REVIEWS 
93 
answer the three questions, why do we protect birds, how do we protect them, 
and what remains to be done. Captain Daubeny speaks of the African Big-Game 
Convention, the laws enforced in Germany, the classification of birds from the 
point of view of protection, and the history of what has been done in England. As 
to the attitude of the Christian Church on the question, he writes : “ As I think 
of these things I am often led to remember, with regret, I may almost say with 
shame, how little do we hear from Christian pulpits of even kindness to animals 
and birds, not to mention their protection. The hideous and degrading cruelties 
that are daily practised in Christian England on horses and dogs, by docking and 
nicking their tails, clipping the flesh of their ears, ignorant shoeing, and in other 
ways, resulting in life-long pain, disability, and discomfort, I have never once 
heard preached against. Nor have I ever heard the voice of an English preacher 
raised in denunciation of those who indirectly inflict pain on birds by the wearing 
of plumage torn from the living bird or from birds killed whilst tending their 
young.” 11 is moderation is evinced by his admission of the happiness of cattle, 
poultry, canaries or other song-birds, or doves, in captivity. These, as Mr. 
Seton-Thompson has often shown, often live in comfort to an age never likely to 
be attained in a wild state. As to the future. Captain Daubeny recommends the 
increase of the fine for taking rare birds to five times their market value, the 
reduction of the list of scheduled species, the dissemination of accurate coloured 
illustrations and descriptions of protected species by the Board of Education and 
the Police authorities, the examination of constables in this subject, the prohibi- 
tion by law of the pole-trap, the protection of hawks, the reduction in the 
numbers of the common sparrow, the planting of trees on waste lands and the 
acquisition of woodlands by public bodies. 
The Coming of Age of the Essex Field Club. A Record of Local Scientific IVork, 
1880 — 1901. The Presidential Address delivered at the 22nd Annual General 
Meeting of the Club on March 22, 1902, by Raphael Meldola, F.R.S., &c. 
Reprinted (with separate pagination) from the Essex Naturalist. Published 
by the Club at the Essex Museum of Natural History, Stratford. Price is. 
It is not often that a field club celebrates its majority, and certainly never was 
field club in England able to record, when doing so, a better tale of appropriate 
work well done than that which Professor Meldola has here the happiness of 
telling. For the first president of a society to re-occupy the presidential chair 
after an interval of nineteen years is in itself remarkable ; but for him to be able, 
as Professor Meldola is able, to turn back to his opening address and point to 
nearly all his aspirations as fulfilled by the two decades of work, must be almost 
unexampled. The Essex Field Club may well be proud of the nineteen volumes 
it has published, the museums which it has established at Stratford and at 
Chingford, and at the constantly recruited body of workers it has got together. 
Still there are two aspects of its work that are not altogether satisfactory : the 
nearness of its field of operations should attract even more members from London, 
together with more financial support from county magnates and others ; and the 
scientific work of the Club should be shared by a larger proportion of its members. 
Both these desirable ends are likely to be much furthered by Professor Meldola’s 
inspiriting summary of the past. 
Epsom College Natural History Society. Report for 1901. No. 13. Epsom. 
L. \V. Andrews and Son. Piice is. 6d. 
This is a good sound outspoken record of work done, giving lists of plants, 
lepidoptera and birds observed during the year, meteorological observations and 
measurements of boys, desiderata of the College Museum, and an interesting 
lecture on “Surrey Walks and Wild Flowers,’’ by the President, the Rev. T. 
Hart Smith. Does no one at Epsom study mosses, fungi, or insects other than 
Lepidoptera ? 
Report of the Felsted School Scientific Society for 1900 aiul 1901. No. 15. 
This is a similar record to the one above-mentioned, with somewhat similar 
limitations. Unlike the Epsom Report it is un-illustrated, although there is a 
Photographic section ; but, per contra, several lectures on a variety of topics are 
printed in extenso; and the report of a flourishing Chemical Section also appears. 
