BIBB NOTES AND NEWS. 



53 



are supposed to know the details of the laws, the 

 educated purchaser should also be supposed to 

 know them, and should also be punished for their 

 infraction. 



" I suggest therefore that, if necessary, the Acts 

 be so amended as to include among offenders all 

 purchasers of birds and eggs, the possession of 

 which by dealers is an infraction of the law ; and 

 also that, in their cases, the fines shall be doubled, 

 on the ground of their being really the instigators 

 of all such offences. It would be very easy for the 

 police or inspectors to summons all purchasers 

 taking away such illegal property from any dealer's 

 shop. A few hours a day at the proper season 

 would produce a crop of cases that would do more 

 for the protection of birds than is now done by the 

 persecution of poor labourers, to whom bird-catch- 

 ing is at once a recreation and an addition to their 

 miserably scanty means of livelihood. Till this 

 alteration is made the statement that there is not 

 in England one law for the rich and another for 

 the poor is a falsehood and a mockery." 



[As a matter of fact the law as regards birds 

 stands to a considerable extent as Dr. Wallace 

 would have it. The possession of a " recently 

 taken" wild bird after March 15th is an offence 

 whether the possessor be catcher, dealer, or pur- 

 chaser. And though the higher classes might do 

 much to stop bird-catching by utterly refusing to 

 countenance the caging of wild birds, it is probable 

 that nine-tenths of the buyers of newly-taken birds 

 are poor persons. The caging of larks and chaf- 

 finches is indeed defended on that very ground.] 



"I entirely agree with Ur. Alfred Russel Wallace,' 5 

 writes Mrs. E. Phillips, " in thinking the receiver 

 as bad as the thief, and that the purchase and re- 

 sale of illegally captured or procured birds should 

 be prohibited, under penalties. But I cannot see why 

 the actual thief is to be acquitted, whether he be a 

 rich man or a poor man who finds ' recreation ' 

 and pecuniary profit in his unlawful employment." 



" The real remedy," writes Sir George Keke- 

 wich, " is to eliminate the words ' recently taken, 

 adding a proviso to exempt purchasers of birds 

 taken before the passing of the amending Act." 



Mr. W. H. Hudson writes :— 



"My friend Dr. Wallace treats of two distinct 

 matters, namely, bird-catching and bird-collecting, 

 as if they were one, and a very simple one at that. 

 With regard to bird-catching for the dealers in 

 cage-birds, the law is good enough as it stands, if 

 only private persons, the rural police, and magis- 

 trates, would see to its being carried out. The 

 police authorities are often indifferent, and the 



rural policeman winks at illegal bird-catching; but 

 this state of things would be remedied if only one 

 or two or more residents in every parish would 

 make it a duty to call the attention of the police to 

 the matter, and insist on the law being enforced. 

 Finally, we find that magistrates are far too lenient 

 in many cases ; that even where a conviction is 

 obtained they often as not decline to confiscate the 

 nets and other bird-catching paraphernalia, as the 

 law gives them power to do. Still, we know that 

 there has been a distinct improvement from the 

 fact that species like the kingfisher and goldfinch, 

 which had become exceedingly rare in England, 

 have increased considerably during the last five or 

 six years. A more important and difficult matter 

 to deal with is the destruction of interesting and 

 valuable woodland birds by the gamekeeper, and 

 of rare species all over the country for the collector, 

 who wishes to possess ' British-killed' specimens. 

 The gamekeeper, we know, laughs at the law ; 

 there are scores of estates in every county where 

 the keepers kill every owl, kestrel, hobby, and 

 several other species, protected on paper all the 

 year round, and make no secret of it. That is to 

 say, they do not deny it, although they do not now 

 nail or hang the birds up on their gibbets as they 

 formerly did. Now they put the owls and pro- 

 tected hawks out of sight, or send them to the 

 bird-stufifers, with whom they are in league. 



"What can be done to restrain these persons 

 destructiveness when the landowner or shootin" - 

 tenant gives him a free hand — with a gun in it, 

 which he is at liberty to carry every day and all 

 the year round, and which must be fired off at 

 something ? But the gamekeeper, safe in his 

 woods, is an even less injurious person than the 

 private collector, the ' curse of rural England, 5 

 with whom he is usually in communication through 

 the bird-stuffing dealer. He, too, is practically safe 

 from the law. He is usually a man of means, 

 often a landowner and game-preserver and a 

 magistrate. But I have treated this subject 

 exhaustively in a chapter in ' Birds and Man, 5 

 and need not go into it here. The law as it stands 

 gives protection to many common species which 

 hardly need it, and to other species, such as 

 the goldfinch, nightjar, kingfisher, woodpeckers, 

 terns, kittiwake, peewit, and a good many others 

 which certainly needed it. These are the species 

 which the private collector does not want ; the 

 species which he wants cannot be effectually pro- 

 tected in the present state of the law. The only 

 possible way to protect them would be an Act to 

 prohibit the collecting of British birds by private 

 persons." 



