|
 Did
James Hinks intend to breed a fighting dog or a dog for the show ring?
For over 130 years the show Bull Terrier has been the subject of
many anecdotes, stories passed down from generation to generation. No
historian in the past has actually looked at the contemporary evidence
from the 1860’s surrounding this breed of dog and the gentleman
responsible for its creation, James Hinks, a native of the city of
Birmingham.
I
realised that there was great confusion over the stories about the breed
in the early days. I decided to investigate the truth about the origins of
the Bull Terrier by using contemporary sources from the 1860’s when
James Hinks created his strain of dogs. I then put my findings into a book
called James Hinks Master Craftsman. Some of the evidence I have uncovered
contradicts the traditional history of the breed.
Anecdotes or stories from the past, with little evidence to support them
would have us believe that James Hinks created the Bull Terrier for the
purpose of dog fighting. One modern author actually states in her book
that Hinks was not interested in show dogs. If this is the case then why
did he exhibit his Bull Terriers 82 times over a period of 8 years (check
the Appendices in James Hinks Master Craftsman)? This is an average of 10
exhibits per year. James Hinks was very interested in dog shows and in
showing his Bull Terriers. He exhibited 17 different breeds of dogs (check
the Appendices in Pity Me).
Historians of the breed have relied heavily on anecdotal evidence. This is
the weakest form of evidence since it relies on word of mouth – one
person passing evidence on to another. In
such circumstances the stories change dramatically.
The most celebrated anecdote or story surrounds Hinks Puss alleged
fight with another animal owned by Tupper in 1862. Rawden Lee, editor of
the Field wrote the story in 1896. The story follows:
‘Some
of the old doggy men said this new breed were soft and could not fight.
“Can’t they?” said Hinks, when talking to a lot of his London
friends at the Holborn Repository Show in May 1862. “I think they
can.” “Well let’s make a match”. Said one of the old London
school. Hinks nothing loath did make the match and backed his bitch Puss
– that day she had won first prize in her class – for £5 and a case
of champagne, against one of the short faced patched dog of a similar
weight.
The fight came off at Bill Tupper’s well-known rendezvous in Long
Acre. Puss occupied half an hour in killing her opponent, and so little
the worse was she for her encounter that she appeared on the bench the
next morning, a few marks on her cheeks and muzzle being the only signs of
the determined combat in which she had bee the principal over night. When
accounts of this became bruited abroad, although the story was not
generally believed, the popularity of the long faced dog was
established.’
This story was written 34 years after the alleged event. By the
1920’s this story had altered to suggest that Puss fought a dog, not a
bitch and that the dog was 20 lbs, half her own body weight heavier, and
yet, she still defeated him easily. Such claims are outrageous. I have
researched contemporary evidence and found a number of inaccuracies in
this story, which must cast doubt on the authenticity of such a fight.
Firstly, the fight is supposed to have taken place at Bill
Tupper’s well-known rendezvous in Long Acre. The street directory for
the year 1862 shows that Bill Tupper did not own any property in Long
Acre, but he did own the Greyhound Public House in Webber Row, Southwark,
some distance away from the show at Holborn and Long Acre.
Secondly, Long Acre was a very prestigious property containing
buildings such as Royal Italian Opera House, The Theatre Royal Drury Lane,
The Floral Hall, The Queen’s Theatre and of course, Covent Garden. This
was a middle class area, yet Stonehenge (John Henry Walsh), the greatest
canine historian of the 1860’s tells us that dog fighting was eliminated
from the centre of the large towns. A dog fight in such a prestigious
location could not go unnoticed by the constabulary, who were according to
Stonehenge very determined in their pursuit of the elimination of such
illegal activities.
Thirdly, Rawden Lee stated that Hinks removed Puss from the show
and took her to the dog fight. This is almost certainly impossible, as dog
shows in 1862 were carried out under private judging. The owner of the dog
had to deposit the dog at the show and then leave. A Keeper then exhibited
the dog. The owner could not remove the dog until the judging and the
viewing by the public were completed and this took several days.
Fourthly, Rawden Lee stated that Puss won her battle and had only a
few marks on her head to show for her troubles. Melville the celebrated
canine artist drew a sketch of Puss during the show at Holborn in 1862,
yet he made no comment about the wounds on her head. Would he not have
reported these wounds, or be suspicious about them? Would the middle class
spectators at the show not have commented on fresh wounds or reported
them? Would the show organisers have tolerated the exhibition of an
animal, which had clearly been recently involved in a dog fight? Rawden
Lee stated that the story of the fight was not generally believed. The
reason for this is that the story was not true. It could not have been
true, as there are too many factual inaccuracies.
In James Hinks Master Craftsman I include details of the Holborn
Show. The issue of contention between Hinks and Tupper focused on Bulldogs
and not Bull Terriers. Hinks white Bulldog took first prize with
Tupper’s coming second. The press report of the show suggested that the
judges had been biased in placing Hinks white bulldog over that of Tupper.
Furthermore, one owner of a Public House advertised Tupper’s Bulldog as
taking first prize at the Holborn show of 1862, reflecting his disapproval
of the judges’ decision.
Melville
also drew Hinks white Bulldog at the Holborn show in 1862 and showed it to
be very light in bone and with a suggestion of Whippet about the body. One
critic suggested that Hinks exhibit was not even a proper bulldog.
Tupper’s disagreement with James Hinks was over Bulldogs and not Bull
Terriers as Rawden Lee suggested.
Other breed historians have depended on Rawden Lee’s account of the
fight between Hinks Puss and Tupper’s animal. This account however is
incorrect. Rawden Lee mistook the white Bull Terrier, Hinks Puss for Hinks
white Bulldog bitch.
James Hinks II wrote an article for the American Journal
‘Dogdom’ in the 1930’s and he stated that his father bred Dalmatians
into the Bull Terrier. In my two books, Pity Me and James Hinks Master
Craftsman I name the Dalmatians, which Hinks must have used. Why would
James Hinks want to breed Dalmatians into his strain of Bull Terrier, if
he wanted them to be fighting dogs? The Dalmatian would detract from the
dogs fighting abilities. Furthermore, Hinks wanted to create an all white
dog. In breeding for a white dog Hinks would very quickly lose the
fighting qualities. Dog fighters bred for gameness, not colour. The
evidence I present in this article and in James Hinks Master Craftsman
prove that Hinks did not want to create a fighting dog, but in fact he
wanted to create a dog as a fashion accessory.
In 1864 a description of James Hinks first stud dog Madman appeared
in the Field, a gentleman’s newspaper. The editor of the newspaper was
John Henry Walsh, alias Stonehenge, the greatest canine historian of the
era. The description was given at the Cremorne Show of April 1864 and is
given below
Report
on the Bull Terriers at the Cremorne Show of 1864.
‘Many
of the Bull Terriers, especially of the bigger sort were very good and the
winner, Madman, a clean, active and lengthy dog that one might fancy, even
without having been bred to the business’
The business referred to here is dog fighting. Stonehenge as editor
of the newspaper would not have allowed his journalist to refer to Hinks
Madman as not being bred to the business if he thought that this was not
true. Here is strong irrefutable evidence from the 1860’s, when Hinks
created the Bull Terrier that his strain was not being bred for dog
fighting.
Furthermore,
if we take into account the number of times Hinks showed his Bull Terriers
in the period from 1862 to 1869, a total of 82 times, would some well
meaning spectator not have reported obvious injuries received in dog
fights? Would the press not have commented on obvious injuries received in
dog fights? In case anyone doubts that comments would be passed let me
quote three examples.
Firstly, Stonehenge wrote an expose on dog fighting in the Midlands
of England in the 1860’s. He made no mention of James Hinks, yet he did
refer to others involved in dog fighting. Stonehenge named the locations,
yet he did not name James Hinks public house. Contrary to popular belief
Stonehenge stated that there was no dog fighting in Birmingham and that
the centre for dog fighting was in fact, Walsall. In his account on dog
fighting Stonehenge stated that the dog fighters claimed that the injuries
to their dogs were the result of scraps with kennel mates, but he refuted
this and accused them of organising dog fights. Stonehenge would not have
accepted the excuse of kennel fights as an explanation for wounds
displayed by Hinks Bull Terriers at dog shows.
Secondly, Sir Edwin Landseer, the famous artist judged Bull
Terriers at the Islington Show of 1862. He protested in the strongest
terms about the practice of cropping ears. It is difficult to imagine that
Landseer would comment critically on ear cropping as a cruel act, yet
ignore the horrific injuries inflicted in organised dog fights. The style
of ear cropping for the show ring was also different from the short crop
of the fighting dog. The show crop was a long crop as illustrated by Hinks
Madman on page 28 of Pity Me and on Hinks Tarquin on page 51 of Pity Me.
Such a long cropped ear would be a godsend to the dog fighters.
James
Hinks exhibited his Bull Terriers so frequently that had they been
involved in dog fighting they would have to display the signs of battle.
Landseer made no comment on any such wounds, but he did state that ear
cropping was cruel. In addition, the Illustrated London News stated that
they were glad to see Landseer comment on the cruel practice of ear
cropping. If Hinks used his Bull Terriers for fighting, the Illustrated
London News would surely have commented on the obvious signs of battle.
Lastly, the newspapers of the 1860’s and 1870’s contained many
articles by a gentleman who gave himself the alias of ‘Bull Terrier’.
This gentleman wrote criticising the practice of ear cropping. If the show
Bull Terriers were being used for dog fighting, then would such a
gentleman not have commented on the obvious injuries? ‘Bull Terrier’,
Sir Edwin Landseer and the Illustrated London News, all criticised ear
cropping, which at the time was still legal and was not banned until 1895
(page 81 Pity Me), yet they must have ignored injuries procured during a
dog fight if we are to believe that James Hinks fought his Bull Terriers.
One of James Hinks London friends was Mr. McDonald, proprietor of
the Caledonian Scotch Stores in Long Acre. This gentleman was the Manager
of the Second Division of Dogs at the Agricultural Hall, Islington in May
1863. McDonald also invited James Hinks to take the Chair as a judge of
dogs at a dog show held at the Caledonian Scotch Stores on 1st
June 1862.
Mr.
McDonald was a highly respected gentleman among the London middle classes.
He was a manager at major dog shows. Would such a gentleman have
associated with James Hinks if he were involved in organising illegal dog
fights? Of course not! McDonald’s
reputation would have been tarnished forever if he mixed with the dog
fighters.
James Hinks was very successful with his strain of Bull Terriers.
He dominated the show ring throughout the length and breadth of England in
the 1860’s. In order to be so successful his dogs had to meet with the
approval of the judges at the dog shows. These judges were selected from
the aristocracy and notary persons. They judged whole Divisions of dogs,
not just one or two breeds. Such persons would not have tolerated the
exhibition of dogs involved in dog fighting and they would certainly not
have given them first prizes.
James Hinks was certainly a roguish character, but he could not
have used his strain of white Bull Terriers for dog fighting. The evidence
presented in this article is conclusive.
James Hinks was an entrepreneur who developed the Bull Terrier as a
fashion accessory for the new middle classes, who frequented prestigious
dog shows and wanted a dog with a hint of a past, but not tainted by the
dog pit itself. |
