A noble pastime, void of vain pretence—
The fine old English Art of Self-defence.”
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:—
| AGES OF THE CHAMPIONS FROM BROUGHTON TO TOM KING. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| BORN. | DIED. | AGE. | |
| John Broughton | 1703 | 1789 | 85 |
| Tom Johnson (Jackling) | 1750 | 1797 | 47*[43] |
| Daniel Mendoza | 1763 | 1836 | 73 |
| John Jackson | 1769 | 1845 | 76 |
| Jem Belcher | 1781 | 1811 | 30*[43] |
| Tom Belcher | 1783 | 1854 | 71 |
| John Gully, M.P. | 1783 | 1863 | 80 |
| Tom Cribb | 1781 | 1848 | 67 |
| Tom Spring | 1795 | 1851 | 56*[43] |
| Jem Ward (still living) | 1800 | — | 81 |
| Bendigo (William Thompson) | 1811 | 1880 | 69 |
| Benjamin Caunt | 1815 | 1861 | 46*[43] |
| William Perry (Tipton Slasher) | 1819 | 1881 | 61 |
| Tom Sayers | 1828 | 1866 | 38*[43] |
| Jem Mace (living in 1881) | — | — | — |
| Tom King (living in 1881) | — | — | — |
| 880 yrs. | |||
| An average of fourteen lives nearly 63 years. | |||
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.
On the 13th of April, Mr. Hadfield gave notice, on presentation of a petition, that he would call the attention of the Government to a meditated breach of the peace, by a pugilistic contest to take place between an American citizen and a British subject for a so-called Championship. He added the extraordinary information that “the newspapers had given notice of the time and place (?); “therefore he asked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he intended to take measures to put down such intended disturbance of the public peace and prevent an exhibition so contrary to the religious sense of the country at large—(laughter)—and he would further ask whether the public might rely on his doing his best to prevent so brutal and demoralising an exhibition to the rising generation as the announced contest between this American gladiator and——(Laughter prevented the rest of the hon. member’s question reaching the reporters’ gallery.)
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.”