[58]. Sam Martin, known as the Bath Butcher, fought many good battles in “the West Countrie.” On his coming to London, however, he was unlucky in being pitted against such masters of the art as Humphries and Dan Mendoza. To Sam’s battle with Humphries, the author of “Pancratia” (p. 68), attributes “the revival of pugilism, and its high patronage.” The result is related in the text.
Martin was next matched against Mendoza. His defeat, April 17, 1787, will be found in that boxer’s biography. His last battle of importance was with Bligh, “the Coventry Champion,” a riband weaver of that town. It came off at Evesham, in Oxfordshire, on the 7th of April, 1791, for 50 guineas a side. George Ring, the Bath Baker, seconded Martin; a local boxer (Brooks), picked up Bligh. Martin’s two defeats, and Bligh’s local fame, made the latter the favourite, at six and seven to four. After a severe contest, Martin was hailed as conqueror.
[59]. This was an unjustifiable interference on the part of the second.—Ed.
[60]. As a matter incidental to the history of pugilism, we cannot omit a short notice of Colonel Aston. The story has a spice of romance, and “points a moral” in favour of the principles we are advocating. We copy the “News from India” in the World for 1799. “Colonel Aston being for a short time absent from his regiment, a misunderstanding occurred between Major Picton[[171]] and Major Allan with a lieutenant. Immediately on the return of the colonel, he was made acquainted with the affair, and wrote his opinion, in a private letter, that the behaviour of the two majors was somewhat ‘illiberal’ to their subaltern officer. The letter being shown, Majors P. and A. demanded a Court of Inquiry, which was refused by the commander-in-chief, as calculated to destroy ‘that harmony among officers so essential to the support of discipline in regiments on foreign duty.’ Major Picton now called upon Colonel Aston to demand an explanation of the term ‘illiberal.’ Colonel Aston ‘did not think himself bound to account for his conduct in discharge of his duty as Colonel to any inferior officer; but if Major Picton had anything to reproach him with, as a private gentleman, he was prepared to give him any satisfaction in his power.’ This brought it into the domain of a private quarrel (!), and the next day they met by appointment, accompanied by their seconds. Major Picton had the first fire: his pistol snapped, which was declared equal to a fire by the seconds. Colonel Aston immediately fired in the air, declaring he had no quarrel with the major.” Would not a rational man think this punctilious foolery was settled; but no! We continue our quotation. “Notwithstanding the kindly manner in which this affair had been apparently settled, to the reciprocal satisfaction of the code of the duello, Major Allan the next day demanded satisfaction for the private opinion expressed by the colonel of his conduct. A similar answer was returned, that the colonel denied his right to call upon him to explain any act of his official duty; that he was at all times ready to vindicate his private conduct, but at the same time was unconscious of having offended Major A. The latter, however, assumed a tone of vehemence and authority, which rendered the meeting on the part of the colonel unavoidable. Major Allan fired the first shot—the seconds did not perceive the ball had taken effect. The colonel, having received the fire, appeared unhurt, stood erect, and with the greatest composure levelled his pistol with a steady hand, shewing he had power to fire on his antagonist. He then leisurely drew it back, and laying it across his breast, said, ‘I am shot through the body; I believe the wound is mortal, and therefore decline returning the fire: for it never shall be said that the last act of my life was dictated by a spirit of revenge.’ He sat down on the ground, was carried home, where he languished in excessive agony for several days, and without a murmur expired.
“Colonel Harvey Aston was brother to the pretty Mrs. Hodges, well known in the sporting world. He married Miss Ingram, the daughter of Lady Irwin, and sister to the Marchioness of Hertford, Lady William Gordon, Lady Ramsden, and Mrs. Meynell, whom he left with a young family to deplore this melancholy accident.” The chivalrous honour, manly forbearance, and moderation of this staunch patron of pugilism shines through every phase of this deplorable case of manslaughter. We call things by their right names.
[61]. Fewterel is said by Mr. Vincent Dowling, in his obituary notice of John Jackson, to have been a Scotchman; we think it probable from what we here give.
The only other contest of Fewterel’s, worth preserving, is his battle with a Highlander, on the Leith Ground, Edinburgh, March 23, 1793. The Highlander, whose calling was that of an Edinburgh chairman, was reputed a phenomenon among his brethren of the Scottish capital.
“Fewterel, when stripped, appeared very corpulent, and by no means in the condition in which he fought Jackson. The Highlander was by far the finer and stronger man, and was reported to possess wonderful readiness and courage. They set-to at about eight o’clock in the morning, and the first knock-down blow was given by Fewterel, who sent his antagonist a surprising distance, there being no roped enclosure. The next round he also brought down the Scot by a severe blow in the chest. In the next round the Highlander got in a well-hit stroke under Fewterel’s right eye, which cut him severely. He, however, stood firm, and kept cool. The next blow Fewterel got in, he again brought him down, and this so enraged the Highlander, that during the remainder of the contest he never recovered his temper. This gave Fewterel a decided advantage, and though he afterwards received many severe blows, he constantly reduced the strength of his antagonist. At length he put in a hit under the Highlander’s jaw that laid him senseless on the grass. Thus terminated the contest, after thirty-five minutes. The Scot soon, however, recovered, but was unable to walk home. The match was 50 guineas to 30 guineas. The odds were given to Fewterel, who generously gave the man he had beaten 10 guineas, the sum he (Fewterel) was promised if he won the battle.”—“Pancratia,” pp. 111, 112.
[62]. “The second boxing match was between Elisha Crabbe, the Jew, who beat Death (see ante) and Watson of Bristol; won by the latter. The third between two outsiders.”
[63]. That the everyday use and familiar handling of deadly weapons lead to their reckless use, we may quote a few recent instances from the history of our descendants in America. The horrible assassination of the great and good President Abraham Lincoln, and the ferocious use of a “billy” and a bowie-knife upon the helpless and prostrate Mr. Secretary Seward, his son, Major Frederick Seward, and an attendant, are offsprings of a familiarity with daily outrages by lethal weapons, and the general resort to them to redress injury or resent insult. The death of the assassin Booth is the culmination.