We ask, in the name of humanity, too often taken in vain, a calm and dispassionate perusal of these rules, confident that the appeal will at least induce a more charitable opinion of the men who could frame and act upon them than ignorance or prejudice would form. “It has been constantly urged,” says an experienced writer, “as a ground of objection to the study of the skilful use of the fist that it makes men pugnacious, and more ready to seek than to evade a quarrel, in order that they may display their fancied superiority. Observation and experience do not confirm this view. We have almost invariably found (except with persons who cannot command their temper, and if this be the case, whatever be their acquirements, they will be equally without control) that the consciousness of power inclines men to be less prone to quarrel, and more forbearing against an opponent. Of this abundant proofs are to be found, not only among the ordinary classes of society, but more particularly among professed pugilists, who, with a few exceptions, are the last to invite a quarrel, and the first to seek a reconciliation. Many instances are on record, and have passed under our notice, in which the most respectable members of the Prize Ring have actually submitted to positive insult rather than exercise their athletic powers and take advantage of the weakness of an assailant. This calmness of disposition, joined with perfect self-possession, is in fact one of the most valuable attributes of a British boxer, and one of the best tests of true courage. That there may be and are exceptions to this rule cannot be denied; but all must concur in the proposition, that for the strong to oppress the weak, or the scientific boxer to take advantage of an ignorant and helpless opponent, is an act of cowardice deserving the utmost contempt. The ruffian who would strike a woman is not less deserving of execration than he who, for the mere purpose of displaying his scientific acquirements, would assail another not equally gifted. The great end of pugilistic instruction is, to instil into the mind of the pupil a manly and honourable bearing, combined with personal confidence in the hour of danger; we have no apprehensions, therefore, that its pursuit will lead to the abandonment of those principles of self-respect and fair play which are alike estimable in the minds of all classes.”

And here we will once again ask the question, without fear of a valid retort, “Has the experience of the last twenty years, read by the light of our police reports, and the records of our criminal courts, shown any improvement in the character of what are called ‘offences against the person’?” On the contrary, familiarity with the use of deadly weapons, of the knife in murderous varieties of “the bowie” the “Spanish,” “the Arkansas tooth-pick,” the “knuckle-duster,” the many-chambered revolver, with the stringent repression of all pugilistic conflict by an ever and over-vigilant police, has undoubtedly led to swifter, more sanguinary, more treacherous, and more deadly modes of settling those differences which must arise, especially among the lower classes of society. To this humiliating catalogue of brutality we may add the savage use of the iron-bound clog, and the “running kick,” so fatally studied and practised by a section of the community which in ruder and in better times would have scorned such an unmanly mode of attack, and would not even have permitted it where several spectators were gathered together. But alas! the outcome of the decay and suppression of fair fighting is manifest; the doctrine of assassination is publicly preached in the press and in public meetings, and “the gospel of dynamite” is the latest development of the “superior civilisation” of a people who

Whether fair and regulated prize-battles are destructive of life, and absolutely and directly shorten the period of man’s longevity, may be fairly a subject of inquiry. A few statistics may well give us pause before we decide this point, which an insufficient investigation and popular prejudice would pronounce in the affirmative, while a candid consideration of the following table may prove the negative—​that is, as compared with many other gymnastic and sporting exercises. Deaths in the prize-ring, or even as the consequences of pugilistic encounters, do not show a marked diminution of the term of human life, in the recorded instances of the ages of the most celebrated professors and practitioners of the art of boxing:—

Our last plea shall be drawn from the records of the “collective wisdom” of the nation, wherein we flatter ourselves manly common sense will find little difficulty in discriminating the characters of the meddling, malignant and persecuting preachers of the doctrine of “sweetness and light,” from the generous and tolerant spirits who declined to use the powers of government against the much-maligned Ring, its professors and patrons.

We have noted the wave of puritan cant which for some ten years previous to 1860 had rolled over the land, and the force of which was long after felt. In the last-named year it gave trouble and unrest in the Senate.

Sir Geo. C. Lewis, rising, said: The contest between these redoubtable champions (a laugh) has been brought under my notice, and I have transmitted the letter to Sir Richard Mayne, who, I have no doubt, will take the necessary steps to prevent a breach of the peace within the metropolitan district. Beyond this I cannot assure my honourable friend; I cannot venture to give any positive promise—​for if he is informed of the time and place I am not, and I don’t think they are fixed—​it is, therefore, impossible for me to say whether the police will succeed in preventing the “incursion” in question. (Laughter.)

Mr. Hadfield was by no means satisfied with the Right Honourable gentleman’s answer, and should again raise the question.

The fight came off unsatisfactorily, as all the world knows. Punch, in the following week, tells us (in his “Essence of Parliament”):—​“Commons. More fun about the fight. Mr. Ewart admitted but deplored the interest taken, and the questions raised upon this matter; but wanted to know what power there was to suppress such doings, except the police power to suppress riot? Sir G. G. Lewis was also at a loss to know how to deal with our modern Dares and Entellus.”

A young Yorkshire noblemen, however, a newly-fledged M.P., Lord Lovaine (now Earl of Beverley) sought to make political and religious capital out of the affair. His lordship opened fire by an attack on the directors of a certain railway company—​the South Eastern—​for “their conduct in offering facilities for the conveyance of persons to these illegal contests,” and to raise the question, my Lord Lovaine, “moved for copies of any correspondence on this subject, which had passed between the Government and the South Eastern Railway Company.” He also inquired whether the Government had attempted to enforce the law, or whether anything had been done to stop the practice of letting trains for the purpose he mentioned.

Some sparring took place, in the course of which Lord Lovaine taunted the Premier with a love of pugilism, and with sanctioning rather than discouraging these meetings. Mr. Scully also had a fling at the Premier.

“Colonel Dickson was surprised to hear his hon. friend (Mr. Scully) take the noble lord at the head of the Government to task for the remarks he had made on this occasion, for he (Colonel Dickson) could not understand an Irishman objecting to fighting (a laugh). The noble viscount (Palmerston) had not laid himself open to such taunts. He sat on a different side of the House from the noble lord, and did not often find himself in the same lobby with him on a division, but he would say for the noble viscount that if he had one attribute more than another which endeared him to his countrymen, it was his thoroughly English character and his love for every manly sport (cheers). He (Colonel Dickson) never saw a prize fight in his life; but he would say that the two men who fought on the recent occasion showed qualities of which the whole English race had reason to be proud, our own man in particular (laughter), who evinced powers of endurance and an indomitable pluck which entitled him to the admiration of his countrymen (cheers.) Many men in this country received honours who did not so well deserve them. He did not think Parliament ought to legislate with the view to put down manly sports; and, with regard to the duties of magistrates the law was clearly laid down. Magistrates themselves ought to know when to act and when to shut their eyes (a laugh).”

The returns were then ordered; but whether any such papers existed, or of what use they were to the meddlesome movers, the world is to this day in ignorance. We should say that the whole debate was a peg on which to hang a sanctimonious attack to the glory of the “unco’ guid” assailants. While on this topic we will add a well-authenticated anecdote which was current at the time in the clubs.

While the Home Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall Lewis) was solemnly explaining and admitting the illegality of Ring-fights, a well-known sporting M.P. was collecting a “purse” for Sayers. Lord Palmerston came upon the group, and was instantly arrested by the amateur collector. “My lord, I want a sov. for Tom Sayers.” “A sov. for Sayers? Splendid fellow that; I’ll give you five.” “Thank you, my lord; but the subscription is limited to a single sov.” His lordship, with subdued alacrity, “Well, here it is; but I wish it was five.” There were noblemen then, in soul as in title; in humble life as in exalted. Do they survive, and have they the courage even of their own opinions?

Valete ac plaudite: The curtain has fallen!

Wood Green. H. D. M.