1106 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HIST. SOCIETY, Vol. XX. 



(c). The general objection to the creation of new penal offences. 

 (d). The un justifiability of legislation in the interests of the 



sportsmen. 

 (<?). The absence of evidence that the destruction of birds for the 

 sake of their plumage was carried out on an extensive 

 scale, and that there was any serious diminution in their 

 numbers. 

 In 1900 the Honorary Secretary of the Society for the Protection of 

 Birds raised the question of the advisability of stopping the export of the 

 plumage of ornamental birds ; and in the following year in the Budget 

 Debate of the 27th March in the Supreme Legislative Council, the 

 Hon'ble Sir Allan Arthur urged upon Government the expediency of 

 protective measures for game in India. During his visit to Burma in 

 1901 Lord Curzon was approached upon the subject in a public address. 

 His Lordship returned a sympathetic reply, admitting that the enact- 

 ments in force did not go far enough, and that more stringent measures 

 were called for. In addition to this, numerous other representations to 

 a similar effect were received by Government, or appeared from time to 

 time in the public press. 



In view of these representations, and of the fact that a considerable time 

 had elapsed since the passing of the Wild Birds and Game Protection Act 

 of 1887, Lord Curzon's Government decided to enquire into the matter, 

 and to ascertain how far the existing measures had been attended with 

 success. The Local Governments were accordingly asked to report (i) 

 upon the working of the Act in question ; (ii) whether it afforded an 

 adequate measure of protection ; (iii) the extent to which the skins of 

 birds of handsome or useful plumage were exported, and whether the trade 

 had increased or decreased of late years ; and (iv) whether there was any 

 extensive destruction of wild birds, especially of non-migratory insectiv- 

 orous birds, during what should be close seasons for them : and, if so, 

 whether it was leading to the extermination of any species. 



The replies received to this reference showed clearly that the working 

 of the Act had proved a failure. And this was only to be expected, since 

 the prohibitions applied only within a specified cantonment or town during 

 a specified season. Rural areas (except forest areas) were beyond the 

 scope of the Act. There was nothing to prevent birds being killed during 

 the close season, and the detention of their skins or feathers outside 

 Municipal or Cantonment limits as the case might be, until the prescribed 

 period was over ; or by the transfer of the bird-killing operations beyond 

 the specified boundaries. 



As to the adequacy or otherwise as a measure of protection, the general 

 concensus of opinion was that existing legislation did not sufficiently meet 

 the necessities of the case. After a careful review of the whole subject, 



