149 



In order of merit I would place the performances as follows :- 



Best .. 



Second 

 Third .. 

 Fourth 

 Fifth .. 



Winners carrying less than 

 list. 



^Yinners carrying list, and 

 over. 



rime. 



min sec 



9 59 



10 18 



10 29 



11 4 

 10 45 



I admit the light weights do not sustain my argument, for by further 

 comparison we find the Forties are much below the average, for, 

 although with the highest weight, the time is a long way the slowest. 

 However, the average is entirely spoiled by the exceptionally bad 

 time of Discount in 1844, viz., 14mm. Probably there is a mistake, 

 for it is 2min. lOsec. longer than any other ever recorded. If it be 

 incorrect,' and putting it at, say, llmin. {i.e., 13sec. over the average 

 of the light-weight lot), we would have the Forties, with lOst. 9lba., 

 lOmin. 50sec., which would beat the average well, and be nearly as good 

 as the Seventies and Eighties. The Fifties are also below the average, 

 considering the light weight ; the Sixties are a fair average ; the Seven- 

 ties beat the average well ; and so do the Eighties. 



The high-weight class gives strong support to my theory, as is shown 

 thus : the Forties are somewhat below the average ; the Fifties beat into 

 fits all record up to 1891 ; the Sixties are a good average; the Seventies 

 beat the average ; the Eighties are a long way leloiv the average. 



No doubt there was only one horse, Bourton, who won in the Fifties 

 carrying list, or over. But his was a record and no mistake, for, with 

 list. 12lbs. (within lib. of Cortolvin, who carried the highest winning 

 weight in Grand National history), he won the race of 1854 in 9min. 

 69sec. 



Comeaway's win in 1891, meritorious as it was, equals only that of 

 Bourton in 1854:— just forty years ago. Both horses carried list. 12lbs. 

 and did the journey in 9min. 59sec., which gives them alike the best 

 winning records of the Grand National. 



I have gone into those abstruse, and perhaps to some people unin- 

 teresting, calculations for the purpose of confronting the many who, 

 with dogmatic assurance, denounce the pace of steeplechasers of old in 

 comparison with that of the present day. 



Of course we all know that time calculation is unreliable. The only 

 way to find out the relative merit of horses is to try them against each 

 other. An authentic time-record is, however, very much more to be 

 depended upon than any man's opinion, particularly when based only 

 upon memory. Making, therefore, all due allowance for whatever 

 defect there may be in a system such as the above, and in the absence 

 of any other more reliable, I think my table, showing a record of half- 

 a-century's racing, fairly proves my assertion that horses, able to carry 

 weight, went as fast long ago over a long steeplechase as they do now. 



