THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN'S COMPANION.— July 1,1856. 
248 
and comparison, if faithfully fulfilled. How incomparably 
increased, then, arc the difficulties tlffit ever surround those 
who attempt the office, and then, when too late, find cir¬ 
cumstances arise hitherto quite unforeseen, and for which, 
they, of course, were equally unprepared. Doubt, hesitation, 
and perplexity close around them on every side, and then it 
is that, without any wilful disposition to “favouritism,” 
blunders so egregious are committed, that at least one of 
two charges is directed against the unfortunate adjudicator 
of these premiums, viz., “ that he must be either guilty of 
partiality, or be incapable of performing the duties he has 
undertaken.” Complaints arise on all sides, some, doubt¬ 
less, groundless altogether, as, on such occasions, “ the 
disappointed” feel induced rather to add to the clamour 
than to appease the ill-will already existing. Most probably 
the committee are appealed to, and after hearing all arguments 
pro and con, that committee arrive at the conclusion, “ the 
awards of the Judges must be final,” as they see no possible 
means of extrication from the downright difficulties by 
which they find themselves so very unexpectedly encircled. 
It is then beyond their power to act upon remedied measures, 
the “winners” (rightly or wrongly) strongly insist as to 
their indisputable right to whatever prizes have already- 
been allotted them, and the inevitable result is, the com¬ 
mittee are literally engulphed in complaints by way of 
“protests;” or, may be, the threat is laid before them of 
public exposure of the injustice presumed to be committed, 
or even lawsuits have been commenced, with the hope of 
enforcing different results. 
The whole of these unpleasant consequences might cer¬ 
tainly have been easily avoided, had proper discrimination 
been observed in the selection of the Judges in the first 
instance; but when the causes that produced the complaints I 
of the exhibitors had transpired, the difficulties, of course, 
were afterwards insurmountable. 
It is quite certain that faultless awards are by no means 
dependent on the numerical amount of adjudicators, but 
that contrariwise, where many are employed, the discre- 1 
pancies are far more obvious than where two or three were ! 
engaged only. We have noticed, also, the unvarying rule 
(for it admits of no exception), that the time occupied in 
awarding the premiums is influenced in exact proportion to 
the numbers of parties on whom the duty depends; if 
few-, the decisions are quickly arrived at; on the contrary, 
if many, the time is proportionally prolonged. The old 
axiom, “ practice makes perfect,” was never more justly 
applicable than to our present subject, and all things con¬ 
sidered, such as the lessened expenditure of the Society’s 
funds, the increased care enforced upon the Judges (where | 
“ mistakes,” should they arise, must be borne, without resting 
on the shoulders of all, and the blame be consequently alike ( 
sub-divided), our opinions favour entirely a few competent 
and experienced judges, rather than numbers who unwisely 
rely on the convictions of their colleagues, instead of their j 
own sufficiency and fitness for the office they have under¬ 
taken. 
On many occasions of late we have noticed the great 
disinclination (indeed, absolute refusal to officiate at all) of 
gentlemen who, only a few years since, were notorious as 
poultry judges—whose decisions were not questioned, and 
whose “ impartiality" was never the subject of dispute. 
We naturally felt somewhat curious to ascertain the motives 
that induced so great and unexpected a change; whether it 
was simply the result of individual caprice alone; or, on the 
contrary, their refusal arose from any cogent, though unex¬ 
plained, reason. 
It appears, in many cases thus investigated, to proceed 
exclusively from these gentlemen, even after having duly 
and efficiently fulfilled their duties, paid all their own travel¬ 
ling and hotel expenses, &c., being unable to obtain any 
remuneration whatever for their personal trouble, or even the. 
repayment of the monies they themselves were thus compelled 
to expend. Of course, the enthusiasm of any real amateur 
of poultry must “damp away” under so unjust an infliction : 
whatever the position, if duly rendered, “the labourer is 
worthy of his hire." Indeed, there are but very few either 
willing or able to endure continual drains upon their private 
purse, simply to encourage poultry committees in their pro¬ 
posed speculations. Had not instances come to our know¬ 
ledge of gentlemen travelling several hundreds of miles to 
judge a Show, and finding themselves eventually the losers 
by the exact amount of their individual expenditure, we 
would not thus strongly have alluded to the subject; but 
such cases are not at all isolated ones, and from their 
multiplicity have led to the results now detailed. Incre¬ 
dible as it may appear, these cases have frequently occurred, 
even where, by pre-agreement, no expense whatever was 
entailed upon the Society for the actual services of the 
Judges themselves; and they only looked forward, as ar¬ 
ranged, to the return of the actual outlay that was conse¬ 
quent upon travelling. It is almost needless to say, thus 
treated, it is common to all human nature “ to object to its 
repetition; ” parties of high standing, competency, and 
credit naturally “ dwindle away as to numbers,” until, at the 
present hour, the difficulties of obtaining a good judge have 
literally lapsed into a standing adage among our poultry 
committees. 
This is, certainly, open to correction. Let every committee 
make good the engagements entered into prior to the Judges 
leaving them, then all will be well; there will no longer 
coutinue the just cause of complaint we have alluded to, 
and no doubt, ere long, the impediments in the way of 
obtaining first-class Judges will be altogether removed. 
THORNE CATTLE AND POULTRY SHOW. 
This was held at Thorne, on the 18tli of June. 
The Judges, Mr. Stead and Mr. Pearson, of Leeds, 
awarded the prizes as follows :— 
Spanish, —First and Second, Mr J. Richardson, Thorne. 
Cochin-China.— First, Mr H. N. Fosbrooke, Thorne. Second, 
Messrs T. and C. Addey, Epwortli. 
Dorking.— First, P. Barnard, Esq., Bigby, Brigg. Second, Mr Jos. 
Boyes, Epworth. Chickens. —Mr Joseph Boyes, Epworth. 
Game (White and Piles).—Second, Mr Thomas Johnson, Hatfield. 
(First not awarded.) 
Game (Black-breasted and other Reds).—First, MrsH. Sharpe, Brad¬ 
ford. Second, Mr Edward Auckland, Doncaster. 
Game (Duckwings and other Greys and Blues).—First, Mr R. Bentley, 
Hatfield, Woodhouse Moors. Second, Mr John Bleasby, Thorne. 
Chickens— Mrs H. Sharpe, Bradford. 
Silver-spangled Hamburgh. —First, Mrs H. Sharpe, Bradford. 
Second, Mr Joseph Richardson, Thorne. Chickens, —Mr J. Richardson, 
Thorne. 
Golden-spangled Hamburgh. — First and Second, Mr Joseph 
Richardson, Thorne. 
Silver-pencilled Hamburgh. —First, Mrs H. Sharpe, Bradford. 
Second, Mr Edward Auckland, Doncaster. Chickens.— Mrs H. Sharpe, 
Bradford. 
Any breed or cross. — First, Mrs Henry Moore, Doncaster. 
Second, Mr Edward Priestlay, Bankside. 
Bantams (Black, White, or any other colour).—First, Miss Richard¬ 
son, Thorne. Second, Mr Robert Whaley, Thorne. 
Best Cock, any' breed or cross. —First, Mr Samuel Ibbertson, 
Rawcliffe Pastures. 
Best two Hens, any breed or cross.— Mr George Forth, Thorne. 
(Grey Game.) 
Gander and Goose.— First and Second, Mr Edward Appleyard, 
Thorne. 
Four Gibs.— First, Mr Edward Appleyard, Thorne. Second, Miss 
Sarah Batty, Ditchmarsh, Thorne. 
Turkeys.— First, Mrs Brockton, Tudworth. Second, Mr E. Apple- 
yard, Thorne. 
Ducks of any breed.— First, Mr Thomas Husband, Levels. (Second 
prize not awarded.) 
Aylesbury Ducks. — First and Second, Pelham Barnard, Esq., 
Bigby, Brigg. 
Muscovy Ducks.— First, Mr George Gooddy, Thorne. Second, Mr 
John Birtwistle, Levels. 
Guinea Fowls.— First, Miss Harnew, Levels. Second, Mr Edward 
Priestlay, Bankside. 
PIGEONS. 
Carriers.— Mr Wm. Harrison, Belton. I / 
Croppers. —Miss Richardson, Thorne. 
Tumblers.— Miss Richardson, Thorne. 
Jacobins. —Mr W. Harrison, Belton. 
Nuns. —Mr W. Whitelocke, Bawtry. 
Trumpeters.— Messrs T. and C. Addey, Epworth. 
Turbits.— Mr William Dale, Doncaster. 
Fantails. —Mr George Watson, jun., Hatfield Brick-yard. 
Any other variety.— Messrs T. and C. Addey, Epworth. (Barbs.) 
