CLOSING THE STABLE DOOR AND THE PUBLIC PURSE : THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROYAL PLATES

Joyce Kay

The Open University in Scotland

The system of Royal Plates, under which public money was dispensed to the winners of certain long-distance horse races, operated for nearly two hundred years, until it was abandoned in 1888. A succession of monarchs, enthusiastic, indifferent, or hostile towards racing, paid up to £5,500 annually to support what William IV described in 1836 as `a national sport' and the future Edward VII referred to in 1869 as `a National Institution of the Country'.1 Although the prizes were originally donated from the sovereign's private income, they were funded for much of this period, including the reign of Queen Victoria, from a variety of sources within the Royal Household expenditure, which required the annual approval of Parliament. This paper will review the history of the Royal Plates and consider the reasons why, at a time of limited state intervention, Her Majesty's government chose to subsidise something as trivial as sport, and in particular, horseracing, of which Her Majesty heartily disapproved.2

It is generally supposed that royal patronage of racing began during the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) and that it was continued by William III, founder of the Royal Stud and the first sovereign to employ a Keeper of the Royal Running Horses to act as his trainer-manager.3 But it was Queen Anne and her husband who provided prizes on a regular basis, in the form of gold plate and cups. In the opening decade of the eighteenth century, they instituted Queen's Plates at Newmarket, Ascot Heath, Datchet near Windsor and a number of venues in Yorkshire, and were not averse to entering their own horses for the trophies. Although the early Hanoverian
The Sports Historian, No. 20, 1 (May, 2000), pp. 18-32

PUBLISHED BY THE BRITISH SOCIETY OF SPORTS HISTORY
kings showed little interest in racing, they continued to fund the sport and the races proved to be popular; thirty-one mares are said to have raced in 1719 for a Royal Cup valued at 100 guineas.4 By the middle of the eighteenth century cash prizes had been substituted for trophies and fifteen Royal Plates were contested at venues ranging from Edinburgh to Winchester, with three reserved for Newmarket, the centre of British horseracing. In 1800, the number had risen to twenty-two; by 1833, there were thirty-four, together with a further sixteen in Ireland.

Stamina was the most prized asset of the eighteenth-century racehorse and was reflected in the lengthy distances of most races, run as a series of four-mile heats. The winner was the first to triumph twice _ in so doing, the unfortunate animal could have run the equivalent of three Grand Nationals on one afternoon, admittedly without the fences. Horses taking part in these trials of endurance were almost invariably five or six years old; less mature animals could not withstand such gruelling ordeals, particularly as the average thoroughbred in 1700 was scarcely taller than a large pony (about 14 hands) and was often required to carry 12 stone.5

Conditions for Royal Plates initially followed this accepted pattern. Of the eleven that took place in 1727, eight were for six-year-olds, carrying 12 stone over four-mile heats, and two were for five-year-old mares racing four miles with 10 stone. They provided stern tests for British bloodstock at a time when opportunities for top-class racing were restricted, not solely by geography. The limitations of regional racing circuits and the distance racehorses walked in a pre-railway era have been a matter of debate for some years but in the eighteenth century distance was not the only factor.6 According to one early historian of the sport, `the best horses seldom ran more than five or six times and some not so often, there being scarcely any plates of note except royal ones [emphasis added]; and very few sweepstakes or matches were made except at Newmarket till about the year 1760.'7 Geography, however, may have been less of a consideration than economics. Distance did not prevent Regulus, a son of the Godolphin Arabian, from capturing six Royal Plates in one year _ at Salisbury, Nottingham, Canterbury, Lewes, Lincoln and Newmarket8 _ while eleven of the eighteen victories notched up in seasons 1769 and 1770 by his grandson, Eclipse, were King's Plates.9 They were undoubtedly important fixtures in the early racing calendar, affording prestige, substantial prize money, and perhaps a lucrative income from stud fees to the winning owner.

But changes were afoot. Speed as well as stamina began to figure more prominently as a desirable characteristic of the thoroughbred racehorse and the second half of the eighteenth century witnessed the first juvenile races, for two and three-year-olds, over shorter courses. With contests such as the Oaks (1779) and the Derby (1780) for three-year-olds over a mile-and-a-half and the July Stakes (1786) for two-year-olds over five furlongs, the standard diet of long-distance races for older horses began to change. Within twenty-five years half of the races at meetings featuring a Royal Plate were for horses of all ages, including juveniles, and a quarter were specifically for two and three-year-olds. Shorter races provided more exciting spectacles and enhanced opportunities for gambling; they also led to larger fields and substantially increased prize money. Plates and purses of 50_100 guineas, donated by racing committees and local dignitaries, which had dominated the racecard, were now augmented by sweepstakes, in which owners paid entry fees. Even a modest stake of 10 guineas per subscriber could realise a handsome prize if sufficient entries could be attracted; 20-guinea sweepstakes could be found at a third of race meetings held in England in 1808; and the more prestigious races, at 50-100 guineas per entrant, could result in winnings of thousands instead of hundreds of pounds. The Royal Plate, however, remained unchanged at 100 guineas; and whereas in 1773 it was frequently the richest prize at the meeting, by the turn of the century many racecourses boasted at least one more valuable race.10

Faced with a changing pattern of racing, the outcry from traditionalists - `let none but aged horses run for public money' - fell largely on deaf ears.11 In 1799, presumably in an attempt to attract more competitors, the King's Master of the Horse announced in the London Gazette that those Royal Plates which had previously been limited to six-year-olds carrying 12 stone were now open to horses of four years carrying 10 stone 4 pounds.12 By 1809, four of the twenty-three Royal Plates allowed three-year-old entrants, six were run over distances of two to three miles instead of the usual four miles, and half of the winning horses were four-year-olds. The weights carried varied widely _ the three-year-old winner of a King's Plate at Newmarket carried 8 stone 4 pounds over three miles, a six-year-old mare won a series of four-mile heats under 8 stone 10 pounds at Edinburgh and five-year-olds carried between 11 stone 6 pounds and 12 stone. By 1833, only three of the thirty-four subsidised races were contested over four miles while seventeen were restricted to two miles. But the average field, seldom more than four, failed to increase; all that rose was the number of walkovers, two in 1810, four in 1827 and six in 1833.13 The Royal Plate, once synonymous with strong, mature stayers, had begun to follow the nineteenth-century trend towards shorter distances, lighter weights and younger horses but without the attraction of better prize money. But why were they funded at all?

* * * *

Nineteenth-century historians of racing had no doubt that the breeding of sound, useful stock had always been the main motive behind public subsidy of the sport. One writer of 1800 opined that, `The effect of the Royal purses and plates has corresponded with their meritorious object _ the increase of blood horses in these countries, which are now superior, in this respect, to any other in the world'.14 A correspondent in the Sporting Magazine of 1810, praising the original award of prizes for four-mile heats at 12 stone weights, was convinced that, `by this method, a stronger and more useful breed was soon raised'.15 A third, in 1879, was naïve enough to suggest that the main purpose of racing was `the breeding of stout and speedy horses', a view commonly held by Victorians who preferred to ignore the more distasteful objective of gambling.16 All these authors seem to have assumed that the original conditions of distance and heavy weights were adhered to throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. We now know that shorter distances and lesser weights were increasingly common and that some of the animals taking part in these races were not necessarily ideal breeding stock. In fact, some were not breeding stock at all _ they were geldings.

The Queen's Plates instituted in the early eighteenth century were thought to be open to horses, mares and geldings and this is confirmed with the publication of Weatherbys' Racing Calendar in 1773, listing Royal Plate winners and entrants for every race.17 Perhaps the use of public money demanded greater openness and accountability because Royal Plate Articles were later included, detailing the rules which governed the races and each of the first six begins with the phrase, `Every horse, mare or gelding ' A random survey from 1799 to 1870 indicates that neutered animals took part in several Royal Plates for each year examined; 1827 saw five gelded winners including the unfortunately named Cock Robin. It is possible that geldings were tolerated because of a general shortage of entrants a few here or there would have made no difference as long as the majority were entire. But it seems bizarre that conditions for a series of races allegedly funded to encourage the breeding of thoroughbreds should be framed from the outset to include animals which were useless for the purpose.

The prize money for Royal Plates came initially from the monarch's private income. Instead of assuming that an improvement in bloodstock was their primary purpose, a simple explanation may be that royalty enjoyed racing or was at least prepared to support its enjoyment by others. William III is said to have `afforded it his royal encouragement'; Queen Anne founded racing at Ascot as well as the original Queen's Plates; George III, though `no turf-man', continued the importation of racing stallions begun by his predecessors; and his sons, George and Frederick, were `illustrious and warm supporters of the turf'.18 Given the shortage of quality races already noted for most of the eighteenth century, the object of the early Royal Plates may simply have been the welfare and maintenance of elite racing. One commentator certainly believed that the high prices paid for `horses of size and substance, capable of winning a King's Plate' were sufficient encouragement for breeders.19 Occasionally other incentives were also available. In his first season, the services of the Damascus Arabian, standing at Newmarket, were offered free to any mare or her offspring who were certified to have won a 12 stone King's Plate.20 With the importation of approximately 150 Arabian stallions during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and the purchase of racing stallions by the Crown and the aristocracy throughout the remainder of the period, it is not surprising that by the early nineteenth century the British thoroughbred had shown steady and consistent improvement.21 The Royal Plates as a vehicle for equine competition may have indirectly contributed to the quality of British breeding stock, but perhaps this should be seen as a fortuitous by-product rather than the raison d'être of the system.

By the early nineteenth century, the volume of racing was expanding rapidly. 500 races in 1807, excluding matches, had become 955 by 1827 and the number of Royal Plates had increased from twenty-three to twenty-six. The development of racing on such a scale calls for a different set of reasons as to why the sport merited public subsidy, particularly during the reign of Queen Victoria. Her predecessor, William IV, though not an enthusiast, `conscientiously patronised horseracing' because he thought that English people found enjoyment in their racing, and according to Whyte, `His Majesty suffered no opportunity to escape of promoting our national amusements of the turf and the chase'.22 Victoria, on the other hand, was not amused by racing and thoroughly detested the gambling which accompanied it, although she attended Royal Ascot as a social occasion.23 The key to both additional prize money and the variety of alterations to Royal Plates which took place during the middle years of the century may lie partly in the growing importance of the Jockey Club and its connections with the Royal Household, and partly in the changes taking place within racing.

It was 1832 when the Jockey Club, based at Newmarket and responsible for regulating racing there, began to tighten its grip on the Turf, recommending the adoption of its Rules and Orders throughout the country and refusing to adjudicate in racing disputes at meetings where these were not applied.24 During the previous five years, it appears to have established a good relationship with the monarchy, firstly with George IV, who is alleged to have promised anything in his power to assist racing in Britain, and latterly with his brother, William IV.25 The Jockey Club is said to have been encouraged to increase its influence by the support of the King and contact between monarch and members, not least at the Jockey Club dinners which William hosted at St. James' Palace, may have resulted in several changes to the organisation of Royal Plates.26 It is undeniable that their number, static at twenty-three since the end of the eighteenth century, was increased to thirty-four within the period 1824_33, that the money to pay for the new races came from a separate fund, and that the distances for fifteen of the existing races were reduced from four to two miles between 1831 and 1833. It is also clear that additional gifts were made personally by the two kings, in a manner reminiscent of Queen Anne. George presented the Royal Whip plus 100 guineas to the Turf Club in Ireland for a race at The Curragh, while William donated a trophy and 200 sovereigns at Ascot, the race conditions, perhaps significantly, to be decided by the Jockey Club.27

Although it lacked the power to prevent the sale of the Royal Stud on William's death in 1837, the Club's increasing authority and its connections within Parliament may have helped to ensure the continuation of subsidised racing even without the support of the sovereign. Furthermore, the new Queen's lack of interest in turf affairs probably enhanced the role of Her Majesty's Master of the Horse, the person ultimately responsible for matters concerning the Royal Plates and a gentleman who was frequently a member of the Club. Ten years later, the hand of the Jockey Club was clearly visible in the revised Queen's Plate Articles, published in the Racing Calendar for 1847. Virtually unchanged for almost fifty years, the original ten rules made little reference to any form of authority, other than three mentioning `such persons as shall be appointed by the Master of the Horse'. The new regulations, intended to apply to all courses at which Royal Plates were held, are peppered with references to Stewards of the Jockey Club, Stewards of the Races, and Jockey Club rules. In 1861, further alterations suggest that the Jockey Club was attempting to enforce conditions on Royal Plates in advance of their application to racing in general. Rule X in 1861 states, `Her Majesty's Plates to be run for between the 25th of March and the 15th of November'. A similar rule was not introduced into the General Rules of Horseracing until 1870.28 It would seem that the Royal Plates, once the gift of monarchs, were firmly in the grasp of officialdom.

A further reason for the increased attention paid to the funding and conditions of these races may have been the less desirable developments taking place in other aspects of the Turf, as yet outwith Jockey Club control. With more emphasis on speed than stamina and the continued vogue for racing two-year-olds and even yearlings, commentators were becoming aware by the 1830s that not only the quality of racehorses but that of bloodstock in general could be jeopardized.29 Cross breeding with thoroughbred racers had allegedly improved generations of hunters, hacks and carriage horses. But the early retiral to stud of lightly-weighted three-year-old winners of sprints was likely, over time, to produce taller, narrower horses, incapable of carrying weights or galloping distances.30 `The useful horse is being elbowed out by the handsome but helpless racer,' thundered one commentator.31 Admiral Rous, the long-serving Jockey Club Steward called to give evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Horse Breeding in 1873, may have thought that thorough breds were much improved since 1700, but he confined his remarks to their significant increase in height _ obviously an early exponent of the popular maxim `size matters'. Others were less convinced that a good big `un (the average thoroughbred now measured 15.2 hands, four inches taller than his forebears of 1700) was better than a good little `un. They identified the first quarter of the nineteenth century as the golden age of the English thoroughbred, since when there had been a levelling out, followed by a slow deterioration in the breed.32 Owning and breeding the racecourse thoroughbreds of the mid-nineteenth century no longer seemed compatible with rearing the sound, strong, general-purpose animal of fifty years earlier. The revival in interest and increased numbers of Royal Plates may have been seen as a way to counterbalance the trend towards juvenile racing and an opportunity for traditional racing men to engage in old-fashioned sport instead of `running two-year-olds off their legs'.33 The reputation of the Royal Plate as a vehicle for the improvement of bloodstock may stem from this period in its history when it continued to offer a form of racing whose widespread popularity was diminishing but whose value was still recognised in some quarters.

With a few exceptions, there were no further attempts to restrict the length of the races; some were even extended. The Royal Plate held at Salisbury, reduced from four to two miles in the early 1830s, had been increased to three miles by 1852 and one of the three at Newmarket, shortened to three-and-a-half miles in the 1820s, reverted to four miles in 1860. When race committees throughout Britain were filling their meetings with sprints as short as three furlongs, the Royal Plates still offered opportunities for horses to display stamina. Their days, however, were numbered.

* * * *

By 1870, racing in Britain had been transformed. In 1807, fewer than 80 venues warranted a mention in the Racing Calendar; by 1870 there were nearly 140. In 1807, 40% of meetings which featured a Royal Plate also included a more valuable race; by 1870 this had risen to 90%. In 1807, 80% of races were for two miles and upwards; by 1870, 80% were for one mile or less and fewer than 10% were for two miles and over. The longer races included those set aside for hunters and gentlemen riders, a legacy of the eighteenth century, offering limited prize money or local trophies; popular sweepstake handicaps such as the Cesarewitch at Newmarket which attracted large fields and consequently a first prize of over £1500, or the Great Ebor Handicap at York with roughly £600 in prize money; and prestigious cups to which stake money had been added _ the Ascot Gold Cup, worth about £900 or the Goodwood Cup of about £550 being typical examples. Most of the valuable distance races were held at major racecourses such as Ascot, Doncaster, Newmarket and York, while the lowlier prizes were awarded at the type of traditional local race meeting which was soon to disappear from the calendar or re-emerge in the guise of a National Hunt fixture. Royal Plates tended to be split between two kinds of course. One hosted prestigious meetings at which the paltry 100-guinea prize looked derisory in comparison with many on the card and therefore failed to attract entrants: in 1870, only two competed for the prize at Doncaster and Goodwood while Ascot and York were walkovers. The other was situated near small, once-wealthy provincial towns such as Winchester, Shrewsbury, Canterbury or Ipswich, largely by-passed in an increasingly industrial age. These were the meetings at which the race still drew a respectable field even in 1870 _ eight at Winchester, four at Shrewsbury, five at Canterbury and seven at Ipswich. But for the majority of meetings, it had become one of the lower value and less popular races on the card.

The first serious threat to the future of the Royal Plates occurred in 1861 when it was suggested that £5,000 a year could be saved if Parliament refused to grant the money.34 Attention had finally been drawn to the low numbers entering the races, although why fields of three or four had suddenly become unacceptable when they had been the norm at some courses for much of the century is unclear. The arguments for retaining them were twofold. Firstly, they had always been perceived as incentives to owners and breeders and were thought, however erroneously, to have fulfilled that purpose. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they were still seen as essential to the welfare of racing. It was argued that although they made no difference to larger race meetings, as noted above, they were `a matter of the first importance to small meetings where it is difficult to get subscriptions and attendance is small'. It was also pointed out that the savings made by withdrawing the annual grant were of little consequence, and although Rice thought that the great increase in value of other stakes since 1840 `very likely called for some alteration in the stereotyped 100 guineas doled out from the national purse', the Royal Plates continued much as before.35

Was this a missed opportunity? With hindsight, the inertia displayed by those who had a hand in the management of the subsidy may have led ultimately to the downfall of the system. If the breeding of suitable horses was a major objective, why were geldings still allowed to run, even after the Royal Plates had come under closer scrutiny? If it was obvious that the major racecourses had no need of a Royal Plate, why was their allocation of funds not redistributed to the smaller venues, as occurred fifteen years on when it was probably too late? Owners were said to be responsive to a cash stimulus and raced where the stakes were highest.36 Sixteen 200-guinea races rather than thirty-two prizes of 100 guineas might therefore have attracted more entries to those courses which were particularly dependent on a Royal Plate for survival.

However, a survey of the forty richest two-mile races in 1870 suggests that owners were not always rational. Although a few boasted fields of up to fifteen runners, the average distance race, with prize money of £475, could muster only five starters, scarcely higher than the average Royal Plate, at four. Even the Alexandra Plate at Ascot, worth £1,035 to the winner, had only two entries. Conversely, large numbers were willing to race over short distances for little reward. Twenty-three two-year-olds took part in a four-furlong race at Epsom which offered only £100 and eighteen went to post at Newmarket for a miserly £50. Long distance racing appeared to be unpopular even when substantial prizes were offered and it may be that the costs of preparation for longer races and the expense of keeping older horses in training more than outweighed the potential winnings and enhanced stud fees. It also seems as if there was a very limited pool of horses able or prepared to compete. Nearly half of the winners from the two-mile race survey had won or were placed in Royal Plates, and one horse is said to have snaffled twenty-seven of the subsidised races between 1874 and 1876.37 This may have been the catalyst which brought Her Majesty's Plates back to the attention of the authorities.

The early 1870s had seen intensified efforts by the Jockey Club to stamp out corruption on the racecourse and the first tentative steps to limit racing over the shortest distances with the youngest horses and lightest weights. A series of new regulations also attempted to impose minimum levels of prize money for individual races (1870) and race days (1877). The Royal Plates were not exempt from this flurry of legislative activity and 1875 saw a reduction in their number and a doubling of prize money `with a view to encourage a greater number and a higher class of horses'.38 In future, they were to be run in alternate years at neighbouring courses (for example, Ipswich and Chelmsford, Manchester and Liverpool, Canterbury and Lewes), with the exception of those at York and Newmarket which continued to be run annually. Unfortunately, the eighteen Royal Plates held in Scotland and Ireland, which had always been funded from a separate source, were unaltered, and continued to offer the original 100-guinea prizes. Geldings were finally banned from participation and the races confined to mares were abolished: but it was all too late. Although the quality of winners was said to have improved, the numbers taking part remained disappointing and ten years later the Royal Plates were under scrutiny again.39 In the meantime, four small but long-established racecourses at which Royal Plates were run, including Canterbury and Ipswich, had closed, although whether the policy of alternate years had contributed to this requires further investigation.

The decisions taken in 1885 were further to reduce the venues to ten, including two, Bath and Stockbridge, which had never featured a Royal Plate before; to raise the prize money to 300 guineas per race, with 500 guineas at Newmarket; and to restrict entry to horses bred in Great Britain and Ireland. No horse was allowed to win more than two plates in any one year but once again, the policy changes, though sensible, would have been better applied twenty years earlier. There was no rescuing the system now and only forty-two horses were entered for ten races in 1886 and thirty-four in 1887. At the beginning of 1888, the Racing Calendar announced that the Master of the Horse had informed the Stewards of the Jockey Club that `the sum usually granted by Her Majesty for the Queen's Plates will be otherwise applied until further notice'. It is not known how the final decision was reached or by whom. The Master of the Horse in 1888 was the Duke of Portland, a member of the Jockey Club, owner of that year's Derby winner and also of St. Simon, one of the most successful sires of the nineteenth century. There had also been a revival of royal interest in horseracing. The Prince of Wales, to the dismay of his mother, had not only been elected to the Jockey Club in 1864 but had begun to race horses under the royal colours during the 1870s.40 Many of his closest friends were prominent members of the Club and it is possible that he had a personal interest in the disbursement of the `Royal Bounty'.

When the information concerning the demise of the Royal Plates was first conveyed to the Jockey Club, at least one member, Lord Rosslyn, expressed regret at the decision, and the Stewards seem to have considered the possibility of setting up races with similar conditions at Newmarket, hoping that other racecourses would follow suit. Further research would be required to establish whether this happened: but given the problems of prize money, entrants and the fashion for shorter races, it seems unlikely. What did occur was the transfer of £5,000 from the Queen's Guineas to the Queen's Premiums. Instead of the roundabout and dubious method of improving horseflesh via the racecourse, the money was spent directly on the purchase of twenty-two `good, sound and powerful thoroughbred stallions', to be placed at stud in different parts of the country.41 This decision emanated from the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding of 1888 which had concluded that, for a considerable period, the Royal Plates had failed in their original purpose (or, as seems more likely, the purpose to which they were belatedly directed in the 1830s.) But a scientific basis for breeding was almost entirely lacking at this time and the production of winning racehorses was something of a hit-or-miss affair.42 It is hardly surprising that a muddled and misdirected policy of subsidising racing was allowed to continue when no-one could decide which objective should be pursued or how to achieve it.

A generation later, the plea for public encouragement of horse breeding by means of distance racing had not been silenced. It was argued that valuable two-mile races in the interests of bloodstock should be funded by the state and not left to individual enterprise.43 As early as 1901, concerns were voiced about the system of premiums which had replaced Royal Plates and the lack of competitive opportunities for mature racehorses.44 But as far as racing was concerned, the public purse had finally closed.

References

Barrett, Norman (ed.) The Daily Telegraph Chronicle of Horse Racing, (Enfield: Guinness, 1995)

Blaine, D. P., Encyclopaedia of Rural Sports (London: Longmans, 1870)

Cook, T. A., A History of the English Turf, 3 vols. (London: 1901)

Dixon, W.S., The Influence of Racing and the Thoroughbred Horse on Light Horse Breeding (London: 1924)

Kay, Joyce and Vamplew, Wray, Horse Racing, in: Burnett, John and Jarvie, Grant (eds),

The Sporting Scot (Edinburgh: John Donald, forthcoming)

Macgregor-Morris, Pamela, The History of the Hunters' Improvement Society 1885-1985 (Cornwall: Trematon Press, 1986)

Minutes of the Royal Caledonian Hunt Club

Mortimer, Roger, The Jockey Club (London: Cassell, 1958)

Napier, Miles, Tregonwell Frampton _ Father of the Turf, in: Armytage, Gee and Seabrook, Mike (eds), Turf Accounts (London: Gollancz/Witherby, 1994)

Plumptre, George, The Fast Set _ The World of Edwardian Racing (London: Deutsch, 1985)

Racing Calendar

Rice, J. The History of the British Turf, 2 vols. (London, 1879)

Seth-Smith, Michael, Bred for the Purple (London: Frewin, 1969)

Sharpe, Graham, William Hill's Racing Dates (London: Virgin, 1993)

Tolson, John and Vamplew, Wray, De-railed: Railways and Horse-Racing Revisited, The Sports Historian, 17 (2 _ 1998), pp. 34-49

Tyrrel, John, Running Racing _ the Jockey Club Years since 1750 (London: Quiller Press, 1997)

Vamplew, Wray, The Turf (London: Allen Lane, 1976)

Vamplew, Wray, Pay Up and Play the Game (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)

Whyte, J. C., The History of the British Turf, 2 vols. (London, 1840)

Notes

1 Whyte, 1840, Vol. I, p.xviii; Seth-Smith, 1969, p.113.

2 Plumptre, 1985, pp.46-7; Seth-Smith, 1969, p.101, p.112.

3 Blaine, 1870, p.237; Napier, 1994, p.162; Cook, 1901, Vol. I, p.101.

4 Cook, 1901, Vol. I, p.200; Rice, 1879, Vol. I, p.24.

5 Cook, 1901, Vol. II, p.412, quoting Admiral Rous of the Jockey Club.

6 Vamplew, 1976, pp.27-8; Tolson/Vamplew, 1998, pp.39-40; Kay/Vamplew.

7 Whyte, 1840, Vol. I, p.400.

8 Dixon, 1924, p.19. The Godolphin, foaled in 1724, is one of three Arabian stallions said to be instrumental in the development of the British thoroughbred. As to distance travelled, assuming that the horse walked in circuits e.g. Newmarket to Nottingham to Lincoln to Newmarket, the minimum distance would have been 600 miles and could easily have been 800. Presumably the 600 guineas in prize money, the status of being a multiple Royal Plate winner and the potential in stud fees were sufficient incentive.

9 Barrett, 1995, p.9; according to this source, Eclipse was descended from the Darley Arabian, another of the founding trio. He was the greatest racehorse of his era and a prolific sire of high-class horses. Although he was never beaten, at least five of his King's Plates were walkovers: Sharpe, 1993.

10 Information on prize money from Racing Calendars, 1773, 1807-9. Weatherbys' Racing Calendar, first published in 1773, contains details of most, and by the nineteenth century, all of the credible thoroughbred race meetings held in Britain each year, together with rules of racing and a wealth of other useful material. Most of the statistical information in the article has been obtained from this source.

11 Rice, 1879, Vol. I, p.95. An aged horse was over six years old.

12 It is possible that the Revolutionary Wars contributed to a lack of runners and racehorse owners. Whyte (1840, Vol. I, p.188) attributes a decline in racing in the second half of the eighteenth century to war, while the Caledonian Hunt meetings of 1798 and 1799 were suspended because of `the situation of the country at present which prevents the attendance of many'. (Minutes, 1798) The `King's Hundred' (Royal Plate) granted to the Hunt in 1788 was transferred to other Scottish meetings.

13 Racing Calendars 1809-10, 1827, 1833.

14 Whyte, 1840, Vol. II, p.23.

15 Quoted in Cook, 1901, Vol. I, p.180.

16 Rice, 1879, Vol. II, p.321. Not all were so ingenuous _ the author of a Victorian book on horses commented that `To pretend that modern race meetings are held for the purpose of improving the breed of horses is mere hypocrisy races are held in reality to afford the world of betting men an opportunity of winning and losing millions.' (S. Sidney, quoted in Vamplew, 1976, p.197).

17 Cook, 1901, Vol. I, p.180.

18 Blaine, 1870, pp. 237-8. George, later King George IV, won 313 races, including a Derby and 30 Royal Plates: Cook, 1901, Vol. II, p.395.

19 Rice, 1879, Vol. II, p.320.

20 This was a never-to-be-repeated bargain _ his fee, 1 guinea in 1766, had risen to 10 guineas within two years: Rice, 1879, Vol. II, p.138.

21 Dixon, 1924, pp.12-13, p.22.

22 Seth-Smith, 1969, p.99; Whyte, 1840, Vol. II, p.387.

23 Seth-Smith, 1969, p.104.

24 Vamplew, 1976, p.84; Mortimer, 1958, pp.59-60.

25 Seth-Smith, 1969, p.86. As Prince of Wales, George had fallen out with the Jockey Club, refusing to race his horses at Newmarket. The unexpected rapprochement took place towards the end of his life.

26 Seth-Smith, 1969, p.99.

27 Rice, 1879, Vol. I, p.166. The trophy was a hoof belonging to Eclipse, mounted on a gold salver and it was to be competed for annually but only by horses owned by members of the Club. The race lapsed within a few years, never having attracted much interest _ only two started in 1833. Rice believed that the King only undertook to give £200 a year if ten or more started which would account for its early demise.

28 Racing Calendar, 1870, p.xxx.

29 Whyte, 1840, Vol. II, p.24.

30 Dixon, 1924, p.11. A similar argument is advanced in Vamplew, 1988, pp.108-9, but applied to half a century later.

31 Cook, 1901, Vol. II, p.253.

32 Cook, 1901, Vol. II, p.412; Dixon, 1924, p.22.

33 Cook, 1901, Vol. II, p.253.

34 The following information is based on Rice, 1879, Vol. II, pp.335-6.

35 Alterations to the Queen's Plate Articles from 1861 included the following new rules _ that none should be run in heats (these had lapsed in mainland Britain by the 1840s but could still be found at Down Royal and Bellewstown in Ireland) and that the distance should not be less than two miles (four Royal Plates at The Curragh, including the Turf Club Whip, had been reduced to a mile-and-a-half , resulting in substantially increased fields _ between 8 and 13 runners frequently took part _ and several two-year-old winners).

36 Vamplew, 1988, p.102.

37 Rice, 1879, Vol. I, p.337.

38 Racing Calendar, 1876.

39 Rice, 1879, Vol. I, p.337.

40 Seth-Smith, 1969, p.113, p.120.

41 Macgregor-Morris, 1985, p.17.

42 Vamplew, 1988, p.108.

43 Dixon, 1924, p.11.

44 Cook, 1901, Vol. II, p.253.