THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN'S COMPANION, February 10, 1857. 329 
brought to compete for two Cups respectively worth ten and 
five guineas. The Committee, with a liberality which seems 
to be natural to them, kindly placed two extra cups at the 
disposal of the Judge. This was a help, but the difficulty of 
awarding even four prizes where twenty were worthy was 
very great. We cannot speak too highly of the beauty of 
this class. Duckwings, Duns, Blacks, Whites, Red Breasts, 
Black Breasts, Piles—all showed themselves to the best ad¬ 
vantage, and formed such an exhibition as has not before 
been seen. Every one was delighted with it, and the result 
was a class for 1858 consisting of one hundred entries at 
AT each, to compete for prizes of AIO, A20, ATO, and two of 
A5. There were seventy-one entries for this class in forty- 
eight hours. 
Our task now closes, with every expression of congratulation 
and respect for the Committee who provide such a treat for 
the poultry world, and for the liberal and comfortable manner 
in which it is conducted. It is hard to say what measure of 
success is before them; but whatever it may be it will not 
exceed their deserts. 
The Judges were the Rev. R. Pulleine and Mr. John 
Daily. 
PRIZES FOR GENERAL COLLECTIONS.— 
BIRDS DYING AT SHOWS. 
Knowing, Mr. Editor, your unvarying willingness to aid by 
any available means the real w T ell-doing of the poultry 
movement, I hope on the present occasion, through your 
permission, to lay before your readers generally, and the 
managers of our public Exhibitions more particularly, two 
objections that call loudly for revision. 
First, then, as to the monster Silver Cups offered for “ the 
best general collection ,” that have recently become almost 
incidental at the chief of our larger Shows. Such premiums 
have undoubtedly their benefits, and produce certain well- 
known and high competition; but, on the other hand, they 
have their grave objections also. 
My personal experience in the carrying out of Poultry 
Shows convinces me, beyond all doubt, that the most 
powerful incentive to success at such meetings, either 
present or future ones, is, that the competition, and, con¬ 
sequently, the final triumphs, should be as “ broadly sown ” as 
possible. If the greater bulk of the prizes fall to the lot of 
a few individuals the public interest in such Exhibitions is 
lessened in exact relative proportions, and the ardour of the 
great body of amateurs, whose confined space or means 
permit only the cultivation of a very restricted number of 
varieties, decreases in a similar degree. These latter parties 
actually and almost universally withdraw'- from so unequal 
a competition, well considering the utter hopelessness of so 
doing. They could compete with at least “ hope of success” 
in the general classes for accustomed premiums, but have 
not the temerity to enter the lists with the colossal opponents 
who usually secure eventually these larger rewards. They 
feel the positive inability of successful competition, well 
knowing, however meritorious their own specimens may 
prove themselves, the pressure of immense quantities of 
pens from some extensive competitor will at once swamp 
their individual exertions. I have known three dozen pens 
thus entered by one single exhibitor, and what chance 
remains to the man of limited means I need not portray. 
The regulations laid down are customarily these—“for the 
best general collection of not less than three varieties, five 
varieties,” and so forth. Then comes the final appropriation 
of the really valuable trophy by, perchance, twenty or even 
more varieties being show-n by a single party. 
I know I am treading on the toes of friends whom I 
personally esteem, and with whom I am certain this feeling 
is reciprocal; but private interests should ever be conceded 
to the general weal. I therefore suggest as remedial the 
following restriction :—That in cases of “ general collection 
Cups,” not only should the minimum of pens competing be 
affixed, but the extent of numbers shown by one individual 
for such prizes should be limited likewise ; say, for instance, 
“ not less than six, nor more than twelve pens.” Numbers, 
of course, must rest with Committees themselves, and also 
on the relative advantages of their peculiar exhibition; 
but, however arranged,the “principle” is the same. Do not, 
as by present arrangement, drive away the multitude of 
small exhibitors in the hopelessness of despair. The effects 
of so doing on the financical department tell heavily, as no 
doubt exists in my mind that every successful exhibitor adds 
interest to the adventure, and naturally and invariably uses 
his utmost exertions to induce the attendance of his ac¬ 
quaintances to view hopes long cherished at length publicly 
realised. 
The other item refers to fowls dying during the time they 
are exhibited. My remarks made in the former instance 
pertained simply to the pecuniary welfare of Poultry Shows; 
my present ones are, on the contrary, promulgated to obviate 
altogether those “ heart burnings ” frequently, possibly, in¬ 
dulged in without “ cause or reason,” but of wliich, I regret 
to say, in some few isolated instances, there have been true 
proofs of existence so closely brought home to individuals, 
as to suggest cogent reasons for the plan I intend offering 
for universal adoption. 
In explanation. A fowl of great value never returned to 
its owner, and its death was recorded as the reason of its 
absence. It was deemed unsatisfactory by the exhibitor, and 
my advice was asked in the matter. I tried to solace the 
vexation of the party by expressing my conviction at that 
time of the demise of the bird. I was, however, mistaken. 
Somewhat under a year from that incident, the same fowl 
was exhibited at a minor exhibition, and at once recognised 
on my first glance through the Show, before proceeding to 
the arbitrations. I pressed the point to the present Com- 1 
mittee; they at length agreed to a telegraphic message to 
the stated original owner, and the adjudications proceeded, 
interrupted, however, I frankly admit, by somewhat repeated j 
references to the fowl in question. Long before the i 
opening the owner arrived, certainly somewhat unduly 1 
excited by intensity of feeling, and at the most prudent j 
suggestion of the chairman of the Committee “reduced to j 
writing” a private and unseen mark, as the bird stood j 
penned, proving its individuality. In breathless suspense, | 
this done, all awaited the result, and the truth was de- j 
monstrated. Next came a far more distressing scene. 
The reputed owner of the bird was “ sent for,” and I regret 
to say, as is too commonly the case, in such, to use the 
mildest term, indiscretions, he added untruth to criminality, 
hoping, no doubt, to avoid detection thereby; but circum¬ 
stances pressing both sorely and closely, the final result 
was the most heart-breaking humiliation and abject apology, 
with a monetary gift of many times the value of the (I will 
now say) stolen fowl into the bargain ; and this being duly 
paid to a charitable institution, and the bird restored to its 
proper proprietor, I abstain from farther exposure tb an simply : 
stating that the fowl was returned at the time it was first 
missed as “ dead ” by the party actually stealing it, though 
at the suggestion and reward of the first-named transgressor, j 
It was taken not in the Show, but during the transit to the 
railway, whilst subjected to the guardianship of the thief 
himself, and when taken from the package was left by the 
wayside at the house of an acquaintance. 
I cannot dwell on this truly miserable incident without at 
least drawing the attention of the young especially to the 
moral it conveys. There was a young man of undoubtedly 
respectable connections, recently married, with bright 
prospects before him, compelled thus by shame to forego 
his fast-improving practice, and to recommence, I trust, a 
more honourable career in another and far distant locality. 
How true it is that, honesty is always the best policy! i 
Although I hear that other such cases have occurred, I 
trust and do believe they are few and very far between, and 
in some instances exaggerated by party feeling. All such ' 
incidents, whether enforced by rumour alone, or by stern, in¬ 
disputable facts, have a natural and unerring tendency to 
produce general suspicion, and consequent injury to Poultry 
Shows. They have, likewise, another most objectionable 
feature. Doubts once engendered, suspicion ofttimes 
attaches itself most unjustly to the innocent, whilst the 
actual offender, perchance, even encourages the feeling, the 
better to screen from the knowledge of his fellow-man the 
villany of which his own act has proved him capable. Such 
was the practice in the case detailed. It is happily true that 
the prevention of any such dilemma is as easy as it is 
effective. 
I beg to suggest to all Committees for the future to 
