SELBORNIANA. 
77 
“caw, caw,’’ from the two nearest trees has warned us that it was time to rinjj 
the rooks’ breakfast bell, and they have always been attended to at once. We 
place the chicken coops at the stal)les close to the rookery, as the birds set up 
such a chorus of caws if any stranger, human or animal, appears, that we have no 
fear of foxes or such enemies to poultry. There are certain birds more fearless 
than the others, and these we believe to be the older rooks, who have proved us 
and “found us faithful.” One of these recently flew down and took a bone from 
the dog’s kennel as he sat within a yard of it. Our rooks never steal our potatoes 
in the garden, nor trouble us in any way, save by a litter of sticks. We had 
about sixty nests last year and it is a great source of amusement to watch the 
young birds in the nests from the ujrper windows. I think even Charles Waterton 
would have been surprised could he have seen our laden oaks and beeches, and to 
have seen a black cloud of birds approach the windows so fearlessly whenever 
“ rook, rook,” is called to the accompaniment of pieces of bread and potato flying 
through the air. 
Romsey, Hampshire. F. H. Suckling. 
Cats and Birds (p. |;6). — I cannot help thinking it would Ire a pity to 
fdlow the advice of f. W. H., i.e., to turn a kitten into a room “ full of birds, of 
course in cages.” He goes on to say that besides canaries, the cages contain 
“bullfinches, linnets, siskins, &c., &c.” Surely to keep these beautiful wild 
birds in c.ages is to encourage the horrid trade of the bird-catchers, and to dis- 
regard one of the “ ways in which the objects of the Selborne Society can be 
promoted,” the fourth “ way,” set forth in the leaflet of our Society, being to 
preserve “. . . birds from hawkers, bird-catchers, &c.” The way we 
preserve our wild birds in this garden from cats is — not to keep a cat at all ! but 
when mice become troublesome, to catch them in traps, which I cannot help 
thinking is the better way. 
Horsell Vicarage, IVuking. ROSE TuRLE. 
[But how if the mice won’t go into the traps 7 That is our experience at the 
present time, and we fear the sparrows who find food and water in our back 
garden must prepare for the advent of a cat. — E d. ,'V.W.] 
Ham Fields Saved. — It is with the greatest satisfaction that we record the 
defeat of the Richmond Corporation in its attempt to confiscate the Ham Fields, 
the House of Commons having rejected the proposed Bill by 257 votes against 1 1 5. 
“ The Bill,” says the Daily Chronicle, “ incidentally aimed at confiscating the 
rights of the people over a large area of common or lammas lands known as Ham 
Fields, lying between Richmond and Kingston, and extending to nearly 200 
acres. The Bill was a flagrant instance of the manner in which the promoters of 
these dangerous measures attempt by a side wind to go counter to the law of the 
land. It contained a clause which was denounced by Mr. Courtney as being a 
violation of the principles in regard to the closing of land laid down in the Metro- 
politan Common Acts of 1866-9. By these Acts the Board of Agriculture are 
forbidden to entertain any application for the enclosure of any common or lammas 
lands within the Metropolitan Police district. Under them the Hackney Downs 
and the other Hackney Commons — all of them lammas lands — have been placed 
under the care of the London County Council for the good of London as a whole. 
The effect has been that no enclosure of any metropolitan common has been sanc- 
tioned by Parliament since 1866. And yet in spite of these Acts this Bill, called 
the Petersham and Ham Lands and Footpaths Bill, actually contained the follow- 
ing clause: — ‘All lammas and all other commonable or other rights of what- 
soever description exercisable between harvest and seed-time, or at any other 
period in or over or in respect of any of the lands .... are hereby 
extinguished as from the passing of this Act.’ The land which the Bill aimed 
at enclosing has been reclaimed at the public expense and is now freely open 
to the public. It lies on the Surrey bank of the Thames, in one of its most 
beautiful reaches — from Richmond to Teddington Lock. If the Bill had been 
passed, footpaths would have been closed, and a beautiful grass sward would 
have been turned into a hard carriage road. And in return for all this, the Bill 
offered, as a bribe, a grant of money to a school in Ham, and a meadow of a most 
unattractive kind. Such were the sweeping proposals incorporated in this private 
