Now, gentlemen, no longer I’ll intrudes,
But, as I’m bound in duty, will concludes;
And, as you seem all honest mens and true,
What you deem right I’m certains you will do.
On Monday, the 14th of March, the Deaf’un, who had been generously bailed by a couple of Bedford tradesmen, surrendered to his bail, as also did eleven others. The Rev. Mr. Cautley, Mr. Orlebar Smith, and “a cloud of witnesses,” policemen, and others. Tom Spring, in friendly consideration of the Deaf’un’s incapacity of hearing, stood by him as amicus curiæ, and kindly interpreted the proceedings. It should be stated that in his examination before Lord Charles F. Russell and the grand jurors, the Rev. Joshua had stated that “Burke had endeavoured to force him out of the ring, and had seized him by the leg to throw him over the ropes.” Of this the Deaf’un (who certainly was never in the ring at all) was nervously anxious to exculpate himself. What was his surprise then to learn that “no evidence would be offered on that point,” and that “the general charge implicated all present in the same guilt.” Eventually (Viscount Chetwynd having removed the trial of his indictment into the Court of Queen’s Bench, on the ground that he could not get an impartial trial in Bedfordshire) the trials were postponed, and the whole of the defendants were held to bail to appear at the summer assizes; to them a ruinous expense and miserable suspense, and the great satisfaction of their Christian prosecutors and the profit of sundry attorneys; and thus ended the first “field-day” of “the battle of Bedford.” Other separate indictments, however, were proceeded with, against Messrs. Brown, of the “Swan,” Newport Pagnell, George Durham, Edward Dawkes, and Mark Cross, for “refusing to assist the constable in the execution of his duty.” Mr. Brown, after evidence by M’Hugh, the Rev. Joshua Cautley, and Mr. Smith, that in reply to being so called upon, he replied (being seated on the box of his coach) “that he had to mind his horses,” was found guilty. The other defendants then, having pleaded “guilty,” were sentenced each to pay a fine of forty shillings, and costs, and to enter into recognisances themselves in £40, and two sureties in £20 each, “to be of good behaviour for one year.” The fines were paid, the sureties given, and the defendants liberated from that charge. In July the unlucky defendants again surrendered, when their trial was again postponed to await the result of the certiorari by which the aristocratic defendants (Viscount Chetwynd and Mr. Maley, the solicitor) had removed their cases to the Court of Queen’s Bench. These having failed, in the ensuing November, Burke and his fellow victims of the law’s delay were placed at the bar. In the interim we find in the Bedford Mercury:—
“Prize Fight and Lord Chetwynd.—Lord Charles Russell laid before the Court a statement showing the position of the prosecution against Burke and thirteen others, for a riot at a prize fight at Holcut, in this county, and did so to know whether the prosecution should be proceeded in. Already an expense of £50 had been incurred, and probably between £80 and £90, exclusive of witnesses, would be further required. By a writ of certiorari Lord Chetwynd had traversed the case to the Court of Queen’s Bench, to obtain the privilege of not pleading on the trial in the usual way by holding up his hand. The other parties accused had not been aware of the object of the course taken by Lord Chetwynd, and were in the same position as they were before traversing to the superior court. The county was at a great expense, and the defendants must have been at double the expense. His lordship also laid before the Court a correspondence between Lord Chetwynd and that gentleman, expressing his regret at what had occurred. Mr. Smith was not satisfied with the correspondence, and the opinion of the Court was that the prosecution should be continued, having begun it.
“From this we infer that the Rev. Mr. Smith is not satisfied with the apology tendered by Lord Chetwynd, and that to satisfy his feelings, the county and the defendants are to be involved in a still heavier outlay. To those who were in no respect consenting to Lord Chetwynd’s determination, this seems a measure of cruelty for which we were not prepared; but it would seem that after having already entered into recognisances to appear and take their trials, and having strictly and respectfully complied with that undertaking, from whence they were relieved by no act of their own, they are again called on to put in fresh bail in the Court of Queen’s Bench at Westminster, some of them living in distant parts of the kingdom. This may be necessary in form of law; but surely, even the Rev. Mr. Smith can have no wish to add to the hardships of the defendants, who were, and are still ready to submit to take their trials at the proper season.”
This wretched persecution thus dragged its weary length into the following year, 1842, when negotiations for a compromise having been made between the Crown solicitors and those of the defendants, Mr. Gurney, on the part of “Burke, Adams, Cain, and others,” said he was instructed to withdraw their plea of “not guilty,” and to accept a verdict for the Crown against his clients.
Mr. Andrews thereon, on the part of the magistrates, thought the defendants had pursued a very proper course, and the prosecution was withdrawn; so that this expensive performance of “Much Ado about Nothing,” ended by Messrs. Cautley and Smith “taking nothing by their motion,” the defendants being put to a heavy expense, and an outlay of some hundreds of pounds (raised by benefits and public subscriptions of the admirers of British boxing, and the sympathisers with the unfortunate victims of Puritanical persecution) to the profit of lawyers. At the opening of these assizes Baron Gurney made the following significant remark, with which we will conclude these instructive legal proceedings for the suppression of pugilistic encounters: “His lordship, in discharging the grand jury, said, that although the number of cases in the calendar was not greater than was usual at the spring assizes, yet he regretted to see that the character of many of the offences was of a most aggravated description, and that there was no less than six charges of maliciously cutting and wounding in the calendar. His lordship said that this offence of using deadly weapons in personal quarrels appeared to be very much on the increase, that it was a disgrace to the character of the country, and that it must be put down.”
In May, 1842, the Deaf’un was matched with the Tipton Slasher (William Perry), but at the fourth deposit, which was appointed to be made at Owen Swift’s on July 7th, when “Time” was called, and Burke’s “needful” ready, no one appeared on behalf of the Tipton, and Burke was thereon declared entitled to the forfeit of the £15 down. Johnny Broome, as the representative of Perry, afterwards made his appearance, but Burke’s friends declared the business closed, and refused to reopen the affair. And thus ended the Deaf’un’s last attempt to get paired with either of “the big ’uns,” who at this period preferred their questionable claims to the tarnished honours of the “Championship.”