14 



BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



Stipendiary Magistrate, and though no fine 

 could be inflicted, as the birds taken were 

 not scheduled species, two sets of nets 

 (value £4), sixteen decoy birds, and twelve 

 brace birds were forfeited. 



It was, however, the neighbouring counties 

 of Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire that 

 gave most trouble ; and these two counties 

 appear to be the headquarters of the bird- 

 catching trade in the extra-metropolitan 

 area. Certain villages were already well- 

 known in this connection to the Society, 

 and to the R.S.P.C.A., and were no doubt 

 equally well-known to police and magistrates. 

 At one of these places, inhabited by a 

 notoriously rough class of people, four 

 brothers are said to have lived for twenty 

 years by bird-catching and allied pursuits, 

 and to employ other men of the village to 

 augment the catches. The bird-catchers 

 here were watched for a week, while the police 

 of three counties were put on the alert and 

 gradually drew a cordon round the offenders. 

 At length at the close of one day, two men 

 were captured on their way to the railway 

 station, their boxes taken, and 174 birds 

 released in the presence of a magistrate, an 

 expert being called in to identify the birds, 

 and speak to their being newly caught. In 

 one county these men were fined for bird- 

 catching. In the other, in which the birds 

 were seized, and where the Clerk of the Peace 

 conducted the prosecution, the defence was 

 raised that these were old birds from an 

 " aviary," and that the defendants them- 

 selves had released those caught in close- 

 time. The magistrates, possibly ignorant of 

 the history of the case, dismissed it on the 

 ground of insufficient evidence that the birds 

 were recently caught. 



A visit to another village is thus described 

 by the inspector : — 



" I went well over the neighbourhood, and found 

 houses that look like small factories, with large 

 piles of boxes outside, used as bird warehouses. 

 All round the village the catchers are at work, and 

 the worst of it is they have the permission of the 

 owners. I saw scores of nests containing young 

 birds starved to death through the old ones being 



captured. Towards evening I went to the station, 

 and on the way were children taking boxes of birds. 

 I waited at the station, and as soon as the men 

 began to arrive with large boxes I was so surprised 

 at the quantities that I jumped into the train and 

 went with them to Cambridge. They filled a large 

 trolley. I went up to the Castle and saw the 

 deputy-inspector of the county, informed him that 

 many boxes of freshly-caught birds were on the plat- 

 form, and asked him to wire the police to meet them 

 at Liverpool Street. He declined, as he thought the 

 permission clause covered the case. I pointed out 

 that even if it covered the catchers it did not cover 

 the dealers, and he is going to see what can bo 

 done. To give an idea of the trade done, I may 

 mention that on Saturday morning on Cambridge 

 platform fifteen large bird boxes, returned empties, 

 arrived from a dealer in Newcastle for one catcher 

 in this one village. The birds are packed in shallow 

 boxes, about 4 inches high, without food or water. 

 Returning to town I went to Commercial Street 

 and told the inspector what was going on, gave him 

 the times the birds arrive every night at Liverpool 

 Street and Bishopsgate, and he is going to take the 

 matter up." 



This extract perhaps sufficiently indicates 

 the nature of the inspector's work. 



The two great stumbling-blocks in the way 

 of convictions are the " recently-taken " 

 clause, and the terms of the clause enabling 

 permission to be given by the land occupier. 

 In the first case it would almost seem that 

 each bird must be seen in the net, in the bird- 

 catcher's box, and positively identified in 

 court, before " the advantage of the doubt " 

 is denied to the catcher. With regard to 

 the latter, occupiers of land have the right 

 to destroy non-scheduled birds, on the score 

 of protection of crops ; but it is monstrous 

 to suppose that the law intended this to 

 legalise the taking of innumerable birds for 

 the profit of professional bird-catchers. 



The other side of this business concerns 

 the dealer. When the Society's inspector 

 began his round, box after box of newly- 

 caught birds was being despatched from 

 various railway stations to dealers and others 

 in such places as Shoreditch and Betlmal 

 Green, for shops, Sunday markets, and 

 shoots, and also to many parts of England. 

 The possession or sale of all these birds would 

 be illegal, and in a score of instances the 

 addresses of the consignees were communi- 

 cated to the police of the districts. The 

 inspector also had an interview with the 



