“Vile and unbecoming!” If it be not, still, vile to mutilate a defenceless beast (sometimes at cost of acute suffering) for the sake of a fashion, and of a market value dictated by that fashion; if it be not, still, vile to deprive a very sensitive animal of its natural protection against stinging insects, and against the exposure of what ought to be protected—by what word shall we describe this practice? And if it be not, still, unbecoming to destroy the untouched sweep and grace of one of the most beautiful of creatures, and turn what is natural and decent into the indecently grotesque—what significance has all our talk of beauty, and all our so-called taste? The idea that a natural tail causes carriage accidents is an exploded myth. The plea that a docked tail saves trouble in cleaning is readily met, if need be, by shortening the hair of the tail as far as the end of the “dock” or bone of the tail, without touching the bone itself. The tail will then be as short as even a stable hand can reasonably desire, the horse not mutilated, and the hair ready to grow again. In certain exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to dock a horse. But, to make a fashion of it. . . .! Ye gods! What a sense of beauty and of decency we must have, to approve the miserable stumps left on our horses by this “disgustful” practice! If we must indulge in mutilation for the sake of “beauty” let us perform on ourselves; tattoo our faces, perforate our lips, flatten our craniums, with other devices suitable to savages. But let us leave the horse alone, who in his unmutilated state is far less in need of “decoration” than we. There are some customs that seem to spell despair. How far, indeed, are we removed from savages, when we can blindly follow a custom so thoughtless and tormenting, so stupid and ugly? VIII AIGRETTES (A note in _Pearson’s Magazine_, 1913.) Am I in favour of legislation prohibiting the importation of plumage into Great Britain? I cannot conceive of any one, man or woman, with imagination, and knowledge of the facts, who would not be in favour of such legislation. That English women—English _ladies_—after years of revelation concerning this dismal matter, should continue to support by their demands the killing of myriads of beautiful birds _at breeding season_ is the most discouraging instance I know of the blindness of the human creature whose vanity is threatened. American law has banned the aigrette; why does English law lag behind? Not one of our legislators would torture a bird, yet because a few thousand miles separate them from the scenes of this butchery, they seem either unable to imagine what it means or to find time to put a stop to it. I commend to one and all the Report of the House of Lords Committee who examined the whole question some years ago, and said: