The English Racing Scandal.

Evening Star, Issue 7450, 20 February 1888, Page 4

The English Racing Scandal.

The quarrel between .Sir George Chetw ynd and Lout Durham lias excited a great deal of interest at Home. The charge of cruelty to racehorses formed no part of the original dispute, and, if the cable message be correct, must have arisen since. The stoiy of the falling-out is told in graphic form iu the ‘ Fall Mall Gazette’ of December 27, from which we make the following extracts :—“Some days ago Lord Durham, at a meeting of the Gimerack Club in the North, made some rather strong reflections upon the way in which horses belonging to a certain stable had been running in the past season. The suggestion undoubtedly was that these horses did not run straight ; that either their owners or their jockeys rode them to win or lose as it best suited their book. Lord Durham further referred to the rede by w'hich every jockey who has an interest in any racehorse or who makes any bet loses ids license ; and lie asserted roundly that the rule was not enforced, to the serious detriment of the interests of honest racing. Thereupon a storm arose. Lord Durham named no names, but Sir George Chetwynd put the cap on at onec. “ Do’yon mean me or the horses trained at Shorrard’s stable?” he asked; and Loyd Durham, after hesitating a good deal, ultimately admitted that he did refer to Shcrrard’s stable and to the running of one of Sir George Chctwynd’s horses. Thereupon Sir George hotly challenged Lord Durham to tight a duel, an oiler which Lord Durham treated most properly with contempt. Thereupon Sir George demanded an apology, and, failing to get it, appealed no the Jockey Club to avenge him of his adversary. Mr James Lowther, with whom it is believed Lord Durham had taken counsel before he made his audacious speech, is the only steward of the Club now in London, lie does not think tho stewards will interfere, as Lord Durham is prepared to defend his speech in a Court of law. Thereupon the controversy stops. Sir George Chetwynd informs us that he regards the matter as being out of his hands, and that ho is still expecting the Jockey Club to take it up. Sir George has already laid before the stewards a detailed statement of the amounts which he alleges he has won and lost on the horse Fullerton, whose in-and-out running seems to have been specially referred to by Lord Durham. From this it appears that the horse won three races, gaining L' 2,190 in wagers, and lost eight, involving Sir George in a loss of L 3.287, so that altogether ho lost LI ,097 on the horse, and had backed him for six times as much when he lost as when he won. So far as the statement goes, adds the ‘ Rail Mali,’ this is very satisfactory. But of course it is only an cx parte, statement, and even if it is accurate it does not meet in the slightest the chief count in Lord Durham’s indictment which referred not so much to the owner of the horse us to the jockey. It is quite possible—although, of course, we do not suggest that it is the ease —for Sir George to have lost L 1,097 in bets on Fullerton, and yet for ten times that amount to be made by other persons with whom Sir George usually acts or whom he employs. What would have been much more to the point on Sir George Chetwynd’a part than the silly challenge co fight would have been a distinct denial that he or any horses from 1 the well-known and fashionable and aristocratic racing stable ’ bad ever been ridden by a j >ckcy who lias any interest in them, or who is engaged in any betting transactions, or who is known to have pulled horses. ”