thp: cottage gap.dener. 
January 1. 
absurd and ridiculous event that ever cast consternation 
into the ranks of the Piiteon tancy 1 I mean the anard 
h (award! poh—the j?n'.s'awai'd), ot the special prize ot a 
' Silver Cup to.— (blush, oli! printer’s devil, as thou 
' givest thv ink for the words —) to J. uyhi/Sy and 
' Oirh! ! 
Indignation itself is mute, from its very excess, at such 
outrageous, sucli cliildish iudgment. And yet, the very 
enormity' of the absurdity was the most ethcient cooler lor 
one’s anger; for the thing was ridiculous—’twas laughable ; 
and, lienee, I observed, that amongst all exhibitors, after 
the first burst of consternation, there arose laughter and 
merriment! 
Tor my own part, indeed, I was greatly inclined to look 
on this award as a piece of rich humour—a merry satire on 
the exhibitor of Fautails; a frolicsome way of rebuking the 
pre/fiiiaion of such toy Tigeons to such a special jirize as the 
Silver Cup; .just as the pride of the old colder, in the 
Eastern tale, was rebuked by the pretension of making 
him grand Sultan for oire night! It turns out, however, to 
be a melancholy fact. 
To compare the true recognised birds of the Pigeon 
fancy,—Pouters, Carriers, and Tumlders, with the mere 
common Pigeons, or Toys, is, indeed, to compare great 
things with small; it is to compare diamonds with Scotch 
pebbles,—Australian gold with Cornwall tin,—Hyperion to 
Satyr. It might he a grave (piestion, indeed, whether, under 
; any circumstance, the special prize of a Silver Cu]i should 
be awarded to common Toys, as Tantails and Turbits. As 
well award a gold cup, or classical piece of plate, to a race 
of Honkies ;—very good Donkies, and very good Tantails ; 
but ’tis incongruous, or, in legal plirase, repugnant to 
reason and common sense. 
But, let the matter be decided on its merits ; though it is 
really humiliating to compare the noble birds of the fancy 
—Carriers, Pouters, and Tumblers, with the common lot 
of Tantails, Owls, and Ttirbits! Shades of Moore, ot 
G-irtin, and of Mayor! what would ye say to such desecration ! 
But let it be done—let us condescend to compare the worth 
and the merits of one class of birds with the other; nay, 
let us make any sacrilice of present feeling, to prevent the 
recurrence of such imbecile decisions fur future time. 
First, as to the relalive value of the two classes. It must 
at once be conceded that the cost, or price, of first-class 
Pouters, Almond Tumlders, and Carriers, is ten times 
greater than that of the Toys. Secondly, that, while such 
Toys, as Tantails, Owls, and Turbits, are “ plentiful as 
blackberries,” and can readily be obtained in any (piantity, 
j good specimens of Pouters and of Almond Tumblers are 
I most ditiicnlt to be met with at all. Thirdly, that while 
] these Toys are easily bred and reared, and, for the most 
I part, the young ones are similar and ef[ual to the parents, 
: the rearing of Almond Tumblers, Pouters, and Carriers, is 
i a matter of difficulty and much trouble, demanding Ibe 
system of “ sbihing,” wilh all its troubles, watching, and 
, expense; and, what is the worst feature of all, out of 
! twenty pairs of young birds, raised with so much pains- 
j taking, there will probably be but two or three of really 
first-class properties. Carriers are more certain, hut you 
must keep them four years before they are lit for showing. 
The cause of this uncertainty in getting good birds in true 
fancy Pigeons, is, that like the Sebright Bantam, they are 
“ made ” birds,—obtained by the crossing and braedinij up of 
, dillbrent birds ; and, lienee, the tendency to “ cry back.” 
Once more, it may be added, that the Carrier (styled the 
king of Pigeons) has a position, both classical and histo- 
1 rical. This bird, the Pouter and the Tumbler, are, and 
ever have been, emphatically the birds of the fancy; they 
constitute the aristocracy of Pigeons. And, can we now 
i permit them to be sunk to the level—nay, below the level, 
, of mere toys 1 
One other prueliatl point yet remains. Were tlie white 
! Carriers, Almond Tumblers, and Pouters, in the splendid 
pen of Mr. Adkins, good birds ? Yea, that they were, we 
have the judges’ woi'd, for “highly commended” was 
meetedout to them; and these bird.s have before gained first I 
prizes at the Birmingham Show, Anerley, &c. I question I 
whether some of them were ever beaten. Next came the 
fine pen of Mr. Lingard; his Pouters, Carriers, &c., also ' 
I ‘ highly commended ; ” and then Mr. Corker’s pen, also : 
“ commended.” These facts do but cany with them the 
greater condemnation. They hear record to the judgment 
of being so hopelessly perverse and imbecile, that such Toy ' 
I Pigeons as white T.antails, powdered blue Owls, and red ; 
Turbits, were preferred to “ highly commended ’ Carriers, , 
and Pouters, and Almond Tumblers ! 
Shall I, then, meet out no punishment to the judges ? I ' 
sliall,—yea, and that tlie most severe that can possibly befal i 
them ; that is, I now tell tlie world what it as that they have i 
' done ! Let not, from liencefortli, the doubtful (piality of I 
I its Kvo’t'.s’ be the nay-word against Birmingham; rather, in | 
' commemoration of this Cup award, let us say “ that's j 
I Brummagem Pigeon,” when we want to designate the ' 
i worst of “judging!”— Tristram Sh.vniiy, Hull. 
I CtirCKEN versus CHICKENS. 
“ ’Tis sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard.” 
It is some time since I read any article which interested 
me more than the elaborate one on this subject I<y Dr. 
Horner, at p. I!)0, and I congratulate tlie readers of Tnr. 
Cottage G.vrdener on the reappearance in its columns of 
tlie contributions of one who is a man of learning, a man of i 
honour—a gentleman. The testimony that he hears to tbo I 
value of my contributions I acce)it with “ tlie sincerity ami i 
pleasure ” with wliicli it is otfered. But with regard to the 
point in dispute, 1 am in tliis peculiar difficulty. Dr. ITorner 
denies that I x>ossess one litttc of knowledge of Anglo- 
Saxon ; )iow,then, is it possible tliat I can convince him tliat 
I am right in saying a chick, (ico chicken'.’ There is obviously 
hut one mode, namely, an appeal to an authority that both 
recognise. 
Fortunately, I have also a fiiend named Pi. G. Latham, 
M.A.; for is not that man wiy friend who lias written hooks 
which have beguiled away many an otherwise weary hour? 
hooks which have interested, mx}’, I will say (spite even of 
Dr. Homer’s assertion of iny utter ignorance), books rvliich 
have instructed me. 
To this autlioiity, then, I appeal, and from Air. 11. G. 
Latham’s “ Handbook of the Liiglish Language,” AValtoii 
and Alaherly, IS55, I make the following verbatim el literatim 
extract:— 
“ Chiciceus. —A third vaiiety of tlie double iullection 
(eii -I- s), with the additional jicculiaxity of the form 
chicken being used, at present, almost exclusively in the sin¬ 
gular number, although originally it was probably the xxlural 
oi etdek. So ^^'a]lis considered it. “At olim etiam jxer-(.vi 
vel -tjn formaliant pluralia ; quorum pauca admodum adhuc 
retiuemus. Ct, an o.v, a chick, ixluraliter oxen, chicken (sunt 
j qui dicunt in singulari chicken et in xxluralia chickens.)’ 
j Which maybe thus translatedBut formerly also they 
! formed the plurals by -en or -yn, a few of which we even 
! now retain as, an ox, a chick, xxlural oxen, chicken (some say 
in the singular chicken and xxlural chickens).' ” 
The assertion resxxecting the similitude of the xnoou and 
green chese, is, of course, imanswei'ahle; hut for the ersxie- 
cial benefit of those wlio are dogmatical on the subject, I 
beg to quote the following from Air. Latham’s “ Elemcritaiy 
English Grammar for the Use of Schools,” page 0(3, fii’st 
edition; Plurals formed by the addition ofor -n. In 
the present English oxen is the only specimen of this form 
in current use. In the older stages of our language the 
number of woi’ds in -en was much greater than at present.” 
Then follows a list of such words, including hosen * liosc 
or stockings; hischopen - -- bishops; eldrcn — elders; 
uncleu - uncles, A'c. 
' Tmly the little children (iiixeiy childrens) of this gene- 
I ration promise to he wiser than tlie literary antiquarians of 
I the last. 
i This is a veiy px’etty qu.arrel as it stands, and it is a pity 
I that it should be spoiled by either party confessing tliemselve.s 
I in the wrong; but, as usually happens in sncli cases, both par¬ 
ties are in eiTor. By imulvertantly using the words Angi.o- 
Saxon instead of Eari.y Lnolisii, I gave ray O])ponent an 
advantage of which he was not slow to avail himself; but 
his zeal outran his discretion; and when he stated that 
“ xilurals are not formed by -en, and that neither cnstoni nor 
anything else can m.akc chicken into a xdmal,” he made an 
