December 4. 
COaNIEY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION. 
171 
Trumpeters.— 427 . Prize, Charles R. Titterton, Birmingham. Com¬ 
mended.— 429 . ]\Ir. Thomas Twose, Bridgwater. 
Pouters. —437. Prize, Mr. Samuel Summerhayes, Taunton. 
Barbs. —440. Prize, Rev. G. F. Hodson, North Petherton. 
Dragons.— 457 . Prize, Mr, Samuel Summerhayes, Taunton. 
For the best Pair of any other Variety. —472. Prize, Mr. 
Edward A. Lingard, Birmingham. (Runts.) 482. Prize, Charles 
Bluett, Esq., Taunton. (Archangels.) Commended. — 474. Capt. 
n. Adney, Lympstone. (Helmets). 4/8. Mr. S. C. Baker, Chelsea. 
(Spots.) 430. J. Pcrcival, Esq., Harborue, Birmingham. (Frill Cocks.) 
The Silver Medal for the best collection of Pigeons was awarded to 
Mr. S. Summerhayes. 
THE JUDGING OF PIGEONS. 
Permit me, as an olil Pigeon fancier, to offer a remark 
on the judging of a pen of Pigeons, for a special prize—as a 
silver cup—for the best xien of Pigeons, consisting of four 
juiirs of different sorts, as was the case at Anerley, and is tlie 
case for the Birmingham Cup. 
One corresxiondent contends that the best four pairs of 
any sorts should have the cup. I am quite sure that no 
experienced breeder of pigeons can agree in such an opinion. 
But Jet us look at the matter. Let us take four of “ any 
sort” of Pigeons, and then take four of the crack sorts, and 
conqiare them, and thinJe over the matter. Suppose the 
“ any sort” consisted of four very pretty, but still jilenti- 
ful and easily bred sorts, i. e.. Nuns, Bards, Bunts, and 
Fantails. Every Pigeon fancier knows that these sorts can 
be obtained for afew shillings a pair—that in breeding them 
true to colour and shape there is no difficulty, or even un¬ 
certainty—like father, like son, is tlie rule here. There is 
no ci’edit, no troulile in breeding good specimens of these, 
and sueli birds as these. 
But now for tlie crack sorts. The Pigeons of the Fancy, 
viz., Almond Tumblers, Pouters, and Carriei’S (there really 
is not a fourth) so that the exhibitor must take his choice 
of the other sorts, and add it to his jien of four ; xieihafis a 
Trumpeter, or Jack would be selected. Now, these three 
sorts will cost nearly as many guineas as the othei’S will 
cost shillings, if first-rate birds^five, ten, or even fifteen 
guineas will be the xirice of a really first-rate pair of birds. 
The reason is, that it is so difficult a matter to breed 
thorough good birds with all, or even with most, of the 2 yru- 
jierLies. Great skill and experience is often required, so as 
to match the parent birds (Almond Tumblers, for instance), 
that the young ones may possess the good projierties of each 
of the parents ; for few, very fe*w, parent birds are up to the 
mark in colour, shape, size, and marking, 
A clever fancier may take, for examxile, a cock bird of 
splendid marking and colour, but which may be wanting in 
shajie—he matches him with a hen of jierfect shape, but 
may bo wanting in correct marking. Now, the chance is—I 
say chance—that he may get a young one, now and then, that 
combines the good properties of each of the parents— i. e., 
the good sha-ge of the one, with the good marking of the 
other; and then he rejoices in hap^iy fortune. If he gets 
two, or even one pair of such wonders, out of twenty, he 
thinks himself well compensated! A pair of first-rate 
Pouters is still a greater rarity than Almond Tumblers; 
and LT2 or T15 would easily be got for a pair of first-rate 
“ Yellow-pied.” With Carriers, there is less difficulty, cer¬ 
tainly; though this bird is justly styled the “King of 
Pigeons.” 
Surely, surely, then, in awarding “ the Cup ” for the best 
pen of four pairs of pigeons, the Judges w'ould keep in 
mind all these things, and give it to the most worthy birds 
—birds with properties, and these difficult of attainment.— 
When by labour, skill, and perseverance, they are obtained, 
surely they should have their reward. It may be said, 
“ But some exhibitor may buy such birds ready-made.” He 
will pay dearly for his whistle if he docs, and deserves the 
cup for his pluck, which, after all, will be but a poor pecu¬ 
niary recompense.— Sam Slick. 
DUBLIN SOCIETY’S PKOPOSED BASIS FOE 
JUDGING POULTRY. 
Others, as well as myself, have been somewhat surprised 
at the spirit in which “ The Proposed Basis for Uniformity 
of Judgment at Poultry Exhibitions,” has been attempteil 
to be replied to by your correspondent who styles himself 
“ D,” in your number of I3th inst. It must be admitted, 
that at present much difference of opinion does exist, both 
as to nomenclature and tbe xioints of perfection of the 
several varieties; and one would suppose that any attempt 
to remedy that would have been met in a spirit of candid 
inquiry, and that man who is obliged to resort to the shafts 
of ridicule gives pi'ima facie evidence that he is not able to 
meet the subject in a,ny other way; to such gentlemen, 
“ The Proxrosed Basis ” was not intended to be submitted. 
Your correspondent “D” seems altogether to have over¬ 
looked the title of the paper’, which does not assume to be 
perfect, but is a Proposed Basis put forward for the xmrpose 
of inviting rational discussion, to find out how the different 
views of amateurs may be reconciled, and their inac¬ 
curacies coi'rected. I beg to inform “ D ” that I have been 
favoured, in a very different style, by letters from Mr. 
Tegetmeier, and Mr. B. P. Brent, well known names, 
and when I inform “D” that they concur in the prin- 
cixrles of the ba.sis, and that any dissents on their part 
can be answered by simxrle exxrlanation, “ P ” 
may not be 'inclined to be quite so confident, nor sup¬ 
pose the subject so easily dismissed as he appears to think. 
In the first x'lace, I must altogether object to replying to 
anonymous correspondents. Let any oxix^onent state his name 
and address, and then the xmblic, on inquiry, can understand 
the relative value of various, and, xrerhaps, clashing opinions. 
I beg to inform “ D ” that I am not one of the seri stu- 
dioruni class; my experience ranges over more than twenty 
years; that my reiiding is not confined to my own country ; 
and that I have travelled much in x>ui'suit of ray favourite 
amusement, and in doing so acquired much information ; 
and if the discussion be carried on in a sifirit of inquiry, I 
may be able to answer all fair objections, and therefore be 
entitled to fair consideration. 
In the discussion of any subject of scientific research, 
technical terms must be used, as the shortest means of con¬ 
veying to the mind what is intended, and the Basis is there¬ 
fore drawn out so as to embrace the principal breeds and 
their most striking characteristics, and not as an extended 
descrixffion of the varied forms incidental to cultivation ; nor 
is it a position of mine that any pei’inanent variety should 
be excluded. I think the existence of such a work as The 
Cottage Gardener is a boon to society, as tending to an 
extended knowledge of any subject, but it ceases to be so, 
if real inquirers are driven from the field, by an unwilling¬ 
ness to be made the butt of lidiculous remarks. 
I beg further to object to a garbled statement, more par¬ 
ticularly viewed through a coloured medium. Let the pro- 
Xiosed Basis be x^Rt forward as it stands, and I have no 
doubt but that many of your intelligent readers will come 
forward and discuss it, and thus it may be the means of 
having a Basis so regulated as to result in its universal adoxi- 
tion, and which I am most desirous of seeing accomplished. 
— R. P. Williams, Dublin. 
I AGREE with most of “ D’s ” remarks on the Dublin Rules 
for Judges, but must take exception to those having refer¬ 
ence to Bpangled Polands. I have no hesitation in saying 
they are a laced breed, and his own words are the greatest 
XU’oof that it is so. He naively says, “ that the comxfiaint at 
every show now is, that the spangled birds are all becoming 
laced.” Nothing can demonstrate the fact stronger; of 
course they become laced, and will continue to do so, not¬ 
withstanding that the spotted birds are selected for breeding 
from—it is natural to the bre’ed. Y'^ou cannot wash the 
blackamoor white. “ D ” should have put on his considering- 
caxi, and have asked himself a question—whether it might 
not be possible that the fowls were in the right, and the 
judges wrong ? He is quite correct in his definition of a 
sxiangle, but wrong in the premises. That they are called 
spangled is no proof that they should not be laced, but 
rather the reverse, if precedent goes for anything. The 
original name of the Bantam was Spangled, or Sebright, 
