The sayings and doings of the turf world in connection with "the Lady
Elizabeth Scandal" formed the subject of newspaper comment to such an
extent at the time, that nearly every person in the habit of reading
the public prints must have been somewhat familiar with the unhappy
story, which may be briefly retold in these pages.
Lady Elizabeth belonged to the Marquis of Hastings, and was at one time
first favourite for the Derby won by Bluegown, the property of Sir
Joseph Hawley, in 1868, much to the astonishment of hundreds of persons
who believed the Marquis's filly was "sure to win." Lady Elizabeth,
during her two-year-old career, had never but once known defeat, as
can be seen by referring to the turf chronicles of 1867, in which year
the value of the stakes won by her reached a total of £9,665. The race
which her ladyship failed to win during her two-year-old career was
an important one, namely, the Middle Park Plate, which race fell to
fortunate Sir Joseph by the aid of his horse, Greensleeve; Rosicrucian,
an animal belonging to the same owner, running second. Had the Marquis
won the Middle Park Plate, Lady Elizabeth's total winnings as a
two-year-old would have amounted to a sum of over £14,000.
No sooner had the struggle for the Blue Ribbon of 1868 been decided--in
which Lady Elizabeth was nearer last than first, although she started
the undoubted favourite for the event with odds of 7 to 4 betted
against her chance--than persons began to shake their heads and give
utterance to the usual stereotyped remarks germane to such occasions,
as, "I told you so," "A rank stiff one," "What a scandal," and so forth.
In plain language, it was assumed by a large section of the public that
Lady Elizabeth had never been intended to win the Derby, but that, on
the contrary, the mare had been for months an abject "market horse,"
and that thousands of pounds had been invested on the animal for the
benefit of the Marquis and his aiders and abettors in the fraud; that
all connected with Lady Elizabeth, from her owner down to the boy who
every morning removed the litter from her stall, had made fortunes by
means of the milking pail which had been in such constant requisition!
Moreover it was currently stated among numerous reports circulated that
Admiral Rous had asserted that the mare, just previous to the race,
had been heavily drugged with laudanum; but the Admiral, in a letter
to _The Times_ newspaper under the date of June 15th, 1868, gave an
emphatic contradiction to that report. In continuation, the Admiral
went on to say: "My belief is that Lady Elizabeth had a rough spin with
Athena in March, when the Days discovered she had lost her form--a
very common occurrence with fillies severely trained at two years
old; that when the discovery was made they reversed a commission to
back her for the One Thousand Guineas at Newmarket; and they declared
that Lord Hastings would not bring her out before the Derby, on which
he stood to win a great stake. I am informed that when Lord Hastings
went to Danebury to see her gallop they made excuses for her not to
appear. If he had seen her move, the bubble would have burst. But the
touts reported 'she was going like a bird.' Ten pounds will make any
horse fly if the trainer wishes it to rise in the market. She has never
been able to gallop the whole year. Lord Hastings has been shamefully
deceived; and with respect to the scratching of The Earl, Lord
Westmoreland came up to town early on Tuesday from Epsom to beseech
Lord Hastings not to commit such an act. On his arrival in Grosvenor
Square, he met Mr. Hill going to Weatherby's with the order in his
pocket to scratch The Earl, and found Mr. Padwick closeted with Lord
Hastings. In justice to the Marquis of Hastings, I state that he stood
to win £35,000 by The Earl and did not hedge his stake money. Then you
will ask, 'why did he scratch him?' What can the poor fly demand from
the spider in whose web he is entangled?"
In consequence of such an outspoken expression of his sentiments
by Admiral Rous, there ensued all round a very pretty quarrel. The
Marquis of Hastings replied that the letter of the turf lawgiver was
a tissue of misrepresentation from first to last, and that no single
circumstance mentioned regarding his two horses was correctly stated.
The late Mr. Henry Padwick, who was at once, rightly or wrongly,
"spotted" by the public as "the spider" of the Admiral's letter,
quickly joined in the war of words. "I was desired," he says, "by the
Marquis of Hastings--who did not intend to be at Epsom on the Tuesday
before the Derby--to scratch The Earl for his Derby engagement. Lord
Hastings informed me that he had determined upon that course, as Lady
Elizabeth had arrived safely at Epsom, and was to run in the Derby.
In consequence, however, of a conversation I had had with the Duke of
Beaufort, I did not comply with Lord Hastings' request, but returned
to town for the purpose of representing to him the conversation which
I had had with the Duke of Beaufort. The conversation was to the
effect that his grace wished Lord Hastings to reconsider his intention
of scratching The Earl, as his doing so would be unsatisfactory to
the public. I faithfully represented this to Lord Hastings, who,
notwithstanding, decided upon scratching the horse. This he himself did
by writing a letter to Messrs. Weatherby, which was conveyed to them
by Mr. Hill. Shortly after the letter had been sent, Lord Westmoreland
came into Lord Hastings' room, where there were already Mr. Coventry,
Captain Barlow, and some other gentlemen whose names I do not remember.
Before leaving the room, I mentioned to Lord Westmoreland that I had
reported to Lord Hastings the representation made by the Duke of
Beaufort, but without effect; and I added that Lord Hastings had sent a
letter to Messrs. Weatherby desiring them to scratch The Earl. I had
no control over or interest in the horse, and I was no party to his
being scratched; and Lord Hastings, in the presence of the gentlemen
whose names I have mentioned, accepted the exclusive responsibility of
the act. In conclusion, I beg most unhesitatingly to state that I had
not betted one single shilling either on or against The Earl for his
Derby engagement."
The trainers of Lady Elizabeth felt very much annoyed at the strong
language which had been used by Admiral Rous in his letter to _The
Times_, in which he asserted that Lord Hastings had been shamefully
deceived (presumably by the Days), and that if he had seen the horse
move "the bubble would have burst." An action at law was threatened
by Mr. John Day, of Danebury, against the Admiral, but the threat
never came to anything, as will be seen in the sequel; and here it
may be proper to give Mr. Day's own explanation of the condition of
Lady Elizabeth immediately previous to the date of the Derby. In his
interesting work, "The Racehorse in Training," that gentleman explains
"the mystery," which was, in fact, no mystery at all, the horse having,
like many other horses, exhausted her form in her two-year-old career.
It is only proper, however, that Mr. Day should speak for himself
regarding Lady Elizabeth. He says, pages 156-7: "As a three-year-old
she beat nothing. She ran four times and was never placed. Her first
appearance in that year was for the Derby, her starting price in the
betting being 7 to 4. No sporting man is likely ever to forget the
sensation caused by her ignominious defeat. Nothing like it had been
known for years or has been known since. All kinds of sinister reports
were circulated. She had been poisoned; she had been pulled; she had
been trained to death. Nor were these all, for amongst innumerable
insinuations then in circulation, too base for repetition here, it
was pretty freely said that every man in the stable, as well as every
friend of those in it, had made a munificent fortune by rascality
at the expense of the ever confiding and credulous British public,
which had been unblushingly and grossly victimised, and as usual left
to grumble and bear it. But when we come to the facts of the case
we find that nothing was ever put forward to show that the mare was
either improperly treated or neglected in any way, and I think that we
have a right to assume that there was no ground for the complaints,
but rather that credit should be given to those in charge of her for
assiduity in everything that skill or experience could suggest for her
well-being, and that the whole mystery may be summed up in these few
words: no robbery took place, nor was one ever contemplated; the mare
had simply lost her form--she was not so good as a three as she was as
a two-year-old."
And certainly the man who trained the horse--and no man is more
competent--should know, although it is never easy to knock a foregone
conclusion out of the minds of a racing public very eager in general to
believe the worst.
"But what, after all," continues Mr. Day, "it may be asked, was there
so very different in Lady Elizabeth's running to that of hundreds of
others of which nothing is heard afterwards?"
No doubt the very most that could be made was made by the public
gossip-mongers, out of the "Lady Elizabeth Scandal," as it was
called at the time. It is in some respects greatly to be regretted
that a public investigation, in the interests of turf purity, did not
take place. There can be no doubt that Admiral Rous thought he knew
"something" more than was allowed to appear on the surface. Mr. Padwick
made application to the Jockey Club for an investigation, but his
request was not entertained as no charge had been made affecting his
character. In these circumstances he wrote to the Admiral, asking that
gentleman to reduce to some distinct form the imputations cast on him
by the honourable gentleman's letter, so that he might meet and deal
with him "in a manner which I have every confidence will induce you
to acknowledge the injustice of those imputations, and withdraw the
charges you have made against me."
The Admiral sent a prompt reply. It was in the following terms: "In
answer to your letter, requesting me to reduce to some distinct form
the imputation cast upon you respecting your connivance at scratching
The Earl for the Derby after he was paraded at Epsom, and requiring
me to withdraw the charges I have made against you, I shall be happy
to do so if you will explain why The Earl (by your orders to Messrs.
Weatherby) ran at Newmarket, in your name and colours, in the Biennial,
and received forfeit in the match as 'Mr. Padwick's The Earl' against
See Saw. If you had no interest in the horse, which you stated to me
in your June letter, why were all the winnings, including the three
Ascot Sweepstakes, paid to your account? These facts must be explained
by Lord Hastings and yourself, under oath at the tribunal you have
advised Mr. Day to appeal to; and wishing that you should exculpate
yourself, and that you and Lord Hastings have been made the victims of
a conspiracy, I am," etc.
Before going further, it may be as well to say regarding The Earl that,
on its two-year-old form, according to "The Book," it did not seem to
possess any great chance of winning the Derby; as a two-year-old it ran
twelve races and won four of them. But as a three-year-old the horse
made a better mark, as it won six times out of seven, beating Bluegown
in the Newmarket Biennial referred to.
From the answer returned to the Admiral's letter, it became known that
the Marquis of Hastings being under large pecuniary obligations to Mr.
Padwick, that gentleman held some of the unfortunate nobleman's horses
in his power, The Earl being included in the number--the particular
bond of obligation being a "bill of sale." Mr. Padwick explains that
the money won by The Earl--which it was thought prudent should run in
his colours rather than those of the Marquis--was placed to a separate
account at Weatherby's, "and every shilling appropriated by the Messrs.
Weatherby to the payment of the forfeits and engagements of the
horses sold to various persons by Lord Hastings, under Lord Exeter's
conditions. Even the winnings of the animals I purchased at his public
sale (one-third of which the Marquis became entitled to) were paid over
to Messrs. Weatherby to the private account of the Marquis; and I have
further contributed the sum of £1,400 out of my own pocket, up to this
moment, to enable him to keep faith with the public."
The Admiral did not take the trouble to write a long reply to this
letter; a few curt lines, returning "the enclosures" (letters received
at different times from Messrs. Weatherby on the subject of his own
account), were all that were vouchsafed.
Mr. Padwick, after the lapse of a fortnight, again addressed himself
to Admiral Rous; but the latter gentleman, having evidently conceived
a strong opinion on the case, only wrote in a way to indicate that
to that opinion he was quite determined to adhere, as the following
extract will show: "In your letter of the 30th of September you refer,
among other matters, to a bill of sale from Lord Hastings to yourself.
A copy of this document is now before me, and I am bound to tell you
that, having regard to the terms and other circumstances of the case,
I do not feel justified in saying more at present than that, for the
sake of everybody, it is essential that the facts should be thoroughly
sifted by the examination of all parties before the tribunal to which
you yourself have advised Mr. Day to appeal."
But the facts of the case never were expiscated in any court of
justice; the legal proceedings which Messrs. Vallance & Vallance had
been instructed by Mr. John Day of Danebury to commence were never
instituted, as the following brief letters will show.
From Mr. John Day to the editor of _The Times_:
"On the 16th of June last a letter appeared in your columns from
Admiral Rous, under the title of 'Admiral Rous on the Turf,' containing
reflections on me and my family. I have now to request the favour of
your giving publicity to a letter which has been addressed to me by the
Admiral, withdrawing his former letter, and a copy of which I beg to
enclose."
The following is a copy of the letter referred to:
"As the legal proceedings pending between us have been stopped by you,
I now withdraw my letter published in _The Times_ newspaper on the
16th of June; and the fact of my having addressed a second letter to
the editor on the same day requesting him not to insert the first, is
a proof that I did not consider myself justified in desiring it to be
published."
These letters reveal a curious ending to what might have proved, had it
been suffered to become public, one of the most remarkable "cases" ever
investigated in a court of law. One of the public journals of the time,
in speaking of the withdrawal of Mr. Day's action, said: "The action
is withdrawn, and the letter is withdrawn, but whether the action is
withdrawn on condition of the letter being also withdrawn, or whether
the letter is withdrawn on condition of the action being withdrawn,
and which withdrawal was first proposed and first accepted, and from
which side the surrender was suggested, we, at any rate, know not." But
it certainly seems, from a passage in the Admiral's letter, that the
trainer had the best of it. "The fact of my having addressed a second
letter to the editor (of _The Times_) on the same day," writes the
Admiral, "requesting him not to insert the first, is a proof that I
did not consider myself justified in desiring it to be published."
The Earl was not only scratched at the eleventh hour for the Derby,
but was also in due time struck out of the St. Leger on the Friday
afternoon before the Doncaster race, a certificate of a veterinary
surgeon, of date, "London, September 5th, 1868," being published as
a reason for the withdrawal of the horse from the great race of the
north. When it became known that The Earl had really broken down, some
little degree of feeling was expressed by the public in regard to this
culminating misfortune which had befallen a broken man. And the reader
may be reminded that at the date of the withdrawal of Mr. Day's action
the Marquis had been dead for some weeks, and it might be that that
fact of itself led to the cessation of proceedings at law.
From the sporting journals of the period a glimpse is obtained of the
dealings of Lord Hastings with "the ring," and of the indignation
of the magnates of the betting world because of his lordship's
disinclination to hedge his "very fine bets." One journal, which
professed to be well informed of the contents of his lordship's
betting-book, said that the ring would have been well pleased to have
given him a sum of £20,000 for his chances of winning the Derby with
Lady Elizabeth, on the condition that he would devote the money so
obtained to part payment of the arrears of his debts of honour--debts
contracted on the turf after his liabilities on Hermit's Derby had
been provided for. At the time of the negotiations referred to, the
price of Lady Elizabeth in the betting market was 3 to 1, so that it
is obvious enough that the ill-starred nobleman would have won a very
large stake if the mare had won the Derby.
His lordship, it should be stated, had made his bets on Lady Elizabeth
through agents, whom the bookmakers, in the event of the horse being
victorious, would have been bound to pay in full, whilst they had
no guarantee that his lordship would devote the money so got to the
payment of his debts, he being at the time due large sums to the men
who had betted the long odds against the chance of his horse to his
commissioners.
This narrative of "the Lady Elizabeth Scandal" has not been penned in
a dogmatic spirit. It could have easily, had the writer so desired,
been highly coloured. It is perhaps not the worse for being somewhat
bald. Sufficient materials have been provided, however, to admit of the
reader forming his own judgment on the whole matter; and one feature of
the case is evident, and it is from what appears on the surface, the
horse (The Earl) should have been eliminated from his Derby engagement
months instead of hours before the time appointed for the race.
The following somewhat extraordinary extract from one of the sporting
journals of the period indicated will fitly conclude this narration of
a rather disagreeable episode of modern horse-racing: "Let it be noted
that it is capable of proof that his lordship has not lost money on
the turf; that, as a matter of fact, he has absolutely won from most
of the bookmakers; that three of his heaviest creditors have assured
me they have on the balance paid him large sums of money; and that one
gentleman, who paid him last year £24,000, is now out of pocket by his
transactions with him to the extent of £4,000, and cannot even get an
offer of settlement. Let it be remembered also that this defaulter
has from the commencement trifled with, laughed at, and now defies
his creditors; that he owes them thousands of pounds, which they have
little hope of ever recovering; and that he has every prospect of
winning from them, which he will put into his pocket and probably keep
there; and the racing world and the general public have some means of
arriving at a true conclusion as to the honour of a nobleman, and the
prospects, under present laws, of the national sport of England."