EVIL OF UNEXPLAINED REMOVAL OF HORSES. 219 



request for a little cash, " I would not give a fig for a man 

 that could not let his trainer have a couple of thousand when 

 he wanted it," and immediately wrote him a cheque for that 

 sum. These and other munificent acts, show that there are 

 those who pay not only well, but at the proper time ; which is 

 doubly serviceable, for deferred payment is often not worth 

 acceptance, and is little short of ruin to the trainer. 



That the subject is one warranting the space given to it, 

 is patent from the fact that at the end of every racing season 

 we hear of so many studs being removed from this trainer to 

 the other, and without a reason for the change. It is fair 

 to assume that no valid reasons exist because none are 

 ever offered in justification ; yet the fact of the removal 

 leaves the inference that the motive is either caprice, or the 

 tyranny of the strong over the weak. 



This, it must be admitted, is not as it should be. No man 

 has a right to fix a stigma on the character of another which 

 he cannot remove, if subsequently he may be desirous to 

 do so. If a servant be discharged, he has a right to demand 

 the cause of his dismissal, and if his employer refuses to 

 give a character (which seldom occurs) the conclusion is that 

 the man is quite worthless ; whilst for an unfair one, he is 

 liable at law. But in racing no such respect is paid to the 

 trainer. His summary discharge exposes him to all kinds 

 of suspicion without redress of any kind. I will give a 

 few cases to the point that have come under my own 

 observation. 



The late Lord George Bentinck removed his horses from 

 Danebury to Goodwood because my father happened to 

 differ with his lordship in the matter of changing the cloth- 

 ing of a mare [Crucifix) ; he thinking it a dangerous practice 

 in a cold March wind, whilst his lordship was of the opposite 



