THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION.— August 5, 1850. 
836 
attendance of gentlemen to efficiently and faithfully fulfil 
the duties of Poultry Judges. The greatly increased value 
of the premiums now offered for the successful, comprising 
really valuable (and, at the same time, much-coveted) 
articles of plate, on the one hand, naturally augments con¬ 
siderably the number of competitors, whilst the grave and 
serious attention that has, during the last half-dozen years, 
been paid to the careful breeding, and not less attentive 
selection of show stock, adds even still materially to the dif¬ 
ficulties that press sorely upon those parties appointed to 
fulfil this thankless and really responsible duty. Conse¬ 
quently, there are but few parties now willing to incur the 
unpleasantries that frequently arise from unjust and ill- 
timed Complaints from exhibitors who, if they cannot win, 
desire, as they call it, to bring it to a wrangle. - ’ Where 
there is not actually any cause for disputation, it must be 
obvious to all who simply wish well to Poultry Shows, that 
to continually pursue this course has but one single downward 
tendency—the wilful irruption of kindly feeling; and, even¬ 
tually, must limit greatly both the utility and popularity of 
those annual re-unions, where every enthusiastic amateur 
ought, undoubtedly, to meet his rivals for poultry honours with 
perfect friendliness and good will. Where unsuccessful, bis 
efforts should be undoubtedly and anxiously directed to im¬ 
prove his own stock for future contests, and aspire to dis¬ 
tinction by a closer and possibly triumphant competition in 
coming years. But is not the course we have just suggested 
too frequently the very opposite of the one pursued? 
Many circumstances have come to our knowledge that 
prove how difficult it is to some amateurs to reconcile 
themselves to defeat under any circumstances whatever; 
and could some of the complainants take “ a private view’ - 
of all the correspondence that ensues from this outburst, 
produced by long-clierished hopes unexpectedly blighted, 
in cases of extensive classes, we surmise even his or her 
indignation individually would rather givp way to downright 
risibility, from the sheer absurdity with which each party in 
so numerous a body lays obstinate claim to a premium that 
cannot possibly be divided, or appointed to more than a 
solitary recipient among the numerous grumblers. We do 
not now intend to enter into any disquisition upon the rec¬ 
titude or impropriety of particular awards, but simply desire 
to enforce the general bearing of the practice.we have just 
propounded to our readers, that each one among them may 
form his own views as to the most probable issue. As “ an 
illustration.”—Within the last half-year, at a certain Poultry 
Show, more than a dozen and a half exhibitors competed 
for one single set of prizes, the principal one “ a cup ” of 
considerable value; and no doubt exists that the competition 
was wondrously improved by the hope “ looming in the 
future ’’ of each amateur that the day was not far distant 
when he could easily quaff his porter from the premium- 
tankard, bearing, too, an engraved particular of his own in¬ 
dividual superiority among the many. Of necessity, the 
hopes so fondly indulged in were only realised in a single 
instance. The sequel was ludicrous ; all the aspirants, ex¬ 
cept one (and the lucky winner) laid remonstrative claims, 
by letter, either to the Judges or committee, as to the gross 
injustice of the final decision, each asserting, of course, “ no 
one could have then found fault,” had the prize been 
awarded to their own particular favourites ! 
In the instance alluded to, no doubt exists but that the 
majority of the parties thus complaining and “ protesting” 
against the injustice to which each of them personally had 
been subjected, were influenced entirely by honest and 
sincere convictions of the verity of their position. Per¬ 
chance, too, as we know was the case in at least a portion of 
them, their convictions were not supported by lengthened 
experience of the requirements “ indispensable to success,’’ 
from being just at the commencement of their career as 
“exhibitors.” In such circumstances, highly-raised opinions 
of their own “ show -birds ” are natural and easily explicable, 
together with an expression of “ surprise ” that other speci- 
mens could excel them, when they were not themselves com¬ 
petent, as owners, to perceive the difference, far less the I 
“ superiority of the winners.” 
But there is still another class of the dissatisfied, whose 
ill-success is not unfrequently attributable, in foto, to the 
really piteous condition of first-class fowls, that the incon¬ 
siderate owner has sent to every show they were in time for 
attending, and even, in various instances, travelling from 
one exhibition to another, at considerable distances, without 
the least rest of any kind whatever. It is then confidently 
asserted that their previous winnings are the very best 
possible proof of their superiority, and why their altered 
position on the prize-list? The fact is, that uncared-for, 1 
toil-worn, and dejected, the poultry tlius defeated are 
merely the ruin of their former selves, the whole produced 
by the combined influences of anxiety, prolonged excite¬ 
ment, and unnatural sustenance. These are just the cases 
that serve most to test the discriminative powers of the 
arbitrators, and if adverse to the interests of the weakened 
fowls, are not unfrequently productive of unmeasured re¬ 
monstrances against the award from the disappointed party : 
possessing them. To the owner, the change has been so 
gradual as to interfere but little with his fondly-cherished , 
hopes of unlimited success; but the deterioration has at 
length reached its culminating point, and the first adverse 
decision proves the herald of unmingled indignation. But 
the remonstrators are evidently not always actuated by 
either one or the other motives we have just described, and | 
a case of thoughtless, uncalled-for complaint has just come 
to our own knowledge, that will best tell its own tale, and ! 
bear its own construction. As a natural course, we pur- j 
posely withhold the names of parties, places, &c., and simply 
present the correspondence to our readers, with this one 
comment, that it is scarcely to be hoped for that impartial, | 
unprejudiced individuals will continue to officiate as Poultry , 
•Judges if so unprecedented a mode of annoyance is in- 1 
dulged in, and practices so occult and irreconcilable with 
outward first-sight appearances are adopted. 
A POLISH CORRESPONDENCE. 
THE LOSER TO THE JUDGE. 
“-Hall, 
“ Dear Sir, “ July, 1856. 
“ As my Polands have been so often beaten of late, ! 
and as you were the Judge at-• on-, where, I 
as you would see, I was an exhibitor, I wish you would be ( 
good enough to tell me how it was I did not gain the cup 
with my "White-crested birds. I ask how it was, for I am at 
a loss to know how such birds as the ones I allude to can, 
al present, be beaten. I was asked bv a great many people 
what was the reason I was beaten ; for they said, look at the 
cup birds—top knots pulled back off their faces, every black 
feather, or nearly so, pulled out; what few they had it is 
QUITE RIDICULOUS to suppose Were NATURAL. Why, if Such 
trimming is to be allowed, Poultry Shows will soon cease, 
for all respectable people will draw out, and give up keep¬ 
ing fowls; such, however, is not, at present, my intention. | 
The cock was as poor a bird as any 1 ever sail', very little 
larger than a Bantam cock, his top-knot equally small; in 
fact, a very poor companion for his hens. Mr. - was ! 
pleased to say of my birds (and I believe yon were present 1 
at the time), ‘ that they were the best pen of this class lie 
ever saw.’ Now, it is impossible that they could have fallen 1 
off within so short time since the above was said ; but I am 
not writing this letter to condemn your judgment, but simply 
to know where it is my birds are wanting, to bo almost over¬ 
looked, and I shall esteem it a very great kindness if you 
will inform me. “ Yours, &c.” 
THE LOSER TO THE WINNER. 
“-Halt, 
“ Sir, “ July, 1850. 
“ I write to ask you if you will part with your pen of 
White-crested Polands which gained the cup at-- on , 
-? If so, at what price ? 
“ Yours,. Ac.” 
TIIE JUDGE TO THE LOSER. 
“ Dear Sir, “ July, 1850. ! 
“Your letter came duly to hand yesterday, but my 
absence from home prevented my reply by return of post, 
as I did not see it until this morning. 1 must premise what i 
I have to say by the simple avowal, that iu all my poultry 
experience I never met with so singularly preposterous a 
case before, whilst I heartily hope, and verily believe, I shall 
never do so again. You ask, ‘ Why your fowls did not win 
the cup?’ and instantly and irately repeat the query, pro¬ 
nouncing the successful ones * as having their top-kuots 
