The old theory of an amateur was that he was a ‘gentleman,’ and that the two were simply convertible terms. The amateur of old might make rowing his sport, so long as he did not actually make it his ostensible means of livelihood. The Leander oarsmen who matched themselves against University crews between 1830 and 1840 did not consider that they lost caste by rowing for a stake.
In 1831 Oxford and Leander rowed at Henley for 200l. a side, with watermen steering them. Much later than this it was not considered improper for two ‘gentlemen’ to row a match (or race one) for a mutual stake (not a bet). Until 1861, when the conditions of the Wingfield Sculls were remodelled at a meeting of ex-champions and old competitors, it had been the custom for all entries for that prize to pay a fee of 5l., and the winner swept the pool! No one dreamed of suggesting that this was in any way derogatory to the status of an amateur.
But as rowing became more popular, and more widely adopted as a pastime, it began to be felt that it was invidious to leave the question ‘Is he an amateur?’ to the local opinion of the regatta committee, before whom such a question might be raised. Oarsmen came to the conclusion that some written definition of the qualification was necessary; some hard and fast rule, prospective, if not retrospective. Till then, various executives had adopted various opinions as to what constituted an amateur. One year, about 1871, the Henley executive declined to recognise one of the local crews engaged in the ‘Town Cup’ as ‘amateurs;’ and on this ground refused to allow them to start for the Wyfold Cup. It was not alleged that any of this crew had ever laboured as a mechanic, or rowed for money. The allegation of the Henley executive was that this crew were not ‘gentlemen amateurs,’ and as such they declined to admit them. A few days later another regatta executive freely admitted this same crew, and none of the recognised amateur clubs opposed to them raised any objection to the local crew’s status.
This variety of opinion led to consultation among certain old amateurs whose ideas were universally respected, and as a result, on April 10, 1878, a meeting was held at Putney, at which there were present—
- Francis Playford, L.R.C., Chairman.
- T. Edmund Hockin, Secretary, C.U.B.C.
- T. C. Edwardes-Moss, President, O.U.B.C.
- F. S. Gulston, Captain, London R.C.
- Henry P. Marriott, for Secretary, O.U.B C.
- C. Gurdon, President, C.U.B.C.
- James Hastie, Captain, Thames R.C.
- M. G. Farrer, Captain, Leander B.C.
- C. D. Heatley, Captain, Kingston R.C.
- Robert W. Risley, O.U.B.C.
- Frank Willan, O.U.B.C.
- J. G. Chambers, C.U.B.C.
- Edward H. Farrie, C.U.B.C.
- Jno. Ireland, L.R.C.
- H. H. Playford, Vice-President, L.R.C.
- E. D. Brickwood, L.R.C., Secretary.
These gentlemen drew up and passed the following:—
Definition of an Amateur.
An amateur oarsman or sculler must be an officer of her Majesty’s Army, or Navy, or Civil Service, a member of the Liberal Professions, or of the Universities or Public Schools, or of any established boat or rowing club not containing mechanics or professionals; and must not have competed in any competition for either a stake, or money, or entrance-fee, or with or against a professional for any prize; nor ever taught, pursued, or assisted in the pursuit of athletic exercises of any kind as a means of livelihood, nor have ever been employed in or about boats, or in manual labour; nor be a mechanic, artisan, or labourer.
In the following year the Henley executive drew up a definition of their own, much to the same effect, but slightly different in phraseology (this was on April 8, 1879). It read thus:—
No person shall be considered as an amateur oarsman or sculler—