454 



JOUENAL OF HOETICULTUEE AND COTTAGE GAEDENEE. 



t December 7, 1871. 



was awarded to a pair of very nice Ural Ice Pigeons, and a like award 

 was made to a pretty pair of Satinettes. 



Number of Admissions. 



1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. 



Monday 7,430 6,368 6,099 6,361 6,543 



Tnesday .. 9,144 10,215 8,840 9,170 9,968 



Wednesday. 16,670 16,970 13,494 14,082 16,252 



Thursday.. 12,270 10,370 12,336 14,661 14,698 



Total.. 45,654 44,283 40,759 44,174 47,461 



SUMMABT OF POULTBT SALES. 



1867... 220 pens sold £1,103 Os. Oil. 



1868... 203 pens sold £1,004 Os. Od. 



1869... 337 pens sold £1,120 Os. Od. 



1870... 300 pens sold £1,043 5s. Od. 



1871...356peDBSold £1,207 5s. 6d. 



BRISTOL SHOW ENTRY FEES. 



I HAVE been much pleased to see letters ia your Journal 

 directed against the large sum of £1 3s. being exacted for one 

 pen of Pigeons ; this being dd. more than at Birmingham, 

 while only two prizes are ofiered in a class. My advice to the 

 Committee is to at once reduce the charge to 7s. 6(i for the 

 first entry, and 5s. for every additional entry. I cannot see 

 wlat they have offered for the extra charge. Take, for instance, 

 cup No. 33; it is for Fantails any colour. Trumpeters any 

 colour, English 0>vls any colour, Nuns and Turbits any colour. 

 My reason for drawing attention to this is, that any young 

 fancier who only keeps one of these varieties, may not notice 

 that it is for the best pen in classes 79 to 83, as the Pigeon 

 'list does not say so, only the cup list. 



The best plan is to say a cup for the best pen in so many 

 classes. Some may say, All know better. lean assure you they 

 do not. All old fanciers do, but many young ones do not. I know 

 this makes the list look very attractive. My advice is, before 

 ■fanciers enter only one or two pens, to count the cost. They 

 will find it will not pay. As a young fancier and well-wisher 

 of the Bristol Show, I now ask the Honorary Secretary and the 

 six gentlemen upon the Committee to give the matter their 

 inost careful consideration, and hope they will come to the 

 conclusion to reduce their entrance fees ; and if so, I beg of 

 my brother fanciers who have only sent one or two pens before, 

 to send as many as they possibly can. — J. F. Loyebsidge, 

 Newark, Notts. 



I CONSIDEK Mr. Cambridge's argument, in answer to "E.S.T." 

 fails entirely to show that there is any advantage whatever to 

 be expected from the £1 subscription fee. '■ E. S. T. " may or 

 may not be one of those who merely show for profit. If he is, 

 I dare say he is not amongst those who are never disappointed. 

 Bat be this as it may, the question appears to ms to be this : 

 What advantage do the Committee expect to gain from the £1 

 eabacriptiou ? Surely the exhibitors who have only one or two 

 pens, and they are many, will not give their support. The 

 subscription applies very favourably to the large exhibitors 

 and dealers, and will give the latter the chance of more than 

 ever monopolizing the prizes, as in the case of the Pigeon prizes 

 Bt most of the shows lately. It is not that I look so much at the 

 £1 as at the unjust way in which it is applied. It the Com- 

 mittee had adopted Mr. Sidgwick's plan and charged so much 

 per pen, it would have been far more satisfactory, and would 

 not have given an advantage to one which was a disadvantage 

 to the other. Surely an entrance fee of 7s. 6d. per pen ought 

 to support any show where there is so large a number of entries 

 as at Bristol. And if I am rightly informed there was no loss, 

 bat a small balance on the last Show ; and why not have con- 

 tinued the same rules as long as there was no loss? Bat the 

 proof, I suppose, will be soon made evident ; and if the Com- 

 mittee come out the gainers I shall be quite as pleased as 

 though I had exhibited. — Non-Exhibiiok. 



I IKUST that yon will spare me a small space to answer Mr. 

 Cimbridge's remarks upon a letter of mine on the Bristol 

 entry fees, especially as he assumes that I am " one of those 

 ■who look upon poultry shows merely as places to which they 

 can send their birds with the hope of making a profit." This 

 Mr. Cambridge assumes to be " evident " Well, I think that 

 I can bring forward a little evidence the other way. Allow me 

 to offer the following extracts from my poultry chronicle, a 

 short record of the amount of prizes won, and of the amount of 



expenses incurred in showing, for the past four years ; and 

 surely if I began with a view to profit, I ought by this time 

 to have moderated my views, at least during the past two 

 years : — 



Van,. Prizes. Expenses. 



1867 

 18i8 

 1S69 

 187J 





£ s. 



d. 



6 l.T 



n 



10 17 



(1 



1 



(1 



10 







7 12 10 



19 



2 9 



7 



2 2 



13 



5 10 



Total.... £19 2 £47 3 7 



I include in the expenses, of course, railway carriage ; but aa 

 Mr. Cambridge will say that the committees are not benefited 

 by that (allhough as surely I cannot include it in my profits), 

 I have separated carriage and even payment for catalogues 

 from the entry fees, and I find that entry fees amount to 

 £29 17s. 6(Z , railway carriage and catalogues to £17 6s. Id. I 

 have thus to poultry shows paid more than £3 for every £2 

 received from them. 



Mr. Cambridge goes on to say that at most of the five shows 

 that have been held at Bristol the Committee have incurred 

 considerable losses. Of course, I cannot tell what their ex- 

 penses may be beyond the prize list, but I have seen it many 

 times repeated, that the entries ought to pay the prizes, the 

 admissions and sale of catalogues current expenses of the show, 

 and the subscriptions to pay for cups. I have but one catalogue 

 of Bristol by me, that for 1869, in which I find that Mr. Cam- 

 bridge paid his expenses by his prizes ; I as certainly did not. 

 I see that the poultry entries numbered 1099, at 7s. 6d , the 

 money prizes amounted to £293, the cups presented by the 

 Committee to £73 10s. (other cups to the amount of £51, nine 

 being presented by individuals), and the money saved in the 

 first prizes, when cups were awarded, to £50. The account, 

 therefore, will stand as follows : — 



s s. d. 



Entries 1099 at 7s. 6d 412 2 6 



Mooey prizes 293 



Committee cups 73 10 



356 10 

 Less money where cnps were awarded .. 50 



816 10 

 95 12 6 



£412 2 6 

 So far, then, as entries and prizes, including cups, were con- 

 cerned, the Committee had a surplus of £95 12s. 6d., besides 

 admissions, sale of catalogues, and 10 per cent, on sale of 

 poultry, to provide for all other expenses. I certainly should 

 not have expected that they would have found it necessary to 

 increase the scale of entry, and I expect that they will find that 

 the total amount received is very much less than under the 

 old system, as there are many like myself, who, although not 

 showing for profit, cannot afford to pay £1 6s. for the privilege 

 of exhibiting one pen of birds. — E. S. T. 



I THINK the different writers against the schedule of the 

 Bristol Poultry Show are perfectly right in their objections. I 

 for one intended to exhibit a few pens of poultry at the forth- 

 coming Show, but when I saw that I should have to subscribe 

 20s., besides paying entrance fees of 6s. for each pen, I gave up 

 the idea. It is a pity that the committees of poultry shows do 

 not hold out greater inducements to the exhibitors of French 

 fowls ; the present system of claseitying gives no encourage- 

 ment to fanciers (like mysell), of such breeds. I would draw 

 the attention of the different committees of English shows and 

 that of exhibitors to the prize list now issued by the Grand 

 National Poultry Show of Ireland, which does credit to the 

 Committee in general, but especially to Mr. Zurhorst, the Chair- 

 man, who is well known as a fancier. — Geobge A. Stephens. 



LIGHT BRAHMAS. 



Mat I crave a small space with regard to this subject, as my 

 experience is not the same as that of your valued correspondent, 

 Mr. L. Wright ? I have been a breeder of Brahmas for some 

 years. My first friends were the Light Brahmas, and excellent 

 in all points I found them — good layers, hardy, and never de- 

 spised when put on the table. Mine were white, and had well- 

 marked black and white neck hackles, but, alas ! they had single 

 combs. At first this was no drawback, but an edict from the 

 Judges went forth that Light Brahmas, as well aa Dark, must 

 have pea combs, and then my prizetaking ceased. Of course, 

 when I found out the reason, I crossed with pea-combed birds 

 from the two first yards of Light Brahmas in the kingdom, but I 



