THE LADY ELIZABETH SCANDAL.
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."
RACING REFORM: SIR JOSEPH HAWLEY'S AND OTHER SCHEMES.
I.
Within the last twenty years many schemes of turf reform have been discussed, and it must be admitted that in the matter of the rules of racing several wholesale changes have already been made. Instead of entering upon particulars of what has been accomplished by the Jockey Club, or indulging in speculations as to what that august body is probably meditating in the way of farther racing reform, it may probably turn out that aid has come from an unexpected source, so far, at least, as one phase of reform is concerned.
The growth of "gate-money meetings" points to the solution of one vexed question of turf economy, namely, an abatement of several petty meetings which were once a feature of the racing season. Gate-money meetings, it must be admitted, are proving wonderfully successful. The effect of establishing these centres of sport (gate-money meetings) will ultimately limit the seats of racing; indeed, it is now prophesied that, after a few years, racing will no longer, as in past times, be "the free sport of a free people." It is being said that the day is not far distant when Ascot, Goodwood, and Doncaster will remain—if they do remain—the only meetings in part open to the non-paying public. Newmarket may be said to be already moving in the direction of gate-money.
It is perhaps better that such a change should take place, racing being now more a business than a pastime. It is not an easy task to disguise the fact that the chief end and aim of the horse-racing of the period is gambling; the bigger the meeting the greater the gamble, as those who attend race meetings can discern for themselves. A few staunch votaries of the turf who do not bet are still left, no doubt, to indulge in horse-racing for itself, that is to say, for the pleasure they derive in witnessing the sport, and in some instances because it affords them an opportunity of trying their hands at breeding; but it is not too much to affirm that of every hundred persons now "on the turf," ninety and nine of the number are gamblers.
For twenty years and more the opportunities for gambling by means of the horse have been multiplying on all sides; at all meetings the loudest noise emanates from men who are trying to incite other men to gamble. To-day the horse is our greatest instrument of gambling. A hundred years ago the public were demoralised by means of lotteries; but the money then changing hands was assuredly not one-hundredth part of the amount which changes hands to-day in connection with one or two of our important races. Next in extent to the speculation of the Stock Exchange and produce markets comes the gambling which takes place on such popular handicaps as the Cesarewitch, Cambridgeshire, and other struggles of the turf.
As has been hinted, the future of horse-racing ("the turf") is in some degree likely to take shape from the new departure in the form of gate-money meetings, as developed at Manchester, Kempton, Sandown, and other places. The joint-stock companies who usually inaugurate gate-money races can afford to offer immense inducements to the owners of the best horses to run them on their grounds; when the "added money" (?) to a handicap amounts to four or five or say even two thousand pounds, it is only reasonable to suppose that the owners of race-horses will compete for such prizes. It is shown on another page that to keep a stud of race-horses is an expensive amusement, and as few men are able to do so without looking for some return by which to lighten their heavy training bills, they are more likely to find what they want at the kind of meetings now so much in favour than at smaller gatherings held every now and then in different and distant parts of the country, where, although the stakes are much poorer, the expenses are quite as high, or even higher, than at Kempton, Sandown, Derby, Manchester, or Leicester.
It is thought by some persons well versed in turf affairs that the success attending gate meetings will lead to each company increasing their number, if they be permitted to do so, in the course of the year. The Jockey Club can, in some degree (and the greater the degree the better), regulate the "quality" of sport; but the stewards find it a work of difficulty to limit the number of meetings. So long as the public support these meetings in a way that brings profit to their promoters, just so long will they continue to flourish and no longer. What the owners of horses who do not gamble desire is to win big stakes rather than little ones, and owners who keep animals simply for gambling purposes can, of course, offer no objections to well-attended centres of sport; it being borne in mind that the sixpences and shillings paid by the multitude for admission provide the stakes, just as the "small money" received from little gamblers enables bookmakers to lay big amounts to "the swells" against their horses.
Looked at in this light, the well-organised gate-money meetings now held in the vicinity of great seats of population will, in time, absorb a large portion of the racing capital and enterprise of the country, so that the small old-fashioned county gatherings will undoubtedly dry up. The "Innkeepers' Plate" and the "County Members' Cup" will speedily be no longer heard of; and a time will come when the hat will not be sent round among the tradespeople of a county for the purpose of providing a racing trophy for the local meeting. The only county races of the kind indicated will, there can be little doubt, dwindle ere long into farmers', hunters', and yeomanry meetings.
In seeking after turf reform, it must be borne in mind that there are some things which the Jockey Club cannot possibly accomplish; but it is undoubtedly the province of that body to regulate racing so far as the ages of horses are concerned; they can determine when two-year-olds shall first run, and they can fix a limit, as indeed they have already done, below which the stake to be run for shall not sink. The Jockey Club did a wise action in licensing jockeys and other racing officials; that body may judiciously extend its authority so far as to license bookmakers, and also create a race-going police that shall be a terror to welshers and racing roughs of all kinds.
II.
Sir Joseph Hawley figured in his time as a racing reformer, and judging from what he said and did he was thoroughly in earnest. His propositions may serve as a text for an exposition of what is now held by some good judges to be most wanted in the shape of "racing reform."
By way of exordium, Sir Joseph laid down as a proposition that racing was no longer a national sport, but had become a "mere trade," so far as most of its followers were concerned. "The public are now convinced," said Sir Joseph, "that the system which has been of late years rapidly growing up in no way tends to improve the breed of horses, but is one of simple gambling, and in this state of things the Jockey Club silently acquiesce. Such an impression, rightly or wrongly formed, is most dangerous alike to the sport and the reputation of those who take part in it; but so long as the recognised authorities remain passive, and make no effort to bring about a better order of things, it would be impossible to remove it."
The proposals made by Sir Joseph for comparison with racing as it is to-day may be summarised as follows:
1. No horse to run in any flat race after November 15th or before March 24th, and no two-year-old before September 1st, any horse so running to be disqualified from entering or running at any meeting where the Jockey Club Rules are in force.
2. No entries for two-year-old races to be made more than fifteen days before the day advertised for running.
3. No horse under four years old to run in any handicap.
4. No public money, cup, or other prize to be given in any race to which two-year-olds are admitted, or any race under a mile, or to any handicap.
5. All entries to be made in real name of owner or part owner.
The Kingsclere Baronet also indicated some reformation or widening of the Jockey Club by his proposition "that the basis of the club be extended, and that not only more gentlemen who are large owners of race-horses, but those who take interest in racing as a means of preserving the breed of horses, be invited to become members." Sir Joseph, in formulating his Turf Reform Bill, undoubtedly indicated some of the blots incidental to modern horse-racing, as indeed previous turf reformers had done, and as has in some degree been done since he died. Under the rules of racing as now administered there can be no doubt that the gambling element of the turf has far greater scope than it would be allowed under the stringent regulations formulated by Sir Joseph.
Whenever any proposals are made for racing reform of a substantial kind, strenuous opposition at once begins, both within and without the Jockey Club. The members of that self-constituted body are difficult to move in such matters, some of them at any rate being pretty staunch believers in the doctrine of "use and wont." Some critics have asserted that the gambling element is at times stronger within the club than out of it; at any rate, it will not soon be forgotten how one of its members at a prominent meeting created a "scene" in the ring because he had been anticipated in backing one of his horses—that gentleman's love of "the noble sport of horse-racing" is easily estimated. Probably before that time comes—it seems to be at present far distant—when no person will be eligible for election to the club who bets, much-needed reforms of various kinds will have been consummated. At some future date it may probably be enacted by the Jockey Club that two-year-old horses shall not run at Lincoln, nor at the earlier Newmarket meetings as at present, but be reserved for a later period of the season; in the meantime, however, with the sordid spirit of gambling pervading every nook and corner of the turf, it is vain to hope for much reform of the kind indicated by Sir Joseph Hawley.
Before leaving this part of the subject it may just be noted that there was no lack of two-year-old racing at Newmarket in the years (1882-83) which are selected as being representative. From April 11th to 14th six races took place in which two-year-olds were the competitors either in whole or part; for these the fields numbered respectively 6, 8, 3, 10, 8, and 3. From April 25th to 28th ten races were run at head-quarters, the fields for which averaged 11 horses. At the May Newmarket reunion (9th to 11th) there were thirteen races in which two-year-olds were engaged, being an average of say 6 horses for each race. The Newmarket July Meeting is celebrated for its two-year-old races, two of which are looked upon with great interest. In 1884 nineteen races for two-year-olds were run at Newmarket during the first three meetings, and very fair fields of competitors were seen on the Heath. At the Newmarket April Meeting of last year (1890) there were seven races on the programme for two-year-olds.
From these statistics it will at once be apparent that if an abridgment of two-year-old racing is ever to take place it will have to begin at home, and the Jockey Club will require to set the example. Owners and trainers have, however, become so accustomed to the present early and lavish display of two-year-olds on all the race courses of the kingdom that it will be difficult to enter even the thin end of the wedge. The racing public are wedded to things as they are, and yearlings have become so costly that owners and trainers are glad to see their horses earning money at an early date.
III.
So long ago as the year 1860 Lord Redesdale introduced a Bill into the House of Lords, in which it was proposed that, after January 1st, 1861, no horse should start for any racing prize carrying less than 7 st., under a penalty of £200 and forfeiture of the horse so running. The measure was opposed by Lord Derby, who thought the superior old horses would be placed at a disadvantage by having to carry 11 and 12 st. But why not, was asked, seeing that every colt running in the Derby carries 9 st., and every filly only 5 lb. less than that, whilst no horse in any race, it is now the rule, shall carry less than 6 st.? In favour of an increase in the scale of weights our two most popular handicaps may be cited. The Cesarewitch has only been won by horses carrying less than 6 st. on five occasions since 1860. Two Cambridgeshires only have been carried off during the last thirty years by animals bearing weights under 6 st. The City and Suburban Handicap has been won three times since 1860 by horses weighted under 6 st. The Lincolnshire Handicap has only been won once since 1860 by a horse under 6 st. Why a horse of any kind, even a horse of the most mediocre quality, should ever have been asked to carry the feather weight of 5 st. 7 lb. now seems preposterous! That a minimum weight of 6 st. 7 lb. should be fixed upon, with a range of 3 st. 7 lb., or even 4 st., as between highest and lowest, has been recommended by many who have at heart the best interests of the turf. No ill would result in consequence to the noble animal, and the scale would certainly admit of more men being employed to ride.
Much could be said on both sides of this question, but there are many engaged in racing who would never at any time have the weights interfered with—they are such believers in use and wont. This, therefore, is one of the matters to which the Jockey Club should again turn their attention; there is more in what is asked for than the mere fixing of a weight suitable for the competing horses, or for the bringing together of the sixty or seventy animals entered for some well-known handicap.
What are called "flattering handicaps" very often result in failure when the acceptances come to be declared. We read occasionally in the newspapers that "the Messrs. Asterisk have, as usual, succeeded in putting together an admirable specimen of their art, the fifty-nine horses entered being apportioned such weights as makes it difficult to find a flaw in the handicap," etc. etc.; but despite this flattery and a liberal bonus of added money, probably not one-third of the horses entered are found to cry content on the appointed day.
It is long since a professional handicapper was advocated. Admiral Rous was looked upon by the racing world as being, in his day, an adept in the art of handicapping; but a flaw was frequently discovered in some of his indictments, and in the opinion of really good judges better handicaps than those which, after the Admiral's death, emanated from the office of the Messrs. Weatherby were never made. Now that gate-money meetings are coming into vogue, the professional handicapper is imperatively required. A gentleman who put together the weights for a big race to be run at one of these gate meetings was heard to say, when his handicap was published: "By George, sir, I didn't know my own work"—it had been so mangled to suit particular owners, some of whom were shareholders in the concern. The appointment by the Jockey Club of an official handicapper for their own meetings was a move in the proper direction.
Another racing reform which would naturally result from the raising of the scale of weights would be the abolition of boy jockeys, who are really a blot on the turf. Many of these spoilt children of fortune would be better at school than engaged in riding horses which many of them are quite unable to manage. A lad weighing 6 st. 7 lb. cannot, it is true, be very much of a man; but an increase of even half a stone on the present lowest weight would give a wider choice of horsemen than at present, and as the weights would be increased all round, older jockeys would more frequently obtain a mount than is now the case. Many of the liliputian riders are so early spoiled by one or two successes that it is to be regretted the system which called them into being was not abolished before it had time to take root. Many gentlemen have long since seen the evil of entrusting great interests to mere children. It has been often said of child jockeys when they have been employed to ride horses pitched upon to carry the fortunes of a stable, but which have failed to win the race, that "it was not the horse that was beaten, but the boy." It is earnestly to be desired, then, in the interests of all concerned that weights should be raised all round to a standard that will admit of a larger number of horses being ridden by men.
As to the distances fixed for races, it may be assumed that the Jockey Club should be able to lay down such rules as would be acceptable to the majority of owners. And here again the gambling element comes into notice in relation to the increasing desire that seems to be entertained for "short spins" for races, that is, of a mile or less. The horses which can be calculated upon to run for two miles and a half may almost be enumerated on the ten fingers, so that there is little room for betting on the result of races in which they take part. The pronounced "stayers" are easily named, and, as a rule, these only will be backed in long-distance races. In Cup contests, for instance, the betting is in many cases nil, or at all events extremely limited, which renders such struggles distasteful to the betting division of our turfites. It is not so in the case of other races. There is abundant scope for betting in connection with the Lincoln Handicap, the Goodwood Stewards' Cup, and similar fixtures. The Cambridgeshire, too, is usually a good betting race for the bookmakers! In the fast run scrambles over six or seven furlongs, it is, in most cases, very difficult to pick the winner when from eight to fourteen horses are contending, hence a great amount of betting becomes incident to such races, and it is the betting element which plays the chief part in modern horse-racing; but, as it may be taken for granted that most of the members of the Jockey Club are themselves betting men, any reform of the kind indicated will be slow to make its appearance.
Of "added money" and other details of Jockey Club legislation it is not necessary to say more than that a better definition of added money than that in use would be a benefit to all concerned. The Club has the power to decree what it pleases, and the sooner it exercises still greater authority in all such matters the better. It may be found in the end that it will be desirable to classify meetings and grade the stakes accordingly.
With respect to the amounts of money run for, some reforms have already been established, and it may prove that by lessening the number of races and doubling the stakes, some three-day meetings may be advantageously compressed into two days, which would be a gain to all concerned, except, perhaps, the bookmakers, for there is occasionally more betting over a small stake than there is upon one of three times the amount where the competing horses are, it may be, of a higher class. Another phase of racing economy may be here alluded to, and that is the propriety of peremptorily limiting the sport, so that it may not occupy more than four days of the week. There is not now any Saturday racing at Newmarket, and it would be well if none were permitted elsewhere; there should also be, as a general rule, no racing on Mondays. The tendency of late has been to increase the number of Saturday meetings, and in all likelihood ere many years are past we may have in England racing on Sundays! When it is considered that many seats of sport are far distant from Newmarket, from whence a large number of the competitors are brought, it is early enough to begin racing on the Tuesday, and Saturday should be left a clear day for going home.
The comfort of all engaged in the business of the turf would be greatly enhanced were the racing limited to four days; even the bookmakers, it is believed, would be glad to acquiesce in such an arrangement.
As is well known, the death of the nominator of a horse for a race renders the nomination void—a hard case in some instances, but for which no remedy has yet been devised. Much controversy has been expended from time to time on this feature of turf economy, and in all probability a solution of the various problems involved when the death of a nominator takes place may some day be arrived at, when the proposal of "deposit your nomination money" may after all be found to be the best way out of the difficulty. With the payment of such large sums of ready money as would be involved, there would undoubtedly be a considerable falling off in the entries of certain classes of races—which many turf men think would prove an advantage.
Other disturbing matters which require to be dealt with by the Jockey Club are as pressing as these which have just been noticed. The "rough" and "welshing" element was never so rampant on some of our racecourses as it is at present, and the turf of late, even at Newmarket, has been invaded by brigades of blackguards, who, by means of the numerous lines of railways, find easy access to scenes from which they were excluded in former years by distance and cost of transport. The presence of numberless bands of insolent roughs, some of them in intimate confederacy, it is said, with the lower class of bookmakers, has not tended to the elevation of horse-racing, nor does it add to the good name of its votaries.
The complaints that find utterance as to the blackguardism which takes place on some racecourses are painful to contemplate. The welsher, in many places, seems not only to be tolerated, but encouraged. If a complaint be made of the most barefaced robbery by these persons, there is, at some meetings, no redress. The welsher is to all intents and purposes a thief under another name, and on various racecourses is allowed to rob all and sundry with immunity from all consequences. As to the racecourse rough, he, too, is allowed to do pretty much as he pleases, and the members of the brigade to which he belongs have the resources of civilisation at their command. At one Epsom Summer Meeting a party of these bullies attacked a foreign gentleman, denounced him as a welsher, and robbed and maltreated him at the very entrance of the Grand Stand! Every person who has heard the cry of "welsher" uttered at a race gathering knows that it is the precursor to a scene of cruel violence and positive outrage.
No one can accord sympathy to the professional welsher; but bad as he is, he must be protected from lynch law. There ought to be some properly constituted tribunal to which he should be held responsible—his offence is the obtaining of money by false pretences, and it is incumbent on the Jockey Club to devise machinery for the trial and punishment of these pests of the turf. And care must be taken that the racecourse roughs are not allowed to devise plots with the object of having respectable persons attacked and robbed under the false plea of their being welshers. These are matters of police, on which the Jockey Club may, in all fairness, be asked to legislate. It has already done a little something in that way, but it ought to organise a band of special constables to assist in the regulation of the ring. Habit and repute welshers are as well known and as easily identified as the popular jockeys. They should be prevented from entering any of the rings where betting is carried on, and if found betting "outside" should be promptly handed over to the police to be punished as rogues and vagabonds. A few sentences of sixty days with hard labour would very speedily diminish the regiment of welshers; as for the unmitigated rough, his fate should be that of the garroters—twenty lashes! It is somewhat remarkable that in some districts welshers are promptly dealt with by the authorities, while at other seats of sport they escape all consequences!
In the interests of law and order on the turf, the honest bookmaker should be licensed by the Jockey Club, and by the exhibition of a blue ribbon in his buttonhole, or some other mark of identification, be able to present himself to those desirous of betting as a person who would at once pay whatever amount he bargained to lose. These modes of dealing with the honest and dishonest betting men are obviously logical; at any rate, the hints given afford a foundation for action of the kind indicated, that it is surprising they have not already been acted upon.
The Jockey Club at the present time takes no official cognisance of disputed bets, that part of the business of racing being left to a committee of Tattersall's; but this inaction on the part of the Club is a blunder. It will be well for them to form a tribunal to deal with all disputes about bets—a tribunal which would give a prompt and, above all things, a logical decision, and so carry on from precedent to precedent. The present laws of betting are much in need of overhauling; indeed, to use an old phrase, they require "a new stock, lock, and barrel."
ASSUMED NAMES; JOCKEYS AND THEIR COMMISSIONERS; AND OTHER MATTERS.
Whether or not assumed names should be permitted in racing has been more than once submitted to the consideration of the Jockey Club. Persons, it is said, who are ashamed to run horses in their own name ought not to be "on the turf." The admission of assumed names is, however, a feature of turf economy which carries its own condemnation, and need not be wrangled over. In reality the bearers of such names are known to their turf contemporaries, and as assumed names do not save them from being liable to the pains and penalties of wrongdoing, should they do wrong, why they should wear a mask is difficult to understand.
Some little inquiry into this matter was at one time made by the writer.
"Why is it," he asked a famous racing critic, "that Brown does not race under his own name?"
"Oh, don't you know? His father is old Vellum, the dissenting bookseller of Ave Marie Street, and it would never do to let it be known that his son is on the turf."
"And Jones; how comes he to sail under false colours?"
"Well, you see, his father is an ecclesiastical tailor, a purveyor of robes to the clergy, and likes the sport; but for obvious reasons does not appear himself as a racing man, and so young Mr. Chasuble is 'on the turf' as Mr. Harry Jones."
"Just so. And Robinson—who is he?"
"Robinson is said to be a wholesale dealer in decayed horses."
There are, it may go without saying, many persons engaged in racing whom the turf would be better without, and it has been hinted "that in times past" a few of these gentry could ring the changes of racing in such a way as to render the game highly profitable. But it is not "times past" that have to be dealt with, although there is no security that the malpractices of former periods are not features of the racing of to-day. With one class of persons who assume names the turf could well dispense. It is not a little remarkable that the Jockey Club tolerate men on the turf who try to conceal their identity under assumed names.
A matter of turf reform that may be commented upon here is the irritating delay which occasionally takes place, especially at Tattersall's, before judgments can be obtained in affairs which are in dispute. The Maskelyne case may be cited as an example, not on its merits, however, but because of the fact that although the St. Leger was run in September, the decision against the backers of the horse was not given until the month of February, after a period of five months had elapsed. Such decisions ought to emanate from the Jockey Club; it is remarkable that it should be possible to accept an entry for an important race about which there should be any dubiety.
The question as to whether jockeys should be allowed, either directly or indirectly, to keep race-horses of their own ought to be seriously grappled with by the only tribunal which can competently discuss the question; although the Jockey Club has decreed that, with one or two exceptions, no jockey shall be an owner of race-horses, it is well enough known that ways and means are found to evade the law. That there are jockeys on the turf who are quite beyond suspicion in all their actions is certain, but for many reasons jockeys should be prohibited from keeping race-horses. It is anything but pleasant for a gentleman who employs a jockey to ride his horse in an important race to find that he is just beaten by an animal said to belong to the jockey. The lad may have ridden an honest race, but will hardly be credited with having done so. When gentlemen hear the whisper, "Will he try to win for his employer, or will his own horse win?" they can scarcely feel comfortable. One honest meaning jockey, it is known, never takes a mount when one of his own horses is to run. It has been said that a jockey has as good a right to have horses of his own in training as a trainer, and so he undoubtedly has. But it falls to be considered whether or not it is politic that trainers should run horses of their own. In such cases, however, the men who require the services of trainers and jockeys have the remedy in their own hands—they should make it a rule not to train in a stable in which the trainer keeps race-horses of his own, nor should they employ upon any occasion a jockey to ride who is an owner of race-horses. There would be no hardship in such prohibition. Jockeys and trainers rich enough to keep race-horses ought to retire from business.
Another nuisance of the turf which is attracting much attention at the present time, and which imperatively demands investigation and reform, is the heavy transactions reputed to be made on behalf of jockeys in the betting rings. "Will Integrity win, think you?" asks one turfite of another. "Well, on public form he ought to do so; but his jockey, I know, has backed Malpractice," and so a doubt is raised as to the honesty of the rider of Integrity. Men, too, are now pointed out in the ring as "So and So Bunkum's" (the jockey's) "commissioner," or as Grabmore, who executes the behests of Tom Strappem, the trainer, and it is a fact that many jockeys have heavy "settlings" at the clubs every Monday in the course of the racing season.
Apropos. Some three years ago a gentleman who had a colt running at a fashionable racing centre in an important race, for whom he had engaged one of the best jockeys of the day, meeting an intimate friend in the paddock, asked him if he had backed The Chanter, his horse.
"No," was the reply, "not yet. I am hanging on here till I know what Billy Mitchell does. What Billy Mitchell does I shall do."
"And who the deuce is Billy Mitchell, may I ask?"
"Oh, Billy is your jockey's commissioner, don't you know."
The commissioner, on the occasion referred to, did not back The Chanter, which only came in third; his orders were to back Billy Purves, which proved to be the winner. Was the owner of The Chanter victimised by his jockey on the occasion, or was the information simply withheld that there was a better horse than his colt among the starters? Numerous incidents of a similar kind might be related, and it has been said again and again that there are even men of position on the racecourses of the kingdom who delight in doing commissions for jockeys. Said one of these gentlemen one day to a prominent owner sportsman: "Well, your horse won't win; your jockey has backed The Starling," and so it happened. No positive accusations are here made against individuals; but a turf system which admits of jockeys riding one horse and backing another animal in the same race to win them a large stake, is, to say the least of it, susceptible of some improvement; but where all, with but few exceptions, are preaching a gospel of gambling, reform seems, at the present time, to be far off.
Three or four trainers are also known as heavy "speculators," and of some stables, of which it is said the principal patron does not bet, the same cannot be said of the trainer, who is likely enough a very heavy betting man, all the more because his chief employer does not himself bet. It has been sometimes said, indeed, of such stables, that the chief is but a cipher, and that the trainer rules the roost.
Some trainers, it is well known, bet only with the cognisance of those for whom they train, that is to say, if they think the horse has a good chance of winning the race he has been entered for. Other trainers bet on their own behalf, either personally or by the aid of a friend or a commissioner. The trainer of a horse which won the Derby a few years ago was said to have risked on his chance the enormous stake of £7,000. The case of Bob Leathers was much talked about a few years since. He had two horses in training for a big handicap for one owner. One, the worse of the two, as Leathers well knew, was at a short price, the other was at 20 to 1. The trainer piled the money on the non-favourite, but the fact coming at length to the knowledge of the owner, he quietly scratched both horses a few days before the race, and Leathers and his pals were left lamenting; as all who knew the particulars said, "It served them right."
It is not the first occasion on which it has been asked: "How curious it is that Mr. Bloom's horses are always so unsteady in the market, seeing that he never bets!" The reply to such a remark is likely to be: "Oh, but his trainer does, and you know he and Binks, the bookmaker, are almost always together." The inference is obvious. Again, Mr. Trumper keeps a very large stud, and pays his training bills with exemplary punctuality; but for all that Mr. Trumper is only the nominal possessor of so many race-horses. Ted Rubyman, the well-known turf commissioner, keeps the key of the stable, and Mr. Trumper's horses only "spin" when Rubyman finds it to his advantage that they should do so, and at all times the commissioner has the best of it. If Trumper's horses are not trying, it is certain that they have been well milked for behoof of trainer and commissioner. In consequence, old Robert Girth, Trumper's trainer, is a rich man, who could at any moment throw up training and live upon his means. Verb. sap. In such matters a strong arm is required to wield the besom of turf reform.
One other subject may be now discussed. Gentlemen are known to give heavy presents to jockeys riding in a race in which they themselves have a competing animal. Surely that practice is indefensible—in the opinion of the writer it is very reprehensible, and ought to be sternly put down. For one owner of a horse riding in a race to say to a boy who is piloting another gentleman's animal in the same contest, "I have put you on a hundred to nothing, my lad, if I win," is little less than criminal.
The rumours, too, which during late years have been prevalent of "a ring," of which certain trainers and jockeys reap the benefit, have yet to be effectually sifted; where there is smoke there is sure to be fire. The difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence as to such goings on is no doubt great, but not insurmountable; at any rate, an effort should be made to trace some of the rumours to their fountain-head, and if there be guilt, no punishment which may be meted to the offenders will be thought too severe.
The Jockey Club has, it is known, taken action of a kind in the matter of the scandals referred to, particularly as regards the immoderate betting of three or four of the horsemen of the period, and the men who act for them and serve themselves at the same time. Particulars of what has been "discovered" have not been permitted to transpire, but at the time these remarks are penned (May, 1891) the licenses of two or three jockeys have not yet been renewed, and some persons have been "warned off." The chief difficulty which the Jockey Club has to encounter is lack of direct proof of any evil having been committed; the stewards cannot take action on the mere breath of rumour, and turf evil-doers knowing that, are sufficiently cautious in their operations to render proof difficult; but it is stated the stewards have at length so closed in their nets as to have "bagged" some of the transgressors, or, at any rate, have placed them in such a position as to be able to demand that they shall "prove their innocence" of the charges made against them, some of which, it has been rumoured, are of a serious kind, many persons being implicated. The call for an examination of the bank-books of some of the accused must have startled them not a little, and the demand of whence came this "monkey," or from whom did you receive that "thou" has had to be answered.
"Turf vitality" is a question that has of late years more or less exercised the pens of some keen critics of horse-racing; but the vitality of the turf may be taken for granted even by those who are despondent in consequence of the increase of short-distance races, and the consequent degeneration of our breeds of horses with "stamina." There is nothing to be despondent over or to grumble about, and there is at the present time a plethora of sport. More horses are now being bred for racing purposes than were ever bred before; our public stables are everywhere full of high-mettled steeds. Many farmers find a business in supplying hay and corn for the stables of Newmarket; trainers' bills become yearly more and more onerous; but for all that, constant accessions to those who carry on the sport of kings are being recorded. The value of the money stakes and trophies of the pastime, which are now being run for, goes on increasing; twenty years ago, a matter of £200 was thought to be a stake worth winning, now £2,000 may be added to a handicap without exciting any sense of wonder. Who, then, dare say, in the face of such facts, that the decadence of the "national pastime" has begun? Clerks of courses, during the last ten years, have experienced a flourishing time, the public attend on our racecourses in increasing numbers, every newspaper of importance devotes a large portion of its space to the news of the turf, whilst three daily papers cater specially for the sporting public, and it is no exaggeration to say that the wires of the telegraphic system are largely employed in distributing news of all kinds respecting the horse-racing of the period. The messages incident to the conduct of "sport" at Epsom and Ascot, as also at Goodwood and Doncaster, are marvellously numerous. To conclude, it has to be said of "the sport of kings" that, so long as it is surrounded by that army of gamblers, which now so flatly flourishes on all our racecourses, it will continue to be what it has long since become, a monstrous game of speculation.
JOCKEYS.
In Newmarket and other racing stables there are a very large number of boys employed—one for each horse—most of whom are apprenticed while very young to the trainers, to be taught the business of a groom. Only a small number of these boys develop, however, into passable jockeys, and fewer still into what may be termed great horsemen. Many of the lads grow so rapidly that they soon become useless in the racing saddle. Every now and again, however, a lad of merit and mettle emerges from the crowd of his fellows and earns a reputation as a consummate horseman; but as there are more than a thousand stable-boys, and only, perhaps, some twenty jockeys of repute, it is obvious that the prizes, as in other professions, are few, and the blanks many. These stable-lads are taught their business with much care, and in every respect are well looked after. They are taken to church every Sunday, and in some training establishments there is Sabbath school and other teaching as well. One trainer, a remarkable man in his calling, not satisfied with two visits to church for his lads, invariably read to them at night one of Blair's sermons. If one of the boys was so unlucky as to fall asleep, he was at once brought to a sense of his iniquity by a touch or two from a long whip, which his master kept beside him ready for use.
Discipline must be observed in a racing stable, but, as a rule, the lads are humanely treated, corporal punishment not being resorted to now, as it used to be in the days of old. As an illustration of jockey life half a century ago, it may be mentioned that a Yorkshire trainer, named Smith, was invariably severe with his lads, but "was cruel only to be kind." When administering a round of the cane, he used to utter a kind of apology. His usual homily to his victim was: "Thou'lt come to me in ten years' time, my lad, and thank me on thy knees for saving thee from the gallows." The race of old physical force trainers is nearly extinct, and their successors of to-day are generally well-educated men, learned in the character and structure of the animal they train. At many of the racing stables the wives of the trainers take a warm interest in the morals of the boys, and look after them with motherly regard. On some training grounds no work is done on Sundays, on that day the horses are merely exercised.
In course of time, one of the many lads engaged in the stables shows himself to be of the stuff of which successful jockeys are made, and that being so, makes his way to the front, and after a few trials finds himself elevated to the proud position of premier horseman, with every prospect, if he be careful of his earnings, of making, in the course of a few years, a splendid fortune. But he must "keep his head" and not forget himself, as many a jockey before him has done. "The evolution of the jockey" has, in one instance, been described by "Borderer," a well-known contributor to the literature of the turf.
It was "Borderer's" lot to see a little dark-eyed boy amongst a lot riding at exercise for an Epsom trainer some thirty years ago, and to ask the trainer about him.
"Yes, sir," replied the trainer, "that little chap has not been with me long; he is the son of a man who drives a mail-cart about London for the General Post Office. He gets kicked off twice a week, but is a nice boy."
"Let him ride in that trial to-morrow," replied I, "that we are arranging to have."
"He's hardly strong enough, sir; he only scales 4 st. 7 lb. That boy next him is much better."
Like a wilful fellow, however, "Borderer" would have his way, and the little dark-eyed boy, that looked as keen as a hawk, rode in and won the trial cleverly. "From this circumstance began my acquaintance with Constable, the jockey, for he was no other than my dark-eyed protégé. For me he won his first races, and in his earlier years I taught him to have money in the Savings Bank, and he seldom failed to come to me for advice, some of which, I trust, was for his good. A straighter lad than Constable never strode a horse. He promised me when he was free from his articles not to ride for a bookmaker and never to pull a horse, and I believe he religiously kept his promises. It sounds egotistical to tell these stories, where the author is himself concerned, but my readers will, I hope, forgive me. Pope is not far from the mark when he says, 'Just as the twig is bent the tree inclineth,' and so it is with jockeys as with other mortals."
The chief jockey is petted like a prima donna, and made a companion by sporting lords. His movements are chronicled as carefully as those of a Prince of the Royal blood. His cartes-de-visite are in constant demand. He is surrounded by a host of parasites; his "mounts" are backed till they are quoted at the shortest odds; his opinion of the animal he rides is anxiously asked for by owner and trainer; while the ragged regiment of gamblers who pin their faith to his horse are pleased with a smile even from his valet. Sporting journals publish his portrait, and garnish their columns with criticisms of his riding and anecdotes of his career; his bon-mots are circulated as good things, and his clothes are imitated by the vulgar. Moreover, he earns a larger income than a Prime Minister, his services being intrigued and paid for with a power of diplomacy and at a rate of remuneration only known "on the turf."
To readers not versed in the ways of racing it may be explained that when a jockey is so fortunate as to win a race he receives a fee of five guineas, but when not successful in achieving the first place he receives only three guineas. He is paid two guineas for riding in trials on occasions when it is desirable to ascertain the power of some horse to win a particular race. A few jockeys, seldom heard of as winners of races, earn a considerable amount of money by riding in trials. Payment for trials is sometimes, however, included in the retainer a jockey gets from his master. Jockeys of celebrity are often retained by noblemen and gentlemen specially to ride their horses in preference to those of other competitors, for which they receive a handsome wage or retaining fee in addition to the usual payments for their services in the saddle, win or lose. They may thus be engaged by several masters during the same season, having first, second, and third calls, according to priority of engagement; so that a retained jockey has not the power to ride for casual fees, unless when his services are not required by one or other of his regular employers, and it rarely happens that one or other of a jockey's masters has not a horse for him to ride in all the classic races.
Pre-engagements, then, although remunerative, are not always advantageous. A jockey who might have ridden a Derby winner has often been compelled to mount in that race, in the vain hope of victory, an inferior horse, because of having to obey the call of one or other of those who had retained his services.
The fees earned by a successful jockey, speaking roundly, form the least portion of his income, as the presents given him by owners of horses and numerous "admirers," in the shape of bettors who have backed his mounts, are frequent and valuable. Gold watches, diamond rings, and breast-pins set with rubies; riding horses, dog-carts, and yachts; as well as suits of clothes, new hats, boxes of cigars, and cases of champagne, fall to the lot of fortunate jockeys who win important races. A noted professional horseman a few years ago received, it was said, in two seasons as many boxes of cigars as would have stocked a modest shop. The same lad was also presented, in the course of his career, with seven gold watches (he always used a silver one) and seven finger-rings set with diamonds, as well as with other valuable jewels. Money gifts to successful jockeys are now, however, the order of the day, and that such gifts are often of great magnitude there is abundant evidence to show. It is well known, for instance, in turf circles that the jockey who rode Roseberry, the winner of the Cesarewitch at Newmarket, was presented by the owner of that horse with a cheque for £1,000; a similar sum being given to the jockey who rode the winner of the Cambridgeshire, also won by Roseberry. Such sums, large as they undoubtedly are, extravagant as they may indeed appear in the eyes of non-racing people, have been more than once bestowed for work well done on the racecourse. So far back as the year 1824, Benjamin Smith was presented with a testimonial of nearly £1,000, subscribed for by a number of persons, on the occasion of his admirable riding of Jerry in the great St. Leger Stakes at Doncaster. The jockey who rode the winner of a sensational Derby was presented by the owner of the winning horse, Hermit, with a sum of £3,000. Another gentleman gave him what in racing parlance is called a "monkey," which is £500; whilst a present of £100 was bestowed by a third person. Numerous offerings of lesser value, as also some gifts of jewellery, were likewise sent to the hero of the race, who is said to have netted over £4,000 by his exertions on that one occasion, which is about double the sum paid to Sir Walter Scott for writing his celebrated poem, "The Lady of the Lake."
These princely gifts, as they may be called, contrast with those modest presents which were given to jockeys by their masters and patrons at an earlier time. After John Day, who was one of the chief jockeys of his time, had in one week achieved victory in two of the classic races for his master, the Duke of Grafton, his grace sent for him and said: "John Day, I am going to make you a present for the manner in which you have ridden my horses this week; I am about to give you £20 in bank-notes of Messrs. ——'s bank at Bury St. Edmund's, most highly respectable bankers." That sum was considered a handsome present in those days, when a successful jockey, if a married man, was generally rewarded with a side of bacon, a cheese, a bag of potatoes, or a barrel of home-brewed ale, in addition to his wages, for at the time indicated horse-riders were grooms rather than jockeys. Persons who "back," as it is called in racing argot, successful horses to win them large sums of money, are generally, in the exultation of the moment, very open-handed, and think it right to give a winning jockey a ten or twenty pound note, or even a larger sum, according to the scale of their luck. Upon a recent occasion, bank-notes of the value of £500 were anonymously sent to a jockey at Newmarket who won a race on a horse the victory of which at the time was most unexpected. The animal in question, during the winter preceding the race, had been made favourite, but latterly—that is, before the day fixed for the decision of the contest—the horse was represented to be out of condition and not likely to prove successful; but the horse came to the post, started for, and won the race. The money given to the jockey by the gentleman was most likely a thank-offering for a windfall. Many a jockey has received in the same way an unexpected douceur, although not perhaps of so large a sum. Single sovereigns are often presented to jockeys by small gamblers. It is related of a successful light-weight jockey, well known on the turf a few years ago, but who, alas, poor lad, now lies under it, that he accumulated in a money-box, during one season, all the single sovereigns which he received as presents from gratified although humble patrons, and presented them to his sister, the sum so given amounting to a little over £300. Occasionally a jockey is presented with the horse he has ridden when it proves unsuccessful, and in some instances the animal has afterwards proved to be more valuable than was supposed when given away.
The policy of paying large sums to jockeys has frequently been discussed, and those in the habit of giving valuable gifts in money have been well abused for inconsiderate liberality. The interests at stake, however, since the horse became the instrument of gambling it now is, are so gigantic as to render it imperative that jockeys be placed beyond temptation. The total value of the stakes which were contested during last year (1890) amounted to considerably over £446,000, not to speak of the sums dependent on wagers, which were probably ten times that amount. Whether, therefore, in the face of such risks, £1,000 is too little, or too much, or just the right sum to be given with a view to secure a rider's honesty, who shall determine if not the man who is the proprietor of the animal, and who has very probably backed his horse to win him twenty or thirty thousand pounds? It may appear to many an exaggeration that such amounts are made to stand the hazard of a race, but it is nevertheless true. Race-horses are frequently "backed" to win sums of from £1,000 to £100,000. The horse called Hermit, which was victorious in the sensational Derby already referred to, won for his owner £100,000; and the same sum was "landed"—the reader must excuse the slang—when Lecturer won the Cesarewitch in the year 1866. In important handicaps it is possible to back each of twelve of the horses entered to win from twenty to fifty thousand pounds.
The L. S. D. of modern jockeyship can be expiscated by taking a glance at the number of mounts obtained by three or four of the leading horsemen engaged during the racing season of 1890. In that year the chief jockey earned by his public riding alone the handsome amount of 2,271 gs.; the horseman who was second, earned 1,877 gs.; whilst there fell to the lot of number three in merit (or in success), 1,317 gs. These sums represent only the bare riding fees—there would in addition in each case be "retainers" two or three deep, as also presents in plenty, so that the gross amount stated, 5,465 gs., would in all probability be more than trebled in the course of the season. "I don't value my fees so very much, although they ain't to be despised," said, two years ago, a well-employed jockey, "it's the retainers I get and the presents sent to me that bring up my income to the mark I like." Said another jockey: "My riding fees alone amount to a thousand a year, and I am satisfied; I earn a hundred or two by riding in trials as well, and I pick up an occasional pony by buying hunters for gentlemen who employ me to do so. A few presents also come my way; one foolish gentleman who won £3,000 over a mount of mine sent quite a lot of jewels to my wife and children."