WASH FOR APPLE TREES. 
55 
Colling, page 248; Haughton, page 330 ; Lib¬ 
erty, page 374; Mayflower, page 403, by Rob¬ 
inson’s bull. These are named, as their pedi¬ 
grees in themselves do not show their alliance 
with this distinguished family. Charles Coll¬ 
ing bought of Alexander Hall, the cow Haugh¬ 
ton, descended from Tripes by the Studley bull, 
(626,) and Robert Colling bought of Alexander 
Hall, the cow Brighteyes, by Hubback, and she 
descended from Tripes by the Studley bull 
(626). The above-named bulls and cows de¬ 
scended either from Haughton or Brighteyes. 
The cow Princess, that has given name to the 
whole tribe, was a grandaughter of Brighteyes, 
by Hubback. Besides this Princess family, 
(which includes all the descendants of Haughton 
and Brighteyes, both by Hubback,) there is not 
a single shorthorn in the world , that can , by known 
animals , go back in the female line, to the Studley 
bull. 
In an article written in December, 1845, and 
printed in February number of the American 
Agriculturist, 1846,1 said of Mr Bates, that “ up 
to the introduction of Belvedere to his herd, he 
had adhered to his Duchess blood entirely, ex¬ 
cept in the case of two or three cows put to 
Marske. * * * * Since 1831 Mr. Bates has 
used that blood, a union of the Duchess and 
Princess tribes, mainly , and has only resorted 
to any other in one instance, viz: “ Cleveland 
Lad.” In a former article, Dr. Martin quotes 
this, and in reply, says, that “ Mr. Bates used 
Bertram, Gambier, and Norfolk, neither of them 
of the Duchess or Princess tribes.” I replied 
that Mr. Bates purged out of his herd all the 
blood of Bertram and Gambier, except in his 
Oxford premium cow and her descendants. 
The terms “ adhered to ” and “ had used,” mean 
in the use of bulls , as every breeder well knows. 
As Dr. Martin quotes me, and as I wrote, it will 
be observed that I use the word mainly. I 
knew Mr. Bates had used Gambier and Norfolk, 
and Duke of Cleveland, (by Bertram,) after 1831, 
and therefore, I said “ mainly.” But I knew 
that he had got rid of every drop of Gambler’s 
blood, and of Bertram’s, except in Oxford 
Premium cow; and that after 1831 to 1842, he 
had not used a bull as a system, except Belve¬ 
dere, a Duchess bull, or Cleveland Lad. In 
my remarks, quoted by Dr. Martin, I spoke of 
the course of Mr. Bates breeding, not of the ex¬ 
ceptions in the use of bulls. Dr. M. dwells on 
the exceptions, although I was abundantly pro¬ 
tected by the use of the word “ mainly,” from 
the criticism he makes on my remarks. When 
my article of 1845 was written, the fifth volume 
of the Herd Book only was published, and my 
remarks applied to Mr. Bates’ breeding as 
shown in that volume; for I knew nothing of it 
but as shown in the five volumes of the Herd 
Book; and at that time, my remark was true, 
for then he was using only the bulls which 
united the Princess and Duchess blood, and 
Cleveland Lad. Dr. Martin says, “it will be 
seen by Mr. Bates’ catalogue of sale, that he 
had used the descendants of his Matchem cow 
very extensively.” All very true, in 1850, but 
not in 1842, the period back to which my re¬ 
marks applied; for then he had used only 
Cleveland Lad’s blood of that strain, as I said; 
and he told me that he parted with Cleveland 
Lad because he did not like his get, and what 
I saw of them, justified the remark. 
His catalogue contains only three animals got 
by the descendants of Matchem cow up to 1846, 
and of these, one is so stated by mistake, as she 
was not got by Cleveland Lad, but by Duke of 
Northumberland. The animals on the cata¬ 
logue “ extensively ” got by bulls of the Match- 
em-cow strain, were all, save two calved after the 
publication of my article, the position of which 
Dr. M. attempts to invalidate by this “ ex post 
facto ” testimony. I was, in 1845, right in say¬ 
ing, that since 1831, Mr. Bates had used that 
blood, “a union of the Duchess and Princess 
tribes, mainly, and has resorted to one other 
only, viz: Cleveland Lad.” After July, 1831, he 
never used Bertram; he killed or sold all his 
stock got by Gambier, and he had only three 
animals got by Norfolk; and he never used a 
bull of his own breeding, that had Norfolk blood 
in him. I believe Mr. Bates to have been wrong 
in his judgment as to Norfolk’s blood ; and know 
him to have been right as to Bertram’s and 
Gambier’s, for they both did him great harm. 
The animals in his sale which had Norfolk’s 
blood in then], were among the best, while those 
in the sale which had in them the blood of 
Bertram, were immeasurably the worst ; and none 
had the blood of Gambier. 
Now, my dear sir, would not the word 
“ mainly” sufficiently cover those exceptions of 
Mr. Bates’ breeding for fifteen years, in which 
he used Norfolk thrice, and Gambier only once, 
to anything but steer breeders, while all his 
other breeding was thoroughly, “ a union of the 
Duchess and Princess tribes,” and the Cleve¬ 
land Lad’s ? A. Stevens. 
—---- 
Wash for Apple Trees-— Dissolve two pounds 
of potash in a pail of water-—apply with a 
brush. 
