BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



41 



milliners pressed upon them. With regard to legis- 

 lation, what they now wanted was a consolidating 

 Act, as the multiplicity of the present Acts 

 prevented people from understanding the law. But 

 it should be a consolidating Act only, and not an 

 amending one, for an amending Act could not fail 

 to arouse opposition and criticism and render the 

 task of getting it through the House a most 

 difficult one. He should hesitate to advocate 

 any greater uniformity in the law, as where 

 properly administered the effect was good. All 

 County Councils had considerable powers, but 

 in some cases they were apathetic, and in others 

 there seemed to be a want of knowledge as 

 to how to act. The Society would attain its 

 objects surer and sooner by not pressing absolute 

 uniformity on districts which differed so greatly as 

 did the various counties of Great Britain. For 

 instance, though personally he would not have the 

 death of a single Blackbird on his conscience, fruit- 

 growers must protect their crops ; and in his own 

 county, Wigton, the Raven, Peregrine, and Black- 

 headed Gull, all interesting birds, had after six 

 years' special protection increased so much that, 

 at his own instance, such protection had to be 

 withdrawn. With the prohibition of Sunday bird- 

 catching he entirely agreed, but it was already 

 within the power of County Councils to effect 

 that. What was needed now was a circular 

 letter addressed by the Society to local authorities 

 throughout the kingdom, pointing out what steps 

 it would be well for them to take under the powers 

 they already enjoyed. 



Sir DlGBV PlGOTT also expressed the opinion 

 that the law would be discredited if too much were 

 attempted. He had not much fault to find with 

 the powers given for the protection of birds, but he 

 was far from satisfied with the result of those 

 regarding eggs. At present the various County 

 Council Orders in force in England were, he con- 

 sidered, a jumble of inconsistencies and absurdi- 

 ties, eggs being in some cases specifically protected 

 which could not be sworn to even by experts. 

 Besides consolidation of the Acts something might, 

 he thought, usefully be done by making eggs 

 property. At present the law held that there was 

 no property in things ferae naturae. If a few 

 cherries were stolen from a tree they could have a 

 boy summoned, if a few sticks were taken from a 

 copse it was a punishable offence, but the treasured 

 eggs of a wren at the foot of that tree, or the one 

 nightingale's nest in the copse, things of far more 

 value to the bird lover than cherries and sticks, 



they could not protect as property. This might be 

 good law, but it was bad justice and bad common 

 sense. He hoped the Society, which had done so 

 much good in the past, would take up this question 

 and advocate the view already supported by Lord 

 Lilford, Sir Herbert Maxwell, and the Times. 



Sunday Protection.* 



Mr. Trevor-BATtye, in the absence of Mr. 

 Meade- Waldo, especially addressed himself to the 

 question of Sunday bird-catching. He explained 

 that ( i) the County Councils, which were empowered 

 by the Act of 1896 to secure the protection of 

 areas, were not able, as the law was interpreted, to 

 protect whole counties ; and (2) that owing to the 

 differing character of the various local applica- 

 tions under the several Acts, great confusion 

 existed. It was difficult, as things were at pre- 

 sent, for an ordinary intelligence to know- how 

 matters stood in one district or another, and 

 entailed a close study of Acts of Parliament 

 and rather involved local measures. It ought 

 to be made impossible for a bird-catcher to 

 plead ignorance. What was wanted was a short 

 Bill prohibiting all catching or killing of any 

 wild birds on Sunday throughout the year ; and 

 he could not conceive that any opposition could be 

 raised to such a measure. In respect of the second 

 point it certainly appeared to him that the whole 

 question, as it stood, required simplifying, but he 

 was not sure that he could agree with the suggestion 

 that this could be done by consolidation of the 

 present law, because so many exceptions would be 

 involved that the task would be well-nigh impossible. 

 Personally he should rejoice to see one new, short 

 and simple Act protecting all wild birds, but 

 empowering local bodies to make their own 

 exceptions. By this any area could protect itself 

 against the depredations of such species as were 

 unduly on the increase. 



Captain TA1LBY gained some hearty support from 

 the audience in his energetic onslaught on bird- 

 catching. He illustrated the necessity for a general 

 Sunday Protection Act by reference to the case of 

 his own county, where bird-catching went on every 

 Sunday, and where he had caught the son of a 

 parson snaring wild birds during the hours of 

 divine service. With the help of the Society he 

 enlisted the powerful aid of the Duke of Rutland, 

 known to be a great lover of birds, and the County 

 Council committee agreed to apply for Sunday 

 protection; yet, through what he considered the 

 * See article on page iJ. 



