1891 A BRIEF REVIEW 31 



owners (unless, as was observed above, Lord Stanley 

 and Mr. Greville were confederates at the time, which 

 is not stated in the account to have been the case). 

 Anyhow, to take a broad view of such questions, it is 

 not very wonderful if persons, in whom the moral 

 perception is not naturally very acute, or has not been 

 sharpened by culture and practice, cannot see why, 

 if you may have one of two or more horses pulled for 

 the sake of winning not a race, be it observed, but the 

 money you have betted on a race, you may not have 

 a single horse pulled for the same commercially 

 legitimate object, or why you may not juggle with 

 three horses (to the deception and pecuniary spoiling 

 of the Egyptians) as with three cards. However 

 that may be, the Jockey Club has at last (in the 

 Eules of 1890) officially sanctioned (Part XIX. Rule 

 141) the * declaration to win ' (in spite of the dis- 

 approbation expressed in 1838), but has made it 

 compulsory, whereas it was formerly quite voluntary. 

 This is as opportune a place as any for telling 

 another little anecdote (related by Admiral Rous) 

 illustrative of the example set by a noble member of 

 the Jockey Club for the edification of the Ring and of 

 horse-owners. The noble owner (who was Lord 

 Darlington, afterwards Duke of Cleveland) of Cwrw, 

 winner of the Two Thousand in 1812, says the 

 Admiral (who was certainly a little given to ' fouling 

 his own nest ') in his * Horse-racing, had another 

 horse, a colt by Remembrancer, in the Two Thousand. 



