[ 11. J 
ornithological attainments and acumen. It would he grossly intolerant, 
of course, not to readily condone the absence in others of a special know¬ 
ledge fl at can only be acquired hy abundant opportunity and unremitting 
energy and’study ; on the other hand, people who elect to sit in high 
places and dispense judgments are assuredly presupposed to possess and 
exercise the gift of ordinary discrimination—colloquially known as 
common sense. The report of the late meeting of the Society for the 
Protection of Birds is public property, and therefore open to public 
criticism, and I imagine the duly reflecting will note with pained surprise 
that special merit has apparently been discovered in a proposal that 
would be calculated—were people found audacious enough to attempt to 
give effect to it—to wantonly incense the very class—preservers of game— 
whose heartfelt commendation and active support it is absolutely impera¬ 
tive we should diligently cultivate and enlist. A wholesale protection of 
birds all the year round , forsooth ! Little wonder there is a spirit of despair 
abroad, with repeated appeals for moderation ever seemingly falling“on 
deaf ears. 
Now as yielding to no one in the cordiality of a desire to see protect¬ 
ion that ensures adequacy without tyranny extended to our wild birds, 
I deliberately here express the hope that those who may be authoritative¬ 
ly concerned in any future legislation in their behalf will have none of 
such ill-considered and intemperate advocacy as has lately been ostensibly 
applauded and honoured by the Publication Committee of the Society for 
the Protection of Birds. I would pointedly refer to the speech of 
the extra prize-winner at the annual meeting on Feb. 27th, 1901, in 
which, amidst assertions capable of direct refutation, allusion is made to 
“ prejudices against this or that bird,” and a serious proposal formulated 
to protect all birds “ all the year round^ the sparrow included l” It is not 
ill-balanced reasoning to presume that the gist of the speech, as here 
quoted, mirrored the tone of the essay contributed by the speaker to the 
competition:—1 would ask, then, ignoring other disturbing considerat¬ 
ions of which there is a sufficiency, whether, in face of the incontestable 
fact that there are some birds hostile to the interests of agriculturalists, 
game-preservers/and gardeners, it is not preposterous to prattle about 
“ prejudices ” in such a connexion ? The merely moderate extension of 
the principle involved in such ultra-partisan pleading is quite enough to 
generate a luxuriance of paradox and humour, and, as an illustration, it 
will be news to many to learn that “prejudices” can be rationally 
ascribed to a judge who safeguards the public interests by imposing a 
check on the liberty and actions of confirmed and notorious evildoers ! 
The worthy folk who are so insistent in acclaiming banalities of the kind 
indicated appear to forget, if ever they knew, that the sparrow is not an 
indigenous bird at all, but an Italian intruder addicted to destroying 
the balance of nature. 
