290 The Scottish Naturalist. 



not all) of our hawks and owls destroyed as possible, and what 

 has been the result? — disease on every hand among those 

 birds known as ga?ne. The predominating idea is, that the 

 more vermin killed, the greater will the number of our game be : 

 assuming, be it observed, that rapacious birds live in opposition 

 to the increase of game, — is such the case? Have those hold- 

 ing these views considered the subject, or have they examined 

 the poor birds killed, so as to prove what they assert ? Em- 

 phatically no; they have not. It appears sufficient for them 

 that they have been told by some one, perhaps as ill informed 

 on the subject as themselves, that hawks kill and eat partridges, 

 grouse, and sometimes the "guidwife's chickens." It would 

 further appear as by no means necessary that they should see 

 the hawks do any of the misdeeds themselves ; they will sharply 

 tell you, " oh, we ken," or " I have been told they do so," or 

 perhaps they may have read, or been told of the Act of 1457, 

 which provides for the preservation of such wild fowl as were 

 serviceable for use — such " as gainis to eate for the sustentation 

 of man, as pertriches, plovares, and sik like foules," and de- 

 nounces certain penalties against all who should take their nests 

 or eggs ; and provides for the destruction of birds of riefe, 

 such as " ruikes, crawes, eirnes, bissettes, gleddes, mittalles, the 

 whilk destroyes beast, corne, and wild foules." Generally it 

 was enjoined that the said birds of riefe " sail utterly be de- 

 stroyed by all manner of men, by all engine of all manner of 

 crafts that may be founden ;" for, adds the statute, " the slauch- 

 ter of them sail cause great multitudes of divers kind of wild- 

 foules for men's sustentation." 



This, or something similar, I believe, is what our bird de- 

 stroyers are pleased to take for their guidance ; but with all re- 

 spect for their belief, I fearlessly assert that they are wrong, and 

 that no greater mistake could be, than to suppose that these 

 birds should be exterminated. They are the very life of the 

 feathered creation, and the agriculturist's best friend. 



This is no hasty unconsidered expression, but my honest con- 

 viction, after, as I have said, many years close attention to the 

 subject. Within the past 10 years 305 rapacious birds have passed 

 through my hands, the stomach of each, as it occurred, having 

 been carefully jammed and noted at the time. This may be 

 claimed as a d€cided advantage over those holding opposite, short- 

 sighted, and often self-interested views, that I have examined 

 the matter for myself, while in most instances they have done 



