RACING REFORM: SIR JOSEPH HAWLEY'S AND OTHER SCHEMES.

I.

Within the last twenty years many schemes of turf reform have been discussed, and it must be admitted that in the matter of the rules of racing several wholesale changes have already been made. Instead of entering upon particulars of what has been accomplished by the Jockey Club, or indulging in speculations as to what that august body is probably meditating in the way of farther racing reform, it may probably turn out that aid has come from an unexpected source, so far, at least, as one phase of reform is concerned.

The growth of "gate-money meetings" points to the solution of one vexed question of turf economy, namely, an abatement of several petty meetings which were once a feature of the racing season. Gate-money meetings, it must be admitted, are proving wonderfully successful. The effect of establishing these centres of sport (gate-money meetings) will ultimately limit the seats of racing; indeed, it is now prophesied that, after a few years, racing will no longer, as in past times, be "the free sport of a free people." It is being said that the day is not far distant when Ascot, Goodwood, and Doncaster will remain—if they do remain—the only meetings in part open to the non-paying public. Newmarket may be said to be already moving in the direction of gate-money.

It is perhaps better that such a change should take place, racing being now more a business than a pastime. It is not an easy task to disguise the fact that the chief end and aim of the horse-racing of the period is gambling; the bigger the meeting the greater the gamble, as those who attend race meetings can discern for themselves. A few staunch votaries of the turf who do not bet are still left, no doubt, to indulge in horse-racing for itself, that is to say, for the pleasure they derive in witnessing the sport, and in some instances because it affords them an opportunity of trying their hands at breeding; but it is not too much to affirm that of every hundred persons now "on the turf," ninety and nine of the number are gamblers.

For twenty years and more the opportunities for gambling by means of the horse have been multiplying on all sides; at all meetings the loudest noise emanates from men who are trying to incite other men to gamble. To-day the horse is our greatest instrument of gambling. A hundred years ago the public were demoralised by means of lotteries; but the money then changing hands was assuredly not one-hundredth part of the amount which changes hands to-day in connection with one or two of our important races. Next in extent to the speculation of the Stock Exchange and produce markets comes the gambling which takes place on such popular handicaps as the Cesarewitch, Cambridgeshire, and other struggles of the turf.

As has been hinted, the future of horse-racing ("the turf") is in some degree likely to take shape from the new departure in the form of gate-money meetings, as developed at Manchester, Kempton, Sandown, and other places. The joint-stock companies who usually inaugurate gate-money races can afford to offer immense inducements to the owners of the best horses to run them on their grounds; when the "added money" (?) to a handicap amounts to four or five or say even two thousand pounds, it is only reasonable to suppose that the owners of race-horses will compete for such prizes. It is shown on another page that to keep a stud of race-horses is an expensive amusement, and as few men are able to do so without looking for some return by which to lighten their heavy training bills, they are more likely to find what they want at the kind of meetings now so much in favour than at smaller gatherings held every now and then in different and distant parts of the country, where, although the stakes are much poorer, the expenses are quite as high, or even higher, than at Kempton, Sandown, Derby, Manchester, or Leicester.

It is thought by some persons well versed in turf affairs that the success attending gate meetings will lead to each company increasing their number, if they be permitted to do so, in the course of the year. The Jockey Club can, in some degree (and the greater the degree the better), regulate the "quality" of sport; but the stewards find it a work of difficulty to limit the number of meetings. So long as the public support these meetings in a way that brings profit to their promoters, just so long will they continue to flourish and no longer. What the owners of horses who do not gamble desire is to win big stakes rather than little ones, and owners who keep animals simply for gambling purposes can, of course, offer no objections to well-attended centres of sport; it being borne in mind that the sixpences and shillings paid by the multitude for admission provide the stakes, just as the "small money" received from little gamblers enables bookmakers to lay big amounts to "the swells" against their horses.

Looked at in this light, the well-organised gate-money meetings now held in the vicinity of great seats of population will, in time, absorb a large portion of the racing capital and enterprise of the country, so that the small old-fashioned county gatherings will undoubtedly dry up. The "Innkeepers' Plate" and the "County Members' Cup" will speedily be no longer heard of; and a time will come when the hat will not be sent round among the tradespeople of a county for the purpose of providing a racing trophy for the local meeting. The only county races of the kind indicated will, there can be little doubt, dwindle ere long into farmers', hunters', and yeomanry meetings.

In seeking after turf reform, it must be borne in mind that there are some things which the Jockey Club cannot possibly accomplish; but it is undoubtedly the province of that body to regulate racing so far as the ages of horses are concerned; they can determine when two-year-olds shall first run, and they can fix a limit, as indeed they have already done, below which the stake to be run for shall not sink. The Jockey Club did a wise action in licensing jockeys and other racing officials; that body may judiciously extend its authority so far as to license bookmakers, and also create a race-going police that shall be a terror to welshers and racing roughs of all kinds.

II.

Sir Joseph Hawley figured in his time as a racing reformer, and judging from what he said and did he was thoroughly in earnest. His propositions may serve as a text for an exposition of what is now held by some good judges to be most wanted in the shape of "racing reform."

By way of exordium, Sir Joseph laid down as a proposition that racing was no longer a national sport, but had become a "mere trade," so far as most of its followers were concerned. "The public are now convinced," said Sir Joseph, "that the system which has been of late years rapidly growing up in no way tends to improve the breed of horses, but is one of simple gambling, and in this state of things the Jockey Club silently acquiesce. Such an impression, rightly or wrongly formed, is most dangerous alike to the sport and the reputation of those who take part in it; but so long as the recognised authorities remain passive, and make no effort to bring about a better order of things, it would be impossible to remove it."

The proposals made by Sir Joseph for comparison with racing as it is to-day may be summarised as follows:

1. No horse to run in any flat race after November 15th or before March 24th, and no two-year-old before September 1st, any horse so running to be disqualified from entering or running at any meeting where the Jockey Club Rules are in force.

2. No entries for two-year-old races to be made more than fifteen days before the day advertised for running.

3. No horse under four years old to run in any handicap.

4. No public money, cup, or other prize to be given in any race to which two-year-olds are admitted, or any race under a mile, or to any handicap.

5. All entries to be made in real name of owner or part owner.

The Kingsclere Baronet also indicated some reformation or widening of the Jockey Club by his proposition "that the basis of the club be extended, and that not only more gentlemen who are large owners of race-horses, but those who take interest in racing as a means of preserving the breed of horses, be invited to become members." Sir Joseph, in formulating his Turf Reform Bill, undoubtedly indicated some of the blots incidental to modern horse-racing, as indeed previous turf reformers had done, and as has in some degree been done since he died. Under the rules of racing as now administered there can be no doubt that the gambling element of the turf has far greater scope than it would be allowed under the stringent regulations formulated by Sir Joseph.

Whenever any proposals are made for racing reform of a substantial kind, strenuous opposition at once begins, both within and without the Jockey Club. The members of that self-constituted body are difficult to move in such matters, some of them at any rate being pretty staunch believers in the doctrine of "use and wont." Some critics have asserted that the gambling element is at times stronger within the club than out of it; at any rate, it will not soon be forgotten how one of its members at a prominent meeting created a "scene" in the ring because he had been anticipated in backing one of his horses—that gentleman's love of "the noble sport of horse-racing" is easily estimated. Probably before that time comes—it seems to be at present far distant—when no person will be eligible for election to the club who bets, much-needed reforms of various kinds will have been consummated. At some future date it may probably be enacted by the Jockey Club that two-year-old horses shall not run at Lincoln, nor at the earlier Newmarket meetings as at present, but be reserved for a later period of the season; in the meantime, however, with the sordid spirit of gambling pervading every nook and corner of the turf, it is vain to hope for much reform of the kind indicated by Sir Joseph Hawley.

Before leaving this part of the subject it may just be noted that there was no lack of two-year-old racing at Newmarket in the years (1882-83) which are selected as being representative. From April 11th to 14th six races took place in which two-year-olds were the competitors either in whole or part; for these the fields numbered respectively 6, 8, 3, 10, 8, and 3. From April 25th to 28th ten races were run at head-quarters, the fields for which averaged 11 horses. At the May Newmarket reunion (9th to 11th) there were thirteen races in which two-year-olds were engaged, being an average of say 6 horses for each race. The Newmarket July Meeting is celebrated for its two-year-old races, two of which are looked upon with great interest. In 1884 nineteen races for two-year-olds were run at Newmarket during the first three meetings, and very fair fields of competitors were seen on the Heath. At the Newmarket April Meeting of last year (1890) there were seven races on the programme for two-year-olds.

From these statistics it will at once be apparent that if an abridgment of two-year-old racing is ever to take place it will have to begin at home, and the Jockey Club will require to set the example. Owners and trainers have, however, become so accustomed to the present early and lavish display of two-year-olds on all the race courses of the kingdom that it will be difficult to enter even the thin end of the wedge. The racing public are wedded to things as they are, and yearlings have become so costly that owners and trainers are glad to see their horses earning money at an early date.

III.

So long ago as the year 1860 Lord Redesdale introduced a Bill into the House of Lords, in which it was proposed that, after January 1st, 1861, no horse should start for any racing prize carrying less than 7 st., under a penalty of £200 and forfeiture of the horse so running. The measure was opposed by Lord Derby, who thought the superior old horses would be placed at a disadvantage by having to carry 11 and 12 st. But why not, was asked, seeing that every colt running in the Derby carries 9 st., and every filly only 5 lb. less than that, whilst no horse in any race, it is now the rule, shall carry less than 6 st.? In favour of an increase in the scale of weights our two most popular handicaps may be cited. The Cesarewitch has only been won by horses carrying less than 6 st. on five occasions since 1860. Two Cambridgeshires only have been carried off during the last thirty years by animals bearing weights under 6 st. The City and Suburban Handicap has been won three times since 1860 by horses weighted under 6 st. The Lincolnshire Handicap has only been won once since 1860 by a horse under 6 st. Why a horse of any kind, even a horse of the most mediocre quality, should ever have been asked to carry the feather weight of 5 st. 7 lb. now seems preposterous! That a minimum weight of 6 st. 7 lb. should be fixed upon, with a range of 3 st. 7 lb., or even 4 st., as between highest and lowest, has been recommended by many who have at heart the best interests of the turf. No ill would result in consequence to the noble animal, and the scale would certainly admit of more men being employed to ride.

Much could be said on both sides of this question, but there are many engaged in racing who would never at any time have the weights interfered with—they are such believers in use and wont. This, therefore, is one of the matters to which the Jockey Club should again turn their attention; there is more in what is asked for than the mere fixing of a weight suitable for the competing horses, or for the bringing together of the sixty or seventy animals entered for some well-known handicap.

What are called "flattering handicaps" very often result in failure when the acceptances come to be declared. We read occasionally in the newspapers that "the Messrs. Asterisk have, as usual, succeeded in putting together an admirable specimen of their art, the fifty-nine horses entered being apportioned such weights as makes it difficult to find a flaw in the handicap," etc. etc.; but despite this flattery and a liberal bonus of added money, probably not one-third of the horses entered are found to cry content on the appointed day.

It is long since a professional handicapper was advocated. Admiral Rous was looked upon by the racing world as being, in his day, an adept in the art of handicapping; but a flaw was frequently discovered in some of his indictments, and in the opinion of really good judges better handicaps than those which, after the Admiral's death, emanated from the office of the Messrs. Weatherby were never made. Now that gate-money meetings are coming into vogue, the professional handicapper is imperatively required. A gentleman who put together the weights for a big race to be run at one of these gate meetings was heard to say, when his handicap was published: "By George, sir, I didn't know my own work"—it had been so mangled to suit particular owners, some of whom were shareholders in the concern. The appointment by the Jockey Club of an official handicapper for their own meetings was a move in the proper direction.

Another racing reform which would naturally result from the raising of the scale of weights would be the abolition of boy jockeys, who are really a blot on the turf. Many of these spoilt children of fortune would be better at school than engaged in riding horses which many of them are quite unable to manage. A lad weighing 6 st. 7 lb. cannot, it is true, be very much of a man; but an increase of even half a stone on the present lowest weight would give a wider choice of horsemen than at present, and as the weights would be increased all round, older jockeys would more frequently obtain a mount than is now the case. Many of the liliputian riders are so early spoiled by one or two successes that it is to be regretted the system which called them into being was not abolished before it had time to take root. Many gentlemen have long since seen the evil of entrusting great interests to mere children. It has been often said of child jockeys when they have been employed to ride horses pitched upon to carry the fortunes of a stable, but which have failed to win the race, that "it was not the horse that was beaten, but the boy." It is earnestly to be desired, then, in the interests of all concerned that weights should be raised all round to a standard that will admit of a larger number of horses being ridden by men.

As to the distances fixed for races, it may be assumed that the Jockey Club should be able to lay down such rules as would be acceptable to the majority of owners. And here again the gambling element comes into notice in relation to the increasing desire that seems to be entertained for "short spins" for races, that is, of a mile or less. The horses which can be calculated upon to run for two miles and a half may almost be enumerated on the ten fingers, so that there is little room for betting on the result of races in which they take part. The pronounced "stayers" are easily named, and, as a rule, these only will be backed in long-distance races. In Cup contests, for instance, the betting is in many cases nil, or at all events extremely limited, which renders such struggles distasteful to the betting division of our turfites. It is not so in the case of other races. There is abundant scope for betting in connection with the Lincoln Handicap, the Goodwood Stewards' Cup, and similar fixtures. The Cambridgeshire, too, is usually a good betting race for the bookmakers! In the fast run scrambles over six or seven furlongs, it is, in most cases, very difficult to pick the winner when from eight to fourteen horses are contending, hence a great amount of betting becomes incident to such races, and it is the betting element which plays the chief part in modern horse-racing; but, as it may be taken for granted that most of the members of the Jockey Club are themselves betting men, any reform of the kind indicated will be slow to make its appearance.

Of "added money" and other details of Jockey Club legislation it is not necessary to say more than that a better definition of added money than that in use would be a benefit to all concerned. The Club has the power to decree what it pleases, and the sooner it exercises still greater authority in all such matters the better. It may be found in the end that it will be desirable to classify meetings and grade the stakes accordingly.

With respect to the amounts of money run for, some reforms have already been established, and it may prove that by lessening the number of races and doubling the stakes, some three-day meetings may be advantageously compressed into two days, which would be a gain to all concerned, except, perhaps, the bookmakers, for there is occasionally more betting over a small stake than there is upon one of three times the amount where the competing horses are, it may be, of a higher class. Another phase of racing economy may be here alluded to, and that is the propriety of peremptorily limiting the sport, so that it may not occupy more than four days of the week. There is not now any Saturday racing at Newmarket, and it would be well if none were permitted elsewhere; there should also be, as a general rule, no racing on Mondays. The tendency of late has been to increase the number of Saturday meetings, and in all likelihood ere many years are past we may have in England racing on Sundays! When it is considered that many seats of sport are far distant from Newmarket, from whence a large number of the competitors are brought, it is early enough to begin racing on the Tuesday, and Saturday should be left a clear day for going home.

The comfort of all engaged in the business of the turf would be greatly enhanced were the racing limited to four days; even the bookmakers, it is believed, would be glad to acquiesce in such an arrangement.

As is well known, the death of the nominator of a horse for a race renders the nomination void—a hard case in some instances, but for which no remedy has yet been devised. Much controversy has been expended from time to time on this feature of turf economy, and in all probability a solution of the various problems involved when the death of a nominator takes place may some day be arrived at, when the proposal of "deposit your nomination money" may after all be found to be the best way out of the difficulty. With the payment of such large sums of ready money as would be involved, there would undoubtedly be a considerable falling off in the entries of certain classes of races—which many turf men think would prove an advantage.

Other disturbing matters which require to be dealt with by the Jockey Club are as pressing as these which have just been noticed. The "rough" and "welshing" element was never so rampant on some of our racecourses as it is at present, and the turf of late, even at Newmarket, has been invaded by brigades of blackguards, who, by means of the numerous lines of railways, find easy access to scenes from which they were excluded in former years by distance and cost of transport. The presence of numberless bands of insolent roughs, some of them in intimate confederacy, it is said, with the lower class of bookmakers, has not tended to the elevation of horse-racing, nor does it add to the good name of its votaries.

The complaints that find utterance as to the blackguardism which takes place on some racecourses are painful to contemplate. The welsher, in many places, seems not only to be tolerated, but encouraged. If a complaint be made of the most barefaced robbery by these persons, there is, at some meetings, no redress. The welsher is to all intents and purposes a thief under another name, and on various racecourses is allowed to rob all and sundry with immunity from all consequences. As to the racecourse rough, he, too, is allowed to do pretty much as he pleases, and the members of the brigade to which he belongs have the resources of civilisation at their command. At one Epsom Summer Meeting a party of these bullies attacked a foreign gentleman, denounced him as a welsher, and robbed and maltreated him at the very entrance of the Grand Stand! Every person who has heard the cry of "welsher" uttered at a race gathering knows that it is the precursor to a scene of cruel violence and positive outrage.

No one can accord sympathy to the professional welsher; but bad as he is, he must be protected from lynch law. There ought to be some properly constituted tribunal to which he should be held responsible—his offence is the obtaining of money by false pretences, and it is incumbent on the Jockey Club to devise machinery for the trial and punishment of these pests of the turf. And care must be taken that the racecourse roughs are not allowed to devise plots with the object of having respectable persons attacked and robbed under the false plea of their being welshers. These are matters of police, on which the Jockey Club may, in all fairness, be asked to legislate. It has already done a little something in that way, but it ought to organise a band of special constables to assist in the regulation of the ring. Habit and repute welshers are as well known and as easily identified as the popular jockeys. They should be prevented from entering any of the rings where betting is carried on, and if found betting "outside" should be promptly handed over to the police to be punished as rogues and vagabonds. A few sentences of sixty days with hard labour would very speedily diminish the regiment of welshers; as for the unmitigated rough, his fate should be that of the garroters—twenty lashes! It is somewhat remarkable that in some districts welshers are promptly dealt with by the authorities, while at other seats of sport they escape all consequences!

In the interests of law and order on the turf, the honest bookmaker should be licensed by the Jockey Club, and by the exhibition of a blue ribbon in his buttonhole, or some other mark of identification, be able to present himself to those desirous of betting as a person who would at once pay whatever amount he bargained to lose. These modes of dealing with the honest and dishonest betting men are obviously logical; at any rate, the hints given afford a foundation for action of the kind indicated, that it is surprising they have not already been acted upon.

The Jockey Club at the present time takes no official cognisance of disputed bets, that part of the business of racing being left to a committee of Tattersall's; but this inaction on the part of the Club is a blunder. It will be well for them to form a tribunal to deal with all disputes about bets—a tribunal which would give a prompt and, above all things, a logical decision, and so carry on from precedent to precedent. The present laws of betting are much in need of overhauling; indeed, to use an old phrase, they require "a new stock, lock, and barrel."