86 



BIHD NOTES AND NEWS. 



1880 Act, although that Act was constantly- 

 being infringed in portions of Middlesex. 

 So difficult was it, he added, to obtain a 

 conviction that the attempt was practically 

 given up [a state of things not unknown in 

 more than one district at the present day]. 

 Lord Belper again opposed the trespass 

 clause, and ultimately this was tlirown 

 overboard to save the ship ; while the power 

 of confiscation was limited to the court who 

 convict an offender. In the Commons, 

 where Mr Big wood had charge of the 

 measure, yet another clause was rejected^ 

 that repealing the " first offence " proviso. 

 However well-known the offender and how- 

 ever aggravated the offence, there can still 

 be no punishment for a first conviction 

 save in the case of scheduled birds. 



With one working clause left, and port 

 well in sight, the dismantled Bill narrowly- 

 escaped A\Teck on the rocks of the Irish 

 Question. It was intended to apply, as 

 the Acts of 1880 and 1894 apply, to Ireland 

 equally with other parts of the United 

 Kingdom. But it remained for the House 

 of Commons to provide for expenses of 

 procedure in Ireland out of grand jury cess. 

 In Committee, May 11th, Mr. Healy moved 

 the substitution of poor-rate, or the rejection 

 of the measure. Such a substitution would 

 have entrusted the power under the Act 

 to the grand jury, while laying the expenses 

 on a rate over which grand juries had no 

 control. This, the Chancellor of the 

 Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) ob- 

 served, was an absurdity. " Everything 

 in Ireland," retorted Mr. Healy, "is an 

 absurdity." The Chancellor then intimated 

 that as only non- contentious Bills could go 

 forward, the House must decide between 

 Mr. Healy's motion and the loss of the Bill. 

 Mr. Bigwood came to the rescue with the 

 proposal that Ireland should be omitted 

 from the operation of the Bill. This was 

 at once agreed to, and the Bill received the 

 Royal Assent on August 14th, 1896. Thus 

 it comes about that Ireland cannot protect 

 any of her birds throughout the year. All 

 that can be done is to extend the " Close- 

 time " as much as possible under the 1880 

 Act ; and although this had been presumed 

 to deal with breeding-season only, it has 

 been extended for certain birds in some 

 Irish counties to the 1st of December. 



While speaking of Ireland, it may be 

 added that in 1898 a serious question arose 

 as to the enforcement of the W.B.P. Acts 



by the Irish Constabulary. The trouble 

 was caused by an existing Act (4 Wm. 4, 

 c. 15) prohibiting the Constabulary from 

 enforcing any Act relating to game pre- 

 servation. Questions were asked in the 

 House by Mr. Sydney Buxton, on behalf 

 of the Society for the Protection of Birds 

 and by Mr. Redmond on behalf of the Irish 

 Game Preservation Association. To the 

 lay mind it seemed sufficient answer that 

 " game " and " wild birds " are two very 

 different things, as every English magistrate 

 is fully aware ; but in Ireland great objection 

 was taken to giving extra powers to the 

 Constabulary. A Bill to make the duty 

 of the police clear was brought in by Mr. 

 Buxton, backed by Sir T. Esmonde, Mr. 

 Redmond, Sir Herbert Maxwell and Sir 

 Edward Grey ; and was read a second time 

 on June 6th, 1898. It proposed to invoke 

 the aid of the Constabulary where the local 

 authority desired that birds should be 

 protected ; and its supporters pointed out 

 that wild birds were greatly decreasing in 

 Ireland, which had become the resort of 

 persons prohibited from destroying them in 

 England. Owing to Government opposition 

 the Bill was withdrawn ; but the end was 

 happily attained by other means, and a 

 circular was issued in 1899 directing that 

 the Royal Irish Constabulary should enforce 

 the Wild Birds Protection Acts. 



The Act of 1896 was at first regarded 

 mainly as a means for dealing with the 

 surburban bird-catcher and the Sunday 

 sportsman. The possibility it affords for 

 prohibiting all taking of birds on Sundays 

 (Saturdays too if a Council be so minded), 

 for protecting birds like the Goldfinch 

 absolutely throughout the year, and for 

 seizing bird-catching apparatus, undoubtedly 

 render the Act the best weapon yet forged 

 against bird-catching. Bird-lovers should 

 therefore be on the alert to see that it is 

 actively put in force. 



The Act also furnishes the one means 

 whereby rare birds might be saved from 

 the collector. That it fails of both purposes 

 is a fact that could be largely remedied were 

 the action of County Councils decided and 

 unanimous. Every county might well pro- 

 tect, for example, the Goldfinch and the 

 Linnet all the year. The cultivator would 

 still be able to catch Linnets if he considered 

 them destructive, but the possession of the 

 birds, newly caught, by catcher or dealer 

 would be illegal throughout the county. 



