January 1, 1867. ] 



JOUENAL OP HOBTICULTUBE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



15 



varieties of poultry : — Dorking, Spanish, Buff and White 

 Cochins, and the two classes of adult Game. Subscription 

 one guinea each, to be divided among subscribers only into two 

 prizes — three-iifths for the first, two-fifths for the second. The 

 Hon. Secretary, Mr. .T. Bayliss, will receive subscriptions, which 

 will close on the same date as the entries — viz., January .5th. 

 Several gentlemen have already given in their names as sub- 

 scribers to the Buff Cochin and Game classes. 



THE POULTRY CLUB. 



Absence from home prevented me last week from correcting 

 one or two errors in your report of the Club meeting at Bir- 

 mingham. The first I observe is with reference to the motion 

 proposed by me with regard to the detention of the Club funds 

 by the Hon. Treasurer without explanation. You say, " An 

 explanation was offered by Mr. Zurhorst exculpating Mr. Tud- 

 man," when in point of fact the very reverse was the case. 

 The facts are as follows : Mr. Tudman, having had due notice 

 of the resolution calling on him to explain why he had not paid 

 over the money voted and ordered by the Stewards on account 

 of the Rochdale prize list, came to the meeting, anticipated the 

 call for an explanation by giving in his balance-sheet, resign- 

 ing, and leaving the room before the motion could be brought 

 on, without remark of any kind, except that some of the money 

 received on account of the " Standard of Excellence " had not 

 passed through his hands. Mr. Tegetmeier explained that he 

 had offered it to Mr. Tudman, who declined to receive it, and 

 that as a last resource he had remitted it to the Hon. Secretary. 



As Mr. Tudman had apparently run away to avoid explana- 

 tion, I deemed it necessary to offer some remarks, before with- 

 drawing the motion, as to why I brought it forward. In doing 

 so I dealt as lightly as possible with the absent ; but I was 

 compelled to show how far, in the gi-atificatiou of private feel- 

 ing, Mr. Tudman had jeopardised the credit of the Club, and 

 I stated circumstantially my reasons for calling on Mr. Tudman 

 for a public explanation. As he did not choose, though 

 tilling a most responsible office, to afford this, I was compelled 

 to come to the conclusion that his conduct was unjustifiable 

 to the honourable body for which he was trustee ; and so far 

 from exculpating him I left the facts in the hands of the meet- 

 ing, expressing my own opinion of the undignified and selfish 

 eoui'se he had pursued. 



The motions respecting the judges were consolidated ; and 

 SO close was the division of opinion, that the first voting re- 

 sulted in a tie. The second voting had the same result, an 

 additional vote having been obtained on each side, and the i 

 Chairman finally gave the casting vote. 



There was no question submitted as to the disposing of the 

 remaining copies of the " Standard," for the Club has no doubt 

 on this subject, as there is still a fair demand, though not as 

 great as at first.— F. W. Zurhorst, Hon. Sec. Poultry Club, 

 Donnybrook. 



Absence has prevented me replying to " A Member," whose 

 letter appears in your Journal of the 18th ult. ; but I am, no 

 doubt, all in good time, and I am sure the spirit of fair play 

 which always animates your Joiu-nal will afford me space. 

 The communication in question is a tissue of misstatements 

 fi"om beginning to end. But to begin. He says, ' a member 

 high in otfice informed him that the ' Standard ' had been cast 

 aside as useless long since," &c. Now this is so utterly at 

 variance with the facts, that I am inclined to think " A Mem- 

 bee " must have dreamed it (I should not venture to think it 

 was a concoction), as the following figures are well known to 

 all members, including those " high in office," who have taken 

 the trouble to read the reports or attend the meetings. The 

 " Standard " cost some £27 to publish and bind a five-hundred 

 edition. The whole of the members then on the books received 

 a fr-ee copy. The numbers sold have been sufficient to pay the 

 whole expenses and leave a balance of from £8 to £10 appli- 

 cable to other purposes, together with some 1.50 copies available 

 for sale or presentation free to new members on application to 

 the Honorary Secretary. At our next balance our publishers 

 wOl have a goodly balance of cash to hand us, and I am this 

 day sending off copies to individuals outside the Club who have 

 applied for them. So much for assertion No. 1. Now the next. 



The numerous commendations of the " Standard of Excel- 

 lence " that have appeared in the columns of the press, and its 

 large sale, render any further comments on its merits unne- 

 cessary. 



With reference to the Club Judges not judging book in 

 hand, "A Member" again displays his ignorance of facts. I 

 will simply quote a portion of the minutes of a meeting held 

 the 1st of October, 1801, Mr. KeUeway in the chair. Mr. 

 Beldon said that some misapprehension existed as to the rules 

 for judging, " no judge could be expected to go about book 

 in hand ;" and it was then unanimously resolved that to pre- 

 vent misapprehension the title of the forthcoming book should 

 be changed from "Rules for Judging" to "The Standard of 

 Excellence." The Club prospectus published in January, 1865, 

 stated that it " was for the guidance of exhibitors," and to 

 "obtain as far as possible uniformity of judging." I presume 

 our well-informed " Member " (?) will now understand why 

 the Judges at Rochdale did not go about book in hand. 



As to the discussion and division on the additions to the 

 Judges, I suppose " A Member " will allow others to entertain 

 an opinion. It is a pity he did not, as he says he attended ihe 

 meeting, assert his, instead of confining himself to writing 

 anonymous uncertainties ! 



Again, with regard to the Rochdale Show, how reliable is 

 " A Member's " information ! how exquisitely just his informa- 

 tion ! He says the Rochdale Show must have cost the Club 

 £30, and then says he was at the Birmingham meeting. Had 

 he either opened his ears or lifted one of the balance sheets on 

 the table, he would have seen that the Show unfortunately cost 

 the Club £128 (not £30 as he suggests) — viz., £75 guarantee 

 money, and £53 from Club funds, and that though the entries 

 paid the prize list, the receipts at the door amounted in three 

 days to but £13, the rain having come down incessantly from 

 end to end of the Show. 



I may add that copies of the balance sheet were laid upon 

 the Club table, as well as sent to each guarantor, and the 

 promptitude with which those gentleman to a man paid the 

 call after receiving the balance sheet needs no comment. What 

 Mr. Tudman said at the meeting I have stated above. I am in 

 possession of the shorthand-writer's notes, and the omission 

 of the full report respecting Mr. Tudman's resignation and its 

 causes was dictated by a desire to avoid personality. 



As to what Mr. Tudman and Mr. A.^hton did for the Club, 

 the minute-book before me shows that they attended the first 

 meeting, with manj' other gentlemen at Liverpool, but that 

 they proposed no resolutions. They were appointed joint Secre- 

 taries — Mr. Ashton speedily resigned, and Mr. Tudman 

 followed him twelve months after. 



With regard to the Club costing half its subscriptions to 

 work, I have only to point to the fact that the annual income 

 is £57, a small amount of which is in arrear, that no less 

 a sum than £40 has been paid this year out of the Club funds 

 towards the Show, and that Mr. Tudman by his balance sheet 

 had upwards of £12 in hand at the Birmingham meeting, the 

 printing, stationery, and postage for the whole year being 

 under £8. 



In conclusion I would advise "AMembee" ere he again 

 rushes into print to get up his facts a little more accurately. 

 It was only due to the members of the Club that this refuta- 

 tion should be written, but no further anonymous correspon- 

 dents will be recognised or replied to by — F. W. Zurhorst, 

 Hon. Sec, Poulinj Club, Donnybrook. 



POULTRY JUDGING. 



I SEE quite enough to dishearten exhibitors in the present 

 system of judging, and the rejection of the motions on this 

 subject before the Poultry Club show that we have little hope 

 of reform in that quarter. The Poultry Club has proved a 

 disappointment. I agree for the most part with the letter of 

 your correspondent lately on the subject. I make no charges 

 of dishonesty against the judges, although I am quite aware 

 that dishonest judges do exist. I think a vast deal of mischief 

 arises rather from a friendly feeling towards local exhibitors, 

 and a pertinacious interference of officials, than from any pre- 

 meditated favouritism. 



Not a sufficient number of judges is employed, too much is 

 expected of them, and many of them are wilhng to believe 

 that they are competent to judge in all classes. Everything 

 connected with the fancy bl-eediug of poultry is undefined, 

 uncertain, and unsatisfactory. There is no point of authority. 

 We have no fixed rules — no standard by which to work ; every- 

 thing seems to be a matter of taste and opinion. 



With this feeling I attached myself to the Poultry Club; 

 but however good a man the present Secretary may be, the 



