The Oologists Record, September 1, 1923. 53 



at the time of discussion. Tt is moreover clear that eventually 

 better Bills would be introdviced, and not so nmch time wasted in 

 Committee, in trying to amend obvious errors, and to rectifj^ 

 omissions. 



This conclusion is forced upon those who have read the debate 

 in the Lords on this particular Bill. 



There is little doubt that the drafting of the Bill might be 

 improved, and in writing this I am not doing so as an opponent, 

 but as a friend of the Bill. 



The wording of Category III. alone would probably give a head- 

 ache to a lawyer. 



In his remarks Lord Grey mentioned that the categories of 

 protected birds had been made as short as possible. I venture to 

 think that not only are they too short, but they should be made 

 clearer and more explicit. 



It does not help to elucidate matters to specify " Hawk (all 

 species except Kestrel and Sparrow Hawk)." What would a bench 

 of Magistrates decide if a townsman pleaded that a Peregrine 

 was a Falcon and that he was not aware that it was a Hawk ? 

 Many who are interested are not impressed by the attempts to 

 make the Bill and Schedules as short as possible. The curse of 

 present day legislation is that it clips too much, with the result 

 that more coaches and fours can be driven through modern Acts 

 of Parliament than in former days, when the Acts were generally 

 well expressed, and people whose business it was to study them could 

 understand what they meant, at any rate more so than is the case 

 to-day. In this particular instance it should not be forgotten 

 that comparatively few people know the difference between one 

 bird and another. How many educated people can tell the Swift 

 from the Swallow, the House Martin or the Sand Martin, or vice 

 versa. 



The wisdom of deliberately omitting from Category I. certain 

 birds which visit our country during the autumn and winter is 

 very questionable and I deeply regret that many of these birds 

 have been in effect left out of the Bill. There is not the slightest 

 doubt that if the Bill goes through in its present form, these birds 

 will be slaughtered in greater quantities than they are to-day, for 

 the simple reason that people will know that there is no penalty 

 attached to the killing of such a bird, and will think that the powers 

 that be are not sufficiently interested in preserving that particular 



