MR. T. SOUTHWELL ON WILD-FOWL DRIVING. 93 
taken great nomber of the same fowle, in such wyse that the brode 
of wylde-foullo is almoste thereby wasted and consumed, and dayly 
is lyke more and more to wast and consume yf remedy he not 
therefore pvyded ” * then follows the enactment as on p. 91. By 
this same Act the eggs of certain wild-fowl are also protected 
upon pain of imprisonment for one year, “and to lose and forfeit 
for every Egg of any Crane or Bustard so destroyed, purloined, 
withdrawn, or taken from any Nest or Place, Twenty-pence ; and 
for every Egg of every Bittour, Heron, or Shovelard [i.e., Spoonbill], 
Eight-pence ; and for every Egg of every Mallard, Teal, or other 
Wild-fowl, One Penny,” &c., “ Provided always that this Act extend 
not, nor ho hurtful at any Time hereafter, to any Person or Persons 
that shall destroy any Crows, Choughs, Ravens, and Bussards or 
their Eggs, or to any other Fowl or their Eggs not comestible nor 
used to be eaten.” This scale of the penalties is very interesting, 
and may bo taken in some degree to indicate the scarcity, or value 
in other respects of the species named, and the heavy penalty for 
taking the eggs of the Crane and the Bustard is particularly so. 
Although there is no direct evidence of the breeding of the 
Crane in England, the inference derived from this and other similar 
mentions is very strong, and notwithstanding the vagaries of some 
of the local schedules of protected birds under the recent Bird 
Protection Acts, which will be sadly misleading to the Ornithologists 
of three centuries hence, it is hardly likely that in the sixteenth 
century so severe a penalty would have been enacted against the 
taking of the eggs of a bird which did not breed, or had not 
recently bred in the country. It will be noticed that although the 
Wigeon is named amongst the birds which must not be netted, it 
does not occur in the list of those whose eggs it is made penal to 
take, for the reason probably that “ wiser than their successors ” the 
framers of the Act knew it did not breed here, whereas all the 
others named in this section, including the Crane and the 
Spoonbill, doubtless did so. 
But it will be observed that this wise regulation only remained 
in force for a brief period, arguments of a very specious character 
were brought against it, and in 1550 it was repealed (4 Ed. VI.); 
it was argued that the enactment was only obtained for private 
benefit, the market was starved, and that the Act was “ taken to 
* Folkard “ The TVild-fowler ” (3 Edit.) p. 23. 
