The columns of the _Flying Post_ and _Daily News Letter_ have many advertisements of “battles royal,” but none of sufficient merit to deserve a place in this history. TOM PIPES AND GEORGE GRETTING—1724‒1734. Two other pugilists only of the school of Fig claim our notice, and these are Pipes and Gretting. “Pipes was the neatest boxer I remember. He put in his blows about the face (which he fought at most) with surprising time and judgment. He maintained his battles for many years with extraordinary skill, against men of far superior strength. Pipes was but weakly made: his appearance bespoke activity, but his hand, arm, and body were small; though by that acquired spring of his arm he hit prodigious blows; and at last, when he was beat out of his championship, it was more owing to his debauchery than the merit of those who beat him.” There is a moral in the downfall of Gretting, as tersely given by Captain Godfrey:—“Gretting was a strong antagonist to Pipes. They contended together for some time, and were almost alternate victors. Gretting had the nearest way of going to the stomach (which is what they call the ‘mark’) of any man I knew. He was a most artful boxer, much stronger made than Pipes, and dealt the straightest blows. But what made Pipes a match for him, was his rare bottom spirit, which would bear a great deal of beating; and this, in my mind, Gretting was not sufficiently furnished with; for after he was beaten twice by Pipes, a mere sloven of a boxer, and everybody that fought him afterwards beat him. I must, notwithstanding, do that justice to Gretting’s memory to own that his debauchery contributed to spoil a great boxer; yet, I think, he had not the bottom of the other.” It was the opinion throughout Europe, at this period, that the English nation were more expert than any other, not only in boxing, but in the use of the back-sword; and sorry should we be were it not so at this day. The amphitheatre, boxing, foil-play, and cudgelling-schools, were openly advertised, and the amusements made known, like any of the regular theatres; the audiences were equally fashionable, and they were patronised by the noble and great, and not disturbed by the magistrates. Although it was admitted that these amphitheatrical practices were productive of some ill, as offering encouragement to idleness and extravagance among the vulgar, yet there is hardly any useful thing that does not present some opening for mischief, or is not liable to abuse. CHAPTER II. GEORGE TAYLOR—1734‒1758. PRINCE BOSWELL—JAMES—HARRIS—SMALLWOOD—SLACK—BUCKHORSE—TOM FAULKNER.