LXl 



Our object was to ])rotect, so far as possible, tlie species of birds which needed 

 protection, and to leave alone thosii which did not want it. I venture to think that this, 

 and this only, is the proper line for men of science to take. They believe that every species 

 has its proper use in Nature, and should strive to prevent its exstirpation or extermination 

 which in so many instances has unfortunately taken place. It was of course not possible 

 to do this in every case. Parliament would not have consented to interfere to hinder the 

 destruction for instance of the Falcoiiidae which we. as scientific naturalists, consider to be 

 desirable, but as practical men we had to leave them to their fate — though 1 am glad 

 to say that we subsequently induced the Zocdogical Society of London to award its medals 

 to those who protected Fandioii Haliaëtus (as well as Lestris catarrliactes) and the British 

 Ornithologists' Club has since rewarded those who protect Milvus iclinus in its last abiding 

 place in Wales — while there has been a great revolution of feeling in favour of Aquila 

 chrysai'tus, Buteo ndgaris and other birds of ])rey so that there is still a good chance of 

 their not becoming extinct in this country. 



I regret to say that the later acts of our Parliament have not drawn this distinction, 

 which I hold to be essential to the success in this country of any legislation on this sub- 

 ject. They leave too muc/i to the local authorities („County Councils") wo are laymen 

 swayed by sentimental ideas, so that results iibsolutely ridiculous often follow, and on that 

 account I have for a good many years past abstained from interfering in the business — 

 especially too as regards the protection attempted to be aii'orded to nests and eggs, which 

 I think to be in most cases quite unnecessary, and therefore I cannot understand why your 

 should write (p. 172) : 



„The British law was further degraded into a mere Game Law by the fact that it 

 did not protect nests and broods." I hold that a well drawn up Game Law is the most efiective 

 preseiTation possible, and moreover that the experience of centuries shows it to be so. 



I do not maintain that measures which suit the British Islands will suit other countries 

 — indeed I am sure that each country should have its own code. But of the success which 

 has attended the earlier Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom those which were more 

 or less drawn up by the Close Time Committee of the British Association — there can be 

 no doubt. Not only were many expiring species saved, but many wliich hitherto had only 

 rarely bred in this country are now breeding with us abundantly — this eflect being simply 

 and wholly due to their securing the benefit of Close tune. 



I would further say that in may humble opinion the action of the Societies for the 

 Protection of Birds, though always well meant is not always practical. 



I will not now trouble you more, but it seems to me advisable that the motives of 

 the original protectors of Birds in the British Island should be more correctly made known 

 abroad, and 1 remain with the highest regard. 



Yours most faithfully 



Alfred Newton. 



8 May, 1907. 

 Dear Sir, 



I have to thank you for your instructive letter in consequence of which I am prompted 

 to recall the whole edition and to write an appendix in order to correct the misconception 

 of English conditions. It is my earnest wish to produce a good work. But in order to render 

 this possible, I would ask your permission to insert your letter in the appendix — and to 

 base the rectification upon it. 



It is very difficult for us Continentals to grasp the reasons upon which Englisli con- 

 ditions are based, because Englishmen seldom visit us here and are not of a communica- 

 tive nature. 



