advice to the advocate with “no

case,” and “abuse the plaintiff’s attorney.” I shall not reply to this

personal attack, for the question at issue is not that of my delinquencies

{real or imaginary) but that of the policy embodied in the new rules.

Nevertheless, as you have introduced the Foreign Bird Club into the

discussion, I feel that I should be wanting in my duty to the Club of which

I have the honour to be one of the Secretaries, if I did not correct some of

your misrepresentations concerning it.


1. It is not correct, as you assert, that I “ started a new Society ” in

1901. The F.B.C. had existed, under another name, since 1S98.


2. It is not correct, as you assert, that “ a number of our members

deserted us to join the F.B.C.” I believe that those who did this could be

numbered on the fingers of one hand.


3. It is not correct, as you assert, that “ as a special inducement

members of the Avicultural Societv 7 were allowed to join the F.B.C. without

paying an entrance fee.” There was no entrance fee to the F.B.C. until

the present year, and all new members and associates have to pay this.


4. It is not correct, as you insinuate, that efforts were made to

induce members to leave the Avicultural Society. I challenge you to prove

even a single instance in which any official of the F.B.C. advocated or

suggested such a course. About half of the members of the F.B.C. have

always been members also of the Avicultural Society, and they include

among them j^ourself and Mr. Newman and a large proportion of the more

active and devoted members of the Society.


I am very far from suggesting that the original rules were perfect. I

have the less hesitation in saying this, because I was mainly responsible

for them. They were drawn up before the Society started upon its career,

at a time when it was uncertain what form it would ultimately assume.

These rules undoubtedly required revision, but they should have been re¬

vised in a different spirit and with a different object. Every effort should

have been made to increase the interest of the members in the working of

the Society, to broaden the basis of its government, and to add to the

number of members who take part in its management. From the very

beginning, the Societ}' has suffered from its affairs being too much in the

hands of a very small number of men. This was tolerable, and perhaps

unavoidable, at first, but as the Society grew and prospered, and the

number of members willing and anxious to share in the government in¬

creased, it became more and more objectionable. The membership of the

Council ought, in my opinion, to be increased to 20 or 24, meetings of the



