404 THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, March 10, 1857. 
whom the same two .Tudges, at the last Birmingham Show, 
gave the Silver Clip and all the honours in their power," but 
from whom, on this occasion, lie neither received honour 
nor commendation, nor notice of any kind ! 
“ Consistency ” acknowledges that the shape of the old 
bird was very good; that he was short in leg and well 
feathered; body large and well formed; and, indeed, gene¬ 
rally correct in all points ; but his colour vile, a rusty dead 
brown, with patches of brown feathers over all the breast, 
thighs, and rump; whereas the Silver Cup bird had breast, 
thighs, legs, and rump perfectly black. He then angrily 
appeals to the Judges, and asks what are to be the charac¬ 
teristics of Partridge cocks. “ Is it not necessary to have 
the bright plumage, black breast, thighs, and legs so long 
coveted? and are we, against the next gathering at Bir¬ 
mingham, to prepare for competition only such nondescripts 
as the bird highly commended at Liverpool?” 
Now, admitting a little reasonable disappointment on the 
part of any one who had bought an extravagant-priced bird 
on finding him unnoticed on his first exhibition, one cannot 
but be astonished at such an attack upon the Judges in 
j reference to colour, and the distinction of Partridge cocks in 
! a matter where colour had nothing to do with it, and where 
[ their decision was not in reference to Partridge cocks, but 
t to Cochin cocks of all colours ; in fact, what they had to 
decide upon, if my notions are correct, was to award honours 
j to those birds which were the best models of what a Cochin- 
China ought to be; and in this view, although the handsome 
| young cockerel came in full figure, with black trousers and 
j dress boots, and the old one in his travelling costume of 
j mahogany tops, spurs, and brown buckskin inexpressibles, 
nevertheless the Judges honoured the latter as the better 
specimen of a Cochin; and, Ya! Mihi! ignored the Silver 
Cup bird altogether! 
With an especial reservation of his own name, your corre¬ 
spondent drags forward that of the owner of the old bird, 
| comments on his proceedings, and complacently assumes, 
j “ I may notice, also, that his owner was equally astonished 
, with myself at the notice taken of him by tbe Judges, having 
I stated to a friend of my own that he would willingly have 
taken twenty shillings for him the previous day—a remark 
soon to be realised ; for though he was entered in the 
catalogue to be sold for £20, this was reduced by Mr. P. Cart¬ 
wright, the owner, to £3 within two hours of the opening of 
the Exhibition ; and, finding no buyer even at this reduction, 
he was finally sold by Messrs. Lucas and Co., after the 
utmost efforts of those gentlemen in parading the high 
honours awarded to him in the Exhibition from two of the 
ablest Judges in the laud, for a nett sum to his owner of less 
than twenty shillings.” 
Now, Sir, I really did chuckle to see the old bird snatch a 
commendation from some of the valuable birds that sur¬ 
rounded him, and stated to an exhibitor that I had sent him 
purposely for sale on account of his age, and should be 
content to get £1 for him. 
But your correspondent makes an erroneous deduction if, 
on this account, he supposes I did not estimate his merits 
as a Cochin cock as highly as the Judges did. It would 
have been very ungracious not to do so; and I think that 
even our gentle critic, under similar circumstances, would not 
have been so prompt to call their judgment in question. 
In the lottery of chances “ Consistency” must expect to 
find occasionally, as in this instance, that the highest-priced 
birds do not always win, and that those of insignificant 
value may now and then have a prize adjudicated to them ; 
I and he ought to have known, both according to Cocker and 
the usual law of Exhibitions, that I had as much light to 
affix the unsaleable price of £20 to my bird of £1 value as 
he had to affix the unsaleable price of £100 for a bird that 
might be valued at the fancy price of £5. 
] Again, as to colour ( ninvium ne credo colori), vile as is that 
! of this old nondescript, if liis antecedents are a criterion, he 
I is quite as likely to beget the much-coveted black breast, 
j pluff, legs, and stern for the next Birmingham gathering as 
bis more genteel and high-priced competitor. He is the 
sire of the first prize pen at Anerley in 1855, from which a 
celebrated amateur has bred many winners ; and some of 
his produce of the past year have been in a prize pen at 
Prescot, and in the Silver Cup pen at Preston ; and I do not 
doubt if, during the ensuing year, the produce of pen 323 
should meet the produce of pen 325, they will amply 
vindicate the honour of their sire. 
It may tend to smooth over some asperities, and to modify 
“ Consistency’s ” unmerited censure of those who acted as 
Judges, to mention that the old Partridge cock came to me 
with the assurance, from a highly respectable gentleman, 
that the author of “ The Poultry Book” (no mean authority) 
had once declared him to be as good a specimen of what a 
Cochin cock ought to be as he had ever seen.— The late 
Owner of the Cock at Liverpool, Pen 323. 
EACH LOCALITY HAS A FOWL MOST 
BEFITTING IT. 
Your correspondent, “ Silver-penchxed Hamburgh,” has 
again obliged your poultry-loving subscribers by detailing the 
management and produce of his birds in 1856. I think we 
are all indebted to him for his information. I think his 
return of 774 eggs from four hens, an average of 193 per 
head, is the largest average ever published. None will deny 
him a right to plume himself upon such success. I, if no 
one else, must ask why he “ throws down the gauntlet ” to 
“ Felix Rabbit,” against whom, he tells us, he “ draws out 
his forces in battle array.” 
I suspect Rabbits, as a family, will never be found so 
ready to wage war as the clamorous and restless race whom 
your correspondent so characteristically impersonates. “ Fe¬ 
lix” comes of a patient, peaceful stock, cheerily picking up a 
sufficient sustenance where more ambitious animals would 
pine and starve. I do not think my friend would have shown 
fight had he been in England. I am sure I cannot see any 
reason why he should. Poor “Felix” was profoundly indif¬ 
ferent to “ fame ” and “ laurels.” He kept fowls because he 
wanted eggs. He kep>t Cochins because they suited him, 
and did not interfere with his neighbours. There were no 
complaints of trespass to soothe down, no roupy birds to 
cure, and, as he never retained a cock with “ bis horrid 
howl,” no wakeful person could allege a nuisance. He read 
in your pages that people situated like himself might get 
winter eggs cheaper than the market would supply them by 
keeping Cochin pullets from September to March. He tried 
the plan and succeeded. He told the little world so — that 
great world rather, whose fate it is to have many burdens 
and few pleasures, and to be penned up in the outskirts of 
towns, in “Spring Gardens” where there is neither water 
nor verdure, and in “ Prospect Places” where there is nothing 
to see. 
The time came when even this scanty approach to a home 
was more than he could maintain for his ever-increasing 
family. Like Hamburgh birds they would not thrive 
“ cabined, cribbed, confined.” They wanted a larger run, so 
he and they are off to New Zealand. I hope he will read 
there that his old competitor has challenged him once more, 
and that his successor in the little box where Cochins 
flourished under his superintendence has, among the many 
small matters left to his care, not forgotten to uphold in 
poultry controversy the report of his predecessor. 
In truth, on what point are “ Felix ” and your cor¬ 
respondent of February 17tli to join issue? The first 
made a report which I know would be both careful and 
accurate ; the second makes his statement, which I have no 
doubt is as careful and as accurate a one. They are in no 
respects contradictory. They are parallel passages rather 
than antagonistic assertions. What is there to fight about? 
“ Silver-pencilled Hamburgh,” in 1856, keeps fowls of 
his kind under most favourable circumstances for any variety, 
and gets 774 eggs from four hens in a year. He got in the 
dear time (between Sept. 1st and March 1st) 242 eggs. In 
the days of plenty he got 532. “ Felix,” under circumstances 
which made Cochins the only variety possible, got 599 eggs in 
the twelve months, 289 in the winter, and 310 in the summer 
half year. He hatched, besides, three or four broods for his 
friends. What great superiority is established for one variety 
over the other? “Felix”’ greater supply in winter (the 
winter of 1855, too, the worst ever known) almost counter¬ 
balances “ Hamburgh’s ” larger summer return. The cir¬ 
cumstances are too different to admit of accurate comparison 
of breed with breed. I do not believe any of our established 
