650 Report on the Exhibition of Live-Stock at Preston, 1885. 
Chancellor" blood — a cow of great style and quality, and 
evidently an excellent breeder, as her three offspring attest. 
Mr. Hutchinson got second with his " Lady Grey," and her two 
handsome Booth-bred roans, " Lady Golightly " and " Lord 
Gordon." The family groups were not so interesting as at 
Shrewsbury, where the impress of the different sires was so 
markedly noticeable. 
Note. — It may be interesting to breeders of Shortliorns to know what sort 
of animal was considered a very good one of that breed nearly 100 years ago by so 
eminent an authority as Arthur Young. In the " Agricultural Survey of Lincoln- 
shii-e," 1794, he writes : — " Sir Joseph Banks had the goodness to show me at 
Boothby, in the Middle Marsh, in company with the Rev. Mr. Walls of Spilsby, and 
that place, two beautiful short-homed heifers, ' Spot ' and ' Gypsey,' bred by His 
Majesty, and now extremely fat ; they are only four years old, the smaller of the 
two of the more correct form, but both are beautiful animals." For piu-poses of 
comparison I measured the first-prize cow and the Champion female at Preston, 
and append the respective dimensions. It will be seen that the difference 
consists in the somewhat thicker and more compact structure of the modem 
Shorthorn ; but it must be admitted that the change of form is not so great as 
might have been imagined. 
" Spot." 
" Gypsey." 
"Eosebud 
13th." 
"Lady 
Carew lath." 
ft. 
iu. 
ft. 
in. 
ft. 
in. 
ft. 
in. 
Across from the centre of one hip to"l 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
n 
Length in quarters from centre of hip 
1 
10 
1 
11 
2 
0 
1 
8 
Breadth of nache 8 inches below thel 
1 
6 
1 
3 
1 
8 
1 
8 
8 
0 
7 
81 
7 
4 
7 
9 
2 
9 
0 
Length from withers to rump point . . 
5 
t 
7f 
i 
9 
4' 
2 
5 
3 
7 
2 
8 
4 years 
4 years 
7j years 
3 years. 
» J. T. 
Meport of the Judges of Shorthorns. 
The show of Shorthorns was, as a whole, disappointing. There were few 
animals of great merit ; but in some classes the competition was good, and 
Class 44 contained several promising animals. 
Bulls were by no means good, and Class 42 was so indifferent, that we 
should not have awarded a third prize even if the rule of the Society had 
permitted it. 
Females were better than males, and our decision in the Coiu Class (45) 
appears to have excited some criticism. The first and second animals in 
this class were shown in nice breeding condition, and we think it will be a 
matter of some satisfaction, not only to the Society, but to breeders generally, 
that we were able to award these two prizes to animals in that state. 
The Family prizes were strongly contested, and presented the usual diffi- 
culties in making the awards. 
