18 
THE HOUSE. 
THE RACE-HORSE. 
false or dangerous move has been made; that is, to make a series of bets in an opposite course from the previous ones. A man 
may win, by giving odds against every borse in the field. Thus, if five horses start, by betting 4 to 1 against each, he loses 
nothing, for only one can win, on which he loses 4, and the remaining four lose, on which he gains 4; but if he bets 3 to 1 against 
all he must win, for on the winning horse he loses 3, but on the losing horses he gains 4. If twenty horses run, 18 to 1 may be 
betted against every horse in the field; for only one can win on which 18 is lost, but nineteen must lose on which 19 is gained. 
This is the simplest case that can be put; but it shows that, by a skilful adjustment of odds, a man may gain a large sum on a 
race, while he cannot lose any thing. But while it is rare for a person to be able to balance all his bets so that he must win, and 
cannot lose, yet the cases are innumerable in which he is able so to hedge or counter-bet, as to bring the chances in his favour 
for winning to a maximum, and reducing those against him to a minimum. Large fortunes have been acquired by skill in betting 
and counter-betting, yet the system is legitimate in itself, and nothing more than a fair exercise of the knowledge and address 
of the individual. But what shall be said if fraud is used, either to support the system, or to counteract it when fairly pursued ? 
What if horses heavily backed are fraudulently withdrawn from the course at the moment of running ? What if those that could 
win are made to lose ? It is seen that the owner of a horse may, by betting against his own horse, gain by his losing the race; 
and, by having his horse largely backed, and then running to lose, pocket enormous sums. Trainers and jockeys are now in the 
habit of betting largely, not on the horses intrusted to them, but on the general business of the race. What a frightful temptation 
is this to people in their condition of life, and how multiplied is the temptation, when there are confederacies of gamblers, chiefly 
in the great cities, who have the means to offer bribes too great for ordinary virtue to resist ? Deceptive trials, and lying re¬ 
ports, may all lend their aid; and even the poisoned tank, and debilitating ball, may be called into action, the one to deprive the 
noble victim of life, the other, with scarcely less nefarious aim, to unfit him for exercising his powers when brought into the 
field. In the year 1812, a ruffian called Damon was executed for administering poison to various horses. He had been engaged 
in these practices for four years. He had effected his ends by means of arsenic or corrosive sublimate, sometimes introducing the 
poison by means of a syringe into the locked troughs at which the horses drank. The wretch suffered, Avhile the heartless criminals 
who had set him on remained undiscovered. 
One of the practices pursued is to get up favourites for the great stakes. This is done by means of lies, false trials, deceptive 
bets, high prices paid for horses, so as to enhance the public opinion of their value, and by devices of all sorts. Large sums are 
staked on the favourite horse by the public. But is it intended that he shall win ? No : it is settled that he shall lose. A little 
management of the jockey will save appearances, and thousands are to be duped that the owner and his confederates may pocket the 
spoil. Enormous sums, as 3000 guineas, or more, are paid for a colt, we will suppose, to start for the Derby. What is the 
meaning of this ? Is the owner to back this colt against a hundred horses he has never seen, twenty or thirty of which (many of 
them, for any thing he knows, better than his own) are to start ? No :—The purpose is not to win the Derby. The owner and 
his confederates are to gain by the loss of the race, and the dupes are to back the favourite. One of the finest horses that has 
appeared on the modern turf, Plenipotentiary, who had never been defeated,—who had gained the Derby without a struggle,— 
and had walked over Ascot Heath, because no horse had dared to contend against him,—started for the St Leger with 5 to 2 in 
his favour. Did he win the race ? A horse with 50 to 1 against him came in the winner. Another, who had not even 
been placed at the Derby, defeated this unrivalled horse, who came in the last but one of eleven that started. In the following 
year he reappeared at Newmarket with such success, as to make it be believed, that not a horse at Doncaster could have kept 
pace with him for fifty yards together. He was then backed at great odds to run at Ascot; but on the day before the race he 
was carried away, to the consternation of the backers, no one knew wherefore, and never again was seen on the turf. Doncaster 
had already become noted for exploits of a suspicious kind. In the year 1832, at the commencement of the meeting, it had 
become known that the proprietor of the Athenaeum gaming-house in London, as yet new to the public honours of the turf, had 
purchased Ludlow, a horse in high favour, for the St Leger, for 5000 guineas. Suspicion was at once excited, and mistrust 
accordingly marred the sport of the day. The gambler declared that all his intents had been fair and honourable; that he had 
betted L.15,000 on the horse ; and defied all the world to prove that he had betted one guinea against him. 
The betting of jockeys and trainers to a vast amount has now become a system extensive, open, and avowed. It is no longer 
the restricted and temperate betting which prevailed in former times on horses in which the masters and employers of these people 
had an interest, but they must have their Books as regularly as the boldest gambler of the course. Now, here is a system which 
strikes at the very root of all confidence in the affairs of the turf. What! the horses of sportsmen to be intrusted to a set of 
avowed gamblers, who may have a direct interest in causing their defeat. What confidence can be placed in a jockey in whose 
success in a match with another horse he or his confederates may have thousands depending ? Will he win in opposition to an 
interest so great? Those who believe so, must have a higher confidence in the virtues of Newmarket than our knowledge of 
