that the balance was by far in favour of the bird. He was sorry to say, however, that he had to place the bullfinch on the black list. During the last two or three years he had carefully dissected the crops and stomachs of some 50 or 60 bullfinches, and he found in nearly every case the contents consisted entirely of buds of fruit trees, more especially of the gooseberry. With regard to tits, he bore out what the last speaker had said-tits did attack apples and pears, and, unfortunately, they did not confine themselves to one particular fruit. He had known cases where the tits had attacked every pear on a tree, by pecking a little out of the top of the pear, and the wasps immediately took advantage of that, with the result that the pear became practically useless. That, be thought, was about the only case in which fruit growers could fall out with tits. There was no doubt that the warblers were nearly all insectivorous. The author had made a remark in regard to the cuckoo ng its instinct to choose the nest of an insectivorous berd for depositing its egg, but that was not always the case. He had found eggs of the cuckoo in the nests cf the greenfinch, bullfinch, and linnet, and he knew of a case quite recently where it was not only found in the hawfinch but also in the nest of a great tit. He thought that was a record, but perhaps the explanation of it was that the egg was placed in the nest of a great tit which had built its nest in a nesting-box. Very little could be said against the chaffinch. There was no doubt that all the birds Mr. Hooper had mentioned did an enormous amount of harm. He was te convinced that the sparrow, during the time it had a brood of young, ate very little vegetable food. He had examined the stomachs of sparrows during t time, and quite failed to find anything in the Way of vegetable matter, and therefore he thought it be admitted that a great many of these birds das much good as they did harm. Owing to the Wild Birds Protection Act a great many wild birds ad increased largely, and consequently had become pests. Therefore he must say openly and without judice, though he was a great lover of birds, that be considered the sparrow, the starling, and the bullfact, and some of the gulls, should certainly be taken the Wild Birds Protection Act list.

Mr. ERNEST BELL felt a good deal of sympathy Mr. Hooper in his difficulty in understanding the law with regard to birds. He recommended him E to take a policeman into his confidence, because I always resulted in confusion worse confounded. In his opinion the paper had been misnamed; it ought to have been called "Fruit Growing and the Unprotected Birds," instead of "Fruit Growing and Bird Protection," because not a single bird the author had mentioned was protected, or ever had been protected, by English law. He had received a letter from Mr. Meade-Waldo, of Hever, Kent, saying that he could not attend the meeting, and trusted that someone who understood bird protection, with relation to fruit culture, would be able to do so, and point out

that no single bird, injurious to either fruit culture or agriculture was, or ever had been, protected by any law, and that the cause of the undue increase in blackbirds, thrushes &c., was due primarily to an absolute immunity from hard winters for eleven years, to the great reduction especially in the number of jays and other more or less predatory birds, and game preserving generally; also in the neighbourhood of towns to the large extent of villa gardens which were now growing up and affording abundant covert, and, in many cases, protection. It seemed impossible to knock into the heads of fruit growers the fact that the injurious birds were not protected. He had been that afternoon to the office of the Birds Protection Society, to find out exactly what the letter meant, and had ascertained that none of the birds which were accused of being injurious were protected by the law. He had with him a schedule of the protected birds, and it did not contain a single instance of a bird which had been mentioned that evening as injurious to fruit culture. Though they were not protected by law, there was a provision which allowed Boroughs and County Councils to give them a certain amount of protection. The only place in which the blackbird had been partially protected was in the Orkney Islands; the thrush was partially protected in two counties, but the starling and sparrow were not protected at all. The County Council protection was very partial, because even when the birds were on the list, the owner of the property had the right to kill them or take their eggs at any time. If fruit growers found they were injurious to fruit trees, they were at perfect liberty to kill them. What was really required was not less bird protection but more bird protection, especially of the sparrow hawk, the kestrel, the jay, and birds of that description, which tended to keep down the numbers of injurious birds when they increased too much. He had made his remarks because there was a general feeling that birds were protected too much in England, and it would be a great pity if that opinion went abroad, because the law was a most moderate one, and did not protect any birds against which fruit growers had a particular spite. He readily admitted that some birds were injurious to fruit growers, but cautioned them against indiscriminate destruction, because in countries on the Continent, where the extermination of birds had been attempted, it had been found that the plague of insects was very much more injurious to crops than the plague of birds ever had been, or was likely to be.

The CHAIRMAN desired to correct the remarks Mr. Bell had made with regard to the Act for the Protection of Wild Birds. It was quite a mistake to suppose that any birds were unprotected. He had gone very carefully into the question, because he was a member of the Departmental Committee appointed in connection with fruit culture; and Mr. Clarke, the legal adviser to the Board of Agriculture, gave a very clear exposition to the Committee of the Acts of Parliament dealing with wild bird protection. Those who were

interested in the matter should read the minutes of Mr. Clarke's evidence. The Act said that "Any person who between the first day of March and the last day of August shall knowingly and wilfully shoot or attempt to shoot, or shall use any line, trap, snare, net, or other instrument for the purpose of taking any wild bird, or shall expose for sale any wild bird included in the annexed schedule, shall forfeit I for a first offence, and in the case of any other wlld bird (which included everything which was not scheduled) shall, for the first offence, be reprimanded, and discharged on payment of costs, and for every subsequent offence forfeit and pay for every such wild bird (in respect of which an offence is committed), a sum of money not exceeding 5s. in addition to the costs." That protected certain birds absolutely, and other birds partially. There was a saving clause at the end of the section saying, "This section shall not apply to the owner or occupier of any land, or to any person authorised by the owner or occupier of any land, killing or taking any wild bird on such land, not included in the schedule." It would, therefore, be seen that the unscheduled birds were protected from the public, but were not protected from the land occupier. He also desired to point out that the County Councils, whose duty it was to publish notices under the Act, had the power to modify the schedule, and if they did so they were under obligation to notify the fact in the county. Some of the County Councils gave those notifications in a manner most deleterious to the interests of fruit growers. They quoted the words of the Act, saying that all birds were protected under a penalty, and there they stopped, and did not go on to quote that the Act did not apply to the owner or occupier of the land. The chief objection to such a notice, was that the land owner thought he had no right whatever to kill the birds, and that the Act was unjust towards him. The result would be that, sooner or later, there would be a very great outcry against the Acts; whereas, if they were properly interpreted and acted upon, they would be perfectly fair both to the land occupier and to those who desired to protect useful and interesting birds.

Mr. BUNYARD said that, from his experience of fruit growers, they did not hesitate for one moment to shoot birds which were doing them harm. He believed Mr. Hooper sent a query to the Horticultural Journal not long ago as to the food of the blackbird. It was well known that the thrush ate snails in large quantities, but it was a moot point whether the blackbirds did. Having seen the query in the Zoologist, and being struck with the fact that very few people could answer the question straight off, he made inquiries among his horticultural friends, and not one of them could tell him they had seen a blackbird eating a snail. He spent his last summer holidays at a farmhouse in Kent, and, on looking out of the bedroom window one morning, he saw a black

bird on the path which he believed was eating a snail. On looking at it through his glasses his surmise was confirmed, and on going out into the garden he found the partly devoured snail lying on the path. While that was very good evidence, he did not think it could be generally said from one isolated case that blackbirds ate snails. He belived the blackbird was eating a snail in that instance because the summer was a particularly dry one, and it ate the snail for moisture. He was strengthened in that opinion, because he found the blackbirds were eating the apples in the orchards which had fallen to the ground, and had also attacked apples still hanging on the trees, which was a rather unusual thing for blackbirds to do.

Mr. MATTHEWS (Secretary, Central Chamber of Agriculture) thought that only one conclusion could be come to from the tenour of the present and many previous discussions on the bird question, namely, that there were very few people in this country who knew anything at all accurately as to what the food of birds was, and whether the good they did overbalanced the harm, or vice versa. Dr. Hollrung, of Halle, had for the last ten years been carrying out some very exhaustive experiments on the food of rooks, and during that period had carefully examined over 4,000 specimens, arriving at the conclusion that good and evil done by rooks about balanced each other. He thought it would be found that the same remark applied to many other species of birds. He was delighted to hear the Chairman's statement that he had no sympathy with those who desired to kill off all classes of birds, and he was still further relieved to hear the very open-minded remarks made by the author of the paper. It brought him back to the point from which he started, viz., that it was very necessary that an exhaustive scientific inquiry should be carried out. On one occasion he proposed that the Board ef Agriculture, or the Board of Agriture and the Home Office jointly, should appoint a scientific committee for the purpose, and those interested in the question would not be satisfied until that was done. With regard to the bullfinch, he was afraid that, superficially, a good deal of evidence could be produced against that bird. There was evidence that he destroyed many fruit buds, but there was further evidence that at certain seasons it ate a large quantity of weed seeds. Mr. Hooper had said he doubted whether this did material good, because the seeds were carried away by the birds without being digested and dropped in other places. That was a very unfair bias against the bullfinch. that bird preferred undeveloped fruit buds, it might be assumed he would also prefer undeveloped weed seeds; and, speaking in general knowledge of the bullfinch, he knew that that was the case, particularly in the case of groundsel. The bullfinch always preferred the head of a groundsel which was only just shooting out to one that was fully developed. It was not his experience that the County Council

If

orders had a tendency to check the destruction of birds and the stoppage of bird nesting by school children. From personal knowledge and observation he estimated that the orders had not saved ten per cent. of the birds which children used to destroy. Birds nesting was his favourite hobby, and when he was hunting about for bird nests he stil found as many nests destroyed and broken eggs lying beside the road as he used to many years ago. paper written by Mr. Smith had been quoted a good many times in the paper, and, in referring to the starling, Mr. Smith stated that he did not think it had altered its food. If Mr. Smith made such a statement in regard to a bird which was common in every strict in England, it must detract a great deal from the force of his other remarks, because he (Mr. Matthews, knew that the food and the habits of the staring had altered very considerably during the last ten or fifteen years. Mr. Aplin was the first man in country to call attention to the fact nearly ten ago. He therefore thought too much attention not be paid to what Mr. Smith had said with egard to certain other species.

Captain TAILBY thought there was one point in he admirable lecture which Mr. Hooper had given which nobody would dissent, namely the protest vhich had been made against the destruction of the tal enemies of many of the birds mentioned,

ely, the kestrels and the owls. The harm done to game by kestrels and owls was mainly maginary. All fruit growers agreed that kests and owls deserved protection. His main

passed on the bullfinch. He knew of an apple tree in South Wilts which, in one particular year, was covered with bloom, and, at the same time, was swarming with bullfinches. The owner of the garden was a great advocate of the protection of birds, but some of his neighbours, who were energetic farmers, did not entertain quite the same opinions, and suggested that the bullfinches should be killed otherwise there would be no apples. He declined to have the bullfinches interfered with. The ground under the apple tree was strewn with buds, but the tree yielded a finer crop of apples that year than it had ever done before, the obvious inference being that the buds, which were admittedly destroyed by the bullfinches, were unhealthy buds harbouring maggots of some description. That was one point in favour of bullfinches. He had a large consignment of apples sent to him this autumn in which not a single maggot of any kind was to be found, and yet the garden in which the apples were grown were swarming with bullfinches. In his own garden he could never succeed in getting an apple which had not a maggot of some sort in it, but there were were no bullfinches, unfortunately, in his garden. He did not desire to infer in the instances he had quoted that bullfinches were at all times beneficial, but there was no doubt they were in many instances. Another interesting point was, that in his own garden last year the raspberry canes were covered up and protected from the birds. Whether due to that cause or not he could not say, but a very small quantity of fruit was the result, the greater part of it being destroyed by insects, principally caterpillars. This year the raspberry canes were not covered, with the result that a good crop, comparatively speaking, of raspberries was obtained. That seemed to be fairly sound reasoning in favour of birds. His wife, who was an enthusiastic advocate of the protection of birds, and a close observer of their habits, thought that blackbirds did eat snails in almost as great quantities as thrushes did. He thought the author had made a slight historical slip in what he had said as to the extremely interesting alteration in the habits of the kea. Mr. Hooper had said that the kea originally ate nuts, but since the introduction of sheep had changed to eating fat, first from the butcher's shop, next from dead sheep, and it now pecked through the backs of live sheep. He thought as a matter of fact, the historical sequence of the event was as follows. When sheep were first introduced into Australia, the kea, being to some extent an insectivorous bird, proceeded to eat insects off the back of sheep. By accident its beak went a little too deep, and it found that the living fat which underlay the insects, was much more palatable than the insects themselves. It then proceeded to a little further afield and ultimately found itself in the butcher's shop.

for speaking was to endeavour to get help in ng that the Pole-trap Act was put in force. The had read a letter in which it was stated that the correspondent knew of the existence in Kent of raps at the present moment. It was the duty the local policeman to know the law of England, vich was that pole-traps were absolutely prohibited, and be was not cognisant of the existence of such a a the sooner he was removed from his duty the setter. It was lamentable that owls, which did nothing good, should be allowed to be destroyed owing the ignorance of local policemen. He desired to publicly that Mr. Lemon, the Secretary of the Society for the Protection of Wild Birds, vid, if he was informed of the existence of poleaps in any particular locality undertake a prosecuHe (Capt. Tailby) would personally guarantee that this would be done.

Mr. J. OWEN inquired whether it was a fact that bullfinches interfered with apple buds. So far as his

experience went they only interfered with greengage, damson, and plum trees generally and also some currant trees. He had a great number of greengage trees which year by year did not pay for the ground they stood in simply because of the destruction of the bullfinches.

Mr. BUNYARD stated he had found in his father's nursery that bullfinches did attack the buds of young apple trees.

Mr. HOOPER, in reply, said with regard to what Mr. Matthews had said about the bullfinch he wished to make a correction in his paper, namely, that the remark about the seed distribution did not apply to the bullfinch specially, but to seed-eating birds generally, and he believed Mr. Matthews was right in saying the bullfinch prefers unripe seed heads. With regard to seed distribution by birds, Mr. George Abbey had written to him as follows:-"I have mentioned weed distribution to several birds. The reason is, that I have proved that seeds pass through birds undigested. To prove that, I collected droppings, and sowed them in soil, baked to kill all life, and I was astonished to find the number and variety of seed from one ounce of droppings-not hundreds, but thousands." That did not refer specially to bullfinches. It was quite likely that the bullfinch did feed largely on vegetables, but it was really a remark which was intended for more seed-eating birds. He believed the blackbird ate apples on the ground a great deal but not so much on the tree. Amongst the birds protected in Kent which fruit growers perhaps did not approve of entirely were the chaffinch, the whitethroat, and the blackcap, the eggs of the two latter are also protected; and the starling's eggs are protected in the metropolitan district. He was delighted to hear what had been said with regard to the owl and hawk, as he did not have time to say as much as he would have liked of the splendid work those birds did-the owls in reducing the mice, which were injurious not only to the farmer but also to the fruit grower, and the hawks in keeping a check on small birds. He was glad to hear Captain Tailby say that he would take up cases where the pole-trap was in use. With regard to investigation into the food of birds, he wished to mention that the Economic Ornithology Division of the United States of America Department of Agriculture, had, during the last fifteen years, examined the stomachs of 60,000 birds, so as to be able to inform cultivators, as to what grains, weeds, seeds, wild and cultivated fruits, injurious or beneficial insects, the various birds feed upon, in order to decide whether to recommend the encouragement or destruction of each species.

The CHAIRMAN, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Hooper for his interesting paper, said it was 18 years since the last Act was passed, and it was full

time an inquiry was held as to its operation during that time.

The resolution of thanks having been carrie unanimously, the meeting terminated.

CHINESE RAILWAYS.

Thes

The mileage of railways now in operation in China being built and projected, including the railways con structed under the Manchurian concession, amount to about 9,000 miles. Railways in China have bee classed as commercial, political, commercial-political and strategical. They may also be grouped accordin to the nationality of their concessionaires. would be Chinese, English, German, French, Belgian and Portuguese. The following, according to th American Consul at Nankin, are the lines whic have been or are being built or projected by Chines initiative and entirely under Chinese control:-Peking Si-ling. This line, extending from the capital west ward to Si-ling, or the West Mausolea, is nearly 4 miles long. It was constructed by native engineer some years ago, and has since been in continua operation. Changhai-Woosung.-This line, abou 12 miles long, was first constructed in 1876, unde the auspices of an English firm. For a year the was a good deal of traffic, but the Chinese Govern ment objecting to it being in the hands of foreigner bought it in 1877, tore it up, and transferred th rails and rolling stock to Formosa. It was not unt 1898 thht the Chinese Government reconstructed th line, and at present it is a great success financiall It is to be incorporated as part of the Shangha Soochow system. Wuhu-Sengan.-Surveying ha only recently begun on this line, beginning at Wuh and extending 30 miles to the south-east. At prese the work seems at a standstill for the want of mone The line will be built to Sengan, in northern Ch kiang, 100 miles, to connect with the railway syste of that province. Pingsiang-Chuchow. -This lin which at first connected the coal mines of Anyue with Liling, a distance of 23 miles, was last ye extended 29 miles farther to Chuchow. Nanchang Kinkiang.-A concession for this line, about miles long, was granted to a Chinese syndicate som years ago, but the matter lay in abeyance unt recently the gentry of Kiangsi decided to procee with the construction of the line. Chengtu-Hankov -The building of this line was authorised some yea ago. It is now stated in Chengtu that the gent and officials of Szechuen have decided to start at ond the construction of the 60 miles between Chengt and Chiangkou, and thus begin the building of th proposed road to Hankow, which will be the grea trunk line crossing the Empire from west to east, a the Peking-Canton line is to be from north to south When completed the road will be some 700 mi