The old breed would certainly be metamorphosed into something else if it resembled this heavy type. Anyone is, of course, at liberty to admire this new style, but it is impossible to seriously pretend that it is historical. The old-time writers describe their old-time dogs as "fairy-like," "sprightly and diminutive," certainly neither dignified nor massive. A dog six inches at the shoulder can hardly be called massive! One might as well call a humming-bird massive.

Mrs. Mallock also says: "One seeks in vain that typical mincing gait so seldom seen nowadays." I think one may certainly look for it in vain among the massive, majestic, and dignified Spaniels she describes, where its rareness could only be equalled by its inap-propriateness.

Once for all I must say that the massive Toy Spaniel is a modern fake and not a true Toy Spaniel at all. It has been the bane of the Toy dog that the name Spaniel has been so misused. Fanciers insist upon heavy bone and heads and low carriage of the tail, all of which are wrong, but which they imagine are true spaniel characteristics. For a beautiful field Spaniel unspoiled by modern show fashions, see Stubb's picture. Why modern Spaniel fanciers have evolved the present heavy type I cannot imagine. The only old heavy type of Spaniel was the big Water Spaniel. The other sporting Spaniels were all of a light, active build, with small heads and short backs, cobby and compact, and with light bone compared to what is now thought right.

Apart from the extinct black-and-white Toy Spaniel, the red-and-white Toy Spaniel is the only one of the four varieties which has a long record of the high rounded skull and a short nose. The Veronese type is a very pretty Blenheim in general appearance. It seems to have gone back to a still higher skull between the years 1480 and 1550, but of course it is difficult to trust absolutely to the picture of any one artist, as artists are very fond of having what might be called a "property " dog, which they choose for its suitability to pictorial purposes, and not for its purity of breed.

It is possible, therefore, that Titian's red-and-white Spaniel, which is not high in skull, was merely a low-skulled specimen, as we find the Veronese type exactly reincarnated more than a century later in the portraits of Henrietta of Orleans. And as we can trace the breed through Rubens and others all the way, it cannot, in the case of Veronese, be considered as merely the portrait of an individual, but should be taken as representing the real type of 1550. The black-and-white Spaniel has a totally different type of head, though its birthplace was probably also China. The erroneously so-called Blenheim - i. e., the red-and-white Toy Spaniel - was the Italian Toy Spaniel evolved from the Chinese Spaniel, and the cross between it and the French Spaniels (probably evolved in the same manner) after their importation to England, produced a gaily marked tricolour, which has since given way to the artificial tricolour. As to the production of the Tricolour, the crossing of Black-and-white with Red-and-white will often in itself produce Tricolour. But we cannot do this now, as the Black-and-white is extinct.

We therefore replace it with the Black-and-tan.

I consider that there are two kinds of Tricolours: First, those of 1660 that were gaily marked and were descended from the black-and-white and red-and-white original stock; and, second, the modern artificial Tricolour which was introduced about 1835, and was the result of a double cross between the Blenheim and the Black-and-tan. This colour can always be produced in the manner described in my chapter on breeding, by mating a Black-and-tan to a Blenheim. This results in mismarked Black-and-tans and Rubies, and recrossing the progeny on the Black-and-tan side with a Blenheim, it produces heavily marked Tricolours, and sometimes a reversion to red-and-white. I do not consider this to be the true Tricolour, which is now extinct in all probability. Probably this method was only discovered when the true Tricolour became scarce. The Tricolour described by Stonehenge is obviously of the artificial kind having the black back. Of course when recrossed a third and fourth time with Blenheim they become indistinguishable from the true bred ones. As a rule the white is not quite of the same pearly quality in the second and third crosses.

This difference, in some cases, is very noticeable.

I think I am quite safe in saying that the true Tricolour has practically ceased to exist. By the chart given elsewhere it will be seen that the Tricolour is a practically invariable result of a certain combination of blood, and I consider that in Shows the red-and-white Toy Spaniel should never compete against the Tricolour, which is of different breeding and, therefore, a totally different variety. Once created, this variety appears to breed true. When often recrossed with Red-and-white it is possible it might gradually breed out, but I have no evidence of this.

The pure white Toy Spaniel existed in Spain and Holland, and was possibly imported by the Prince of Orange from Holland, and Benjamin West painted one or two in the time of Queen Charlotte. I cannot find any trace of it to-day.

My chart of colours is, of course, only an approximate one, as I have not been able to experiment in sufficient numbers to prove it conclusively, but I do not think it is very far out. The percentage is based on necessarily restricted experiments, and is therefore, as I have said, only approximate, but it is the most convenient way of expressing in a condensed form what appears to me to be the relative proportion of colours produced by each cross. I have allowed an equal percentage of red-and-white and tricolour offspring from red-and-white and tricolour parents, as the chances of getting an equal number of each colour in any given litter appear practically even, but I believe that experiments covering a large number of cases would show a percentage slightly in favour of the red-and-white.

In "The Wonders of the Dog " (no date) there is a coloured picture of "King Charles's dogs, so called because King Charles I was very fond of little dogs . . . and this was the kind of Spaniel he liked the best," The ears were placed very high, colour black-and-white and red-and-white.

In Jardine's "Naturalists' Library," 1843, the "King Charles Spaniel" is given as a long-nosed Tricolour exactly the same size as a Cocker, very evenly marked, with ticked legs.