1891 A BRIEF REVIEW 329 



as honourable as Admiral Kous, voted against his 

 proposition. And here again conies in the ever-re- 

 curring question of betting ; but for which it is not 

 easy to see why an owner should prefer to win with 

 one of his horses rather than another, though cer- 

 tainly it would appear that in the One Thousand of 

 1890 the Duke of Portland was moved by sentimental 

 regard for the Semolina he had bred in preference to 

 the Memoir he had purchased, unless, indeed, he may 

 have understood that Semolina had been backed by 

 the public, and may have allowed himself to be in- 

 fluenced by that understanding. Mr. William Day, 

 in his ' Eacehorse in Training ' (edition 1880, pp. 

 169-172) waxes quite enthusiastic in favour of the 

 ' declaration to win,' considers it ' a disgraceful ex- 

 hibition ' when a jockey wins ' in defiance of orders ' 

 (to ' pull,' when a * declaration ' has been made) , and 

 opines that * the offending jockey should in every 

 case be heavily fined and suspended ' (because he will 

 probably have played havoc with the owner's betting, 

 not with the owner's legitimate winning of stakes). 

 How the minds of the most chivalrously honourable 

 runners of race-horses may become tainted and per- 

 verted by this doctrine of the ' declaration ' may be 

 best illustrated by an account of what happened in 

 1850, when the proverbially chivalrous Lord Stanley 

 (afterwards the Prime Minister Lord Derby) and his 

 friend (and perhaps confederate for the time being) 

 Mr. C. C. Greville, the celebrated Clerk of the Council, 



