lxxxiv 
Monthly Council , June 21, 1893. 
that the matter should be referred to 
the Committee of Selection for con- 
sideration and report. 
Mr. C. W. Wilson said he had un- 
dertaken, as Steward of Sheep, to 
bring before the Council the recom- 
mendation of the J udges of Hampshire 
Downs for a third prize in Class 149, 
in which only two prizes were offered 
in the prize sheet. He had informed 
the judges that the advertised list of 
prizes could not be increased, but had 
promised to lay their representation 
before the Council. 
In accordance with invariable rule, 
it was decided that the recommenda- 
tion of the Hampshire Down judges 
could not be acceded to. 
Frizes in Small Classes. 
The further question was, however, 
raised as to the working of the present 
rule with regard to the award of 
second and third prizes where there 
were very few exhibits in the class. 
Under this rule (No. 20) no third prize 
was given in any class unless at least 
six entries were exhibited, and no 
second prize was given unless at least 
three entries were exhibited, “ except 
in the case of sufficient merit, and on 
the recommendation of the judges to 
the Stewards at the time of judging.” 
Mention was made by Mr. Wheeler 
and Mr. Ashworth of recommen- 
dations to them by the judges of 
third prizes where there were less 
than six exhibits. Two cases were 
cited in the horse classes where there 
were only three animals shown, and 
all had been awarded money prizes. 
Moreover, in the Suffolk classes four 
animals were shown in each of four 
classes, but all three prizes were 
awarded in every class. In the re- 
maining Suffolk class there were three 
exhibits, and two prizes were awarded. 
The Chairman (Sir Nigel Kings- 
cote) said he thought this was a 
rule that ought to be revised. At 
present they were in the hands of the 
judges as to the giving of these 
second and third prizes, and it was 
impossible to say how much of the 
extra money voted in this way, which 
must amount to a considerable sum, 
was given in consequence of the 
“ sufficient merit ” of the animals and 
how much in consequence of the 
good-nature of the judges. This was 
not a matter which they could discuss 
at any length that day ; but he 
should like the Stock Prizes Commit- 
tee to consider whether the rule 
ought not to be made definite and 
final — viz., that no third prize would 
in any case be given if less than six 
animals were exhibited, and no 
second prize unless three animals 
were exhibited. He thought also 
that in view of the large size which 
their Showyards had now attained, 
and the fact that with 67 acres at 
Chester the yard was very crowded, 
there must be some further limitation 
of entries. How this was to be done, 
whether by omitting from the prize 
sheet certain breeds for which there 
was little competition, or by further 
limiting the number of entries by an 
exhibitor in a class, it would be for 
the Stock Prizes Committee to con- 
sider. 
Sir Jacob Wilson said everybody 
must sympathise with what Sir 
Nigel had said, but he disagreed as 
to his proposal that there should be 
a hard-and-fast line drawn. The 
question had been considered every 
year for twenty-five years, and the 
decision always come to by the Stock 
Prizes Committee was that they must 
give some latitude of discretion to 
the judges. The rule said that the 
second and third prizes should not be 
given except there was sufficient 
merit, and on the recommendation of 
the judges to the Steward at the 
time. There were often cases in 
which the animals exhibited in a 
small class were far superior in point 
of merit to the animals in larger 
classes ; and it would be a pity to 
withhold prizes, in consequence of 
insufficient Dumbers, from animals 
which might be far more worthy of 
them than those in classes that were 
better filled in point of mere numbers. 
He thought the Society was safe in 
the hands of the Stewards and the 
gentlemen appointed as judges, as 
they were men in whom they had 
confidence. 
Mr. Bowen-Jones presented a 
report from the Stewards, stating 
that a communication had been 
received from Mr. John Smith, 
bailiff to Sir William Williams, Bart., 
stating that a mistake had been made 
