"HAMLYN'S MENAGERIE MAGAZINE. 



93 



it ceased to be of interest to the trade. A rare 

 bird was too costly to put in a bonnet. (Cries of 

 "Oh!") The people who were likely to cause 

 the extermination of rare birds) were the collectors 

 and the amateurs who shot at sight The trade 

 claimed that it was unjust to prohibit the impor- 

 tation of plumage which on indisputable evidence 

 was botained without cruelty or danger of exter- 

 mination. There w~as a very large and unobjec- 

 tionable trade in plumage. 



The trade had authorised him to say that 

 they were perfectly willing that the House of 

 Commons should make a list of the birds the im- 

 port of plumage of which should be prohibited, 

 provided that the trade should have an oppor- 

 tunity of objecting before the Board of Trade to 

 any of the birds on that list. The ostrich feather 

 trade would be much injured, as these feathers 

 were used with other feathers. In the first three 

 months after the second reading of a similar bill 

 in 1914, the importation of ostrich feathers fell 

 off by 25 per cent. The bill offered no compen- 

 sation to those engaged in the trade, whose oc- 

 cupation and businesses would be destroyed. In 

 the trade there were thirty -two English firms — 

 ten of which bore Jewish names — six firms of 

 foreigners who were naturalised before the war, 

 and two French firms. A petition against the bill 

 got up in London was in forty-eight hours signed 

 by over 2,000 workers in the trade. They begged 

 the House of Commons not to take away their 

 livelihood and drive them into unemployment at 

 one month's notice. All that would happen if the 

 bill passed was that the trade would be diverted 

 from London to the Continent. Birds would be 

 gathered just the same, and the cruelties perpe- 

 trated would continue The only way by which 

 they should take action was international agree- 

 ment. 



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

 bur}), who moved the rejection of the bill, held 

 up a document some 8 ft. in length fillel with the 

 signatures of people, 95 per cent, of whom were 

 British, who were against the measure. It was 

 absurd to speak of the extermination of millions 

 of humming birds by the importation of 24,000 a 

 year. There was no more cruelty in killing them 

 than in killing pheasants or snipe. Did hon. 

 members remember that they came to that House 

 clothed in skins of animals — the skins of sheep 

 on their backs, those of oxen on their feet, and 

 those of rabbits on their heads? (Laughter.) He 

 seemed to remember Colonel Yate in a fur coat. 

 (Laughter.) How about the cruelty in collecting 

 the mink and the sable? If we were to stop cruel- 

 ty, how about the lobster? (Laughter.) Every 

 time hon. members ate oysters exquisite pain was 

 given. The fact was that the House was going 

 in for far too much sentiment. He did not believe 

 in following the example of America in the pro- 



hibition of plumage any more than her example 

 in the prohibition of public-houses. 



Mr. MONTAGU said the Government were 

 extremely anxious that the bill should be passed. 

 What they wished to 1 see exterminated was not 

 the feather trade, but that which existed only by 

 the destruction of beautiful birds. He did not 

 believe that the passage of this bill would destroy 

 any legitimate trade. If it destroyed a trade, 

 which would result gradually and at an increasing 

 speed in a birdless world, the Government would 

 be only too glad. 



Mr. GILBERT (C.L., Southwark, Central) 

 opposed the bill, which, he said, would very greatly 

 affect the industry in London. 



At five o'clock the debate came automatically 

 to an end,, and the House rose five minutes later. 



The World's Zoological Trading 

 Company. 



"Truth," May 5th, 1920. 



THE ZOOLOGICAL WILD-CAT. 



By a recent order of the Court the World's 

 Zoological Trading Co., Limited, was consigned 

 to the establishment in Carey Street, where post 

 mortem examinations of join stock wild cats are 

 conducted. This curious enterprise was the sub- 

 ject of warnings in "Truth" last summer,, but 

 unfortunately it received a good deal of undis- 

 crimir.ating publicity in newspapers which found 

 interesting "copy" in the sporting side of the 

 scheme and cared nothing about it financial dan- 

 gers. Yet it was designed to appeal to a class 

 particularly in need of protection — ex-officers in 

 quest of employment and possessing a little capi- 

 tal. Instead of an ordinary humdrum business 

 career the ex-officer was offered an engagement 

 as a big game hunter and trapper at a handsome 

 salary in return for an investment of £500 in 

 shares. He was assured that the investment 

 would be in itself highly profitable, and to any 

 young fellow hankering after a life of sport and 

 adventure, such as is usually the privilege only 

 of rich men, this seemed an ideal opportunity. 

 The promoter was a Mr. J. A. Jordan, said to 

 have been well known as a hunter in the Belgian 

 and French Congo hinterland. What qualities 

 Mr. Jordan displayed as a big game hunter I do 

 not know, but as a wild-cat promoter he was 

 amazingly reckless. I was more or less ignorant 

 of the conditions of "zoological trading," but 

 viewed simply in the light of common sense the 

 company's scheme for capturing, taming, and sell- 



