13 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, April 6, 1858. 
that cannot but be called first class ; but I fancy that the 
honour is due, not to the money that bought them, but to the 
I humble breeder. 
While on this point, I am reminded of a report, that 
; appeared in The Cottage Gardener, of the Liverpool 
Show, wherein it said, that a pen of Game Bantams shown 
by Mr. Worrall deserved especial mention, and, if fortunate, 
“ will place him in the position as a Bantam exhibitor that he 
has so long occupied in Hamburghs.” I wonder, when Mr. 
Worrall read this, if it recalled to his memory the very un- 
; questionable manner with which he got possession of the two 
hens shown there, and at other places, by him P 
Respecting “ the Lancashire touch,” as Mr. Chune terms 
it, of cutting part of the feathers out, I can speak personally 
of the Golden-pencilled that Mr. Worrall won with at Liver¬ 
pool, and can say, that the hens hackle feathers had been cut, 
or plucked, to a shameful extent. 
While on this Liverpool Show, which has been mentioned 
in your valuable paper several times, to the no great credit of 
the managing Committee, may I ask, how it was that the 
servants employed on that occasion were men belonging to 
gentlemen, who exhibited to a great extent—and, by referring 
to the prize-list, it will be seen, figured pretty considerably 
among the successful exhibitors?—I allude to Mr. Douglas and 
Mr. Gilliver, without thinking for a moment that the deci¬ 
sions were at all influenced by them. I think it would have 
been more satisfactory to the generality of exhibitors, had 
they employed disinterested persons. The gentleman of a 
higher grade, mentioned in Mr. Douglas’s letter, in No. 495, 
I leave your readers to imagine. I hope that, at the next 
Exhibition at Liverpool, Mr. Worrall will advocate, with his 
consummate ability, the appointment of a “ Game Judge” 
I would not have troubled you with these lengthy remarks, 
but I think it is high time that these continual letters of dis¬ 
approval from the Judges’ decisions be put a stop to. If all 
unsuccessful exhibitors had to rush into jprint to soothe their 
rage, like Mr. Worrall, the gentlemen to whom we are in¬ 
debted for accepting thi8 not over-pleasant duty will be known 
to us in that capacity no longer. 
If Mr. Worrall fancies he is more competent for the office 
than those we now have, let him at once launch his bark in 
the stream; and, at the same time, I w ould advise him to 
keep within hail of a pilot, lest he may founder among the 
rocks.— Birchen Cock. 
MR. WORRALL’S DOINGS AT LIVERPOOL. 
I must decline complying with Mr. Worrall’s request, that 
I should send my real name. I have a lively recollection of 
the personal tone he assumed in his correspondence, last 
year, with Mr. Hewitt, and I do not choose to subject myself 
to a repetition of it. Surely Mr. Worrall can either deny, or 
explain away, the report I alluded to, viz., “ That Wm. Gilliver, 
a paid servant of Mr. Moss (Mr. Armstrong), and in charge of 
his Game cocks, was selected to pen the 100 cocks in the Single 
Game Cock Class.” Is this report true, or false ? If false, let 
Mr. Worrall say so, and I for one shall rejoice at such a 
charge being disproved; but, if true, I submit that it was a very 
unfair and improper proceeding on the part of Mr. Worrall, 
that William Gilliver, the trainer of seven cocks, belonging to 
the Secretary, should have been selected for this duty. Why 
could it not have been done by the same servants of the Show 
who penned the other birds ? I firmly believe, what I have 
heard to have been the case, and if so (in spite of Mr. Douglas’s 
statement), William Gilliver did have an access to his own 
birds, which other servants had not. 
Mr. Worrall’s explanation of his having substituted Mr. 
Armstrong’s for Mr. Moss’s name is equally absurd and im¬ 
proper. One of the Liverpool rules states, “ That the birds 
must be bond fide the property of the exhibitor.” Yet, by 
]iis own showing, Mr. Worrall, at the last moment, breaks 
his own rule, in favour of his co-Secretary. 
All the remarks made on this matter confirm my impres¬ 
sion, “ that gentlemen ought not to act as Secretaries of, and 
exhibitors in, a Poultrg Show, at the same time ; ” and, in spite 
of Mr. Worrafl’s criticisms on Preston management, this was 
the feeling: which dictated the conduct of at least one member 
O 
of the Preston Committee. 
Y ou, Mr. Editor, can bear me out that I have no persoual 
feeling, or interest, in these matters, Messrs. Hewitt and 
Worrall being equally all but strangers tome. My only object 
is fair play. It is a pity Mr. Worrall should attack the 
Preston Show, merely because Mr. Hewitt was the Judge. Of 
the justice of the decisions at Liverpool and Preston I cannot 
speak, as I was not there, but though doctors (and Judges 
too) will occasionally differ, I believe the Judges at both 
Shows to be not only honest, but able, and their awards gene¬ 
rally give satisfaction. 
In conclusion, let me (not in an unfriendly spirit) counsel 
Mr. Worrall to set his own Show in order, before being too 
severe on Preston, and to remember that any man, with glass 
walls, who will throw stones at his neighbours, may reasonably 
expect to find his own glazier’s bill something very considerable. 
—Fair Play. 
GRUMBLINGS ABOUT EGGS. 
In your paper of the 16th ult. a correspondent, who signs 
himself “ R. G.,” touches upon a point, in which there really 
is a difficulty involved, although he writes in a tone and temper 
which is not likely to clear it up. 
I do not know, or care to know, whose identity is concealed 
beneath the initials “ R. G.”; (clo these stand for Regular 
Grumbler P) but whoever he may be, it is most certain that, 
among the amateurs, or dealers, whose honour and veracity he 
impugns, there are men whose integrity is as established, and 
character as unblemished, as his own. 
Generally, he is more rash than wise who indulges in sweep¬ 
ing assertions against any class of Englishmen, whether black 
coats, fustian, or motley, be its distinguishing wear. Especially 
is there something of audacity in his conduct, who comes 
forwards and makes this kind of complaint:—“ I have had 
dealings with several individuals, with a uniformly unfavour¬ 
able result.” For, consider, what is the deduction which 
necessarily must ensue from such a statement. In each trans¬ 
action, two parties are involved; each transaction, the same 
unfavourable result. Which side is most likely to be to blame 
for this uniform failure ? The side, which always remains the 
same, with circumstances the same ? or, the side, in which the 
individual and circumstances vary on each occasion ? I think 
there can be no doubt that, as the result is in each case the 
same, the side, which in each case remains the same, is more 
especially the cause of this unvarying failure. I am more 
skilled in gardening than in fancy poultry, and I cannot help 
thinking that the old controversy of “ bad seeds ” is identical 
with the new cry of “ bad eggs, and rogues who sell them.” 
Twenty years ago, I used to see similar attacks upon seed 
merchants ; but then, as I believe the case is now, it was not 
the more skilful, or experienced gardeners, who indulged in 
the clamour. 
The difficulty in each case is the same : those who deal in 
possibilities (like eggs and seeds) cannot insure uniformity to 
sample, as they may who furnish fowls and plants. Every 
man of experience knows that good seedlings are the exception, 
and not the rule ; and it is the same, in a greater degree, with 
eggs of poultry. It is the uncertainty which gives the charm 
to both pursuits ; the good bear but a small proportion to the 
ordinary, and the good can only be brought to show to advan¬ 
tage by a skill and care, which do not belong to every novice, 
who thinks himself entitled to complain. Moderate your 
expectations, gentlemen, and increase your skill, and you will 
find there is quite sufficient account to be given of any failure 
you may meet with, besides the old one resorted to so long, 
by hasty sufferers, i. e., “ that all men are liars.” 
I think poultry fanciers may take example by gardeners, 
who have almost weaned themselves from this foolish method 
of accounting for non-success : a little more candour and 
manliness would improve our disappointed competitors. It 
is long since I have seen, among the contributions to The 
Cottage Gardener, the petulance and rancour which have 
lately disfigured The Poultrg Chronicle. — Senex. 
BUYING EGGS. 
Amongst the many, as your correspondent “R. G.” says, j 
who have been defrauded in the matter of poultry and eggs, j 
