The newest and most brilliant luminary in canine literature, before whom all past and present dealers in doggy lore must, sooner or later, pale their ineffectual fires, is Mr. Vero Shaw, and he says, in his " Pen and Ink Sketches," that on the subject of judging by points I am what he terms "immense," but that rumour says it is not from conviction, but obstinacy, that I adhere to this "unclean thing."

Rumour and Mr. Shaw are both mistaken. My friend Mr. Shaw has written a book all about dogs, and I particularly admire that portion of it in which is described the several "points" of each breed and the numerical value put upon them.

Now, I conceive that it is utterly impossible for any sane writer to so minutely assess the value of each individual point and express it in those dreadfully matter-of fact things, figures, if he did not intend them to be used, and this is what Mr. Shaw does - "one for his knob, two for his heels " - everything has an exact value, be it the chop of the bulldog or the tail of the pug, you are told it to a fraction; and, therefore, believing my friend to be sane, I claim him on my side - that is, in favour of judging by points.

Another strong opponent of the system has also committed himself, although not so deeply. I refer to Mr. S. E. Shirley, M.P., chairman of the Kennel Club. I never heard Mr. Shirley speak against the principle of judging by points, but he once said to me he thought life was too short for its practice. Now Mr. Shirley has recently contributed to Mr. Shaw's book an article on collies, in which he most precisely lays down the absolute numerical value of each point in that breed. Why is this ? figures of speech may be ornamental, but mere numerical figures have to all but statisticians a dreary sameness about them, and plain matter-of-factness which cannot be turned to ornament. I wonder what Mr. Shirley's reflections would be now if, when at school, his tutor had said to him of the multiplication table, "These figures are all very well you know, and you had better learn them, but bear in mind you must never think of making a practical use of them - life is much too short for that."

The simple fact is, judging by points is the only possible way of judging at all, and to arrive at conclusions as to the respective merits of the dogs for adjudication in any other way is mere guess work.

In the most ordinary friendly chats about dogs, when discussing their relative merits, we say Bob's head is better than Carlo's, and Wagg is better in loin than either, and such remarks are quite understood and appreciated; it is a rough and loose way of judging by points, and the application of the numerical value to each point, as described in the standard of excellence, is merely giving exactness to it, and facilitating the work of striking a balance between the good and bad points, and more readily, and with greater precision, awarding to each dog his proper place in the scale of merit.

Of course, we do not use pencil and paper every time we have to deal with figures, but in intricate accounts mental arithmetic is not trusted to. And so it is in judging dogs; practice enables anyone with any pretensions to fill the position of a judge, to weed out quickly specimens so wanting in general excellence as to be "out of the hunt," but in close competition - when the judge is supposed to be very particular as to each good and bad point of each competitor - would it not save time and ensure accuracy to put down, in a prepared tabular form, the value put upon each point seriatim, and add them up at the finish ? I do not think life is too short for that; on the contrary, I think this would prove a lengthening of life, by saving time.

An able opponent of point judging contends that in the exercise of his functions the judge is guided by an inborn faculty aided by years of experience, and that his decisions should be received, accepted, and respected without question by those not blest with such innate ability; and further, that it is not the duty of the judge to teach, nor is it in his power to explain to the public, so that they can understand the processes and stages by which he arrived at his conclusions. In fact that it would be as fair to ask a clever prestidigitateur to explain how he accomplished his clever tricks and illusions as to ask a judge how he arrived at his decisions - the former could but shrug his shoulders and re-perform the trick as plainly as he could, and so with the judge, both performing their work by the power of an inborn faculty aided by years of practice and experience. On the contrary, I hold that the objects of shows being what they profess to be, it is essentially the duty of the judge to instruct the public, and that he is not at all in the same position as the performer of sleight of hand tricks who has only to amuse.

The judge may be more fairly compared to an expert mechanic - one whose deftness and rapidity of action in producing results wonderful to the uninitiated, can yet intelligently explain every process from beginning to end, so that anyone may understand.

Judging by points, too, has this advantage; it settles the question of dual judging, by giving the opinion of both to the public in a concrete form, and that of the arbitrator also on the point of difference on which he was called upon to decide the cases where the two judges had disagreed.

It settles the question of public versus private judging fairly well, providing a more substantial feast than seeing the dogs walked round, and acting as indicators to every step the judge took in going through his duties. With this solatium to wounded feelings the disappointed exhibitor could look with more equanimity on the secret conclaves of Curzon Hall.

One objection I have heard urged against point judging is that it would reduce judging to a dead level; there would, it is said, be a dull stagnancy about it that would soon asphixiate shows.

I cannot see that there would be less difference of opinion under the one system than under the other, nor would there be sameness in the awards of the same man, nor more room for charges of inconsistency then than now. It is unreasonable to expect perfection in the work of any judge, and in judging by points the qualified man, whilst he might vary in his valuation of points, would never be very far off the mark.

The modus operandi of judging by points is so clearly shown by "Caractacus," in his chapter on the bulldog, that I need not repeat it here, but will in conclusion refer to a few general questions affecting judging, and the manner of doing it.

What I may call the Birmingham system, as it is the only show of importance, where it is now in vogue, is the election of the judges by a small committee and the keeping of their names secret from the public and exhibitors until the day on which they have to act arrives.

Concomitant with this secrecy respecting the judges, there is a great parade made of keeping these gentlemen entirely ignorant as to the identity of the dogs they are jndging - plain chains and collars must be worn by the dogs - no one but the committee, the judges, and the servants of the committee, who lead the dogs, are admitted during the judging. Even the press is excluded until noon, and then they are denied catalogues and forbidden to approach or speak to a judge until he has completed his labours; and altogether on the judging day at the Birmingham show one feels that in Curzon Hall they are breathing an atmosphere of suspicion as thick and unwholesome as Birmingham vomits from any of her numerous tall chimneys. The great difficulty is in deciding which class - the judges, reporters, or exhibitors - is the most suspected by this immaculate committee. I am disposed to think the servants in the yellow striped vests are treated with the most confidence at Birmingham.

The simplicity that supposes such ridiculous rules effective for the avowed object is in harmony with the miserable spirit which considers precautions against collusion between judge and exhibitor necessary.

The Birmingham committee cannot, for want of space, have public judging, but here as elsewhere when the public cannot see for themselves, their representatives, the press, should certainly have every facility given to them to accurately and fully report facts to their clients but the Birmingham committee seem like Otaheitan cooks, to think

No food is fit to eat Till they have chewed it.

As far as the matters above referred to go, the Birmingham committee remain wrapped in the swaddling clothes of infancy, and are content with the illusions of childhood.

It certainly requires no great exercise of that common sence of which Birmingham, not without reason, boasts to show that it is utterly impossible to prevent judges of experience knowing and recognising at a glance dogs they have seen scores of times. Then why not put all dogs on an equality, so far as can be done, by giving the judge a catalogue in his hand? If he can be influenced by ownership, it is not such rules as obtain at Birmingham that will stop him in wrong doing, but, believing as I do in the honour and integrity of judges, I hold you are materially aiding him and forwarding the highest objects of shows by giving him every item of information that can assist him in coming to a mature and correct decision.

At Maidstone, Cork, the Irish Kennel Club, the Bulldog Club, and other shows, catalogues are handed to the judges before they begin. Personally, except when it is necessary to refer to age or some such point, I have found them practically an encumbrance, and prefer The Field duplicate judging book. The practice is nevertheless useful in many ways, and most of all in that it disarms unworthy suspicion.

The kennel club have adopted public judging and the practice of announcing their judges' names before the entries close, and have been largely followed by other committees, and I hope to see them go still further and let their judges have catalogues to consult openly, and not as has been the case in some instances, clandestinely.

The question of single or dual judging is not important if point judging be adopted, but while this is not the case public opinion runs strongly in favour of single judging, and I believe judges generally prefer it.