1897.] THE HOUSE SPARROW 161 



were of kinds that are helpful to us or harmless. It is well 

 on record that there are many kinds of birds which help us 

 greatly by devouring insects, and that where sparrows have 

 systematically been destroyed for a long course of years other 

 birds have fared better for their absence. Attention should 

 also be drawn to the enormous powers of increase of 

 this bird, which under not only protection, but to some 

 extent absolute fostering, raises its numbers so dispropor- 

 tionately as to destroy the natural balance. 



" Here as yet we have no movement beyond our own 

 attempts to preserve ourselves, so far as we legally may, 

 from Sparrow devastations ; but in the United States of 

 America (of the evidence of which I have given a part) the 

 Association of the American Ornithologists gave their col- 

 lective recommendation that all existing laws protecting the 

 sparrow should be repealed, and bounties offered for its 

 destruction ; and the law protecting the sparrow has been 

 repealed in Massachusetts and Michigan. Dr. Hart Merriam, 

 the Ornithologist of the U.S.A. Board of Agriculture, also 

 officially recommended immediate repeal of all laws 

 affording protection to the English sparrow, and enactment 

 of laws making it penal to shelter or harbour it ; and 

 Professor C. V. Riley, Entomologist to the Department, 

 similarly conveyed his views officially as to it being a 

 destructive bird, worthless as an insect killer. In Canada, on 

 October 6, 1888, at the Annual Meeting of the Entomological 

 Society of Ontario, Mr. ]. Fletcher, Entomologist of the 

 Experimental Farms of the Department, strongly advocated 

 the destruction of the sparrow; and in reply the Hon. C. W. 

 Drury, Minister of Agriculture (who attended the meeting 

 as head of the Agricultural Department of Ontario), stated 

 ' that this destructive bird was no longer under the pro- 

 tection of the Act of Parliament respecting insectivorous 

 birds, and that every one was at liberty to aid in reducing 

 its numbers.' Reasoning on the same grounds as to pro- 

 cedure in this country, we believe that similar action is, 

 without any reasonable cause for doubt, called for here. 

 The amount of the national loss, by reason of ravaged 

 crops and serviceable birds driven away, may be estimated, 

 without fear of exaggeration, at from one to two millions a 

 year. Much of their own protection lies in the hands of 

 farmers themselves ; and sparrow clubs, well worked, and 

 always bearing in mind that it is only this one bird that is 

 earnestly recommended to their attention, would probably 

 lessen the load to a bearable amount ; and we believe that 



12 



