The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-06 00:00:00

The Sussex Magistrates and the late Prize

Fights,

The East SUS32X Epiphany Quarter Sessions
were commenced on Monday at the County Hall,
Lewes—',he Earl of Chichester presided.
Mr. G. T. COURTHOPE said he wished to call the
attention of the Court to the prize fight that had

recently taken place at Wadhurst. Certain parties
would be brought before that Court on the follow-
ing day to answer fu: the part which they had
taker in that fight, and it was not his intention to
say anythicg which might be prejudicial to them,
but rather to refer to those who moved in a higher
station, and had given their countenance and assis-
tance to a violation of the law—he meant the rail-
way company. (Hear, hear.) It had been urged
on behalf of the South-Eastern Railway Com•

pany that they were bound to carry any par-
ties who presented themselves for that pur-
pose. This was true to a certain extent, but it was
not the case that they were bound to carry persons
who were avowedly about to engage in an illegal
act. Suppose' certain parties should combine to
commit a burgliry at the Earl of Chichester's resi-
dence at Stanmer-park, what would be thought of
the Brighton Railway Company if, with a full
knowledge of the purpose for which it was sought,
they should convey the burglars to and from the
station is a special train ? Having stated in detail
the circumstances under which the prize fighters
had been conveyed to and from Wadhurst, Mr.
Courthope said that the South Eastern Railway
Company had done so in direct violation of a pledge
they had given the Secretary of State to the con-
trary. In 1859 this same company had run a spe-
cia/ train, conveying pugilists, which stopped be-
tween Headeorn and Staplehurst. The chief con-
stable made a complaint upon the subject in his re-
port, and a communication was made to the Home
Secretary, who called upon the secretary of the
railway company for an explanation of the matter.
Mr. BEATTIE, a director of the South Eastern
Railway Company, said that the chief constable had
simply complained tnat the exertions of the police
had been frustrated through the train having
stopped between two stations.
Mr. COLTIITHOPE in continuation, said that he had
taken the trouble to procure a copy of the corres-
pondence that had taken place in the matter, and
should read it. The letters were as follows:—
South-Eastern Railway, April 25, 1859.

Sir,—In reply to your commuuication dated 19th inst.,
enclosing an extract from the quarterly report made by the
chief constable of the county of Kent, as to the facilities af-
forded by this company for enabling large numbers of per-
sons to attend a prize fight held at Headcorn on the sth
inst., I beg to inform you that the directors have caused in-
quiry to be made, and ascertained that the train arrange-
ments connected with the transaction in question were made
by one of the company's servants without their knowledge,
or authority, and that they have taken steps to prevent any
facilities being granted in future for the above purpose. I
ought also to add that one of the directors, who is a magis-
trate of the county of Kent, had already brought the sub-
ject under the notice of the board, and been authorised by
them to communicate a similar decision to the next meeting
of quarter sessions of the county.—l have the honour, &c.,
S. SMALES, Secretary.
H. Waddington, Esq., Secretary of State, Whitehall.
Whitehall, April 23, 1859.

Sir,—l have laid before Mr. Secretary Sotheron Estceurt
your le; ter of the 25th inst., and I am directed by him to
thank the directors of the South-Eastern Railway Com-

pany for the explanation they have been so good as to give
him of the circumstances under which facilities were af-
forded to a large number of persons proceeding down the
line to a prize fight, and to express his satisfaction that the
director s have taken steps to prevent the grant of such faci-
lities in future.--I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
11. WADDINGTON.
S. Smales, Secretary to the South-Eastern Railway
C,napany, London-bridge.
It would seem from this correspondence that the
railway company had given a distinct pledge that
they wou d not afford any facilities for prize fight-
ing. It was now attempted to qualify that pledge
by saying that the Railway company merely pro-
mised that they would not allow a train to be
stopped between two stations, but this was a mere
subterfuge. Mr. Courthope concluded by moving
that the Clerk of the Peace should be instructed to
write to the directors of the South E .stern Railway
Company, stating that the magistrates for East
Sussex, in Quarter Sessions assembled, had heard
with much regret that upon the occasion of a prize
fight at Wacihurst, on the 10th December last, faci-
lities had been granted by the servants of the com-
pany to persons proceeding thither, and to request
that the directors should take steps to prevent any
facilities being granted in future for this purpose.
The Earl of CHICHESTER said he had no objection
to communicating with the chairman of the com-
pany on the subject, but he thought it was neither
becoming nor dignified for the court to give a judg-
ment in what was not proved before it.
Mr. DARBY seconded Mr. Caurthope's proposition.
Mr. BEATTIE said he did not wish to appear there
as the representative of the railway company, but,
as a director, he desired to make some remarks in
vindication of the course they bad pursued. After
alluding to several matters adverted to by Mr.
Courthope and previous speakers, he said, with
regard to the power given to railway companies to
grant special trains, theft was intended as a benefit
to the public ; and even in the matter of prize fights
it was better that such parties should have a train
to themselves then be crowded into an ordinary
passenger train. Railway companies had received
complaints of such parties getting into the regular
trains, and the simplest and best plan was for them
to have a train to themselves. With respect
to Mr. Darby's statement that they ought to know
what the law was, and that they ought to refuse to
grant a special train when it was known that the
parties were going to a prize fight, if such were the
law, it ought to be known. He would repeat what
he la,ci said in his letter to Mr. Courthope when
that gentleman had courteously informed him that
he intended to bring the matter before that court,
which was to the effect that the railway company
having advertised their ordinary trains at specified
rates, and that special trains could also be had at
special rates, they were not at liberty to pick their
customers, but it was their duty to grant every such
application without inquiring into the purposes.
He believed that was the law at the present time.
Mr. HUSSEY said he hoped it would not go forth
to the public that railway companies in this country
were bound to provide special trains for any pur-
pese ; bectuse if their neighbours across the Chan-
nel knew this they might avail taemseives of it to
carry out their scheme of invasion. (Laughter.)
Mr. ELPHINSTON It slid he would move, as an
amendment—" That the chairman be requested to
coramunic ate with the Secretary of State with re-
ference to the facilities alleged to have been granted
by the South Eastern Railway Company
for the
late prize fight in Sussex."
Atter a lengthy discussion Mr. Courthope with-
drew his motion, and that proposed by Mr. Elphin-
stone was substituted and unanimoesly agreed to.

LEWES, Tuesday,

Before the Earl of Chichester, chairman; MeiSTB.
I. G. Dodson, M.P., G. D trley. 13. Godlee, A.
Beattie, F. G. Hutlock, F. H. Williamson, C. H.
Frewen, E. Hussey, T. Brown, C. Carpenter, J.
Dictm, W. J. Campion, F. B rchard, D. Bar-
clay, &c.
At the sitting of the Court this morning, in his
charge to the grand jury, the noble chairman said
there was one case in the calendar which was of
considerable importance, and of such an unusual
character, that he felt bound to make some obser-
vations upon it. The parties were charged with
committing a riot and assault at a recent prize fight,
of which, no doubt, they had all heard. The first
charge alleged was for riot, and he would just give
them a general notion of wh- t legally constituted
that offence. It must be proved that three or more
persons assembled together, and that that assem-
bling together was accompanied by some circum-
stances of actual force or violence, or that there were
such tendencies towards violence as were calculated
to inspire people with fear. Any and all persons
assembling to witness such a proceeding would be
liable tol3, tried for committing a breach of the peace,
and that in law would be a riot. With regard to that
part of the charge which was alleged as an assault,
ey,rybody well knew that a fight in cold blood, as a
prize-fight would be, constituted a breach of the
peace, and all connected with it, either as principals,
seconds, or lookers.on, were there as aiders and