THE HAMILTON AND CHILLINGHAM CATTLE. 341 



In commenting on this statement, I may observe 

 that the differences of form and colour between the 

 Hamilton and the Chillingham cattle, as here pointed 

 out, are unquestionably correct. And it might have been 

 added, that in both of these respects the Hamilton 

 cattle — now partially hornless, and formerly said to have 

 been wholly so * — agree in the main with those at 

 Gisburne, which were " without horns, very strong- 

 boned, but not high." In the colour of their ears the 

 two differed ; but in another respect also they agreed. 

 The Hamilton " calves that are off the usual markings " 

 are sometimes " entirely white," while at Gisburne they 

 were " sometimes without dark muzzles." Bewick says 

 some were " perfectly white," except the ears. 



The statements with regard to weight seem hardly 

 consistent with the assertion that the Hamilton cattle 

 are, however, " larger " than those at Chillingham : 

 unless we suppose either that the latter are not really 

 now so heavy as they were in the time of Bewick 

 and Culley, which is possible, or that previously to 

 slaughtering they are fed to a greater extent, or both. 

 But there is a strong tendency in all proprietors of 

 cattle to exaggerate the merits of their own ; and it may 

 be remarked that the Duke of Hamilton's Chamberlain 

 represents His Grace's cattle as " larger " than those 

 at Chillingham. Darwin reports that they " are said 

 by Lord Tankerville to be inferior : " we are not told in 

 what respect. 



Another singular thing is the statement that the 

 Hamilton wild cattle were " nearly extirpated " during 

 the Cromwellian period, but, being retained for the 



* Mr. Storer was at a later period quite satisfied they had been at one 

 time hornless. — Ed. 



