FALLIBILITY OF PUBLIC OPINION, 181 
These extracts are taken from a book called “ The History of 
2 
the Horse,” and the evidence was given before a Committee of 
the House of Commons on gaming, 1844. ‘In the same work 
there is the evidence of other gentlemen on the same subject 
which is hardly worth repeating here, as I think the Admiral 
is sufficient for the purpose; for as it is an expressed opinion 
clearly and unmistakably in favour of a man doing as he 
likes with his own horses, no argument worth hearing is left 
in favour of a contrary idea. Indeed I think I may go so far 
as to say,aman could not, in doing what he likes with his own 
horse, do an act of injustice to another; though many non- 
owners are continually declaring themselves aggrieved, whilst 
in truth no one has a share in their wrong but themselves. 
But it is not only the act of scratching that is found so 
much fault with; but also the condition of horses that run, 
both before and after any race on which there has been much 
speculation. One party is found affirming the animal is the 
pink of condition, whilst others loudly assert he is not fit to 
run fora saddle at a country fair: and after the result, be it 
what it may, from one party or another, the poor owner comes 
in for a round of abuse, as though he were the veriest rogue 
in creation, “If a favourite,” they argue, “does not run, he 
dies from the effect of ‘milk fever,’ or succumbs after much 
vitality to metallic influence after the last guinea has been 
got out of him.” 
Now there may not only be no word of truth in any of 
these statements, but most certainly those who so glibly make 
them have not a scintilla of knowledge to guide them. They 
judge from appearances, and must of necessity condemn in 
error. “ After So-and-so” (one of the first horses introduced 
into the betting) “‘had met with an accident he was, to the 
owner’s praise, honourably struck out,” argues one. But another 
