154 TRIALS. 
and show a few cases in which the best horses have been 
beaten in their races after winning their trials. 
At many places we have seen horses running with a great 
reputation derived from home trials, easily beaten in public ; 
yet afterwards reversing the result in the most decisive 
manner: proving beyond all doubt that the race, and not 
the trial was wrong — though no one detected or could 
account for the error. 
Cossack was beaten for the July Stakes; and this was 
undoubtedly a mistake, for he won the Derby afterwards. 
flermit was likewise beaten at Newmarket as a two-year-old, 
and the following year he also won the Derby. In neither 
of these cases could any one see where the error existed ; 
the public believed the two-year-old races were right, whilst 
the owners believed in the trials and knew the races were 
a farce. It was abundantly proved, by their subsequent 
running, that the trials were right and the races when the 
horses were beaten, were all wrong. So far therefore I think 
trials may more safely be trusted than races. 
Public form is often so contradictory that little reliance can 
be placed on it; for have we not seen horses win one day 
and be beaten the next in the same company, without the 
semblance of cause for the transposition of places? I may 
add that hundreds of instances might be found, if only the 
finding would repay the trouble of the search. But a few 
will be given to emphasize the untrustworthy character 
of public running. 
I have seen the same horses win easily one day that have 
been beaten a long distance the next in the same company, at 
the same respective weights, over the same course and with 
the same jockeys up. Who is to account for these extra- 
ordinary performances? Such races, like others before 
