224 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, July 7, 1857. 
With creatures perfectly wild, remaining unrestrained as 
Nature herself formed them, it is surprising, at first sight, 
to note how great a number ot males are produced than it 
strikes us are necessary for procreation. Still tliis is soon 
rectified ; the most robust drive away the weaker ones, and 
not unfrequently positively destroy them ; consequently the 
more vigorous male becomes the sire of the next immediate 
offspring. Still it by no means follows that he should remain 
triumphant in succeeding years. We can continually find 
instances in our fold-yards where a cock that has maintained 
inviolate his supremacy one full season has the next spring 
been subjected to maltreatment and oppression from a 
stronger and younger bird, his own former victim. Thus 
treated he indeed becomes “ a changed bird, literally hen¬ 
pecked,” and generally one of the most forlorn and abject 
creatures imaginable. The hens that hitherto were his most 
friendly associates now lavish their favours on the more 
vigorous and better constitutioned new comer, scrupulously 
avoiding the old bird, and degeneracy is thus instinctively 
prevented. 
We know the same habits prevail, without exception, 
among deer, pheasants, and most other creatures thus placed 
closely under our inspection, though still at liberty; and the 
effort is also made to carry out similar results under even the 
closest domestication, while our own obdurate determination 
to force Nature in these instances from her accustomed habits 
leads as invariably to our future disappointment. The truth 
cdn be soon told. Amateurs are directly prone to two equally 
ill-advised practices. First, if a male bird has been able to 
gain high position at Poultry Shows, combined, perchance, 
with the production of extraordinary chickens, he is retained 
long beyond the time it was advisable to keep him as a 
“ stock bird.” The other error is equally mischievous. From 
possessing some much-desired peculiarity of feathering, a 
cockerel is most unwisely selected, puny and without con¬ 
stitution. Then it is complaints arise of astonishment that 
“ the chickens are not to be reared—they die off in spite of 
everything.” Had a vigorous, high conditioned bird, such 
as usually makes himself ‘‘master” among his own brother 
cockerels, been the appointed one, the troubles of its owner 
would frequently have been altogether obviated, and entire 
and healthy broods would have reached full maturity. I am 
confident when any race of poultry has arrived at all the re¬ 
quired features fancy dictates as the uncompromising rule of 
absolute perfection (and they are certainly acquired by 
long-continued attention to careful mating of the parent 
birds), progress itself is not more unattainable than the 
■perpetuity in all respects of the “points” so long coveted. 
They must, in this case, be crossed with strange blood, 
or they will infallibly breed out altogether. Whether the 
introduction produces the desired end of improvement 
of constitution, without the loss of highly-valued charac¬ 
teristics of the peculiar “ strain,” depends entirely on the 
discrimination of the owner. It requires both judgment 
and forethought. 
To prove the evil arising from the false supposition 
that because the offspring of a cock was undeniably 
good in former years it must necessarily, from the same 
hens still running with him, be of equal excellence at 
the present time, I will mention a fact that came to my 
own knowledge. A friend of mine purchased some fin- 
exceptionable Grey Dorkings. For three years the pro¬ 
duce was equally large with the parent birds, and true, 
likewise, to a feather as to general colouring. The chickens 
the next two years “ sported all colours,” and in size de¬ 
generated exceedingly, no additional brood stock having 
been retained in the interim. To test the old hens, a 
son of one, bred two years previously, was repurchased, 
and turned down in lieu of his own male parent. Every 
chicken produced to him was equally good in colour as they 
had formerly been in the youthful days of his sire, hut did 
not attain so good a size. At four years old this latter bird 
produced chickens “ ail colours,” and was this spring re¬ 
moved to make way for a younger one, a cockerel of last 
year. This last bird’s chickens, so far as can yet be seen, 
are all true Silver Greys, without any spangling in the 
breast, or, indeed, any deterioration of colour. To me, I 
admit, it is strange, though true, that such want of general 
uniformity ol plumage should accrue simply from age in 
the male bird ; but ol this I am equally aware—an ex¬ 
cessively old cock Sebright Bantam invariably begets chickens 
with most imperfect “lacings,” though himself strongly 
marked on his own plumage, whilst no such imperfection is 
general from long life on the hen's side. From what I have 
adduced I think it is pretty apparent that the most vigorous 
cockerels should always be the selected ones for “ breeding,” 
even -where it is still considered desirable to retain an 
especially good old cock simply for exhibition: it will 
prevent many troubles.— Edward Hewitt, Eden Cottaye, 
Sparkbrook , Birmingham. 
POULTRY JUDGES—ONE OR MORE? 
It seems, from several communications which have re¬ 
cently appeared in The Cottage Gardener, that serious 
dissatisfaction prevails as to the decisions of the Judges at 
some of our Poultry Shows, and allusions are made to evils 
of so gross a character, that, should they prevail to any 
extent, it is certainly time a stringent remedy was applied. 
My own impression was that the decisions, if not always 
correct, were at least honestly given. I was, therefore, a 
little startled to find a gentleman with the experience of 
Mr. Hewitt recognising the existence of “ favouritism,” and 
even “ confederacy,” meaning, I presume, by the latter 
term, a corrupt and fraudulent arrangement between the 
Judge and an exhibitor, in pursuance of which the prizes 
are awarded. If such practices exist they rival in infamy 
the worst rascalities of the turf, and whoever may devise 
an adequate remedy for them is fairly entitled to the 
gratitude of all who take an interest in our Poultry Ex¬ 
hibitions. But, having read Mr. Hewitt’s letter with the 
attention due to his reputation as a Poultry Judge, I have 
failed to satisfy myself that his arguments in favour of a 
single Judge, rather than several, are at all conclusive. 
When erroneous decisions are given they may be referred 
to one of the three following heads:—1. Incompetency or 
oversight. 2. Partiality or favouritism. 3. Confederacy, 
or collusion between the Judge and an exhibitor. Under 
each of these heads I think a plurality of Judges offers more 
securities for just decisions than can be obtained from a 
single Judge. Let us first take the case of inconrpetency. 
If a single Judge is appointed who is unequal to any portion 
of the task allotted to him, it is only by a series of lucky 
accidents that his decisions can possibly he right; hut if 
there are several Judges the Committee must have been 
very unfortunate in their selection if they do not possess 
among them the requisite knowledge for a proper award of 
the prizes. As to oversight, or neglect to notice all the 
points either of excellence or defects in the competing 
pens, I think this is much less likely to occur with several 
Judges than with one. I assume, what is now almost in¬ 
variably the case, that the competition is very keen, and 
that in awarding the prizes it is necessary to scrutinise and 
balance a number of minute points. This surely is an 
operation better performed by several Judges than by one. 
Indeed, I think it would be difficult to devise a plan more 
certain of bringing under the consideration of Judges all 
the facts which ought to influence their decisions than the 
mode of proceeding where several Judges are appointed. 
Having gone through a class, they compare their impressions 
and opinions ; if they are agreed, the prizes are awarded, 
and the fact that they all independently have arrived at the 
same conclusions is a strong presumption in favour of the 
pens selected for the prizes. If a difference of opinion 
exists discussion takes place ; points which may have escaped 
the observation of one are brought into notice by another; 
and thus, in all probability, all the facts are elicited upon 
which the decision should be founded. 
Let us now consider the case of partiality or favouritism. 
It is quite possible a single Judge might give an unjust 
decision from this cause, but it is far less likely that several 
Judges would do so. We will suppose that three Judges 
unconnected with each other are appointed. It is possible 
each may have certain preferences and partialities; but it is 
highly improbable that all three would be influenced by the 
same feelings, and thus there would be a check upon any 
improper bias of this kind. 
But if erroneous decisions from incompetency, oversight, 
or partiality are less likely to occur with several Judges than 
with one, I think this is still more the case should there 
