BAY MIDDLETON & BLUE GOWN CONTRASTED. 227 
to that time been equalled. Say Middleton never ran as a 
two-year-old, and only seven times as a three-year old, and 
was never beaten. His best race was the Derby, when behind 
him were Gladiator, Venison, and several other very good 
horses. He was seven or ten pounds better than Zs, the 
winner of that year’s St. Leger, and twenty-one pounds 
better than Venison at a mile and a half; and he could give 
others of the same year twenty-eight pounds and beat them. 
It is, therefore, undoubted that Bay Middleton was three 
stone and a half better than some horses of his own age. 
Now let us take the running of one or two of later date: 
Llue Gown, for instance (though Sir Joseph Hawley always 
said Rosicrucian was the better horse), We find that in 
running for the Cambridgeshire he gave one of his own age, a 
three-year-old, 3 st. 7 lbs. and a beating, and probably would 
have given him seven or ten pounds more, or a difference of 
four stone. Next, we see Vespasian, a six-year-old, giving 
Judge, a three-year-old, 4 st. 10 lbs., and eleven pounds beating, 
making him five stone and a half better than the winner of 
the Queen’s Plate, for /zdge won this afterwards on the same 
day. Many like instances could, if needed, be found; but I 
think those furnished will be sufficient to show that horses 
now are better than they were in 1836, in which year they 
were better than in any preceding year. As a natural conse- 
quence, therefore, our horses must be better at the present 
time than they ever were before. Moreover, in 1836 and the 
preceding years, horses did not run so often, and could be 
better prepared and made more of than nowadays, when 
they are continually being raced, galloped, or tried. Old 
Mr. Forth used to say, “Horses were like peach-trees that 
blossomed but once a year;” and the late Mr. S. Chifney 
said, “ They cannot be made to keep their form from one 
day to another.” Yet we are obliged, as trainers, to have 
Q2 
