A COMPARISON 
173 
but this was noticed in 1894 and, in a singular way, rep- 
aired by the „ Wild-Birds Act, 1894". 
The protection afforded to the broods, however, is not 
general and does not apply to all time. The Government is 
empowered, on an application by the county council, to issue 
an order prohibiting „the taking or destroying of wild birds 
eggs in any year or years in any place or places in that 
county". The limits of the place or places, or otherwise, the 
particular species of wild birds" shall be specified. The 
Government may „on the representation of the council of 
any administrative county, order that the principal Act shall 
apply within that county or any part or parts thereof to any 
species of wild birds not included in the schedule of that Act". 
The protection of birds which would fulfil the requirements 
of continental conception, is, in Great Britain, entrusted to 
society and controlled by the „ Royal Society for the protection 
of Birds". 
In England „birds'" and „trees' days" are indeed in 
vogue: and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, in 
the customary way reward, by the presentation of shields, 
books and medals those who write the best essays on trees 
and the protection of birds. 
Of late the same Royal Society has espoused the cause 
of artificial nesting-boxes and has erected a central warehouse 
near the Tower Bridge in London.^ 
The above comparative treatment has in any case taught 
us two lessons, 1. that the International Convention of 1902 
offers a good basis for a uniform settlement and 2. that the 
cause of bird-protection in Hungary is, for the time, in 
perfect order. 
* „Bird Notes and News, Circular Letter issued Quarterly by the 
Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds. Vol II. No. 3." London. Sept. 1906. 
