Spring, or Winter the Christian, the United Service Journal' is still pendente lite.

Since our last article on this subject (1st of May last) there has not actually passed one single week, without legal proceedings having been taken, in England, upon from one to five cases of death by fighting. These cases exhibit circumstances of the most horrible cruelty, in which mere boys have been killed in unequal fights with men; feeble old men have been killed by pugilists of youth and vigour; women have often been mixed in these at once cowardly and atrocious scenes; and fathers have been convicted of stimulating to the murder of their children, and wives to the sacrifice of their husbands. Wherever the actual ring or avowed boxing professors have been concerned, the burglaries, the highway robberies, and petty larcenies have been innumerable. We will give a few proofs of these facts.

We have now before us a frightful list of inquests and indictments upon the loss of life, from prize-fighting, since the 1st of May last. About twenty cases are of disgusting atrocity, and from a few, we will give three or four features, as many as our space will afford—ex uno disce omnes -and having shown the cowardly, unnatural spirit engendered by the system, with its nucleus of all breaches of the law, we will conclude, by showing the monstrous laxity of our magisterial system and of our police; even now that the government, the judges-actually the judges-the legislature, the clergy, private societies, and great public bodies have determined to suppress the system, and to expunge, if possible, the stigma of its infamy from this enlightened age.

In a fight, at Manchester, in August last, a young man was killed, in a horribly cowardly manner; and Lord Lyndhurst, in sentencing three of the pugilists to transportation for life, said, "That in the whole course of his experience, he had never met with a case of more savage brutality." The chief instigator to this unnatural combat was the father of one of them. In another case, tried at Bury, an athletic pugilist, aged twentyfour, killed an old man of sixty, who had wished" to give in" but who had been compelled to fight until he was killed. The Judge of assize said"It is necessary to make a severe example, in order to put an end to these brutal scenes. I wish it to be understood, that all persons who take any part in these criminal encounters, whether as principals, seconds, or otherwise, are equally guilty," &c., &c. At another fatal fight. in which a man named Hingley was killed, it appeared, in evidence, that the chief instigator of the fighters was the wife of one of them, At Warrington, we find two brothers fighting-o -one of them was killed, and the agent and manager of the fight was the father, whilst the wife of the deceased gave evidence of the fractured skull of her murdered husband, and was in favour of its being considered a fair manly fight. In one week in May last there were three deaths by fighting. A poor sweep, at a game of skittles, was cheated, and his antagonist, upon his remonstrance, procured, to argue with him, "a notorious pugilist," who, says the evidence, "without any ceremony, knocked the deceased down twice; when he got up a second time, he entreated him not to strike him again, but the pugilist struck him a third time a most violent blow under the ear, which knocked him down, and he never rose again. Two or three persons carried him to a stable, and left him, whilst they went to witness another fight in a neighbouring field. In about an hour one of the parties who had carried him into the stable, went to look at him, and found him dead. The jury found a verdict of wilful murder.* Can human nature be more harrowed-does it want more to convince the most callous mind and unfeeling heart, that

* A similar case occurred at Tewkesbury. A man, most horribly mangled in a prize-fight, was suffered to remain all night upon some hay in a field, and the next morning was found dead.

this pugilistic profession is a complication of errant cowardice, of treachery, ferocity, and fraud? Enough of this part of our subject. Let us now advert to the astounding mal-administration of the laws.

Among, literally, very many scores of such occurrences as the following -all since 1st of May last-we find, at Middleton, a prize-fight, at which, say the papers, "As a matter of course, the country people had their pockets picked, and every shop and public-house, at which the fancy coves gained admittance, was plundered; much damage was done to the pastures and fences." &c. &c. On 9th September last, a prize-fight, for 251. a side, took place, near Uxbridge, and a newspaper says-" There was hardly a decent person on the ground; and the amateurs consisted of the vilest dregs of the gaols, flash-houses, and workhouses. Nothing of a portable nature was safe on the line of road-ducks and fowls, the ragged linen of poor cottagers, hung on the hedges, or in the little gardens of the hard-working poor, was made prizes of. At a little road-side public-house, kept by a man well known to the fancy, a general row took place between the winners and losers; upwards of a dozen battles were fought opposite his house, and the chairs and tables of the unfortunate landlord went to wreck in every direction, and the fragments were borne off in triumph," &c. In succeeding papers we find the celebrated pugilist, Jack January, sentenced by the magistrate for an assault in rescuing a gang of thieves who had been caught robbing a garden; but the matchless impudence of the case was in the police. The police inspector told the magistrate that January was one of the fighting men, and had, therefore, been for a great length of time under the surveillance of the police,"—and yet, to our positive knowledge, the police allows the utmost licence to these fighters, even in those dens of infamy called flash public-houses, kept by expugilists, and licensed by the magistrates. We are next told that Tit Shields, aged seventy-three, who had been, for fifty years, an inmate of almost every prison in the metropolis, was committed for robbing a gentleman of his watch (9th September.) "Tit," says the report, "was one of the REGULAR FANCY PRIGS; he was never absent from a fight, except when in quod, and at the Tennis Court he had eased (robbed) hundreds of stupid starers." Let us first observe, that the police gave countenance to this Tennis Court, until the inhabitants around it petitioned for its suppression, on the ground of the excessive multiplicity of robberies and outrages; let us state, that as soon as the nuisance was suppressed, the daily exhibitions at the Tennis Court became nightly exhibitions at the flash sporting-houses, licensed by the magistrates.

66

Let us now reflect upon the folly of our talking of an intelligent police, or upright magistracy. In the very next paper we find a police charge of a daring robbery, at what the papers call the Den"-" a well-known rendezvous of cullys and sharpers." This den, be it known, is kept by a notorious patron of the ring, one of the fancy, is the resort of the fighters, -and is licensed by the magistrates. The sitting magistrate, on this occasion, told the keeper that his license would be in danger, if he again allowed as many as fifty of such characters to be in his house, so late as five in the morning. What a truly barbarous notion of police is this! If, we suppose, this man of the fancy had fewer than fifty such persons at five, or more than fifty an hour or two before five, his license would not be in jeopardy! In the very next newspaper, we find two inquests upon deaths by fighting (in London). The succeeding paragraph tells us that "THE WELCH CHAMPION, this pugilistic hero was again committed to the tread-mill" for an assault and attempted robbery-then we find J. Hart, the swellmob and fighting hero, before the Lord Mayor for robbery ;-then follows a respite of Belasco's horrible case ;-then a disgraceful action, in which the pugilist, was worsted;-then two cases of daring robbery, the last of which was committed by "a well-known member of the swell-mob gang of prize-ring thieves." We have next a whole posse

of boxers hired for the Stroud election; then a case of keeping the ring with naked swords, by which one man was killed, and for which the inquest has found a verdict of wilful murder ;-then a fight at Northfleet, attended by several robberies, and scandalous outrages on board the steamer, that brought the fighters and swell-mob from the place of combat to London. The list is interminable *.

Let us now come to more curious illustrations of our incredibly ridiculous and culpable notions of police and magistracy. First, the police make charges against a keeper of a public-house for suffering bad characters to resort to it; and one main proof is a police inspector's oath, that he had seen a certain celebrated fighter at the house, who had been tried at the Old Bailey for felony. This fighter had, likewise, long been known to the police as the leader of one of our principal gang of pickpockets. Since this police case, will it be believed-is it possible that any man can credit the fact, than this prize-fighter has actually been licensed to keep a public-house himself, and this after he had just been second in a prize fight in which a man was killed? Thus a man whose very presence in a public-house endangers the keeper's license may be a very proper character to keep a public

* Can the public believe it possible that the prize-ring has its organ in the press? and of such a character that this sporting-paper could publicly advise the "United Service Journal" to pay hush-money, in the shape of a compensation, to this Belasco, for an injury to his character? Such is the fact.

In defending the prize-fighters, the boxers' journal urges that Thurtell, a gambling, black-leg crosser of fights, a getter-up of fights, a second of the fighters, an inseparable friend of the gang, was only an amateur, and the son of a most respectable man; next, that Bishop and Williams, the Burkers, only witnessed fights LIKE many of the most elevated men in the country; that, though Harris the boxer was hanged for murder, there is the fullest persuasion on the minds of those conversant with the case (alias the boxers) that he was hanged innocently; and, it is added, by way of compliment to the boxers, we suppose, that a friend whose honest testimony would have proved his innocence, got out of the way, and suffered him to be hanged out of pique at an affront. Then a great boxer, convicted of robbing a poor girl of a shawl, we are told, took it by way of JOKE; and of the ex-champion, Carter, who was transported for a robbery + for seven years, this boxing journal observes, "it is generally believed that Carter was innocent of the crime." Unfortunately for this general belief, this ex-champion of England has since been tried again, and received a second sentence for stealing a shirt. The clean stolen shirt was found on his body, under his own dirty shirt, and yet it may be again generally believed that he was innocent, although he pleaded guilty. Of Parish, transported for stealing a watch, the apologist of the fighters says, that "he never dishonoured the ring ;" and "in his hardships was tempted to commit the offence." Of the celebrated pugilist, Perkins, this champion of these characters says" He was highly respected by all classes at Oxford; it is true he was transported for stealing a watch, but it is well known he was not the thief," &c. Some persons may, perhaps, imagine that the excessive stupidity, the blundering absurdity, of such a mode of defence, amounts to irony, and becomes a laughable exposure and severe attack upon all whom it means to serve; we must yet, however, put it to them, whether, amongst the lower classes, the pouring out of such apparently flagitious indiscrimination between crime and legal conduct, must not materially tend to feed the gallows, and to fill the hulks and prisons with such Thurtells who were only amateurs? murderers, who were hanged from the pique of boxing friends? ex-champion robbers, who were transported on a general belief of innocence? highway robbers, who were tempted by hardship, and never dishonoured the ring? watch-stealers, who were respected by all Oxford ? and child-burkers, who only attended fights, LIKE the most elevated mer in the country? Does it not behove the magistracy to reflect on the pugilists and the swell mobs pouring forth such matter amongst the needy and desperate characters of London, whenever those magistrates are sentencing to punishment the unhappy wretches that have been seduced to crime by a system which the magis. trates tolerate, in spite of the very laws which they have been sworn to execute, and are paid for executing?

+ This Carter was likewise advised to bring an action against the United Service Journal' for libel.

house himself, under a magisterial license!-Where is the Home Secretary? Where is public shame and decency? Had the magistrates refused licenses prospectively to every professed pugilist, the system, ipso facto, would have died, the pugilist's goal being to keep a hell, a brothel, or a publichouse. Among the great pugilists that have kept, or keep, hells, brothels, or public-houses, we now cursorily recollect the names of thirty odd, comprising every champion and pugilist of celebrity, some of whom have been hanged, others transported, and others imprisoned or punished for various offences. Such is our system of police, and such our magistracy *!

Recently the stipendiary magistrates of Office were determined to put a stop to a prize-fight, and exerted themselves with vigour, but were defeated and laughed at for their pains; and yet all the numerous preliminaries of the fight took place by public advertisement at a prize-fighter's public-house in Holborn, the fighters were training by advertisement at two publichouses in the country,-the fight was attended by the pugilistic flashhouse keepers, by the swell-mob, and numerous robberies were committed, and yet not a single step has been taken to bring any one of the parties to justice.

Staines and its neighbourhood have been the scene of very many fights, fair, fraudulent, and fatal, but they have all been accompanied by burglaries, larcenies, highway robberies, and crimes of every grade and description. The clergy, gentry, farmers, and tradesmen of every description about Staines, have petitioned the House of Commons to suppress so gross an evil. Mr. Briscoe, M.P. for Surrey, declared that nothing could be so disgraceful to the country as such brutal exhibitions and pre-announced violations of the law, and defiance of the magistracy. Mr. Ewart, M.P. for Liverpool, considered these prize-fights a national disgrace. Mr. Attwood thought the law, if duly enforced, was sufficient to suppress the practice. Mr. Plumtree, member for East Kent, said "it was quite impossible that the country could continue to allow such atrocious and horrible practices as were exhibited at prize-fights." Mr. Ruthven denied there was any manly courage displayed in prize-fighting. Sir Charles Burrell said, that "it was not to be endured that prize-fighting should take place, congregating, as it did, all the scoundrels and ruffians of the metropolis and the country," &c. It is singular, that the day after this debate took place, one newspaper alone contained two cases of death by fighting, and four indictments against (four) prize-fighters, for a burglary and robbery to the extent of 500l. On another occasion, Mr. O'Connell, in Parliament, designated these fights as cowardly, savage, and fraudulent, and as the sources of all crimes. On another night he again called on the Home Secretary to do his duty and suppress them. On a third night he gave notice of a motion to that effect, and declared, that by the law, all contrivers, aiders, and abetters, and witnesses of fatal prize-fights, were guilty of murder, and on these declarations he was loudly cheered by the House. On another occasion, Mr. Wilkes, member for Boston, brought the subject again forward, and met with great applause, in stating that he would bring in a bill to suppress the crime.

We have now seen the sense of Parliament, and of the Judges, upon this subject. The sequel is most curious. To three applications to the Home Secretary in Parliament, a reply is given, that Government means to do nothing on the subject. To a petition from a body of clergy, gentry, farmers, traders, and others, to Lord Melbourne, the Under Secretary of State replies, that" it is the duty of the magistrates to prevent all breaches of

* Of course, in these cases, the delinquency is of very different degrees. An expugilist is not to be reviled for his former life, if he has abandoned it, and keeps a public-house, or carries on any other legal trade; but if he makes his public-house, by advertisement, the rendezvous of fighters, for the purpose of contriving fights and carrying on bets, he is even worse than he was in his original vocation.

66

the peace ;" and that it "is the duty of all inhabitants, who are aware that violations of the law are about to take place, to give information to the magistrates, and to call on them to perform their duty," &c. Soul of Pantagruel, was ever a parallel to this exhibited! First, it is a duty of magistrates to prevent all breaches of the peace. They are not prevented. The Home Secretary is the head of the magistrates, and he will not stir on the subject. Scores and scores of inquests on manslaughter-trials after trials for murder take place; verdicts of wilful murder, and sentences of death or transportation for life, crowd on each other; robberies are as thick as blackberries throughout the country,-all arising out of this breaking of the peace. The Judges declaim against the evil-Parliament follows in the same track-the people petition-the magistrates won't act-and the Home Secretary says, They ought to act. I am a magistrate; I won't act; I am the head of those who ought to act; and I won't make them act, nor tell them to act." Let us suppose such a dereliction of duty to pervade our army, navy, or any one branch of our public service, and what an exhibition shall we have of “England and the English!" But this is only part the first. Part the second is yet worse. "It is the duty," says Mr. Phillips, "of all inhabitants, who are aware that violations of the laws are about to take place, to give information to the magistrates, and to call upon them to perform their duty." Why, the magistrates are the very persons who know it all, and long before the inhabitants know it; and as to information, this is no secret, for the premeditated offence is always advertised weekly for many months, and every particle of the crime is concocted under the noses of the magistrates, and by their licensed and protected favourites. A pugilist, and consequently a criminal, is licensed to keep a flash publichouse. He advertises, every week, that a fight is to be got up at his licensed house. Advertisement follows advertisement-paragraph after paragraph appears, exposing the nightly assemblages of lawless criminals -the progress they have made towards the violations of the law-the money collected for the purpose-how they have maltreated, baffled, exposed, and ridiculed all magistrates who have interfered with them. Then comes an announcement of the very licensed flash public-houses in the country at which the intended law-breakers are in training-then an announcement of the day on which the offence is to be committed-then a long announcement of the perpetration of the deed-then advertisements of the licensed houses at which the criminals, and all connected with them, are to divide the spoil-and then advertisements of intended repetitions of such crimes. All this is done in spots licensed by the magistrates. The crimes and all their consequences are every day made known to the magistracy, and yet the Home-office tells the country that it will not act, because the magistrates have not been informed of the intended offence by some inhabitants who knew nothing of it, until they found their fields ruined, themselves beaten, and their houses robbed. And what follows? After all is known to the magistrates, what is the consequence? Not a criminal is punished; but when a boxing keeper of a flash house, at which all the crime was organized, comes before the magistrates, he is again licensed to keep his den; and if one of the fighters themselves asks for a license, we have thus seen magistrates saying, “Although you are too lawless a character to appear in a public-house, you are a very proper person to keep one; and as you have all your life set us at defiance, and lived by breaking the law, we reward you with a legal license, to keep a house to encourage others to do the same." Were Caffres ever in such a state of ignorance of laws and public duties as this? According to the Home-office, when numerous gangs of criminals, by and with the license of the magistrates, announce an intended crime-when they proceed to commit it in a certain town-when

* Many conscientious magistrates will never sanction by their presence these licentious scenes.