208 report— 1877. 



There is no symptom of the diminution of the interest which the Sea-birds 

 Preservation Act (1869) has always excited ; and within the past twelve 

 months application for the extension of the Close Time has been made, ac- 

 cording to the provisions of that Act, by the Justices in Quarter-Sessions of 

 Northumberland, Lancashire, and the North Riding of Yorkshire — facts 

 which sufficiently speak for the general appreciation of the measure. 



The Wild-Birds Protection Act (1872) is possibly viewed by the public 

 with greater favour than either of the others ; but your Committee sees little 

 reason to modify the opinion of it expressed in former Reports. Neverthe- 

 less a conviction under it, presenting some rather important features, in May 

 last, indicates that it is not so entirely useless as had been thought.' 



The Wild-Fowl Preservation Act (1876) came into operation this year, 

 and at first undoubtedly caused some discontent in many quarters, a warm 

 discussion of its principle and provisions being raised by a portion of the 

 public press. Your Committee, however, has noticed with much satisfaction 

 that virtually no objection was taken to its principle, while the necessity of 

 some enactment of the kind was conceded on almost every side. Further- 

 more, very nearly the sole cause of complaint lay in regard to the limits of 

 the Close Time therein imposed, on which point no blame attaches to your 

 Committee. The limits of the Close Time proposed in the Bill, as draughted 

 by your Committee and introduced into Parliament, were, as stated in last 

 year's Report, altered in its passage through the House of Commons ; the 

 change being such as your Committee then declared did not meet with its 

 approval. Your Committee is therefore in no way responsible for the unsea- 

 sonableuess of the Close Time which was enacted, and believes that the 

 soundness of its views on the subject is now generally admitted. In con- 

 firmation of this belief, it may be stated that the Justices in Quarter-Sessions 

 of the counties of Dorset, Norfolk, Kent. Somerset, Southampton, Wigtown, 

 and Essex have severally made application to the Home Office for such an 

 alteration of the Close Time as will bring it more or less nearly in accordance 

 with that originally proposed by your Committee. 



Another charge was brought against this Act. It was alleged to be im- 

 perfect in that it did not expressly prohibit the possession or sale during the 

 Close Time of birds of the kinds professedly protected, which had been im- 

 ported into this country from abroad. This charge was supported by the 

 dismissal (on the latter ground) by two magistrates of informations laid 

 against certain poultrymen or game-dealers in London, and if it could have 

 been sustained would undoubtedly have proved the Act to be defective. But 

 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals appealed against 

 one of these decisions ; and on the 15th of June judgment was given in the 

 Common Pleas Division of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal against the defen- 

 dants in the case, thus proving that the legal interpretation of the Act agreed 

 with the intention of its promoters. 



Your Committee has satisfaction in finding that the Fisheries (Oysters, 

 Crabs and Lobsters) Bill passed the House of Commons on the 2nd of August, 

 and it has now doubtless become law. It appears curious that no Close 

 Time had hitherto been provided by the legislature for these important and 

 favourite articles of food. 



Having regard to the applications made from time to time to different 

 members of your Committee, by various persons interested in seeing the Close 

 Time principle more widely applied, your Committee respectfully solicits its 

 reappointment. 



I 



