The Zoologist— August, 1873. 3633 



Wild Fowl Protection Bill— and the bringers forth— i. e. the 

 parties who brought it into the form under which U was passed as 

 the Wild Birds Protection Act. 



Professor Newton tells us that the "conceivers" were not 

 "sportsmen," nor the "bringers forth" "ornithologists many 

 generations behind the time"; but it is not clear from his letter 

 in the 'Zoologist' (S. S. 3611) whom he intends as the hri„gers 

 forth, though he appears to include himself among them; I, how- 

 ever, certainly did not either so intend nor include him, nor any 

 of those gentlemen whom he names as the authors of the Wild 

 Fowl Protection Bill. I need hardly say that I was, until the 

 receipt of Professor Newton's communication, utterly ignorant of 

 the names of any one concerned with either the conceptio, or the 

 res tiala, except that of Mr. Auberon Herbert. 



With regard to the term " sportsmen," it appears to be con- 

 sidered objectionable, and of course, on Prof. Newton's statement, 

 I retract it at once. Not having the advantage, at the time, of 

 knowing the names of the conceivers, the term sportsmen was 

 used on the internal evidence afforded by the conception itself— 

 arguing, in fact, from the nature and scope of the Bill to its 

 authors. Some other evidence of a collateral nature also sup- 

 ported the argument. I freely admit that it would have more 

 accurately expressed what I intended had my words been, «It 

 appears to me from internal and other evidence that the Act 

 itself," &c., &c. I do not see, however, that my misapprehension 

 of the interesting fact of the conceivers not being "sportsmen" 

 affects the merits of the case. Whether they intended it to do so 

 or not, their conception undeniably bore so strongly the impress 

 of a Game Act that they must, I still think, have been exceedingly 

 "short-sighted" not to have foreseen the impossibility of passi'iig 

 It in that form. As to those who got hold of the conception and 

 "brought It forth" in the shape of the Wild Birds Protection Act 

 whether they are or not "ornithologists in any sense," I still 

 believe them to have been certainly "behind the times"; but as 

 Professor Newton does not defend them there is no need to say 

 much on this part of the subject; indeed, from his communica- 

 tions to me, he seems to have a far lower opinion of them than 

 I either have, or have expressed. 



Before concluding, however, I must make one further remark. 

 Prof. Newton says he has "nothing to do with my opinions;^ but 



