Legislation. 87 



The Schedule is a curious one, omitting, as it does, practically 

 all the commoner insectivorous epeciee, and enumerating many rare 

 visitors to this country, whilst certain species were indicated by 

 their local names only (bouxie, purre, tystey, etc.). Most of the 

 sea-birds were included. 



In the following year a second Act was passed, which explained 

 Clause 3 of the 1880 Act, and added the name of the lark to the 

 Schedule. 



Not until the year 1894 was anything further done. In that 

 year a further Act was passed whereby the Secretary of State, upon 

 application by a County Council, may, by order, prohibit the taking 

 or destroying of wild birds' eggs in any year or in any place within 

 that county : or of the eggs of any specified kind of wild bird that 

 they may recommend ; or that the principal of the Act of 1880 may 

 be extended to apply to any species of wild bird not included in 

 the Schedule of the Act. The fine for taking or destroying eggs to 

 be a sum not exceeding 1 for each egg. 



Two years later, the Act of 1896, ignores the County Councils 

 and reverts to Sec. 8 of the 1880 Act, whereby, on application by 

 the justices in Quarter Sessions, the powers under that section are 

 extended to the taking and killing of particular kinds of wild birds 

 during those periods of the year not covered by the principal Act. 

 Power is also given to forfeit any trap, net, snare, or decoy bird 

 used for taking any wild bird. 



A further short Act was passed in 1902 authorising the for- 

 feiture of any wild bird or egg, in addition to the penalty men- 

 tioned. 



Finally, in 1904, a really valuable Act was passed which 

 provided a penalty not exceeding 40s. for the first offence and 5 

 for every subsequent offence, for the use of pole traps. 



After reviewing these Acts at somewhat greater length, a 

 recent writer states: (1) "that they were all passed, not in the 

 interests of agriculturists of any class, but to satisfy the outcry 

 against bird destruction raised by the bird-loving public at large." 



Although conceived with the best intentions, there is no 

 evidence to show that the framers of these various Acts ever took 

 seriously into account what would be the probable ultimate effect 

 of their legislation. These effects are beginning to make themselves 



