THE TURF. 
Now, as he has given his opinion on the case, we will 
give ours. Let us suppose that Lord Grosvenor 
thinking, perhaps, that his horse was Jit to run had 
backed him heavily to win, and that his jockey had 
backed (as he admits he did) Faith to win. Fortitude 
and Faith come to a neck-and-neck race ; and what, 
may we ask, would be the result ? Why, we really have 
not faith enough to believe that Fortitude would have 
won. Indeed, we can fancy we hear the jockey's con- 
versation with the inner man. " The money is nothing 
to my lord," he might say, " but a great deal to me," 
so one pull makes it safe ; and a few pricks of the spur, 
after he has past the winning-post, serve to lull sus- 
picion. To speak seriously a jockey's betting at all 
is bad enough, but his betting on any other horse in 
the race save his own is contrary to every principle, and 
fatal to the honour of the turf. 
We have already alluded to one system of turf 
plunder, that of getting-up favourites, as the term is, by 
false trials and lies, for the sake of having them backed 
to win in the market, well knowing that all the money 
betted upon them must be lost. This is villanous ; 
but what can be said to the poisoning system the 
nauseating ball we have reason to fear an every day 
occurrence, when a horse is placed under the master- 
key ? This is a practice of some standing on the turf 
(see Chifney's account of Creeper and Walnut, 1791), 
and was successfully carried on in the stables of the late 
Lord Foley, very early in the present century, when 
246 
