110 
was to forfeit and pay for every mid fowl killed, wounded, or 
taken, “such sum of money not exceeding £1, as to the justices or 
sheriff shall seem meet, together with the costs of the conviction 
but with the introduction into the schedule of the robin, hedge- 
sparrow, et id genus omne, arose, no doubt, an impression in the 
minds of the Committee, that the same penalties would be quite 
disproportionate in the case of such “ small deer,” and consequently, 
that most important clause now enacts that any offender against 
the Act, shall “ for a first offence be reprimanded and discharged, 
on payment of costs and summons, and for every subsequent offence 
forfeit and pay for every such wild bird so killed, wounded, or 
taken, or so exposed or offered for sale, such sum of money as, 
including costs of conviction, shall not exceed five s hillin gs, as to 
the justices or sheriff shall seem meet.” Now this, I imagine, so 
far as the majority of the small birds is concerned, will result in a 
total absence of jDrosecutions, whatever cases may occur, in the 
‘‘ close time,” of their being “ killed, wounded, or taken ; ” and as 
regards the rarer species, whether of wild fowl or song birds, even 
though prosecutions may be occasionally instituted, I am far from 
hopeful as to the deterrent effect of a reprimand with costs, for 
the first offence, or a 5s. penalty and costs, for any subsequent 
conviction, upon the class of men most likely to transgress the 
law. Will Lady Coutt’s nightingales be more secure, though an 
Act has been passed in their favour, whilst any birdcatcher (who 
in all probability would not be taken for his first offence,) can 
make a sovereign at least of every male bird that he succeeds in 
getting well on to food in confinement, and can afford, therefore, 
to risk subsequent convictions at the rate of 5s., including costs'? 
I can foresee, also, in cases of prosecution, some little difficulty 
in identifying species, owing to the number of provincial names 
attached in different localities to some of our smaller British birds. 
In Mr. Johnstone’s bill, birds having various aliases were entered 
two or three times over under different synonymes, as, for instance, 
the common dunlin appeared also under the name of oxbird, purre, 
plover’s-page, and stint but with the birds subsequently added, 
this course was not adopted, and it may, therefore, become a nice 
point of law, whether a man brought up for killing a hedge- 
sparrow, and who asserts that he never heard of sucli a binl, but 
that what he killed was a “Dickey Duiinock,” (a North counlry 
