The Zoologist— October, 1873. 3729 



opposed to those Laws. Fm-ther, that if there be any need to 

 protect such other wild birds, the need is greater, in most cases, 

 to protect them from the owners and occupiers of land than 

 fi-om other persons. 



iii. That the power to be given to the Secretary of State would vu-tuaUy 

 be that of repeahng the Act, either entu-ely or in regard to any 

 particular kind or kinds of birds, at his sole will and pleasure, 

 without his acting on the opinion of any responsible adviser or 

 expert assessor ; and that in consequence of such unlimited 

 power being entrusted to a high of&cer of State, who cannot be 

 expected to have any personal knowledge of the intricacies of 

 the questions involved, the results would in most cases be highly 

 unsatisfactory to aU persons concerned ; it being also taken into 

 consideration that the state of the law would vary very con- 

 siderably in different parts of the coimtry, even perhaps in dif- 

 ferent parts of the same coimty. Furthermore, the granting of 

 such power to any authority presumes that some kinds of birds 

 would be at once exempted from protection, which is tanta- 

 moimt to inviting persecution on such kinds of birds as would 

 be included in what has been termed a " Black List." 



iv. With this recommendation your Committee have the pleasure of 



entu'ely concm-iing. 

 V. The anticipation of your Committee, that the penalties imposed by 

 the Act of 1872 would be found insufficient, having been proved 

 by experience to be true, yom- Committee consider that the 

 proposed increase of such penalties is quite inadequate to secure 

 efficiency to the new Act ; regard, however, being had to the 

 indefinite phi'ase, " except under aggravated chcumstances," 

 the meaning of which your Committee cannot explain. 



Finally, your Committee wisli to point out that, so far as they have 

 the means of knowing the nature of the evidence given before the 

 Select Committee of the House of Commons, the four recommendations 

 which they condemn are du-ectly ©imposed to that evidence. 



6. The increasing interest taken by the public generally in the 

 question which your Committee have been now for five years 

 appointed to investigate, is shown by signs too numerous to mention. 

 Your Committee, however, observe with regret that in the minds of 

 some persons it has been mixed up, if not confounded, with other 

 questions which are enthely distinct. Two of these may be specified 

 — (1) the Utihty of Bkds to Agriculturists, and (2) the State of the 

 Law as regards Cruelty to Animals. Your Committee not having 

 been appointed to consider these questions, content themselves with 

 remarking that both are doubtless of great importance to the com- 

 munity, the one from a moral and the other from a material point of 

 view, but are likewise entirely outside the duty of your Committee. 



