Mr. Cornish's Alleged Inaccuracies. 
255 
We say this is not fair, since the first were our and not Mr. Cornish’s words, while Burnham 
has added the words “this is certain.” Reference to “The Brahma Fowl” will show that our 
statement was made on the authority of Mr. Crook, who got his information from American 
correspondents. The figure in Mr. Crook’s MS. was ambiguous, and would have been referred 
back by us for revision, but that we had come across another statement in print giving the 
date as 1849, which led us to adopt the “9” without question. We now, however, find that 
Cornish himself never stated the year at all in his earlier letters; and feel convinced that 
Mr. Crook’s correspondents, probably writing from memory, confused a statement given by 
some other parties — Mr. Miner, for instance, in his “Poultry Book” of 1853, gives this date of 
1849 as the probable one — with Mr. Cornish. Burnham therefore must charge the contradiction 
either to us, or Mr. Crook, or the American informants of the latter, but not to Mr. Cornish, 
who is quite undeserving of the insinuation made at the close of the second paragraph. 
It may be well to add that Mr. Plaisted — Dr. Bennett’s partner in those old Brahma 
days — published in The Poultry World of 1874 another account, which he supplemented by 
that of a Mr. Charles Knox, whom he alleges to have been the very “ sailor ” so often 
mentioned. He puts the date of introduction as 1847; throws ridicule on the story of 
“ Luckipoor,” and says that “Mr. Cornish in all his statements to Mr. Wright goes back 
just one year earlier than he ought.” He also attempts to sneer at Mr. Cornish in other 
respects, and Mr. Burnham professes to accept his testimony as “ conclusive ” against 
Cornish. He forgets, however, that Plaisted’s account in all but a difference of one year tallies 
with Mr. Cornish’s in every detail ; and either he or Cornish might, more than twenty years 
later, make a mistake of that kind without affecting their substantial accuracy. In some points 
it does appear to us Mr. Cornish was a year out ; but when, as one instance of this, Mr. 
Plaisted affirms that it was 1851 and not 1850 when Hatch first showed his Brahmas, it is plain 
from the quotations on pages 253 and 254 from both Burnham and Cornish, that it is Cornish 
who is right and Plaisted wrong, Burnham being in this point unbiassed, and their united 
memory so far back as 1852 and 1855 being more certain than Plaisted’s in 1874. Moreover, 
from Plaisted’s correspondence, placed in our hands by Miss Watts, we find that he in the 
old days affirmed and took part in the Cornish account, which he substantially verifies ; 
and we find the reason for his needless and harmless sneers in the copy of a letter in our 
possession written by Mr. Stoddard, editor of The Poultry World, in which he affirms that 
he has an account in preparation by this Mr. Plaisted “ which will ” take the lead of both 
“ Burnham and Wright.” To those who know what some types of American journalism are, 
this piece of previous information will speak volumes. 
Again, Mr. Burnham objects to the “Luckipoor” part of the story, quoting The Field, 
which said that “ Luckipoor is not a port at all, but a small inland town in the Hima- 
layan mountains, 100 miles from the nearest point of the Brahmapootra river.” He quotes this, 
and then says (“ China Fowl,” p. 95) that “ Mr. Wright shrewdly dismisses this subject of 
Luckipoor very summarily after reading the above from The Field, with the simple remark 
that it is scarcely matter for wonder that the name of the ship, captain, and sailor 
should be forgotten ! ” When Burnham wrote this statement, he had literally before his 
eyes, at the moment, a full reply we had sent The Field to this objection, from which he 
quotes (as our 'whole reply) the above sentence. Of this reply the following small portion of 
that suppressed by Burnham will suffice : 
First, I think I may say that Mr. Cornish, had he been “making up” a story, would have taken the very simple precaution 
of seeing to it that his geography was not so grossly inaccurate as you imply. 
But, secondly, to come to facts. In the excellent gazetteer published by Messrs. Blackie, Luckipoor is described as being 
