Louis XI, unlike Louis XIV, was apparently not a dog fancier, and seems to have been capable of the most wanton cruelty. It is said that on one occasion when walking in the Gardens of Paris he saw a lady with a pet dog. Without the least provocation he called the dog to him, and as soon as it came up broke its back with a blow from his stick and walked on laughing.

1 Mr. Watson, of Hackensack, tells me of a picture by William Dob-son, 1646, of Sir Charles and Lady Lucas with a black Toy Spaniel, but I have been unable to trace the picture.

Mme. de Maintenon in a letter to Count d'Aubigne remarks that as she writes there are in her room twenty people, three children, and ten dogs!

Our present-day fanciers flatter themselves that they have evolved a tiny pet Spaniel from a big English sporting breed by careful selection, and are now talking of going back to the "true massive type," whereas the real fact is that the red-and-white and black-and-white Italian and French Spaniels weighed just about half what our present ones do, or even less, average specimens in 1750 being only six inches high, whereas our very smallest specimens are little if anything under nine and a half inches, and most of them are ten inches to thirteen inches at the shoulder.

Meyrick, 1842, says the Blenheim should weigh four to seven pounds, and the King Charles are seldom less than five or six pounds. Webb, 1872, gives the King Charles as six to twelve pounds, and the Blenheim five pounds, and of little value if as much as eight pounds. Idstone says King Charles seven pounds and the Blenheim six or seven pounds, top weight nine pounds, and Stonehenge gives the Tricolour as six pounds at top weight.

The measurements of the Toy Spaniel of 1770, translated into English, are as follows:

Length of body from tip of nose to root of tail, eleven inches and four lines; height of forehand, six inches; quarter, six inches; length of head to tip of nose, three inches. (This makes the dog as nearly as possible square, allowing five inches for head and neck.) Circumference of end of muzzle, three inches; under eyes, four inches two lines; circumference opening of the mouth, two inches six lines; distance between nostrils, two lines; from tip of nose to inside corner of eye, one inch; to outside corner, one inch. (This gives length of nose as about three quarter inch.) Length of eye, eight lines; height of eye, six lines (i. e., eyes nearly round). Distance between eyes, ten lines (i. e., eyes are very wide apart, there being more than the length of the eye between them). Girth of skull, seven inches; girth of tail at the root, two inches six lines; ears, two inches eight lines; length of leg from elbow to wrist joint, two inches two lines; length from wrist to end of claws, two inches; width of ears at top three inches three lines; length of neck, two inches; round neck, seven inches six lines; width of forefoot, nine lines; girth of body, ten inches six lines; girth at biggest point, ten inches ten lines; girth at waist, nine inches six lines; height from ground under flank, two inches six lines; height to breast bone, two inches three lines; length of tail, eight inches.

This will show plainly that the theory suggested by many writers and repeated by Mrs. Jenkins in her article in Cassell's new "Book of the Dog," and again by Mrs. Raymond Mallock in her book on "Toy Dogs," viz., that the Toy Spaniels were derived from the Cocker and that "in olden days they were much larger than our own "is an error. "In olden days " is a comfortably vague term, but from about 1450 to 1800 the Toy Spaniel was certainly far smaller than our present type; and the only one of the varieties which came from sporting ancestry - namely, the Black-and-tan - was not originally as big as some of our present dogs, and only increased in size after the cross of Pyrame. Even as late as Idstone, 1872, the top weight of a show specimen was never to exceed seven pounds. Since that time the Toy Spaniel has been getting steadily bigger, not smaller, the last Kennel Club Show producing gigantic specimens, the smallest dog in one class weighing over twelve pounds, while the largest in the Show must have scaled well upon twenty pounds.

The American T. S. C. are still further encouraging size by increasing the exhibition weight.

Mrs. Jenkins states that the Tricolour has only existed within the last quarter of a century, but this is a mistake, as it existed already in the time of Sir Peter Lely before 1660 - i. e., over two hundred and fifty years ago. Its "original appearance in a litter of King Charles " pure bred was therefore probably explained by a throw back to a former cross, and not to a freak, and the appearance was certainly not "original."

The red-and-white and black-and-white Spaniels were the oldest breeds, and the red-and-white can be definitely traced two centuries and a half further back than the Tricolour. The liver-and-white, though apparently very rare in Italy, occurs in one of Titian's pictures.

Mrs. Mallock says: "I am afraid I am a crank on the subject of breeding type to its type, and shall never be satisfied with calling breeds metamorphosed into something else by the old name." This sentence is rather vague. " Type to its type " is rather indefinite, especially as she does not specify the old name to which she refers, but I imagine she wishes to convey that what she describes as the "old type" to which the "old name" (of Toy Spaniel?) belongs is the one of which she speaks as quickly disappearing - i. e., the "old-time Spaniel with his deep chest, massive head," and " wonderful dignity," Now this is not at all the type of the old-time Toy Spaniel, and such a description is a pathetic fallacy, as the original Toy Spaniel was by no means "majestic in appearance with - that wonderful massiveness of head which lends much infinite dignity to the individual."