CO885-(20-21) — Page 604

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

10

Q. How would you work the Act if it was brought into force! Supposing a lady imported a feather upon her hat which belonged to one of these prohibited species, the first thing to do would be to recognize it, for which I suppose you would have to have an ornithological referee at the Customs-A. But under our Bill we did not deal with a feather which was actually in a hat.

+

It was put plumage or skin."

It

Mr. FAGAN: Nor in this Bill, I think?—A. CHAIRMAN: It does not say "not on a hat "?—A. after the commencement of this Act shall have in his possession for the purpose says any person who of sale or exchange the plumage or skin," and we thought that excluded it.

Q. So that you did not contemplate stopping the private owner at all? -A. No.

Q. Does not that pave the way to this serious objection, that the feather, to use a term belonging to another controversy, with which you are familiar, is the raw material out of which hats are made, and that if you keep out the raw material from this country but enable the manufactured article to come in, you would give to the millinery trade of Paris a new and increased advantage in addition to the one they already possess by their greater skill?-A. The value of the birds that would be dealt with, although from the scientific point of view, and from the sentimental point of view also, very great and considerable, from the trade point of view is very small, and many of us thought it would stimulate the use of feathers of poultry and pheasants, and so on, and probably of artificial flowers, and that in that way really it would not in any way interfere with the trade of the country. I must say that my own impression and that of naturalists generally is that the fears of the feather trade section of the London Chamber of Commerce are quite groundless.

Dr. HARMER: Is it quite clear that this Bill refers only to raw material? Surely there is nothing in the first section to suggest that it is to be made impossible for a milliner to buy and sell hats ready made?

CHAIRMAN: I gather from Lord Avebury that the promoters of this Bill are under the belief that if a skin or feather comes into this country either on a hat or as raw material, for sale or exchange, it would be prohibited, but if not for sale or exchange, if it is on a private hat in the street, for instance, then the Bill does not apply.

WITNESS That is so, so long as it is on a hat or worked up.

Q. Did you have in your Bill this clause for the exemption of feathers for the manufacture of flies for the capture of any species of fish-A. Yes.

Q. What was the reason of putting that in ?—-A. strong about it, and they satisfied the Committee and, if I may say so, they satisfied The fly fishers were very me, that the number of skins they required for their purposes was so very small that really it was a case of de minimis non curat lex, and we thought, therefore, there would be no objection to it. As naturalists I think I might venture to say that we should not object to a few of these birds coming in for certain purposes, because that really would not destroy the species at all, but it is the very large numbers that have been destroyed that make the matter so serious. If there had been a one-hundredth part of the birds destroyed that are being destroyed, which would have been ample to supply all these purposes, that is to say the scientific purposes and the fishing purposes, and left some over to be used, we should not, I think, have troubled Parliament on the subject.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: I should just like to say that there are very few feathers used for tying salmon flies and those sort of things that come from protected birds. Most of them are from birds like golden pheasants and various other kinds of pheasants, bustards, and game birds generally. considered specially desirable for that purpose, but most of the feathers are really Of course, blue chatterers are from game birds, are they not?—A. and my own impression.

That was our impression on the Committee

Q. I was wondering whether it would have been possible to eliminate that rather debatable clause which is liable to give rise to envy or other feeling of that character?—A. From our point of view, if I may say so from the point of view of naturalists, we did not put it in, and we should not in the least object to its being eliminated, but when we found that the fly-fishers, who are an important and influential body, felt very strongly on the subject, and believing as we did. as you very justly say, that the number of birds destroyed in this way is so small

11

as to be infinitesimal, it did not matter from our point of view, and in order to show a desire to conciliate wherever we could we gave way, but so far as science is concerned, and so far as sentiment is concerned, we should not mind if the fly-fishers did not mind.

Q. Putting in a clause of that kind may give occasion to the enemy to criticise; they might say Why do you allow the fly-fishers to have these special concessions made to them?".

-A: Yes, and that is why we did not put it in in the first instance, but they pressed it so very much on the Committee that on the whole we did not see why we should very much object. From our special point of view, however, we should agree with what you say and should prefer it to be out of the Bill, but I think you would find that it would be a good deal opposed by a good many people who are very much interested in fly-fishing.

Q. The only thing I meant was that I do not think it does them very much good. -A.

I agree with you.

Q. It would not stop their tying flies because they would have the feathers all the same—A. I quite agree, but they were very strong on the subject, and as we really did not very much mind and they were very strong we thought it better as a matter of policy to agree. Of course, I need hardly say that when a private member has a Bill he is in a very different position from the Government; he has to take the line of least resistance, and, where he can give way, to conciliate people, without in any way sacrificing anything considerable he always does so.

Mr. READ: The " Morning Post "has already objected to this provision. CHAIRMAN (to the Witness): Do you know the Australian Act on this subject? --A. Only very generally.

Q. It has been suggested to us, and we have been considering the possibility, of making a start on a rather less ambitious scale than this, and I was wondering whether it would go any distance to satisfying the objects you have in the Bill. You were telling us just how that one of the things which emerged from your Com- mittee was that the Colonial representatives and the Indian representatives com- plained that the action they took was useless until we did something of the same kind?-A. Yes, comparatively useless.

Q. Now the Australian scheme is that the importation into the Commonwealth of the plumage and skin of any bird should be prohibited unless the importer can prove that they come from a country where their export is not prohibited; so that any bird protected in the United States, or India, or Australia could not come into this country unless the importer took upon himself the responsibility of proving to us that they did not come from a country in which there was legislation to protect them?-A. Of course, that would go a very considerable distance. I presume that would cover New Guinea, would it not, because the birds of paradise come mainly from New Guinea?

Mr. FAGAN: There is legislation in British New Guinea; I am not sure about the other part.-A. I should be afraid it would not cover the rest of New Guinea.

CHAIRMAN: We shall know presently, when Mr. Goodfellow comes.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: I understand from Dr. Lorentz that very strong measures have been adopted by the Dutch Government to stop it. I had a long talk with him in the north the other day, and he told me that special efforts are now being made in Holland to try to stop the whole of the export of feathers from Dutch New Guinea, and I gathered from what Mr. Buckland said the other day that he was in possession of knowledge, which he had recently acquired when he visited Holland, that some special measures of that sort were contemplated.-A. Yes, I believe that is sö.

Mr. JOHNSON: The Germans may very likely do the same in their possessions. --A. In that case that would cover the rest of New Guinea. As to the West Indies, what is the probability?

Mr. FAGAN: There is no law at present in force in German New Guinea. -A. I should have thought there would not in practice be much more difficulty in passing a general Act than one limited in the way the Chairman has suggested. Of course, half a loaf is always better than no bread, and we should get at least half a loaf if that was done, but it might be some time before we got the other half, and in the meanwhile a good many species might disappear.

CHAIRMAN: It would have the effect of throwing upon the nation charged with the Government of any particular bird locality the responsibility of protecting the

19188

B 2