108 
Protection Act”— that “silly bill,” as it was commonly termed in 
the House of Commons last session — may not be visited upon the 
promoters of the “ Wild Fowl Protection Bill,” who are in no way 
responsible for its altered title or provisions ; whilst they have the 
mortification of finding their chief object, viz. — the protection 
during the breeding season of such wild fowl as have a marketable 
value — all but defeated by the alterations made in the penal clauses. 
That much undeserved censure has already been passed upon 
them, I am well aware, but will content myself with citing one 
case in point. An article appeared in Land and Water for July 
20th, 1872, in which the writer, after deprecating the omission 
from the schedule of the lark and blue titmouse, remarks, “ The 
omission of some other birds implies sad ignorance on the part of 
the promoters.” Now, unfortunately for this individual, (who, 
writing for a sporting and natural history journal, should have 
been an authority,) he objects not only to the “ Wild Birds” but 
to the “ Sea Birds’ ” Protection Act, on the ground that egging is 
prohibited, as well as the slaughter of the parent birds. The fact, 
however, that an egging clause, originally inserted in the Sea Birds’ 
bill, was thrown out in the House of Lords, and that no such 
clause ever formed part of the Wild Fowl Protection bill, flings 
back the charge of ignorance upon this anonymous critic, who 
stands further convicted of having thus written without troubling 
himself to read either of the Acts in question. 
As I stated last year, my opinion has always been that no Wild 
Fowl Protection Act will prove effectual without some provision 
fur preserving eggs * as well as birds, local records too plainly indi- 
* It does not appear to be generally known that under an Act passed in 
the reign of William IV., (1 and 2 William IV., c. 32, s. 24,) a penalty 
attaches “for destroying or taking eggs of game, &c.,” by which it is enacted 
that “ if any person not having the right of killing the game upon any 
land, nor having permission from the person having such right shall 
wilfully take out of the nest or destroy in the nest upon such land the eggs 
of any bird of game, or any swan, wild duck, teal, (including the garganey, 
of course), or widgeon, or shall knowingly have in his house, shop, jiossession, 
or control, any such eggs so taken, every such person shall on conviction 
thereof before two justices of the peace, forfeit and ]>ay for every egg so 
taken or destroyed or so found in his possession, &c., such sum of money not 
exceeding 5s., as to the said justices shall seem meet, together with the costs 
of the conviction. 
