A sporting parson of the middle of the eighteenth century tells us that
the English setters were then of two colours, red-and-white and
black-and-tan. Whether the author meant to say black-white-and-tan seems
a little doubtful, but in any case there were black-white-and-tan
setters long before this, as is evidenced in one of Dürer’s pictures,
and this Flemish artist died in 1528. When this picture was exhibited at
the Grosvenor Gallery in 1891, it escaped the notice of the author in
spite of several visits, but Mr. Rawdon Lee describes the dog
illustrated as a black-white-and-tan setter, less spaniel-like and more
on the leg than the modern show setter. Then, half a century later, our
earliest writer on the dog mentions the setter, or index, as a distinct
dog from the spaniel, and at the same time throws doubt upon the Spanish
origin of the latter. It was in 1570 that Dr. Caius of Cambridge wrote
upon the dog; unfortunately he appears to have known nothing except the
duties of the setter, for he does not describe either its origin, its
colour, or appearance.
It has been said that the Duke of Gordon got the black-and-tan colour by
crossing with the collie, but the majority of the Gordon Castle dogs
were black-white-and-tan, and some were red-and-white. That is to say,
they may have been and probably were the colours that the
eighteenth-century writer meant when he described those of the “English
spaniel”—that is, the English setter.
About 1873 the author had a long talk with the late Lord Lovat and his
keeper, Bruce, at the kennels above the famous Beauly pools, that the
same good sportsman rendered for ever famous by his wonderful kills of
salmon.
It was an article of faith at Beaufort, where the kennel book had been
kept up since the end of the eighteenth century, that the old Duke’s
Gordon setters and their own living setters were identical in blood and
appearance. They were bred together, and after the Duke’s death this
inter-breeding was kept up between Lord Lovat’s and the other kennels
which had the blood. One of the principal of these was that of Lord
Rosslyn, in Fifeshire. But for some time this latter exchange of blood
had been dropped, because Lord Rosslyn’s dogs had been crossed with the
bloodhound to get nose, or so Bruce told the author.
What it did get was colour—that is, a bright black-and-tan without
white; whereas those dogs that were black-and-tan in the Lovat kennel
had white feet and fronts, but a very large majority had body white as
well. At that period those black-and-tan setters that went to the shows
were of two distinct types: one lot were light-made, active dogs, and
the other, including the descendants of Rev. T. Pearce’s Kent and those
of Lord Rosslyn’s blood, were very heavy in formation. Kent either had
no pedigree or a doubtful one, but was all the fashion, and whereas a
first cross with him was of benefit, in-breeding on all sides to him has
rendered the black-and-tans of to-day lumbering, and so constitutionally
weak that the exhibitors have been unable to keep the breed going,
although they have neglected to demand working ability in favour of the
points they adore. In the sixties and early seventies the Rev. Mr.
Hutchinson, of Malmesbury, wrote a good deal about the lighter strain of
black-and-tan setters which he and the late Sir Fred Milbank had
constantly used together in the Lews. The author tried these dogs, and
although they were certainly built for racing, they unfortunately could
not race. Their breeder believed nothing could live with them, but when
they came to be measured with others (and that is the only way to be
sure) they were not better in speed than the heavy Kent and Rosslyn
dogs, and not a patch upon the best Irish setters, which, again, were
inferior in speed and stamina to the best English dogs. In 1870 the
author entered a lot of his own breeding at the National Field Trials.
They were reported by Mr. J. H. Walsh, then Editor of the _Field_, to
have done “faultless” work, but were slow by comparison with some of the
other dogs, and although that gentleman did not think they were beaten,
disappointment at losing did not disguise from their owner that they
were out-classed. From that time to quite recently no pure bred
black-and-tan setter has had much of a look in at field trials, until
Mr. Isaac Sharp came out with Stylish Ranger. But between the exquisite
breaking of Mr. Sharp and the good nose of his dog they managed to get
in front of all they met, at a period when field trial dogs were at a
rather low ebb, and when in the judges’ opinions breaking counted for
more than work. If those opinions had obtained in 1870, the author might
have won all before him with his black-and-tans, but in that case he
would probably never have acquired the knowledge of the infinitely
better.
This first field trial attempt was made with the heavy Kent and Lord
Rosslyn sort. The author bred several litters from direct crosses of
Lord Rosslyn’s best dogs. His second attempt to win field trials was
made with the light-made sort of setter from the Lews; but results were
always the same. Still, although those results were true, the
black-and-tan breed are never seen to advantage in the low country or in
the hot atmosphere of central England. They become twice the dogs late
in the season and on the high grounds of Scotland, and their size and
long legs are not a hindrance in deep old heather. Moreover, they almost
break themselves, or used to, thirty-six years ago, and where hills have
moderate angles and shooters interminable patience, they are comfortable
dogs to shoot over. Like the Irish, they do not mind wet and cold, and
many of them have good noses and carry high heads. But they were
different in character from English and Irish dogs. Once, and only once,
the author has seen a setter draw down to a brook at some scent,
apparently from the other side, but instead of crossing to investigate,
on this occasion the dog stood up on his hind legs to get a higher
current of the tainted air, and then, having made sure in that way,
crossed the brook and pointed on the rising ground beyond. This
performance was accomplished by one of the light-made black-and-tans of
the Lews blood before spoken of. What any other breed of setters would
have done would have been to swim the brook and try the other side in
the first instance, and this incident sufficiently explains the
difference of temperaments of the black-and-tan setters from those of
other races. In other words, the wisdom of the black-and-tans is partly
born of weakness of the flesh, for although bigger dogs than most
setters, they are not able to carry the extra weight.
In the first Bala field trials the Marquis of Huntly had a son of Kent
which, according to the points awarded by the judges, came out first.
But the judges did not follow their points, and gave the award
elsewhere. The author did not see that trial, but it is noteworthy
because it was the last time a black-and-tan of pure blood seemed to
have a chance of victory over the best of the period until the time of
Stylish Ranger. It is also noteworthy because the dogs beaten, on the
ground of bad breaking, afterwards proved towers of strength at the
stud, whereas the victors did not. The beaten included Mr. Tom Statter’s
pointer Major and Mr. Armstrong’s English setter Duke. Probably these
were the two most potent influences of setter and pointer breeding that
ever lived.
One incident in the breeding of black-and-tan setters did very much to
make them for a time the most popular breed. It was this. Much
controversy having arisen as to the setter character of Kent, a great
dog-show winner, his owner asked the Editor of the _Field_ to select a
puppy and run it at the field trials. This was done, and the puppy came
out well, and actually beat the celebrated Duke on one occasion. This
was naturally accepted as proof of the pure breeding of Kent and the
correctness of his type. What it probably ought to have proved was that
Rex (the young dog) was better than others, because he followed in
instinct the pure bred side of his parentage, and received vitality from
a not very remote outside cross of blood. Four years later, Duke was
sire, or grandsire, of the winners of first, second, third, and fourth,
at the National Field Trials, and the black-and-tans had practically
ceased competition at those events.
The author may say of black-and-tans, as he has of the red Irish
setters, that he never saw a great dog of the breed, although he has
seen many good ones. Probably the best that ever ran in public was Mr.
Sharp’s Stylish Ranger, but he would not have beaten the 1870 brigade on
anything but breaking, or rather handiness; for Mr. Sharp could put him
anywhere by a wave of the finger. It is probable that there are better
black-and-tan setters kept in Scotch kennels for work than those which
go to dog shows, and since Ranger’s withdrawal and exportation they have
ceased again to appear at field trials.
They have been too long bred without back ribs, with light loins, with
clumsy shoulders and big heads, to induce the belief that by selection
they can be improved. But they might be placed on a much superior level
by means of a cross and selection afterwards. Mr. Sharp’s celebrity was
bred by Mr. Chapman, who is, or was, a dog-show man. It is necessary to
say this in order to be quite fair to dog shows; but any attempt to
improve the breed by crossing would be most likely to succeed by a cross
on a base of black-and-tan setter that had been kept for several
generations for work only. The show points valued for this breed are
really not setter points at all. In considering the possibility of
improving, it is always necessary to know the history of a breed, and
that of the black-and-tan is undoubtedly indicated above. There is
evidence in Mr. Thomson Gray’s _Dogs of Scotland_, published in 1891, to
show that the origin of the Gordon setters was as suggested above—that
is to say, black-and-tan and lemon- or red-and-white, just what the old
Suffolk sportsman said of English setters fifty years before he wrote in
1775. Mr. Gray says there were also black-white-and-tans and
liver-and-white dogs.
But the “Gordon setter” never meant what those setters originated from,
but, on the contrary, what they became under the last Duke of Gordon,
and this we have ample evidence, from Beaufort Castle, from the Duke of
Richmond and Gordon’s kennel, and from Lord Cawdor’s strain, to prove
was black-white-and-tan, and that was also the colour of the dogs at the
dispersal of the Duke of Gordon’s kennel in 1837. So that it is a
mistake to call black-and-tan setters Gordons, for although the Duke’s
celebrated strain was partly originated from dogs of that colour, so
also were all other English setters. Gervaise Markham, in _Hunger’s
Prevention; or the whole art of fowling by Land and Water_, in 1665,
speaks of black-and-fallow dogs as the hardest to endure labour, so that
there is no doubt about the existence of black-and-tan setters before
the Duke of Gordon started to pay attention to setter breeding. There is
also no doubt that the Duke’s dogs were bred and crossed in colours
until they became black-white-and-tan. The author has shown how the
black-and-tan colour was restored in the Gordon of the present time by
the bloodhound cross, and it only remains to say that the reason the
black-and-tan colour is now accepted as that of the Gordon came about
from the early classification of the Birmingham Dog Show, where true
Gordons were placed in the English setter classes, and all kinds of
black-and-tans in the class for Gordons, although some at least,
probably many, of that colour were not Gordons. That the bloodhound
cross destroyed the merits of the various races of that colour may be
gathered from two facts. One was that the first dog show was won by a
black-and-tan, and the other that the first field trial was also won by
a black-and-tan. No doubt both these dogs were descended on one side or
other of their pedigree from the Duke of Gordon’s dogs, but it is
doubtful whether they got their black-and-tan from that side. Their
pedigrees can be looked up in the first volume of the Stud Book. But if
they are read by the light of a pedigree of a dog that belonged to the
author and was of much the same breeding, a pedigree which also occurs
in that volume, it will be seen that they might be Gordons only so far
as they inherited black-white-and-tan blood, and were of other breeds so
far as they inherited black-and-tan blood. To make what is intended
clear, the entry is quoted:—
“Bruce—Mr. G. Teasdale-Buckell’s, Wellesley Hall, Ashby-de-la-Zouch:
breeder, owner, born 1869 (dead). Pedigree: By Lord Rosslyn’s Rokeby
(No. 1622) out of Blaze, by Old Reuben out of Belle, by Kent (No. 1600)
out of Duchess, by Nell out of Stella, by Lord Chesterfield’s Regent
(purchased at the Duke of Gordon’s sale) out of a Marquis of Anglesea
bitch: Regent, black-white-and-tan, was by Old Regent out of the Duke of
Gordon’s Ellen.”
Duchess was a light-made black-and-tan, and her dam was by the undoubted
black-white-and-tan Gordon for which Lord Chesterfield gave 72 gs. to
Tattersall’s at the Duke’s dispersal sale, and her mother was a Marquis
of Anglesea bitch. Where did the black-and-tan colour of Duchess come
from? The reply is, not from Stella at all, but from Ned (mistakenly
entered as Nell) in the pedigree quoted; and he got his colour from Mr.
F. Burdett’s Brougham, which there is nothing to show was a Gordon at
all, although he was descended from black-and-tans on one side at least.
This same Brougham became the ancestor of the most famous breed of
English setters—namely, the descendants of Mr. Tom Statter’s Rhœbe,
winners of hundreds of field trials in this country and America, and
which are still the best setters there are.
But when the breed became crossed with the Lord Rosslyn’s and Kent
strains of black-and-tan blood, it practically ceased to be the setter
at all in a very few generations. That is why any attempted revival of
the black-and-tans ought to be based on dogs the ancestors of which for
generations have been good enough to keep for work, and with no ulterior
objects. But it would be an up-hill business, for nothing in breeding is
more certain than that colour is indicative of blood, and to select for
black-and-tans would be to select the wrong type a hundred times in a
hundred and one.
On the other hand, if any of the old light-made black-and-tan dogs, with
dish faces instead of hound profiles, could be found, the black-and-tan
colour is so prepotent that they might have any cross of parti-coloured
strain and yet perhaps not show it in the colour in the first
generation. Although blackand-tan is a much more prepotent colour than
any parti-colour, it is not so much so as the whole colours, black and
red. Probably it cannot be produced by breeding these two last-named
together. Then facts seem to indicate that the ancestors of our setters
were some whole-coloured races or black-and-tan dogs of some wild or
domestic kinds.
After grouse have got wild to a team of light-coloured dogs, some shots
may often be had over a black-and-tan setter. Possibly the birds mistake
the setter for a collie, and the gunner, if suitably dressed in
imitation, for the shepherd. There are occasions when, on the contrary,
the grouse are more afraid of the sheep-dog than any other, and this may
not always mean that the shepherd, like his dog, is a poacher.
It has been said that a black-and-tan is a bad colour to see on the
moors, but this is not so. No sportsman would use a black coat for
shooting, because it is more conspicuous than any other, and what is
true of the man’s coat is true of the dog’s colour.