6 T. A. Coward — Presidential Address 



Act is to acclimatise a species of bird which, when this Act 

 was passed, was supposed to be the sand grouse but which 

 is now recognised by ornithologists as not being a grouse 

 at all, but a form of pigeon. The amusing part of this Act 

 is that it was passed to protect sand grouse in this country. 

 There has never been a sand grouse seen in this country 

 since the Act was passed. It is called the Sand Grouse 

 Protection Act and, apparently, like all protection Acts, it 

 had the effect of destroying the thine which it was intended 

 to protect. There are various forms of grouse — the red 

 grouse, the willow grouse, and others — but the one thing 

 that does not exist here is sand grouse, and why in the 

 name of common sense we are going on year after year 

 with the object of acclimatising a form of grouse which is 

 not a grouse at all I cannot understand." 



It is perhaps unnecessary to say that every sentence uttered 

 is erroneous; it is true that the Act, passed in 1889, was too 

 late to save the birds which came in the 1888 invasion, but 

 there have been seven irruptions or invasions since that date. 

 The object, of course, was to protect a species not to accli- 

 matise a sporting asset, as the gentleman who appeals '' in 

 the name of common sense '' seemed to think. But he was 

 not content with that ; he continued by attacking the Grey 

 Seals Protection Act of 19 14, and though an Irishman, he 

 was absolutely ignorant of his own native fauna. '^ Its object 

 is to protect the species of seal known as the Halichcernus 

 grypus " (this is the spelling as it appears in Hansard). '' I 

 do not know what we are protecting when it is so described. 

 I am advised that there is no such thing in the waters of this 

 country as the Halichcernus grypus. It is a variety that is 

 found only in Scandinavia. It sometimes swims over as far 

 as Denmark. — The humour of this legislation is that there is 

 no such thing in this country to protect." Comment is 

 unnecessary. 



Those who have followed since 1880 the repeated muddling 

 alterations, amendments, and orders of the Wild Birds' 

 Protection Acts must realise that the passing^ of laws alone 

 will accomplish nothing. The law must be backed, and 

 backed with determination, by public opinion. Then the 

 constable will feel that he is supported in his efforts, that the 

 Bench is behind and not against him. It is true that many of 

 the officers require instruction ; they are not ornithologists, 

 and may easily make mistakes about the identity of species ; it 

 is equailv true that our magistrates, supposed to be educated 



