BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



shooting parties, which sallied forth from 

 towns and villages to pot at any small birds 

 they came across. In 1870 Mr. Morris 

 started an Association for the Protection of 

 British Birds, directed mainly against bird 

 catching and dealing. 



In 1872 an Act was passed giving a close 

 time from March 14th to August 1st, to 

 some seventy-nine land birds. The actual 

 number, as in the case of sea-birds, cannot be 

 precisely stated, as inexactitude has marked 

 the schedules of every Act, one bird being 

 entered under two or three names, or one 

 name covering an uncertain number of 

 species. The Act of 1872, for instance, 

 protected the "Redpoll," and it was a matter 

 for dispute whether or not this term included 

 the Linnet ; while, on the other hand, some 

 birds appear in the schedules of the Acts of 

 1869 and 1880, under three or even four 

 names. Less than half of the birds scheduled 

 in 1872 are named in the existing Acts. 

 Redpoll, Pipit, Wagtail, Crossbill, Nuthatch, 

 Bearded Tit, Wood-wren, Wryneck, Haw- 

 finch, Flycatcher, and Martin are no longer 

 favoured above their fellows. The penalty 

 for killing birds named in the 1872 Act, was 

 indeed no more than that for all birds under 

 that of 1880 — reprimand for a first offence 

 and a 5s. fine for subsequent offences ; but 

 the broadly-interpreted clause of the 

 existing Act, giving a free hand to owners 

 and occupiers and their servants, has made 

 it essential that County Councils should add 

 to the schedule any bird for which protection 

 is really desired. 



The easy penalties of the Act of 1872 

 were soon found to make it almost useless, 

 and the next j^ear Mr. Auberon Herbert 

 persuaded the House of Commons to 

 appoint a Special Committee to enquire into 

 the advisability of extending its provisions. 

 The amount of interesting evidence given by 



naturalists, agriculturists and others fills a 

 stout Blue Book ; but three more years 

 passed without further legislation. Lord 

 de la Warr, indeed, made strenuous efforts 

 to obtain some protection for nests and 

 eggs ; but he was uasuccessful. 



In 1876 another piece of patchwork was 

 added to the Acts of 1869 and 1872, aimed 

 this time at the better preservation of wild 

 fowl. It singled out thirty-five birds named 

 in the 1872 Act, added the Wild Goose, and 

 made the penalty for killing these the same 

 as the penalty for killing the sea-birds 

 named in the 1869 Act. It also set up a third 

 variety of close time, from February 15th to 

 July 10th ; so that, with the six separate 

 close times of the Game Acts, legislation on 

 this point was sufficiently complex. 



The preamble to the Act of 1876 curiously 

 resembles that to the Act of 1534. The old 

 Tudor law set forth that wild fowl were 

 becoming reduced in numbers, and con- 

 sequently the price was going up. 



"Before this time there had been witliin this 

 realm great quantities of •nild fowl, as ducks, 

 mallards, widgeons, teals, wild geese, and divers 

 other kinds of wild fowl, with which formerly the 

 King's houses and the houses of the noblemen and 

 prelates of the realm were furnished ... at con- 

 venient prices, and all markets sufficiently furnished 

 with wild fowl." 



It was especially laid down that the Act 



did not extend to birds and eggs " not 



comestible nor used to be eaten." The 



Victorian law recounted that 



" The wild fowl of the United Kingdom forming 

 a staple article of food and commerce, have of late 

 years greatly decreased in numbers by reason of 

 their being inconsiderately slaughtered during the 

 time that they have eggs and young," 



and that^ owing to their marketable value. 



they were insufficiently protected. It did 



not, however, extend any protection to eggs. 



This frankly commercial piece of Bird 



Protection was the last on the Statute Book, 



until the Act of 1880 swept away all previous 



legislative attempts. 



