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 
