Fanciers") and his beautiful wife, who always used to grace the shows by her presence, and took a keen interest in many of the animals shown, besides being an exhibitor in some of the classes. The Chairman intimated to me that the inmates of the Royal Kennel should stand well in the Prize List. I told him "every dog entered would be judged by me strictly on its merits, and if it was afterwards found the Royal Dogs were amongst the Prize Winners, none would be more pleased than I should, but I could not say or do more than that, and I was sure H. R. H. would wish his dogs to stand, or fall, on their merits alone!" Since then I have very often had the honour of judging dogs from the Royal Kennels, both Sand-ringham and Windsor.

I remember it so happened that the first time Her Majesty the Queen exhibited any dogs, nearly all Her Majesty's entries came into my classes at a Great London show. Soon after my entering the building I went to have a look at my classes, and shortly afterwards, the secretary came up to me and said, "Do you know you have the great honour of being the first man to judge any dogs from Her Majesty's kennels?" I said, "I have heard so." He then said, "Well, I am most anxious they should all be in the prize list, as I consider it a high honour that Her Majesty has allowed them to be entered." I said, "That is all right enough, but although I will not admit Her Majesty has a more loyal or devoted subject than myself, I am here in a public capacity as a judge, and if Her Majesty's dogs are entered, in competition with Her Majesty's subjects' dogs, they can only be judged 'on their merits,' and from what I can see on the benches as the Royal dogs have been pointed out to me by your keepers I don't think many of them will be ' in the money,' as the classes are very large and good." He said, "That will never do; what can be done?" I said, "Will you leave it to me?" He said, " Yes, entirely." I said, "Then I will have all the dogs of the same colour and type as those from the Royal kennels, formed into a separate class," (which luckily, was feasible,) "and judged together." This was done and I hope caused general satisfaction, which would not have been the case had any partiality been shown, nor would such have been approved by Her Majesty, I am perfectly sure, if the circumstances came to be known at the palace.

On one occasion when I had been judging a number of classes at a large London show, after I had done, one of the fair exhibitors came up to me and said, "You don't seem to like my dogs." I said, "If you will tell me the numbers of your dogs I will refer to my judging book, and see what notes I made of them." She gave the numbers, and I read out the notes on each. But this did not satisfy her, and she said, "Ah! I am only a poor widow, if I were only a rich heiress, like------, I suppose it would be different, she can win any number of prizes with her dogs." I replied, "You have no right to speak in that way to me, neither you nor any other exhibitor can say I have ever made any distinction between rich and poor. I have always sought to judge the dogs alone, irrespective of their owners; if the dogs of the person you mention have won it is because they were, in my opinion, the best." She said no more, nor did I, but I presume she thought I spoke the truth, as I have often noticed her as an exhibitor in my classes, at various shows since, and it is not reasonable to suppose she would continue to show under me, if she thought I favoured any one!

Indeed, there are so many "lookers-on" round every ring, nowadays who understand the various breeds, and are prepared to criticise the awards, that judges are "put upon their mettle," particularly with some of the popular breeds, where the competition is often very keen, and the entries large.

Some years since, at a large show in Wales I had a large and good class of Bedlington Terriers, but there was one dog that stood out, head and shoulders above the rest; it chanced that I began my examination of each specimen in the class, which I always endeavour to make, and a short note of the result in my book, at the dog standing next to him in the ring, and therefore he was the last to be looked at, and merely going over him enough to see that his coat, condition, topknot, legs, eyes, teeth and ears, were satisfactory, I sent them for a run round, marked my book and dismissed the class; while I was waiting for the next lot of dogs a very melancholy-looking man crept up to me and said, "Would you kindly tell me, sir, what you gave my dog?" I asked his number, and when he told me, said, "First and special for best in the show;" he threw his hat up in the air, and roared out, "Well, I'm blessed, I knowed he knowed 'em, he didn't hardly want to look at my dog, he didn't, he could see he were the best with half an eye, he could," and, from being a solemn and sad-looking person, he became the most jovial-looking fellow you could wish to see.

I did not know his name, and do not know it now, but he amused me very much at the time!



I do not remember where it occurred, but I was judging rather a good class of Scottish Terriers somewhere in the provinces, and a keeper brought in a dog I liked the look of, and after going over the classes I marked him first, and told the keeper to take him away and bench him, which I suppose he did. You can imagine my surprise when shortly after, the same dog made his appearance in the ring again, this time led by a man I knew well as rather an extensive exhibitor, at that time, and he began "making the most of his dog" before me. But as I had quite done with him, and had still some of my awards in the class to make, I did not want that, so I said, "I should take away that dog, and bench him if I were you, as he has been judged and sent out sometime since." The exhibitor in question, whom his worst enemy would not describe as either shy or timid, was unusually rapid in his departure from that ring, and I have since heard the story from others, to whom I suppose he told it, but I have never told it until now!

I have had such a long and varied experience of judging, that although I have often and often had classes large enough and strong enough to make one "pull one's self together," I never remember being really

"nonplussed," but once, and that was when I was judging some years ago at the People's Palace, situated in the East End of London. I presume, the "drawers up " of the schedule had not been previously experienced in such work, as amongst others, they had provided a "Variety Class for London Exhibitors," and, if obtaining entries is a criterion of success, it was very successful, as they obtained no less than 145 entries. I do not know, but I should think, it was the largest class ever seen at any show! And when I saw the tens and scores of dogs pouring into my ring, I wondered what was to become of them, as it was a good walk merely to go round them, and they formed a small dog show by themselves, and I noticed about five or six well-known "Champions" amongst them, as it included most of the known breeds of dogs. After referring to my judging book, many pages in which were of course taken up, I found I had three prizes to divide amongst this crowd, so I went to the committee, and explained the matter to them.

They behaved very well indeed, they said, " We will leave the matter entirely to you, do whatever you please in it." I went back, divided the class into over thirty pounds and under thirty pounds, cleared out all that was no good, and weeded down the remainder, and eventually gave two equal firsts, two equal seconds, and two equal thirds in each division, making twelve prizes and two "reserves" in all, which was a lot better than attempting to award three prizes amongst close on 150 dogs. I think the exhibitors were pleased, and felt I had done the best in my power to get them and myself out of an awkward position. 21

Many of my readers will remember Mr. George Helliwell, better known to his intimates as "Yorkshire George," and his long connection with the late Mr. Fletcher's successful kennel of sporting dogs. It was always a safe "draw" to touch on the merits of the Fox Terrier "Rattler," who won many of his numerous honours, when in George's care, and he was never tired, and would be nearly moved to tears in recounting his virtues and triumphs. I remember one occasion, when he was officiating as a judge, in which capacity he was in great request, and highly qualified. After he had judged a class, one of the exhibitors, who was not satisfied with what he had awarded to his dog, went up and asked him why he had not given him more, saying his dog "had a wonderful pedigree," and thought he ought to have beaten all there. George said, in his own peculiar way, slapping his inquirer gently on the back, "If tha' tak my advice, lad, the next toime ther' goes to show, thou'll tak thy dog's pedigree wi thee, and leave dog at 'oom!" I fear my writing of the matter does not properly convey the intense humour of the incident, and the "broad Yorkshire dialect" in which the advice was given! But "George's" many friends will picture it for themselves.

I saw in the papers lately the death of Mr. Frank Adcock, and it brought to my mind not only his craze for Giant Bull Dogs, which is well known to "the Fancy" of his day, but also his Great Dane "Satan," most appropriately named, as he rightly or wrongly enjoyed the reputation of being the most savage member of the canine race ever benched at shows. I remember him as a very large, I think, dark Harlequin-coloured specimen of the breed, always muzzled, even on the bench, and it usually required two, and sometimes four, keepers to deal with him, and on one occasion, I think it was a show at Bristol Drill Hall, many years since, when he was being removed from the benches to be sent back to his owner, he, although still muzzled, overpowered his attendants, and worried and tore most of the clothes from one of them, well known to exhibitors as "Teddy Morgan," who gave me a blood-curdling account of his experiences of the affair. He said he fully thought "Satan " would have killed him then and there, and spoke of the nonchalant and airy manner in which his owner treated the matter, when he, afterwards recounted his perils and troubles to him, with all the embellishments of which he was capable, adding, "Mr. Adcock, he guv me a 'quid' (20 s.) sir, and said he were glad it were me, and not some raw cove what didn't understand dogs!"