THE PRESERVATION OF OUR FAUNA 191 



benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the case. Can we 

 expect that that officer would again expose himself to 

 unjustifiable ridicule ? 



It is, as was shown, possible to ride roughshod through 

 the existing Acts, but many constables, by bluff alone, 

 have carried out the meaning and intention of bird protec- 

 tion, though they were aware that strict adherence to 

 the letter of the law would have spelt failure. In other 

 cases the law has been upheld by public interest and 

 agitation; those in authority were quick enough to feel 

 the popular pulse, though personally they cared nothing 

 about birds. 



Looking back at fifty years of struggle to legislate on 

 behalf of wild birds we see some strange examples of the 

 futility of human efforts and some curious and unexpected 

 results upon our fauna. To no man, perhaps, does bird 

 protection owe more than to the late Professor Newton. 

 He was a rare type of philosophical ornithologist, and 

 largely to his determination was due the first really un- 

 selfish legislation on behalf of wild birds the Sea-Birds 

 Protection Act of 1869. There were earlier protective 

 measures indeed they date back to medieval days, but 

 in every other case the Acts were tainted by personal 

 interests, and partook of the nature of game and forest 

 laws ; the bittern, heron, duck, or other bird was protected 

 in order that some privileged few might destroy it; the 

 peregrine, hobby, and merlin were not to be exterminated, 

 for they were required by certain noble sportsmen for 

 hawking. Other laws were openly intended to prevent 

 trespass; only those in high places might kill, might enjoy 

 blood sports. 



Newton, though no sentimentalist, was touched by the 

 sufferings of the sea- fowl. To the big breeding stations, 

 especially those of Flamborough and Speeton, excursion 

 trains were run in the nesting season from London, and, 



26 



