CONCLUSION 857 



thirty-two years, when (in 1858} the Club first as- 

 sumed the right to dictate the whole Eules of Kacing> 

 though it had previously taken the liberty of making 

 an alteration or addition (chiefly by way of expla- 

 nation) from time to time; and as lately as 1854, 

 when exception was made at some country race- 

 nieeting or race-meetings (advertised to be held 

 1 under the same rules and regulations as New- 

 market ') of one particular rule, the Club simply 

 * recommend to the Stewards of all races not to 

 allow this exception in future,' without announcing 

 any penalty for disobedience. ' Other countries/ 

 moreover, have undoubtedly paid the Jockey Club the 

 compliment of imitating its rules in most respects (as 

 they could not well help doing, unless they studied to 

 be original and eccentric) ; but, as we have seen, 

 some of them have a rule diametrically opposed to 

 that of the Club concerning nominations and the 

 death of the subscriber. Add to this that the Club 

 itself apparently adopted the rules published by Mr. 

 Pond, stuck to them for about fifty years or more, 

 and made no notable alteration in them before 1803, 

 when they omitted one article ; so that the mere 

 argument of adoption and imitation does not carry 

 much weight. 



Be it fully granted, however, that the Club is the 

 best conceivable ruling body for the Turf. Still, it 

 does not follow that the best thing that Parliamen t 

 do, either for the Club or for the public and th e 



