866 - QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1, May, 1898. 
Had those ancient Egyptians been able to hotch-potch such a. medley of 
sorts as we have done in Australia—South American mustang, London coach 
horse, Cleveland, Suffolk Punch, Norfolk aud American trotters, Shire and. 
Clydesdale, Shetland, Welsh and Timor, Arab and English thoroughbred, and 
many more, jumbled together, much as the three witches in Macbeth mixed 
their incongruous and unhallowed ingredients in the chaldron—the question 
arises, would Solomon’s shekels have been left in Egypt in exchange for their 
horses P 
We must logically come to the conclusion that Solomon’s agents had a 
stock of very high-class horses to select from; that this selection was done in 
-such a skilful manner that Solomon’s stock subsequently became of greater 
repute than the parent stock of Egypt; and this is evident from the fact that 
the Pheeniciaus afterwards bought from Solomon’s stock in preference to Egypt, 
and no people knew the world’s markets better than they did. 
In this light the oral tradition of the Arabs concerning the origin and 
pedigree of their horse seems no longer an extravagant absurdity, but a 
reality. 
That Solomon’s love of the horse, and the care he bestowed on them, must 
have had a great and good effect on the stock he raised, and they on the stock 
of the countries around Palestinc—the native home of the Arab type—we 
may also accept as certain. ‘ 
T have already pointed out that history goes to show that all improvement 
of the horse has been the work of kings and Governments. In the absence 
of anything in history to indicate any other probable source, we may, on the 
circumstantial evidence adduced, ascribe the credit of perfecting and fixing the 
Arab type to the stables and studs of King Solomon. 
