2

part of the same volume. It is however in support, not only of Mr. Cline’s and the other remarks in this pamphlet, but of the opinions of many expert husbandmen in different in regard to similar instances of comparison, to observe, that though size may have, as in Mr. Dyke’s case, and such others, no small influence,

qua LEELS~

yet a great deal, per- haps a principal share of the superior benefit derived from the keep of the South Down compared with the Wiltshire sheep, is to be ascribed to the better make and other estim- able properties of the former. The character of these two well known breeds has been described in many publications, and therefore the difference between them need not here be particularly stated. The Wiltshire, as observed by Mr.

Luccock in his late treatise on wool,‘ are horned animals,

with perfectly white faces and legs, a flat untufted front, a light and long carcase, which produces no wool upon the belly and lower part of the breast 3 and these sheep,, by their tallness,’&c. p. 272, The South Down race, again, is represented as valuable on account of its close feeding, its well formed carcase, with shorter legs,&c. Indeed the latter breed is, not only from its size, calculated to live, in an equal weight of animals, whatever be their a given extent of short or indifferent pastures, the former,

number, on

better than but, from its hardiness and the superiority of

its form, it would seem more able to withstand the hard-

ships of a bleak and barren situation, and to convert to

greater use the vegetable aliment destined to its support, The details and remarks extracted from the B

ath papers, shall now be offered to the consideration of the re

ader, with-

out any farther comment; the loose hints just submitted being chiefly to

prevent its being supposed that there was

any material difference of opinion between us respecting the

Comparative advantages of a small size in many, in most

orts indeed, of our domestic animals.