23 



equally as competent to award the prizes to Fowls as the Fowl Fanciers are to Pigeons, 

 and would do it equally as honest. Then what folly to mar the pleasures of a Poultry 

 and Pigeon Show, by a niggardly and false economy by calling upon men to do that 

 which they are incompetent to do, when first-rate London Fanciers, who do not want 

 to make a profit out of Pigeon Shows, on the contrary, simply to award the bird or 

 birds that are entitled to the prize or prizes, irrespective whether they belonged to 

 the peer or the peasant. When you consider the enthusiastic London Fanciers, as I 

 said before, who are not desirous of making a profit out of Pigeons, only that the best 

 birds may win, should the society or show be a small one and economy a consideration, 

 depend upon it one good judge is better than three muffs, besides the pleasantness and 

 harmony that will attend the show, for if dissatisfaction should attend the awarding of 

 the prizes, it may cause such a schism that another show will not be attempted. 

 Therefore, while good London Fanciers are to be obtained at a sovereign or guinea and 

 a return ticket, why run the risk of destroying theshow for ever ? 



The Preston, in Lancashire, Show, very judiciously required the exhibitors to name 

 gentlemen who they thought competent for judges. The committee are not bound to 

 choose who you or I may mention. I named two gentlemen for Pigeons (one was 

 chosen) whose judgment and honesty in awarding prizes I consider not second to any 

 Fanciers who are A 1. Fowls I do not pretend to know anything about, therefore did 

 not name any gentleman. There was another beautiful condition in this show, pro- 

 vided the 1st prize or prizes were withheld — the judges had to give an account of the 

 why or the wherefore, and carried to the next prize or prizes. This was a noble and 

 generous act on the part of the committee, freeing it from all meanness, besides calling 

 upon the judges to give their why and wherefore in withholding prizes. I am sensible 

 there are some Pigeon Fanciers so up to their work, as touching the standard laid down 

 for the various varieties of Pigeons, if asked by the committee why a bird won or lost, 

 that would give satisfaction ; at the same time I am equally sensible that other judges 

 would not, but insist upon it that they had awarded the best bird or birds without giv- 

 ing the why or the wherefore, which is not satisfactory, a judge simply pointing out the 

 properties as laid down by the standard, gives satisfaction to all, and especially to the 

 exhibitors, many of whom know the properties of a Pigeon as well as the judge or 

 judges. I don't believe there's a thorough good Fancier that cares about being beat by 

 better birds, although he thought his own the best under the sun, until he saw better. 

 This was simply his mistake, fortunately not the judge or judges. It is very different 

 when a Fancier is beat with worse birds. What will allay him ? It is not so much the 

 value of the medal ; 'tis the honour and glory of carrying it off. I receive many 

 letters from Fanciers of different counties, on various subjects connected with Pigeons. 

 A few days ago I received a letter from a very spirited Fancier ; part of the letter is as 



follows : — I am rather astonished to find that Mr. has beaten me with . 



He never has before. I beat at the Show, also at the Show ; all the same 



birds, &c. &c. I do not say by the same judges, for I know on one occasion there was 

 a different judge, placed in the room of one of the others. You may reason that the 

 birds might have been out of condition. I do not believe so out of condition that their 

 properties could not be discovered. It is a want of judgment when birds are awarded 

 upon feather or mere appearance alone, for, after all, feather is only one property out 

 of five. A pair of very superior birds may be put in a pen at a Show, and not match 

 exactly as regards feather, although capable of taking the other three, or even four pro- 

 perties out of the properties as laid down by the standard to test the birds. Where too 

 much of this nonsense is carried out by incompetent judges, for simply to take a par- 

 ticularly neat pair of birds, not objectionable in any of their properties, but far from 

 being good in any of their properties, save only feather, is to do away with the 

 standard, and reduce it to one property only, feather, or — the toss of my hat ! Such 

 judges require strong memories to recollect how they formerly awarded the same birds, 

 otherwise there never will be an end to this ''see-saw work." But, acting strictly up 

 to the five properties, as laid down by the standard, will always prove which are the 

 best birds, and will, if once the best birds, always remain so, unless fresh birds are 

 brought against them that are better. You may reason the birds will grow old (so will 

 you and me). Is that any reason they are to be despised? Did you never see an old 

 bird extra good in all its properties save feather ? The cause of my writing so much on 

 the subject, is to guard judges from awarding prizes to Pigeons by any rule save only 

 the right one, which is by the five properties as laid down by the standard. There are 



