ABSURDITY OF HIS CHARGES AGAINST OWNERS. 311 
withstand these terrible losses, coming as they would with 
each revolving year; whilst we should see trainers and jockeys 
the possessors of the ancestral estates of their victims. It is 
difficult to say which of the two results is the more im- 
probable. Asa matter of fact, there are on the turf, owners 
who make money and owners who lose it; and a similar 
experience awaits the adventurous jockey or the speculative 
trainer. It is a game of hazard toa certain extent, and has 
its lucky and unlucky followers. 
If we turn once more to the book, we shall find that the 
Professor has little good to say even of the unfortunate (as 
he would make him) owner. 
“It is seen,” he says, “that the owner of a horse may, 
by betting against his own horse, gain by his losing the 
race: and by having his own horse largely backed, and then 
running to lose, pocket enormous sums.” 
The merest tyro will be here inclined to remind our critic 
of the sound advice of Mrs. Glasse: “ Before cooking, first 
catch your hare.” First then, let it be shown who are the 
people who will back the horse, that the owner may win 
enormous sums by betting against him, and the matter may 
be worth discussion, As things are—and this is all that need 
trouble us, we do not wish to start from hypothesis: as 
things are, then, owners of other horses will not back our 
hypothetical owner’s horse, nor will the bookmakers whose 
business it is to lay; whilst the little staked by the public, 
naturally limited if the owner do not essay to lead the way, 
when sifted by the commissioner, will leave but a meagre 
nucleus for the “enormous sums for the owner’s pocket.” 
The fallacy of the argument requires no demonstration. 
But let us hear the writer further on betting. 
“One of the practices pursued,” he goes on to say, “is to get 
