302 THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, August 11, 1857. 
i 
i 
we see at the large exhibitions, where nearly every number 
represents a good pen of birds. 
Even with three Judges many walks up and down are 
necessary, and then there is difficulty; but one man becomes 
bewildered, and then those little oversights occur which 
have happened to the best of our Judges at times. If 
several are acting, and there is a difference of opinion as to 
a pen, it is generally received by them together, and then it 
is that the opponent of the pen will discover some fault 
which has escaped the notice of his colleagues. A claw 
deficient or a claw too many, a faulty comb or two or three 
foul feathers — either of these would, in all probability, 
escape the eye of one Judge in his hurry and anxiety. 
Incompetency is a charge soon got rid of. The remedy 
then is in the hands of exhibitors. We do not approve of 
Committees being coerced in their selection, but when 
those who undertake to adjudicate are manifestly unequal 
to the task, an exhibitor may, v r e think, well ask whether 
the same parties will act again. If they do he can withhold 
his nominations. 
The object of an exhibition is to reward the best birds, 
and if the award is made to them there is no cause for 
complaint. Pl'owever difficult it may be to find Judges able 
to undertake all the various classes, yet among the ex¬ 
hibitors in each class there are plenty of perfect judges of 
the breed they show. Every class, then, is thoroughly 
sifted by competent censors, and any tiling approaching to 
injustice is immediately pointed out. Favouritism can only 
be shown by unduly awarding to inferior birds- that which 
should be the meed of the best. If, then, bad birds are 
found to take prizes when competing with their betters, the 
Judge is either incompetent or worse—w r e should certainly 
say the former. If favouritism or collusion had existed, 
then with the pains taken it would long since have been 
unmasked. Nothing is more difficult than to recognise 
fowls in a large show, and, save one or two pens so pre¬ 
eminent in merit that their victory was always easy and 
certain, we believe no Judge can select birds unless he pre¬ 
viously knows the number of the pen. This would be sheer 
roguery, and cannot be exposed too openly. 
The intention of a show and the duty of a Judge are to re¬ 
ward the best birds. If this be done there can be no ground 
for finding fault. There may sometimes be differences of 
opinion, but surely these may exist without imputing un¬ 
worthy motives. We know that at many of our largest shows 
our best Judges, differently associated at different times, 
have gone through their duties without varying in opinion 
throughout the day, and at every show adding to the laurels 
of already distinguished pens. 
It lias been an unjust idea to attribute long-continued i 
success in some instances to occult means. We may here j 
well take a lesson from the largest and best-managed Show 
in the world, just now over at Salisbury — the Royal i 
Agricultural. In two breeds of sheep all, or nearly all, 
the prizes were taken by two exhibitors, Messrs. Sanday : 
and Jonas Webb, and it is no new thing for them to do so. ! 
Their success is not attributed to favouritism or to collusion, 
but to the fact of having the best animals. These will be 
sold and re-exhibited, probably with the same success, 
until they are as well known as their owners. The only 
result will be that people, instead of dropping dark hints 
and impugning the Judges, will secure some of the breed, 
and finally, perhaps, defeat them. It seems to us that this | 
is a feeling which should be introduced into some members 1 
of the poultry world. If they will look more to their stock , 
they will find that success is not dependent on Judges , but 
on the birds. 
Let Committees choose Judges in whom they have 
confidence, and then let them adopt the Birmingham rule, 
and that of the Crystal Palace, that their decisions must 
BE FINAL. 
Let roguery and collusion be openly exposed ; let incom¬ 
petency be politely dismissed; but let those who honestly 
fill an office that has nothing but the love of the pursuit to 
recommend it be safe from innuendo and dark phrases. 
In thus expressing ourselves we regret differing from Mr. 
Hewitt, for he prefers one Judge to several, but we do not 
condemn him for checking those whom he had reason to 
believe were guilty of foul practices; neither do we agree 
with those who call upon Mr. Hewitt to name the Judges 
whom he believes have thus acted. There is such a thing as 
an action for libel; and even if he pleaded a justification 
and obtained a verdict he would have to endure anxiety 
of mind, and to pay much of his own attorney’s costs— 
penalties we have no right to call upon him to endure. He ; 
has said enough to put exhibitors and Committees on 
their guard, and they should be grateful to him for per¬ 
forming disinterestedly a task repugnant to his feelings. 
FALCON-IIOCKED COCHIN-CHINA FOWLS. i 
What is the 'present state of the law regarding falcon ' 
or “vulture-hocked” birds exhibited in the classes for 
Brahmas or Cochins ? Are birds to be considered as 
more perfect for having this distinguishing feature, or are 
they, because they have it, to be held the less deserving of a 
prize ? Suppose two pens equally well matched, equally 
large, and equally good in colour and form, to be exhibited 
in the same class, which pen would be preferred for the 
first prize, the birds which had, or which had not , the 
“ vulture hock ? ” 
I venture to ask for information, as such contradictory 
assertions exist upon the point. Old advertisements and old 
catalogues of Mr. Stevens’s sales teem with descriptions of 
birds in which the “vulture hock” is put prominently 
forward as a merit; yet latterly in reports of shows I have 
seen that a remarkably good Brahma cock was only “ com¬ 
mended” because he was “vulture-hocked,” and a Cochin 
breeder of repute lately declared that his chickens were 
disqualified because one was “ vulture-hooked.” Of course, 
if one bird in a pen is so furnished, all must be similarly 
feathered ; but am I correct in supposing that vulture hocks 
are rather suspicious appendages to a Brahma or Cochin, 
and to be eschewed by exhibitors in shows where there is 
likely to be close competition?— Falconides. 
[The early Cochins were never vulture-hocked, and it was 
only when they were a little on the decline that this appendage 
was introduced. It has never been considered a desideratum, 
and we should say that in two pens similar in every respect, 
and of course of equal merit, if the birds in one were 
vulture-hocked, and in the other not, the latter would be 
preferred. Brahmas should not have it. It is more 
common in White Cochins than in any other breed. It does 
not amount to a disqualification, but it is certainly a dis¬ 
advantage in competition.] 
Class 7.—FRILLED PIGEONS. 
Variety 2.— THE TURBIT ( Columba turbita). 
French. German. 
Pigeon Cravate. Mo yen Taube. 
This is probably the variety which Aldrovandus alludes 
to as the Columba Cypria cucullata without hoods, as 
they certainly have some points of resemblance to the 
Jacobin, the Cypria cucullata proper. Buffon says they 
