?4 LORD GEORGE BENTINCK 



I have no wish to attribute any of the characteristics 

 so plainly given to this worthy to our own paragon, who 

 in personal appearance at all events was very dissimilar. 

 But in the sentiment and principle of the two actions, 

 what is there that differs ? The one did it for an imme- 

 diate gain, which he secured at the cruel loss of his 

 horse; the other for a deferred one, which he missed 

 whilst running his own tortured animal for the purpose 

 of deceit. 



It will now, perhaps, not be amiss to examine some 

 of the laudable actions by which Lord George Bentinck 

 aimed to benefit the turf, and to see if such a construc- 

 tion can be put upon them as will fairly entitle him to 

 be considered entirely disinterested in what he under- 

 took. I may begin with a prominent case, in which, 

 entirely at his own expense and risk, as should be well 

 known to his contemporaries, he essayed to deprive Mr. 

 Eidsdale of the fruits of the victory of his horse Blooms- 

 bury in the Derby of 1839. The ground of his com- 

 plaint was a false and insufficient entry, and Lord 

 George chivalrously claimed the race for Deception, 

 against the wishes of her owner, Mr. Fulwar Craven, 

 and brought an action to prove his case. He was de- 

 feated, and to anyone but a tyro, such a result would 

 appear inevitable. For in that year Eule 58, sum- 

 marized, stood as follows : ' If any horse is objected to 

 before ten o'clock in the morning of the day of start- 

 ing, the owner must produce a certificate or other docu- 

 ment to the stewards or other authorities; but should 

 the qualification of a horse be objected to after that 

 time, the person making the objection must prove the 

 disqualification.' In the case of Bloomsbury, the in- 

 justice of the objection is most apparent. The two 

 stewards, gentlemen of the highest honour, were invited 



