[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR. " ] SIB,—Mr. Brooks, who acts
as advocate for the plumage trade in the correspondence columns of the Bolton Evening News and the Birmingham Post, as well as in the Spectator, always repre- sents the promoters of the Plumage Bill as a handful of humanitarians misguided by their own sentimentality. He forgets to mention that the demand for the measure came from all sorts and conditions of men, including such well-known sportsmen as the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Major Hesketh Pritchard, and leading scientists such as Sir Archibald Geikie, Sir Oliver Lodge, and Professors Bendy, Gamble, Hickson, Keith, Newstead, Sollas, and Arthur Thomson. Does he really think that many or any of these are likely to be victims of hysteria?
His assertion that the ostrich-feather industry is united against the Bill is inaccurate. The South African farmers have before now declared themselves in favour of the measure, and a letter in support of it, from a London merchant, was
published recently in the Drapers' Organiser. What Mr. Brooks means is that many traders here are interested in both ostrich and "fancy" feathers, and are unwilling to drop the latter part of their business, which, involving little initial expenditure and requiring in the main only cheap child labour, is, I am ready to grant, decidedly profitable to them. Others in the trade, who may deal solely in the plumage of the ostrich or turkey or barndoor fowl, if they venture to say a good word for the Bill soon find themselves in the bad books of the majority. I have by me correspondence showing how pressure was brought to bear on one such firm in 1914, both at home and on the Continent, and how it was persuaded to recant. - In regard to Venezuela, a country three and a quarter times the size of Britain, with an estimated population of only two and three-quarter millions, it is foolish to talk as though a " Wild Bird Protection Act " could be effective. New laws may be passed by the dozen, but they do not materially change conditions. The Indian, or half-bred, hunter is not a provident person. He does not, as Mr. Brooks seems to suppose, think about building up a big business for posterity, but when he sees an egret kills it for the value of its feathers—a value that depends largely on the British market being open to receive them. The idea of an army of industrious Venezuelans searching swamp and jungle for stray moulted plumes deserves illustration by Mr. Heath Robinson, but not serious discussion. When your correspondent finally suggests that the way to protect birds in the tropics is to put a price on their feathers, he shows himself happily unaware of what human nature is in those parts of the world. Champions of the plumage trade are shy of facing facts, but they really should remember that the interior of South America is not a covert' in the Home Counties. And in their comparisons of ostrich with egret they might mention, at least casually, that the latter bird possesses power of flight.—I am, Sir, &c., WILLOUGHBY DEW AR, Hon. Sec. Plumage Bill Group.
8 Kenilworth Court, Putney, S.W.
Previous page
