NATURE NOTES 
162 
in its bright colouring with some of the brilliant species in 
tropical climates. Its usefulness is particularly noted in orchards 
and fruit plantations. It clears off as food for its young quantities 
of the apple aphis [Aphis mali) and of the apple sucker [Psylla 
malt), as well as of the destructive caterpillars of the w'inter 
moth [Cheimatobia brumata). After nesting, the goldfinch feeds 
upon weeds, weed seeds, and grains. Before the weed seeds are 
ripe it eats the flower heads of chickweed, groundsel, and other 
soft weeds. Afterwards it takes the seeds of thistles of several 
species, and of other plants which have winged seeds, docks, 
plantains, burdock, dandelions, groundsel, sorrel, chickweed, 
and of various Cruciferous plants, such as charlock, wild 
mustard, and other objectionable weeds. Mr. W. P. Westell, 
of 5, Glenferrie Road, St. Albans, writes to say : “ I have been 
approached as to instituting a movement to afford protection to 
the bird, and I have drawn up a memorial which I propose should 
be presented, after some prominent signatures have been obtained 
thereto, to the chairman of every county council in our country, 
praying that he will bring before his colleagues the urgent need 
of by-laws extending the close season, and the proper enactment 
of these laws. The Society for the Protectipn of Birds, whilst 
appreciating my efforts on behalf of our birds, cannot help me 
financially, and it thus remains a matter of individual effort. 
Personally, I am only able to subscribe my mite, but if all 
those who are wild bird and Nature lovers .will send me their 
contributions, be they ever so small, I shall be enabled to get 
the memorials printed, and properly and effectively distributed 
throughout every English county.” 
International Congress of Women. — Among various 
protests against the “ arguments ” of Sir H. Maxwell and Sir 
E. Grey reported in our last issue, we have received the 
following note from the Rev. F. M. Millard, of Otham, 
Maidstone : — 
“ I have not seen a full report of Sir H. Maxwell’s speech 
‘ for the defence,’ as it may be called ; but the report in the 
Standard represented him as using arguments so curiously one- 
sided (or, to use an expressive phrase in Kidnapped, ‘ tail fore- 
most ’), as to call for some comment ; e.g., the destruction of 
birds is deprecated on the ground that they destroy insects. 
‘ But,’ replies Sir H. Maxwell, ‘ are not insects wild creatures, 
and should not they be protected ? ’ He appears to overlook the 
consideration that it is noxious insects of which we are thinking. 
If these are to be protected, so, by parity of reasoning, must 
tigers and cobras be. A Brahmin would no more destroy the.se, 
1 suppose, than parasitic insects. Most Christians believe that 
we have the same right to kill both. 
“ Another notable argument (as reported), w'as to this effect : 
‘ Birds are kept in cages, which is wrong and cruel. So long as 
this continues, why object to the killing of birds, which is no 
