62 



BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



In 1893 a re-cast of the Egg Clause of Mr. 

 Pease's Bill was brought in as the principal 

 jjurpose of a Bill introduced on April 20th 

 by Sir Herbert Maxwell. This gave the 

 County Councils power to draw up schedules 

 of birds for protection and to prohibit any 

 person taking or destro3dng, or inciting to 

 the taking or destruction of, the eggs of 

 named species in any specified place. The 

 fine was raised to £1, and the Order was to 

 be advertised in local newspapers. The Bill 

 passed its second reading amid cheers on 

 May 1st, but trouble began with its passage 

 in the House of Lords. 



Lord Balfour of Burleigh Avas in charge 

 of the measure in the Upper House, Avhere 

 the second reading was taken on June 1st. 

 In explaining that legislation v/as necessi- 

 tated through the increase in the number 

 of professional collectors — ^who had gone so 

 far as to invite subscriptions for an egg-raid, 

 the profits of v^^hich were to be shared by 

 the subscribers — Lord Balfour had the full 

 support of the House and of the public 

 generally. The collection of eggs, excusable 

 as a scientific aid to the naturahst, had 

 become a mere senseless craze for possession 

 of rareties or curios ; as Lord Safisbury 

 observed in the course of the debate, the 

 passion for collecting was such that the 

 collector no longer cared for the object for 

 which he was supposed to be collecting. 

 Birds as birds interested him not ; he 

 wanted to fiU his cabinet with endless varieties 

 of egg-shells, just as he might fill them with 

 Goss china. DiiSerence of opinion arose, 

 however, as to the best means to secure 

 the end desired, and on this point ornith- 

 ologists could not agree. 



The question was one of species versus 

 area. One side, led by Sir Herbert Maxwell, 

 wished to leave it to the local authorities 

 to decide what bu"ds should be scheduled 

 for protection. The other, led by Professor 



Newton, \agorously opposed this in favour 

 of protection of all eggs within specified 

 areas. There was much reason in both 

 contentions ; but the abiHty with which the 

 arguments were advanced Avrecked the Bill. 



Lord Balfour intimated at once that he 

 was prepared for amendments and was not 

 resiDonsible for the drafting of the proposals ; 

 and it soon became e\adent that sweeping 

 changes were impending. The Duke of 

 Richmond, indeed, characteristically thanked 

 heaven that there was a House of Lords 

 to deal with a Bill which gave County 

 Councils power to prohibit a man shooting 

 his own game, should they choose to 

 schedule Grouse and Pheasants. The Lord 

 Chancellor (Herschell) also spoke of the 

 alarm raised by an egg-clause Avhich might 

 lead to the infliction of punishment on 

 boys who followed " the natural pursuit 

 of bird-nesting," whereas the rare birds 

 were just those which were not largely 

 affected by this pastime. In the result 

 the acting clauses of the original Bill were 

 replaced by a clause prohibiting the taking 

 or destroying of all eggs in any specified 

 place or places within the county ; an offender 

 taking or destrojdng, or procuring, aiding 

 or inciting any person with intent to con- 

 travene the law, being made hable to a fine 

 of £5, with a further £1 for every egg taken 

 or destroyed. The Council, in their appKca- 

 tion, AA^ere to define the hmits of each area, 

 and declare it to be no larger than necessar}^ 

 and also to state that they had grounds for 

 believing the area was frequented by birds 

 in danger of extinction unless their eggs were 

 protected. Additional clauses gave Councils 

 power to add to the schedule, for any 

 specified place or places, specified birds, rare 

 or in danger of becoming rare ; and required 

 the publication of notices in conspicuous 

 places. 



The main amendment was the work 



