67 



174. — Besides the five properties before mentioned, there is another, 

 which though not generally allowed, will be found to be one of the 

 best, I mean the carriage ; under which I comprise the following heads. 



part of the Fanciers, but of late, numbers, who were very staunch in the Pouter 

 Fancy, have, with myself, relinquished that, and become fond of the Almond 

 Tumbler ; and I make no doubt but many more will soon be tired, and follow my 

 example ; for when we consider the trouble that attends the breeding and raising of 

 young Pouters, (exclusive of the extra expense), compared with that of the Almond 

 Tumbler, it is not in the least to be wondered at, for the Pouter requires an infinite deal 

 of attention, it being necessary to keep them separately all the winter season ; that is to 

 say, every single bird, cocks as well as hens, in a separate pen or coop, each of which 

 must be ftirnished with meat and water, and should be lofty and spacious, as, otherwise, 

 they would contract an habit of stooping, which is an imperfection, and should by all 

 means be prevented. Then having (in the spring) matched or paired them, you must 

 be provided with at least two pairs of Dragons, to every pair of Pouters, for nurses or 

 feeders, which must be kept in a separate loft from the Pouters, otherwise they would 

 bastardize, and spoil the breed. Pouters are never suffered, by those who are curious, 

 to hatch their own eggs, they being bad feeders, and would often starve their young 

 ones. When the Pouter has laid her egg, it must be shifted under a Dragon, tiiat has 

 likewise laid, nearly about the same time, and that of the Dragon be placed under the 

 Politer, exchanging the one with the other, it being necessary the Pouter should have 

 an egg, or eggs, to sit on, to prevent her laying again soon, which wotdd weaken, and 

 in a short time kill her ; likewise, the inconveniency attending them when gorged, 

 by putting them in a stocking, as mentioned under the head of distempers (first by Mr. 

 MooEE — see Paragraph 84, 85.) Again, should a Fancier begin with half a dozen 

 pair of Pouters, he would, in a short time, be under the necessity of purchasing more, or 

 exchange (perhaps his best birds) for worse, in order to cross the strain, for should he 

 (as the term is) breed them in and in, which is matching father and daughter, or 

 any other way incestuously together, the breed would degenerate, and not be worth 

 sixpence ; whereas, the same number of Almond Tumblers would inevitably stock him 

 for life, for the breeding of Tumblers in and in, would consequently breed them smaller, 

 which is a perfection in them, and they require no attendance while breeding, provided 

 you supply them with meat and water, and throw them a little straw, and do not (like 

 the Pouter) require time to be lavished upon them to make them familiar. Experience 

 teaches us that were Tumblers to be kept in separate pens, as the Pouters are, they 

 would show in the same manner, and be equally as familiar as the Pouter, for the 

 Pouter should be almost constantly attended and talked to, during the Winter season, 

 in a phrase peculiar to that Fancy, viz. — hua ! hua ! stroking them down the back, and 

 clacking to them as to chickens, otherwise they would lose their familiarity, which is 

 one of their greatest beauties, and is termed shewing, and would make the finest of 

 them despicable, which made a facetious gentleman of my acquaintance say, " that 

 Pouters were a fancy more particularly adapted to Weavers, Cobblers, and the like kind 

 of trades only, that worked in the same room where they were kept, that the owners 

 might have an opportunity of conversing with them, at the same time they were earning 

 their subsistence." Though I must allow of the propriety of the above observation, I 

 cannot help thinking it rather severe than otherwise, for certainly every gentlemen has 

 an undoubted right to please himself with the fancy he most delights in. 



174. (Eaton,)— Read Moore, 174 to 178. — There are Fanciers in the present day 

 contending there is a difference between shape and carriage. I do not know that I ever 

 saw an elegant shape bird but that it possessed good carriage, I think from its elegance 

 of carriage that in a great measure it derives the name Shape from. In mj'- Almond 

 Tumbler, in writing on one of the five properties it runs thus, shape or carriage, or it 

 might have been laid down as shape and carriage. I think shape or carriage, as des- 

 cribing a property in a Pigeon, are synonymous, one and the same thing, at all events 

 shewing grand style. 



(Eaton.) — What folly for a Pouter Fancier to attempt to breed black mottle Pouters 

 in Feather like mottle tumblers, what would they look like provided he could accom- 

 plish his end, where would be the beauty in feather, where the beautiful chap or chop, 

 where the bib. shape of half moon, the clean white thighs and flight, &c. &c. If you 

 £ 2 



