[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.98During the years after Waterloo, the impact that Parliament’s legislation had on sport varied, reflecting a much broader range of opinions that were current throughout society.The attack on ‘cruel sports’, clearly damaged a commercial culture.On the other hand, the increased provision of land and leisure hours, especially the latter’s standardization, assisted the growth of a commercial sporting culture.Also, the abolition of various laws that had impeded competitive sport created a framework in which supervisory bodies could develop.By contrast with these developments, the official promotion of sport was of far more limited importance, exerting little impact on the commercial sporting culture.The Local Supervision of SportThe second part of this chapter examines the response of the local powers, and consists of two elements, local government and the courts.Local GovernmentDespite the fear of revolution which haunted the government in the early years after Waterloo, the authorities displayed a very relaxed attitude towards sporting crowds.Prize-fights, unlike demonstrations, were not required to obtain the prior permission of the judiciary before being staged.99 Given the fact that fears of a standing army meant that there was no unified police force, such a response was doubtless a pragmatic calculation, and a correct assessment of the political docility of sporting crowds.100 Such passivity on the administration’s part was slow in changing, despite efforts to centralize power after 1834, and predominantly the supervision of sport was principally a matter for the local authorities.The effectiveness of local constables varied substantially, many showingsignificant tolerance towards recreational practices.101 Interventions were usually restricted to proclamations, such as those relating to the observation of the Sabbath, or the enforcement of minor laws.102 Yet in certain cities disciplined forces of constables, equipped with substantial local power, had long been functioning.Although they were not a professional force, they were often very effective at regulating local life.103 In Oxfordshire, the local police and proctors ensured that there was little illegal sport, despite the presence of University students, many of whom fostered such activities, sometimes most unusually:eight to ten members of the University have been rusticated … for having amused themselves with cock-fighting in a very peculiar locality.Some of them … were awaiting ordination.104Despite the proctors recording numerous informal fights, especially between the94Beginnings of a Commercial Sporting Culture in BritainGown and the Town, there were only 61 prize-fights between 1816 and 1850.105Until the 1830s pugilism received little attention in official legal records.106 After this, far more action was undertaken, with local boxers, such as Perkins, being imprisoned and £68 being spent in 1847 prosecuting Gill, an event that confirmed the determination of the authorities to curb the sport.107 Some bull-baits and dog-fights did occur, but infrequently.108 Thus, although a County Police Force was not established there until 1857, Oxfordshire had little illegal sport.While the establishment of the Metropolitan Police in 1829 provided a model for other local forces, as late as 1839 its effect was still only ‘patchy’, many provincialareas failing to introduce them.109 Often their role was principally one of surveillance but in Lancashire they were deployed in a very aggressive fashion, exciting so much antagonism that special efforts were made to recruit working-class policemen.110The existence of an efficient police force provided the means for enforcing the laws relating to recreation, yet their successful deployment depended upon thecooperation of local people, especially magistrates.111 Many of these were motivated to support such legislation by a variety of reasons – religious, economic and administrative.Additionally, pressure groups would urge the prevention andsuppression of local activities, via petitions and meetings.112 Often, this stemmed from religious reasons, and a wide variety of sports were attacked, includinghurling, rowing and wrestling.113 The disruption of labour discipline caused by some activities also made them a subject for concern, a prize-fight near Ensham was condemned because it would ‘induce servants and labourers to neglect anddesert the business of their neighbours and employers’.114 Storch considered the efforts of the police against working-class recreations as a ‘direct complement to the attempts of urban middle-class elites to mould a labouring class amenable to the new disciplines of work and leisure’.115 While in certain instances this was doubtless true, one must be wary of linking struggles involving popular recreations with local economic conflicts between employers and labourers.For instance, Delves portrays the opposition to the suppression of Shrove-football in Derby as being related to the anger felt by the local framework-knitters, and the working class generally, for their declining economic position.116 However, many working-class people signed petitions against the football; likewise, some of those charged with suppressing the football were sympathetic to the game.117 The footballers were not workers but simply ‘grown-up youths’, precisely the same category of player that we find at the Kingston-Upon-Thames game in 1867.118 Finally, if the protests were a manifestation of working-class anger at economic conditions, it is curious that the Chartist newspaper, The Northern Star, supported the suppressionof the football
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
