50 
Report on the Exhibition of Live Stock at Bristol. 
dale character, but she was rather deficient in substance. The commended mare 
has also in a high degree the leading characteristics of a true Clydesdale, but 
she was in low condition, owing probably to the fact that she was nursing a 
foal (a filly), which ajipeared an extremely promising youngster. 
The Suffolk breed were on the whole poorly represented, in consequence of 
the Show being so far from its home. 
Class 5. — The first prize in this class was awarded to a very good horse. 
Class 6. — The first-prize animal is of the true Suffolk stamp, and the second- 
prize one is a very fair animal. 
Class 13. — Suffolk mares were not well represented, those brought under 
inspection not being possessed of the trae Suffolk character. 
Andrew Montgomery. 
Thomas Plowright, Jun. 
Arthur William Ceisp, 
Bepoi-t on Thoroughbred Horses, Hunters, Hackneys, and Ponies. 
Class 7. — The action, quality, and character of the majority of the horses 
entered in this class were eminently satisfactory. 
The winner of the first prize was, in the opinion of the majority of the Judges, 
a horse of a higher class than is commonly exhibited in a Showyard, and 
admirably adapted from his quality, power, and fine action, to produce weight- 
carrying hunters and hacks of the highest class. 
The other winners and the reserve numbers, in this class, were also unusually 
good specimens of sires suitable for getting hunters ; and, amongst the numbers 
of unmentioned stallions, there were many that came up to the ordinary standard 
of prize stallions. 
Class 8 contained horses of exceptional merit. Nevertheless, the character 
of the class was very uneven. Many of the stallions entered were of a non- 
descript class, and it would be a difiicult task to determine what class of animal 
many of them would be likely to get. 
Class 9. — The winners, again, redeemed the quality and general character 
of this class, which, as a whole, was a weak one. 
Class 10. — In this class the third prize was awarded to a yearling. This 
incident must assuredly be a .sufiicient proof of its weakness. 
Class 14 was an unmistakably strong one. Tlie winners of the prizes were 
mares of considerable merit, and the foals at their feet were especially promising. 
Class 15. — All the mares exhibited, with the exception of the winner of 
the first prize, were of a verj^ inferior class. 
Class 16. — The animals in this class were wholly devoid of merit. 
Class 17 was much better than the preceding one, the takers of the prizes 
being very fair representatives of their class. 
Class 18, though weak in numbers, was satisractory in point of merit, 
several of the animals shown giving promise of high futiue excellence. 
Class 21 was very good and uniform, and was the strongest class at this 
Exhibition. 
Class 22. — The entries were very numerous ; and though, considered as a 
whole, this class was a good one with but few exceptions, the horses were not 
of sufficiently high class to meet the requirements of the hunting-field at the 
present day. 
Class 23 contained several horses whose quality and character were of a 
high order. 
Class 24. — Though some of the horses exhibited in this class were .not 
eiiual to the weight set fortli in the conditions, the majority were fair specimens 
of the weight-carrying hunter. 
