efficient jockey who can ride as light as 5st. 71b, and it not unfrequently happens, particularly on country courses, that an owner does not start a horse thus lightly treated, from his inability to procure a rider. This fact alone is, in my opinion, a strong argument in favour of the alteration I propose. There are boys in existence who can do the weight, but never more than two or three to whom you can intrust your horse with the certainty of his being well handled.

In a great handicap twenty-two horses are, perhaps, weighted at 5st. 71b., and several of these appear at the post ridden by jockeys onehalf of whom are incapable of managing their horses or keeping them straight. What is the result? A breaking away, a recovery and leading back of loose horses, a long and wearisome delay, and when at last the starter has dropped his flag in despair, the older jockeys are to be seen in the front rank, while the light-weights are straggling all over the course, jostling and cannoning against each other, entirely at the mercy of the horses they are supposed to be riding.

For my own part, I should gladly see the minimum weight_raised to 7st. Light, shelly, weedy mares would then be consigned to the cab rank, instead of the stud, and breeders would endeavour to produce animals of size and power, which would be available for other purposes if they were found too slow for the race course. Yours, &c. Croome, Worcester, Feb. 15. COVENTRY.

Neither Sir Joseph Hawley nor Colonel Forester has yet taken any notice of Admiral Rous's letter.

ECCE ITERUM!-Scarcely has Admiral Rous explained away one of his letters to the Times than he writes another. His subject now, however, is a more grateful one; for, with no necessity for trenching on personalities, he can speak to the present condition of the Turf, and the means proposed for reforming the abuses associated with the more modern practice of this sport. It may be as well to say in the outset that no one has more readily admitted the existence of these evils than Admiral Rous himself. For the last twenty years or so, as he has lately been reminded in "The Turf Ethics" of the Broadway, our great racing authority has been continually complaining of racing usuages. "Handicapping," he has told us, "is the black cloud which will some day most materally injure the turf ;" and "if by law you could abolish handicaps, more than one-half of the country races would be annihilated, and to me personally this would be a great relief." Again, he has said, "A crying iniquity, which almost requires an interposition from Parliament, is the modern practice of commencing races on the 15th of February, and not ending the season before the 15th November. The abolition of the two-year-old engagements in the spring would obviate the necessity for entering for two-year-old stakes on the 1st of January, and the postponement of the nominations until the 1st of March would have a beneficial result, as then there would be no inducement to try yearlings in the autumn.' Farther still, the Admiral has declared that the " enemy, which always threatens our extinction, is excessive gambling, and the obnoxious tendencies which are transparent when large sums of money are dependent upon the issue of a race. Betting on a great scale frequently produces grievous results, and the wholesome excitement of a fine race or the patriotic inducement of improving the breed of horses become secondary considerations,"

We have here the three great scandals of modern racing forcibly denounced by the most experienced and most influential racing man in the world-the black cloud of handicapping, the crying iniquity of early racing, and the grievous results of excessive gambling. And upon this another influential member of the Jockey Club has proceeded to act. Sir Joseph Hawley proposes to prohibit very early two-year-old races, and to altogether discountenance two-year-old handicaps; whereupon Admiral Rous writes another letter to the Times. As he here goes almost altogether against Sir Joseph Hawley's resolutions, it may be interesting to compare the opinions which the Admiral thus gives expression to with those he had previously advanced. He now starts by declaring that the early training of two-year-olds has done no harm: "it has crippled many, but in no way has it affected the breed." And he goes on to say that, "with regard to national purposes and the capability of carrying weight, there are twenty thoroughbred horses now in England up to 16 stone, to one which could have been found in 1815." And so there ought to be, when we remember how many more are bred, although the fact is not quite so clear, after all; nor does the Admiral do much to strengthen this further on, when he says, "The popular Alexandra Plate at Ascot, three miles, carrying 10st. and 10st. 8lb., breaks down one-fourth of the runners every year. How can it be otherwise on ground as hard as iron?" But it was otherwise in 1815, when we may assume the ground was as hard, and the courses a deal worse than they are now, and when horses could carry 10st. or 11st., and run three miles, or three-mile heats, without any such proportion breaking down. This is far easier of proof than the Admiral's statement of our weight-carriers being as twenty to one. But is it only weight or distance that breaks down horses? Can Admiral Rous tell us how many yearlings, or young things under two years old, are nowadays so broken down and utterly ruined by early training, that they never see the post? "Racehorses should be broken in," not broken down, as yearlings, although we would rather put it handled; and it may be of great advantage to teach them their business at an early age," but not to gallop their hearts out of them at an early age, and knock their legs all to pieces. "It is not very uncommon to try yearlings five or six times before Christmas Day. I bought a three-year-old-Villiers, by Bay Middleton, out of Olive-which had been tried seventeen times as a yearling before the 1st of January." So tells Admiral Rous of his own experience; but we trust he does not call this an advantage. His several arguments, however, placed side by side, are of so see-saw a character that it is difficult to ascertain precisely what he does mean. In one sentence we are wakened up by the old echo: "It is not the usage of running two-year-olds; it is the terrible abuse. Several two-year-olds in 1868 ran three times as many races as the celebrated horses in the last century performed during the whole course of their career. natural sequence is, nine-tenths will be stumped up at five years old;" while a little further on we find, "There is always a plausible, and generally a sensible reason for adopting a new policy. It is this? It has been calculated that the early running of two-year-olds is the least expensive system of training. It either pays the bills by winning stakes, or it opens the eyes of the owner to the demerits of the animal,

The

which he hastens to get rid of. In a commercial point of view, it is the quick return that pays: the world is governed by £ s. d., and racing men are unfortunately not exempted from this human frailty." Of course, about the sum and substance of all this is, that the sooner you knock a young thing to pieces, the better for everybody. It does not affect the breed, and it materially lessens the expenses. However, with respect to Sir Joseph Hawley's motion that no two-year-olds shall run before the 1st of July, Admiral Rous says: "We must regard the extensive interests at stake, and the fact that three-fourths of the horses in training do not belong to members of the Jockey Club." What in the world has this got to do with it? If early two-year-old racing be a terrible abuse, it is the duty of the Jockey Club-if the Jockey Club be worthy of its mission and position-to correct the evil; and if they have not the power in themselves, they may easily apply to Parliament for it. But then the Admiral tells us there should be" some delicacy observed," and some regard shown for the opinions of those "who have a pecuniary interest." With due submission, we shall maintain that very little regard should be evinced, in making wholesome laws, for this merely "pecuniary interest," or the £ s. d, which no doubt governs most racing men. As the Times says, and says well," Many a man who was overtaxed as a child has lived to a green old age; but not the less does the Legislature interfere to prevent parents from forcing their children to excessive labour in factories during those tender years which, for the sake of the manhood to come, should be, in part at least, given to education and growth. In our opinion, the racing of two-year-olds is a similar abuse: it certainly springs from the same source-a sordid love of money." Will Admiral Rous tell us that the breed of the factory population of Lancashire and Yorkshire, where the children are still put to work early and in hot rooms, is not injured thereby? Or, to put a more pertinent illustration: we stay a man from killing the pheasants, partridges, and grouse on his own grounds before and after a certain fixed time; and we do so in the interests of true sport. If we did not, the love of £ s. d. might tempt him to use up the young birds so soon as they could run, and thus reduce his expenses, and permanently injure the character of his pastime. Still, Admiral Rous would do something: "As the two-year-olds engaged in July are generally tried three or four times before the 1st of April, I am for naming that day as the limit, in preference to the 1st of May." But this kind of argument may surely be extended ad infinitum! If the two-year-olds engaged to run in July are generally tried three or four times before the 1st of April, when will the two-year-olds engaged to run in April be tried? It should be sound logic, that the earlier a colt is intended to be run, the earlier will he be trained and tried; and this is what we wish to provide against.

Perhaps, if any of Sir Joseph Hawley's resolutions would have promised to pass without a word being offered against it, this is the one: "If two or more two-year-olds run a dead heat, they shall not be allowed to run again, but the prize shall be equally divided." Strange, though, to say, there is none to which Admiral Rous is so determinedly opposed: "It is an interference with the rights and privileges of the

horse-owner, who, it may be presumed, is as capable of conducting his own business as any member of the Jockey Club. Supposing this motion be carried, a two-year-old, after running a dead heat, may be brought out to run again in a second and a third engagement on the same day, or he may run for public money the best of heats."

On the same principle, it is a decided interference with the "rights and privileges" of the costermonger when you forbid his overworking or "over-walloping" his own donkey; and the cases of cruelty are very analogous. Only picture two resolute jockeys getting up, within three or four hours, to ride out again, with whip and spur, a couple of half-matured two-year-olds at some early spring meeting. Would either be ever likely to forget it? But would Admiral Rous be good enough to tell us where, in these days, a man can run a two-year-old "for public money the best of heats"?

"No person has a greater antipathy to two-year-old handicaps" than Admiral Rous; but the resolutions prohibiting two-year-olds running for handicaps would be idle, for "the Jockey Club has no power to enforce its law." And again: "If these motions be carried, they will be nugatory, save and except at Newmarket. The stewards of the Jockey Club have no power to enforce them elsewhere."

In so many words, then, the Jockey Club, so far as the general rules of racing are concerned, is a nonentity. The Broadway, indeed, after going through the Admiral's lamentations for years back, said as much: "The Jockey Club is clearly unable or unwilling to strike; for, with the exception of discontinuing yearling stakes, it has done little or nothing." But here a very material question arises, that Admiral Rous should ponder over when he says these motions, if carried, will be nugatory save and except at Newmarket. If the Jockey Club had the power to put a stop to yearling races, it has surely equal power to put a stop to early two-year-old races. By whom, moreover, were the general rules of racing revised? and by whom were these ordered to come into operation? By the Jockey Club, of course. Thanks to Sir Joseph Hawley, Lord Coventry, Colonel Forester, and others, the Club is no longer unwilling to strike, if Admiral Rous do not stand in the way. But there is a timidity of tone about his letter eminently discouraging, and a kind of special pleading for the maintenance of abuses, of which he admits the existence, still more unsatisfactory. The readiness, moreover, that he evinces to saw off the branch on which he is sitting, and to bring the Jockey Club with him to the ground, is simply an act of suicidal obstinacy. He could do nothing, if he would. Or he would do nothing, if he could.

The notice of motion which Admiral Rous has just given for the Craven Meeting is altogether in accordance with the same deterrent policy. The powers of the Jockey Club are to be deputed to a committee the opinions of outside owners of horses and "other persons interested" are to be taken, although here the Admiral openly admits, in direct contradiction to the last paragraph of his letter, the ability of the Club to deal with "the rules concerning horse-racing in general." Whatever may come of the motion, the good taste of this being proceeded with until Sir Joseph Hawley's resolutions are disposed of, may be fairly questioned.-The Field.

ROLFE'S GALLERY

PICTURE OF THE GAME BIRDS OF GREAT BRITAIN.

This is a companion of the picture by the same artist we noticed some months since of "The Fishes of Great Britain." At that period we spoke of Mr. Rolfe's marvellous powers in throwing the fulness of life and the quality of freshness into his portrayal of fish, and in doing so we were at that period in perfect ignorance that his genius extended to other than that especial artistic path. Here, however, is a new walk, which, it is possible, Mr. Rolfe may be in future encouraged to follow to an extent that may induce him to give more attention to the feathered tribe and less to fish subjects, and which may render the latter as scarce upon his easel as they are valuable off it. "The Game Birds of Great Britain" is composed of the male and female bird of each species, and, as a group, has not been treated before in so masterly a manner, if treated at all in its complete entirety. There are portions of this painting, the playful manipulation and dexterous imitation of which remind us forcibly of the chef d'œuvres of Edwin Landseer, more particularly the capercailzie and the hen ptarmigan. The capercailzie forms the centre of the composition. It is a gorgeous bit of most difficult colouring, in which that peculiar effect has been obtained upon the glossy breast which when seen in some lights emits an extraordinary brilliant lustre of golden-green and blue, whence the old appellation to this splendid bird of "the peacock of the woods." Well, indeed, may this noble creature be reckoned as Royal Game in Germany, and his wives, that he calls around him, as far as his voice can be heard, prohibited, under a severe penalty, from being shot. We are glad to hear they are on the increase again in Scotland, under the protection of the Earl of Breadalbane, from which kind-hearted sportsman these and other birds came as a most acceptable contribution to the studies for this unique production. The snowy winter whiteness of the ptarmigan-the inhabitant of the most barren and alpine mountains -is here shown, and vies with the partridge in its apparent plumpness. The latter is likewise so exquisitely painted, and this familiar follower of the steps of man as he reclaims the wastes is handled so truthfully, as almost to ask the culinary judge to blow aside the feathers on its breast to bear witness to the fulness of its flesh. The little quail, likewise, although almost in the extreme background, is readily recognized by its black crown and the cream-coloured yellow streak down the centre of its head and neck. The wood-cock, snipe, and others are equally distinguishable from the positions in which they are thrown, and at once present their more marked characteristics to the observer. In this respect, as in others, Mr. Rolfe has been most fortunate: for although there is an apparent ease in the entire arrangement, it must have cost no little thought to give to the whole that abandon, without which all would have appeared stiff and studied. It is certainly a picture of which any nobleman or gentleman might well be proud, and one which is most likely, as we have said, to carry the gifted pencil of its master into more fertile, if not more pleasing pursuits than the comparatively circumscribed area that water can supply. To the student