THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, July 7, 1857. 
225 
ever unfortunately exist an infamous arrangement between I 
a Judge and an exhibitor. Collusion with one Judge may, I 
in some instances, be possible ; but a collusion with three 
is what few exhibitors would have the audacity to attempt, 
and is, in fact, an evil which no one seriously apprehends. 
It may, therefore, be assumed that, in all cases where the 
Judges are selected with care and a honest purpose, a portion 
of them at least are men of honour and integrity, and it 
surely is not to be taken for granted that they have nothing 
else to do than to indorse the iniquities of their dishonest 
colleague. Nor is it beyond the truth to say that instances 
have occurred where a reprehensible bias in the mind of one 
Judge has been resisted and counteracted by the firmness 
and integrity of another. 
But Mr. Hewitt argues that if the responsibility was con¬ 
centrated on a single Judge he would not dare to award 
prizes from partiality or any other corrupt motive. Probably 
not if the pen which was the object of the unjust preference 
was grossly and manifestly inferior to others, and the con¬ 
nection between the Judge and the owner was notorious. 
Such decisions would be fatal to the reputation of any Judge, 
and under every system of judging would be too monstrous 
to be endured. What we have to provide securities for are 
the cases where the pens unjustly selected have sufficient 
merit to give some appearance of fairness to the decisions, 
and the connection between the Judge and the exhibitor is 
unknown. The latter at all times it would be difficult to 
prove, as both of them would have an interest in concealing 
it. I therefore doubt the efficacy of a responsibility which 
may be so easily evaded, and, if Committees are careful to 
select none but men of honour and intelligence to act as 
Judges, I think such evils as those referred to must soon 
cease to exist. The force of opinion is also a restraint upon 
delinquent Judges. Every large show is now attended by 
numbers quite as capable as the Judges to form an opinion 
on the merits of the pens exhibited, and the perfect freedom j 
with which the awards are discussed indicates the reverse of 
respect for the authority from which they proceed. This 
even now must operate as a check of some force, and it 
will advance in strength as every year increases the number 
of those who are capable of forming an intelligent judg¬ 
ment on the subject. To all fair and candid criticism I 
believe your columns are open, and some good might result 
by referring in the published reports of shows to such 
decisions as may be considered erroneous, especially if the 
grounds on which the awards were impugned were fairly and 
distinctly stated. 
Mr. Hewitt adduces two other arguments in favour of 
single Judges. The first is, that the awards would be made 
with greater rapidity; and the second, that a dissentient 
Judge who had been outvoted would not be responsible for 
the decisions. Assuming there would be more speed, which 
I think is extremely doubtful, this is not a circumstance of 
any importance. 
What is required by all who take a legitimate interest in 
our exhibitions is, that the awards should be correct and 
scrupulously honest, and they care very little whether a few 
hours, more or less, are occupied by the Judges in perform- 
ing their duties. Mr. Hewitt’s remarks in reference to the 
position of a Judge who has been outvoted by Ins colleagues 
are perfectly just, and I see no reason why a Judge in 
this position should not be permitted to state in the prize- 
list, where a prize-list is published, that he dissents from 
such decisions as he considers incorrect or unjust. If no 
prize-list is published this might be done by means of a 
card attached to the pens. If this practice were adopted he 
might always relieve himself from all responsibility as to 
decisions which lie considered either grossly erroneous or 
proceeding from some dishonest motive. 
Mr. Hewitt concludes his communication by suggesting ' 
that, in all cases where “ a complaint ” or even “ misgiving ” 
exists as to the misconduct of a Judge, an open accusation 
should be preferred. No doubt, if an accusation is to be 
made, it should be an open one, with full notice to the 
party implicated ; but evil rather than good would certainly 
be tire result should the practice ever prevail of calling the 
Judges to account for their decisions. 
The upright Judge who had no sinister objects to 
promote would refuse to act, rather than incur the risk of 
the insulting annoyance of being put upon his trial by any 
angry or disappointed exhibitor who had a “ misgiving ” as 
to one or more of the awards. We should thus lose some of 
our best and most conscientious Judges ; but the tricky and 
unscrupulous, relying upon the facilities of evading de¬ 
tection, and the difficulty of obtaining proofs, would, I fear, 
fail to be influenced by that salutary alarm which might 
keep them in the path of rectitude. 
Mr. Hewitt, I think, must feel the difficulties attending 
accusations which affect the integrity of a Judge. In his 
communication he refers to “flagrant” decisions “per¬ 
tinaciously adhered to,” founded upon “ private reasons,” 
“ where after-proof convinced the most sceptical,” and a 
“ special few,” “who by compact, endeavour still to maintain 
inviolate practices so diametrically opposed to the perpetuity 
or even present welfare of our Poultry Exhibitions,” &c. 
The words in inverted commas are Mr. Hewitt’s, one of our 
most experienced Poultry Judges, whose opportunities of 
obtaining accurate information on this subject are not sur¬ 
passed by those of any other man in England. 
They seem to point to judicial wickedness in high places, 
and if they have any meaning must refer, not merely to an 
isolated act of dishonesty here and there, but, I may almost 
say, to an organised system of roguery of surpassing infamy. 
Yet Mr. Hewitt contents himself with vague allusions, 
which fix neither disgrace nor responsibility on any one. 
Though an advocate for open accusations, he neither names 
the parties nor produces the proofs, and a fine opportunity 
is thrown away of showing us how such investigations 
ought to be conducted. Unfortunately, he only excites our 
curiosity, but withholds the gratification; we are brought 
to the verge of a judicial pandemonium, but he does not 
venture to roll away the sulphureous vapours which prevent 
our discerning the features of the delinquents. 
If, then, Mr. Hewitt shrinks from the application of his 
own remedy, he can hardly be surprised if no one else has 
any confidence in it.— A North Country Amateur. 
EXETER POULTRY SHOW. 
This Exhibition of Flowers and Poultry on the 26th of 
June was excellent. The weather was everything that 
could be desired. The flowers, amongst which was a very 
fine collection from Messrs. Yeitch and Son’s Nursery, 
Topsham Road, Exeter, were very fine ; and in the poultry 
department ev.ery class was well represented, with the 
exception of the Polands and Hamburghs. The Game 
were so fine that the Judges commended the whole as a 
class. In the Pigeon department Mr. F. G. Stevens, of 
Wellington, was very successful. The class which was in¬ 
tended to include any distinct variety not particularised in 
the classes was called the “ thorough-bred ” class, a name 
open to many objections, and liable to induce many 
disputes. 
Judges of Poultry. —Rev. J. Sydenham, Cullompton; 
Rev. H. K. Venn, Honiton ; Stuckley Lucas, Esq., Dul- 
verton; and Edmund Stamp, Esq., Honiton. 
Judges of Pigeons. —S. Topping, Esq., Stoke Fleming, 
Dartmouth, and Mr. Piper, Exeter. 
Spanish. —First, J. K. Bartrum, Esq., Richmond Hill, Bath. Second, 
Mr. P. P. Cother, Salisbury. Third, B. J. Ford, Esq., Ide, near Exeter. 
Commended, J. R. Rodbard, Esq., Aldwick Court, Langford, near 
Bristol. Chickens of 1857.—First and Second, J. R. Rodbard, Esq., 
Aldwick Court, Langford, near Bristol. 
Dorking (Coloured).—Medal, Mrs. J. Hole, Green’End, Plymtree. 
Second, Mr. H. Drew, Peamore, near Exeter. Third, Miss J. Milward, 
Newton St. Loe, near Bath. 
Dorking (White).—First, F. J. Coleridge, Esq., Ottery St. Mary. 
Second, G. Daw, Esq., Mount Radford, near Exeter. 
Dorking Chickens of 1857.—First, Mr. H. Drew, Peamore, near 
Exeter. Second, F. J. Coleridge, Esq., Ottery St. Mary, Pullets 
highly commended, Mrs. E. Towell, Escot, Ottery St. Mary. 
Ciiinv (Cinnamon or Buffs).—Medal,'J. K. Bartrum, Esq., Rich¬ 
mond Hill, near Bath. Second, G. Daw, Esq., Mount Radford, near 
Exeter. Third, Rev. G. F. Hodson, North Petlierton, near Bridgewater. 
Hens highly commended, J. R. Rodbard, Esq., Aldwick Court, Lang¬ 
ford, near Bristol. 
China (Brown or Partridge-coloured). —First and Second, Rev. G. 
F. Hodson, North Petherton, near Bridgewater. Third, B. J. Ford, 
Esq., Ide, near Exeter. 
China Chickens of 1857- —First, J. R. Rodbard, Esq., Aldwick 
