36 



should be based on evidence carefully weighed by those com- 

 petent to deal with it, and should, we think, be subject to the 

 supervision of a central authority, 



THE WORKING AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTIVE 



LAWS. 



In spite of the mass of legislation for protecting birds which 

 exists in Europe, the laws are apt to be disregarded, and to 

 depend for their enforcement upon the energy of a few individuals 

 who are interested in the subject. This is certainly the case in 

 our own country, where but for the efforts of a few enthusiastic 

 persons and societies the proportion of offenders brought to 

 justice would be infinitesimal. We must, remember, however, 

 that not only has the person who assumes the role of prosecutor 

 to undergo considerable inconvenience, but that in many cases 

 great difficulties have to be encountered, and that our law is in 

 some respects very imperfect and confusing. 



Imagine, for instance, proceedings against a man who has taken 

 the eggs of the Cole-Tit in Derbyshire — a county in which the 

 eggs of this species were the subject of a Protection Order, while 

 those of the Blue-Tit were not. Unless the prosecutor in such 

 a case had actually seen the bird on the nest, how could he swear 

 to which species the eggs belonged ? How many oologists 

 would care to face the always unpleasant ordeal of cross- 

 examination on such a subject ? 



Again, it is difficult to imagine anything more likely to cause 

 perplexity and confusion than the chief section of the most 

 important Act, that of 1880. Only those who have carefully 

 read Sect. 3 realise that it is not an offence under the Act to kill 

 a wild bird except by shooting it ; nor is it an offence to take it, 

 though it is forbidden to use any lime, trap, snare, net or other 

 instrument for the purpose of taking. 



The form of this section is all the more curious when it is seen 

 that under the earlier Statutes of 1872 and 1876, which were both 

 repealed by this Act, " taking " is made an offence. 



No doubt it was intended to make the taking of birds punishable 

 under our Act of 1880 ; the marginal note to the section is, 

 " Penalties for shooting or taking wild birds," but in construing 

 an Act of Parliament the marginal note may not be considered 

 as part of the Act.* 



Now it is quite true that under the first section of the Act of 

 1896 an Order may be made prohibiting the taking or killing of 



* Att. Gen. v. G.E. Railway Co., 11 Ch. Div., 449. 



