458 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER 
consequence is, that a set of fowls go forth tor public 
approval that were entitled only to be rejected Irom the 
exhibition as worthless apologies of the birds they were 
intended to represent. The owners, of course, then 
claim for them the highest consideration, as being the 
very acme of perfection. This has, to myself and others 
also, been the unenviable position into which we have 
been thrust—viz., cither to offend the committee, on the 
I one hand, by withholding the prizes; or, on the other 
hand, to award them to such poultry as the judges must, 
at heart, have disapproved of; and this has again and 
again been done in defiance of the rule that ‘ the judges 
are empowered to withhold , &c.,’ to satisfy exhibitors, and 
to prevent their thinking that ‘ we are endeavouring to 
keep hack prizes that we ourselves have offered.' It 
also tends to bring into discredit the opinions of the 
judges themselves, and to introduce to the public, 
at high figures, truly worthless specimens. But, if 
I mention the evil, the remedy also must not be 
forgotten; and this I have twice proved to be a most 
efficacious one. Whenever again requested, however 
earnestly, to award prizes to undeserving specimens, my 
reply anti position will simply be, ‘ That, convinced of 
their want of merit, I have already declined doing so; 
but, if the party making this request thinks proper to 
print on the list of prizes, that such and such prizes being 
withheld by the judges from want of merit, were after¬ 
wards awarded by Mr. ■-, on his own responsibility, 
without the approbation of the judges, my opposition shall 
be withdrawn, but certainly not otherwise.' The prompti¬ 
tude and decision with which such responsibility is 
declined is singular. 
“ If those, who, in future years may be called upon 
to fulfil such judicial labour, should adopt a similar 
course, the bane will find its antidote, and things will 
go on smoothly. Every one eventually will regret that 
indifferent poultry should receive enconiums they do 
not deserve, simply, as it is said, ‘ to keep faith with the 
public' (in truly Hibernian style), by misleading them.” 
W. 
It has long been a matter of dispute whether Moles 
cause more of benefit than of injury to the cultivator 
of the soil which they frequent. In some places, where 
! neatness must prevail, it is impossible that they can be 
allowed to remain; but in others, where their hillocks 
can be levelled occasionally, and in some, where even 
this cannot be done, we have always considered that the 
destruction of Wireworms, and other vermin which they 
effect, is more than compensatory for any trouble or 
injury they may occasion. In this opinion we are very 
far from singular, and we could quote from the Quarterly 
Journal of Agriculture, and other authorities, many 
evidences sustaining our opinion. 
On the other hand, many practical cultivators of the 
soil are decidedly of a contrary opinion, and there is no 
doubt that the general practice throughout the length 
and breadth of the laud is to wage war against the 
Moles. In justification of this warfare we have many 
September 15. 
evidences ; and we readily publish the two following, and 
must leave the question to be decided by the experiments 
and judgment of our readers. 
The following is from the Bailiff of one of our corres¬ 
pondents (G. T. S.):— 
“ I beg to send you my opinion on the subject of 
Moles. You say that moles do more good to the land ' 
than injury; I cannot say I agree with you. I will i 
give you my own experience. I remember well cuttiug j 
afield of oiits that was completely undermined, that broke 
in and sunk with us at each step we took, like a half- 
frozen pond; and the sickle would not cut above one- 
half, and the rest it tore up by the roots. This may be 
depended upon. I was relating my story, when a re¬ 
spectable farmer, living near, declared that he had a field 
of wheat in the same way ; it came up by the roots. At 
this present time there is a field of grass not two miles 
from here, two-and-a-half acres of which are covered with 
mole-hills. What man can mow this meadow ; or what 
profit is there in not catching the moles ? They not 
only make the com come up by the roots, but they would 
make the walls also come down. Our Derbyshire walls, 
being made of stones loosely piled together, are easily 
blown down, without the assistance of the moles. Again, 
the moles always choose the best and driest parts of the 
land, where the cattlo would otherwise like to lie down, 
but cannot, as they find every step they take burst 
beneath the surface, in pasture-lands. Black, boggy, 
light soil, in my opinion, may, at all events, be more 
injured by moles than other soils.” 
We look upon these examples as very extreme cases: 
and, at the same time, we feel convinced, that if there 
had not been a vast number of predatory vermin in 
those soils the moles would never have so thoroughly 
traversed them. Then comes the question—Were the 
crops injured; or did any worse result than inconveni¬ 
ence arise from the moles’ visitations ? 
The other note is from Mr. Joseph Blupdell. He 
says :—“ The only instance in which moles do good is 
in coppice land ; their digging and general disturbance 
of the soil, as well as the numerous small runs made by 
them, serve to drain away superfluous water, the com¬ 
bined effect of which is decidedly beneficial to the 
growth of timber and underwood. Upon arable and 
pasture land, although they destroy worms and other 
insects prejudicial to the growth of farm produce in 
general, yet the injury done by them in undermining 
the crops of corn, &c., by rendering them root-false, and 
the impossibility of cutting crops of clover, pasture- 
grass, &c., on account of the hills of earth raised by 
them, far outweighs any advantages to be derived by 
allowing them to increase undisturbed. It is, therefore, 
the general practice, upon well-managed farms (especially 
where decency of appearance is cared for), to pay for 
killing them at so much per dozen, or at so much for 
the season.” 
