DiFl-ICULTJES OF J iWGING. I 67 



character of the competition, and that to give heavier v/ork is unjust alike to the judges and the 

 exhibitors. Two judges, if acting together, would require as much time ; but our own opinion 

 has long been that the best plan of all is to employ single judges, each being responsible for his 

 own awards, and having no more than he can accomplish with credit and success. We have 

 noticed many shows, and have almost always observed that individual judges, if not overworked , 

 gave the most satisfaction by their awards. Thus, we have known a show of nearly 900 entries 

 judged by two gentlemen in concert, a task far too heavy for the one day allowed ; whereas 

 had each taken 450 pens, the work would have been done with promptitude and ease. A judge 

 can always call in his colleague to advise in any case of difficulty ; but by putting the real 

 responsibility for every award on some one person's shoulders, we believe the greatest likelihood 

 is secured of attaining all that character and ability can give to the task ; while if only a fair 

 amount of work be given them, most judges prefer this method, after trial. We say after trial, 

 because we have known several who strongly objected beforehand to undivided responsibility, who 

 afterwards were as strongly in favour of the plan we advocate. If one judge finally checks over 

 the awards of his colleague, remarking on any which to him appear erroneous, there will be little 

 risk of any escaping detection. Judging, however, is a thankless task at best. If all his awards 

 are correct, the judge has only done his duty ; if not, he often reaps abuse in no measured 

 terms. The least, then, that gentlemen who act in this capacity have a right to expect is that 

 time and quiet be given them to perform their task with due deliberation and care. This is by 

 no means the universal rule, however, as we have just seen ; and the neglect of it is the cause of 

 many awards for which the judges are unjustly blamed. The way in which such matters are more 

 usually managed, and his views on the whole subject, are well put in the following remarks by 

 Mr. Edward Hewitt, the celebrated English judge, who has officiated at far more shows than any 

 other individual, and who has in fact devoted almost the whole of his lime for many years, 

 gratuitously, to the service of amateurs in this manner : — 



" I can endorse to the very echo the remarks of Mr. Teebay as to the arrangements most 

 eligible in the appointment of judges to their customary duties. It is at agricultural shows more 

 especially it so frequently happens, that though the poultry judge (or judges) have twenty-fold 

 the number of decisions to return that are required in any other division of the show, the poultry- 

 tent arrangements are the last completed of any ; and thus these awards are commenced, from 

 lack of punctuality in getting the judging-books completed, the very last of any on the show- 

 ground. It is in such cases the efficiency of the arbitrator becomes developed ; or, on the other 

 hand, his comparative unsuitability for the manifold duties of office is as painfully manifested. 

 Limited time, coupled with the exigency of getting done by the hour far opening, brings 

 into the strongest light these contradictions. If at such an unexpected juncture the col- 

 league of even an efficient judge proves simply a drag-chain on his own personal exertions, 

 and relapses into anxiety, hesitation, and uncertainty, the trial of the able arbitrator is pro- 

 portionately increased — far better at such a time would it be to act alone and on individual 

 responsibility. 



" I quite agree with judges having their appointed classes, and a sufficiency of arbitrators 

 engaged to finish their own awards with comfort to themselves, and in time for publication in the 

 printed catalogue. When thus allotted, no doubt each arbitrator will exercise especial care as to 

 those classes exclusively assigned him ; but putting more than two judges together considerably 

 retards, rather than promotes, active decisions, and not less frequently brings with it erroneous ones. 

 But quite the most urgent objection made by committees rests entirely with the increased 



