BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



63 



of Lord Walsingham, the narrowing down 

 was due chiefly to Lord Herschell. Lord 

 Walsingham proposed the affixing of notices 

 on every school-house, church and chapel 

 door, in the county, in addition to placards 

 at the boundaries of the area. He further 

 proposed to authorize the taking of eggs 

 for the British Museum, but this was objected 

 to as a dangerous precedent by Lords 

 Kimberley and Salisbury, and the Duke of 

 Argyll. 



On the return of the Bill to the House of 

 Commons in this metamorphosed condition, 

 Sir Herbert Maxwell refused to accept the 

 changeling, believing its provisions to be 

 unworkable, and it was accordingly thro\Mi 

 out. 



The controversy was naturally not confined 

 to ParHament, nor did it end with the rejec- 

 tion of the Bill. Professor Newton promptly 

 wTote to the Times to defend the Lords' 

 measure as eminently practical : " If it 

 become law a vast step will be taken towards 

 attaining the objects desired by all persons 

 interested in Bird Protection." Dr. Vachell 

 called on natural history societies to influence 

 their M.P.'s ; Sir Herbert Maxwell opposed 

 the " area " principle : If it were desirable 

 to protect Nightingales, say on Wimbledon 

 Common, how absurd to have to protect 

 the eggs also of Jackdaws and Crows. If 

 they wished to protect the Skua, why pro- 

 hibit the taking of eggs which formed the 

 islanders' harvest ? Again, why must birds 

 be certified rare before the law might protect 

 them ? Surely it was desirable that people 

 should be allowed to preserve Goldfinches 

 and Kingfishers and Owls and other inter- 

 esting and useful species ? Professor Newton, 



on the other hand, urged the impossibility 

 of absolutely identifying eggs, a question 

 on which every prosecution would turn, and 

 the unfitness of County Councillors to draw 

 up lists. Mr, Digb}^ Pigott suggested a 

 third plan, adapted from Dutch law, by 

 which eggs should be recognized as the 

 jiropert}^ of the man on Ashosc land they Mere 

 laid. This. was supported by Lord Lilford, 

 who said that " if landowners would take 

 as much interest in their wild-birds as they 

 mostl}' did in their game, legislation would 

 be unnecessary," Unfortunately this " if " 

 becomes more and more inconceivable. 

 Newton rejoined that in few countries of 

 Europe had extermination proceeded so fast 

 as in Holland, Both sides of the question 

 M ere brought fonvard at the annual meeting 

 of the Society for the Protection of Birds 

 in February, 1894. 



In April, 1894, Sir Herbert Maxwell 

 introduced the Bill which is practically the 

 Act now in force, enabling Councils to add 

 birds to the schedule, and giving the alter- 

 native of scheduling specified eggs or of 

 forming areas for the protection of all eggs. 

 Tills happy compromise saved the situation, 

 although Professor Newton expressed his 

 fear that the retention of the " vicious 

 principle " of the old Bill would lead to 

 " that mischievous course " being in most 

 cases followed. 



The Bill was backed by Sir John Lubbock, 

 Mr. Joseph Pease, JNIr, Loder, Captain Bagot, 

 and Sir William Ingram. It was introduced 

 into the House of Lords by the Earl of 

 Onslow, and received the Royal Assent on 

 July 20th, 1894. 



{To he continued.) 



The Right Hon. Sir Herbert MaxweU, to 

 whom Bird Protectors are indebted for the 

 Act of 1894, and also for the St. Ivilda Act 

 of 1904, was one of the original Vice- 



Presidents of the Society for the Protection 

 of Birds, elected at the first general meeting 

 held in March, 1893. 



