THE PRESERVATION OF OUR FAUNA 189 



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, 1921, 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 12 th, and I 

 suppose there are some honourable Members who know 

 something about grouse. I believe that the object of this 

 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 thing 

 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 acclimatise a sporting asset, as the gentle- ' 

 man who appeals " in the name of common sense " 



