BIRD NOTES mo NEWS 



JlssuetJ O^uartcrlii hn tbc Hoiial Society for tbe ^rotErtion of ^irDs. 



Vol. IV.— No. 6.] London : 23, Quken Anne's Gate, S.W. [JUNE 24, 1911. 



THE STORY OF BIRD PROTECTION— YI. 



LTHOUGH so considerable an 

 interval occurred between the 

 Acts of 1881 and of 1894, 

 ornithologists were Avell aware 

 that the legislation obtained Avas faulty and 

 incomplete. Wild-birds were given a close 

 time — more or less of a farce except in the 

 case of the scheduled siDecies — but all eggs were 

 unprotected, and it was obvious that if the 

 eggs of a rare species were taken with sufficient 

 persistence there would soon not be any of 

 the birds to protect. In 1891, just when 

 the feehng for Bird Protection was expressing 

 itself in the formation of the Society for the 

 Protection of Birds, opinion as to the protec- 

 tion of eggs in particular was quickened by 

 two specific outrages on the part of pro 

 fessional collectors. Earty in the j'ear Lord 

 LiKord drew attention in the Times, and Mr. 

 Walter James in the House of Commons, to 

 an association calling itself the " Naturalists' 

 Publishing Company," which had organized 

 an egg-collecting expedition to " the land 

 of the Great Auk," meaning the Shetland 

 Isles, recommended as one of the best 

 collecting-grounds for marine birds in the 

 United Kingdom, [It cannot be said that 

 twenty years of Bird Protection work have 

 rid the country of this sort of thing, when 

 in 1911 a great railway company blazons 

 the collection of eggs at a Yorlcshire resort 

 as .an incentive to tourist traffic] In 

 replying to Mr. James, the Lord Advocate 

 suggested that landowners on the threatened 

 islands might apply for an interdict against 

 illegal trespass, the intention to commit which 

 had been pubHcty amiounced. In August, 



1901, Dr. Vachell brought before the British 

 Association a flagrant case of wanton destruc- 

 tion of eggs on Grassholm (South Wales), and 

 a committee was formed by the Association to 

 consider the need for legislative protection. 



An excellent lead had already been given 

 by a Bill introduced in February by Mr. 

 Alfred Pease, backed by Mr. Arthur Acland, 

 Mr. Asquith, Colonel Dawnay, Sir Edward 

 Grey, Lord Granby, and Mr, Sydney Buxton, 

 which proposed to empower County Councils 

 to fine any person 5s. who should take or 

 destroy, or incite to the destruction of, any 

 egg of any wild- bird they should name in their 

 Order, during the time and in the place 

 specified therein. The Bill further proposed 

 to extend close time to August 12th ; to repeal 

 the Act of 1881 (inserting the Lark in the 

 schedule of the Act of 1880), and to fine any 

 person £5 who should knowingly and wilfuUy 

 kill, or use boat or net or Hme for killing or 

 taking, or should expose for sale, any of the 

 l)irds named in the schedule to the BiU. 

 This was the first attempt to give all-the-year 

 protection to any species, the birds selected 

 being as follows : Avocet, Bearded Tit, 

 Bittern, Buzzard, Chough, Crossbill, Dartford 

 Warbler, Dotterel, Eagle, Goldfinch, Great 

 Skua, Harrier, Kentish Plover, Hobby, 

 Hoopoe, Kite, Merlin, Nightjar, Osprey, 

 Owl, Phalarope, Peregrine Falcon, Raven, 

 Ruff, St. Kilda Wren, Sandgrouse, Stone 

 Curlew, Tern, Woodpecker. County Councils 

 might do worse than consider this list Avhen 

 drawing up their Orders to-day. 



This Bill passed its second reading on 

 July 6th, but was then withdrawn. 



