With regard to bets, it is notorious that in the case of disputes a really logical decision on the merits of a case can seldom be obtained. Decisions are often given on what may be called a "sentimental" view of the subject; it would not be difficult to cull from the annals of Tattersall's a string of judgments each of which would put the other out of countenance. The committee to whom is confided the giving of a decision in a case of disputed betting is too big. A very small tribunal, always composed of the same men, the consistency of whose decisions could be watched and discussed by those interested in the purity of the turf, would act with such promptitude as would enable "quorums" to be dispensed with--the "quorum" system, indeed, might be advantageously done away with. The unique position occupied by the Jockey Club, which has been, so far, described for the benefit of the uninitiated, is, of course, known to all interested in the business of racing. The Club, as lawgiver of the turf and as its own executive, is despotic; it makes laws and alters them at discretion; the plain truth is, it seems to be perpetually engaged in the patching of the "Rules of Racing," which have been the growth of the last seventy or eighty years, and which, instead of being occasionally patched, ought to be revised from beginning to end--or, perhaps, if they were "entirely reconstructed" it would be better. In all probability the original framework has been so patched as to be past recognition. Any person who takes the trouble to look over the "Rules of Racing," which are to be found in "Ruff" or any of the other guides to the turf, will at once see that many of them might be with advantage altogether excised. The terrible penalties against horse-watching, especially in regard to trials, might at once be removed from the statutes; as they stand they only provoke laughter; in fact they are altogether obsolete, and seem to us moderns "full of sound and fury."