14 



BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



usr 



The Story of Bird Protection. 



UcT 



PART II. 



The history of the Acts of 1880 and 1881 

 is especially instructive in view of the various 

 meanings which have been read into them, 

 and of the comj)arison which may be drawn 

 between the intentions of the promoters 

 and the actual results achieved. 



The state of things in 1880 was not 

 encouraging. Increase in game preservation 

 was decreasing the numbers of the larger 

 birds ; growth of the fashion for " collecting " 

 (though then only in its youth) was threaten- 

 ing the rare birds ; the trade of the bird- 

 catcher was sweeping off the small songsters. 

 Existing legislation was comparatively useless 

 on account of its limits and restrictions. 

 Accordingly in the summer of 1880 Mr. 

 DiUwyn brought in a Bill to amend the Wild 

 Fowl Act by giving a Close Time to all birds — 

 a necessity foreseen by Professor Newton 

 twelve years before. As first introduced, 

 it differed considerably from the Act as it 

 now stands. In the first place it was to be 

 an Act additional to the three in force : the 

 definition of " Avild bird " in its clauses was 

 " all wild birds not mentioned " in existing 

 Acts, and those birds already provided for 

 and therefore not affected by the new 

 measure were the ones catalogued, oddly 

 enough, in the schedule to the Bill. In the 

 second place, a clause at the end of the Bill, 

 subsequently dropped, provided that all 

 birds ia respect of which a conviction was 

 obtained should be at the disposal of the 

 magistrates — thus anticipating the Act of 

 1902, which enables the Court to order 

 forfeiture of illegaUy-taken birds and eggs. 



The chief clause proposed to reprimand, 

 and on a second offence to fine, any person 

 who, between March 1st and August 1st — 



" shall kill, wound, or take any wild bird, or shall 

 use an^ gun, net, or instrument for the purpose of 

 killing or taking any wild bird, or shall expose or 

 offer for sale or shall have in his control or posses- 

 sion any wild bii'd recently killed, wounded, or taken, 

 whether taken in this country or said to be iinported 

 from any other country . . . unless he shall prove 

 that he was in possession as legal owner or bona fide 

 tenant or occuj^ier of the land on which the said 

 bird was killed, wounded or taken, or can show 

 authority in writing signed by the legal owner, 

 tenant or occupier." 



Mr. Dillwyn explained that the object 

 of the measure was " to stop the destruction 

 of bu'ds for sale during the breeding season," 

 and laid stress on the liberty left to occupiers 

 to destroy " birds considered by them to be 

 injurious to crops." Unfortunately, the 

 trouble involved in giving a written permission 

 seemed to weigh heavily on some Members, 

 and at Sir William Harcourt's suggestion 

 verbal authority was substituted. To what 

 extent this seemingly simple alteration has 

 helped to make a farce of the " authority," 

 and has led to the destruction of birds solely 

 " for sale," is only too patent to all Avho are 

 acquainted with the ways of birdcatchers. 



The Bill was backed by Sir John Lubbock 

 and Mr. James Howard. The principal 

 speakers in its support were Sir H. Selwin 

 Ibbotson, who referred to the amount of 

 cruelty perpetrated on wild birds ; Mr. T. T. 

 Paget, who spoke of the serious increase of 

 insect plagues in his own county (Leicester- 

 shire) in consequence of the killing and 

 catching of small bu'ds ; and Sir John Lub- 

 bock, who dwelt on a point that has still to be 

 constantly urged and emphasised — the neces- 

 sity for a close time for all birds without 

 exception, because unless this was done 

 " persons who destroyed protected birds 

 always pretended, when caught, that they 

 were out for the purpose of destroying birds 



