CO885-(20-21) — Page 615

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

mmimmim

PC.O.885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

32

.Q. That is the point (A. That I am not meaning to interfere with, or to say anything against, if that is the true purpose of collecting; but there is such a thing if I may use the word, as amateur" collecting, and this is what I would rather like to set my face against.

CHAIRMAN: We are now dealing with the threatened extinction of certain species of birds by a trade. Do you anticipate any danger of the extinction of any species of birds by those who are not in trade, but who are professional collectors for su- called scientific purposes?—A. I have in mind the suggestion that there was an attempt to make birds rare in order to make them particularly valuable, and secure the last specimens of a particular bird. I will not mention any names in that connection, but I think it is known that there was an attempt made at one time.

Q. Do you deal with that sort of evil in either of the Bills at all-A. No, I suppose we do not.

Q. You are simply out to attack the trade. That is really what it comes to?— A. No, I would rather put it the other way: we are out absolutely to protect the birds.

Q. You are out to protect the birds, but you told me that there are dangers to some birds from people who are not members of the trade?-A. I cannot say there are no dangers. We are on a question which is wider than the mere question of extermination. I am against the cause-and so are many of those working with us— of needless and heedless cruelty to birds. That is a point I do not want to make too much of now, but it is a point which weighs with us. It is not solely the question

of obtaining the birds at any time, but seeking the feathers of a particular bird which are only obtained at the breeding season.

Q. Let me put it in this way: There are two points on which you are out-- one is needless cruelty to birds and the other is the threatened extermination of the species-A. In a sort of manifesto which we issue it is this wholesale slaughter of birds that we are against. That very word " wholesale is in it-wholesale and reckless slaughter.

Q. Therefore, you would wish legislation to be passed which would prevent, say, the importation into this country of cases of thousands of birds of paradise skins. That is what you call wholesale destruction?-A. Yes.

Q. But you do not see any useful way of legislating against the importation to this country of Prince Rudolph birds of paradise skins-A. Then comes the question as to whether it is in danger of extermination. If it gets on a list where it is seen to verge on extermination, not necessarily in the wide world, but in a particular district. I say that particular district ought to have the power to preserve its own birds, and I think we ought to work with that country and help it to protect its own birds by, to some extent, refusing to admit them into this country. I quite agree it is very difficult when it is only a question of small numbers.

Dr. HARMER: Have you thought out any practical way by which any Bill which had either a Schedule preventing species coming into the country, or a Schedule saying only certain species should come into the country, could be worked in practice I imagine there are sometimes differences of opinion between an importer and a Custom House officer. How are those differences of opinion going to be settled-A. Of course, in the case of wholesale prohibition of importation the difficulty is very much smaller. They would have the Schedule, and the captain of the ship has to state what category the goods come under. At present he simply says: Fancy feathers." If only ostrich feathers were admitted, or any other particular named species, then they would attempt to get them into the country by saying they were ostrich feathers, or such other species as might be on the list. captain of a ship would then have to make a declaration, and if it was not a truc The declaration, the punishment would fall upon him for not truly declaring the contents of the vessel. They must be declared as they come into the country.

Q. But who will decide the question in cases of dispute?-A. Under this particular Bill, with this long list. I quite agree you are expecting rather more than you are likely to get from a Customs House officer. However, if the contents are deliberately stated to be something which is put on the list, then they can be traced, and the goods would be passed on to the warehouse as " so and so," and sold as that. If there was any doubt about it they would go to the King's warehouse for examination.

Q. Then they must keep at least one ornithological expert somewhere for the purpose of deciding it?-A. Not under Lord Avebury's Bill; but whether such

33

an expert would be required under the other Bill to deal with the questions which arise is a matter that I feel there will be some difficulty about.

Mr. STUBBS: But under Lord Avebury's Bill no difficulty arises because it says,

so far as I remember, that no birds are to be imported except ostriches and one or two others -A. Yes.

Q. That was the general effect of it -A. The ostriches are separately named, and there is no difficulty about it.

Q. But supposing the importer introduces a case of bird of paradise feathers and the Customs House officer says: reply: "You are making a mistake; these are ostrich feathers."

These things are prohibited." He would be taken into a court to prove whether they were bird of paradise feathers or ostrich It would have to feathers-A. The point I was trying to make was that the importer and shipper, and so on, has, at the risk of a penalty, to declare the things to be something. I think if it came to anything like a wholesale quantity it would not pay him to make false declarations very extensively.

Q. Surely he would not be required to specify in a ship's manifest anything more definite than Feathers"-‚ import list, and they would have to be declared otherwise.

As you know, the Bill would amend the them as ostrich feathers or fancy feathers. I have personally visited the Customs At present, they declare with the object of finding out about it, and they tell me they would have no difficulty in a case of that sort. They are supposed to have a certain amount of intelligence. C'ertain matchboxes and other things have to be confiscated, and so on, and if you give them a specimen of the feathers that could be admitted it would be fairly easy to work. The declarer, either the captain of the ship or whoever takes the burden of the import, would have to pretend that the birds imported were of a particular ,kind, and I think you will find that would make it very much easier than working it in the other way. With the other Bill you do open up questions of Custom House difficulties.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: Who is responsible for the drawing up of this Schedule which

apears at the end of Mr. Alden's Bill! CHAIRMAN: I do not know ?-A. I should like to say so far as that goes, if it be praised or blamed, it should not be put upon our shoulders. I do not want in any way to reflect directly upon it.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: I was present at the meeting at Lord Avebury's house when it was proposed to draw up a schedule of this sort, and I think, rather at my suggestion, they admitted only the birds that might be used, instead of the birds that were to be prohibited ?-—Ã. That was what I was referring to.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: It is absurd for any one to talk about 90 per cent. of the birds of the world being in this Schedule. Possibly, it may include four or five per cent. at the outside. Take any one group-pigeons, for example. pigeons" only are prohibited out of all the hundreds of species of pigeons. The Crownfed same thing applies to any other group which you look at.

CHAIRMAN: What relation to your Society has Mr. Buckland?-A. None at all. He is not a member. the House of Lords Bill, and he is a zealous worker, but he is working independently He was one of those who joined in the consultation prior to of us.

Mr. FAGAN: How would you view the introduction of some such words as imported or brought into the United Kingdom for millinery or decorative purposes "—A. That would probably deal with the bulk of the trade, which is what we are most anxious to see extinguished.

Q. You would not look with disfavour on the use of some such words!--A. Then would you follow it up with a schedule setting out the birds that are not to be admitted?

Q. No; I should simply insert those words and not put in prohibited birds.

any

schedule

of.

Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: If I may say so, I think the schedule appears to be perfectly useless and inadequate, because it does not half cover the ground. Take the macaws,

Order Psittaci.' Is that supposed to include all the parrots! parrots: but there are all the rare Amazon parrots of the West Indies which Macaws are specially require protection.

better.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lemon says that the other method of doing it is obviously Mr. OGILVIE-GRANT: Yes.