LXV 



You know we have no Englisli word to express tlie idea of sucli a man — if so bold a 

 man could be found ! Every one knows that what may be a very useful bird in one discrit 

 is not so regarded in another. Take Stumus vulgaris for example. But in most cases there 

 was no need to consider the question in this doubthful light, none of the small birds are 

 especially persecuted, and they need no protection. 



I am sorry I have not been able to write to you before this, but 1 have been much 

 engaged of late and with all esteem and respect I remain. 



Yours faithfidly 



Ai.KRKU Xkwton. 



16 May, 1907. 

 Dear Sir, 



Please to accept my best thanks for your full and very instructive letter. 



After a very careful study of your letters and after careful consideration of the circum- 

 stances, I have come to a decision, not to write an appendix noio, but to wait for the 

 reviews of my book and then only to re])ly in a separate publication. It is very probable 

 that Italy also will have a word to say. 



Besides, a discussion would be entirely out of place. You, my dear Professor, repre- 

 sent orniti lohgical interests in Britain and I represent international intei'ests for the protec- 

 tion of birds useful to agriculture, for whose benefit the international Convention was created. 

 This is a great difference ! 



It was my duty to reproduce exactly the existing Bird Acts and I think that I have 

 done so as regards the English laws, as well as the species therein contained and that I 

 have correctly accentuated the difiereuces. 



I was not allowed to enter upon intentions tiiat are not contained in tlie law itself; 

 this would have carried me too far and moreover it does not concern the history of the 

 international coiivention. 



The necessity of the international convention is rooted in the principle that in the 

 first place there are useful birds which need j)rotection and that in the second place 

 amongst them there are migrant birds which need protectif)n on their jiassage through 

 ornithophague countries. In this latter regard the English law and the English conception 

 do not support the endeavours of the Convention, though it is certain that the useful migra- 

 tory birds of England also are in need of international protection as soon as they leave 

 that country in order to complete their passage through ornitliophague countries. 



This is the reason why it is much to be regretted that England did not adhere to 

 the Convention which must now lack the high moral weight that England represents. 



Even your standpoint, my dear Professor, would not have sufi'ered, from the point of 

 view of principle, had England adhered, because the Convention allows every State to fix 

 and to alter the schednle of birds according to its oivn interests. 



I am perfectly familiar witli tiie internal motives of the Convention and I am quite 

 sure that the question was in the first place to prevent wholesale slaughter in the southern 

 ornithophague countries and that this is still the question even now ; and that besides, 

 the principles of humanity and civilisation and finally of usefulness were at stake. 



F. Lemon Esq. of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has already issued a 

 circular, wherein he states that the chimney-swallow is rapidly disappearing also in Eng- 

 land. This is a warning ! 



With the assurance of my highest esteem, 



Yours faithfully 



0. II. 



Aquila XVI IX 



