COMPARATIVE STOUTNESS., 73 
this, and a “ peacocky” horse, that is, with his tail set on high, is their 
aversion. The true shape is that which is given in the portrait of 
Saznoterer, in which horse there is a fine amount of fall, without going 
into sii extreme, 
COMPARATIVE STOUTNESS. 
BUT ARE OUR MODERN HORSES AS STOUT as those of the last century ? 
Such is the question which has been very differently answered by Lord 
Redesdale and Admiral Rous, in their correspondence on the alteration of 
the weights proposed by the former, who contends that while their speed 
for short distances has been developed to a great extent, their stoutness, 
or the power of staying over a distance of ground, has greatly diminished. 
The arguments pro and con which each has adduced would occupy too 
much space for me to go into them at length, especially as they have been 
mixed up with others which bear upon the degeneracy of man rather than 
of his slave the horse. I may however quote one extract from an article 
in Baily’s Magazine of Sports, by the Admiral, which supports his position 
in an exceedingly clear manner. He says :— 
“A very ridiculous notion exists that because our ancestors were fond 
of matching their horses four, six, and eight miles, and their great prizes 
were never less than four miles for aged horses, that the English race- 
horses of 1700 had more powers of endurance, and were better adapted to 
run long distances under heavy weights, than the horses of the present 
day ; and there is another porular notion that our horses cannot now stay 
four miles. 
“ From 1600 to 1740 most of the matches at Newmarket were above 
four miles. The six-mile post in my time stood about 200 yards from the 
present railroad station, six-mile bottom, and the eight-mile post was due 
south from the station on the rising ground ; but the cruelty of the dis- 
tance, and interest of the horse-owners, shortened the course in corre- 
sponding ratio with the civilisation of the country. Two jades may run 
as fine a race for eight miles as for half a mile—it is no proof of endurance. 
You may match any animals for what distance you please, but it is no 
proof of great capacity. We have no reason to suppose that the pure 
Arabian of the desert has degenerated ; his pedigree is as well kept, his 
admirers in the East are as numerous, and his value in that market has 
not been depreciated. In 1700 the first cross from these horses were 
the heroes of the turf. Look at the portraits of Flying Childers, Lath, 
Regulus, and other celebrated horses, including the Godolphin Arabian. 
If the artists were correct in their delineations, they had no appearance of 
racehorses ; they of course were good enough to gallop away from the 
miserable English garrans of that era, as a good Arab or a Barbary horse, 
like Vengeance, would run away from a common hackney in the pres 
day. Amongst the blind, a one-eyed man is a king. 
“ My belief is, that the present English racehorse is as much superior 
to the racehorse of 1750, as he excelled the first cross from Arabs andl 
Barbs with English mares, and, again, as they surpassed the old English 
racing hack of 1650. 
“The form of Flying Childers might win now a 301. plate, winner to 
be sold for 40/.; Highflyer and Eclipse might pull through in a 50/. 
plate, winner to be sold for 2002. ‘This may be a strong opinion ; it is 
founded on the fact that whereas, 150 years ago, the Eastern horses and, 
their first cross were the best and fastest in England, at this day a 
