CONCLUSION 347 



million.' A nice thing that a member of the Jockey 

 Club, of the Governing Body, aKoyal Prince, or a Duke, 

 or a Marquess, or an Earl, or a Baron, or a mere 

 Baronet or other Commoner of the higher and 

 wealthier class, should win, if he do win, the money 

 of his own tradesman or valet. But the winner 

 would probably say * num olet ? ' Such is the state 

 of mind engendered by betting. 



To what, again, do we owe the practice of giving 

 to jockeys preposterous sums (of 1,000 and even ' the 

 whole stakes ') for winning the Derby or other great 

 (or even small) races? To betting, obviously; for 

 only the owner who wins large bets could afford to 

 give away thousands of pounds to his jockey for 

 winning. The practice has been severely condemned 

 over and over again by such members of the Jockey 

 Club as the late Lord Derby, the late Lord Glasgow 

 (though himself a heavy bettor), the late General 

 Peel, the late Admiral Eous, and other members like 

 them ; and yet the Club (to which many of these 

 injudicious donors belong) do nothing, as a body, to 

 stop the practice, as they very well could (so far as 

 their own members are concerned), by a 'rule and 

 order ' or an ' agreement ' of the kind already fre- 

 quently exhibited. The conclusion, therefore, is that 

 the Club on the whole approve of the practice. 



To betting, again, we owe the unedifying spectacle 

 (such as shocked Mr. Baron Alderson, when he had 

 the facts of the * Running Rein ' affair before him) of 



