82 THE BOOK OF DUCK DECOYS. 



taken. The Ducks and Teal, on the other hand, did not appear in force 

 until mid-winter ; while " Pyntails " were always scarce and irregular in 

 their appearance. These conclusions are not based merely on the returns 

 for the first year, 1714, but are borne out by the returns for subsequent 

 years. In 1716 the price paid for wildfowl thus captured rose to los., and 

 the following year to los. 6d. per dozen, the purchaser being " Jno. Deal." 

 In 1718 Joseph Woodwards ceased to be " Duckoyman," and in his stead 

 one " Ben Carter " was employed, but either he was not so skilful as his 

 predecessor, or wildfowl were never afterwards so plentiful. He never 

 succeeded in taking more than 4,500 Wigeon in a season (this was in 1722), 

 while Woodwards never took less than 5,200 of these birds in a season, and 

 once captured 6,296 in five months. The months of December 1718 

 and January 1719 were, so to say, singularly unproductive. During the 

 former month the Decoy was only worked on two days, the 22nd and 30th, 

 when only forty birds, all Ducks, were taken. In January four days' work 

 only produced fifty-three Ducks and twelve Wigeon. 



In 1720-21 the season was prolonged until the 3rd of March, but to 

 very little purpose ; for on that day only fourteen Ducks were taken, and 

 the total number captured during the previous month of February was only 

 thirty-three. 



In 1 72 1 the price of wildfowl rose to 12s. per dozen, Mr. John Deal 

 still finding a market for all that could be spared from this Decoy. The 

 following year he gave 12s. per dozen to Michaelmas, and 14s. jDer dozen 

 from that date to the end of the season. 



In 1723 appears the entry, "Sold to Mr. Wm. Foster this years wild 

 fowll att si.xteen shillings per dozn." The same purchaser took all he could 

 get the following year at the same price; and in 1725 and 1726 i6s. per 

 dozen was again the price given by Messrs. Darnoll and Basset. With 

 the close of this season the MS. ends, and we are left in ignorance as to 

 whether the Decoy was then given up, or whether the owner died and it 

 changed hands, or what its fate was. It would be interesting to know 

 when and why it was finally abandoned. 



To judge by the following summary, which is copied from the 

 last page of the MSS. (all in the same handwriting), it would appear 

 as if one reason for giving up the Decoy was the gradual falling off in 

 numbers of fowl observable during the last three years in which it was 



