CURIOUS BELIEF IN TWO STATES OF CONDITION. 55 
a horse for a weight-for-age race like him,” and added, “ but 
I prefer you to all others fora handicap.” I argued the point 
exhaustively with his lordship, but my logic failed to convince 
him to the contrary. And he believed in his preconceived idea, 
that when a horse is fit to run for a weight-for-age race 
there is something lacking in his preparation for a handi- 
cap and vice verséd. Surely when a horse is fit to run a 
given distance (no matter what) for a handicap, he must be so 
for a weight-for-age race over the same course! More, it may 
be said that many races of the latter kind become and 
virtually are handicaps, from the extra weights imposed on 
some and allowances made to other horses by the conditions of 
these races. I can adduce many proofs, were they needed, 
that my reasoning is sound; but two must suffice. Let 
me ask, then, can any one suppose for a moment that 
Foe Miller was less fit to run when he won the Emperor's 
Vase at Ascot (a genuine weight-for-age race without 
penalties or allowances), beating Voltzgeur and most of the 
best horses of the day, than when he won the Chester 
Cup, a handicap? Or can any one be simple enough to 
believe that when Brigantine won the Ascot Cup or the Oaks, 
she was wanting the condition that assisted her to win the 
handicaps at Newmarket ? I need say no more to show the 
fallacy of his lordship’s argument. 
But now a word must be said of that irrepressible body 
the British Public, the first to utter all sorts of illogical 
assertions, yet limiting inquiries as to the real merits and 
condition of racehorses to finding fault with those who have 
the care of them. Owners and trainers alike fall in for 
their share of the rancour of these prescient sages, who 
oracle-like condemn “at one fell swoop” and in true stereo- 
typed form, all light horses as starved or galloped to death 
