26.—​That if in a rally at the ropes a man steps outside the ring to avoid his antagonist, or to escape punishment, he shall forfeit the battle.

27.—​That the use of hard substances, such as stone, or stick, or of resin, in the hand during the battle shall be deemed foul, and that on the requisition of the seconds of either man, the accused shall open his hands for the examination of the referee.

28.—​That hugging on the ropes shall be deemed foul. That a man held by the neck against the stakes, or upon or against the ropes, shall be considered down, and all interference with him in that position shall be foul. That if a man in any way makes use of the ropes or stakes to aid him in squeezing his adversary he shall be deemed the loser of the battle; and that if a man in a close reaches the ground with his knees his adversary shall immediately loose him or lose the battle.

29.—​That all stage fights be as nearly as possible in conformity with the foregoing rules.

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

“Scorning all treacherous feud and deadly strife,

The dark stiletto or the murderous knife,

Boasted a science sprung from manly pride.

Linked with true courage, and to health allied—