THE ROYAL
SIR,—I am glad to learn from Mr. Alec Hobson's letter in The Spectator of July 30th that the Royal Agricultural Society is anxious to avoid complacency and welcomes suggestions and criticisms. I am sorry, how- ever, that the criticisms contained in my article do not seem to have been welcome, since they were made solely with the object of helping the Royal to retain its present pre-eminent position. Mr. Hobson says I do less than justice to the organisers and exhibitors. My first sentence stated that the Show was a " great spectacle " and " magnificently stage- managed," and I went on to say that it has " no competitor in the whole world." Short of writing an article entirely of praise and totally devoid of criticism, it would have been difficult to do more justice to those responsible.
My main points of criticism were, firstly, that most of the machinery exhibits could have been seen elsewhere, and, what is more, conditions at the Royal made inspection harder than at many other shows. Mr. Hobson does not deny this latter point, and to the former replies I am wide of the mark. He would strengthen his contention by telling us what percentage of machinery exhibits at the Royal actually in production and available for sale to the English farmer had never been exhibited at any other show. My second criticism was that many of the livestock classes were not representative of the best of their breed. Since this was not denied by Mr. Hobson, it may be taken that he agrees ; but in case any of your readers feel that further evidence is needed, I would like to point out that in practically every Press report of the Royal mention was made of the disappointing quality of many of the livestock classes.
In case it should be thought that my remarks concerning livestock came from a disgruntled exhibitor, perhaps I should add that one of my own exhibits was champion of her breed at York.—Yours truly,
Previous page
