PROFESSOR LOW’S ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS. 305 
recognised authorities, the other to that of employers, to 
the restraints imposed by law, and to the penalties which 
invariably follow unfair or careless performance of duties; 
whilst reformers would find ample scope for the practice 
of their designs, in the many abuses which affect the welfare 
of the world at large. 
But from this general view of the subject it will be well 
to turn to consider special attacks on the turf. 
Professor Low, in his work entitled “ Domestic Animals of 
Great Britain,” is perhaps fortunately too partial and too 
consistently pessimist in his views, to cause his authority on 
racing matters to rank high with lovers of fair play. After 
telling us something of notable persons connected with the 
sport from the time of James I. to that of Oliver Cromwell, he 
speaks of the sport itself; of which he, at least, says, and’ in 
so far we may agree with him, that it is not productive of more 
gambling than other things, nor so harmful as cards or dice; 
nor is there, he allows, more gambling with us than in other 
countries in which horse-racing is unknown. But when he 
comes to discuss the professional aspect of the topic, it will 
be conceded, I think, that his conclusions have no trust- 
worthy foundation, either of experience or logical argument. 
“ The humblest class,” he says, “ connected with the business 
of the turf are the boys of the stable; to each of whom is 
assigned the care of one horse with the duties of riding it at 
exercise.” (He here starts with a palpable mistake, as each 
boy does two horses.) He proceeds to state on the authority of 
Holcraft, “that the boy rises at half-past two in the summer.” 
Speaking of wasting jockeys, the Professor says that, under 
the system which he has been describing, “a man may reduce 
his weight a pound or more in the day without injury to his 
general health or temporary impairment of his natural 
vigour.” Of the young horse itself, he states, “he is cruelly 
x 
