142 PROTECTION OF BIRDS 



I ain in a state of great uncertainty as to the Bill, and 

 am as often as not inclined to hope it may fail to pass. 



The inclusion of the Owl is no doubt a gain in itself, 

 but considering the cost of it I question it being worth 

 the price. Owls are and were in no danger of extermina- 

 tion, but gamekeepers' backs will be put up by the Bill 

 if it passes, and they will make a point of killing them 

 now with all the vigour possible. It would have been 

 better to have let public opinion gradually come round 

 as it was coming round as to the utility of these and other 

 birds. All the rest of the additions, saving perhaps the 

 Kingfisher and Bearded Titmouse, are utterly useless, for 

 none of them are in any danger of extermination, as are 

 the ' : Wild-fowl ' pure and simple. The penalty with 

 costs would have been so plainly inordinate for killing a 

 Robin Redbreast or a Hedge Sparrow that they were 

 compelled to reduce it to one-fourth the limit (5s. instead 

 of 1) and make it include costs. It will now be scarcely 

 worth any one's while to put the Act in force, and in the 

 case of many Wild-fowl the gunner will get more for his 

 bird than will repay him for all trouble and expense, even 

 if prosecuted and convicted. All this we owe to the fools 

 of enthusiasts. The Wild-Fowl Bill, followed next year 

 by one for the regulation of birdcatchers would have done 



far more good.* 



> 



In spite of the protests of Newton and other members 

 of the Close-time Committee, the Bill became law, and so 

 far as the Wild-fowl, which it was primarily designed to 

 protect, were concerned, it remained to all intents and 

 purposes a dead letter. 



The penalties, which were not at all out of proportion 

 to the marketable value of Wild-fowl out of season by a 

 professed gunner, were reduced to meet the case of a 

 child who might thoughtlessly throw a stone at a Robin, 

 and indeed, for the first offence no penalty was to be 

 inflicted but the culprit only cautioned and dimissed 



* Letter to H. B. Tristram, July 29, 1872. 



