Chapter III: , p. 77 (5)

MARTIN, JACK, “the Master of the Rolls,” 1813‒1828:—
His birth and early battles, 395
Beat George Oliver, _ib._
〃 Paddington Johnson, 396
Wins a foot-race against Spring, Ben Burn, and a novice, 398
A bout with Scroggins, _ib._
Matched with Scroggins, 399
Beat Scroggins, 400
Beaten by Jack Randall, first time, 401
〃 by Ned Turner, _ib._
Beat Josh. Hudson, 402
〃 Cabbage, of Bristol, 403
Mills half-a-dozen “dandies”, 404
Beat Phil. Sampson, 405
〃 a Gipsy, 406
〃 David Hudson, 407
Wins a foot-race from “the Chicken Butcher”, 408
Beat Ned Turner, _ib._
Beaten by Jack Randall, second time, 410
Marriage announcement, _ib._
Beaten by Young Dutch Sam, 411
His retirement, _ib._

MARTIN, the Bath Butcher, fights with Mendoza, 72
His battle with Humphries, 85
〃 〃 Bligh and King (note), _ib._

MEGGS, GEORGE, the Collier (note), 35, 36

MEGGS, PARFITT, 37

MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS, CRIBB’S, 306

MENDOZA, DANIEL, 1784‒1820:—
His style and skill, 71
His battles with Harry the Coalheaver, _ib._
〃 〃 Martin, of Bath, 72
〃 〃 Humphries, first battle, _ib._
〃 〃 〃 second battle, 73
〃 〃 〃 third battle, 74
〃 〃 Bill Warr, two fights, 76, 77
〃 〃 John Jackson, 78
〃 〃 Harry Lee, 79
〃 〃 Tom Owen, 81
Farewell benefit and death, 82

MENDOZA, AARON, 76

MIDAS, a Meddling, 146

MOLINEAUX, TOM, the Black, 1810‒1815:—
Born in Virginia, 278
His first battle, _ib._
Beat “Tom Tough” 279
He claims the championship, 280
Beaten by Cribb, first time, _ib._
Beat Rimmer, 281
Beaten by Cribb, second time, 282
His downward course, 283
A good wrestler, _ib._
Richmond arrests Molineaux, _ib._
Beat Jack Carter, 284
His passion for dress and women, 285
Beat Fuller, _ib._
Beaten by George Cooper, 287
Rencontre with Abe Denston, _ib._
Dies in Ireland, 288

MOORE, TOM, Lines to “the Nonpareil”, 365
“Tom Cribb’s Memorial to Congress”, 306

MOULSEY HURST, Lines on, 313

N.

NICHOLLS, GEORGE, 1812‒1818:—
His early battles, 444
Beat Tom Cribb, 445
His retirement to Bristol and death, 447

NOSWORTHY, WILLIAM, the Baker:—
His birth, etc., 455
Fight with Pentikin, 456
Beat Barnard Levy, _ib._
Beat Dutch Sam, 457
Beaten by Jack Scroggins, 460
Forfeits to George Curtis, _ib._
Death from excessive drinking, _ib._

O.

OLIVER, STEPHEN, “Death,” 1770‒1788, 51

O’DONNELL, JACK, 1802‒1806:—
Beat Pardo Wilson, 223
〃 Smith, 224
Beaten by Caleb Baldwin, 226
〃 by Tom Belcher, _ib._
Beat Emery, 227
〃 Wasdell, _ib._
〃 Smith, 228
His conviction and transportation, _ib._

OWEN, TOM, 1796‒1820:—
His birth, introduced to Mr. Jackson, matched with Hooper, 110
Apocrypha of “Boxiana”, _ib._
Fights with Houssa and Jack Bartholomew, 111
Battles with Mendoza, 81, 112
His judgment as a second, good fellowship, and death, 113

P.

PACKER AND MENDOZA, 76

PALMER, JOHN, see “Scroggins, Jack.”

PAYNE, JACK, the Butcher:—
Beaten by Jack Randall, 329
〃 by Josh. Hudson, see vol. ii.
〃 by Burke, 474
〃 by West Country Dick, twice, 474, 476
〃 by Aby Belasco, 482

PEARCE, HENRY, “the Game Chicken” (Champion), 1803‒1805:—
His brilliant qualities, 167
Comes to London and meets Berks and beats him, 167, 168
Beat Berks in the ring, 169
Pearce’s second indicted, 170
Challenges Bittoon, and beats Elias Spray, _ib._
Beat Carter, _ib._
〃 John Gully and becomes champion, 170, 175
Challenged by Jem Belcher, 175
Defeats Jem Belcher, 176
His bravery and humanity, 178
Verses on Pearce’s gallantry, 179
Attacked by pulmonary disease, 180
His early death, 181

PEARTREE, NAT., his defeat of Whitaker, 13

PERRINS, ISAAC, of Birmingham, 60
His fight with Tom Johnson, 59‒63

PETERS, SAM., of Birmingham, 1771‒1774, 52
Sell with Corcoran, 48, 53

PIPES AND GRETTING, Captain Godfrey’s account of, 14

POWER, JACK:—
His birth, 451
Beaten by Dogherty, _ib._
Beats Frere and Joel King, 452
Forfeits to Tom Belcher, 453
Beat Jack Carter, _ib._
Challenges Richmond, _ib._
His character, 454
Illness and early death, 455

PRUSSIA, FREDERICK WILLIAM, King of, patronises sparring, 100

PUGILISM, its advantages, 6, 7, 96
Its slanderers and defenders, 89, 90
Among the Greeks and Romans (Introd.), v
St. Bernard, a patron of (Introd.), xvi
Origin of the word Pugilist (Introd.), v

R.

RANDALL, JACK, “the Nonpareil,” 1809‒1821:—
His birth-place, 328
His early battles, 328, 329
His debut in the ring, 329
Beat Walton, “the Twickenham Youth,” and “Ugly Baruk”, _ib._
〃 “West Country Dick”, 330
〃 Harry Holt, 331
〃 Aby Belasco, 333
Glove-fight with Burke, of Woolwich, 335
Beat Joe Parish, the Waterman, 336
〃 Burke, of Woolwich, 339
Matched with Ned Turner, 340
Public excitement, 341
Beat Ned Turner, first time, 342
Becomes publican, 345
Randall and Burn, 346
Matched with Jack Martin, _ib._
The road to a fight in olden times, _ib._
Beat Jack Martin, first time, 348
Turn-up in Battersea Fields, 350
Challenged by Scroggins, _ib._
An adventure with “roughs”, _ib._
Comes from his retirement and challenges Martin, 351
Beats Jack Martin, second time, _ib._
“A Cantab’s” account of the fight, 353
Lines by Tom Moore to, 355
Forfeits to Martin, 356
A rencontre at Hampstead, 357
Randall and the Mayor of Canterbury at Hatton Garden, 359
His death, 360
Sonnets to Randall, _ib._
His “Farewell to the ring”, 361
“Jack Randall’s Ghost”, _ib._
Summary of Randall’s pugilistic merits; his charitable disposition,
362, 363

REID, Mr. FLETCHER, a patron of pugilism, lines on his death, 197

REYNOLDS, TOM (note), 483

RICHMOND, BILL, 1804‒1818:—
His birth in New York State, comes to England, and education, 289
First boxing match, _ib._
Early battles, 290
Beat Myers and Green, _ib._
Beaten by George Maddox, 291
Beat Youssouf, a Jew, _ib._
〃 Jack Holmes, the Coachman, 292
Beaten by Tom Cribb, _ib._
Beat Carter (countryman), 293
〃 Isaac Wood, _ib._
〃 George Maddox, 294
〃 Jack Power, 295
Becomes a publican, 296
The P.C. Club, _ib._
Beat Davis, the Navvy, 297
〃 Tom Shelton, 298
Retires and keeps sparring rooms, 299
Turn-up with Carter, 300
As a second, _ib._
His long life and lamented death, 301

RUSSIA, ALEXANDER, Emperor of, patronises the boxers, 100

RYAN, BILL, 1804‒1806:—
His qualifications, 228
Defeat of Tom Belcher, 229
Draw with Caleb Baldwin, _ib._
Beaten by Tom Belcher, _ib._
Beat Clarke, 230
His death, _ib._

S.

SAVILLE HOUSE, history of, 19

SCOTT, Sir WALTER, Lines on Shaw, the Life-guardsman, 443

SCROGGINS, JACK, 1803‒1822:—
His sobriquet, 412
His birth and early days, _ib._
His early fights, 413
Pressed and sent to sea, 414
Champion on board the Argo, _ib._
A turn-up at Woolwich, 415
Beat Jack Boots (Wilford), _ib._
〃 Dolly Smith, 416
〃 Nosworthy, _ib._
Matched with Bill Eales, 418
Beat Bill Eales, 419
Becomes publican, 420
Beat Whittaker, “the Oilman”, 421
〃 Church, 423
A draw with Ned Turner, 426
Beat Fisher (room fight), 427
Beaten by Ned Turner, 428
Second match with Turner, 429
Beaten by Turner, second time, _ib._
His imprudence, _ib._
Beaten by Jack Martin, _ib._
〃 by Josh. Hudson, _ib._
〃 David Hudson, twice, _ib._
Beat Harry Holt (room fight), 430
〃 Parish, the Waterman, 431
Receives forfeit from Parish, 432
Beaten by Gipsy Cooper, 433
His poverty and fate, _ib._
The moral of his death, 433
His epitaph, 434

SELLERS, HARRY (Champion), 1776‒1785:—
Fights with Corcoran, 49
〃 〃 Joe Hood, _ib._
〃 〃 Stevens, the Nailer, 50
〃 〃 Duggan Fearns, _ib._
〃 〃 Harvey, _ib._
His death, _ib._

SHAW, JOHN, the Life-guardsman, 1812‒1815:—
His youthful battles, 441
His boxing capabilities, _ib._
Beat Burrows, 442
〃 Ned Painter, 442
Challenges the championship, _ib._
Lines by Sir Walter Scott on, 443
His gallant conduct at Waterloo, _ib._
His death on the battle-field, 444

SHELTON, TOM, “the Navigator,” 1812‒1825:—
His birth and qualifications, 319
Beat Fitzgerald, _ib._
Origin of the term “Navvy” (note), _ib._
At the Fives Court, _ib._
Beaten by Harmer, 320
Beat Studd, the Farmer, _ib._
Beaten by Richmond, _ib._
Becomes a publican, _ib._
Beats Ben Burn, first time, 322
〃 〃 second time, 322
Forfeit from Benniworth, 324
Beaten by Tom Oliver, 325
〃 by George Cooper, _ib._
Receives forfeit from “Unknown,” _ib._
Beat Carter (turn-up), _ib._
〃 Josh. Hudson, _ib._
Received forfeit from Josh. Hudson, 326
Beaten by Big Brown, _ib._
Died by prussic acid, 327

SIDMOUTH, Viscount, his letter of thanks to the pugilists, 270

SILVERTHORNE, beaten by Tom Belcher, 450
Beat Dan Dogherty, _ib._
〃 Ben Burn, 451
A Sunday-school teacher, _ib._

SLACK, JACK (Champion), 1750‒1760:—
His style and character, 31
His first appearance and quarrel with Broughton, 32
His fight with Broughton, 33
〃 〃 Petit, the Frenchman, 34
〃 〃 Moreton, _ib._
〃 〃 Harris, _ib._
〃 〃 Bill Stevens, the Nailer, 35
His character and death, _ib._

SMALLWOOD, TOM, 1741‒1747, 17, 18
Captain Godfrey’s account of, 37
His fights with Harris, Willis, King, and Hunt, 38, 39

STEPHENSON, GEORGE, the great engineer, 1801, 439
Beat Ned Wilson, “the fighting pitman” of Callerton, 440

STEVENS, BILL, the Nailer, 36
Backed by the Duke of York, 35
His fight with Jacob Taplin, 36
〃 〃 Slack for the championship, 1760, _ib._
“Cross” with George Meggs, 35, 56

SUTTON, the Pipemaker, his fight with Fig, 11

SYMONDS, “the Ruffian,” 1791‒1795:—
His nickname, 130
His fights with Jackling (Ginger), and Gowlett, _ib._
Beaten by Firby, 130
Draw with George Maddox and with Ugly Baruk, _ib._

T.

TAYLOR, GEORGE (Champion), 1734‒1756:—
Battles at his booth, 17
His fight with Boswell, _ib._
〃 〃 Tom Faulkner, 19
His death, 1758, 20

TENNIS COURT in the Haymarket, 35

“TOM TOUGH,” see Blake.

TRING, TOM, his person, battles, and character, 67

TURNER, NED, 1814‒1824:—
His birth and calling, 364
Beat Balch, _ib._
His minor battles, 365
Goes to Scotland, _ib._
Returns to London, 366
Battle with George Curtis (fatal), 367
Inquest on Curtis, 369
Trial and defence of Turner, 371
His sentence, 373
Matched with Scroggins, 374
Draw with Jack Scroggins, 375
Beat Scroggins, 377
Turner visits Wales, 381
Third meeting with Scroggins, _ib._
Beat Scroggins, second time, 383
〃 Cy. Davis, 385
Matched with Jack Martin, 387
Jack Scroggins’ estimate of Turner and Martin, _ib._
Beat Jack Martin, 388
Tom Belcher challenges Turner, 390
Beaten by Cy. Davis, _ib._
〃 by Peace Inglis, _ib._
Beat Peace Inglis, 391
His last illness, 392
His death and funeral honours, 393
His character as a boxer, 394

TURNUS, King of the Rutuli (Introd.), xii

TYNE, TOM, “the Tailor,” 1788‒1792:—
His merits, 127, 128
Battles with Jones, Earl (fatal), and Elisha Crabbe, 128, 129
Defeated by Firby, 129
Doubtful defeat by Mendoza, _ib._

U.

UPPER-CUT, the (note), 194

V.

VIRGIL, his account of the prize fight of Dares and Entellus (Introd.),
x, xi

W.

WALES, FREDERICK, Prince of, patron of George Taylor, 19

WALES, GEORGE, Prince of, a ring patron, 52, 94, 126, 128

WARR, BILL, of Bristol, 1787‒1792:—
His battles with Tom Johnson and Will Wood, 120
Defeated by Mendoza, twice, 76, 77, 120
Convicted of manslaughter, 121
Beat Stanyard, of Birmingham, _ib._
Becomes a publican; his death, 122

WATSON, BOB, of Bristol, 1788‒1791:—
His battles with Elisha Crabbe, Bill Jones, and Anderson, 126
His battle with Hooper, 127
Beaten by Davies, _ib._
Theatrical sparring, _ib._
His death, _ib._

WEST-COUNTRY DICK, the Navigator, 1816‒1820:—
His birth, 474
His fights with Grabbler, Reeve, Jack Curtis, Jack Payne, and Charley
Martin, twice, 474, 475
Beat Street, 475
〃 Jack Payne, 476
Beaten by David Hudson, 478
Beat Davis, _ib._
Turn-up with Abbott, 479
〃 〃 Parsing, _ib._
Beaten by Gipsy Cooper, _ib._
Beat Parsing, 480
〃 Redgreaves, _ib._
〃 Mason, _ib._
〃 Hellick, 481

WHITAKER, BOB, 1733:—
His fight with the big Gondolier, 13
His defeat by Nat. Peartree, 14

WHITEHEAD, PAUL, the Poet, 19

WILLIS, WILLIAM, “the Fighting Quaker,” 18

WINDHAM, Right Hon. WILLIAM, his defence of pugilism, 90, 91

WOOD, WILL, the Coachman, 1788‒1804:—
Fights with Will Warr, George the Brewer, Hooper the Tinman, and Jack
Bartholomew, 122, 123
His fight with Isaac Bittoon, 124
His death, _ib._

Y.

YORK, Duke of, patron of Stevens, 1760, 85

END OF VOLUME I.

PRINTED BY
OLIVER AND BOYD
EDINBURGH

-----

Footnote 1:

Pietro Torrigiano’s history has an English interest. He was certainly
a “fighting man.” While serving as a volunteer in the army of Pope
Alexander VI. he modelled some bronze figures for some Florentine
merchants, who invited him to go with them to England. Here he was a
favourite with “bluff King Hal,” who employed Torrigiano to execute
the tomb of his father, Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey, for which he
received the then large sum of £1,000. Employed to execute a
sarcophagus for Cardinal Wolsey—the Ipswich butcher’s son—his work
(once intended to enclose the coffin of Henry VIII. at Windsor) by the
“irony of fate” was destined to enshrine the remains of a greater
English hero. Nelson lies beneath the dome of St Paul’s in the
sarcophagus sculptured by Torrigiano for Wolsey, his inner coffin
being made from a piece of the French flagship _L’Orient_, blown up at
the battle of the Nile. Torrigiano died in Spain in the prisons of the
Inquisition, having been condemned as a sacrilegious heretic for
demolishing a “statue of the Virgin,” which having been paid
inadequately for by a niggardly nobleman, the Duke of Arcoss, he broke
in pieces with his mallet. The incensed grandee had him arrested, and
Torrigiano, to avoid being roasted at an _auto da fé_, refused food
and so perished, A.D. 1522.

Footnote 2:

See Apollon., Argonaut.; Theocritus, Idyll. 22; Apollodorus, b. i., c.
9.

Footnote 3:

Statius, Thebais, vi., v. 893; Lucan, Pharsalia, iv., 598; Juvenal,
Sat. iii., 88.

Footnote 4:

The inquiring reader will find the _sex_ of “the Trojan horse” settled
in some humorous scholia to Pope’s “Dunciad,” book i., line 212,
quizzically attributed to Richard Bentley, the famous critic, under
the _alias_ of Martinus Scriblerus. And at this present time of
writing we may note that the axe-wielding ex-premier, the Right Hon.
W. E. Gladstone, in his great speech on introducing the Reform Bill
(March 19, 1866), borrowed a metaphor from this ancient fable with
eloquent propriety—

“Scandit fatalis machina muros
_Fœta_ armis.”

Footnote 5:

Forsyth’s “Remarks during an Excursion in Italy,” p. 117.

Footnote 6:

In Blaine’s “Cyclopædia of Rural Sports,” art. _British Boxing_, p.
1219. Longmans 1860.

Footnote 7:

An intelligent correspondent of _The Sporting Life_ newspaper, in a
series of letters from Germany, written in July, 1863, gives a graphic
and blood-tinted picture of “How the Students fight at Heidelberg,”
which we would commend to the perusal of the pedagogues of our public
schools. We have space for no more than a few fragmentary sentences,
but the whole is worth serious thought on the part of those who “teach
the ingenuous youth of modern nations.” The writer says:—“I will now
describe to you three duels, out of many I have witnessed. The first
with the sabre, the other two with _schlagers_. The first was between
the _præses_, or head man of one of the principal corps, and an
officer in the German army. It appears that the officer was at one
time a student in the University of Heidelberg, which he quitted to
enter the German service. Being quartered at Mannheim, which is close
to Heidelberg, he determined to revisit the place, when, for some
reason or other unknown to me, he was at once drawn into a duel by the
_præses_ of the corps. Allow me to remark, _en passant_, that an
unfortunate student was killed here in a sabre-duel some three or four
months ago. A court of inquiry was held, and it was proved by the
medical men that the deceased had a remarkably thin skull, which would
easily have been fractured by the slightest blow, a fall, or anything
of that sort. The result was that all parties were acquitted. But I
must return to my sabre-duel. While I was passing through Heidelberg,
Old “Puggy” came and told me there would be a sabre-duel early the
next morning in the _Ingle Suisse_, or “Angels’ Meadow,” a small
meadow up in the mountains, surrounded by trees, and where all the
_sabre_ and _pistol_ duels came off. The “Angels’ Meadow” is about ten
minutes walk from the _Hirsch Gasse_. I suppose it has derived its
name from its extreme beauty, but I think the “Devil’s Meadow” would
be a more appropriate name, for during the last twenty years no end of
fatal duels have taken place there. I took care to be on the ground
early, in order to get a view, which I did by mounting a tree. The
attendance was very small, as only a limited number are allowed to be
present at a duel which is likely to be attended with loss of life.
Each man arrived on the ground in a carriage, the student being
accompanied by the University doctor, while the officer had a medical
friend. While the seconds and umpires were arranging preliminaries,
the men were prepared by their respective doctors. The combatants in
this case were prepared as follows:—A leather pad to protect the
stomach, and a woollen one guarded the lower parts. The sword arm was
covered as usual, and a leather apron put on. The whole upper part of
the body was left open to attack. The ring was made, the seconds,
umpire, and referee took up their respective positions, and the two
doctors undoing their cases of instruments, laid them on the ground
ready for any emergency. The terms were that the men, if able to
scratch, were to fight fifteen minutes, not including rests and
stoppages. The umpire of the student (the student being the
challenger) now prepared to give the word. Previous to this, a sabre,
with schlager handles, was handed to each man. At the word
_Silentium_, you might have heard a pin drop. _Gebunden_, or the order
to bind them, was then given, and a silk handkerchief was tied round
the wrist, and fastened to the handle. _Gebunden ist_ was the reply,
which means, “bound it is.” _Auf de mensur_, “go into position and
scratch,” _Faretz_, “ready,” and _Los_, “go at it,” were called, and
at it they went with a will, the guard used being the
_schlager_-guard, and not the English sword exercise. Two or three
rounds were fought, when the officer got a fearful wound on the side
of the head. The round was of course over, and after a few
restoratives had been administered, silence was again called. I may as
well state here, once and for all, that this was the only wound the
officer got; not so with the student, the wounds he received about the
head were of a fearful character, and round after round he came up.
The time having expired, the student was carried to his carriage; and,
owing to the injuries received, he could not leave his room for
several months. When he left his room, he went to the seaside. It is
needless for me to say that both of them will carry the marks of this
contest to the grave.

“It was on April 10, during vacation, and while there were scarcely
any students in Heidelberg, I was sitting at my window, and saw four
or five students go towards the _Hirsch Gasse_; I followed them, and
when I arrived there the men were stripping. All being in readiness,
they were led out of the house, each arm being carefully supported by
the seconds. One of these gentlemen was a student from Munich, the
other was a Heidelberger, and the men were placed opposite to each
other. Silence was called, and the fight began. The first round
occupied considerably less than half a minute, and was finished by the
seconds springing in and terminating the round, because one of the
_schlagers_ was bent. The second round followed without any result.
The combatants are never allowed to be in _mensur_ more than
three-quarters of a minute—scarcely ever half a minute: these short
rounds are done to rest the arm. In the third round, the Munich man
got a cut on the cheek, a _Bluticher_, or “a blood,” was the cry. The
seconds cried “halt!” and “a blood” was scored to the Heidelberg
student. The fourth round was a teazer for the Munich man, for he got
his nose divided clean in two. No surgeon could have done it better:
you could have laid one half back on one cheek, and the other half on
the other. After this, the Munich man lost his nerve, and every round
he only came up to be receiver-general. At last he got a fearful cut
behind the head, dividing an artery. Seeing this, the surgeon
immediately stopped the duel, after they had been at it seven minutes
(fifteen minutes was the time they had to fight). The wounded man was
taken inside the inn, where every necessary attention was paid him
which his condition required. I never saw the man again.

“The second _schlager_ duel which I saw was between a Prussian and a
Schwabian: both fine men. The morning was a wet one, so they fought in
a cart-shed. Having gone into a detailed account of two other duels,
it will not be necessary for me to do so in this one; suffice it to
say, the surgeon made them fight out the full time (fifteen minutes),
and the Prussian got no less than six ugly cuts about the head;
fearful gashes they were. He had to keep his bed; and, like most of
these duellists, will carry the marks to the grave. As he was led out
of the shed, he presented a piteous spectacle; and I only wish some of
the detractors of the P.R. could have seen him as I did. These two
_schlager_ duels are good average samples.”

The writer adds, after some sensible remarks on these sickening and
murderous savageries, “I write thus strongly, because I cannot and
will not believe that any one who has the good of his country at heart
can decry a well-conducted P.R., as it might be if legalised, or at
the least winked at and tolerated.” As to the fatal encounters with
knife, rifle, and revolver in the Transatlantic States, they stain
almost every sheet of their journalism.

Footnote 8:

As it would overload the page with notes to give authorities for these
remarks, we may observe that the opinions upon pugilism of the
celebrated Mr. Windham, Mr. Harvey Combe, Sir Henry Smith, the Duke of
Hamilton, Francis Duke of Bedford, Lord Yarmouth, Mr. Barber Beaumont,
Sir John Sinclair, the first Lord Lowther, and other legislators of
both Houses, will be found under the periods with which they were
contemporary, together with the dicta of justices and judges as
occasion called them forth. Anecdotes and extracts from the writings
or speeches of Dr. Johnson, Dr. Parr, Dr. Drury, Adam Smith, Sir
Walter Scott (in _Paul’s Letters to his Kinsfolk_), Professor Wilson,
Lord Byron, Tom Moore, Sir Robert Peel (the late), and other admirers
of the pugilate, are scattered in the places where they appropriately
occur.

Footnote 9:

On this point the Hon. Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley, M.P. for
Gloucester, has expressed himself with outspoken candour in “A Letter
on the Sports of the People, and their Moral Effects,” which is
invaluable as the testimony of one who has shared in the sports and
studied the customs of his countrymen. He says:—“Looking at a mere
prize-fight got up by the backers and friends of each party, it seems,
in its abstract position, to be an useless brutality for two men,
having no personal cause of quarrel, to bruise each other for the
possession of gold; but, regarding it in another light, as the
necessary display of a fair standard of combat, by the rights and
regulations of which, throughout the country, all quarrels determined
by personal conflict are to be settled, in this light it assumes a
character of safe and wholesome public example, which its most
strenuous opposers cannot with justice deny. In my mind, then, the
prize fight and fair boxing-match are the means of teaching the people
to become advocates for honest and gallant decisions in all cases of
quarrel, and that the encouragement of the use of the fist is the
greatest antidote that can be offered to the revengeful and dastardly
resort to the assassin’s knife.

“In freedom from war, in the retirement and blessings of the country,
there are no gallant deeds to keep alive the emulation and courage of
the English peasant; then I hold that _any amusement_ which tends to
the display of personal gallantry, is calculated to be beneficial to
the human mind. In spite of all the outcry raised by self-dubbed
humane societies, and the abuse to which they often stretch the power
vested in them for better purposes; in spite of the sickly preachings
of diseased and over-sensitive minds, there is no set of people more
angry with the fact of two armies being in presence of each other
without fighting, than those whose health or inclinations confine them
to the tea-table and fireside, and who would faint at the mere sight
of their own blood.

“It is the man who cannot leave home, that cries out for war; it is
the man who has no chance of bleeding, that calls for blood. A paper
on the breakfast-table, which brings a return of thousands slain, is,
to the appetite of those sickly sophists, an agreeable stimulant.
‘Humanity’ makes a capital banner for a cavilist, ignorant of the
matter of the subject he condemns, to march under; and ‘no cruelty’ is
a cry like the ‘no popery’ cry, which gathers together hosts of
unthinking people ready to arraign and pull down they know not what.

“The shrivelled penman, whether clerk or layman, whose thews and
sinews have wasted through inactivity, sits at his desk and condemns
recreations, pastimes, and pleasures, the value of which he has never
known, and the loss of which, in consequence, is immaterial to him;
while hosts of others, conscious of their own more secret mental
deformities, are zealous to hang charges of immorality on any
superficially available corner of the characters of their neighbours,
for the sole purpose of sustaining one reputation on the ruins of
another.”

Footnote 10:

Vide Mr. Henry Mayhew’s admirable pen and pencil sketches of “London
Labour and the London Poor.”

Footnote 11:

It is a curious statistical fact that of twenty murders, accompanied
with brutal violence, committed in 1862‒3‒4, the writer traced no less
than eleven to inhabitants of England not native born. A more recent
atrocity, the railway murder of Mr. Briggs, we owe to a German
immigrant; the five preceding ones (out of eleven) to Irishmen, who
bear a proportion to Englishmen as 5 to 150, or 1 in 30 of the
population. Then comes in close sequence, the brutal assassination and
mutilation of a German (Fuhrup) by his countryman Karl Kohl; and later
we find recorded a knife and shillalah fight between Italians
(Gregorio Mogni and Serafino Pelizzioni), who among them stabbed
several persons and killed an Irishman, one Michael Harrington, the
initiatory feud being the merits of Garibaldi on the Italian side, and
his Holiness Pio Nono on the Irish.

Footnote 12:

This shows that the professors of gymnastics were numerous at the
time.

Footnote 13:

“To Fig and Broughton he commits his breast,
To steel it to the fashionable test.”

And in Bramstone’s _Man of Taste_ we read:—

“In Fig, the prize-fighter, by day delight.
And sup with Colley Cibber every night.”

Footnote 14:

The “Ring” in Hyde Park (not the drive so called) was formed in 1723,
by “order of his Majesty,” and encircled by a fence. It was situated
about 300 yards from Grosvenor Gate. The area is still visible—a
circle of very old trees belted by a plantation of younger ones. It
was the scene of many impromptu conflicts, especially among the
“chairmen” and “linkmen” of the two first Georges’ reigns, and the
early part of the third. Fights were stopped here by the “Bow-street
myrmidons” towards the close of the last century, and the ring itself
obliterated in 1820.

Footnote 15:

This assertion is found in contemporary writers, and in _Pancratia_,
p. 34. The ponderous Doctor himself was not only an advocate, but a
practitioner of the fistic art. His strength and personal courage were
undoubted, as well as his humanity. We have the authority of his
biographers for his knock-down of Davies, the bookseller, in
King-street, Covent Garden, and among the anecdotes of the day current
and printed, is one of his successfully “instructing” a bullying
drayman who was beating a cripple; as for his humanity and strength,
we have the well-known and oft-repeated fact of his carrying
pick-a-back (despite his prejudice against Scotchmen,) a disabled
Scottish beggar to the hospital in Crane-court, Fleet-street.

Footnote 16:

“Boxiana” in two or three places says 1740. That was the period when
George Taylor, the proprietor of the Tottenham Court booth, was beaten
by the renowned Broughton.

Footnote 17:

The residence of George the Third, wherein he received the address of
the Corporation of London on his accession (June 16, 1727); and also
the mansion of his son Frederick, Prince of Wales, above-mentioned,
who died in his father’s lifetime. Here were held the glove matches
above alluded to. Here, too (afterwards called Saville House), George
the Third was proclaimed, on the 26th October, 1760, and received the
great bodies of the State. Its subsequent history—as Miss Linwood’s
Gallery of Needlework, rooms for sparring and fencing exhibitions,
conjuring, etc., _cafe chantant_, casino, and restaurant—brings us to
its fate by fire in the month of March, 1865, and its proposed
resuscitation in 1879, as “The Alcazar” theatre, concert-room, and
hotel. _Sic transit_, etc.

Footnote 18:

This was written in 1747. It had been well had the Captain’s friendly
caution been remembered.

Footnote 19:

Richard Humphries, “the gentleman boxer,” who beat Mendoza in 1788, is
here alluded to. He was five feet nine inches. We suspect Broughton
was an inch or two taller (Slack was five feet eight and a half
inches); but his bulk, in old age, took off his height.

Footnote 20:

“Pancratia,” p. 46, edit. 1811.

Footnote 21:

This clumsy, inefficient, and easily stopped blow has later claimants
to the _honour_ of its invention. It is simply the most dangerous to
the boxer who tries it, and the most awkward delivery of the fist.

Footnote 22:

A provincialism for crushing and rubbing.

Footnote 23:

This conduct would, of course, have lost the Frenchman the fight in
modern times. There are some odd points of resemblance in Pettit’s
fighting and that of Heenan in his Wadhurst fight with Tom King,
although one was fought on turf the other on a stage. Heenan did not,
however, “rogue” it like the Frenchman, and walk off, but “took his
gruel” till beaten out of time.

Footnote 24:

George Meggs, the collier, was from the pugilistic nursery of Bristol.
After this surreptitious seizure of the championship, he returned to
his native place, we presume, for in July, 1762, we find him fighting
“a pitched battle for a considerable sum (“Fistiana” says £100) with
one Millsom, a baker, of the rival city of Bath.” This came off at
Calne in Wiltshire, when, after a fierce battle of forty minutes,
Millsom was acknowledged the conqueror. In the next month (August,
1762), Meggs, having challenged Millsom to a second combat, was a
second time beaten.

Parfitt Meggs, noticed hereafter, a noted west country boxer, also
surrendered to Millsom. Parfitt afterwards beat a namesake of the
retired champion Slack (whose Christian name was John, not Jem), in
the year 1765, at Lansdown, near Bath, which has made a mess in more
than one “history.” In “Fistiana” (1864 edit.), under Meggs (Parfitt)
are several fights, including two defeats by Tom Tyne (1787) and a
victory over Joe Ward in 1790, about all which history is silent,
while under Tom Tyne we are told he was twice beaten by Mendoza; when
and where we know not. He was, however, beaten by Bill Darts
(afterwards champion) at Shepton Mallett, in 1764, which does not
appear under Meggs’ name.

Footnote 25:

Pierce Egan alters this to eight stone and a half, to agree with his
statement that he fought men _double his weight_.

Footnote 26:

The reporter’s statement shows that, according to the modern practice,
Taylor had lost the fight.—He was merely fighting for an off-chance, a
foul blow, or a wrangle. ED.

Footnote 27:

Pancratia, pp. 52, 53.

Footnote 28:

“Tom Juchau, the paviour,” once bid fair to seize the championship—on
June 20th, 1764. His name in pugilistic circles was “Disher;” how
derived, we might in vain inquire. His first fight of importance was
with Charles Cohant (or Coant), a butcher, who had fought several
severely-contested battles. Cohant, being the best known man, was the
favourite, and the contemporary account says, “During the first
twenty-five minutes ‘Disher’ was scarcely able to give him a single
blow, but was knocked down several times. At thirty-five minutes odds
were so high that money was offered at any rate. At this time Disher
(Tom Juchau) changed his mode of fighting, and giving Cohant a most
tremendous blow, by which he fell; the odds immediately changed in his
favour. After this they fought but four rounds, when Disher, having
played in several dreadful blows, Cohant yielded, acknowledging
himself to be vanquished. The fight lasted forty-seven minutes.” There
is a Spartan brevity, an heroic simplicity, and a simple trust in the
reports of these olden fights, which is truly “refreshing” (we believe
that is the tabernacle phrase) in these days of prose-showering and
persiflage.

The next report is equally commendable for its brevity. “On August the
27th (1765), Millsom, who had defeated the two Meggs (see _ante_),
fought a battle with Thomas Juchau, the paviour, at Colney, near St.
Alban’s, in which he failed to enjoy his usual triumph, Juchau proving
his conqueror.” After half a page of undated rigmarole, headed “Tom
Juchau,” Pierce Egan says, vol. i., p. 74, “The paviour was now
considered a first-rate man, and soon matched himself against some of
the most distinguished pugilists.” We cannot find that he ever fought
again.

Footnote 29:

Lyons (champion, 1769) has no mention of his exploits, except his
conquest of the heroic Bill Darts, June 27, 1769, for the
championship. For twenty-five minutes Darts had it all his own way,
and ten to one was laid upon him, when Lyons recovered second wind,
and in forty-five minutes wrested the championship from him. The
battle took place at Kingston-upon-Thames. No other notable fight is
credited to Lyons.

Footnote 30:

_Daily Advertiser_, May 17, 1771, and _Monthly Register_ for May of
the same year.

Footnote 31:

“Boxiana,” vol. i., p. 83.

Footnote 32:

Joe Hood, see _post_, p. 53.

Footnote 33:

“Historical Sketches and Recollections of Pugilism.” 1 vol. London,
1803.

Footnote 34:

Elisha Crabbe, though a professor of some notoriety, does not take
much rank by this conquest over a boxer of upwards of fifty years of
age. His next fight was with Bob Watson, of Bristol, June 9, 1788 (see
Appendix to Period II., in the memoir of WATSON), wherein he was
beaten, but not disgraced. His last fight was with Tom Tyne (see
TYNE), wherein he was also defeated. Elisha, who was in height 5 feet
8 inches, was a man of great muscular power. For many years he filled
the responsible position of a peace officer at the Mansion House of
the City of London. He resigned this and became a licensed victualler
in Duke’s Place. He was a civil, obliging man, and always an object of
popular attraction among the people of his own persuasion. He died
suddenly on board the Gravesend packet, June 9, 1809, on his return to
London, and was buried with Jewish tokens of respect.

Footnote 35:

The following shows that police interference was occasional, even in
these early times. “May 11, 1773, a boxing match took place at the
Riding School, Three Hats, Islington, between John Pearce and John
White, both shoemakers, for £10 a-side. At the commencement of the
combat White seemed to have somewhat the advantage, but Pearce having
recovered his wind, and given White several severe falls, was on the
point of winning, when the high constable and his attendants mounted
the stage, and put an end to the contest.”—_Daily Advertiser_, May
13th.

Footnote 36:

“Pancratia,” p. 63.

Footnote 37:

Bath’s name appears as BOOTH in “Fistiana,” under HOOD, but his
battles are omitted in their alphabetical place. The most important
were—beat William Allen, 40 min., Barnet, Aug. 20, 1776; beat Joe
Hood, £50, 20 min., Maidenhead, Sept. 8, 1778.

Footnote 38:

Life of Johnson in “Historical Recollections of Boxing, etc.” 8vo.,
1804; copied in “Pancratia,” (1811), pp. 65, 66.

Footnote 39:

As even an opponent of so good a boxer, Love’s name deserves a line or
two. On January 14, 1788, after the fights of Johnson and Ryan and
Mendoza and Humphries had brought back to pugilism the highest
patronage, Bill Love and Denis Ketcher, an Irish boxer, fought for 20
guineas. Love was seconded by W. Savage, and Ketcher by his brother.
“There were not less than 10,000 spectators of this fight, who were
highly surprised and gratified by the dexterity of Ketcher. In size
and strength Love was superior, but in forty-five minutes he was
obliged to yield the laurel to the superior adroitness of his
opponent.” (“Pancratia,” p. 77.) Love’s next appearance was more
successful. On January 22, only eight days after his defeat by
Ketcher, Love fought George Ring (generally misprinted King), the Bath
baker, a well-known pugilist, whose defeat of Edwards, on his first
arrival in London, had made him much talked about. Love beat him
cleverly in thirty-seven minutes, in “the Hay Fields, Bloomsbury.”

Footnote 40:

Called Bill Ward in “Recollections” and in “Pancratia.” His name is
correctly given in “Fistiana.” Warr beat Wood (Captain Robinson’s
coachman) at Navestock, Essex, December 31, 1788; was twice beaten by
Mendoza (see MENDOZA); beat Stanyard, “a pugilist of celebrity from
Birmingham,” for 100 guineas, in ten rounds, thirteen minutes, at
Colnbrook, October 26, 1792.

Footnote 41:

It would be injustice to omit a short sketch of what our Yankee
friends would call so “tall” a boxer as Isaac Perrins. His immense
strength was “yoked with a lamb-like disposition.” In Birmingham,
where he had long followed his occupation as foreman of a large
manufactory, he was respected by his employers, and beloved by the
workmen under him. Perrins was far from an illiterate man. In his
general conversation he was intelligent, cheerful, and communicative,
and possessed of a considerable share of discernment, which, after he
quitted his calling as a coppersmith at Birmingham, and became a
publican at Manchester, was of great service to him in business. His
house was well attended by customers of a superior class. Isaac, too,
had a natural taste for music, and, at one period of his life, was the
leader of a country choir in psalmody. In company, Perrins was
facetious, full of anecdote, and never tardy in giving his song; and
was a strong instance in his own person, among many others which might
be cited, if necessary, that it does not follow as a matter of course
that all pugilists are blackguards! The following anecdote from a work
entitled “The Itinerant,” not only places the good temper and amazing
strength of Perrins in a conspicuous point of view, but exhibits one
of the peculiar traits of an erratic histrionic genius, whose reckless
riot ruined and extinguished his higher gifts. “It happened that
Perrins, the noted pugilist, made one of the company this evening. He
was a remarkably strong man, and possessed of great modesty and good
nature; the last scene took such an effect on his imagination, that he
laughed immoderately. Cooke’s attention was attracted, and turning
towards him with his most bitter look, ‘What do you laugh at, Mr.
Swabson, hey? Why, you great lubber-headed thief, Johnson would have
beat two of you! laugh at me! at George Cooke! come out, you
scoundrel!’ The coat was soon pulled off, and, putting himself in an
attitude, he exclaimed, ‘This is the arm that shall sacrifice you.’
Perrins was of a mild disposition, and, knowing Cooke’s character,
made every allowance, and answered him only by a smile, till
aggravated by language and action the most gross, he very calmly took
him in his arms as though he had been a child, set him down in the
street, and bolted the door. The evening was wet, and our hero without
coat or hat, unprepared to cope with it; but entreaty for admission
was vain, and his application at the window unattended to. At length,
grown desperate, he broke several panes, and, inserting his head
through the fracture, bore down all opposition by the following
witticism: ‘Gentlemen, I have taken some _panes_ to gain admission,
pray let me in, for _I see through my error_.’ The door was opened,
dry clothes procured, and about one o’clock in the morning we sent him
home in a coach.” Despite the second-hand wit, the credit remains with
the pugilist.

In the “Annual Register,” under date of December 10, 1800, we read,
“Died at Manchester, aged 50, Mr. Isaac Perrins, engine-worker. This
pugilistic hero will ever be remembered for the well-contested battle
he fought with the celebrated Johnson, in the month of October, 1789.
Perrins possessed most astonishing muscular power, which rendered him
well calculated for a bruiser, to which was united a disposition the
most placid and amiable. His death was occasioned by too violently
exerting himself in assisting to save life and property at a fire in
Manchester. He was sincerely lamented by all who knew him.” Perrins
needs no further epitaph than this tribute of _one_ who knew him.

Footnote 42:

The account does not say whether blows had been exchanged, but we
presume there had.—ED.

Footnote 43:

Those who witnessed the memorable third fight between Caunt and
Bendigo (at Sutfield Green, Oxfordshire, Sept. 19, 1845), so unfairly
reported at the time, may think they are perusing an account of it. So
does pugilism, like history, under like circumstances, “reproduce
itself.”—ED.

Footnote 44:

This seems to have been such a hit as that with which the Tipton
closed accounts with Tass Parker in their last fight, or Tom King gave
Mace at the conclusion of their second meeting. Those hits, when a man
is “shaky,” are receipts in full.—ED.

Footnote 45:

Jacombs, whose provincial triumphs are unrecorded, was a strong rough,
with an Englishman’s heirdom, unyielding pluck. We find only one other
notice in the journals of the time. “March 10 (1790). A desperate
contest was fought at Stoke Golding, near Coventry, between Jacombs,
the Warwickshire boxer, and Payne, of Coventry. At setting-to Jacombs
was the favourite, but after a most severe conflict of two hours, in
which the combatants contested ninety-five rounds, and during which
both the combatants were several times thrown from the stage, Payne
was declared victorious. The conduct of Payne was cool, but admirably
courageous, whilst that of Jacombs seemed brutally passionate. He
seemed to depend more upon driving and bruising his opponent against
the railings than fair and open fighting with the fists.” We regret to
say that Jacombs has had too many successors in this unmanly art, even
with the less dangerous ropes and stakes of the modern ring.

Footnote 46:

Tom Tring in person, but not in physiognomy, resembled the late burly
and clumsy boxer Ben Caunt. He was, however, a civil, inoffensive, and
mild looking giant. He was the original of several Academicians’
drawings and paintings of Hercules. “He challenged all England”
(_except his friend_ Tom Johnson—a judicious exception), “for one
thousand guineas;” so do the advertising hair-dressers: but when
Pierce asks us to believe that poor Tring’s “qualities as a pugilist
were of a most tremendous nature, and few men appeared who were
capable of resisting his mighty prowess,” and of his being “clad in
the rich _paraphernalia_ (which of the princesses married him?) _of
royalty_,” we begin to ask ourselves whether we are reading the
history of Tom Thumb. To support this magniloquent introduction, we
are told he beat Tom Pratt, “a very formidable man,” in 1787, a guinea
to four shillings, “Pratt ran away, leaving Tom in possession of the
ring.” We find, instead of this, under date of August 19th, 1787, that
“a boxing match was contested on Kennington Common, between Jacob
Doyle, the Irish boxer, and Tom Tring, which the latter won with ease.
Tring is said to be the finest made man in England, and the talents of
several of the first artists have been employed to delineate the
symmetry of his person. As a boxer he possessed little science, but
good courage.” (Quoted in “Pancratia,” p. 72). A terrible “street
fight” with one Norfolk, a bricklayer, is here improvised, to
introduce his thrashing by Big Ben. Poor Tring was another of the
victims of the heartless dandy and unprincipled egotist miscalled “the
first gentleman of Europe,” without a particle of the gentleman in his
whole composition. Tring obtained a precarious living as a model to
Sir Joshua Reynolds, Hooper, Sir William Beechey, and others, and
earned a crust as a street porter. He was a civil inoffensive fellow;
in height six feet two inches, and weighing fifteen stone in prime
condition. He died in the pursuit of his humble calling in the year
1815.

Footnote 47:

“Fighting for darkness,” a few years since, became a sort of
calculated “off-chance,” to save bets among the “down the river”
second-class pugilists of the London ring.—ED.

Footnote 48:

Rather too small for big men.—ED.

Footnote 49:

The distribution of duties of seconds, and a third party in care of
the water, etc., in modern times, is noted elsewhere.—ED.

Footnote 50:

_Daily Advertiser_, January 22, 1790.

Footnote 51:

Mendoza’s last ring battle may be considered as that with John Jackson
in 1795. His return to the ring to fight out a quarrel with Harry Lee,
in 1806, and the foolish exhibition in 1820 with old Tom Owen, are
solecisms, and do not disturb the arrangement by Periods.

Footnote 52:

A contemporary writer, in 1790, says of him: “Mendoza is a pugilist
better initiated in the theory of boxing than perhaps any of his
cotemporaries, and has produced some exceedingly expert pupils. In his
manner there is more neatness than strength, and it has been said,
more show than service; his blows are in general deficient in force,
but given with astonishing quickness, and he is allowed to strike
oftener, and stop more dexterously, than any other man; he is
extremely well formed in the breast and arms, but his loins are very
weak; his wind is good, and he possesses excellent bottom.”

Footnote 53:

This would have lost Mister Packer the battle by the modern rules.—ED.

Footnote 54:

See notice of WARR in Appendix to Period II.

Footnote 55:

1— Thomas Wilson

2— John Horn

3— Harry Davis

4— John Lloyd

5— Thomas Monk

6— John Hind

7— William More

8— John Williams

9— Richard Dennis

10— George Cannon

11— A. Fuller

12— T. Spencer

13— William Taylor

14— John Knight

15— John Braintree

16— William Bryant

17— John Matthews

18— Tom Tyne

19— Ditto

20— George Hoast

21— George Mackenzie

22— John Hall

23— William Cannon

24— George Barry

25— George Smith

26— William Nelson

*27— Martin (the Bath Butcher)

*28— Richard Humphries

*29— Ditto

*30— Ditto

*31— William Warr

*32— Ditto

*33— John Jackson

*34— Harry Lee

*35— Tom Owen.

Such is the list; see “Boxiana” (Vol. iii. p. 489). There is “a
curious felicity” in the selection, as, with the exception of Tom Tyne
(Nos. 18, 19), whose two defeats by Mendoza are unrecorded, and those
with an asterisk, not one name ever figures as fighting anybody else
on any discoverable occasion.

Footnote 56:

Mendoza was at that period fifty-seven years of age, while Owen was
nearly six years younger; an important difference—supposing all other
circumstances equal—at such an advanced (we had almost said absurd)
time of life for a fistic exhibition.

Footnote 57:

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.—VIRGIL.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 59:

This was an unjustifiable interference on the part of the second.—ED.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.