KIDD'S LONDON JOURNAL. 



277 



geners, is in bad repute with gamekeepers 

 and pigeon fanciers, who never lose an op- 

 portunity of destroying it ; and in so doing, 

 we firmly believe they destroy their best 

 friend. If they Avould only take the trouble 

 to examine the contents of the stomach, — or 

 Avhat would be still better, the masses of 

 indigestible matter ejected from the stomach, 

 and which will be found in the neighbor- 

 hood of the nest, they will see that its food 

 consists of small birds, rats, mice, a large 

 number of beetles and other insects, and 

 occasionally of fish. So far from its injur- 

 ing the game, it destroys innumerable un- 

 doubted enemies of such creatures. Rats 

 and mice, in large numbers, are its food. 

 Mr. Blyth says of the barn owl, " It would be 

 common enough (at Tooting, Surrey), if war 

 were not so generally waged against it in 

 this neighborhood. A more harmless, nay, 

 a more useful creature scarcely exists." 



Owls have been for many years protected 

 by Mr. Charles Waterton, of Walton 

 Hall ; and he has, on several occasions, elo- 

 quently handled his pen on their behalf, by 

 recording the good services done by these 

 interesting birds. Let us hope that other 

 country gentlemen may follow his example, 

 and put a veto on the destruction of the 

 various species of owls by their gamekeepers. 

 We may then expect to see these useful 

 birds in increasing numbers about us. 



There are several other birds to which 

 the following remarks will apply quite as 

 strongly as to the one we have selected as 

 the organ of the rest ; in fact, all the birds 

 which, during the fruit season, enter our 

 gardens to receive their share of the ripening 

 fruits. We will take 



The Blackbird (Turdus meruta), 

 and we will suppose him to be on his trial 

 for his life, and to be pleading his own cause. 

 We may imagine him to say as follows : — 

 " My Lord Gardener, and Gentlemen of the 

 Jury, — Whilst entering the plea of 'not 

 guilty,' I do not mean to deny that the fruit, 

 mentioned in the indictment, was taken by 

 me ; but there are certain circumstances, 

 which, when they come to be fairly stated, 

 will I think induce you to acknowledge 

 that I could not, with truth, have pleaded 

 'guilty. 1 It is well known to you, that I 

 was born in this parish, and that the place 

 of my birth was determined by Him who 

 ordered us to increase and multiply on the 

 earth, and from whom both the prosecutor 

 and myself equally derive our right to sup- 

 port, and which support, the ' common law ' 

 of the land has decreed ' that he should re- 

 ceive from this same parish, our joint birth- 

 place ' — not perhaps by the ' common law,' 

 but by a Higher law than that, and to which 

 it ought to succumb. I conceive, therefore, 

 that I am also legally entitled to a living in the 



said parish. But independently of my right 

 to support derived from this source, 1 assert 

 that, had it not been for my exertions dur- 

 ing the autumn, winter, and spring, instead 

 of the luxuriant and abundant harvest which 

 even now rewards the prosecutor's toil, he 

 would have had but a scanty and blighted 

 crop. My occupation during the time 1 have 

 above named, was the destruction of many 

 thousand slugs and snails, together with an 

 enormous number of grubs and insects of all 

 kinds. Had I not consumed these, the 

 whole parish would have been inundated 

 with them, and the crops would have been 

 destroyed or seriously damaged. Now how- 

 ever, thanks to my unwearied industry, 

 there is an abundant crop of sound and 

 healthy fruit. Let any one, with ordinary 

 notions of justice, say that I am not fairly 

 entitled to the trifling reward which I have 

 received. If I and my family be condemned, 

 and systematically executed, that will hap- 

 pen to this parish, which has happened else- 

 where, by the destruction of some of my 

 distant relations, — I mean, the crops will be 

 systematically blighted and deficient, and 

 the avarice and injustice which wished to 

 secure the whole for itself, will reap the due 

 reward of such conduct, and be deprived of 

 what it actually had. Having laid these 

 facts before you, my Lord and Gentlemen 

 of the Jury, 1 rely confidently on a favorable 

 verdict." 



The Rook (Corvus frugilegus). 

 How any person of ordinary capacity 

 for observation, can destroy the rook, as 

 being injurious to the farmer, I have always 

 been puzzled to imagine. Possibly its name, 

 frugilegus, or fruit stealer, may with persons 

 of a certain amount of education have 

 assisted in keeping up the hue and cry. The 

 food of the rook, when it can obtain them, 

 is insects of all kinds, more particularly 

 grubs, i. e., the larvse of different insects. 

 Mr. Jesse, in his " Gleanings in Natural 

 History," and in Loudon's Magazine, vol. 8, 

 p. 113, has ably proved the utility of the 

 rook : — " In order to be convinced that 

 these birds are beneficial to the farmer, let 

 us observe the same field in which his plough- 

 man and his sower are at work. He will 

 see the former followed by a train of rooks, 

 while the sower will be unattended, and his 

 grain remain untouched." Speaking of 

 Greenwich Park, where there are no rooks, 

 he says : — " Sixty grubs of the gnat (Tipula 

 oleracea) have been found there, under a 

 square foot of turf, and about thirty acres 

 have been much damaged. This probably 

 would not have happened, if rooks had had 

 free access to the park." Rooks will, how- 

 ever, when hard pressed (usually in severe 

 frosts), make up with grain and other vege- 

 table substances ; but the injury done in 



