SIZE IN RACEHORSES.

In the early part of the present Englidi racing season some critics found fault with Hock Samd on the tcore of size, and said Ifoe was too Email to make a Derby winner. The eon of Sainfoin has since proved the litter fallacy of that contention, and experience proves that the biggest horse is mot always tho best racehorse, although j when you get a big horse that is a good one ho generally is a tip-topper. There is I one great drawback to big racehorses, and j that 1 is- they generally have short racing , careers, aa their great bodies are too covers coi the legs, and consequently the latter , give way in a comparatively short space of I time, as compared with horses who possess elight bone but have not heavy bodies to support. A few names of big horses that (have been crack performers that occur to me ' at random are Euxoclydon, Gipsy Grand, Conqueror, Royal Artillery, and Noivette. All these horses were of undoubtedly great anerit, but their turf careers were very ehort, although it ia to be hoped that ENonetto will sport silk again next season. iTn referring to tha size of horses, Vigilant, of the I/ondon Sportsman, recently eaid: "It is surprising how people, and presumably good judges too, hank) t bftar size in horses. A big yearling 1.a3 etlwjLys a better chance of making a fair (price than has a medium-sized ono, and in estimating the prospects of supposed Derby fliorses -we are constantly told that co and so has nob grown, as if mere growth were fthe be-all and the end-all of a race-horse. TTha truism that a good big one is better )tham a good little one is repeated until it flias become- a mere parrot cry. and an abBolutely misleading- on* at that, for it ccinftains no suggestion of the vital fact that jjgood big ones are extraordinarily scarce, ywhile good little one.=i are pretty numerous, Jand unless we are well aware of this we are almost sure to go astray if we compare torses by size alone, and give the bigger 'ones indiscriminately the preference. __ I iam led to write on this eubjeofc by havinsr B&en co many statements that Rock Sand |has not grown, and that he does not fill the eye as a Derbj horse should, th« meaib•ng, as I presume, being that he has not the size and range of an Ard Patrick or an Ormonde, a Persimmon, » Galtee More, or, shall -we say, a Jeddah- Well, but tho sam& ,T>eople who say or write these things will also be tellinsr ub at another rime that me-eKum-sized. ehorfc-ooTrpled horse s are -the most suitable for tie Epsom turns and gradients, a-nd that one lik« Ard Patrick, for example, would be more at home en the Town Moor *± r^caster. The truth.

however, appears to be that a good horse finds all courses pretty suitable, and that, within c&rfcain limits, the size of the animal does not make any difference. It is another matter altogether if we get down to ponies and galloways. There 1*.2 represents an entirely superior class to 14-hds, but as between 15.3 and 16 or 16.1 there is no such gulf fixed. The stable estimate of Rock Sand is that he stands 15.3, and that this is an amply sufficient height for a Derby winner there are abundant records to prove. Takiag the two successive years 1867 and 1868 we find that the Derby winners Hermit and Blue Gown w«re. if anything, below the 15.3 standard— indeed, I doubt if Blue Gown stood more than 15.2, and he was even shorter in his forehand than Rock Sand. Galopin certainly did not stand more than 15.3, nor did Silvio, Sir Eevys, Bead Or, Ayrshire, Melton, Sainfoin, or Donovan Ism mentioning tl>c«e of which I fe?l certain a,s to their eize, but I doubt whether the 15.3 limit was oxee-eded by Doncaater, Kisbsr, Iroquois, or Shoto\er. Of course, in earlier days thpro were much smaller winners, suoh a3 Little Wonder and Daniel O'Rourke, while Macaroni, who 111 1C631 C 63 defeated Lord Clifden (who was not reilv a bie 'un but trood in proportion), was barely 15.3. if, indeed, he ever reached that height, and. withal, he was by no rae-ans a lengthy horre, being of tho compact, corlcy sort."