MY PRISTINE IGNORANCE 



was of even the most eleinentary conditions apply- 

 ing to the work I had undertaken, and what risks 

 I ran of bringing about some such catastrophe 

 as I was always dreading. It was a law with agri- 

 cultural societies at that time, and is with most 

 of them still, that no judge must see a catalogue 

 of the stock or produce upon which he has to 

 adjudicate until after he has given in his awards, 

 so that it might not be supposed that his decision 

 was influenced by a knowledge of the name of an 

 exhibitor, who might be a friend or neighbour. 

 My long after-knowledge of agricultural judges has 

 led me to the conclusion that, speaking generally, 

 their integrity and honesty of purpose are a suf- 

 ficient guarantee for the bona fide character of 

 their decisions, but unsuccessful exhibitors do not 

 always recognize this, and hence there is reason 

 in withholding the catalogue specifying the exhi- 

 bitors' names. At the same time, it may be 

 safely asserted that if a judge does not intend to 

 run straight there are more ways than one by 

 which he can obtain the information in question. 

 This is by the way, my point being to show the 

 risks a showman as ill-informed as myself ran in 

 discharging his functions. 



The day before the show opened one of the 

 stewards made some casual remark about the 

 judges' books. In my innocence, I said that the 

 printed catalogues would be all ready for the 

 judges. In tones of horror, he told me that under 

 no circumstances must they catch a glimpse of 

 the printed catalogue before judging. This was 

 an eye-opener to me, and then I found that it was 

 part of a secretary's duty to provide manuscript 



23 



