ITS CHARACTER MALIGNED. 93 
were not old enough. No one else could have taken them, 
for the church could not be entered without the key, which 
he always kept. Had rats. carried them:off? The clerk 
said there were none. Had there been any, he must have 
heard or seen them on one or other of his many visits to 
the church, or at least have found signs of their presence. 
But this was never the case. He stated, however, that a 
pair of barn owls lived in the same spire, and he thought 
that they were the culprits, taking the young ones, as he 
said, as soon as they were fat enough, to save themselves 
the trouble of hunting out of doors. Be this as it may, 
we feel bound to say, on behalf of the owls, they were 
never caught in the fact, and that the parent stock-doves 
were not deterred from laying again and again, and at 
length rearing a brood. Charles Waterton, whose name 
will be familiar to all naturalists, argues strongly against 
the notion of the barn owl robbing dove-cotes. He 
says*® :_“ When farmers complain that the barn owl 
destroys the eggs of their pigeons, they lay the saddle on 
the wrong horse. They ought to put it on the rat. 
“ Formerly, I could get very few young pigeons till the 
rats were excluded effectually from the dove-cot. Since 
that took place, it has produced a great abundance every 
year, though the barn owls frequent it, and are encouraged 
all around it. The barn owl merely resorts to it for 
repose and concealment. If it were really an enemy to 
4 ‘Essays on Natural History,’’ rst Series, p. 14. 
