The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-16 00:00:00

ing and abetting prize fights by himself, when he was a
member of the late Government. It was then understood
that nothing of the sort should again take place. Last year
a letter was sent to them by the Surrey bench of magis-
trates, expressing their regret that the company should have
afforded facilities for such disgraceful exhibitions , and the
board replied to the effect that the arrangements would be
made by the officials of the company without consulting
them, but that they had given orders which would pre-
vent, as far as they could, anything of the kind in fu-
ture. So far from that, however, they had actu-
ally allowed two special trains to go down their
line on the morning of the late fight, and to
stop at every station where there might be fields suitable
for the occasion. At every station in Surrey they found
policemen waiting for them, and they were obliged to go
on into Hampshire; and there being at one station in that
county no police, the fight took place. He was informed by
the depositions of the constabulary, that an officer of the
company, Mr. Knight, a superintendent of traffic at Lon-
don-bridge, was on the engine directing the movements of
one of the trains; and that the use of the telegraph was
denied to the authorities while the fight was going on.
Under these circumstances he (the noble lord) submitted
that the complicity of the company was clearly established.
As to whether it was possible to bring the law to bear on
the directors, it would not be right, as he perceived none of
the law officers of the crown present, to ask the opinion of
the government; but he hoped the house would not let
persons to whom they had given great powers wield those
powers in defiance of the law. (Hear, hear.) Few could
form an adequate idea of the inconvenience which arose
from those special trains, from which 2,000 or 3,000 of the
worst ruffians in London were in a moment launched upon
a quiet neighbourhood. (Hear, hear.) He was happy to
quote the example of the :South Western Company as one
that had entirely given up the 'practice, and that had re-
cently refused to grant trains for any such purpose. (Hear,
hear.) They all knew that the executive of the country
was by no' means particularly strong, and that it was very
rarely inclined to exert itself when it was opposed by num-
bers. He might refer, for instance, to the case of St.
George's-in-the-East, where a mob of boys and ruffians
had bern allowed for the last three months to disturb un-
checked the devotions of the congregation. (Hear, hear.)
The house would, however, concur with him in asking for
information which would show whether the government
had used its best efforts to enforce the law, and whether
anything could be done in order to put a stop to those
brutal displays. (Hear, hear.)
Viscount PALMERSTON—I do not intend to offer any
objection to the motion, and I will only just enter a sort of
protest against that exaggeration—(hear, hear)—in which
the noble lord has indulged. He has attacked this railway
company for having brought down 2,000 or 3,000 ruffians
and launched them in a moment upon a quiet neighbourhood.
One would have imagined from his description that these
persons were a set of banditti—(laughter)—robbing and
p;undering, and seeking to ravish the country—murdering
persons, burning houses, and committing every, sort of
atrocity. (Hear, hear.) Technically, a fight between two
persons, though not fighting from any feeling of enmity, is
a breach of the peace, and, being a breach of the peace, it
is clearly an act which is subject to prosecution. But the
persons who go to those places, though they may be
open to a charge of breach of the peace, are harmless and
commit no breach of the peace ; they stay looking at what
passes, which are exhibitions of manly courage, characteris-
tic of the qualities of the people of this country. (Hear,
hear.) It was only the other day a French newspaper,
speaking of this fight, described it as a type of the national
character—endurance and patience under suffering, and
rather holding it up as a specimen of the admirable quali-
ties of the British race. (Hear, hear.) However, that is a
matter of opinion ; but setting aside the legal technicalities
of the case, I do not see that any number of persons who
assemble to witness a prize-fight are more guilty of a breach
of the peace than persons who go to witness a balloon ascent.
(Laughter.) Thay go to see a sight, and, that over, they
return without having done harm to anybody; and as to the
danger to those persons who engage in those fights, I con-
sider the danger to those who go up in a balloon is much
greater. (A laugh.) Therefore, I think there should be a
medium in all things and moderation in all opinions; and
though it may be desirable to prevent those fights, yet I do
not think any advantage is to be gained, or good to the
morals of the people is to be promoted, by the exaggerations
of the noble lord. At the same time the motion is one to
which I cannot see any objection, and I shall not therefore
refuse to produce the correspondence. (Cheers.)
Lord LOVAINE said the noble lord was so much in fa-
vour of prize-fighting he should not be surprised if he
brought in a bill to legalise it. The noble lord had very
skilfully put the discussion on the merits of prize fighting,
whereof he (Lord Lovaine) had specially guarded himself
against saying one word. What he said was that the rail-
ways should not bring down 2,000 or 3,000 ruffians. He
granted that all those who attended the late fight were not
of that description; Vat if the noble lord had been, as he
(Lord Lovaine) had been, a passenger in that train—(loud
laughter)—he was merely a casual traveller—he was sure
that the proceedings of the passengers were not such as
would have pleased him, as they certainly did not give him
(Lord Lovaine) any satisfaction. If they chose to oppose
those things let them do so; but do not let them call on ma-
gistrates to preserve the peaCe, while in that house they
were throwing the whole weight of their authority into the
scale to aid and abet those who break the laws.
Mr. V. SCULLY did not think it right to let it go abroad
that the noble lord (Lord Lovaine) stood alone in that house
in his condemnation of those prize-fights. He, on his own
part, must enter his protest against them; but he thought
the noble lord who brought forward this motion should fly
at higher game. The Ministers of the Crown, instead of
putting down this prize-fighting, lent every encouragement
to it. They had the Home Secrerary, whose peculiar busi-
ness it was to put down these prize-fights, defending them ;
and now they had the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment speaking of them only as playful exhibitions of the
animated nature of the British lion. (A laugh.) But he
thought it was the duty of the Government to enforce the
law, even if it were a bad law. He remembered that in his
school days the boys who were the most anxious to set the
other boys fighting were generally considered the greatest
cowards in the school.
Mr. W. EWART was an enemy to prize-fighting, but
he begged to be understood he dig not object to fighting
with ' the gloves—(a laugh)—as a good sort of exercise ;
neither did he object to a pelican learning the art of self-
defence. But he drew a great distinction between these
practices and going out in the way of prize-fighting. He
drew the same distinction between these practices and
two men fighting with the ordinary foils, and two other men
going out with leaded foils. The noble lord had said there
was a panegyric in a French newspaper on this late fight .
The paper which the noble lord alluded to was the Journal
des Debats. That paper did not justify prizefighting ;
it only alluded to it as an instance of the vigour and en-
durance of the old English race ; but another French news-
paper, the Sleek, spoke of the fight in terms of strong con-
demnatinn. He hoped, however, they should now hear no
more of this fight—(hear)—and these exhibitions would for
the future he entirely prevented.
Mr. CLIVE did not intend to offer a single remark on the
main question; but in justice to the South-Eastern Rail-
way Company he must say that the directors of that com-
pany had entered into an engagement that they never
would give a special train to any' parties to stop between
stations, and they affirmed that on the particular occasion
in question they had no knowledge of the objects or inten..
tions of the parties.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE was not very squeamish about prize-
fighting; but the question was whether they were not
breaches of the peace, and magistrates ought to know what
would be their position if they took part in endeavouring
to keep the peace on these occasions. (Hear, hear.) He
happened to live on the South-Eastern line, and was
also a magistrate for the county of Surrey. One or two
of those prize-fights had taken place in his own imme-
diate neighbourhood, and one or two of his brother magis-
trates ran considerable risk of personal danger in endea-
vouring to prevent them. But what would be said when
those proceedings were sanctioned by the voice of the Go-
vernment in that house ? He must say he was very much
astonished at the tone of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston)
on this subject; and he wished to place before the house
the position himself and his brother magistrates would be
in if they thought it to be their duty to suppress those
breaches of the peace while they were sanctioned by the
Executive Government.
Lord PALMERSTON explained that he had not said
rizo-fights were not breaches of the peace. What he pro-
tested against was the exaggerated character of the noble
lord's charges against this particular fight.
Col. DICKSON said, with .reference to the remarks of
the hon. member for Cork (Mr. Scully), he could not under-
stand an Irishman objecting to fighting. (A laugh.) He
considered the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) had not laid
himself open to these attacks. He would say for the noble
lord, that if he had one attribute more than another which
endeared him to his follow countrymen, it was his
thoroughly English character and love for all manly sports.
(Hear, hear.) He (Colonel Dickson) did not stand up for
prize-fighting; but he said that those two men had shown
qualities, our own man in particular—(laughter)—he said
'so advisedly, because he was disabled at the commencement
of the contest—ho said he had exhibited qualities which
entitled him to higher honours than many other men had
received who did not so well deserve them. But he asked
how were they to give power to railway directors to refuse
trains as they pleased ? He thought the law as it stood at
present was perfectly well laid down ; and one of the first
duties of a magistrate was to know when to act and when ,
it was advisable to shut his eyes. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. PAULL confessed he thought it was a most unfortu-
nate thing—whether it was in the power of the Government

to suppress those prize-fights or not—that they should have
from men in the high positions of chief Minister of the
Crown and the Home Secretary, if not a sanction, an en-

ceuragement or palliation of those fights. He thought it
was an unfortunate thing if when 2,000 or 3,000 ruffians
collected together in a field for this purpose the authorities
could not collect police enough to disperse them.
The motion was then agreed to and the subject dropped.
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for the eecond reading of this bill,
Sir JOHN WALSH moved as an amendment that the
kill read 609044 tiulo that slay tliZ 149Atkey Yrtif3