vouchers; if only a portion, return same, with stake money, and a corrected voucher to amount of stake will be at once forwarded to you. In the remote contingency of your not accepting any portion of either bet, you will please return vouchers without a moment’s delay, that we may have an opportunity of offering the bets to other clients.
Those who wish to back Pitchfork, Palmerston, and Minerve for a place, can be on at one-fourth the odds, but to no greater amount than a £50 stake.
The secret of forcing the voucher, therefore, lay in the fact of offering far longer prices than could be obtained of any one who intended to pay when the races were over; for on June 6th, 1872, the day on which the vouchers were drawn, the market prices, as quoted in the papers Mr Rawlings advertised in, were 10 to 1 against Palmerston for the Ascot Stakes; 15 to 1 against Pitchfork for the Royal Hunt Cup; and 10 to 1 against Minerve for the Northumberland Plate. Now as double the fair price is offered, and as the quoted market represents the odds which are laid at the chief clubs by the chief men, who can say that the victims of Rawlings deserve pity? The ability of Rawlings & Co. as tipsters is strangely shown in this transaction. In their circular, Pitchfork, Palmerston, and Minerve are their selections for the several races, even to people who only accepted their advice and did not intrust them with commissions. They assert that they have positive information that these horses cannot lose. Under the head of “Royal Hunt Cup,” and perfectly independent of anything but the private-advice department, they say, in reference to Pitchfork: “This is a ‘Woodyeates moral,’ and all must be on. Every now and then this influential coterie throws in for a fortune, and when