Appendix No. 1. 
xix 
Colonel C. Bussell, J.P., D.L., &c., of Stubbers (the well-known Essex 
sportsman), wrote as follows:— 
“My view of the birds of prey question is that in the absence of 
man some of these birds would destroy all the increase of birds useful 
to him, so he reasonably kills the former on the same principle as he 
would wolves. In this country, however, it seems to me that the 
destruction of birds of prey has been overdone : the whole class is 
being exterminated, whether injuring or not. I believe that the owls 
are almost entirely harmless, and indeed very useful; and that, as a 
general rule, the hawks still remaining here might without detriment 
exist in much greater numbers than at present. 
“ No doubt hawks will sometimes take to destroying young pheasants 
where they are reared in numbers, and some of them might take young 
fowls; but if landowners would forbid the destruction of hawks (especially 
kestrels), except in cases where they are doing mischief, I believe that 
they would suffer no perceptible loss. 
“With regard to the white owl, the most harmless and useful of our 
birds of prey, the only accusation seemingly well founded against it is 
that it destroys young pigeons. I have heard equally good evidence of 
the owl nesting in a pigeon-house without doing any harm to the pigeons. 
The discrepancy very likely depends on this—where the owl is a stranger, 
the pigeons all fly out when he comes into their place, and the small 
young ones being unprotected, I see no reason why the owl should not 
eat them. On the other hand, if the pigeons disregard the owl and keep 
on their nests, I believe that he will not interfere with them. If this view 
is right, it might not be a bad plan for anyone who likes both owls and 
pigeons to keep a tame owl in his pigeon-house through the winter. 
“ Poisoning rats and mice in out-buildings is likely to destroy owls, as 
the poisoned animals often creep about outside in a feeble state. This is 
one difficulty, as farmers now poison rats and mice to a great extent; 
and there are many others in the way of preserving, in a country like 
this, those beautiful and interesting birds, hawks and owls; but it is 
much to be hoped that something may be done in that direction.” * 
Mr. E. N. Buxton, J.P., D.L. (one of the Yerderers of the Forest, and 
Chairman of the London School Board), wrote as follows :—“ I am glad 
to see that you propose to discuss the question of protection to birds. 
There is one measure which I believe to be most important for the 
existence of the small birds in the Forest, whether natives or migrants, 
and that is the limitation of the number of their natural enemies, the 
* In a subsequent letter (March 28th) Colonel Bussell remarks:—“As to the Jays 
I should feel inclined to let them alone, at any rate for a time, if only to find out by 
experience how far they affect the numbers of other birds, and what kinds suffer most 
from then- depredations. There will be a good opportunity of making such experiments 
in Epping Forest, and it should be very interesting to naturalists in the neighbourhood 
to observe the results. I have noticed, that when a wood pigeon is frightened from its 
nest in a place frequented by jays, that the eggs always disappear, probably being eaten 
by the jays before the return of the pigeon. Owls, especially white owls, would be very 
useful in the Forest; they rarely catch birds, and they keep down mice, which not only 
often destroy small birds’ eggs, but bring stoats and weasels, which are most destructive 
to young birds, climbing up bushes and trees to take them from the nests. If there are 
not plenty of old trees with holes in the Forest, it would be well to put up boxes for 
owls, and also for small birds. I find that titmice and redstarts will avail themselves of 
such accommodation freely.” —Ed. 
