"It is needless for us to return to the much-vexed questions relating to the discrepancies between the decisions given on the merits of competing dogs at the various exhibitions of those animals which are now so common as to occupy our columns largely with their reports, from week to week throughout the year. That they exist is admitted by all who are in the slightest degree acquainted with the facte, and that they are much to be lamented is equally to be taken for granted. The subject for our present consideration is how this lamentable state of things is to be avoided or. reduced within reasonable limits; for no one can expect absolute uniformity in any machinery composed of fallible human beings.

" In regard to this selection of prize winners, there are now five open questions under general consideration: First, shall the judges be public or private ? secondly, shall there be one, two, or three judges ? thirdly, shall the judge or judges select the prize winner at random, or be guided by any written law? fourthly, shall he or they be compelled to draw up a numerical estimate of each of the prize winners, founded on a standard of points furnished for the purpose; and if so, shall it be published ? and fifthly, how shall the judges be elected ? Each of these subjects we now propose to discuss seriatim.

"In reference to public v. private judging, the general verdict is certainly in favour of the former whenever it can be managed, and all the clubs devoted to any particular breed have, we believe, adopted it. The only large show whose managers hold out against it is that held at Birmingham, where the want of space is a sufficient reason to forbid it; and the choice lies between the abandonment of curzon Hall, with all its counterbalancing advantages, and the continuance of the old system of judging in private. The Birmingham Show being the oldest annual exhibition of dogs, and having always been well managed on the whole, has obtained a strong hold on the public, and, in spite of the abovementioned drawback, it seems likely to continue its career with success. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that public. judging is now established, and will be adopted at all other large shows.

"The next question is not so easily settled, and it is only recently that it has been fairly tried. One thing has, however, been fully shown by experience, viz., that when more than one judge is appointed, they should possess equal knowledge of the breed or breeds placed before them. Nothing is so liable to lead to dissatisfaction as the importation of a judge specially acquainted with a particular breed, and the coupling of him with a ' gentleman of position.' Wherever this has been done some fiasco has occurred, and at length the plan has been abandoned. Our own opinion, founded on a long experience in every department of dog shows, is that ultimately single judging will be found to act most beneficially; but it requires some length of education to develop firmness of purpose sufficient to carry good principles into fair practice, and there are many men possessed of sufficient knowledge, who have yet such a deficiency of moral courage as to make them require a coadjutor to share the onerous responsibility of condemning to the ranks the dogs of their friends.

On the other hand, if, as we allege, it is necessary that both the judges of a class should be possessed of equal knowledge, it reduces its amount to a much lower level if double or treble the number of individuals are required, since we all know that the managers of our shows have not a very large circle from which the choice can be made. The question is, however, now fairly submitted to the test of experience, and we need not, therefore, discuss it more at length.

"But now we have to examine the most vexed of the five questions before us, and yet it seems to us so clear as to be incapable of two opinions about it. In examining it, we must remember that the judicial bench is not composed of the same individuals at the various shows, and that many of them are known to have proclivities as regards types, etc., which render it possible for a clever exhibitor to 'place' successfully under different judges, the various members of his kennel, all of which could scarcely have a chance of a prize under any one judge possessed of reasonable consistency and fairness. It is quite true that it is impossible entirely to avoid this, and that, even with all the much-vaunted integrity of the judges in our higher courts of law, well deserved as it no doubt is, suitors and their solicitors are very apt to have a preference founded upon well-known proclivities. But without statute laws, and precedents equally binding in our common law, our courts would resemble a lottery office still more than they now do, and we think no one but a madman would desire to wash out the written and unwritten code which guides us in all our transactions.

Why, then, should we leave our canine judges to a ' rule of thumb,' when in our more important relations of life we adopt a different plan? To this question we know no answer, and we confess that this judicial blindness of the world of 'doggy' men is beyond our comprehension. The only explanation we can give is that it allows each exhibitor to use his powers of 'placing' with a reasonable hope of success, and that he thinks in that way he can cover the defects in his dogs by his own cleverness. The special clubs have, however, in most cases abandoned this plan, and have each drawn up a code of points, not only describing most minutely the dog they combine to glorify and improve, but appending a numerical value to each point; and in setting this example they have, no doubt, done good service in the cause to support which they have been called into being. It may therefore be concluded that the days of judging by 'rule of thumb' are numbered.