"Now, if the object of these trials is to reward the owner of the best dog in each stake with the first prize, we think the evidence afforded by the proceedings at these two meetings is strongly in favour of the system of judging by points, without necessarily running in ' heats.' With the same time at their disposal, worse ground, and, we will assume, equal knowledge of their task, the Shrewsbury judges in two days settled the pretensions of eighty-five dogs, against thirty-one at Horseheath; and in no instance was such an animal as Norna put out without a second opportunity of showing his or her powers, except in the single case of Rapid, which, as above shown, was clearly a mistake, caused by hurriedly coming to a decision without any necessity for it, and therefore not in any way implicating the system adopted; and, when it is considered that the numbers judged at Shrewsbury in two days were nearly three times as great as those judged at Horseheath in the same time, the balance in favour of the plan adopted at the former is at once apparent.

"We are by no means pledging ourselves to the opinion that the scale of points adopted at Shrewsbury is incapable of improvement, and we prefer that used at Vaynol and Bala; but we contend that its principle is correct for the following reasons:

"1st. It is admitted that the great drawback to these trials is the want of time to test the merits of the competing dogs fully and fairly. 2nd. The Shrewsbury plan economises time by devoting as much as possible to the best dogs in each stake, without wasting it on a second, third, or fourth trial of inferior animals. 3rd. The Kennel Club method of heats often leads to the entire defeat of one of the best dogs in a stake in the first or second round, by meeting either the best or the second best in it, which contretemps does not occur in the Shrewsbury plan. 4th. At Shrewsbury the average performance of each dog is estimated by the judges, whether he is down once, twice, or thrice; whereas under the Kennel Club plan a dog may, on. the average, perform badly, and yet, from happening to be in luck or in good temper in the third or fourth trial may be hailed the winner of the stake, as really happened at Horseheath, even after such a shamefully bad performance as that of Die. We beg most distinctly to state that in the above observations we cast no reflections on this fine bitch, which we greatly admired at Shrewsbury; and we have reason to believe that she will ultimately turn out to be as good as any setter puppy we have seen this year.

What we mean to imply is that every dog should be judged by the average merit displayed by him x>r her, and not by the results of single trials. In short, our object is that, as far as possible, the luck connected with meeting bad or good competitors, or with bad or good ground, should be eliminated from these trials, which, though not attended by any number of spectators, are regarded with great interest by a large body of gentlemen possessed of moors or manors.

"We have not alluded to the exploded plan of judging according to the number of times each dog finds game during a certain fixed period, because experience has shown its fallacy, and it has been abandoned after fair trial The choice now lies between the two methods which have this year been fairly tried on nearly equally good ground, with judges of similar powers, and with almost exactly the same dogs competing, but with the great disadvantage at Shrewsbury of having the merits of eighty-five dogs to decide, instead of thirty-one at Horseheath, in the two days devoted to the principal stakes. Under these conditions that the former should have come out equal with the latter is a strong argument in favour of the plan adopted there, especially when it is recollected that, but for the error in judgment alluded to above, which is not inherent in the plan, its superiority at all points would have been displayed. In this comparison we have not alluded to the subject of byes, which have no unfair tendency at Shrewsbury, but are of necessity an evil in the Kennel Club plan".

During the early part of this year (1882) a movement has been commenced by Mr. Brewis in the Kennel Club to dispense with the heats plan, and a majority have voted against it, but up to the time of this chapter going to press, no final decision has been arrived at except that a new plan of some kind is to be adopted.