Manchester Memoirs, Vol. Ixvi. (1921) 5 



and many other creatures have passed but a few years, com- 

 paratively speaking, before our time, and others are passing 

 now. We, who look at the question with what we may term 

 scientific sympathy, mourn the loss. It is because we know 

 that within recent years species after species has vanished, 

 and that we know that Man's rapacity is in many casse 

 responsible, that we are so anxious to check his evil influences 

 whilst yet there is time. 



There are two methods of stopping or at any rate retarding 

 destruction — legislation and personal influence; each has its 

 place, and as a rule one without the other fails. Protective 

 laws cannot be passed without the strong use of the economic 

 and humanitarian arguments, and the last has often failed to 

 gain a hearing. Laws, too, are useless unless the sympathy 

 of legislators, and the public servants whose duty it is to 

 enforce them, is strong and constant. Our House of Com- 

 mons is filled by men whose tenure of office depends too much 

 upon topical political issues for it to spend much time upon 

 questions that are only appreciated by the minority of voters. 

 Thus, if we get a good sympathetic naturalist in the House, 

 and he advocates some useful protective measure, the chances 

 are against his success ; his bill is crowded out by matters 

 which appear more imminent but yet may have transitory 

 importance, matters which appeal to the immediate interests, 

 usually pecuniary, of the majority. The struggle for the 

 Plumage Bill is a recent case in point. It was through the 

 indifference of the majority of members who nominally sup- 

 ported the Bill, men of all shades of Party, that for so long it 

 was impossible to combat the small but powerful interests of 

 the plumage trade. Time alone will show whether in these 

 days of economic struggle there is sufficient true sympathy 

 with the intentions of the Bill to secure its legal enforcement. 



Legislation for the protection of the fauna is not viewed 

 with much intelligence by some of those who are sent to act 

 as our representatives. During the second reading of the 

 Expiring Laws Bill, in August last, one member made what 

 he considered a witty speech, in which he poured scorn on 

 the work of protectors. This is what he said, as quoted by 

 Hansard : — 



"' Then we come to the Sand Grouse Protection Act, 

 which inflicts penalties for killing, wounding or selling 

 sand grouse. We are getting very near the 12th, and I 

 suppose there are some honourable Members who know 

 something about grouse. I believe that the object of this 



