3576 The Zoologist — June, 1873. 



hear.") The greatest inconvenience was caused to seedsmen and market 

 gardeners by the birds which the hon. gentleman wished to take under his 

 protection. (" Oh, oh.") 



Mr. C. S. Read also opposed the motion. 



Mr. Dillwyn thought the granting of this inquiry would he the means of 

 obtaining much useful information in regard to the habits of birds. Hedge- 

 sparrows had been condemned because they were unfortunate enough to 

 bear the name of sparrow, although they were as distinct in their habits 

 and nature from sparrows as were owls from pigeons. (Laughter.) As a 

 practical observer of birds all his life, his conviction was that there was no 

 bird that did not do more good than mischief. What was wanted was to 

 prevent the wholesale capture or destruction of these birds for sale during 

 the close season. (" Hear, hear.") 



Mr. Liddell and Mr. Cowper-Temple supported the motion. 



Mr. Bruce thought it was for the interest of all parties that this inquiry 

 should take place. (" Hear, hear.") 



After a few words from Mr. Asshetou and Mr. Parker, the House divided. 



For the motion 162 



Against it 16 



Majority 140 



—'Daily News; April 29, 1873. 



Wild Birds Protection Act. — As there appears to be an endeavour to 

 make some alteration or other in this Act during the present Session of 

 Parliament, it is, I think, incumbent on all who love common sense and 

 justice, as well as sport and Ornithology, to speak out upon the subject. It 

 is possible that some of the remarks 1 am about to make will be unpalatable 

 both to sportsmen and ornithologists, but it must be borne in mind that 

 when legislation is proposed there are other considerations to be noted in the 

 matter besides sport and Ornithology. Let me say then at once, and plainly, 

 that this Act appeui-s to me to be both ill-advised and excessively ill-drawn. 

 Attention has been called to its glaring defects by Mr. F. 0. Morris and 

 others in the public journals ,'^ but it seems to me objectionable in principle, 

 as well as in its utter failure to answer the end for which it has been 

 designed. Tlie Act itself was conceived by short-sighted sportsmen, and 

 brought forth by ornithologists many generations behind the times; the 

 former wished to extend the doubtful benefit of the Game Laws to a few 

 more objects of sport, the latter jumped at the chance offered of fostering 

 by Act of Parliament the objects of their studies. I will not waste my time, 

 nor your space, by attempting to jjrove the patent errors of both ; the time 

 has passed when either sport or ornithological studies can be ensured by the 

 legislature. In spite of all the Acts of Parliament that could be devised, 

 neither sporting nor Ornithology will ever be allowed to stand long in the way 

 of those rapid changes by flood and by field which are inevitable in every 



