|
CHAPTER VI
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK'S RACING CAREER.— QUARREL WITH HIS COUSIN.—DUEL
WITH SQUIRE OSBALDESTON.—"SURPLICE" WINS THE DERBY AND ST.
LEGER.—ATTEMPTS TO POISON THE HORSE.—FRIENDSHIP WITH DISRAELI.—TRAGIC
DEATH
 |
Lord George Bentinck (1802-1848). |
One of the great sensations in the middle of the nineteenth century
was the mysterious death of Lord George Bentinck, who for many years
was the prince of the turf, but who sold his racehorses in order to give
more attention to politics and the spread of Protectionist principles,
of which he was the leading exponent at that time.
Lord George was born in February 1802, the third son of the Farmer Duke;
his elder brother, the Marquis of Titchfield, being that eccentric personage
who succeeded to the Dukedom.
After going through the Eton College course and becoming an officer
in the Lancers and Life Guards, Lord George took the seat vacated by
the Marquis, as M.P. for King's Lynn, in 1826. His life was curiously
intermingled with all sorts and conditions of men. Having the hereditary
instincts of his family he was a keen votary of the turf and during early
manhood had a partnership with his brother, the Marquis, in the ownership
of racehorses, and it was said that at a later time they were both enamoured
of Miss Annie May Berkeley, who was the cause of a quarrel between them.
That he was a nobleman of high spirits is evident from the strenuousness
with which he lived his short life.
Lord George lost heavily by backing horses for the St. Leger of 1826;
the amount was shown to be £30,000, which his mother and sister (Lady
Charlotte) helped him to meet. The old Duke, his father, was too cautious
to bet, and in order to induce his son to settle down to country pursuits
he bought him an estate at Muirkirk, Ayrshire; but the life of a farmer
did not suit Lord George for long and he was soon exploiting in horse-racing
again, so that in 1833 he was a heavy loser at Goodwood.
He formed studs at Doncaster, Goodwood and Danebury, and at various
times his horses were run in the name of Mr. John Bowe, a publican, Mr.
King, the Duke of Richmond, and John Day.
Lord George and his consul, Mr. Charles Greville, were great friends
and racing affairs for a time; but both were self-willed and quarrelled,
never to heal up their differences.
In the intricacies of their partnership in horses Lord George became
the owner of a mare called Preserve, who gained a great reputation about
the year 1834.
At the Newmarket meeting there was an attempt to wear down her spirit
by false starts, upon which Lord George visited his anger upon his cousin,
whom he held responsible.
Years afterwards an attempt was made by Colonel Anson to bring about
a reconciliation; but Lord George said he would not have anything to
do with “the fellow.”
A great stroke was made in 1836 when Lord George won the St. Leger with
Elis. It was the first time a horse was conveyed in a van from his training-stable
to a racecourse.
A specially-constructed vehicle was made and caused consternation among
old trainers when they found out the secret of the horse’s mode of travelling.
Elis was fresh for the race, his advent had been kept a secret, and Lord
George won a large sum, one bet being £12,000 to £61,000.
The sensational duel between Lord George and Squire Osbaldeston has
passed into the history of racing.
It was 1836, bat had its origin in events occurring in 1835. Heaton
Park races, near Manchester, attracted a large number of aristocratic
jockeys, and Squire Osbaldeston got it into his head that the handicaps
were so adjusted as to give the immediate friends of Lord Wilton an advantage.
So the Squire laid himself out to be even with the Wilton party, and
when at Doncaster, for the St. Leger, discovered a horse called Bush
with powers of running unknown to the sporting clique he desired to circumvent.
The Squire mounted Rush himself and rode him over the St. Leger course,
having a mare belonging to Marson the trainer to make the running. Finding
that the colt could easily beat, Squire Osbaldeston held him in so that
the mare finished the trial a considerable distance in advance.
Bush was consequently given the benefit of the handicapping at Heaton
Park and was backed heavily for the cup by the Squire, whose commissioner
was ready to meet the Lord Wilton party in any bets they thought well
to lay against the colt.
“Two hundred to one against Rush” shouted Lord George Bentinck as Squire
Osbaldeston was riding Bush at walking pace past the stand to the starting-post
just before the race.
“Done,” replied the Squire.
The loud tones of the two men were such as to attract particular notice
and the sequel was an exciting one.
The race was brought off and the Squire on Bush won with ease. Then
followed a storm of argument as to how and why and wherefore had Bush's
powers, so greatly deprecated beforehand, developed to such an extent
as to leave all competitors behind.
Another victory was achieved by Bush next day and Squire Osbaldeston
having defeated the Wilton clique on the racecourse betook himself hunting.
Some months elapsed before the next scene was enacted. Lord George had
not settled the bet, and whether he intended to do so or not is an open
question. Probably the Squire had not asked him for settlement till the
Spring of 1836, when they were brought into contact with each other at
the Craven race-meeting.
“My Lord,” said the Squire, “May I ask you for the £200 I won from you?
You have had time to get over your beating.”
“I’m surprised you should ask for the money,” replied Lord George, “the
affair was robbery; but can you count?”
The Squire rejoined something to the effect that he could count when
he was at Eton, and Lord George then counted out a number of banknotes
into Osbaldeston's hand.
“It will not end here, Lord George,” said the Squire in high dudgeon.
The conversation was at the entrance to the rooms of the Jockey Club,
and shortly after it had taken place the Squire sent a second to demand
an apology, or that Lord George would fight a duel. The challenge was
declined, but the fiery Squire returned to the charge.
“I will pull your nose the next time I see you,” was the message he
sent to his Lordship, who had no alternative but to meet in a duel or
to be subjected to continuous annoyance from the doughty Osbaldeston.
Colonel Anson was named as Lord George’s second and the meeting-place
was at Wormwood Scrubs at six a.m. The weapons were pistols and the antagonists
stood twelve steps apart.
The Squire was a real country sportsman, a fine horseman and a dead
shot, his skill with the pistol was such that he could kill pigeons flying
and rarely missed, whereas the elegant Lord George was more at home in
the boudoir and was unaccustomed to pistol-practice. Osbaldeston had
given it out that he would put a bullet through his opponent, which was
a rumour not pleasant to reach Lord George's ears.
It was through the finesse of Colonel Anson that the affair ended as
it did. By agreement he was to count up to three and when he called the
last number both men were to fire.
“One” was uttered with great deliberation.
“Two, three” the Colonel called out in rapid succession, so that the
Squire was taken unawares and his shot went an inch or two above Lord
George’s hair, piercing his hat.
As for Lord George he fired skywards and so the duel ended.
Colonel Anson and Lord George were friends for life, and years afterwards
the quarrel with the Squire was so far made up that Lord George invited
him to see his horses in training at Danebury. For the greater part of
the period between 1830 and 1846 he was regarded as the Dictator of the
Turf.
In 1841 he removed his stables from Danebury to Goodwood where his friend,
the Duke of Richmond, allowed him every facility on his estate for training
horses.
To his honour, be it said, he exercised a powerful influence in endeavouring
to rid horse-racing of some of its worst features, and incurred the
hostility of the cheats and rogues which have at all times been associated
with it.
Finding that a check was being put upon their operations, the welshing
fraternity assumed a virtuous attitude and actually put into operation
an old statute passed in the reign of Queen Anne, which enabled any private
informer to sue and recover treble the amount of a bet made over and
above £10. Six writs were served upon Lord George and six upon his partner,
Mr. Bowes, in the year 1843, but the plantiff failed to prove the making
of the bets and it is obvious that the statute was unworkable. The attempt
to put it into force merely shows the condition of racing at the time
and the opposition which men who were honourable in their motives had
to meet with in their efforts to guard it against reproach, as far as
their sporting instincts allowed them.
In 1844 Lord George had as many as thirty-eight horses running in races,
and his estimated expenses in 1845 for sixty horses in training were
about £40,000, while, the value of the stakes was about £18,000, so that
to make racing pay he had to rely upon the success of his betting transactions.
Disraeli called him the “Lord Paramount of the British Turf,” which
well described his ascendency at the time.
Notwithstanding the magnitude of his bets, Lord George was always cool
in temperament while other men who, though they might be quite able to
stand a loss, were full of nervous excitement when only a small sum
was risked.
He kept on terms of affection with his mother and sisters and he could
always rely upon the Duchess for help when his racing extravagances had
led him too far.
Lord George was over six feet in stature and his figure was handsome
and distinguished. His style of dress was according to the best canons
of fashion, elegant and fastidious. A long gold chain was looped upon
the breast of his waistcoat and with it he wore costly jewels. He had
a new satin scarf of cream colour every day, although the cost of each
was about a sovereign.
A frock coat and tall beaver hat completed his costume. His race-course
attire consisted of a green coat, top boots and buckskin breeches.
When in Nottinghamshire he used to hunt with the Rufford hounds and
kept his hunters at Welbeck.
He was a Freemason, though he does not appear to have had time from
his devotion to politics and racing to take any high position in the
Order. As to some of his personal habits it may be said that he was not
a smoker; but he drank four glasses of wine at dinner-time.
The figure of Lord George has been described by his friend Benjamin
Disraeli, afterwards Earl of Beaconsfield, in a few striking sentences
thus: “Nature had clothed this vehement spirit with a material form which
was in perfect harmony with its noble and commanding character. He was
tall and remarkable for his presence; his countenance almost a model
of manly beauty; the face oval, the complexion clear and mantling; the
forehead lofty and white; the nose aquiline and delicately moulded; the
upper lip short. But it was in the dark brown eye that flashed with piercing
scrutiny that all the character of the man came forth; a brilliant glance,
not soft, but ardent, acute, imperious, incapable of deception or of
being deceived."
He was a dandy rivalling d’Orsay, his cravats made other young men of
his time envious, and his suits were in the highest style of taste. They
were indeed works of art worthy of the genius of Beau Brummell. As for
the House of Commons, until he turned serious politician, he treated
that old-fashioned assembly with haughty indifference, and when he was
pressed to record his vote in a party division he entered the House on
more than one occasion at a late hour, “clad in a white greatcoat, which
softened, but did not conceal, the scarlet hunting coat beneath it.”
He was a breeder and backer of horses for twenty years, and the recklessness
of his wagers staggered the gamblers of his time.
The training of race-horses was brought to a fine art in his day. It
had been the custom for owners to send their horses to and fro between
Newmarket, Epsom and Doncaster along the highways, with the result that
although the road hardened their muscles, it militated against their
speed.
Lord George raised a protest from some of the old-time patrons of the
turf by introducing an innovation in the construction of a large van
in which they could travel calmly, without fatigue, these long distances
to various parts of England.
It was the precursor of railway travelling then coming into vogue, for
Lord George foresaw that the railways would revolutionize racing and
enormously increase the votaries of the turf.
After having sat in the House of Commons for 18 years, and taking little
interest in the proceedings, Lord George, about 1844, suddenly attracted
attention by his attacks on Sir Robert Peel and the Free Traders. He
showed an aptitude for Parliamentary business that he had not been credited
with in racing circles in which he had held such a leading position.
His absorption in politics, which had newly aroused his interest, led
him to dispose of his race-horses.
“In the autumn of this year (1846) at Goodwood races,” says Disraeli, “the
sporting world was astonished by hearing that Lord George Bentinck had
parted with his racing stud at an almost nominal price. Lord George was
present, as was his custom, at this meeting held in the demesne of one
who was among his dearest friends. Lord George was not only present,
but apparently absorbed in the sport, and his horses were very successful.
The world has hardly done justice to the great sacrifice which he made
on this occasion to a high sense of duty. He not only parted with the
finest racing stud in England, but he parted with it at a moment when
its prospects were never so brilliant; and he knew this well.
“He could scarcely have quitted the turf that day without a pang. He
had become the Lord Paramount of that strange world, so difficult to
sway, and which requires, for its government, both a stern resolve and
a courtly breeding. He had them both; and though the black-leg might
quail before the awful scrutiny of his piercing eye, there never was
a man so scrupulously polite to his inferiors as Lord George Bentinck.
The turf, too, was not merely the scene of the triumphs of his stud and
his betting-book. He had purified its practice and had elevated its character,
and he was prouder of this achievement than of any other connected with
his sporting life. Notwithstanding his mighty stakes, and the keenness
with which he backed his opinion, no one perhaps ever cared less for
money. His habits were severely simple, and he was the most generous
of men. He valued the acquisition of money on the turf, because there
it was the test of success. He counted his thousands after a great race,
as a victorious general counts his cannon and his prisoners.”
Up to the time that he developed a new interest in politics, his great
ambition in life had been for one of his horses to win the Derby. And
one of the horses that he had owned did win it; but to his chagrin it
was no longer his property. That horse was Surplice, the winner in the
year 1848; but Lord George had disposed of it with his stud in 1846.
Under any circumstances and whatever the prospects of political success
which opened up in Lord George’s mind, his decision to dispose of his
stud must have caused him a pang as it created a sensation among all
who were attracted towards turf doings.
There were two horses in Lord George’s stables, which, if he could have
laid claim to the powers of divination would have kept him still “Lord
Paramount of the Turf.” They were the yearlings Surplice and Loadstone,
and both were destined to make historic names in the classic races.
But the die was cast and the immense establishment which his friend
the Duke of Richmond permitted him to keep on the Goodwood estate was
sold.
There were no fewer than 208 thoroughbreds, which all passed into the
hands of the Hon. E. M. L. Mostyn, for the small sum of £10,000.
This was in August, 1846, and the light-blue jacket and white cap of
Lord George Bentinck were to be seen no more on a race-course.
The stables had been on such an immense scale that the responsibility
was too much for one man to undertake, so that the monetary interest
was divided, and two or three turf celebrities of the day entered into
partnership, which accounts for the fact that when Surplice ran in the
Derby of 1848 he was entered in Lord Clifden’s name.
From that time to this the career of Surplice has always been of interest
to racing men. His trainer was John Kent, who faithfully discharged his
duty in guarding the horse from the machinations of unscrupulous loafers
and touts.
There was a dead set against the horse. He was naturally a lazy runner
and took a great deal of skill to ride. All sorts of rumours were started
about him; that he was not well, that he was lame and that he was not
the equal of Loadstone, although from the same stable. Up and down went
the betting respecting Surplice until the market was in such a state
that it was to the interest of an unscrupulous gang to poison or lame
him.
Detectives, policemen, trainer and stablemen had to watch him night
and day and the excitement waxed intense as the date of the Derby drew
near. When the horse was taken from Goodwood to Epsom and from the stable
to the course a crowd of horsemen and pedestrians dogged his steps.
Fortunately, with all the precaution taken, Surplice was got into the
paddock in fit condition. His jockey was Sim Templeman and after a severe
contest Surplice won, there being a neck between him and Springy Jack,
while Loadstone was well beaten, to the chagrin of those who had tried
to set him off against the better horse Surplice.
The result of the race was £11,000 to the credit of Lord George; but
this was nothing compared with his regret that he had not continued the
owner of his racing-stud, so that he might have had the honour of winning
the Derby in his own name, instead of seeing a horse that he had bred
win it in the name of another. Then came the St. Leger of 1848, and Surplice
was again the winner, with further pangs for Lord George. Barely does
the same horse win both the Derby and the St. Leger, and proud indeed
is the owner who can carry off the blue ribbon of the turf and the St.
Leger too. The stars in their courses seemed to be against Lord George
at this time.
This is how Disraeli relates the effect the Derby had upon his hero:—“A
few days before, it was the day after the Derby, May 25th, 1848, the
writer (Disraeli) met Lord George Bentinck in the Library of the House
of Commons. He was standing before the book-shelves with a volume in
his hand, and his countenance was greatly disturbed. His resolutions
in favour of the colonial interest, after all his labours, had been negatived
by the committee on the 22nd, and on the 24th, his horse, Surplice, which
he had parted with among the rest of the stud, solely that he might pursue
without distraction his labours on behalf of the great interests of
the country, had won that paramount and Olympian stake, to gain which
had been the object of his life. He had nothing to console him, and nothing
to sustain him except his pride. Even that deserted him before a heart
which he knew at least could yield him sympathy. He gave a sort of superb
groan:
“‘All my life I have been trying for this, and for what have I sacrificed
it ?’ he murmured.
“It was in vain to offer solace.’
“‘You do not know what the Derby is,’ he moaned out.
“‘Yes I do, it is the blue ribbon of the turf.’
“‘It is the blue ribbon of the turf,’ he slowly repeated to himself,
and sitting down at the table he buried himself in a folio of statistics.”
In a personal allusion to the arduous political labours of Lord George
Bentinck, Disraeli says: “What was not his least remarkable trait, is
that although he only breakfasted on dry toast, he took 110 sustenance
all this time, dining at White’s at half-past two o'clock in the morning.
After his severe attack of influenza he broke through this habit a little
during the last few months of his life, moved by the advice of his physician
and the instance of his friends. The writer of these observations prevailed
upon him a little the last year to fall into the easy habit of dining
at Bellamy's, which saves much time and permits the transaction of business
in conversation with a congenial friend. But he grudged it; he always
thought that something would be said or done in his absence, which would
not have occurred had he been there; some motion whisked through or some
return altered. His principle was that a member should never be absent
from his seat.”
Disraeli thus describes the last farewell he took of Lord George and
his tragic death a few days afterwards:
“He goes to his native county and his father’s proud domain, to breathe
the air of his boyhood and move amid the parks and meads of his youth.
Every breeze will bear health, and the sight of every hallowed haunt
will stimulate his pulse. He is scarcely older than Julius Caesar when
he commenced his public career, he looks as high and brave, and he springs
from a long-lived race.
“He stood upon the perron of Harcourt House, the last of the great hotels
of an age of stately manners, with its wings and courtyard, and carriage
portal, and huge outward walls. He put forth his hand to bid farewell,
and his last words are characteristic of the man, of his warm feelings,
and of his ruling passion: ‘God bless you; we must work, and the country
will come round us.’”
A few days after this interview Lord George returned to Welbeck.
“Some there were who thought him worn by the exertion of the session,
and that an unusual pallor had settled upon that mantling and animated
countenance. He himself never felt in better health or was ever in higher
spirits, and greatly enjoyed the change of life, and that change in a
scene so dear to him.
“On the 21st of September, 1848, after breakfasting with his family,
he retired to his dressing-room, where he employed himself with some
papers and then wrote three letters, one to Lord Enfield, another to
the Duke of Richmond, and the third to the writer of these pages. That
letter is now at hand; it is of considerable length, consisting of seven
sheets of notepaper, full of interesting details of men and things, and
written not only in a cheerful but even in a merry mood. Then, when his
letters were sealed, about four o'clock he took his staff and went forth
to walk to Thoresby, the seat of Lord Manvers, distant between five and
six miles from Welbeck, and where Lord George was to make & visit
of two days. In consequence of this his valet drove over to Thoresby
at the same time to meet his master. But the master never came. At length
the anxious servant returned to Welbeck, and called up the groom who
had driven him over to Thoresby, and who was in bed, and enquired whether
he had seen anything of Lord George on the way back, as his Lord had
never reached Thoresby. The groom got up, and along with the valet and
two others, took lanthorns and followed the footpath which they had seen
Lord George pursuing as they themselves went to Thoresby.
"About a mile from the Abbey, on the path which they had observed
him following, lying close to the gate which separates a water meadow
from the deer park, they found the body of Lord George Bentinck. He was
lying on his face; his arms were under his body, and in one hand he grasped
his walking-stick. His hat was a yard or two before him, having evidently
been thrown off in falling. The body was cold and stiff. He had been
long dead.
"A woodman and some peasants passing near the spot, about two hundred
yards from the gate in question, had observed Lord George, whom at the
distance they had mistaken for his brother, the Marquis of Titchfield,
leaning against this gate. It was then about half-past four o'clock,
or it might be a quarter to five, so he could not have left his home
much more than half-an-hour. The woodman and his companions thought 'the
gentleman' was reading, as he held his head down. One of them lingered
for a minute looking at the gentleman, who then turned round, and might
have seen these passers-by, but he made no sign to them.
"Thus it seems that the attack, which was supposed to be a spasm
of the heart, was not instantaneous in its effects, but with proper remedies,
might have been baffled. Terrible to think of him in his death-struggle
without aid and so near a devoted hearth. For that hearth too, what an
inpending future!
"The terrible news reached Nottingham on the morning of the 22nd,
at half-past nine o'clock, and immediately telegraphed to London, was
announced by a second edition of the Times to the country. Consternation
and deep grief fell upon all men. One week later, the remains arrived
from "Welbeck at Harcourt House, to be entombed in the family vault
of the Bentincks, that is to be found in a small building in a dingy
street, now a chapel of ease, but in old days the Parish Church among
the fields of the pretty village of Marylebone.
"The day of the interment was dark and cold, and drizzling. Although
the last offices were performed in the most scrupulously private manner,
the feelings of the community could not be repressed. Prom nine till
eleven o'clock that day all the British shipping in the docks and the
river, from London Bridge to Gravesend, hoisted their flags half-mast
high, and minute guns were fired from appointed stations along the Thames.
The same mournful ceremony was observed in all the ports of England and
Ireland; and not only in these, for the flag was half-mast high on every
British ship at Antwerp, at Rotterdam, at Havre.
"Ere the last minute gun sounded all was over. Followed to his
tomb by those brothers who, if not consoled, might at this moment be
sustained by the remembrance that to him they had ever been brothers,
not only in name but in spirit, the vault at length closed on the mortal
remains of George Bentinck."
Such was the conventional view which Society took of the sad circumstances
of Lord George's death.
The old Duke was over eighty years of age and too infirm to attend the
funeral, but the Marquis of Titchfield and Lord Henry Bentinck were present.
As in most mysteries, there were other conjectures more or less improbable.
Years afterwards it was put down to the account of Palmer the poisoner,
who it was said had administered strychnine to Lord George as he did
to some other members of the aristocracy.
But what was Palmer's motive ?
Had Lord George and he any betting transactions together in which Palmer
had lost, and finding himself unable to pay, destroyed his noble creditor
with diabolical secrecy?
Yet Palmer in 1848 was a young doctor, aged about twenty-three, just
setting out on his professional career.
It was not until a few years afterwards that Palmer commenced to turn
his attention to turf transactions, therefore it is difficult to find
a motive which should be some evidence against him as the perpetrator
of this crime.
The case of Palmer was an extraordinary one. He was a medical practitioner
at Rugeley in Staffordshire, and having become infatuated with betting
had no scruples about removing those to whom he had contracted debts
of honour. It was not till the early months of 1856 that light was shed
upon some of his fiendish designs and after a long trial he was sentenced
to be hanged at Stafford gaol.
Palmer boasted of his racing transactions with the aristocracy, and
if Lord George was one of his victims seven years before 1856, the miscreant
had had plenty of time to harden his conscience in working his foul plots
against others whom it was his sordid interest to destroy.
Another wild theory was that there had been a quarrel between the Marquis
of Titchfield and Lord George.
One reason for the dispute was alleged to be that Lord George had been
a heavy loser instead of a gainer by his gigantic gambling operations,
that he was in want of money, either from his brother the Marquis, or
his father, the Duke.
To allege that he was in debt is not consistent with the belief that
he had won large sums by backing horses of which he was so keen a judge.
Again it was surmised that the reason for the quarrel—if there was one—was
Miss A. M. Berkeley, with whom they were reputed to be both enamoured.
The origin of this lady gives a glimpse of another romance. Her mother
was an exceedingly beautiful lady, the daughter of a tradesman, and
she became the wife of the Earl of Berkeley.
Fanny Kemble writes of the Countess in terms of admiration; but alludes
to the marriage with the addition of the phrase ("by courtesy")
and how, on being presented at Court she was frowned at by Queen Charlotte,
though George III. did not share the unfavourable sentiments entertained
by his wife.
The marriage with the Earl was the subject of a cause celebre before
the House of Lords, with the result that the ceremony was held to be
illegal, which thus affected the position of Miss A. M. Berkeley.
Mrs. Margaret Jane Louise Hamilton, a widow lady, the daughter of Mr.
Robert Lennox Stuart, made a startling statement which was widely reported
in the newspapers at the time that the Druce case assumed a new aspect
in 1903. She said that she had been told the details of the death of
Lord George Bentinck by her father, who was an eye-witness of the quarrel—if
quarrel there was.
Her father was a playmate of the Duke’s when they were boys, and she
herself was a goddaughter of the fourth Duke.
Not only was Mr. Stuart an eye-witness, but she said Mr. Sergeant, another
gentleman, was too.
Lord George was violent in manner towards the Marquis (whom Mrs. Hamilton
identified as Mr. Druce) using threatening language towards him and striking
him repeatedly.
At last the Marquis retaliated with one blow over the heart, and although
it was not a heavy blow, the position where it struck was sufficient
to cause death.
Mrs. Hamilton added that she had heard Druce say to her father, “You
know, Stuart, I never intended to kill him. I only struck in self-defence.”
Druce was remorseful after the tragedy and spoke of surrendering to
the police, but Mr Stuart and Mr. Sergeant persuaded him not to.
Her father said that Druce was nervous and always afraid that the deed
would come to light.
Whether the Marquis was there or not to quarrel with his brother, the
labourers who said they thought they recognised him, acknowledged that
they might have been mistaken.
A point which the evidence at the inquest did not clear up was the whereabouts
of the Marquis at the time of the tragedy. The labourers said they thought
they saw him.
If it was not he, where was he?
That is a question unanswered to this day.
Lord George was never married, and it has been said of him that "he
was notable for the purity of his life."
It was believed that he entertained a deep regard for a highly-placed
married lady, whose virtue was beyond suspicion, and hence he lived and
died a bachelor.
Three years after the death of Lord George it is said that the Marquis
married Miss Annie May Berkeley in the name of Druce.
[<Previous] [Next>]
|