ON THE DESIRABILITY OF ESTABLISHING A “CLOSE TIME.” 265 
had not been published when your Committee agreed to their last Report, 
appeared shortly afterwards, and contained recommendations almost entirely 
identical with the anticipations of your Committee. 
2. These recommendations were so fully considered by your Committee in 
their last Report, that they think it unnecessary to refer again to the subject 
beyond expressing their regret at finding, from the printed and published 
evidence taken by the Select Committee, that its recommendations were not 
at all in accordance with such parts of that evidence as your Committee deem 
the most trustworthy and valuable. 
3. The delay in the meeting of Parliament, occasioned by the General 
Election and change of Ministry, made your Committee believe that it would 
be inexpedient for them to attempt any amendment of the ‘ Wild-Birds Pro- 
tection Act’ during the late Session. 
4. In the House of Lords the Earl De la Warr introduced a Bill intituled 
“An Act for the more effectual protection of Wild Birds during the Breeding- 
Season,” the principal feature of which was to render penal the taking of 
certain birds’ eggs. This Bill was not based on any of the recommendations 
of the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1873), and still less on 
any suggestions which have ever proceeded from your Committee. 
5. Lord De la Warr’s Bill was withdrawn; and your Committee take this 
opportunity of declaring their belief that the practice of birds’-nesting is and 
has been so much followed in England that no Act of Parliament, except one 
of the most severe character, could stop it; while any enactment of that kind 
would, by filling the gaols with boys (often of a tender age), excite a strong 
and universal feeling of hostility against all measures for the protection of in- 
digenous animals, even among many of those who are at present favourably 
disposed to it. 
6. Your Committee believe that the effect of birds’-nesting on such kinds 
of birds as are known to be diminishing in numbers is altogether inappreci- 
able, while its effect on those whose numbers are not decreasing may be safely 
disregarded, and consequently that there is no need of any legislation inter- 
fering with the practice. They again repeat their conviction that the only 
practicable mode of checking the diminution of such birds as have been 
proved to be decreasing, is the effectual protection of the adults from destruc- 
tion during the breeding-season. 
7. Your Committee find that while the Sea-Birds Preservation Act continues 
to work successfully, being not only popular but also effective in its operation, 
the Wild-Birds Protection Act has done little if any thing towards attaining 
the objects for which it was passed, and in various quarters still gives consider- 
able discontent. 
8. Your Committee have once more to point out, as they have done in 
former Reports, that the birds commonly known as “ Wild Fowl” are subject 
to very great persecution through the inadequacy of the present law to pro- 
tect them, that they are rapidly decreasing in number, and that they are not 
only perfectly innocuous but of great value as food. Consequently your 
Committee trust that the efforts they hope to make in behalf of ‘ Wild Fowl” 
in the next Session of Parliament will obtain a very general support. 
9. Representations as to the inordinate slaughter of Seals which takes 
place every spring in the North-Atlantic Ocean have been made to some 
Members of your Committee. There can be no doubt that such slaughter 
carried on at that season, and with increasing activity, will soon bring these 
animals to the verge of extermination, as has been the case in so many parts 
of the world; and since their destruction will affect.a very large trade, their 
