100 
T?1K COTTAGE GAllDENER. 
December 11. 
THE CIRENCESTER POrETR^" SHOW. ! 
It would seem fhat tlie columns of The Cott-^oe Gar- , 
EEXER are the tit idaee wherein we shoulil treat of Poultry, ; 
I if old associations have anything to do wuth it. The deli- ‘ 
cacies of hoth are put together, thus: Chickens and Aspa- j 
ragus. Ducklings a id Peas, Still more appropriate is the • 
connection between poultry and the farm, and it is therefore 
always a ])leasnre to speak of it as an adjunct to an Agricul¬ 
tural Exhibition. 
This was the first attempt of the Gloucestershire Agri¬ 
cultural Society to unite them, and we think the success of j 
their effort ,will lead to a continuance—in fact, it was a 
hanpy union. 
The Show was held in a tent in L.ord Bathurst’s Park, a | 
truly beautiful spot, ivithin half-a-mile of the railway station. 
The pens were those registered by IMr. Cooke, of Colchester. 
This is the first time we have seen a show in which they , 
were exclusively used, and we cannot speak too highly of | 
them. Tliey are economical, they ensure uniformity of ap¬ 
pearance, they are easily put up, and, of course, easily re- 
j moved. By using them, a committee can at once show the 
exact amount it will cost to fit up their exhibition, so far as 
pens, drinking-vessels, &c., are concerned; and, by an in- i 
genious contrivance of the inventoi', they can be locked so ■ 
that no bird can get out or be removed except by the person ! 
in charge. 
As this Society does not publish a catalogue prize list ' 
of I’oultry, we must be content with a notice of the classes 
as they occur; and tho.se of our friends who were com¬ 
mended must excuse us if wo do not name thou, but our | 
limits will not allow it. 
The first class was fur adult Dorkiiifis. The fir.st prize 
was awarded to IMr. Leyborne Popham, of Beading; second, 
to jMr, McCann, Malvern; third, to Mr. Moons. Is ext came 
twenty-five pens of chickens, and the competition was very 
great. Mr. Belcher, of Abingdon, stood first; Mr. Bodliard, 
second; and tbe Hon. Mrs. Howard, of Milbourne, tbird. 
There were many high commendations in this class, and we 
are sure the whole of the Dorkings svell deserved the enco- 
nium of the Judge, when he said they were most excellent. 
We now come to the tSpaiiish. In the adult class, Mr. 
Parslej’; Mr. Davies, of Thornbury; and Mr. Jenner, of 
Lewes ; took the prizes in order. Mr. Bodbard ; Jlr. Saun¬ 
ders, of Cowes; and Sirs.’Stow, in like manner, to(dv the 
honours for chickens. These names will be a guarantee for 
the cpiality of the birds shown. We must, however, say, 
that in the birds of 1855 we were disappointed in tbe 1 
pullets ; the cocks were excellent. It may be that the near 
approach of Birmingham caused the best to bo kept back. 
Ouchiiis of all colours were exhibited in tbe same class; 
and here there was a novelty, inasmuch as the Grouse birds, 
belonging to Mrs. Ford, of Exeter, distanced all tbe otliers, ' 
Miss Criiips was second, with Buff, and tbe Bev. Mr. Dau- 
berry third, with Black. If this Show is any criterion, the 
pi’ogress of the light birds is still downwards, as compared 
with former years. We must, however, exempt one pen of 
chickens belonging to Mr. Joshua, who took first prize with , 
them, followed by Mr. Stodbard and Mr. Hincks. Mr. A. | 
Snow, i'dr. Bush, and Mr. iSaunders, were the successful 
competitors in the Brahma Poolrn class. We think the 
chickens shown here promise to be unusually good birds. 
It was a treat to see a good display of Malays; and the 
judge pronounced them an unusually good class. Mr. 
Leighton had the first i)rize, followed by Messrs. Lyne and 
Worsey. We believe, the successful here would hold their 
own anywhere. Tbe (lavte were perfect, and there were ' 
few numbers that did not deserve to be successful; but ! 
there were but six prizes, and of these, two first and two ■ 
second went to IMr. Dyer, and the third to Messrs. Taylor 
and Dawson. 
As in tbe Cochins, Hamhanihs of every sort competed | 
together; and although there were good birds, a pen of , 
Golden-spangled chickens, belonging to Mr. Thompson, of , 
Windsor, “walked over” for the first prize; the second j 
being awarded to Mr, Worsey, for Gobi-pencilled. ; 
IMiss ]M. Bury took prizes with two pens of oxcclbuit i 
black Polands with white t(jp-knots. ! 
Tlioi'o was a very good display of BnnUmH, The first ! 
prize was awarded to Gcld-laccd,'belonging to Mr, Portcli; ! 
second, to Game, belonging to Mr. Cottle; third, to Black, i 
beloTiging to IMr. Dutton. Gne pen was dis(pialified, as the I 
exhibitor put in three pullets instead of two. It cannot be ' 
too generally known that any such deviation must lead to , 
disqualification. , 
Mr. Davies, of Thornluu’y, was first, and IMr. Hervey 
second, in (Itrse. Erom their weight and appearance we ■ 
should think the former gentleman had them from the 
celebrated stock of his namesake, at Hounslow. 
We have seldom seen so many good Pucks ; but among 
the Aylesburys faulty bills excluded all the best pens, and 
in every instance there was but one bad one. Messrs. 
Bichards and Blandfoixl were successful. Good Bouens 
W’ere iilentiful. Mr. Saunders took the prize; and Mrs. I 
Squire, of Mildenhull, was eqtially fortunate with t>ne of the 
best pens of Buenos Ayrean we ever saw. There were four 
lots of this last breed touching on perfection. 
It will be seen our report is a panegyric; but it was 
richly deserved. The only cause for regret was, that so 
many really meritorious specimens should have passed un- ^ 
noticed; but the improvement in all classes is so raiiid, and 
the knowledge how to choose and how to exhibit is so dif- ; 
fused, that many must now be content with a commendation 
who would formerly have been sure of a prize. i 
Mr. Baily acted as Judge. 
CHICKENS versus CHICKEN. ; 
“ Some, for renown, arc singular and odd.”— Swift. j 
I DEO to correct a grammatical error which is constantly i 
recurring in The Pouhry Chronicle; viz., the writing chicken, 
instead of c/fh/ito/.s, in the plural. Formerly, this error was 
committed but by three contributors; but now, we see it, 
rampant, even in tbe very advertisements I Yet, 1 would fain 
hope, that this is but some waggish humour of the printer's 
devil—daubing out the ultimate .s to create “ our special 
wonder ”—that we may have enough of it. 
As, however, one indefatigable contributor on poultry 
matters, Mr. Tegetmeier, comes forward, in No. fiOS, and 
defends this error (and laughing to scorn, liy-the-by, 
“ Tristram Shandy,” for iiresuming to hold a ditt'erent 
opinion), 1 shall not scriqile to deal with Mr. Tegetmeicr’s 
assertions, and (piietly demonstrate the utter fallacy of all 
that he has advanced. As the elucidation of the truth is 
my sole object, I trust that Mr. Tegetmeier, and all who 
think as he does, will thank me for this collision with their 
opinions; inasmuch as the light of truth will thereby be 
struck out for their future guidance. Let me, at least, hojie, 
that I, too, may not be denounced like poor Tristram, as “ a 
would be instructor, who has but a jirofound ignorance of 
the subject.” We shall all part good friends yet, I'll 
\varrant it. 
To proceed. Mr. Tegetmeier begins by laying down three 
])ositions. i shall prove that all these, like the fabric of a 
\isiun, are baseless. He says, firstly, that “c/u’c/.- is an 
Anglo-Saxon word” (for a. chicken); secondly, that “its 
]iroper Saxon plural is chickca;” and thirdly, that “ in the 
Anglo-Saxon tongue plurals are often formed by the termi¬ 
nation en." 
I dislike retaliation ; but I must observe, that nothing 
but the most “ profound ignoranceof the Anglo-Saxon 
could have made IMr. Tegetmeier so far commit himself! 
Nay, the most cursory reference to any Anglo-Saxon 
Dictionary and Grammar would have shown him that his 
assertions are utterly groundless. Let me refer him to 
Bosworth's Dictionary and Grammar, to Vernon’s Grammar, 
or to that more erudite Grammar, by Bask, translated by 
Thorpe. 
He w’ill at once see (hat, firstly, there is no such irurd in 
the Anylo-Huxon as chick; or, rather, it would liave been cic; 
he will only find “ cictn, u chicken." Again, there are no 
idurals in tbe Anglo-Saxon tongue formed by the termina 
tion en! Lastly, chick is nothing more than a modern 
diminutive ; that is, a very young chicken : and further, ho 
ought to have known, that it is applied to the tender young 
of different birds;—of the duck, the goose, the pelican, the 
pigeon, &c. If he will but take down from his shelf his 
copy of the Rev. Mr. Dixon’s “Aviary and the Dovecot,” lie 
will there see, tliat the very young of the pigeon, are in- 
