have been lately seen in this kingdom; which I do not assert on my
own judgment, but on the opinion of those who, I believe,
understand Horses much better than I pretend to do: and 'tis very
probable, this Horse, if he had not been confined to particular
Mares, might have begot better racers than any he did. On the
contrary, I have heard it urged in behalf of his blood, that he
was a very mean Horse in figure, and that he was kept as a
teizer** some years before he covered. What does this prove? I
think nothing more, than that his first owner did not rightly
understand this kind of Horse, and that different men differed in
their opinions of this Horse's fabric.

If any man who doubts this excellence to be in the blood, should
ask how it came to pass that we often see two full brothers, one
of which is a good racer, the other indifferent, or perhaps bad, I
know of but two answers that can be given; we must either allow
this excellence of the blood to be partial, or else we must say,
that by putting together a Horse and a Mare, different in their
shapes, a foetus may be produced of a happy form at one time, and
at another the foetus partaking more or less of the shape of
either, may not be so happily formed. Which shall we do? shall we
impute this difference of goodness in the two brothers, to the
difference of their mechanism? or shall we say this perfection of
the blood is partial? If the latter, then we must own that blood
is not to be relied on, but that the system of it, and whatever is
built on that foundation, is precarious and uncertain, and
therefore falls to the ground of its own accord. Whilst this
continues to be the rule of breeding, I mean of putting male and
female together, with no consideration but that of blood and a
proper cross, it is no wonder so few good racers are produced, no