CO885-(20-21) — Page 605

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

ELEC.O.885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

12

bird there, and they would know that if they did take that responsibility this country at all events had done everything to help them.-A. Yes, that would be the case, but might there not be a difficulty if things were transhipped; supposing, for instance, the skins of the bird of paradise were sent in the first instance to some other country and then on here?

Q. I imagine in legislation of that kind we should have to devise some system of certificate of origin?-A. Yes.

Mr. STUBBS: I think the Australian Proclamation throws the onus of proof of origin entirely on the importer, does it not? self with a certificate of origin, otherwise it is primâ facie evidence that it came If that is so he must provide him- from a prohibited country, and the thing would be confiscated.

CHAIRMAN: It certainly throws the onus on the importer as to whether it is the produce of a country from which the exportation was not prohibited, but Lord Avebury suggests that all the man has to do is to smuggle them out of New Guinea, let us say where they are protected, to Fiji, where they are not protected.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: You could not get them from Fiji.

WITNESS: You would have to have an ornithologist to prove that, of course. Q. You could not get birds of paradise from Fiji unless you imported them? -A. That would be rather a question for the Customs, whether they would be able to guard against that.

Q. It is rather a difficult question.-A. You cannot expect a Custom House Officer to have great knowledge of geographical ornithology.

A.

Mr JONSON: That difficulty would apply to this Bill, would it not-the ignorance of the Custom House Officer would make your Bill difficult to carry out ?— Under our Bill, of course, he would have to have some knowledge to know what a bird was, but he would not necessarily have to know where it came from. If he was told that a bird of paradise came from the Fiji Islands he might, and very likely would, take objection. I am has only to know that it is a bird of paradise and in the other he has to know where taking an extreme case; but in the one case he the bird of paradise came from.

Mr. READ: Still, any smuggling arrangement such as has been suggested would complicate things very much, and make it scarcely worth while.

Mr. STUBBS (to the Witness): I should like to go back to the previous question about the exact effect of the present Bill. You have told us that the intention was that manufactured plumage in a hat, for instance, should not be confiscated or prohibited; that is so, is it not?-A. Hardly that, I think-hats that are in use. We did not contemplate that a maker of hats in Paris should send over a consignment of a thousand hats.

Q. I did not mean that; I meant in private possession?-A. In private possession-yes.

Q. Then I am afraid that the Bill goes further than you intended, because Section 3 says:

"Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, shall be read as if there were included in the Table of Prohibitions and Restrictions therein contained the following words, viz. :-The plumage or skin, or any part of the plumage or skin, of any dead wild bird which is included in the Schedule to an Act entitled An Act to prohibit the Sale or Exchange of the Plumage and Skins of certain Wild Birds,' or not exempted from the operation of this Act.' to the clause of the Customs Law shows that anything included in the Table of A reference Prohibitions and Restrictions is prohibited from being imported; there is no restric- tion to import for sale or anything of that kind. The Act simply says: enumerated and described in the following Table of Prohibitions and Restrictions "The goods inwards are hereby prohibited to be imported or brought into the United Kingdom, save as thereby excepted, and if any goods so enumerated and described shall be imported or brought into the United Kingdom, contrary to the prohibitions or restrictions contained therein, such goods shall be forfeited."-A. of legal construction on which my opinion is not worth anything; but surely that That is a question Section 3 would have to be taken into consideration and read with Section 1.

CHAIRMAN: If you look at the marginal note of your draughtsman you see that the first clause is called "Penalty for unlawful possession of plumage" and your third clause is called certainly.-A. The intention, I think, was that the lady who was wearing a hat Prohibition upon importation," but it is a legal point

13

should not be interfered with, but that a man in business importing a number of hats for sale should be, and we thought we had covered that when drafting the Bill. I quite see the point you raise.

Mr. STUBBS In that case Section 3 of the Bill is really unnecessary, because unlawful possession for sale is covered by Clause 1; if that clause does not mean what I suppose it to mean I do not see what the object of it is.-A. That is a point, I think, which was raised by the Customs, if I remember right, that unless some clause of that sort was put in they would not be able to act, but that is a technical drafting question upon which I do not feel competent to express an opinion. Mr. FAGAN: I gather from what you have said that if some Bill were introduced on the lines of the Australian Bill it would go far to meet your views ?— A. Certainly.

Q. And in that case it would be desirable to introduce a clause giving the Director of the. Board of Customs discretion in the case of birds imported for scientific purposes?-A. Yes, it would; but at the same time I should like to add that my impression is that there would be very little more difficulty in getting a complete Bill and quite a satisfactory Bill through than there would be in getting a sort of three-quarters measure, if I may call it so. I think I would all be very glad to get even what the Chairman has suggested.

may say that naturalists CHAIRMAN: What importance do you yourself attach to what called the trade opposition; from your experience of watching the progress of your Bill and the discussion on it what strength do you think the trade can put up? Would it jeopardise the passage of the Bill?-A. I think in the House of Lords it would be very small. My opinion is that in the House of Commons it would be quite sufficient to prevent a private Member getting the Bill through because the question of time would come in, but the answer is so complete that I do not think it would make any difficulty to the Government at all; in voting strength I do not think the opposition would have any weight. The trade section have never felt it was any use bringing the matter before the Chamber of Commerce, and I rather dwell upon that point; if they had felt strong they would have tried to get a resolution of the Council, and a resolution of the Chamber, but they felt that even in the London Chamber of Commerce, where it would naturally be stronger than in the House of Commons, there would be no chance of getting any general support, and my impres- sion is that in the House of Commons it would be found that the opposition was very feeble.

Q. Supposing you admit for the sake of argument that there is something in their grievance; supposing it was said that unemployment would be increased and a valuable trade would be driven out of this country by this Bill, and then you said to them, "Let us agree to your view, we will not prohibit the total importation of the feathers to which you attach so much importance, but we will merely ask you to get them from countries where it is not illegal to get them," surely their grievance would then totally disappear, and it would be impossible for them to fight a Bill at all, would it not?—A. Of course, our point of view is that really so far as employment is concerned it does not affect the question at all. There would be just

as much employment and even, perhaps, more, because we think that these feathers which are works of nature would be replaced to a considerable extent by works of art, which would require human labour. Therefore I should be prepared to argue myself, and I think most naturalists would take the same view, that really there was nothing in the question of employment, that it would not in any way interfere with employment, and so far as trade is concerned, it is infinitesimal; and, moreover, as it would certainly give a little stimulus to other birds' feathers which would replace those which were forbidden, that infinitesimal interference with trade would be still further diminished. Of course, you cannot have any Bill which does not a little tread upon somebody's corns, but I should have thought this was a Bill which as little touched any private interests as any Bill possibly could, almost. You have probably already the statistics of the amount of the trade in feathers and what would be excluded by this Bill?

Q. Yes.-A. And of course you have the excellent list prepared by Mr. Ogilvie-Grant for the authorities of the British Museum, which shows the view that that great institution takes of the question.

The witness withdrew.