92 



HAMLYN'S MENAGERIE MAGAZINE. 



Who have acted likewise for many a day. 



Prone on my desk as I pen this scr^e^ 



Is a magazine you can really read; 



Quarterly? Monthly? It doesn't tell, 



And, perhaps, on the whole it is just as well, 



For though eight pages are all it's got, 



It costs a shilling, which seems a lot. 



But every page is a mine of news 



About beasts of the forest and beasts in "zoos," 



Beasts that the African jungles hold, 



Worth, when you've caught them, their weight 



in gold, 

 Beasts than wander through Arctic snows, 

 Where the walrus roots and the narwhal blows, 

 Or swing through the forest from tree to tree, 

 Simulacra of you and me, 

 Each one hoping, I venture to say, 

 That a kind collector would come his way 

 And send him to Dublin to try his tricks on 

 Sir Fr-d-r-ck M--re and Professor D-x-n. 

 O, mirth and wisdom are there to glean 

 In " Hamlyn's Menagerie Magazine," 

 For whether you're fondest of yaks and gnus, 

 Sacred bullocks or cockatoos, 

 Or the priceless mandrill who, so they say, 

 Looks like the end of a perfect day, 

 Or whether it's only a cat you keep, 

 You just can't read it and go to sleep. 



The Importation of Plumage 

 Bill. 



EGRET " FARMING " IN INDIA. 



Colonel YAiE (C.U., Melton) moved the 

 second reading of the Importation of Plumage 

 (Prohibition) Bill. During the first three years 

 of the war, he said, 1,865,431 lb. of feathers, in- 

 cluding ostrich feathers, were imported into this 

 country. In 1917, 1918, and 1919, during which 

 feathers were imported under special license only, 

 no less than 643,184 lb. came in. These were 

 valued at £677,351, and no barnyard fowls' fea- 

 thers could be said to be worth £1 a, pound weight- 

 There were 258 species of birds the export of 

 whose feathers had been prohibited from the 

 British Colonies and Dependencies. The only 

 opposition he had seen to' the bill came from the 

 Plumage Trade Section of the London Chamber 

 of Commerce. An examination of the names of 

 the feather merchants and feather manufacturers 

 in the London Directory seemed to suggest that 

 the trade was not entirely in the hands of the 

 English. In the debates in 1914 it was stated 

 that only between 600 and 700 British, workpeople 

 were said to be employed in the trade. 



Lieut. -Colonel ARCHER-SHEE (C.U. Fins- 

 bury) said that the number of his constituents en- 

 gaged in the industry was over 1,100. 



Colonel YATE pointed out that in the opposi- 

 tion by the Chamber of Commerce it was stated 

 that egrets were farmed in captivity in India, 

 where they bred four times a year, and that the 

 moulted feathers only were exported. If that was 

 so, the feathers could still be imported after the 

 bill was passed. But the bill dealt with hundreds 

 of species which could not possibly be farmed. 

 It was impossible that the feathers of farmed 

 egrets were of more value than those of wild 

 birds, and that the moulted feathers were sent 

 here. No bird in the world moulted four times a 

 year. No evidence had been produced in support 

 of the statement about the farming of egrets. The 

 birds which had been seen in captivity were, he 

 believed, decoys kept while the farms were likely 

 to be visited by European officials, and, in his 

 opinion, the story of their breeding in captivity 

 was absolutely fictitious. He had been informed 

 on good authority that the drapery interests would 

 welcome the passing of the bill, as a development 

 of the artificial flower trade would increase em- 

 ployment and British interests. 



Lieut. -Colonel A. MURRAY (C.L., Kincar- 

 dine), who seconded, said that the objects of the 

 bill were to put an end to a traffic in feathers and 

 skins of beautiful birds which was responsible in 

 many cases for deplorable suffering, and was un- 

 sound in its economic results. He wished the bill 

 had not been necessary, for he would have pre- 

 ferred that the women of this country had risen 

 in a body and affirmed their determination not to 

 wear the feathers and skins of beautiful birds, 

 which were being ruthlessly destroyed for the 

 decoration of their hats and for the pandering of 

 their vanity. (Laughter.) During the war there 

 had been a hardening of opinion in the direction 

 of a self-denying ordinance in respect of self- 

 decoration, but, so far as his observation went, 

 feminine vanity had got a new lease of life. He 

 had that morning been at the private view of the 

 Royal Academy, and while he was examining a 

 picture there had come before his eyes sufficient 

 evidence to prove conclusively the necessity for 

 the introduction of this bill. (Laughter.) The 

 evidences of cruelty were, in his opinion, indispu- 

 table. 



Mr. DENNISS (C.U., Oldham) said he had 

 seen a letter from the Ostrich and Fancy Feather 

 Trade Association in which it stated that it was 

 the earnest wish of the trade that where cruelty 

 or danger of extermination existed something 

 should be done to put a stop to it. If this bill 

 would do that he would vote for it. Neither cruel- 

 ty nor danger of extermination was helpful to com- 

 merce, because the moment a bird became rare 



