It would be a great mistake to suppose that the bird when fluttering on

the ground to lead an enemy from the neighbourhood of its nest is in

full possession of all its faculties, acting consciously, and itself in

as little danger of capture as when on its perch or flying through the

air. We have seen that the action has its root in the bird's passion for

its young, and intense solicitude in the presence of any danger

threatening them, which is so universal in this class of creatures, and

which expresses itself so variously in different kinds. This must be in

all cases a painful and debilitating emotion, and when the bird drops

down to the earth its pain has caused it to fall as surely as if it had

received a wound or had been suddenly attacked by some grievous malady;

and when it flutters on the ground it is for the moment incapable of

flight, and its efforts to recover flight and safety cause it to beat

its wings, and tremble, and gasp with open mouth. The object of the

action is to deceive an enemy, or, to speak more correctly, the result

is to deceive, and there is nothing that will more inflame and carry

away any rapacious mammal than the sight of a fluttering bird. But in

thus drawing upon itself the attention of an enemy threatening the

safety of its eggs or young, to what a terrible danger does the parent

expose itself, and how often, in those moments of agitation and

debility, must its own life fall a sacrifice! The sudden spring and rush

of a feline enemy must have proved fatal in myriads of instances. From

its inception to its most perfect stage, in the various species that

possess it, this perilous instinct has been washed in blood and made

bright.

What I have just said, that the peculiar instinct and deceptive action

we have been considering is made and kept bright by being bathed in

blood, applies to all instinctive acts that tend to the preservation of

life, both of the individual and species. Necessarily so, seeing that,

for one thing, instincts can only arise and grow to perfection in order

to meet cases which commonly occur in the life of a species. The

instinct is not prophetic and does not meet rare or extraordinary

situations. Unless intelligence or some higher faculty comes in to

supplement or to take the place of instinctive action then the creature

must perish on account of the limitation of instinct. Again, the higher

and more complete the instinct the more perilous it is, seeing that its

efficiency depends on the absolutely perfect health and balance of all

the faculties and the entire organism. Thus, the higher instinctive

faculty and action of birds for the preservation of the species, that of

migration, is undoubtedly the most dangerous of all. It is so perfect

that by means of this faculty millions and myriads of birds of an

immense variety of species from cranes, swans, and geese down to minute

goldcrests and firecrests and the smallest feeble-winged-leaf warblers,

are able to inhabit and to distribute themselves evenly over all the

temperate and cold regions of the earth, and even nearer the pole: and

in all these regions they rear their young and spend several months each

year, where they would inevitably perish from cold and lack of food if

they stayed on to meet the winter. We can best realize the perfection of

this instinct when we consider that all these migrants, including the

young which have never hitherto strayed beyond the small area of their

home where every tree and bush and spring and rock is familiar to them,

rush suddenly away as if blown by a wind to unknown lands and continents

beyond the seas to a distance of from a thousand to six or seven

thousand miles; that after long months spent in those distant places,

which in turn have grown familiar to them, they return again to their

natal place, not in a direct but ofttimes by a devious route, now north,

now north-east, now east or west, keeping to the least perilous lines

and crossing the seas where they are narrowest. Thus, when the returning

multitude recrosses the Channel into England, coming by way of France

and Spain from north or south or mid-Africa and from Asia, they at once

proceed to disperse over the entire country from Land's End to Thurso

and the northernmost islands of Scotland, until every wood and hill and

moor and thicket and stream and every village and field and hedgerow and

farmhouse has its own feathered people back in their old places. But

they do not return in their old force. They had increased to twice or

three times their original numbers when they left us, and as a result of

that great adventure a half or two-thirds of the vast army has perished.

The instinct which in character comes nearest to that of the parent

simulating the action of a wounded and terrified bird struggling to

escape in order to safeguard its young, is that one, very strong in all

ground-breeding species, of sitting close on the nest in the presence of

danger. Here, too, the instinct is of prime importance to the species,

since the bird by quitting the nest reveals its existence to the

prowling, nest-seeking enemy--dog, cat, fox, stoat, rat, in England;

and in the country where I first observed animals, the skunk, armadillo,

opossum, snake, wild cat, and animals of the weasel family. By leaving

its nest a minute or half a minute too soon the bird sacrifices the eggs

or young; by staying a moment too long it is in imminent danger of being

destroyed itself. How often the bird stays too long on the nest is seen

in the corn-crake, a species continually decreasing in this country

owing to the destruction caused by the mowing-machine. The parent birds

that escape may breed again in a safer place, but in many cases the bird

clings too long to its nest and is decapitated or fatally injured by the

cutters. Larks, too, often perish in the same way. To go back to the

ailing or wounded bird simulating action: this is perhaps most perfect

in the gallinaceous birds, all ground-breeders whose nests are most

diligently hunted for by all egg-eating creatures, beast or bird, and

whose tender chicks are a favourite food for all rapacious animals. In

the fowl, pheasants, partridges, quail, and grouse, the instinct is

singularly powerful, the bird making such violent efforts to escape,

with such an outcry, such beating of its wings and struggles on the

ground, that no rapacious beast, however often he may have been deceived

before, can fail to be carried away with the prospect of an immediate

capture. The instinct and action has appeared to me more highly

developed in these birds because, in the first place, the demonstrations

are more violent than in other families, consequently more effective;

and secondly, because the danger once over, the bird's recovery to its

normal quiet, watchful state is quicker. By way of experiment, I have at

various times thrown myself on pheasants, partridges and grouse, when I

have found them with a family of recently-hatched chicks; then on giving

up the chase and turning away from the bird its instantaneous recovery

has seemed like a miracle. It was like a miracle because the creature

did actually suffer from all those violent, debilitating emotions

expressed in its disordered cries and action, and it is the miracle of

Nature's marvellous health. If we, for example, were thrown into these

violent extremes of passion, we should not escape the after-effects. Our

whole system would suffer, a doctor would perhaps have to be called in

and would discourse wisely on metabolism and the development of toxins

in the muscles, and give us a bottle of medicine.

I will conclude this digression and dissertation on a bird's instinct by

relating the action of a hen-pheasant I once witnessed, partly because

it is the most striking one I have met with of that instantaneous

recovery of a bird from an extremity of distress and terror, and partly

for another reason which will appear at the end.

The hen-pheasant was a solitary bird, having strayed away from the

pheasant copses near the Itchen and found a nesting-place a mile away,

on the other side of the valley, among the tall grasses and sedges on its

border. I was the bird's only human neighbour, as I was staying in a

fishing-cottage near the spot where the bird had its nest. Eventually,

it brought off eight chicks and remained with them at the same spot on the

edge of the valley, living like a rail among the sedges and tall valley

herbage. I never went near the bird, but from the cottage caught sight of

it from time to time, and sometimes watched it with my binocular. There

was, I thought, a good chance of its being able to rear its young, unless

the damp proved injurious, as there was no dog or cat at the cottage, and

there were no carrion crows or sparrow-hawks at that spot. One morning

about five o'clock on going out I spied a fox-terrier, a poaching dog

from the neighbouring village, rushing about in an excited state a

hundred yards or so below the cottage. He had scented the birds, and

presently up rose the hen from the tall grass with a mighty noise, then

flopping down she began beating her wings and struggling over the grass,

uttering the most agonizing screams, the dog after her, frantically

grabbing at her tail. I feared that he would catch her, and seizing a

stick flew down to the rescue, yelling at the dog, but he was too excited

to obey or even hear me. At length, thanks to the devious course taken by

the bird, I got near enough to get in a good blow on the dog's back. He

winced and went on as furiously as ever, and then I got in another blow

so well delivered that the rascal yelled, and turning fled back to the

village. Hot and panting from my exertions, I stood still, but sooner

still the pheasant had pulled herself up and stood there, about three

yards from my feet, as if nothing had happened--as if not a ripple had

troubled the quiet surface of her life! The serenity of the bird, just

out of that storm of violence and danger, and her perfect indifference to

my presence, was astonishing to me. For a minute or two I stood still

watching her; then turned to walk back to the cottage, and no sooner did

I start than after me she came at a gentle trot, following me like a dog.

On my way back I came to the very spot where the fox-terrier had found

and attacked the bird, and at once on reaching it she came to a stop and

uttered a call, and instantly from eight different places among the tall

grasses the eight fluffy little chicks popped up and started running to

her. And there she stood, gathering them about her with gentle

chucklings, taking no notice of me, though I was standing still within

two yards of her!

Up to the moment when the dog got his smart blow and fled from her she

had been under the domination of a powerful instinct, and could have

acted in no other way; but what guided her so infallibly in her

subsequent actions? Certainly not instinct, and not reason, which

hesitates between different courses and is slow to arrive at a decision.

One can only say that it was, or was like, intuition, which is as much

as to say that we don't know.

IX

Among the rarer fringilline birds on the common were the cirl bunting,

bullfinch and goldfinch, the last two rarely seen. Linnets, however,

were abundant, now gathered in small flocks composed mainly of young

birds in plain plumage, with here and there an individual showing the

carmine-tinted breast of the adult male. Unhappily, a dreary fate was in

store for many of these blithe twitterers.

On June 24, when walking towards the pool, I spied two recumbent human

figures on a stretch of level turf near its banks, and near them a

something dark on the grass--a pair of clap-nets! "Still another serpent

in my birds' paradise!" said I to myself, and, walking on, I skirted the

nets and sat down on the grass beside the men. One was a rough

brown-faced country lad; the other, who held the strings and wore the

usual cap and comforter, was a man of about five-and-twenty, with pale

blue eyes and yellowish hair, close-cropped, and the unmistakable London

mark in his chalky complexion. He regarded me with cold, suspicious

looks, and, when I talked and questioned, answered briefly and somewhat

surlily. I treated him to tobacco, and he smoked; but it wasn't shag,

and didn't soften him. On mentioning casually that I had seen a stoat an

hour before, he exhibited a sudden interest. It was as if one had said

"rats!" to a terrier. I succeeded after a while in getting him to tell

me the name of the man to whom he sent his captives, and when I told him

that I knew the man well--a bird-seller in a low part of London--he

thawed visibly. Finally I asked him to look at a red-backed shrike,

perched on a bush about fifteen yards from his nets, through my

field-glasses, and from that moment he became as friendly as possible,

and conversed freely about his mystery. "How near it brings him!" he

exclaimed, with a grin of delight, after looking at the bird. The

shrike had greatly annoyed him; it had been hanging about for some time,

he told me, dashing at the linnets and driving them off when they flew

down to the nets. Two or three times he might have caught it, but would

not draw the nets and have the trouble of resetting them for so

worthless a bird. "But I'll take him the next time," he said

vindictively. "I didn't know he was such a handsome bird."

Unfortunately, the shrike soon flew away, and passing linnets dropped

down, drawn to the spot by the twitterings of their caged fellows, and

were caught; and so it went on for a couple of hours, we conversing

amicably during the waiting intervals. For now he regarded me as a

friend of the bird-catcher. Linnets only were caught, most of them young

birds, which pleased him; for the young linnet after a month or two of

cage life will sing; but the adult males would be silent until the next

spring, consequently they were not worth so much, although the carmine

stain in their breast made them for the time so much more beautiful.

I remarked incidentally that there were some who looked with unfriendly

eyes on his occupation, and that, sooner or later, these people would

try to get an Act of Parliament to make bird-catching in lanes, on

commons and waste lands illegal. "They can't do it!" he exclaimed

excitedly. "And if they can do it, and if they do do it, it will be the

ruination of England. For what would there be, then, to stop the birds

increasing? It stands to reason that the whole country would be eaten

up."

Doubtless the man really believed that but for the laborious days that

bird-catchers spend lying on the grass, the human race would be very

badly off.

Just after he had finished his protest, three or four linnets flew down

and were caught. Taking them from the nets, he showed them to me,

remarking, with a short laugh, that they were all young males. Then he

thrust them down the stocking-leg which served as an entrance to the

covered box he kept his birds in--the black hole in which their captive

life begins, where they were now all vainly fluttering to get out. Going

back to the previous subject, he said that he knew very well that many

persons disliked a bird-catcher, but there was one thing that nobody

could say against him--he wasn't cruel; he caught, but didn't kill. He

only killed when he caught a great number of female linnets, which were

not worth sending up; he pulled their heads off, and took them home to

make a linnet pie. Then, by way of contrast to his own merciful temper,

he told me of the young nest-destroyer I have writ-ten about. It made

him mad to see such things! Something ought to be done, he said, to stop

a boy like that; for by destroying so many nestlings he was taking the

bread out of the bird-catcher's mouth. Passing to other subjects, he

said that so far he had caught nothing but linnets on the common--you

couldn't expect to catch other kinds in June. Later on, in August and

September, there would be a variety. But he had small hopes of catching

goldfinches, they were too scarce now. Greenfinches, yellow-hammers,

common buntings, reed sparrows--all such birds were worth only tuppence

apiece. Oh, yes, he caught them just the same, and sent them up to

London, but that was all they were worth to him. For young male linnets

he got eightpence, sometimes tenpence; for hen birds fourpence, or less.

I dare say that eightpence was what he hoped to get, seeing that young

male linnets are not unfrequently sold by London dealers for sixpence

and even fourpence. Goldfinches ran to eighteenpence, sometimes as much

as two shillings. Starlings he had made a lot out of, but that was all

past and over. Why?

Because they were not wanted--because people were such fools that they

now preferred to shoot at pigeons. He hated pigeons! Gentlemen used to

shoot starlings at matches; and if you had the making of a bird to shoot

at, you couldn't get a better than the starling--such a neat bird! He

had caught hundreds--thousands--and had sold them well. But now nothing

but pigeons would they have. Pigeons! Always pigeons! He caught

starlings still, but what was the good of that? The dealers would only

take a few, and they were worth nothing--no more than greenfinches and

yellow-hammers.

My colloquy with my enemy on the common tempts me to a fresh digression

in this place--to have my say on a question about which much has already

been said during the last three or four decades, especially during the

'sixties, when the first practical efforts to save our wild-bird life

from destruction were made.

There is a feeling in the great mass of people that the pursuit of any

wild animal, whether fit for food or not, for pleasure or gain, is a

form of sport, and that sport ought not to be interfered with. So strong

and well-nigh universal is this feeling, which is like a superstition,

that the pursuit is not interfered with, however unsportsmanlike it may

be, and when illegal, and when practised by only a very few persons in

any district, where to others it may be secretly distasteful or even

prejudicial.

Even bird-catching on a common is regarded as a form of sport and the

bird-catcher as a sportsman--and a brother.

A striking instance of this tameness and stupidly acquiescent spirit in

people generally was witnessed during the intensely severe frosts of the

early part of the late winter (1882-3), when incalculable numbers of

sea-birds were driven by hunger and cold into bays and inland waters. At

this time thousands of gulls made their appearance in the Thames, but no

sooner did they arrive than those who possessed guns and licences to

shoot began to shoot them. The police interfered and some of these

sportsmen were brought before the magistrates and fined for the offence

of discharging guns to the public danger. For upwards of a fortnight

after the shooting had been put a stop to, the gulls continued to

frequent the river in large numbers, and were perhaps most numerous from

London Bridge to Battersea, and during this time they were watched every

day by thousands of Londoners with keen interest and pleasure. The river

here, flowing through the very centre and heart of the greatest city of

the world, forms at all hours and at all seasons of the year a noble and

magnificent sight; to my eyes it never looked more beautiful and

wonderful than during those intensely cold days of January, when there

was nothing that one could call a mist in a chilly, motionless

atmosphere, but only a faint haze, a pallor as of impalpable frost,

which made the heavens seem more white than blue, and gave a hoariness

and cloud-like remoteness to the arches spanning the water, and the vast

buildings on either side, ending with the sublime dome of the city

cathedral; and when out of the pale motionless haze, singly, in twos and

threes, in dozens and scores, floated the mysterious white bird-figures,

first seen like vague shadows in the sky, then quickly taking shape and

whiteness, and floating serenely past, to be succeeded by others and yet

others.

It was not merely the ornithologist in me that made the sight so

fascinating, since it was found that others--all others, it might almost

be said,--experienced the same kind of delight. Crowds of people came

down to the river to watch the birds; workmen when released from their

work at mid-day hurried down to the embankment so as to enjoy seeing the

gulls while eating their dinners, and, strangest thing of all, to feed

them with the fragments!

And yet these very men who found so great a pleasure in observing and

feeding their white visitors from the sea, and were exhilarated with the

novel experiences of seeing wild nature face to face at their own

doors--these thousands would have stood by silent and consenting if the

half-a-dozen scoundrels with guns and fish-hooks on lines had been

allowed to have their will and had slaughtered and driven the birds from

the river! And this, in fact, is precisely what happened at a distance

from London, where guns could be discharged without danger to the

public, in numberless bays and rivers in which the birds sought refuge.

They were simply slaughtered wholesale in the most wanton manner; in

Morecambe Bay a hundred and twelve gulls were killed at one discharge,

and no hand and no voice was raised to interfere with the hideous sport.

Not because it was not shocking to the spectators, but because it was

"Sport."

Doubtless it will be said that this wholesale wanton destruction of bird

life, however painful it may be to lovers of nature, however

reprehensible from a moral point of view, is sanctioned by law, and

cannot therefore be prevented. This is not quite so. We see that the

Wild Birds Protection Act is continually being broken with impunity, and

where public opinion is unfavourable to it the guardians of the law

themselves, the police and the magistrates, are found encouraging the

people to break the law. Again, we find that where commons are enclosed,

and the law says nothing, the people are accustomed to assemble together

unlawfully to tear the fences down, and are not punished. For, after

all, if laws do not express or square with public will or opinion, they

have little force; and if, in any locality, the people thought proper to

do so--if they were not restrained by that dull, tame spirit I have

spoken of--they would, lawfully or unlawfully, protect their sea-fowl

from the cockney sportsmen, and sweep the bird-catchers out of their

lanes and waste lands.

One day I paid a visit to Maidenhead, a pleasant town on the Thames,

where the Thames is most beautiful, set in the midst of a rich and

diversified country which should be a bird's paradise. In my walks in

the town, I saw a great many stuffed kingfishers, and, in the shops of

the local taxidermists, some rare and beautiful birds, with others that

are fast becoming rare. But outside of the town I saw no kingfishers and

no rare species at all, and comparatively few birds of any kind. It

might have been a town of Philistine cockneys who at no very distant

period had emigrated thither from the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields.

I came home with the local guide-book in my pocket. It is now before me,

and this is what its writer says of the Thicket, the extensive and

beautiful common two miles from the town, which belongs to Maidenhead,

or, in other words, to its inhabitants: "The Thicket was formerly much

infested by robbers and highwaymen. The only remains of them to be found

now are the snarers of the little feathered songsters, who imprison them

in tiny cages and carry them off in large numbers to brighten by their

sweet, sad sighs for liberty the dwellers in our smoky cities."

On this point I consulted a bird-catcher, who had spread his nets on the

common for many years, and he complained bitterly of the increasing

scarcity of its bird life. There was no better place than the Thicket

formerly, he said; but now he could hardly make his bread there. I

presume that a dozen men of his trade would be well able to drain the

country in the neighbourhood of the Thicket of the greater portion of

its bird life each year so as to keep the songsters scarce. Will any

person maintain for a moment that the eight or nine thousand inhabitants

of Maidenhead, and the hundreds or thousands inhabiting the surrounding

country could not protect their songbirds from these few men, most of

them out of London slums, if they wished or had the spirit to do so?

It is true that the local authorities in some country towns have made

by-laws to protect the birds in their open spaces. Thus, at Tunbridge

Wells, since 1890, bird-trapping and bird's-nesting have been prohibited

on the large and beautiful common there; but, so far as I know, such

measures have only been taken in boroughs after the birds have been

almost exterminated.

Birds in Town & Village · 第 5 / 14 段