A WEEKLY ILLUSTRATED JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 
“To the solid ground 
Of Nature trusts the mind which builds for aye.” —WoRDSWORTH 
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1873 
THE WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT 
“(CAVE me from my foolish friends,” ought to be a 
“stave in the spring-song of each fowl of the air, from 
the Nightingale which warbleth in darkness to the Dotterel 
which basketh at noonday. Last year, as is well known, 
a bill for the protection of “ Wild Fowl” was brought into 
Parliament at the instance of the “Close-time” Com- 
mittee of the British Association,* and the various 
changes and chances which befell it before it became an 
Act were succinctly recounted in the Committee’s report at 
the Brighton meeting, printed in NATURE, vol. vi. p. 363. 
This bill, as at first prepared and introduced to the 
House of Commons, was framed entirely on the Sea-birds 
Preservation Act, which became law in 1869, and only 
differed from that successful measure where difference 
was needed, and the penalties and procedure it pro- 
posed were the same as those which have proved to be 
so thoroughly efficient in the former case. The minute 
care, the practical knowledge, and the consideration of 
various interests with which it was originally drawn, may 
be gathered from a few facts. Many of the birds it in- 
tended to protect are known in various parts of the 
country by various names, and accordingly all these 
names were introduced, for it was clear to the promoters 
of the bill, though not, as shown by the sequel, to the 
public at large, that a man summoned for killing (let us 
say) a Lapwing would never be convicted if he brought, 
as he easily might bring, credible witnesses who in good 
faith swore that it was a Peewit, and that they never heard 
it called anything else. At the same time, that the 
measure might not be needlessly severe, care was taken |: 
that of those species which bear different names in 
Scotland and England and do not breed in the latter, 
they should only appear under the name by which they 
*This Committee in 1871-72 consisted of Mr. Barnes, one of the secre- 
taries of the Associ-tion for the Provection of Sea-birds, Mr. Dresser (re- 
porter), Mr. Harting, Prof. Newton, and Canon Tristiam, and it may be 
doubted whether five gentlemen more thorouzhly conversant with the sub- 
ject could have been selected. Mr, Harland, the other secretary of the 
Sea-birds’ Association, has since been added to their number. 
No, 183—VoL, vit. 
are known in the former. A few species too, though 
coming strictly under the category of “ Wild Fowl,” were 
omitted because of their making themselves obnoxious to 
farmers. But the great feature of the bill was its being 
directed to a definite point—the preservation during the 
breeding season of those birds which, beyond all others, 
were and are subjected to cruel persecution at that time 
of year—thousands of Wild Ducks, Plovers, and Snipes, 
being constantly to be found in the poulterers’ shops 
throughout the spring months, not only killed while they 
are breeding, but killed, it is not too much to say, because 
they are breeding, since during that season they put off 
much of their natural shyness and fall easy victims to the 
professional gunners. Furthermore, all who really know 
anything of birds know that it is just these kinds which 
are most rapidly diminishing in number—some of them, 
which in bygone days were most abundant, are now only 
seen as stray visitors. There is, for example, the Avocet, 
the disappearance of which can be plainly traced to its 
destruction by gunners,* and had we space we could cite 
many similar cases. Then too, nearly all these birds are 
of no small importance as an article of food, and their 
supply to our markets has produced a trade of con- 
siderable extent. 
Now, on the other hand, there are a good many 
enthusiastic persons, of whom we desire to speak with all 
respect, who have long been under the belief that in this 
country the number of birds generally, and of small birds 
in particular, has been gradually diminishing, and these 
persons wished for a much wider extension of the principle 
of protection than seemed to the “ Close-time ” Committee 
necessary or expedient. Whether their zeal is according 
to knowledge may be judged from what we have further 
to relate, but it is very plain that they disregard the wide- 
spread belief in the mischief popularly supposed to be 
caused by many of even our most useful small birds, and 
the fact, which no observer of experience can deny, that 
under certain circumstances, certain birds do a very 
considerable amount of harm—witness Song-thrushes and 
Blackbirds in the strawberry-beds—as well as that it is 
*See Stevenson’s “ Birds of Norfolk,” vol ii. p. 237 and following pages. 
B 
