THE TURF 173 



Thus, the aspirant to the honour of winning 

 them enters several horses for the same 

 stakes, and perhaps two of the number 

 come to the post, as was the case with 

 Mameluke and Glenartney for the Derby 

 of 1827 an occasion when the race was 

 not to the swift, but to the horse which 

 stood best in the book; the losing horse, 

 it is not disputed, could have won, had he 

 been permitted to do so. By the laws of 

 racing this practice is allowable, 1 but it gives 

 great cause for complaint, and opens a door 

 for fraud. One of the heaviest bettors of 

 the present day, who had backed Glen- 

 artney to a large amount, observed that 

 he should not have lamented his loss^ had 

 it not been clear that Glenartney could have 

 won. A similar occurrence took place in 

 1832 for the same great race. Messrs. 

 Gully and Ridsdale (confederates, and as 

 such, allowed to do so) compromised to give 

 the race to St. Giles, although doubtless 

 Margrave could have won it. All outside 

 bettors, as they are called those not in 



1 Lord Jersey declared to win with Mameluke, 

 according to the rules of racing. 



