August 12. 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
| not. Whether it is that they do not like what Gobbet calls 
“ the beastly trimming ” to which all tall trees, with scarcely 
an exception, are subjected, or whatever the cause may be, 
rookeries are desiderata. The Corvidee are represented by 
hooded crows, during their season, which, however, mostly 
keep to the sea coast, and feed on marine wafts and strays; 
by jays unusually impudent and cunning, which seldom 
travel far beyond the forests; by carrion crows, which prowl 
all over the country in pairs, laying hold of whatever they 
can happen with ; and most numerously by magpies, tamer, 
and more constantly in sight than I have ever beheld them. 
Not even Cornwall can match the Calaisis for magpies. One 
village, Pihen, derives its name from pies and helm, accord¬ 
ing to the annalists ; Pihen signifies habitation dcs pics, or 
i home of the magpies. But on almost every clump of tall 
j trees, especially in the neighbourhood of dwellings, is to be 
seen the rough bunch of sticks which indicates the solitary 
j nest of tho magpie. Ravens, doubtless, are to be found in 
the French forests, but one sees or hears very little of them. 
Of all these Corvkhe , the magpie is by far the busiest and 
the most useful in the destruction of insect vermin ; but its 
numbers are still insufficient to compensate for the absence 
of rooks. Hence the acknowledgment of the services 
rendered by the mole. The give-and-take arrangements of 
nature are never better illustrated in our eyes, than when, 
from some cause or other, the balances of power to which we 
have been accustomed, arc interrupted. D. 
(1'u be continued.) 
WHICH VARIETY IS MOST PROFITABLE ? 
Had I seen Mr. Wingfield’s paper on poultry before 
sending you my last letter, you would have been spared 
the insertion of a second paper on the same subject. As it 
is, I hope you will find me room for a second “ crow,” 
though not one of “ defiance." A fairer or more straight¬ 
forward expression of opinion than Mr. Wingfield’s is could 
not be, and if I venture to dissent from his judgment—as 
to the comparative merits of some sorts of poultry—it is 
from an idea that when “ doctors differ,” friendly discussion 
will ensue, and that so, what I believe is our mutual object— 
“ that of improving poultry ”—will be forwarded. 
With regard to Spanish, them price is at present an ob¬ 
jection ; but after this year that will be very much reduced. 
1 can safely say, I have not found them “ difficult to hatch 
and rear,” having actually had more success with them, in 
proportion, than with any other breed of poultry. I have 
reared from ISO to 200 chickens with very few casualties. 
From the number of applications for chickens I have had 
from Cornwall poultry-fanciers, I am inclined to think they 
are fully alive to the merits of Spanish fowls. 
I now come to Dorkings, which, I agree with him, 11 are 
not remarkable layers ; ” perhaps I might even go farther 
than this, and say they are not good; but they are unde¬ 
niably good as table fowls, and good nurses. Exceed 
“ White Dorkings,” I cannot complain, from my experience, 
of “ their great delicacy;” but I quite agree with Mr. Wing¬ 
field, “ that they require a constant and judicious inter¬ 
mixture of fresh blood.” 
I should be glad, by-the-by, if any of your correspondents j 
would inform us whether, as regards Dorkings, the same 
thing has happened to them as to me. Last year I found 
that of my most carefully bred broods, though the chicks 
resembled each other in feather, many were without the 
fifth toe. I concluded this was my fault for breeding in, 
and that fresh blood was wanting. I obtained fresh blood, 
putting my old cocks with new hens, and vice versd —in spite 
of which, this year, out of 120 chickens, I have many of 
my best without the fifth toe, thus disqualifying them for 
an exhibition. I have not remarked the difficulty in the 
Dorking chickens’ escape from the egg which Mr. Wing¬ 
field describes. 
With regard to Cochin-Chinas —agreeing as 1 do in many 
of the points brought forward in their favour by their very 
able advocate—I still remain of the same opinion, “ that 
they do not make up, by their superior laying qualities, for 
the quantity they eat, in comparison with other good layers, 
such as Spanish, or Polish.” Mr. Wingfield does “ not 
think them large consumers of food,” and speaks highly 
“ of the quality of their fiesh.” On these points we differ; 
311 
and, wishing to put this to a fair test, I will relate a con¬ 
versation which took place a few days ago between me and 
my gardener (the same man whom I quoted in my last 
letter). 
“ Well, Thomas, as you are just married, Mrs.-wishes 
to make you a present of some fowls, for supplying you 
with eggs; but you are to keep, not sell them. Which will 
you have—Cochin-China or Spanish?” “Well, sir (was 
the answer), I’ve a groat fancy for the Cochins, they’re 
such very tame things; but they eat too much to make 
money: Spanish, if you please, sir.” I asked my poultry- 
woman her opinion (and she has had much experience in 
poultry), and her verdict was the same. One of the garden- 
men, who stood by and overheard her, remarked, “ Them 
fowls (as fowls) won’t pay a poor man ; they eats too much, 
lays too small eggs—though I reckon they’re good uns at 
it; and folks don’t like eating them (the fowls); they say 
they’re like parrots.” I am sure John never ate a parrot, 
though his master owns to having done so, and a nasty 
thing it was ; so that the comparison (to say the least of it) 
was odious. 
It is fan - to add that I keep my Cochin-Chinas at home, 
under the charge of these people—the Spanish being at a 
cottage, under separate care; so that in these expressions 
there was no fancy bias. Filthy lucre was the thing con¬ 
sidered ; and it was this, and tills alone, which formed their 
judgment. 
Thomas again, yesterday, drew my attention to their eating 
powers, by the expressive remark of—“ Eh ! see, master! 
what chaps them be to eat! ” 
I have never tasted Cochin-Chinas but onco; then my 
opinion was not in their favour, and in this the four or five 
who were dining with me agreed. Wo thought the flesh 
coarse and stringy. The victims were two cockerels, taken 
indiscriminately from the flock. They were nearly four 
months old, and weighed five pounds, and just under five 
pounds, respectively. There was a great laugh at me about 
“ my guinea birds,” which were to be roasted, and which, 
when they did appear (with their legs cut off by the scan¬ 
dalised cook, as if they were boiled, to make them shorter), 
did, I must confess, look very “ stilty.” 
I do not go the same length as my friend Thomas, and 
declare them “ parrots; ” but I did not think them com¬ 
parable with Dorkings. However, my wife declares we must 
have some more “ guinea birds ” killed; so all I say is, 
“ Better luck next time.” 
AYith Mr. AYingfield's opinion, as regards Malays, I quite 
agree. I tried, and gave them up. I consider Cochin- 
Chinas superior to them. Beautiful as they are, Game fowls 
will not pay the cottager. 
I acknowledge the delicacy of the Polish fowl, but I 
should be inclined to place them in the scale, as layers, 
very far before the Hamburglis. 
What I had heard of the geese at Birmingham had led 
me to the same conclusion as Mr. Wingfield. I have now 
eight young geese, from a Toulouse goose and large English 
gander; and as my attention was drawn to the weight of the 
gander and two geese who won the prize at Lewes (weighing, 
at fourteen weeks old, 40 lbs.), I weighed three of my geese, 
who, at the age of ten weeks and two days, weighed 
35J lbs.—gander, 13J- lbs.; geese, 11lbs. each. I may 
add, that these geese were not fed up and prepared for 
exhibiting. I am convinced that much may yet be done 
towards improving geese and ducks by judicious crosses. 
I must apologise for troubling you with my opinions; and 
I trust Mr. AVingfield will excuse my differing from him, as 
I believe our object is the same—that of arriving at “ what 
breed of poultry is likely to prove most profitable to the 
farmer and the cottager.”— Gallus. 
TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
Budding Roses (Evesham ),—To argue that because we top a shoot 
to encourage side-branches we ought to top a newly-budded one to en¬ 
courage the growth of the bud, is to believe that as soon as a bud is 
inserted and tied, it is as capable of action as any of the natural buds;— 
an untenable doctrine in the middle of the nineteenth century. To say 
that if you “ tip ” the shoot of a wild rose the sap ceases to flow in it, is 
quite wrong ; it flows enough to support inserted buds. 
Beds (Maurandya ).—The sudden change to hot weather at the begin¬ 
ning of July has caused your plants to grow too fast without showing 
much flower ; and to stimulate them with artificial manures would only 
