BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



15 



not protected." The chief opposition came 

 from a gallant Member (Major Nolan) who 

 objected to the protection of " Magpies, 

 Hawks, and Scorn-Crows," with the frank 

 and characteristic remark that " he didn't 

 know of any other birds he particularly- 

 objected to, but then he didn't know much 

 about them." 



Ultimately the Bill went up to the Lords 

 in much the same form as the Act now 

 stands. Instead of supplementing, it super- 

 seded the previous Acts ; but the operative 

 clauses became in committee long, complex, 

 and infinitely less comprehensible than the 

 original text. It has been mentioned that 

 certain bu'ds were scheduled for exemption 

 from the provisions of the Bill because they 

 were already protected by the previous Acts. 

 As these previous Acts were being repealed' 

 it seems to have struck the Committee as a 

 brilliant idea to adopt the same list of birds 

 as species to be specially protected ; they 

 became accordingly the " Scheduled " birds, 

 to be protected against owner and occupier. 

 Little wonder that the Duke of Argyll, while 

 strongly supporting the measure, Avas curious 

 to know who drew up this Schedule, adding 

 that " it must have been someone who knew 

 nothing of natural history." Nearly all the 

 land-birds which became included were 

 added to the list by the Lords. To Lord 

 Selbome we owe the inclusion of Nightjar 

 and Woodpecker ; to the Duke of Somerset 

 the Cuckoo ; to Lord Lilford the Owl (strongly 

 supported by the Duke of Buccleuch and 

 Lord Kimberley, who said the}- had for- 

 bidden the destruction of Owls on their 

 estates, with satisfactory results) ; to Lord 

 Walsingham the Goldfinch, Nightingale, 

 Hoopoe, Roller, Bee-eater, Bittern, and 

 American Quail ; to Lord Aberdeen the 

 Kingfisher. The " Ariole " (sic) was also 

 placed on the list. 



The Act had scarcely come into force 

 before an outcry arose from poulterers and 

 others as to the alleged hardship inflicted 

 by the sale and possession clause. A man, 

 it was urged, might shoot a Woodpigeon, 

 but he might not sell it for food. An attempt 

 was therefore made to straighten out the 

 clause in the poulterer's favour ; and very 

 badly it was done. The amending Bill was 

 introduced into tlie House of Lords in 1881 

 by Lord Dalhousie, its avowed object being 

 " to legalise the sale of certain birds which 

 thougli lawfully killed here or killed abroad, 

 cannot now be sold." It is this amendment 

 which has to be thanked for tlie exhibition 

 of Plover and Lark and Ruff in game-shops 

 in the close season. The point to be specially 

 noted, however, is that never for a moment 

 was the Bill intended to relax the law against 

 birdcatching and the sale of live birds, or to 

 jirovide relief for the birdcatcher. It is 

 very difficult, Mr. Dillwyn had remarked, to 

 frame a clause which will really get hold of 

 the birdcatcher. If the Act of 1881 has, 

 through want of proper understanding, 

 played into the birdcatcher's hands, it did so 

 unintentionally. The words " or taken," 

 which might have been presumed to cover 

 taking of live birds, were specifically removed 

 by the House at the instance of Lord Aber- 

 dare. 



A clause providing that the Act should 

 never apply in the case of scheduled birds 

 was added by Lord Walsingham, but removed 

 by the Commons ; and the addition to the 

 Schedule of the Lark might have met with a 

 like fate but for the hearty championship of 

 Mr. Broadhurst. 



After this effort Bird Protection legislation 

 again ceased for fifteen years. By that time 

 the Society for the Protection of Birds had 

 come into existence. 



[To be continued). 



