viii PREFACE 



objection in either case ; which seems incredible, 

 even if it be admitted that the mare would liave 

 been running for all those years (which is not in 

 itself impossible, though improbable, for the period 

 at which she lived), and that she would have had 

 nothing recorded about her from 1713 to 1718. 

 On the other hand, there is nothing more likely 

 than that the Duke of Rutland should have named 

 a mare foaled in 1715 after another that had been 

 foaled in 1708, and, after winning a g'reat match 

 in 1 7 13, had died, or gone to the stud, and that 

 ' Pick ' should have confounded the two. The 

 two would not necessarily have been running at 

 the same time, as Mr. Muir assumes would have 

 been the case ; and, indeed, the elder could not 

 have been the winner in 17 19 and 1720 of the 

 Hambleton Cup, which was for five-year-olds (or 

 under) ; whereas nothing was more common in 

 the old times than a repetition of names or the 

 continuance of a name from a senior to a junior. 

 Lastly, there is the possibility of a misprint in the 

 paper on which Mr. Muir relied, and ' Pick ' may 

 be right after all, for 17 13 is easily misprinted for 

 1718. 



While this work was passing through the press, 



