BIRD MOTES mo MEWS. 



Issued (QuaftLTln by the llonal .^ocictu for tbc ^rotzctian of |Sirtis. 



Vol. IV.— No. 7.] London : 23, Queen Anne's Gate, S.W. [SEPT. 29, 1911. 



THE STORY OF BIRD PROTECTION— YII. 



IHI:^ duty of Bird Protection having 

 been for the first time relegated 

 to local authorities by the Act of 

 1894, anxiety was naturally felt 

 as to the extent and manner in which they 

 would avail themselves of its provisions. 

 In October, the Home Secretarj^ (Mr. Asquith) 

 issued a letter to County Councils, drawing 

 attention to the Act. Canon Rawnsley 

 wrote eloquent letters to the Times, pleading 

 for its immediate and efficient utilization, 

 and pointing out that fourteen or fifteen 

 species of birds had been lost to Britain, 

 some within living memory. ^Mr. Coideux 

 urged, in the Times, the advantages of 

 " area " protection, especially in the case 

 of shore-birds ; the great need for such 

 sanctuaries might be gathered from the fact 

 that in the previous season (1894) not a 

 single brood of the Lesser Tern was hatched 

 out at Spurn, and the Lincolnshire coast 

 was swept of all eggs by collectors, dealers, 

 or for sale to excursionists. Strong pressure 

 was also brought to bear on the Councils by 

 ornithologists and Bird Protectors. It 

 follo\A ed that in several instances the appli- 

 cations of the Councils Avere in advance of 

 the Home Office definition of the Act. 



The Middlesex Council, for example — 

 which, under the Vice-Chairmanship of 'Mr. 

 Montagu Sharpe. from the first took the 

 lead on the subject of Bird Protection, 

 asked for a five years" Order pro- 

 hibiting the taking of all eggs throughout 

 the county, in consequence of the havoc 

 committed by bird-nesters. London and 

 Surrey made similar requests. All three 



were refused : and in March. 1895, Mr, 

 Asquith issued another circular letter, stating 

 the principles on which the Act should be 

 administered, and expressing the opinion 

 that it was intended to prevent the extinction 

 or serious diminution of rare and interesting 

 birds without any undue creation of a new 

 offence, such as would result from penalizing 

 bird-nesting as such. This Home Office 

 dictum indicated where protection for areas 

 must fail of effect : if general egging could 

 not te prohibited in any considerable area, 

 then it became obviously neces.sary to utilize 

 that second power given under the Act on 

 which Sir Herbert Maxwell had insisted, 

 and protect the eggs of certain species 

 throughout counties. Otherwise it would 

 be impossible, for instcince. to protect a 

 Buzzard, a Dartford \\'arb!er. a Colden 

 Oriole, breeding in the mid.st of a w ide area 

 and among common species. 



By the end of 1895, fourteen Egg Orders 

 had been obtained for England and Wales ; 

 four were limited to defined areas, seven 

 named certain species for protection through- 

 out the administrative counties, and three 

 made use of both methods. In later years 

 the naming of species has become by far the 

 commoner practice. England and Wales 

 have still only seventeen protected breeding- 

 areas, while some seventy counties and 

 county boroughs protect named species of 

 eggs. The area principle is undoubtedly the 

 more effectual where it can be enforced by 

 local landowners or by Watchers. Scotland 

 had utiUzed the area only in the case of 

 islands. 



