iygir on JJjooting pigeons. 59, 



^' farmers from taking that mode of protecting 

 the If crop, from the ravages of these destructive 

 creatures. 



With respect to the law, in this case, I must take 

 the liberty to observe that the old Scots acts on this 

 subject, still unrepealed, are totally silent zs to Jho of ~ 

 ing or destroying pigeons, although they guard with 

 abundance of precision against the breaking of pigeon 

 houses *. 



To judge then from the dictates of reason alone : 

 is it at all. reasonable that the poor tenant, fhould be 

 obliged to suffer the pigeons of the opulent landlord, 

 not merely to feed on his crop, but to destroy it ? for 

 14: is a well known circumstance that a flock of pigeons 

 alighting among a field of wheat, destroy at least 

 fifty times as much as they eat. Thus, to save the 

 great man one Ihilling, his poor tenant must suffer a 

 loL of fift y !. 



I am positively certain, that in my own farm, 

 which is not very extensive, I lose every year, at this 

 Xl^Xie, fifty bolls of wheat, not eaten, but destroyed by 

 pigeons. 1 aver also, that all the pigeons for a mile' 

 around m", do not produce a revenue to their weal- 

 thy owners of ten pounds the whole year. These are 

 facts that I can well substantiate ; nor is my situa- 

 tion at all singular ; it is the case of the whole of 

 the low country in general. In this manner there is 

 at \t^stfive thousand bolls of wheat in this county 



• Tlie Bmift s'atute on this subject, which was made, I think, in 

 176a, besides that it does not repeal the Ai Sect »c.s, it maiics the fc- 

 nai ti '^ot-nbXe ■mXy in }y<^Jiminiter-b3ll, se that it cannot pofsibly be, 

 construed 10 txtend to Stotland. ^ 



