INFLUENCE OF SERVANTS. 215 
We understood each other, and as the expression of his 
opinion was always in private it did no harm, and we still 
remain the best of good friends. 
The removal of horses from one trainer to another perhaps 
has the most ludicrous basis in the following instance. An 
Irish gentleman sent me a horse to train, a two-year-old with 
a tail dragging the ground. I cut it, as is usual with race- 
horses; and in due course the owner arrived, and seeing it 
squared, was so annoyed at my presumption in cutting a hair 
of his horse’s tail without his express permission, that he 
never forgave me. However, as it was near the time the 
horse had to run, he allowed him to remain till after the race. 
He ran and won (as was expected). But the owner imme- 
diately removed him, and has never trained with, or indeed 
spoken to, me since. 
Other dread enemies to trainers and to the peace of mind 
of their employers are old servants; for these add to ignor- 
ance, officiousness in telling their masters how horses should 
be trained, and refer them to the looks of their own carriage- 
horses as a test of their masterly ability in the treatment 
of their stud. The intention is probably good and the zeal 
undoubted. But as the experience of these worthies, often 
invaluable in their own sphere, is limited to that gained 
from the box-seat of a carriage, they are not exactly the 
authorities I should like to quote on the condition of a race- 
horse. Yet not unfrequently masters not only listen to, 
but implicitly believe in, their doctrines. The late Lord 
Palmerston, who all his lifetime had trained with my father 
and with my grandfather before him, removed his horses 
from their old quarters at Danebury at the instigation of 
an old and petted pad-groom. This self-confident person 
wanted h’s lordship's horses to be tried when they were 
