in the Club has been successful, but also the ambition that in due time he

too may place upon the show bench, such a bird as will excel the one he

now admires, to again inspire some other novice with a similar ambition.


Another benefit I find in Shows is that they practically set the

standard of perfection ; moreover, they recruit the ranks of bird enthusiasts,

inducing those whose interest in birds is languid to support Societies of

Aviarists who cultivate the hobby, and who do their best to elevate it; again,

these Shows by offering prizes open the arena to a large circle of competitors,

who by their entry fees can reimburse to some extent the great expense

attending exhibitions; these shows moreover provide a market for the sale

and interchange of specimens, and bring together veterans and amateurs,

townsmen and provincials, for their joint benefit. There cannot be a doubt

that much good work is done in spreading knowledge and enlisting amateurs

at Cage Bird Shows, and these considerations lead me to conclude that

it would be impolitic if aviculturists did not encourage and support them.


There is, however, another aspect of the question, and that a grave

one ; the money prizes sometimes tempt exhibitors to practices of fraud and

cruelty, and though these cases may be but rare, yet, undoubtedly, they

raise among the better and more honourable aviculturists a feeling of

disgust, and some disinclination to enter an arena with competitors who

might disgrace them; still, allowing every weight to these objections, and

greatly sympathizing with them, I am inclined to think that though there are

too many shows, and that a Society like the Avicultural can do better

service by the publication of its magazine, yet the good that comes from

Cage Bird Shows is of the highest value, and deserves unprejudiced appre¬

ciation among those who lead opinion among the aviculturists.



IV.


By Septimus Perkins.


I have always been unable to understand how any man who really

cares for his birds can send them to Shows. I know that some true bird-

lovers are to be found in the ranks of the exhibitors, and that is what

puzzles me. The average exhibitor is not a bird-lover, but a mere fancier,

and him I can understand, though I do not admire him. He regards

his birds merely as counters with which he wins prizes; if they could

compete after they were dead and stuffed he would prefer them in that state.

To him success in aviculture is not the keeping in health, or the breeding,

of some rare or beautiful species, but the possession of a lot of glaringly

inartistic prize-cards, with which he can disfigure his bird-room. I repeat

that I can understand, while I despise, such a man, but the true aviculturist

who yet patronizes shows I altogether fail to understand.


The whole thing is an organized system of cruelty from beginning to

end. It is cruel to confine birds in the tiny cages almost invariably used at

Shows, it is cruel to send them on long railway journeys, it is cruel to

expose them to the draughts and bad air of the show room, it is cruel to

trust them to the tender mercies of railway porters and show secretaries.


I am not one of those who consider it wrong to keep birds in

captivity, but I hold that the owner of captive birds is under a heavy

responsibility towards his prisoners, and is bound to make their lives as

happy as he can, and so far as possible make up for their loss of freedom.

I really doubt whether the practice of keeping birds in cages can be

defended, they should always be kept in an aviary. Even a small aviary is

better than a very large cage.


Aviaries have one great advantage besides those which are usually

urged in their favour: the owner of an aviary almost always gives up

exhibiting. It is too much trouble to catch and encage the birds, and

when caught they are not “steady ” enough.


I have dwelt on the evils of shows from the point of view of the birds,

but I believe they are at least as prejudicial to the exhibitors. Shows are



