It may be said that with works to hand, wherein the subject is so well and exhaustively treated as those of "Stonehenge," Youatt, Hamilton, etc, there is no necessity for further writing on the subject. We trust, however, the reader will find in the following pages the best justification of our efforts; and as this is one of those subjects of which so many never tire, and on many points of which there is still considerable dif-ference of opinion, we have reason to hope it will not be without its use, and although there may be little original in what has been written - for there are many echoes and but few voices - still it is pleasant sometimes to see old friends in new dresses, and instructive to view even familiar things through other eyes than our own. It is always interesting to compare the opinion of the past with those of the present, and to mark the changes that take place, and, to go no further back, those who have followed dog shows from their establishment, cannot fail to be struck with the very great change which has taken place in many varieties for better or worse, and which are worth while considering.

Before proceeding to explain our grouping of the dogs it may be of interest to very briefly notice the classification and arrangement adopted by the principal writers on the subject. The arrangement of dogs by our dog show committees cannot be considered very satisfactory where there are the two great divisions of sporting and non-sporting. No doubt this system has arisen from the fact that the first publicly recognised dog shows were for sporting dogs only, and the division was made when other classes were added; but the distinction appears to us to be perfectly useless and rather confusing. Why, for instance, should a fox terrier, used for bolting foxes, be in the sporting division, and a Dandie Dinmont terrier, used for bolting otters, be in the non-sporting division? The arrangement is arbitrary and useless, and those who frame dog show schedules seem simply to have followed each other in the matter like sheep through a gap without their bell-wether. We have, therefore, discarded dog show catalogues as a guide to our arrangements.

We will now hark back to one of the oldest English writers on dogs, and we believe the first to attempt a classification, Dr. Johannus Caius. In his treatise on "Englishe Dogges" he adopted a classification very quaintly expressed, but which has much to recommend it, its principle being based on the dog's relation to man, and the uses to which man puts him; and he makes three great divisions, namely, sporting dogs, useful dogs otherwise employed, and toys. He says: "All English dogges be eyther of, A gentle kind, serving the game, A homely kind, apt for sundry necessary uses, or A Currish kind, meet for many toyes." The first of these he subdivides into two kinds, those used in hunting, including harriers, terriers, bloodhounds, gazehounds, greyhounds, lyemmers, and tumblers, and those used in fowling, which includes the land spaniel, water spaniel, setter, and the fisher. The second division, or "homely kind," contains the "shepherd's dogge" and the mastive or bandogge, with a few others not very clearly defined, as "the mooner" and "the tynckers curre." The third division, or the "currish kind," he describes as "curres of the mongrel and rascall sort," and it consists of three varieties: "the wappe or warner," "the turnspete," and "the dancer." This arrangement of Cains has been followed by Pennant, Daniel, and other writers.

We will now refer to the classification adopted by "Stonehenge," although it will be familiar to most of our readers, but we do so to show that the same principle is applied, though, of course, the latter writer had a greater subject to handle, and the manner of using the dog has considerably changed in three centuries; but on the same plan he gives us a fuller and more detailed arrangement, namely, first, wild and half-reclaimed dogs; second, dogs hunting chiefly by the eye; third, dogs hunting chiefly by the nose, and both finding and killing their game; fourth, dogs finding their game by scent, but not killing it, being chiefly used in aid of the gun (corresponding to the "gentle kind" of Caius used "in taking the byrde," that is, in aid of the net, now supplanted by the gun); fifth, pastoral dogs and those used for draught; sixth, watch, house, and toy dogs; seventh, cross-breeds, retrievers, etc.

It will be seen that these two arrangements, differing in detail, possess leading features in common; and now, as in strongest contrast to them, we will briefly give Cuvier's arrangements, who separates into three great divisions, according to the shape of the head and length of jaw. This places the greyhound, deerhound, dingo, dhole, etc, in one class, and as many terriers are now bred, it would certainly include them. The second division, consisting of those with heads moderately elongated, includes the spaniels, pointer, setter, sheep dogs, and the hounds hunting by scent, as the foxhound, etc. The third division, with short muzzle and high skull, includes the bulldog, mastiff, pug, and, in the present time, would also take in Blenheims and King Charles spaniels.

Now, whatever merits Cuvier's plan of classifying the dog may possess from a scientific point of view, it is useless and confusing to the sportsman and the fancier.

Lieut.-Col. C. Hamilton-Smith adopts a similar arrangement, and also takes into consideration the original geographical distribution, and makes sub-divisions according to the length and quality of coat. On this latter point he lays more stress than any other writer. Youatt adopts Cuvier's system, as does Blaine. Meyrick considers it practically useless. Mr. C. Linnaeus Martin divides dogs into five groups - greyhounds, Newfoundlands, spaniels, hounds, and mastiffs, and terriers, which is, at least, as unsatisfactory as having no arrangement at all, which indeed is the case with a considerable number of writers, to whom it is perhaps unnecessary to make further reference.

In dealing with a subject that has been treated by such able writers as those referred to, and others we have not mentioned, it is not to be expected, nor is it pretended, that we have anything very original to offer in the arrangement and grouping we propose; neither do we for a moment suppose that we have hit on a perfect system of classifying dogs. The varieties run into each other so imperceptibly, and from the pliant, tractable nature of the dog he is put to such various uses, that we often find varieties the farthest removed from each other in form and structure, interchanging positions, and each doing what we may term the legitimate work of the other, so that we can conceive of no system free from flaws and objections; but we hope our plan will prove convenient for the discussion of the history, development, and characteristics of each group with its individual varieties, and be found of easy and ready reference by those disposed to refer to it for information.

A word of explanation, and by anticipation of objections to disarm quibblers.

We have included in "British Dogs" varieties that are not strictly British, because we think them, like so many breeds introduced in the past, likely to become British, and meeting with them so often at our shows, we trust they are, if not yet fully, at least in process of being acclimatized.

Knowing, also, as Dr. Caius quaintly expresses it, in referring to "a new sort of dog just brought out of France," that "we Englishmen are marvellous greedy gaping gluttons after novelties, and covetous cormorants of things that be seldom, rare, strange, and hard to get," we believe our readers will not severely censure us for travelling a little beyond our title.

Thanks to the enthusiasm of the Rev. J. Cumming Macdona, J. H. Murchison, Esq., and a few other gentlemen, the magnificent St. Bernard is now a British Dog, and so may it be in the future with many another noble breed, that need only to come under the genius for stock breeding so peculiarly English, to have their best qualities fully and quickly developed.

Of the breeds worthy of being added to our list of British dogs, and that we would like to see more popular, we may mention that handsome dog the Barsee or Siberian wolfhound, splendid specimens of which have been shown by H.R.H the Princess of Wales, the Bight Hon. Lady Emily Peel, and others; that immense dog, the Great Dane, the finest specimen of which that has graced the show bench being Mr. Frank Adcock' s gigantic dog, Satan; that singularly attractive and eminently useful-looking La Vendee hound, of which Mr. G. De Landre Macdona's Ramonneau is a splendid specimen; the basset, as represented by Mr. E. Millais' Model and the Earl of Onslow's team; those burly tykes, the Thibet mastiffs, of which H.R.H. the Prince of Wales shows specimens; and several other attractive varieties we might mention.

The classification we shall adopt is as follows:-

Division I. Dogs Used In Field Sports

Group I. - Those that pursue and kill their game, depending entirely or mainly on sight and speed, and little or not at all on their scenting powers, with varieties bred directly from them: Greyhounds, deerhounds, whippets, lurchers, etc.

Group II. - Those hunting their game by scent and killing it: Bloodhounds, foxhounds, otterhounds, harriers, beagles, etc.

Group III. - Those finding the game by scent, but trained to forego their natural instinct to pursue, and to stand and index the game for the advantage of the gun: Setters, pointers, etc.

Group IV. - Other varieties used with the gun in questing and retrieving: All the spaniels and retrievers.

Division II. Dogs Useful To Man, (As Assistants In His Work, Watchers And Defenders Of Property, Life-Savers, Companion And Ornamental Dogs, And Destroyers Of Vermin.)

Group I. - Those specially used as assistants in man's work: Pastoral dogs, and dogs used for draught; shepherds' and drovers' dogs; Esquimaux, etc.

Group II. - Watchers and defenders of life and property, life-savers, companion and ornamental dogs, as bull dogs, mastiffs, St. Bernards, Newfoundlands, Dalmatians, etc.

Group III. - Vermin destroyers: The terriers.

Division III. House Dogs And Toy Dogs

Group I. - Those of distinct varieties from foregoing: Pugs, Pomeranians, poodles, Blenheims, etc.

Group II. - Those that are merely diminutives of already mentioned species: The various toy terriers, etc.