A Mirror of the Turf; Or, The Machinery of Horse-Racing Revealed, Showing the Sport of Kings as It Is To-Day

by James Glass Bertram

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.