226 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
July 
the views of these writers on this point, by extracts. 
The following, from Professor Low’s History and Illus¬ 
trations of British Animals, may be taken as the sub¬ 
stance of what has been said by others. Speaking of the 
Short-horns, Prof. L. says:— 
It is not unreasonable to believe that during the period 
of Saxon colonization, they may have been brought to the 
country by the Jutes and Angles who settled in this part 
of England. * * * * But at a long subsequent pe¬ 
riod, near our own times, it appears that cattle were fre¬ 
quently brought from the opposite continent. They 
were chiefly imported from Holland, the cows of which 
country were the most celebrated of all others in the 
north of Europe for the abundance of their milk and the 
uses of the dairy. The earliest importations seem to 
have been made to the country of the Humber, where 
the port of Hull maintained a constant and extended in¬ 
tercourse with Hamburgh and the United Provinces. 
The Dutch breed was especially established in the dis¬ 
trict of Holderness, on the north side of the estuary of 
the Humber, whence it ext<*nded northwards through 
the plains of Yorkshire; and the cattle of Holderness 
still retain the distinct traces of their Dutch original, 
and were long regarded as the finest dairy cows of Eng¬ 
land. Further to the north, in the fertile district of the 
Tees, importations likewise took place of the cattle of 
the opposite countries, sometimes from Holland and 
sometimes by the way of Hamburgh, from Holstein, or 
other countries of the Elbe. * * * * Of the precise 
extent of these early importations we are imperfectly in¬ 
formed; but that they exercised a great influence on the 
native stock, appears from the circumstance that the 
breed formed by the mixture, became familiarly known 
as the Dutch or Holstein breed, under which names it 
extended northward through Northumberland, and be¬ 
came naturalised in the south of Scotland- It was also 
known as the Teeswater, or simply as the Short-horned 
breed.” 
2. The reply to Mr. Stevens’ second objection will be 
comprised in replies to the others 
3. The third objection to Mr. Berry’s history is that— 
“ It is not true that Charles Colling exclusively improv¬ 
ed the Short-horns, or bred better ones than he origi¬ 
nally obtained to breed from.” 
Where did Mr. Berry ever assert that Charles Colling 
was the exclusive improver of the Short-horns ? We 
have never seen such an assertion. Mr. Stevens says— 
“ Mr. Berry, in both his histories, gives no one credit 
for improvement in the Short-horns but Charles Col¬ 
ling;” and in this Mr. S. thinks great injustice has been 
done to other breeders, especially to Mr. Robert Col¬ 
ling, who, it is claimed, “ was quite as good a breeder 
as his brother Charles.”* 
* Mr. Stevens, in endeavoring to show that Robert Colling was 
equal as a breeder to his brother Charles, cites the fact that the latter 
did not breed I-Iubbaek; and he cites Mr. Hutchinson to prove that 
“ Mr. Charles Colling himself, never thought so highly of this bull as 
is now confidently held out.” But in the same letter of Mr. Hutchin¬ 
son’s to which Mr. Stevens refers,—(originally published in the Far¬ 
mers' 1 Journal , and copied into the Am. Farmer, vol. iv. p. 228,)—-it is 
stated that Mr. Robert Colling,—who with Mr. Waistell, was joint 
owner of Hubback before he passed into the hands of Mr. C. C.,— 
had “ declared his opinion” that Hubback was not a good bull. Mr. 
Stevens omits this part of Mr. Hutchinson’s letter; yet he admits 
that—“ By common consent, every historian of Short-horns recogni¬ 
zes the wonderful merit of Hubback,” and he adds the expression of 
Maj. Rudd, that he “was the main root of the improved Short-horns.” 
But according to Mr. Waistell, whom Mr. Stevens quotes, Mr. Ch’s. 
Colling did think “highly” of Hubback, for as soon as he came into 
his hands, he would not let him serve Mr. W.’s cows for less than 
K five guineas” each. (p. 124.) Now which showed the most judg¬ 
ment as a breeder in this important case, Robert or Charles Colling ? 
It is true that Mr. Hunter, and not Mr. Colling, bred Hubback; but 
Now the truth is, the charge involved in this state¬ 
ment, is entirely unfounded. Mr. Berry did not claim 
Charles Colling as the exclusive improver of the Short- 
horns, but on the contrary, he does give others, and es¬ 
pecially Robert Colling, high “ credit for improvement.” 
Mr. Berry says— 
“ It would answer no useful purpose, and would cer¬ 
tainly be an objectionable course, to bring under parti¬ 
cular notice any one or more of the highly valuable 
stocks of the improved Short-horns of the present day. 
To enumerate all would be impossible; and the writer 
of this account would most studiously avoid any partial 
or invidious comparison. The same objection does not; 
however, exist as to a remote period; and it is but jus¬ 
tice to state that Mr. Robert Colling, brother of Mr. 
Charles, (who certainly was the leader and surpassed all 
others in the improvement of the Short-horns,) Mr. 
Charge, ofMewton, near Darlington, Mr. Mason of Chil¬ 
ton. in the county of Durham, were only second to Mr. 
Charles Colling in this interesting and useful pursuit.” 
[ Youatt’s work on Cattle , pp. 233, 234.] 
4. Mr. Berry thinks Mr. Colling, in breeding, pro¬ 
ceeded on the plan of reducing the size of the Short¬ 
horns, by that means improving their form, and that this 
was effected in the first instance through the medium 
of the bull Hubback. Mr. Stevens thinks he had no 
such design and produced no such effect. He cites the 
great weight of some extraordinary fat cattle as proof 
that Mr. Colling “ increased” the size of the Short¬ 
horns. Now what did Mr. Berry mean by a reduction 
of size? It will not, it is presumed, be denied that the 
improved Short-horns are smaller in bone, in mere bulk 
of frame, than the old or common stock of that tribe; 
and this is what we understand Mr. Berry to say was 
effected by Mr. Colling,—not that the improved stock 
was incapable of fattening to as great weights as the 
common. But he says expressly, that it was their ex¬ 
traordinary accumulation of flesh and fat, that pro¬ 
duced their remarkable weight. An intelligent con¬ 
temporary of Mr. Colling’s illustrates this. He says that 
by crossing the Teeswater Short-horns with Hubback, 
11 the essentials wanted were acquired, though somewhat 
reduced in size ; but as they had more flesh, less bone, 
and much neatness, they lost none of their weight when 
fatted .” [John R'ooke, in London Farmers' Journal , 
June 2, 1821—copied in Am..Farmer., vol. 4, p. 166.] 
Bailey, in his Survey of Durham, speaks of several 
of the most remarkable fat animals of the improved va¬ 
riety. He says a two-year-old steer of Robt. Colling’s, 
was supposed to weigh (four quarters) 63 stones (882 
lbs.,) and another of the same age belonging to Mr. 
Nesham, was estimated by the butchers to weigh 
(four quarters) 75 stones (1050 lbs.,) and adds, u Nei¬ 
ther of these animals were of large size, and would not 
have weighed above 40 stones (560 lbs.) had they been 
no fatter than animals usually killed for the markets.” 
[pp. 233, 234.] 
4. Mr. Stevens assumes that Hubback was a 11 pure 
Short-horn.” Mr. Berry says there had been much con¬ 
troversy “ touching the puritv of his blood, ’ but re¬ 
does that entitle Mr. Hunter to any merit as a breeder? Although 
Hubback, as Mr. Stevens admits, was a “wonderful animal,” nei¬ 
ther Mr. Hunter, nor any other person but Charles Colling, perceived 
his excellence; for it appears that after passing through various 
hands, he was purchased at six years old by Mr. Colling, for the low 
price of eight guineas-—two guineas less than Robert Colling gave 
for him! 
