1868.] 
Mudie tells us that sparrows are in- 
defatigable destroyers of the house-flies, 
and that but for them these insects 
would, in certain situations, multiply to 
such an extent as to be intolerable. 
He further states that, were not spar- 
rows so incessant in the destruction 
of the cabbage-butterflies, not a cab- 
bage could be reared in all the market- 
gardens of Great Britain; and he adds 
that these birds are also eminently use- 
ful to the farmer in consuming the seeds 
of the more troublesome weeds, which 
but for them would overrun the country 
beyond the preventive power of human 
art. 
Mr. Selby, one of the most careful 
and thorough of English naturalists, 
says, unhesitatingly, that in the vast 
numbers of larva, moths, and butter- 
flies which they destroy, and with which 
their young are almost exclusively fed, 
the sparrows make the most ample 
compensation for the havoc they com- 
mit in the ripening fields of corn. 
Yarrell, another authority hardly less 
unquestionable, bears very similar tes- 
timony; and Thompson, author of the 
Natural History of Ireland, tells us that 
he was himself an eyewitness to the 
truth of one of the many well-attested 
accounts that have been published of the 
destruction of crops by insects in conse- 
quence of the war made upon sparrows 
for their supposed pilfering propensi- 
ties. He was in France in 1841, and 
was made acquainted with a recent 
instance of the kind. In the fine rich 
district of Burgundy, he states, lying 
to the south of Auxerre, and chiefly 
covered with vineyards, these birds had 
been, some time before, killed in great 
numbers. An extraordinary increase 
of caterpillars and other insects soon 
became apparent, and occasioned such 
immense damage to the crops that a 
law was passed prohibitory of the future 
killing of small birds, especially spar- 
rows. 
Mr. Macgillivray, who gives a very 
full and interesting sketch of the char- 
acter and habits of the sparrows, cor- 
roborates all that is said by the above 
writers, both as to its destruction of 
The European House-Sparrow. 
585 
injurious insects and its consumption 
of the seeds of noxious weeds. He 
closes his sketch with the following 
significant sentence: “A village with- 
out sparrows has as desolate an aspect 
as a house without children ; but, for- 
tunately for the world, the one is near- 
ly as rare as the other.” 
In the Bulletin Mensuel de la Société 
Protectrice des Animaux for July, 1861, 
may be found a copy of the report 
made in the Senate of the French Em- 
pire, on the 27th of June, 1861, by 
the committee of that body to whose 
consideration had been referred certain 
memorials praying for laws to protect 
birds that destroy injurious insects. 
After giving a very interesting account 
of the thorough and satisfactory ex- 
aminations of the stomachs of differ- 
ent birds, and the demonstration thus 
obtained of the valuable services ren- 
dered to agriculture by a large va- 
riety of them, the report goes on to 
vindicate the house-sparrow in a man- 
ner perfectly conclusive. We transcribe 
in English this portion of the report: 
“The most ill-famed of this class of 
doubtful reputation ( gvanzvores) is, with- 
out question, the common sparrow, so 
often denounced as an impudent thief. 
Yet, if the facts presented in the docu- 
ments before us may be trusted, in 
spite of the unjust prejudices of many, 
this bird is a far better friend to us than 
he is generally supposed. In fact, it is 
there shown, that once, when a price had 
been set upon its head in Hungary, 
and, at another time, when the same 
was done in Baden, this intelligent vic- 
tim of unjust proscription was com- 
pletely driven, for a while, from both 
countries. But soon the inhabitants 
found, to their cost, that the sparrows 
alone had been able to wage a success- 
ful war against the cockchafer and thou- 
sands of others of the winged insects 
that infest the low lands. The very 
men who had so inconsiderately offered 
premiums for their destruction were in- 
duced to take the most energetic meas- 
ures for their restoration to these coun- 
tries. The double expense to which 
they were thus subjected was a suit- 
