only careful observation which will convince an unpreju- 
diced man that the harm so done is outweighed by the 
general good. Further, too, these persons overlook the 
impossibility of making people change their opinions by 
Act of Parliament, and it could be only when they become 
better acquainted with the great truths of natural history, 
that the desired results would follow. An attempt to force 
public opinion in this country generally fails. 
Now this being the state of things when the “ Wild 
Fowl Protection Bill” was introduced by Mr. Johnston, 
the enthusiasts at once tried to make it meet their ends. 
The history of the bill being, as we have said, accessible to 
our readers, there is no need for us to enter upon details, and 
we content ourselves by reminding them that, in an almost 
deserted House, Mr. Auberon Herbert, on the motion for 
going into committee, succeeded in carrying, by a 
majority of 20 to 15, an “instruction” to extend the 
protection accorded under the bill to “ Wild Fowl” to 
other wild birds, and thereupon the spirit of the Bill was 
entirely changed, and it was converted from the reasonable 
measure originally contemplated into one of indefinite 
and general scope. Persons of common sense at once 
saw that in its new shape it would be impracticable, not 
to say tyrannical, and notice was speedily given of its 
rejection. Its introducer, however, contrived to get it 
referred to a Select Committee, by whom it was still 
further modified, the objections naturally urged against 
its sweeping clauses being overcome by limiting its effects 
to certain birds named in a schedule, while the penalties 
were diminished. The schedule, it is true, contained the 
names of all those birds originally included in the Bill, 
but miny others were added, though on what principle 
some were omitted and others introduced we cannot profess 
to say. No ornithologist whose opinion could carry the 
slightest weight appears to have been consulted, and it is 
needless to say that no ornithologist was among the twenty- 
three members forming the Select Committee.* 
We need not dwell further on historic details. It is now 
evident that the efforts of the enthusiasts—well intended 
as they doubtless were—have produced a law which is on 
all sides admitted to be virtually inoperative, instead of 
the effective measure which the results of the Sea-birds 
Act warrant us in believing that the original Bill would 
have proved. Substantial fines, which would have been 
resonable enough where professional gunners and poul- 
terers were concerned, would have been manifestly cruel 
in the case of schoolboys. 
were, to use the forcible expression we have heard ap- 
plied, ‘sweated away” to suit the minor offenders, and 
the Act is almost a dead letter. Mr. Herbert, on the 
21st of June last, laid a cuckoo’s egg in the carefully- 
built nest of the British Association Committee, and the 
produce is a useless monster—the wonder alike of the 
learned and the layman, and an awful warning as an 
example of amateur legislation. The forebodings of the 
“ Close-Time” Committee have proved but too true. 
In its last Report we read— 
“Your Committee cannot look with unmixed favour 
on this measure. It appears to them to attempt to do 
* The printed “ Proceedings” of the Select Committee do not throw 
much light on the subject ‘Tne schedul+ was proposed by Mr Samuelson 
On a division the Owl was saved by rq votes to 4, the Hedge-Sparrow and 
Whinuchat by the casting vote ot the chairman, the Thrush was lost by 9 to 6. 
All the birds added are included only under their book-names, which of 
course are, as every practical naturalist is aware, very different from those 
by which they are commonly known. 
Accordingly the penalties | 
too much, and not to provide effectual means of doing it. 
In their former Reports they have hinted at, if not 
expressed, the difficulty or impossibility of passing any 
general measure, which, without being oppressive to any 
class of persons, should be adequate to the purpose. — 
Further consideration has strengthened their opinion on 
this point. They fear the new Act, though far from a 
general measure, will be a very inéfficient check to the 
destruction of those birds, which, from their yearly 
decreasing numbers, most require protection, its restrain- 
ing power having been weakened for the sake of pro- 
tecting a number of birds which do not require protection 
at all. Your Committee have never succeeded in obtain- 
ing any satisfactory evidence, much less any convincing 
proof, that the numbers of small birds are generally decreas- 
ing in this country ; on the contrary they believe that from 
various causes many, if not most, species of small birds 
are actually on theincrease. They are therefore of opinion 
that an Act of Parliament proposing to promote their pre- 
servation is a piece of mistaken legislation, and is mis- 
chievous in its effect, since it diverts public attention from 
those species which, through neglect, indifference, custom, 
cupidity or prejudice, are suffering a persecution that will, 
in a few years, ensure their complete extermination.” 
We believe that this opinion is entirely correct, but our 
space would not allow us to adduce evidence in support 
of it. Mr. Herbert has now confessed the inutility of his 
handy-work, and some time since gave notice of a motion 
for the appointment of a Committee of the House of 
Commons to examine witnesses on the question. Before 
this article appears in print, our readers will know whether 
he gets what he wants. If he succeeds we suspect that 
not much good will follow. The eloquence of the enthu- 
siasts is likely to overpower the reason of the true natu- 
ralists—a race not prone to sentimentality or given to 
sensationalism. 
We would observe that the destruction of “ Wild 
Fowl” stands on a very different footing from the de- 
struction of “ Small Birds,” and if either is to be stopped 
it must be by different means. To check the first we 
believe no measure can be devised so complete as that 
which was last year spoilt by Mr. Herbert, but, since his 
unhappy success has taught Leadenhall Market that an 
Act of Parliament may be set at nought with impunity, 
it is quite possible that a new Act to be effectual should 
absolutely prohibit, within certain days, the possession or 
sale of the birds to be protected, irrespective of whether 
they can be proved to have been received from abroad or 
not. The destruction of “ small birds” is chiefly caused 
by professional bird-catchers, for the numbers killed by 
the gun is in most cases comparatively trifling. The 
outcry that would be raised by farmers and market- 
gardeners, were they hindered from shooting the birds 
they find rifling their crops, would quickly repeal any Act 
which Parliament might inconsiderately pass to that 
effect. But we certainly should have no objection to 
putting the bird-catchers under some restriction, and we 
believe it would be to their own advantage if they were 
restrained from plying their art during the breeding- 
season. We shall no doubt be condemned by many 
excellent persons, but we cannot look upon bird-catchers- 
asa class that saould not be suffered to exist. The voca- 
tion of a bird-catcher may or may not conduce to the 
practice of all the virtues, but there is no reason for 
regarding it as essentially and necessarily vicious. Good 
and bad exist in every trade, bird-catching among the 
rest. We conceive that Mr. Sweedlepipes hada right to — 
ee Me 
