164 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
Breeding In-and-in. 
BY A CATTLE BREEDER.-NO. III. 
rExpLANATiON—T he State of the Discussion.—O wing to 
‘ and a slight misunderstanding:, n 
the distance oi me writers, 
brief explanation may be needed in regard to the state of the 
discussion. In Jan. No., p. 10. “Cattle Breeder” opened.the 
discussion....Iu Feb. No.,p. 43, Mr. Clay replied under -gilt 
heads.... In March No., p 75, “ Cattle Breeder replied to 'ur 
of tnese items, and intimated an intention to reply further, .-it 
as stated in a recent private note, he meant to say, after Dir 
Clnv’s reply to his first part. ...Mr. Clay, of course, delayed lor 
••Cattle Breeder’s” second part. Not receiving this, we wrote 
to Mr Clay to that effect, and lie at once forwarded the article, 
(No. 2,) which appeared in our May No., p 132. We now have 
•‘ Cattie. Breeder’s No. 3. in which, as will be seen below, he 
first replies to the remaining four heads in Mr. Clay's February 
article (p 43), and second, responds to Mr. Clay s May article, 
(r>, 132 ). Wo regret this unavoidable mingling of the different 
parts of the discussion, for we consider it a very important one, 
valuable, and highly instructive to every reader of this journal. 
It will be well to read the whole over—say in the following or¬ 
der— First, Jan. No., p. 10— Second, Feb. No., p. ■13— Third, 
March No , p 75, and also the first part of the article below— 
Fourth, May No., p. 132— Fifth, the second part of the article 
below.—E d.] 
As I did not {ally answer all Mr. Clay’s strictures on this 
subject in the March number of the A griculturist, I now 
submit some further remark's. The subject is too impor¬ 
tant to the great mass of American stock breeders to be 
passed over with a few sweeping or positive flourishes 
of the pen, on either side ; and having taken my position I 
propose to carry it out, in now noticing the remaining 
points in that gentleman’s March article. 
5t'n. False proof— Mr. Clay denies that Bakewell bred 
in-and-in with his improved stock—particularly his sheep. 
Let us see. Bakewell finding the animal which he 
wanted not made ready to his hand, yet the material out 
of which to breed it abounding in several sub-varieties of 
the long-wooled breed, had to begin somewhere ; and like 
a sensible man made his selections to commence with 
from the best he could find, irrespective of what particular 
name, or locality, so that they were of the breed he want¬ 
ed, viz.—n long-wooled sheep that would take on high flesh 
at an early age. Of the best specimens that he could get, 
both rams and ewes, he formed Iris flock, and then he bred 
intensely in-and-in until he got what he intended to get 
when he started. He did refine the long-wooled sheep, 
and got it up to perfect carcase, in size, form, and weight, 
unequalled by any other breeder of his day. And so he 
left his sheep at his death, which had acquired such celeb¬ 
rity that to this day they hold the names Bakewell, Dish- 
ley, and new Leicester, (the names of himself, his farm, 
and County,)—synonymous terms—as a distinct breed. 
That Bakewell’s successors did not maintain the stand¬ 
ard of his fldcks In all their high qualities, proves nothing 
further than that they did not inherit or purchase Bake¬ 
well’s skill and brains, as well as his sheep. Bakewell 
also may have bred for some other quality In his sheep, 
which his successors either did not want, or comprehend, 
and they may have failed in getting their own demand 
out of them. But that is of no consequence to the princi¬ 
ple. Bakewell did succeed in his object—getting a finely 
developed race of sheep out of coarse, and common, ma¬ 
terial by a persistent course of in-and-in breeding. 
With the “Long-horned” cattle which Mr. Bakewell 
found in an advanced state of perfection, so far as sym¬ 
metry of form, and a capacity to take on flesh was con¬ 
cerned, he adopted in-and-in breeding to an extreme de¬ 
gree-maintaining, after several year’s practice, that he 
had much improved them. See description of the “ Long¬ 
horns” in “Youatt’s British Cattle,” London edition 
6th. Coleman on the Dishleys.—Ur. Clay will excuse me 
for declining to receive the authority of Mr. Coleman 
in the stock line— an estimable gentleman in all the moral 
and social relations of life, but a theorist only, in his 
knowledge of farm stock, and not likely to draw his con¬ 
clusions from the best authorities. 7th- A-s to the author 
ity of R- L Allen, which Mr. C. quotes, I coincide entire¬ 
ly with Mr. A.’s remarks coupled with the conditions 
which he attaches to them. 
8th. Jonas Webb. Unfortunate here, again. Mr. Webb, 
does breed closely in-and-in. He so says, himself, and 
it is a fact of universal notoriety all over England where 
his sheep are known, that it is so. I do not assert that 
he never goes out of his own flock for a cross. He may 
do so, now and then ; but where can he better himself 1 
He has different families in his own flocks from one to the 
other of which he crosses, but they are essentially of the 
same origin, and blood. Webb’s system is that of in-and- 
in breeding, to all intents and purposes, although, per¬ 
haps, not so closeTy as some others. 
In reply to my remark of Price’s Herefords being in- 
and-in bred for forty years, it is not argumentative in Mr. 
Clay, to say, “ I know nothing of the Hereford herd al¬ 
luded to, but venture that if the truth were all know-, 
‘ A Cattle Breeder ’ would be as wide of the mark thei e, 
as in the Bakewell case, and the Stud-Book.” T. Mr. 
Clay can show me wrong, by authority, good ; but simple 
assertion will not do. Mr. Prieo was a man of ciiaracter, 
well known in England. Ho made that statement many 
years ago ) over his own name, in the British Farmer’s 
Magaz .e, a work of acknowledged authority in England, 
in an elaborate article on Hereford Cattle, prepared for 
that publication, which none who knew him disputed. 
We will see about “ the Stud-Book,” before we get 
through. 
As to the Collings—Charles, in particular—the next 
subject of Mr. Clay’s criticism : We will not talk about 
his Galloway cross which I think as little of as Mr. Clay 
does, but of the Colling cattle, proper, I concede that he 
obtained his original breeding stock of other and older 
breeders, and the very best he could get in all the Short 
Horn region, consisting of a rare lot of cows, and the 
bullHubback—which bull by the way, he only used and 
bred from two years. But the descendants of that bull, 
both in bulls [Foljambe (263) a grandson of Hubback, Mr. 
C. asserted did his subsequent stock the most service] and 
heifers, he kept and bred together—in-and-in, to the very 
closest affinities, and in all possible ways in some instan¬ 
ces, to the third and fourth direct generations -that is, a 
bull to his own daughters, grand-daughters, etc., as in the 
case of Favorite. He had different families, or tribes of 
cattle, I admit, taking their names and genealogies on the 
dam’s side from the original cows from which they sprung, 
but they were mainly from the same bulls, as were Rob¬ 
ert Colling’s, his brother, with whom he interchanged 
bulls on frequent occasions. I do not say how much the 
Collings improved their herds beyond the originals from 
which they descended, or whether they improved them 
at all, but we have never heard that the Short Horns de¬ 
teriorated in their hands: and it is quite certain that 
hen they sold their herds and retired from breeding, no 
cattle in England stood higher than theirs, or brought 
greater prices; and if any instances of closer breeding 
can be found than they practiced throughout their whole 
career as breeders, I should like to know it. The pages 
of Coate’s Herd Book, Vol. I, will corroborate my asser¬ 
tion. t 
Since the days of the Collings, although many years 
cotemporary with them, the late Thomas Bates, of Kirk- 
leavington, stood at the head and front of English Short 
Horn breeders, until his death. He had some of his best 
stock, male and female, from both the Collings, and the 
blood of their herds in others. He bred in-and-in, intense¬ 
ly, never going out o( his own herd for a bull with any 
success, except in one instance, that of Belv.edere (17C6), 
and he a descendant of R. Colling’s herd, closely bred 
in-and-in, through his ancestors for many generations 
back in other hands. A second cross direct from Belve 
dere, on his own daughter, (Duchess 34th) produced the 
best bull—so publicly acknowledged—in all England— 
Duke of Northumberland (1940). That Duchess blood, 
(with the Oxfords, descendants of the Matchem cow 
which he introduced to his herd in the year 1831, by per¬ 
sistent in-and-in breeding, the latter and her stock to his 
Duchess bulls of the Belvedere cross, and afterwards by 
their own crosses,) raised his herd to the highest point of 
reputation, which their descendants still maintain both 
in England and the United States. 
Next to Mr. Bates, stood, and now stand the Booths, 
always prize winners on their cows wherever, and when¬ 
ever, they have showed. They are, and always have been 
in-and-in breeders—deeply so. So was Mason, of Chil¬ 
ton, and Maynard, and Wetherill. Sir Charles Knightly, 
another celebrated name in the annals of Short Horns, 
has long been an in-and-in breeder ; and so, In fact, were 
a majority if not all of the English Short Horn breeders 
who acquired any high reputation in their herds. Indeed 
it is useless to multiply instances of the kind, not in cattle 
alone, but in every kind of domestic stock down to dogs— 
of every different breed, as well as chickens and pigeons— 
Ihe two latter “ bred to a feather” in style and uniformi¬ 
ty. Multitudes of cases could be named relating to 
“fancy” animals, particularly where striking points, 
characteristics, and properties were required, and only to 
be obtained by a concentration of blood, and with that 
blood a combination of the qualities connected with it. 
The inevitable tendency of descent in animal life is to 
partake of the strong characteristics of the immediate 
parents in the offspring, more or less, and the form, ap¬ 
pearance, and organization which predominates in them, 
but w’hich, if not strongly concentrated in such parents, 
strikes off to their parents’ ancestry, or collaterally, as 
the case may he. How many instances do we constant¬ 
ly witness in the human family, as well as in animals, 
where the children much more resemble a grandparent, 
or collateral relation than either of the immediate pa¬ 
rents ! This arises from the aggregation of different 
strains of blood, and different characteristics in the pa¬ 
rents, perhaps for generations back. So diverse, frequent- 
y, that scarcely a resemblance will occur between a large 
family of children. We have seen a pair of black or 
brown haired parents having red, light, and sandy haired 
children, with widely different complexions and forms, 
and not a doubt of their legitimacy—and all those marks 
of feature, complexion and form, could be easily recog¬ 
nized in tiieir collateral relatives of the previous genera¬ 
tion. Mankind, in personal and physical appearances, 
breed like the whoie animal world, under the same nat¬ 
ural laws, and conditions, and I mention such instances 
here, as being so familiar to almost every day observation 
that no one will deny it. I will next talk of other matters 
including horses, and the Stud-Book. 
REPLY TO MR. CLAY’S MAY ARTICLE. 
In reply to Mr. Clay’s No. II, in the May Agriculturist, 
I shall not be led off on an issue which he himself has 
made, and aside from the original proposition with w hich 
I first commenced, viz.: that in-and-in breeding of brute 
animals, under proper selection, is frequently bene¬ 
ficial in promoting the highest development of physical per 
fection, and not adverse to the ordinary course of nature. 
Instead of confining his remarks to my examples of the 
brute creation, he adverts to mankind to sustain his hypot h- 
esis; and as I am free to admit, with much ingenuity 
maintains, by various authorities, a plausible case—but, 
mark me, by entirely changing the ground of my argu¬ 
ment, to wit : the bodily or physical development only, 
as I insist upon, under certain conditions, while he 
couples with it the mental and nervous temperaments 
and faculties. On this branch Mr. Clay makes his strong 
argument. I am not going to argue this subject willi him 
for the reasons, that it is not my proposition, and that to 
elucidate the whole thing it would require more of research 
than I have now the lime to give to it, and take up more 
of the space of an agricultural paper than you would be 
willing to allow. Yet I will briefly advert to one or two 
of Mr. C.'s propositions on page 132 (May Agriculturist). 
“ I deny the statements as regards the Greeks and Ro¬ 
mans, and call for the data, &c.” For indisputable, cur¬ 
rent testimony of the domestic, social, and moral habits 
of the Romans,in their highest state ofeivilization, power, 
and renown, just look into those parts of the cities Pom¬ 
peii, and Herculaneum which have recently been un¬ 
earthed from their volcanic covering' of two thousand 
years—their pictures, statuary, and every-day familiar 
sights on which the most noble and exalted of their peo¬ 
ple indulged. For recorded evidence—a synopsis of 
many volumes of the chronicles of the obscenity, incest, 
and depravity of even the proudest historical names in 
both Greece and Rome, consult Greek and Roman His¬ 
tory. See also the “ History of Prostitution,” lately pub¬ 
lished by Dr. Sanger, of New-York—a sanitary work of 
high value ; and not immoral tendency. In addition to 
the many translated works which are there enumerated, 
will be found names of books written by cotemporary 
authors, the depravity of whose language is untranslate- 
able into the English tongue, all descriptive of the do¬ 
mestic habits and practices of the highest, as well as the 
middle, and lowest classes of the Greek and Roman peo¬ 
ple. If close-breeding was not practised in those nations 
in their palmiest state, without public scandal, or the 
decline of the physical faculties, for that reason alone, of 
the most powerful people of those periods, then history 
is a falsehood. 
As to the mental and moral deterioration of mankind 
from a persistent course of in-and-in breeding, as Mr. 
Clay lias begged that branch of the question, he may have 
it his own way, as I have not from the first disputed him. 
I named the Guelph family of England to illustrate the 
physical , not the mental, side of the argument, which he, 
in fact, admits. And that we may end this issue at once, 
I concede that in communities of people in a close neigh¬ 
borhood, on the same soils, eating the same foods, associ¬ 
ating within the same range of objects, and intelligence, 
with like hereditary, or local diseases, disorders, and sym¬ 
pathies, both of mind and body, close, and continued in¬ 
ter-breeding may, after a while, tell both on the mental, 
and physical organization. And it would also equally tell 
on those organizations if people ever so far estranged in 
blood and locality—but equally afflicted with scrofulous 
consumption, or other hereditary, or chronic, or nervous, 
or mental diseases—were to intermarry and produce chil¬ 
dren. It is a law of our physical nature that “the in¬ 
iquities of the fathers (parents) are visited (upon, and even) 
unto the third and fourth generation.” And so it is with 
everything, brute as well as human ; and probably from 
cases under such circumstances are Mr. Clay’s illustra¬ 
tions quoted. To close, on this branch of the subject, I 
quote from the Southern Cultivator, an extract adverting 
to the proposed Georgia law named by Mr. Clay. 
“ What is the blood of any person or animal, but a part 
of the food eaten w ithin the previous 48, or perchance, 
60 hours ! The blood of no father or mother was ever 
the same for six months in succession ; and, therefore, no 
two children born at different times, and the offspring of 
the same parents, were ever so much alike as some twins 
have been. Cain and Abel differed widely in their dis¬ 
positions : although neither could have had either the 
vices or virtues of a long line of progenitors. The differ¬ 
ent members of many a family in our own time evince as 
wide a discrepancy of character, whose parental blood 
came from the same living hearts. One child is very con¬ 
scientious through life ; while a brother or sister displays 
a lamentable want of moral rectitude. If the same blood 
in the popular, not scientific, use of language, produces 
such valient results, why talk about the blood of cousins 
necessarily leading to bad consequences, if mingled by 
intermarriage ? The notion is but little short of a down¬ 
right absurdity How can the marriage of a sound man 
