June 5. 
COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION. 
169 
PUBLIC PARKS IN EDINBURGH. 
I was indebted to Mr. McEwen for a special invitation to 
see his plans in London a day or two before they were sent ; 
in, but I was pre-engaged for that day, and could not attend, 
for which I was sorry at the time, as, if I understand one 
tiling better than another, it is the fitness of a given design 
for a certain locality, and I know every inch of the ground 
embraced in those plans. It now appears that my disap¬ 
pointment has turned two “points” in my favour. I was 
thus saved from seeing the best plans for the place, in which 
I might have taken such interest as would have led me into 
botheration with the Edinburgh critics, who placed them 
second and third best; and, by so doing, have confirmed, so 
far, my own pretensions to the spirit of prophecy ; for T told 
Mr. McEwen, in my letter, that unless he had good interest 
he would only come out second best. Just so has it oc¬ 
curred to the letter; but instead of telling on what I 
founded this prediction, I will rather place before our ■ 
readers some of the “ evidences ” which I have seen to the 
same effect. 
“ The Public Park at Edinburgh. —The authorities of 
Edinburgh, it appears, in forming a public park, determined 
on throwing open the competition for designs to the United 
Kingdom. There were thirty-eight competitors for the 
honour, and by the public papers we learn that Mr. George 
McEwen, of Arundel, the gardener to His Grace the Duke 
of Norfolk, and wl 10 deservedly enjoys a high local reputa¬ 
tion in his profession, in*this district of West Sussex, has 
nearly obtained the first prize. We congratulate that gentle¬ 
man on his great success; and as local celebrities are ‘ few 
and far between,’ we gladly take the opportunity of transfer-, 
ring to our columns two notices which have come under our 
observation. The latter, copied from the Edinburgh News, 
appears to give the preference to Mr. McEwen’s design; and 
we may not unreasonably suppose that the plan exhibited 
by our townsman was equally as good as that of the success¬ 
ful competitor; but perhaps only put back by local in¬ 
fluence :— 
‘ We understand that the design for this plan, sent in by 
Mr. McEwen, gardener to his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, 
has been pronounced second among thirty-eight competitors, 
and has been awarded a prize of £25. We can say, from an 
inspection of Mr. McEwen’s plans, that whatever the merit 
of his rival may be, his would also have produced a very fine 
effect, and did much credit to his taste.’ ”— Professor Lindley, 
in Gardener’s Chronicle. 
A leader in the Edinburgh News runs thus—•“ We could 
have no hesitation in deciding on No. 35, as the best spe¬ 
cimen of Artistic Landscape Gardening of all the designs 
sent in. * * * * This design ought to have been 
selected, as being beyond all doubt the one which made the 
most of the given space, &c.” 
“ The premiums for the best designs have been awarded 
to Mr. Davies of Edinburgh, 1st; and Mr McEwen, Arundel 
Castle, 2nd. No 35, signed l Dod’ was placed as 3rd. This 
also, it appears, was from Mr. McEwen, and by many 
thought the best.”— Daily News. 
In an article on Mr. Davie’s plans, in the Scotsman news¬ 
paper, the “winner,” or “favourite” is said to he “An 
Architect in our own city ;" but I am faster than the Scotsman, 
for I told Mr. McEwen the very same thing before his 
plans went beyond London, and who doubts it ?—D. Beaton. 
[The preceding are not the only opinions we have received 
that the decision on the plans was wrong. If so, it ought 
to be revised.—E d. C. G.] 
THE STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS, AND DISEASES 
OF THE DIGESTIVE ORGANS IN FOWLS. 
The structure and functions of the digestive organs in 
fowls are so peculiar and important, that I imagine a short 
and practical account of them may not be uninteresting or 
useless. 
In the mouth, the structure of the beak, and the arrange¬ 
ment of the horny barbs lining the roof and covering the 
tongue, which so materially assist in swallowing the food, 
scarcely call for any lengthened remark; but a few words may 
be devoted to a consideration of the structure of the tongue, | 
which is stiffened by bone, and covered by a horny sheath, 
so that the sense of taste must obviously reside in the other 
parts of the mouth ; the hard point of the tongue is of the 
greatest use in enabling the fowl to pick up grain quickly; 
and I have noticed that in those birds in whom it had been 
removed the operation was much more slowly performed. 
In all cases of inflammatory or febrile attacks the tongue j 
becomes very dry, and consequently hard; causing the i 
appearance which is frequently termed the pip; this is not 
a disease, but the symptom merely of some internal irrita- i 
tion; the cruel plan of nipping off the end only has the | 
effect above mentioned, of incapacitating the fowl ever after¬ 
wards from readily swallowing its food. 
The stomach of the fowl being small, a reservoir of food 
is requisite ; this is provided in the crop, which is an enor¬ 
mous enlargement of the gullet, situated at the bottom of 
the neck. The office of the crop is to receive the food as it 
is swallowed, and after it has become soft by soaking in the 
liquid it contains, to pass, little by little, into the true 
stomach. It is obvious, that if the barley, &c., given to 
fowls has been previously soaked in water, the time it has 
to remain in the crop is much lessened. This practice is 
followed by some poultry-keepers, and the question may be 
asked, is it a desirable one ? Let us, in seeking a reply, 
appeal to nature and to experience. A fowl in a state of 
nature cannot obtain its food in the artificially dry state in 
which it is generally employed, therefore moist corn is more 
natural than dry; put to the test of experience, I have 
found that fowls greatly prefer soaked corn. The avidity 
with which they devour the unmasticated oats that have 
passed through the digestive canal of the horse is one 
proof. I have found, also, that the oats which are placed in 
water for my ducks are invariably all eaten; whereas, if given 
dry, a considerable proportion of the lighter ones are 
always rejected. I think, therefoi’o, the plan is a desirable 
one, as it is more natural, is preferred by the fowls, and, I 
believe, more economical; it is attended with no trouble, as 
each day’s supply of barley can be placed over night in a 
pail of water. 
Another advantage attending its use is the avoidance of 
the inconvenience of having the birds occasionally crop- 
bound, a state of things which is caused by the dry grain, 
when eaten to excess, swelling so as to form a hard, infected 
mass, requiring an incision to be made for its removal. 
From the crop the grain passes into a most important 
organ, the existence and action of which seems scarcely to 
be generally recognised. I allude to that termed by com¬ 
parative anatomists the proventriculus, or, as we might 
English it, the fore stomach. This is a small enlargement 
about the size and shape of the end joints of a man’s 
finger, situated between the end of the gullet and the 
gizzard, with which it is usually pulled away when a fowl is 
drawn ; it is generally regarded as merely tho lower part of 
the gullet; if cut into, however, it will be found very 
different in structure, being much thicker, and its inside is 
covered with small prominences, being the glands that 
secrete the true digestive or gastric juice. This is one of 
the most important digestive organs of the fowl; for if the 
gastric juice is not formed, the gizzard, powerful as it is, 
fails to crush the corn. When fowls are fed upon meat and 
greaves the fore stomach is frequently thrown into a 
diseased state, the food cannot pass through the gizzard, 
and, consequently, accumulates in the proventriculus itself, 
distending it to so great an extent that I have seen it twice | 
the size of the gizzard ; in fact, filling up nearly the entire 
cavity of the bird; and as the fowl receives no nutriment, it 
wastes and becomes thin and light to an extraordinary 
degree, being little more than an animated bundle of bones 
and feathers. 
There is no treatment likely to prove beneficial in this 
state; but as I have never seen it except in fowls fed on 
unnatural food its prevention is easy. 
One interesting circumstance may be noticed in connection 
with this organ, namoly, that it may, when dried, be used as 
rennet. If any persons are desirous of using curd as a , 
diet for young chicken, and are unable to obtain rennet, all 
that is necessary is the fore stomach of the fowls they kill, 
