THE BIRTH OF ENGLISH ORTHODOXY 1838 Rematch Leander was horrified to have lost to a University crew in 1837 and demanded a rematch with Cambridge. Lehmann: “In the following year, a return match was rowed between the two clubs on the same terms as before, and with the same coxswains. It resulted, however, in a series of fouls, and though Leander came in first, the umpire decided it was ‘no match327.’”328 The Times of London, reflecting the Metropolitan sensibility, thought it was all a grand show: “The boats were going with almost the velocity of lightning. The science of fouling was developed in all its senses, and the maneuvering between the coxswains splendid. Throughout the distance, the stamina of each party were wonderful. The Leander won, amidst an absolute roar of cannon, by about a length, but both parties had done all they knew. “In the course of the evening, and shortly after they had dressed, the Cambridge gentlemen expressed their opinion that had they been allowed a fair opportunity of passing, they might or must have won. The umpire was called upon, in consequence of the diversity of opinion that prevailed, and he decided that the argument was a wager without fouling, and that the frequency in this of the violation of the agreement left him to decide that it was a drawn wager (no winner). “Last night the general opinion was Leander had won.”329 The Cambridge 5-seat, William Baliol Brett (1815-1899), Lord Esher, the future 327 The umpire’s decision was important not just to the participants but to all who had placed bets on the outcome. 328 Lehmann, p. 13 329 Grand Eight-Oared Cutter Match Between the Cambridge University and the Leander Club, The Times, June 14, 1838 Master of the Rolls of the Chancery of England, the second most senior judgeship of England and Wales, wrote the following description of the race in a formal letter to Leander after they had disputed the umpire’s decision to void the competition: “Upon starting for the match we were at first, as in the former year, left behind; but on coming up to you at the Horseferry we most unexpectedly found ourselves against a barge on one side and your boat on the other, fully proving that Parish had closed upon us, and not left us room to proceed on our proper course. “Noulton, upon this, was anxious to proceed also to waterman’s practice, and so endeavour to break the rudder of your boat. We, however, thinking that there might have been some accident in the case, insisted upon backing water and yielding the Middlesex side of the river to you. This we did, gave you a considerable start, pulled up to you on the Surrey side, and were again crossed. We still insisted upon Noulton yielding to you; but at the Red House, finding all hope of being allowed to pass useless, and convinced that you were sanctioning your steerer’s conduct, we told him to run into you, and there broke your oar, etc. “We now asked the Umpire whether the race was fair or foul, and upon his answering that it was foul we put up our oars to claim the match. “Our own boat was, at this time, half full of water; but seeing that you had procured a new oar, and had rowed away about 200 yards, we again started after you, and pulled up to you in less than half a mile. After Chelsea Bridge we again left you, and actually crossed and recrossed the river, to try whether or not you would allow us to pass. Being again crossed within ten yards of Wandsworth Meadows, the wrong side of the river, we gave you a last start, and ran into you as you passed through Putney Bridge. 95
