200 WEIGHTS AND DISTANCES, 
The late Mr. John Scott, the celebrated trainer of White- 
wall, Malton (his lordship’s trainer), strongly advocated that 
the weights should be raised ; and no one was likely to know 
better than a person with his vast experience, or to give a 
more candid opinion. If the recognised standard for two- 
year-olds is 8st. 1olbs., and if early in the spring they can 
and do carry this weight (which in handicaps is sometimes 
increased to gst. 12lbs.), why cannot all of them carry it in 
the following year? A 7st. minimum would put the good 
three-year-olds over two miles and a quarter in the autumn 
at gst. rolbs., and the old horses at 11 st.—a difference of 
2 st. 10 lb., between the best and worst of the three-year-olds, 
and of four stone between the highest and lowest of all ages 
—a difference much the same as that now existing. I think 
that few will disagree with me in the conclusion that a horse 
that cannot win with such weights, is not good enough to keep 
in training. Indeed, it has become an absolute necessity, and 
notoriously so, that in fairness to owners, and in the best 
interests of the turf, the scale of weights should be raised and 
the courses lengthened. 
This fact is not only an almost universal topic, it is 
markedly noticed by the sporting writers of the day. In the 
“Morning Post” of April 10, 1876, “Pavo” in an excellent 
article discussing the subject, says :— 
“The success of welter-handicaps of late years shows the 
popularity of those races; whilst the difficulty of finding 
competent boys to ride the present range of light-handicap 
weights is becoming more apparent every year.” 
The chance of winning any race over a short course witha 
child up, is so remote, that the best horse may not win one of 
ten or even twenty races he may run for ; though by com- 
petent judges each of them may have been looked upon as 
