196 WEIGHTS AND DISTANCES. 



long distances, most of the races being run at heavy weights, 

 up to and over lost.: and he suffered no more than the 

 others from doing so much work and carrying weights so 

 heavy. After this I think no one will say 7 st. is too much 

 for a horse to carry. In my opinion no horse should be 

 permitted to carry less. To raise the standard 21 lbs. 

 would, I think, be a judicious movement, and make it far 

 preferable to the present low scale. 



Admiral Rous's dictum on the subject may now be appro- 

 priately quoted ; it is perhaps specially remarkable for its 

 advocacy of a higher standard, and its paradoxical reasoning 

 against the change. 



" A high-weight standard," he says, " is never popular. 

 Owners of horses object to Qst., although they have no 

 objection to run in a Queen's Plate, carrying 10 st. I have 

 always," he continues, " been an advocate of a high scale ; 

 in 1852 I recommended that the spring handicap should 

 commence at 10 st. 7 lbs. Experience teaches me that, 

 owing to the prejudice of trainers, a high standard is a 

 certain failure with the best calculation of weight ; and the 

 clerks of the course well know that a light-weight handicap, 

 like a fat horse, covers its own defects." 



Here the Admiral frankly avers, in unmistakable language, 

 that he is in favour of a high standard, and that the weights 

 should be raised to lost. 7 lbs. He even advocates it. But 

 the light-weight handicap, he says, pleases the clerks of the 

 course and covers its own defects ; as if the clerks of the 

 course are the only people whose interest is to be studied. 

 With due respect to the memory of the gallant and lamented 

 gentleman, I submit that two weaker reasons were never put 

 forth as a pretext for the pertinacious adherence to a system 

 admittedly wrong. 



