Movatterモバイル変換

EDITED, WITH
PREFACE, INTRODUCTION, AND NOTES, AND A DISQUISITION ON THE
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF GIPSYDOM,

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865,
By JAMES SIMSON,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District
of New York.

CONTENTS.[1]

[4]Ever since entering Great Britain, about the year 1506, theGipsies have been drawing into their body the blood of the ordinaryinhabitants and conforming to their ways; and so prolific hasthe race been, that there cannot be less than 250,000 Gipsies of allcastes, colours, characters, occupations, degrees of education, culture,and position in life, in the British Isles alone, and possiblydouble that number. There are many of the same race in theUnited States of America. Indeed, there have been Gipsies inAmerica from nearly the first day of its settlement; for many ofthe race were banished to the plantations, often for very triflingoffences, and sometimes merely for being by “habit and reputeEgyptians.” But as the Gipsy race leaves the tent, and rises tocivilization, it hides its nationality from the rest of the world, sogreat is the prejudice against the name of Gipsy. In Europe andAmerica together, there cannot be less than 4,000,000 Gipsies inexistence. John Bunyan, the author of the celebratedPilgrim’sProgress, was one of this singular people, as will be conclusivelyshown in the present work. The philosophy of the existence ofthe Jews, since the dispersion, will also be discussed and establishedin it.

When the “wonderful story” of the Gipsies is told, as it oughtto be told, it constitutes a work of interest to many classes of readers,being a subject unique, distinct from, and unknown to, the restof the human family. In the present work, the race has been treatedof so fully and elaborately, in all its aspects, as in a great measureto fill and satisfy the mind, instead of being, as heretofore, littlebetter than a myth to the understanding of the most intelligentperson.

The history of the Gipsies, when thus comprehensively treated,forms a study for the most advanced and cultivated mind, as wellas for the youth whose intellectual and literary character is still tobe formed; and furnishes, among other things, a system of sciencenot too abstract in its nature, and having for its subject-matter thestrongest of human feelings and sympathies. The work also seeksto raise the name of Gipsy out of the dust, where it now lies;while it has a very important bearing on the conversion of theJews, the advancement of Christianity generally, and the developmentof historical and moral science.

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

This work should have been introduced to the worldlong ere now. The proper time to have brought it forwardwould have been about twenty years ago,[2] when the subjectwas nearly altogether new, and when popular feeling, inScotland especially, ran strongly toward the body it treatsof, owing to the celebrity of the writings of the great Scottishnovelist, in which were depicted, with great truthfulness,some real characters of this wayward race. The inducementsthen to hazard a publication of it were great; for bybringing it out at that time, the author would have enjoyed,in some measure, the sunshine which the fame of that greatluminary cast around all who, in any way, illustrated a subjecton which he had written. But for Sir Walter Scott’sadvice—an advice that can only be appreciated by thosewho are acquainted with the vindictive disposition whichthe Gipsies entertain toward those whom they imagineto have injured them—our author would have published afew magazine articles on the subject, when the tribe wouldhave taken alarm, and an end would have been made tothe investigation. The dread of personal danger, there isno doubt, formed a considerable reason for the work beingso long withheld from the public: at the same time, ourauthor, being a timid and nervous man, not a little dreadedthe spleen of the party opposed to the literary society withwhich he identified himself, and the idea of being made thesubject of one of the slashing criticisms so characteristic ofthe times. But now he has descended into the tomb, withmost of his generation, where the abuse of a reviewer orthe ire of a wandering Egyptian cannot reach him.

Since this work was written there has appeared one by[6]Mr. Borrow, on theGitanos or Spanish Gipsies. In theyear 1838, a society was formed in Scotland, under thepatronage of the Scottish Church, for the reformation ofthe wandering portion of the body in that country, withsome eminent men as a committee of management, amongwhom was a reverend gentleman of learning, piety, andworth, who said that he himself was a Gipsy, and whosefine swarthy features strongly marked the stock from whichhe was descended. There are others in that country of alike origin, ornaments to the same profession, and many inother respectable walks of life, of whom I will speak inmyDisquisition on the Gipsies, at the end of the work.

Although a few years have elapsed since the principaldetails of this work were collected, the subject cannot beconsidered as old. The body in Scotland has become morenumerous since the downfall of Napoleon; but the improvedsystem of internal order that has obtained since that period,has so very much suppressed their acts of depredation andviolence toward the community, and their savage outburstsof passion toward those of their own race who had offendedthem, that much which would have met with only a slightpunishment before, or in some instances been passed over, asa mere Gipsy scuffle, would now be visited with the utmostpenalty the law could inflict. Hence the wild spirit, but notthe number, of the body has been very much crushed.Many of them have betaken themselves to regular callingsof industry, or otherwise withdrawn from public observation;but, in respect to race, are as much, at heart, Gipsiesas before. Many of the Scottish wandering class havegiven way before an invasion of swarms of Gipsies fromIreland.

It is almost unnecessary to give a reason why this workhas been introduced here, instead of the country in whichit was written, and of which, for the most part, it treats.Suffice it to say, that, having come to this country, I havebeen led to bring it out here, where it may receive, sooneror later, more attention from those at a distance from theplace and people it treats of, than from those accustomed tosee and hear of them daily, to many of whom they appearas mere vagabonds; it being a common feature in thehuman mind, that that which comes frequently under ourobservation is but little thought of, while that at a distance,[7]and unknown to us, forms the subject of our investigationsand desires.[3] In taking this view of the subject, the languageof Dr. Bright may be used, when he says: “Thecondition and circumstances of the Gipsy nation throughoutthe whole of Europe, may truly be considered amongst themost curious phenomena in the history of man.” Andalthough this work, for the most part, treats of ScottishGipsies, it illustrates the history of the people all overEurope, and, it may be said, pretty much over the world;and affords materials for reflection on so singular a subjectconnected with the history of our common family, and solittle known to mankind in general. To the Americanreader generally, the work will illustrate a phase of life andhistory with which it may be reasonably assumed he is notmuch conversant; for, although he must have some knowledgeof the Gipsy race generally, there is no work, that Iam aware of, that treats of the body like the present. Toall kinds of readers the words of the celebrated ChristopherNorth, as quoted in the author’sIntroduction, may beaddressed:

It is a singular circumstance that, until comparativelylately, little was known of this body in Scotland, beyondtheir mere existence, and the depredations which they committedon their neighbours; no further proof of which need[8]be given than a reference to the letters of Sir WalterScott and others, in theIntroduction to the work, and theavidity with which the few articles of our author in Blackwood’sMagazine were read.

The higher we may rise in the scale of general informationand philosophic culture, the greater the attractionswill this moral puzzle have for our contemplation—the phenomenonof a barbarous race of men, free as the air, withlittle but the cold earth for a bed, and the canopy of heavenfor a covering, obtruding itself upon a civilized community,and living so long in the midst of it, without any materialimpression being made on the habits of the representativepart of it; the only instance of the kind in the modernhistory of the world. In this solitary case, having nothingfrom which to reason analogously as to the result, observationalone must be had recourse to for the solution of theexperiment. It is from this circumstance that the subject,in all its bearings, has been found to have such charms forthe curious and learned; being, as it were, a study in historyof the most interesting kind. It may be remarkedthat Professor Wilson, the Christopher North of Blackwood,is said to have accompanied some of the tribe in theirperegrinations over parts of England and Wales. Withoutproceeding to the same length, our author, in his ownpeculiar way, prosecuted his researches with much indefatigability,assiduity, and patience. He kept an open housefor them at all times, and presented such allurements as theskillful trapper of vermin will sometimes use in attractingthe whole in a neighbourhood; when if one Gipsy entered,many would follow; although he would generally find themso shy in their communications as sometimes to require yearsof such baiting to ensure them for the elucidation of asingle point of their history. In this way he made himselfappear, in his associations with them, as very odd, and perhapsnot of very sound mind, in the estimation of the wiseones around him.

The popular idea of a Gipsy, at the present day, is veryerroneous as to its extent and meaning. The nomadicGipsies constitute but a portion of the race, and a verysmall portion of it. A gradual change has come over theiroutward condition, all over Europe, from about the commencementof the first American war, but from what time[9]previous to that, we have no certain data from which toform an opinion. In the whole of Great Britain they havebeen very much mixed with the native blood of the country,but nowhere, I believe, so much so as in Scotland. Thereis every reason to suppose that the same mixture has takenplace in Europe generally, although its effects are not soobservable in the southern countries—from the circumstanceof the people there being, for the most part, of dark hairand complexion—as in those lying further toward the north.But this circumstance would, to a certain extent, prevent themixture which has taken place in countries the inhabitantsof which have fair hair and complexions. The causesleading to this mixture are various.

The persecutions to which the Gipsies were exposed,merely for being Gipsies, which their appearance wouldreadily indicate, seem to have induced the body to intermarrywith our race, so as to disguise theirs. That wouldbe done by receiving and adopting males of our race,whom they would marry to females of theirs, who wouldbring up the children of such unions as members of theirfraternity. They also adopted the practice to give theirrace stamina, as well as numbers, to contend with the peopleamong whom they lived. The desire of having servants,(for Gipsies, generally, have been too proud to do menialwork for each other,) led to many children being kidnapped,and reared among them; many of whom, as is customarywith Oriental people, rose to as high a position in the tribeas any of themselves.[5]

Then again, it was very necessary to have people of faircomplexion among them, to enable them the more easily tocarry on their operations upon the community, as well as tocontribute to their support during times of persecution. Owing[10]to these causes, and the occasional occurrence of whitepeople being, by more legitimate means, received into theirbody, which would be more often the case in their palmy days,the half, at least, of the Scottish Gipsies are of fair hair andblue eyes. Some would naturally think that these wouldnot be Gipsies, but the fact is otherwise; for, owing to thedreadful prejudice which has always attached to the nameof Gipsy, these white and parti-coloured Gipsies, imaginingthemselves, as it were, banished from society, on account oftheir descent, cling to their Gipsy connection; as the otherpart of their blood, they imagine, will not own them. Theyare Gipsies, and, with the public, they think that is quiteenough. They take a pride in being descended from a raceso mysterious, so ancient, so universal, and cherish theirlanguage the more from its being the principal badge ofmembership that entitles them to belong to it. The nearerthey approach the whites as regards blood, the more acutelydo they feel the antipathy which is entertained for their race,and the more bitter does the propinquity become to them. Themore enlightened they become, the stronger becomes theirattachment to the sept in the abstract, although they willdespise many of its members. The sense of such an ancientdescent, and the possession of such an ancient and secretlanguage, in the minds of men of comparatively limitededucation and indifferent rearing, brought up in humblelife, and following various callings, from a tinker upward,and even of men of education and intelligence, occupyingthe position of lawyers, medical doctors, and clergymen,possess for them a charm that is at once fascinating andenchanting. If men of enlightened minds and high socialstanding will go to such lengths as they have done, in theirendeavours to but look into their language, how much morewill they not cling to it, such as it is, in whose hearts itis? Gipsies compounded for the most part of white blood,but with Gipsy feelings, are, as a general thing, muchsuperior to those who more nearly approach what maybe called the original stock; and, singularly enough, speakthe language better than the others, if their opportunitieshave been in any way favourable for its acquisition.

The primitive, original state of the Gipsies is the tent andtilted cart. But as any country can support only a limitednumber in that way, and as the increase of the body is very[11]large, it follows that they must cast about to make aliving in some other way, however bitter the pill may bewhich they have to swallow. The nomadic Gipsy portionresembles, in that respect, a water trough; for the waterwhich runs into it, there must be a corresponding quantityrunning over it. The Gipsies who leave the tent resemblethe youth of our small seaports and villages; for there,society is so limited as to compel such youth to take to thesea or cities, or go abroad, to gain that livelihood which theneighbourhood in which they have been reared denies tothem. In the same manner do these Gipsies look back tothe tent from which they, or their fathers, have sprung.They carry the language, the associations, and the sympathiesof their race, and their peculiar feelings toward thecommunity, with them; and, as residents of towns, havegenerally greater facilities, from others of their race residingnear them, for perpetuating their language, than when strollingover the country.

The prejudice of their fellow creatures, which clings tothe race to which they belong, almost overwhelms some ofthem at times; but it is only momentary; for such is theindependence and elasticity of their nature, that they risefrom under it, as self-complacent and proud as ever. Theyin such cases resort to thetu quoque—thetit for tat argumentas regards their enemies, and ask, “What is this whiterace, after all? What were their forefathers a few generationsago? the Highlands a nest of marauding thieves, andthe Borders little better. Or society at the present day—whatis it but a compound of deceit and hypocrisy? Peoplesay that the Gipsies steal. True; some of them stealchickens, vegetables, and such things; but what is that comparedto the robbery of widows and orphans, the lying andcheating of traders, the swindling, the robberies, the murders,the ignorance, the squalor, and the debaucheries of somany of the white race? What are all these compared tothe simple vices of the Gipsies? What is the ancestrythey boast of, compared, in point of antiquity, to ours?People may despise the Gipsies, but they certainly despiseall others not of their own race: the veriest beggar Gipsy,without shoes to his feet, considers himself better than thequeen that sits upon the throne. People say that Gipsiesare blackguards. Well, if some of them are blackguards,[12]they are at least illustrious blackguards as regards descent,and so in fact; for they never rob each other, and far lessdo they rob or ruin those of their own family.” And theyconclude that the odium which clings to the race is but aprejudice. Still, they will deny that they are Gipsies, andwill rather almost perish than let any one, not of their ownrace, know that they speak their language in their ownhouseholds and among their own kindred. They will evendeny or at least hide it from many of their own race.

For all these reasons, the most appropriate word to applyto modern Gipsyism, and especially British Gipsyism, andmore especially Scottish Gipsyism, is to call it a caste, and akind of masonic society, rather than any particular modeof life. And it is necessary that this distinction should bekept in mind, otherwise the subject will appear contradictory.

The most of these Gipsies are unknown to the public asGipsies. The feeling in question is, for the most part, onthe side of the Gipsies themselves; they think that moreof them is known than actually is. In that respect a kindof nightmare continually clings to them; while their peculiarlydistant, clannish, and odd habits create a kind ofseparation between them and the other inhabitants, whichthe Gipsy is naturally apt to construe as proceeding from adifferent cause. Frequently, all that is said about themamounts only to a whisper among some of the families inthe community in which they live, and which is confidentiallypassed around among themselves, from a dread ofpersonal consequences. Sometimes the native families sayamong themselves, “Why should we make allusion to theirkith and kin? They seem decent people, and attendchurch like ourselves; and it would be cruel to cast uptheir descent to them, and damage them in the estimationof the world. Their cousins, (or second cousins, as it maybe,) travel the country in the old Tinkler fashion, no doubt;but what has that to do with them?” The estimate of suchpeople never, or hardly ever, goes beyond the simple ideaof their being “descended from Tinklers;” few have themost distant idea that they are Gipsies, and speak theGipsy language among themselves. It is certain that aGipsy can be a good man, as the world goes, nay, a verygood man, and glory in being a Gipsy, but not to the public.[13]He will adhere to his ancient language, and talk it in hisown family; and he has as much right to do so, as, for example,a Highlander has to speak Gaelic in the Lowlands,or when he goes abroad, and teach it to his children. Andhe takes a greater pride in doing it, for thus he reasons:“What is English, French, Gaelic, or any other living language,compared to mine? Mine will carry me throughevery part of the known world: wherever a man is to befound, there is my language spoken. I will find a brotherin every part of the world on which I may set my foot; Iwill be welcomed and passed along wherever I may go.Freemasonry indeed! what is masonry compared to thebrotherhood of the Gipsies? A language—a whole language—isits pass-word. I almost worship the idea ofbeing a member of a society into which I am initiated bymy blood and language. I would not be a man if I did notlove my kindred, and cherish in my heart that peculiarityof my race (its language) which casts a halo of gloryaround it, and makes it the wonder of the world!”

The feeling alluded to induces some of these Gipsies tochange their residences or go abroad. I heard of onefamily in Canada, of whom a Scotchman spoke somewhat inthe following way: “I know them to be Gipsies. Theyremind me of a brood of wild turkeys, hatched under a tamebird; it will take the second or third descent to bringthem to resemble, in some of their ways, the ordinary barn-doorfowl. They are very restless and queer creatures, andmove about as if they were afraid that every one was goingto tramp on their corns.” But it is in large towns they feelmore at home. They then form little communities amongthemselves; and by closely associating, and sometimeshuddling together, they can more easily perpetuate theirlanguage, as I have already said, than by straggling, twosor threes, through the country. But their quarrelsome dispositionfrequently throws an obstacle in the way of suchassociations. Secret as they have been in keeping theirlanguage from even being heard by the public while wanderers,they are much more so since they have settled intowns.

The origin of the Gipsies has given rise, in recent times,to many speculations. The most plausible one, however,seems to be that they are from Hindostan; an opinion our[14]author supports so well, that we are almost bound to acquiescein it. In these controversies regarding the origin ofthe Gipsies, very little regard seems to have been had towhat they say of themselves. It is curious that in everypart of Europe they have been called, and are now called,Egyptians. No trace can now be found of any enquiry madeas to their origin, if such there was made, when they firstappeared in Europe. They seem then to have been takenat their word, and to have passed current as Egyptians.But in modern times their country has been denied them,owing to a total dissimilarity between their language andany of the dialects of modern Egypt. A very intelligentGipsy informed me that his race sprung from a body ofmen—a cross between the Arabs and Egyptians—that leftEgypt in the train of the Jews.[6] In consulting the recordof Moses, I find it said, in Ex. xii. 38, “and a mixed multitudewent up also with them” (the Jews, out of Egypt).Very little is said of this mixed multitude. In Lev. xxiv.10, mention is made of the son of an Israelitish woman, byan Egyptian, being stoned to death for blasphemy, whichwould almost imply that a marriage had taken place previousto leaving Egypt. After this occurrence, it is said inNum. xi. 4, “and the mixed multitude that was amongthem fell a lusting” for flesh. That would imply that theyhad not amalgamated with the Jews, but were only amongthem. The Scriptures say nothing of what became of thismixed multitude after the Jews separated from them (Neh.xiii. 3), and leave us only to form a conjecture relative totheir destiny.

We naturally ask, what could have induced this mixedmultitude to leave Egypt? and the natural reply is, thattheir motive was the same that led to the exodus of theJews—a desire to escape from slavery. No commentatorthat I have read gives a plausible reason for the mixedmultitude leaving Egypt with the Jews. Scott, besidesventuring four suppositions, advances a fifth, that“some left because they were distressed or discontented.”But that seems to fall infinitely short of the true reason.Adam Clark says, “Probably they were refugees who cameto sojourn in Egypt, because of the dearth which had obliged[15]them to emigrate from their own countries.” But thatdearth occurred centuries before the time of the exodus; sothat those refugees, if such there were, who settled in Egyptduring the famine, could have returned to their own countriesgenerations before the time of that event. Scottsays, “It is probable some left Egypt because it was desolate;”and Henry, “Because their country was laid wasteby the plagues.” But the desolation was only partial; forwe are told that “He that feared the word of the Lordamong the servants of Pharaoh, made his servants and hiscattle flee into the houses;” by which means they escapeddestruction from the hail, which affected only those remainingin the field. We are likewise told that, although thebarley and flax were smitten by the same hail-storm, thewheat and rye, not being grown up, were left untouched.These two latter (besides fish, roots and vegetables) wouldform the staples of the food of the Egyptians; to say nothingof the immense quantities in the granaries of the country.If the Egyptians could not find bread in their own country,how were they to obtain it by accompanying the Jews intoa land of which they knew nothing, and which had to beconquered before it could be possessed? Where were theyto procure bread to support them on the journey, if it wasnot to be had at home?

The other reasons given by these commentators for thedeparture of the mixed multitude from Egypt are hardlyworth controverting, when we consider the social mannersand religious belief of the Egyptians. We are told that,for being shepherds, the Israelites were an abominationunto the Egyptians (Gen. xlvi. 34); and that the Egyptiansconsidered it an abomination to eat bread with a Hebrew,(Gen. xliii. 32,) so supreme was the reign of caste and ofnationality at that period in Egypt. The sacrifices of theJews were also an abomination to the Egyptians (Ex. viii.26). The Hebrews were likewise influenced by feelingspeculiar to themselves, which would render any alliancesor even associations between them and their oppressorsextremely improbable; but if such there should have been,the issue would be incorporated with the Hebrews.

There could thus be no personal motive for any of theEgyptians to accompany the Hebrews; and as little couldthere be of that which pertains to the religious; for, as a[16]people, they had become so “vain in their imaginations,”and had “their foolish hearts so darkened,” as to worshipalmost every created thing—bulls, birds, serpents, leeks,onions and garlic. Such a people were almost as well nighdevoid of a motive springing from a sense of elevated religion,as were the beasts, the reptiles and the vegetableswhich they worshipped. A miracle performed before theeyes of such a people would have no more salutary or lastinginfluence than would a flash of lightning before theeyes of many a man in every day life; it might prostratethem for a moment, but its effects would be as transitory.Like the Jews themselves, at a subsequent time, they mightcredit the miracle to Beelzebub, the prince of devils; and,like the Gergesenes, rise up in a body and beseech Mosesand his people to “depart out of their coasts.” Indeed,after the slaying of the first-born of the Egyptians, we aretold that “the Egyptians were urgent upon the people thatthey might send them out of the land in haste; for, theysaid, We be all dead men.” Considering how hard a matterit was for Moses to urge the Jews to undertake theexodus; considering their stiff-necked and perverse grumblingat all that befell them; notwithstanding that to them“pertained the fathers, the adoption, the glory and thecovenant;” the commands and the bones of Joseph; thegrievous bondage they were enduring, and the almost dailyrecourse to which Moses had for a miracle to strengthentheir faith and resolution to proceed; and we will perceivethe impossibility of the “mixed multitude” leaving Egypton any ground of religion.

This principle might even be urged further. If we considerthe reception which was given to the miracles ofChrist as “a son over his own house, and therefore worthyof more glory than Moses, who was but a servant,” we willconclude that the miracles wrought by Moses, although personallyfelt by the Egyptians, would have as little lastingeffect upon them as had those of the former upon theJews themselves; they would naturally lead to the Hebrewsbeing allowed to depart, but would serve no purpose of inducingthe Egyptians to go with them. For if a veil wasmysteriously drawn over the eyes of the Jews at the adventof Christ, which, in a negative sense, hid the Messiah fromthem (Mark iv. 11, 12; Matt. xi. 25, 26; and John xii. 39,[17]40), how much more might it not be said, “He hath blindedtheir eyes, and hardened their hearts, that they should notsee with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts,” andlet the people of Israel go, “till they would thrust them outhence altogether;” and particularly so when the object ofMoses’ mission was to redeem the Israelites from the bondageof Egypt, and spoil and smite the Egyptians.

The only reasonable conclusion to which we can come, asregards a motive for the “mixed multitude” leaving Egyptalong with the Jews, is, that being slaves like themselves,they took advantage of the opportunity, and slipped out withthem.[7]

The Jews, on being reduced to a state of bondage, wereemployed by Pharaoh to “build treasure cities, and workin mortar and brick, and do all manner of service in thefield,” besides being “scattered abroad through all the landof Egypt, to gather stubble in place of straw,” wherewith tomake their tale of bricks. In this way they would comemuch in contact with the other slaves of the country; and,as “adversity makes strange bed-fellows,” they would naturallyprove communicative to their fellow-sufferers, andexpatiate on the history of their people, from the days ofAbraham downward, were it only from a feeling of vanityto make themselves appear superior to what they would considerthe ordinary dross around them. They would alsonaturally allude to their future prospects, and the positivepromise, or at least general idea, which they had of theirGod effecting their deliverance, and leading them into acountry (Gen. 1. 24, 25) where all the miseries they werethen enduring would be forgotten. They would do thatmore especially after Moses had returned from his father-in-lawin Midian, to bring them out of Egypt; for we are told,in Ex. iv. 29-31, that the elders of the children of Israelwere called together and informed of the intended redemption,and that all the people believed. By such means asthese would the minds of some of the other slaves of Egyptbe inflamed at the very idea of freedom being perhaps inimmediate prospect for so many of their fellow-bondsmen.

Thereafter happened the many plagues; the causes ofwhich must have been more or less known to the Egyptiansgenerally, from the public manner in which Moses wouldmake his demands (Ex. x. 7); and consequently to theirslaves; for many of the slaves would be men of intelligence,as is common in oriental countries. Some of these slaveswould, in all probability, watch, with fear and trembling, thedreadful drama played out (Ex. ix. 20). Others would, perhaps,give little heed to the various sayings of the Hebrewsat the time they were uttered; the plagues would, perhaps,have little effect in reminding them of them. As they experiencedtheir effects, they might even feel exasperated towardthe Hebrews for being the cause of them; still it ismore probable that they sympathized with them, as fellow-bondsmen,and murmured against Pharaoh for their existenceand greater manifestation. But the positive order, naythe entreaty, for the departure of the Israelites, and thepassage before their eyes of so large a body of slaves to obtaintheir freedom, would induce many of them to followthem; for they would, in all likelihood, form no higherestimate of the movement than that of merely gaining thatliberty which slaves, in all nations, and under all circumstances,do continually sigh after.

The character of Moses alone was a sufficient guaranteeto the slaves of Egypt that they might trust themselves tohis leadership and protection (not to speak of the miraculouspowers which he displayed in his mission); for we are toldthat, besides being the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter,he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, andmighty in word and deed. Having been, according to Josephus,a great commander in the armies of Egypt, he musthave been the means of reducing to bondage many of theslaves, or the parents of the slaves, then living in Egypt. Atthe time of the exodus we are told that he was “very greatin the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, andin the sight of the people” (Ex. xi. 3). The burying of the“first-born” was not a circumstance likely to prevent a slavegaining his freedom amid the dismay, the moaning, andgroaning, and howling throughout the land of Egypt. Thecircumstance was even the more favourable for his escape,owing to the Hebrews being allowed to go, till it pleasedGod again to harden and stir up Pharaoh to pursue them[19](Ex. xiv. 2-5 and 8), in order that his host might be overthrownin the Red Sea.

The Jews, while in Egypt, seem to have been reduced toa state of serfdom only—crown slaves, not chattels personal;which would give them a certain degree of respect in theeyes of the ordinary slaves of the country, and lead them,owing to the dignity of their descent, to look down withdisdain upon the “mixed multitude” which followed them.While it is said that they were “scattered over the land ofEgypt,” we are told, in Ex. ix. 4, that the murrain touchednot the cattle of Israel; and in the 26th verse, that “in theland of Goshen, where the people of Israel were, there wasno hail.” And Moses said to Pharaoh, “Our cattle also shallgo with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; forthereof we must take to serve the Lord our God” (Ex. x. 26).From this we would naturally conclude, that such of theJews only as were capable of work, were scattered over theland of Egypt to do the work of Pharaoh, while the restwere left in the land of Goshen. By both the Egyptiansand their slaves, the Hebrews would be looked upon as amysterious people, which the former would be glad to sendout of the land, owing to the many plagues which they hadbeen the cause of being sent upon them; and while they gotquit of them, as they did, there would be no earthly motivefor the Egyptians to follow them, through a wilderness, intoa country of which the Hebrews themselves knew nothing.But it would be different with their slaves; they had everythingto hope from a change of condition, and would readilyavail themselves of the chance to effect it.

The very term “mixed multitude” implies slaves; for theHebrew wordhasaphsuph, as translated by Bochartus, meanspopuli colluvies undecunque collecta—“the dregs or scum ofthe people gathered together from all parts.” But this interpretationis most likely the literal meaning of a figurativeexpression, which was intended to describe a body of mensuch as the slaves of Egypt must have been, that is, a mixturethat was compounded of men from almost every part ofthe world known to the Egyptians; the two principal ingredientsof which must have been what may be called theEgyptian and Semitic. Moses seems to have used the word inquestion in consequence of the vexation and snare which themixed multitude proved to him, by bringing upon the camp[20]of his people the plague, inflicted, in consequence of theirsins, in the midst of them. At the same time the Hebrewswere very apt to term “dregs and scum” all who did notproceed from the loins of their father, Abraham. But I aminclined to believe that the bulk or nucleus of the mixedmultitude would consist of slaves who were located in Goshen,or its neighbourhood, when the Jews were settledthere by Pharaoh. These would be a mixture of the shepherdkings and native Egyptians, held by the former asslaves, who would naturally fall into the hands of the Egyptianmonarch during his gradual reconquest of the country;and they would be held by the pure Egyptians in as littleesteem as the Jews themselves, both being, in a measure, ofthe shepherd race. In this way it may be claimed that theGipsies are even descendants of the shepherd kings.

After leaving Egypt, the Hebrews and the “mixed multitude,”in their exuberance of feeling at having gained theirfreedom, and witnessed the overthrow of their common oppressorin the Red Sea, would naturally have everything incommon, till they regained their powers of reflection, andbegan to think of their destiny, and the means of supportingso many individuals, in a country in which provisions couldhardly be collected for the company of an ordinary caravan.Then their difficulties would begin. It was enough forMoses to have to guide the Hebrews, whose were the promises,without being burdened and harassed by those who followedthem. Then we may reasonably assume that themixed multitude began to clamour for flesh, and lead theHebrews to join with them; in return for which a plaguewas sent upon the people. They were unlikely to submit tobe led by the hand of God, and be fed on angels’ food, and,like the Hebrews, leave their carcasses in the wilderness;for their religious sentiments, if, as slaves of Egypt, theyhad religious sentiments, would be very low indeed, andwould lead them to depend upon themselves, and leave thedeserts of Arabia, for some other country more likely tosupport them and their children. Undoubtedly the twopeople then separated, as Abraham and Lot parted whenthey came out of Egypt.

How to shake off this mixed multitude must have causedMoses many an anxious thought. Possibly his father-in-law,Jethro, from the knowledge and sagacity which he displayed[21]in forming the government of Moses himself, may haveassisted him in arriving at the conclusion which he musthave so devoutly wished. To take them into the promisedland with him was impossible; for the command of God,given in regard to Ishmael, the son of Abraham, by Hagarthe Egyptian, and which was far more applicable to themixed multitude, must have rung in his ears: “Cast outthis bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwomanshall not be heir with my son, Isaac;” “for in Isaac shallthy seed be called.” As slaves of Egypt they would notreturn to that country; they would not go north, for thatwas the heritage of the people of Israel, which had to bewrested from the fierce tribes of Palestine; they would notgo north-east, for there lay the powerful empire of Assyria,or the germs out of which it sprung; they could not gosouth, for the ocean hemmed them in, in that direction; andtheir only alternative was to proceed east, through ArabiaPetrea, along the gulf of Persia, through the Persiandesert, into northern Hindostan, where they formed theGipsy caste, and whence they issued, after the lapse of somany centuries, in possession of the language of Hindostan,and spread themselves over the earth. What a strangesensation passes through the mind, when such a subject iscontemplated! Jews and Gipsies having, in a sense, thesame origin, and, after such vicissitudes, meeting eachother, face to face, under circumstances so greatly alike, inalmost every part of the world, upward of 3000 years afterthey parted company. What destiny awaited the Jewsthemselves on escaping from Egypt? They had either tosubdue and take the place of some other tribe, or be reducedto a state of slavery by it and perhaps others combined; orthey might possibly have been befriended by some greatempire as tributaries; or failing these three, what remainedfor them was the destiny that befell the Gipsies.

On leaving Egypt, the Gipsies would possess a commonlanguage, which would hold them together as a body; asslaves under the society of an Egyptian monarchy, theywould have few, if any, opinions of a religious nature; andthey would have but little idea of the laws ofmeum andtuum. The position in which they would find themselvesplaced, and the circumstances surrounding them, wouldnecessitate them to rob, steal, or appropriate whatever they[22]found to be necessary to their existence; for whether theyturned to the right hand or to the left, they would alwaysfind territory previously occupied, and property claimed bysome one; so that their presence would always be unwelcome,their persons an intrusion everywhere; and havingonce started on their weary pilgrimage, as long as theymaintained their personal independence, they would neverattain, as a body, to any other position than they have done,in popular estimation, for the last four hundred and fiftyyears in Europe.

In entering Hindostan they would meet with a civilizedpeople, governed by rigid caste, where they would have noalternative but to remain aloof from the other inhabitants.Then, as now, that country had many wandering tribeswithin its borders, and for which it is peculiarly favourable.Whatever might have been the amount of civilization whichsome of the Gipsies brought with them from Egypt, it couldnot be otherwise than of thatquasi nature which generallycharacterizes that of slaves, and which would rapidly degenerateinto a kind of barbarism, under the change of circumstancesin which they found themselves placed. As runawayslaves, they would naturally be shy and suspicious, andbe very apt to betake themselves to mountains, forests andswamps, and hold as little intercourse with the people ofthe country in which they were, as possible. Still, havingbeen reared within a settled and civilized state, they wouldnaturally hang around some other one, and nestle within it,if the face of the country, and the character and ways ofthe people, admitted of it. Having been bondsmen, theywould naturally become lazy after gaining their freedom,and revel in the wild liberty of nature. They would doalmost anything for a living rather than work; and whateverthey could lay their hands on would be fairly come by,in their imagination. But to carry out this mode of life,they would naturally have recourse to some ostensible employment,to enable them to travel through the country, andsecure the toleration of its inhabitants. Here their Egyptianorigin would come to their assistance; for as slaves ofthat country, they must have had many among them whowould be familiar with horses, and working in metals, forwhich ancient Egypt was famous; not to speak of some ofthe occult sciences which they would carry with them from[23]that country. In the first generation their new habits andmodes of life would become chronic; in the second generationthey would become hereditary; and from this strangephenomenon would spring a race that is unique in the historyof the human family. What origin could be more worthyof the Gipsies? What origin more philosophical?

Arriving in India a foreign caste, the Gipsies wouldnaturally cling to their common origin, and speak their commonlanguage, which, in course of ages, would be forgotten,except occasional words, which would be used by them ascatch-words. At the present day my Gipsy acquaintancesinform me that, in Great Britain, five out of every ten oftheir words are nothing but common Hindostanee. Howstrange would it be if some of the other words of theirlanguage were those used by the people of Egypt under thePharaohs. Mr. Borrow says: “Is it not surprising that thelanguage ofPetulengro, (an English Gipsy,) is continuallycoming to my assistance whenever I appear to be at a losswith respect to the derivation of crabbed words. I havemade out crabbed words in Æschylus by means of hisspeech; and even in my Biblical researches I have derivedno slight assistance from it.” “Broken, corrupted and halfin ruins as it is, it was not long before I found that it wasan original speech, far more so, indeed, than one or twoothers of high name and celebrity, which, up to that time,I had been in the habit of regarding with respect and veneration.Indeed, many obscure points connected with thevocabulary of these languages, and to which neither classicnor modern lore afforded any clue, I thought I could nowclear up by means of this strange, broken tongue, spokenby people who dwell among thickets and furze bushes, intents as tawny as their faces, and whom the generality ofmankind designate, and with much semblance of justice, asthieves and vagabonds.”

A difficulty somewhat similar to the origin of the Gipsieshas been started in reference to their language; whether itis a speech distinct from any other surrounding it, or a fewslang words or expressions connected together by the usuallanguages of the countries in which the race is to be found.The slightest consideration will remove the doubt, and leadus to the former conclusion. It is true there must needs besome native words mixed up with it; for what language, in[24]ancient or modern times, has come down free of a mixturewith others? If that be the case with languages classified,written, and spoken in a community, with no disturbing elementnear it to corrupt it, is it to be expected that thespeech of a people like the Gipsies can be free of similaradditions or substitutions, when it possesses none of theseadvantages for the preservation of its entirety and purity?From the length of time the people have been in Europe,and the frequency of intercourse which they have beenforced by circumstances, in modern times especially, to havewith its natives, it would appear beyond measure surprisingthat even a word of their language is spoken at all. Andthis fact adds great weight to Sir Walter Scott’s remark,when he says that “their language is a great mystery;” andto that of Dr. Bright, when he speaks of its existence asbeing “little short of the miraculous.” But when we consider,on strictly philosophical principles, the phenomenon ofthe perpetuation of the Gipsy language, we will find thatthere is nothing so very wonderful about it after all. Therace have always associated closely and exclusively together;and their language has become to them like the worship ofa household god—hereditary, and is spoken among themselvesunder the severest of discipline. It is certain that itis spoken at the present day, by some of the race, nearly aswell as the Gaelic of many of the immediate descendantsof the emigrants in some of the small Highland settlementsin America, when it has not been learned by book, even tothe extent of conversing on any subject of ordinary life,without apparently using English words. But, as is commonwith people possessing two languages, the Gipsies often usethem interchangeably in expressing the smallest idea. Besidesthe way mentioned by which the Gipsy language hasbeen corrupted, there is another one peculiar to all speeches,and which is, that few tongues are so copious as not to standin need of foreign words, either to give names to things orwants unknown in the place where the language originated,or greater meaning or elucidation to a thing than it is capableof; and preëminently so in the case of a barbarouspeople, with few ideas beyond the commonest wants of dailylife, entering states so far advanced toward that point ofcivilization which they have now reached. But the questionas to the extent of the Gipsy language never can be conclusively[25]settled, until some able philologist has the unrestrictedopportunity of daily intercourse with the race; or,as a thing more to be wished than obtained, some Gipsytake to suitable learning, and confer a rarity of informationupon the reader of history everywhere: for the attemptat getting a single word of the language from the Gipsies,is, in almost every case, impracticable. Sir Walter Scottseems to have had an intention of writing an account of theGipsies himself; for, in a letter to Murray, as given byLockhart, he writes: “I have been over head and ears inwork this summer, or I would have sent the Gipsies; indeedI was partly stopped by finding it impossible to procure afew words of their language.” For this reason, the wordsfurnished in this work, although few, are yet numerous,when the difficulties in the way of getting them are considered.Under the chapter of Language will be foundsome curious anecdotes of the manner in which these werecollected.

Of the production itself little need be said. Whatevermay be the opinion of the public in regard to it, this may beborne in mind, that the collecting of the materials out ofwhich it is formed was attended with much trouble, and nolittle expense, but with a singular degree of pleasure, to theauthor; and that but for the urgent and latest request ofhim whom, when alive or dead, Scotchmen have always delightedto honour, it might never have assumed its presentform. It is what it professes to be—a history, in which thesubject has been stripped of everything pertaining to fictionor even colouring; so that the reader will see depicted, intheir true character, this singular people, in the descriptionof whom, owing to the suspicion and secrecy of their nature,writers generally have indulged in so much that is triflingand even fabulous.

Such as the work is, it is offered as a contribution towardthe filling up of that void in literature to which Dr. Brightalludes, in the introduction to his travels in Hungary, when,in reference to Hoyland’s Survey, and some scattered noticesof the Gipsies in periodicals, he says: “We may hope atsome time to collect, satisfactorily, the history of this extraordinaryrace.” It is likewise intended as a response to thecall of a writer in Blackwood, in which he says: “Our dutyis rather to collect and store up theraw materials of literature—to[26]gather into our repository scattered facts, hints andobservations—which more elaborate and learned authorsmay afterwards work up into the dignified tissue of historyor science.”

I deem it proper to remark that, in editing the work, Ihave taken some liberties with the manuscript. I have, forexample, recast theIntroduction, re-arranged some of thematerials, and drawn more fully, in some instances, upon theauthor’s authorities; but I have carefully preserved thefacts and sentiments of the original. I may have used someexpressions a little familiar and perhaps not over-refined intheir nature; but my excuse for that is, that they are illustrativeof a subject that allows the use of them.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

The discovery and history of barbarous races of men, besidesaffording exquisite gratification to the general mind ofcivilized society, have always been looked upon as importantmeans toward a right understanding of the history of ourspecies, and the relation in which it stands to natural andrevealed theology; and in their prosecution have produced,in latter times, many instances of the most indefatigable disinterestednessand greatest efforts of true courage of whichour nature is capable; many, in the person of the traveller,philanthropist and missionary, cheerfully renouncing in theirpursuit every comfort of civilized life, braving death itselfin every variety of form, and leaving their bones on the distantshore, or far away in the unknown interior of the drearycontinent, without a trace of their fate to console those mostdearly attached to them. The result of the discoverieshitherto made has invariably confirmed the conclusions of afew superior minds, formed without the assistance drawnfrom such a source, that under whatever circumstances manis placed, and whatever advantages he may enjoy, there isvery little real difference between the characters, intrinsicallyconsidered, of the savage and man in what is considereda civilized community. There is this difference between whatmay be called barbarism, not unfrequently to be met with ina civilized community, springing from the depravity naturalto man, and what obtains in a barbarous tribe or nation assuch, that, in the former, it forms the exception; the brother,the father, or the son of the person of it often exhibiting themost opposite nature and conduct; while, in the latter, itforms the rule, and what the individual cannot, in a sense,avoid. But, in making this distinction, is there nothing to befound within the former sphere somewhat anomalous to theposition thus presented?

The subject of the following enquiry forms the exception,[28]and from its being the only instance to be met with in thehistory of Europe, it may be said to merit the greatest considerationof the statesman, the historian, the philosopher,and the Christian.

It does not appear possible, from the peculiar mould inwhich the European mind has been cast, for it to have remainedin that state of immobility which, from the remotestantiquity, seems to have characterized that of Asia; in whichcontinent society has remained torpid and inactive, contentedwith what it has inherited, without making any effort atchange or advancement. This peculiarity of character, inconnexion with the influences of the Christian religion, seemsto have had the effect of bringing about that thorough amalgamationof races and ideas in the various countries of Europein which more than one people happened to occupy thesame territory, or come under the jurisdiction of the samegovernment, when no material difference in religion existed.In no country has such an amalgamation been more happilyconsummated than in our own; if not altogether as to blood,at least as to feeling, the more important thing of the two;the physical differences, in occasional instances, appearing insome localities, on the closest observation of those curiousindividuals who make such a subject the object of theirlearned researches.

Notwithstanding what has been said, how does it happenthat in Europe, but especially in our own country, there exists,and has for four hundred years existed, a pretty numerousbody of men distinct in their feelings from the generalpopulation, and some of them in a state of barbarism nearlyas great as when they made their appearance amongst us?Such a thing would appear to us in no way remarkable inthe stationary condition so long prevalent in Asia; where,in the case of India, for example, are to be found, inhabitingthe same territory, a heterogeneous population, made up of theremnants of many nations; where so many languages arespoken, and religions or superstitions professed, and the peopledivided into so many castes, which are separated fromeach other on the most trivial, and, to Europeans, ridiculousand generally incomprehensible points; some eatingtogether, and others not; some eating mutton, and othersnot; some beef and fowls, others vegetables, milk, butterand eggs, but no flesh or fish; those going to sea not[29]associating with those remaining at home; some not followingthe occupation of others; and all showing the most determinedantipathy to associate with each other;—where, fromthe numerous facilities so essential toward the perpetuationof peculiar modes of life, and the want of the powerful elementsof assimilation and amalgamation so prominent in ourdivision of the human race, a people may continue in a stereotypedstate of mind and habits for an indefinite length oftime. But in a country that is generally looked upon asthe bulwark of the Reformation, and the stronghold of Europeancivilization, how does it happen that we find a people,resembling in their nature, though not in the degree, the allbut fabulous tribe that was lately to be found in the drearywastes of Newfoundland, flying from the approach, and crossingthe imagination of the fishermen like a spectre? Or likethe wild men of the jungle, in some of the oceanic parts ofAsia, having no homes, roaming during the dry season in theforests, and sleeping under or on the branches of trees, andin the rainy season betaking themselves to caves or shelteringbeneath rocks, making their beds of leaves, and livingon what they can precariously find, such as roots and wildhoney; yet, under the influence of the missionary, many ofthem now raising crops, building dwellings, erecting schoolhouses,keeping the Sabbath, and praising God? But someof the Gipsies with us may be said to do few of these things.They live among us, yet are not of us; they come in dailycontact with us, yet keep such distance from the communityas a wild fowl, that occasionally finds its way into the farm-yard,does in shrinking from the close scrutiny of the husbandman.They cling like bats to ruined houses, caves, andold lime-kilns; and pitch their tents in dry water-courses,quarry-holes, or other sequestered places, by the way-side,or on the open moor, and even on dung-heaps for the warmthto be derived from them during the winter season, and liveunder the bare boughs of the forest during the summer;—yetamid all this apparent misery, through fair means or foul,they fare well, and lead what some call a happy life; whileeverything connected with them is most solicitously wraptup in inscrutable mystery. These Gipsies exhibit to theEuropean mind the most inexplicable moral problem on record;in so far as such phenomena are naturally expected tobe found among a people whom the rays of civilization have[30]never reached; while, in the case of the Gipsies, the firstprinciples of nature would seem to be set at defiance.

But to give a fair description of the tented Gipsy life, Icannot employ more appropriate language than that ofDoctor Bright, when, in reference to the English Gipsies, hesays: “I am confident that we are apt to appreciate muchtoo lightly the actual happiness enjoyed by this class ofpeople, who, beneath their ragged tents, in the pure air ofthe heath, may well excite the envy of many of the poor,though better provided with domestic accommodation, in theunwholesome haunts of the town. At the approach of night,they draw around their humble but often abundant board,and then retiring to their tent, leave a faithful dog to guardits entrance. With the first rays of morning, they againmeet the day, pursue their various occupations, or, rollingup their tents and packing all their property on an ass, setforward to seek the delights of some fresh heath, or theprotection of some shaded copse. I leave it to those whohave visited the habitations of the poor, to draw a comparisonbetween the activity, the free condition, and the pureair enjoyed by the Gipsy, and the idleness, the debauchery,and the filth in which the majority of the poorer classes areenveloped.”—“No sooner does a stranger approach their fireon the heath, than a certain reserve spreads itself throughthe little family. The women talk to him in mystic language;they endeavour to amuse him with secrets of futurity; theysuspect him to be a spy upon their actions; and he generallydeparts as little acquainted with their true character as hecame. Let this, however, wear away; let him gain theirconfidence, and he will find them conversable, amusing, sensibleand shrewd; civil, but without servility; proud of theirindependence; and able to assign reasons for preferringtheir present condition to any other in civilized society.He will find them strongly attached to each other, and freefrom many cares which too often render the married life asource of discontent.”

In what direction may we look for the causes of such ananomaly in the history of our common civilization? Thisquestion, however, will be discussed by and by: in themeantime let us consider the fact itself.

In the early part of the fifteenth century there first appearedin Europe large hordes of a people of singular complexionand hair, and mode of life—apparently an Asiaticrace—which, in spite of the sanguinary efforts of the governmentsof the countries through which they passed, continuedto spread over the continent, and have existed inlarge numbers to this day; many of them in the samecondition, and following the same modes of life, now asthen; and preserving their language, if not in itsoriginal purity, yet without its having lost its character.This circumstance has given rise in recent times to severalresearches, with no certain result, as to the country whichthey left on entering Europe, and still less as to the placeor the circumstances of their origin. The latter is not tobe wondered at, when it is considered that, in the instancesof even the most polished nations of antiquity, nothing isto be found as to their origin beyond what is contained inthe myths and fables of their earliest poets and historians.But considering the traces that have been left of the originand early history of the people and kingdoms of Europe,subsequent to the fall of the Roman Empire, amid the barbarismand confusion attending their establishment, and, inmany respects, the darkness immediately and for a long timefollowing it, we would naturally think that, for an eventhappening so recently as the fifteenth century, some reliabletraces would have been discovered and bequeathed to us ona subject that has baffled the antiquarians of modern times.

If, however, there is any doubt as to the country whichthey left on entering Europe, and their place of origin, thereremains for us to consider the people generally, and in anespecial manner those who have located themselves in Scotland;and give an account of their subsequent history in itsvarious aspects, and their present condition. But beforedoing that, it would be well to take a general but cursoryview of the political as well as social condition of Europeat the time they made their appearance in it, so as, in somemeasure, to account for the circumstance of no trace beingleft of their previous history; form an estimate of the relative[32]position in which they have stood to its general populationsince; and attempt to realize the feeling with whichthey have always been regarded by our own people, so asto account for that singular degree of dread and awe whichhave always been associated with the mention of theirname; the foundation of which has been laid in infancy.

That which most forcibly strikes the mind of the student,in reading the history of the age in which the Gipsiesentered Europe, is the political turmoil in which nearly thewhole of the continent seems to have been embroiled forthe greater part of a century. The desperate wars wagedby England against what has been termed her naturalenemy, for the recovery and retention of her ancient continentalpossessions, and the struggle of the other for her bareexistence; the long and bloody civil wars of England, andthe distracted state of France, torn with dissensions within,and menaced at various points from without; the long andfanatical struggle of religion and race, between the Spaniardsand their invaders, for the possession of the peninsula;the brave stand made by the Swiss for that independence somuch theirs by nature; the religious wars of the Hussites,and the commotions throughout central Europe; the perpetualinternal feuds of the corrupt and turbulent southernrepublics; the approaching dissolution of the dissoluteByzantine empire; the appalling progress of that terriblepower that had emerged from the wilds of Asia, subduedthe empire, and threatened Europe from its vulnerablepoint; all these seem to have been enough to have engrossedthe mental energies of the various countries of Europe, andprevented any notice being taken of the appearance of therace in question.

But over and above these convulsions, sufficient as theywere to exclusively engage the attention of the small amountof cultivated intellect then in the world, there was onethat was calculated even to paralyze the clergy, to whom,in that age, fell the business of recording passing events,and which seems to have prevented their even taking noticeof important matters in the history of that time. I meanthe schism that for so long rent the church into fragments,the greatest schism, indeed, that the world ever saw, when,for so many years, two and even three Popes reigned atonce, each anathematizing and excommunicating the other,[33]for a schism which, after an infinity of intrigues, was ultimatelyso happily patched up to the comfort of the church.On the death of Urban V, Gregory XI became Pope, butsoon after died, and was succeeded by Urban VI; but theCardinals, who were in the French interest, after treatinghim as Pope for a short time, annulled the whole proceedings,on the plea of having been constrained in the election bythe turbulence of the Roman populace, but really on accountof the extraordinary harshness with which he began hisreign, and chose one of themselves in his stead, under thename of Clement VII. The former remained at Rome, andwas supported by Italy, the Empire, England and the North;while Clement proceeded to Avignon, and was acknowledgedby France, Spain, Scotland, and Sicily. Urban wasrespectively succeeded by Boniface IX, Innocent VI, andGregory XII; and Clement, at his death, in 1394, byBenedict XIII, the most implacable spirit in prolonging theschism, from whose authority France for a time withdrew,without acknowledging any other head, but afterwardsreturned, at the same time urging his resignation of thechair. At last the Cardinals, disgusted with the unprincipleddissimulation of both, and at their wits’ end indevising a way to stay the scandal, and build up theinfluence of the whole church, then so rapidly sinking in theestimation of the world, amidst such unheard of calamities,deserted both, and summoned a council, which met at Pisa,and in which both were deposed, and another, in the personof Alexander V, elected to fill the chair. But in place ofproving a remedy, the step rendered the schism still morefurious. After that, John XXIII, successor to Alexander V,was reluctantly prevailed on to call a council, which accordinglymet at Constance, in 1414, but in which he himselfwas deposed. Martin V being chosen, was succeeded byEugenius IV. But the Fathers of Basle elected Felix V,thus renewing the schism, and dividing the church forsome years, from France and the Empire observing a neutrality,while England adhered to Eugenius, Aragon andthe smaller states to Felix; but the partisans of Felixgradually losing their influence, Nicholas V, the successorof Eugenius, after much cajolery, prevailed on him to resignhis claim, and thus restored peace to the world.

At that time the kinds of learning taught were, in the[34]greater part of Europe, confined to few, being almost entirelymonopolised by the clergy and a few laymen; by the formerfor the dogmatism of the schools and the study of the canonlaw, and by the latter for civil jurisprudence and medicine.Even the sons of nobles were generally wholly illiterate,one of them, only, being educated, to act as the clerk of thefamily. We are even told of a noble, when a conspiracywas detected, with the name of his son attached to it, saying,“Thank God, none of my children were ever taught towrite.” The great mass of the people, and especially thoseof the lower classes, were as ignorant of direct educationaltraining as a tribe of semi-barbarians at the present day.Many of the nobility, although as scantily educated as thelowest of our own people, and having as much difficulty ininditing an epistle as some of these would now have, wouldstill admirably maintain their position in such a state of society,by the influence which their high birth and breeding,elevated bearing, superiority of character, and possessionof domain, gave them; and by the traditionary feudal awethat had sunk so deeply into the feelings of their comparatively,and often absolutely, abject dependents and followers,extending itself, when unaccompanied by overt acts of oppression,to the inhabitants of the smaller towns, where somany restraints surrounded their personal independence,from their precarious modes of living, owing to all so muchdepending on each other for a subsistence, and the endlessjealousies prevailing among them.

At the same time all classes, although frequently possessinga sufficiency, if not an abundance, of the rough necessariesof life, enjoyed nothing of the comfort and eleganciesof subsequent times. The house of many a noble presentedsuch a plainness in furnishing as a person, in very moderatecircumstances, would now be almost ashamed to possess.The circumstances of the middle classes were much morelowly; plain boards and wooden trenchers, few beds butmanyshake-downs, rough stools and no chairs, with wonderfullyfew apartments relative to the size of the family,and much sleeping on straw-heaps in thecock-loft, markedthe style of living of a class now deemed very respectable.The huts of the poorest class were as often composed of“sticks and dirt” as any other material, withplenishing tocorrespond. There was a marked exception to this state[35]of comparative barbarism to be found, however, in some ofthe cities of Italy, and other parts of the Mediterranean,the seats of the flourishing republics of the middle ages;arising not only from the affluence which follows in thewake of extended commerce and manufactures, but alsofrom the feelings with which the wreck of a highly polishedantiquity inspired a people in whom the seeds of the formercivilization had not died out; heightened, as it must havebeen, by the influence of the once celebrated, but then decaying,splendour which the court of the long line of easternemperors shed over the countries lying contiguous to it.The inhabitants of the cities of the north, on the otherhand, were marked by a degree of substantial wealth andcomfort, sense and ease, civility and liberality, which wereapt to distinguish a people situated as they were, withoutthe traditions and objects, meeting the eye at every step inthe south, of the greatest degree of culture in the politearts of life unto which a people can attain. But, with theexception of the inhabitants of these cities, and some ofthose in a few of the cities of western Europe, the clergyand some of the laity, the people, as such, were sunk in deepignorance and superstition, living in a state of which, in ourfavoured times, we can form no adequate conception. Then,life and property were held in little respect, and law trampledupon, even if it existed under more than the shadow ofits present form; and no roads existed but such as were forthe greater part of the year impassable, and lay throughforests, swamps and other uncultivated wastes, the resorts ofnumerous banditti. Then, almost no intercourse existed betweenthe people of one part of a country and another,when all were exceedingly sanguinary and rude.

What wonder, then, that, under such circumstances, therace in question should have stolen into Europe unobserved,without leaving a trace of the circumstances connected withthe movement? The way by which they are supposed tohave entered Western Europe was by Transylvania, a suppositionwhich, if not true, is at least most likely. Although,when first publicly taken notice of in Europe, they were foundto move about in large bands, it is unlikely that they woulddo that while entering, but only after having experiencedthe degree of toleration and hospitality which the representationof their condition called forth; at least if we judge[36]from the cunning which they have displayed in moving aboutafter their true character became known. Asia having beenso long their home, where from time immemorial they aresupposed to have wandered, they would have no misgiving,from their knowledge of its inhabitants, in passing throughany part of it. But in contemplating an entry into Europethey must have paused, as one, without any experience of hisown or of others, would in entering on the discovery of anunknown continent, and anxiously examined the merchantsand travellers visiting Europe, on the various particulars ofthe country most essential to their prospects, and especiallyas to the characteristics of the people. There seems no reasonfor thinking that they were expelled from Asia againsttheir will; and as little for supposing that they fled ratherthan submit to a particular creed, if we judge from thegreat readiness with which, in form, they have submitted tosuch in Europe, when it would serve their purpose. Theonly conclusion, in regard to their motive or migration, towhich we can come, is, that having, in the course of time,gradually found their way to the confines of Western Asia,and most likely into parts of Northern Africa, and thereheard of the growing riches of modern Europe, they, withthe restlessness and unsettledness of their race, longed toreach the Eldorado of their hopes—a country teeming withwhat they were in quest of, where they would meet with norivals of their own race to cross their path. The step musthave been long and earnestly debated, possibly for generations,ere it was taken; spies after spies may have surveyedand reported on the country, and the movement been madethe subject of many deliberations, till at last the influence,address, or resolution of some chief may have precipitatedthem upon it, possibly at a time when some accidental or unavoidablecause urged them to it. Nor would it be longere their example was followed by others of the tribe; somefrom motives of friendship; others from jealousy at the ideaof all the imagined advantages being reaped by those goingbefore them; and others from the desire of revenging unsettledinjuries, and jealousy combined. After the die hadbeen cast, their first step would be to choose leaders to proceedbefore the horde, spy out the richness of the land, andorganize stations for those to follow; and then continue themigration till all the horde had passed over. Considering[37]that the representative part of the Gipsies have retainedtheir peculiarities almost uncontaminated, it is in the highestdegree probable, it may even be assumed as certain, that thiswas the manner in which they entered Europe: at first stragglers,with systematic relays of stations and couriers, followedup by such small, yet numerous and closely following,companies, as almost to escape the notice of the authoritiesof the countries through which they passed; a mode of travellingwhich they still pursue in Great Britain. But whenany special obstacle was to be encountered in their journey—such,for example, as the hostility of the inhabitants of anyparticular place—they would concentrate their strength, soas to force their way through. Their next step would be toarrange among themselves the district of country each tribewas to occupy. After their arrival, they seem to have appearedpublicly in large bands, growing emboldened by the generousreception which they met with for some time after theirappearance; and they seem to have had the sagacity toknow, that if they secured the favour of the great, that ofthe small would necessarily follow.

But if the first appearance of the Gipsies in Europe had adifferent complexion from what I have conjectured, there areother causes to which may be attributed the fact of its notbeing known. Among these is to be found the distractedstate of the Eastern Empire in its struggles with the Turks,which led to the capture of its capital, and the subversionof the Greek rule in the East. The literary and other menof note, scattered over the provinces, likely to chronicle suchan event as the appearance of the Gipsies, must necessarilyhave betaken themselves to the capital, as each district submittedto the conquerors, and so lost the opportunity of witnessingthe migration, under such circumstances as wouldhave made it observable, assuming that the Gipsies travelledin large companies, which, under all the circumstances of thecase, was not, on all occasions, likely. The surroundingcountries having been the theatre of so many changes inthe history of the human family, and the inhabitants havingundergone so many changes of masters, leading to so manydistinct races, from the intellectual and cultivated Greek tothe barbarous Arab and dusky Moor, of so various hues andhabits, many of whom would be found in such a city as Constantinople,what peculiarity was there about the Gipsies to[38]attract the notice of the haughty Greek, characterized as hewas by all the feelings of disdain which his ancestors displayedin not even naming the Jews and early Christians?Then, if we consider the peculiar turn which the new-bornliterary pursuits of learned men assumed during that age—howit was exclusively confined to the restoration of theclassics, and followed in Europe by the influx of the Greeksduring the troubles of their country, we will find anotherreason for the manner of the first appearance of the Gipsiesnot being known. Nor is it to be expected that any lightwould be thrown on the subject by the memoirs of any ofour own countrymen, visiting the East at a time when so littleintercourse existed between the West and that part ofthe world; nothing perhaps beyond a commercial or maritimeadventurer, under the flag of another nation, or onewhose whole acquirements consisted in laying lance in restand mounting the breach in an assault; it being a rare thingeven to see an English ship in the Mediterranean during thewhole of the fifteenth century.

That the Gipsies were a tribe of HindooSudras, driven,by the cruelty of Timour, to leave Hindostan, is not for amoment to be entertained; for why should that conquerorhave specially troubled himself with thelowest class of Hindoos?or why should they, in particular, have left Hindostan?It would have been theruling, or at least thehigher,classes of Hindoo society against which Timour would haveexercised any acts of cruelty; thelowest would be prettymuch beneath his notice. Not only do we not read of sucha people as the Hindoos ever having left their country onany such account—for it is contrary to their genius and feelingsof caste to do so—but the opinion that the Gipsies leftIndia on Timour’s account rests on no evidence whatever,beyond the simple circumstance that they were first takennotice of in Europeabout the time of his overrunning India.Mr. Borrow very justly remarks: “It appears singular thatif they left their native land to escape from Timour, theyshould never have mentioned, in the western world, the nameof that scourge of the human race, nor detailed the historyof their flight and sufferings, which assuredly would haveprocured them sympathy; the ravages of Timour being alreadybut too well known in Europe.” Still, Mr. Borrowdoes not venture to give reasons for the trustworthiness or[39]untrustworthiness of a passage in Arabschah’s life ofTimour, in which it is said that Gipsies were found inSamarcand at a time before that conqueror had even directedhis thoughts to the invasion of India. The descriptiongiven of these Zingari or Gipsies of Samarcand is as applicableto the Gipsies as possibly can be; for in it it issaid, “Some were wrestlers, others gladiators, others pugilists.These people were much at variance, so that hostilitiesand battling were continually arising amongst them.Each band had its chief and subordinate officers.” Howapplicable this description is to the Scottish Gipsies, downto so late a period as the end of last century!

If there is little reason for thinking that the Gipsies leftIndia owing to the cruelties of Timour, there is less forsupposing, as Mr. Borrow supposes, that their being calledEgyptians originated, not with themselves, but with others;for he says that the tale of their being Egyptians “probablyoriginated amongst the priests and learned men of the eastof Europe, who, startled by the sudden apparition of bandsof people foreign in appearance and language, skilled indivination and the occult arts, endeavoured to find in Scripturea clue to such a phenomenon; the result of which wasthat the Romas (Gipsies) of Hindostan were suddenly transformedinto Egyptian penitents, a title which they have eversince borne in various parts of Europe.” Why should thepriests and learned men of the east of Europe go to theBible to find the origin of such a people as the Gipsies?What did priests and learned men know of the Bible at thebeginning of the fifteenth century? Did every priest, atthat time, know there even was such a book as the Bible inexistence? The priests and learned men of the east of Europewere more likely to turn to the eastern nations for theorigin of the Gipsies, than to Egypt, were the mere matterof the skill of the Gipsies in divination and the occult artsto lead them to make any enquiry into their history. Butwhat could have induced the priests and learned men totake any such particular interest in the Gipsies? Whenthe Gipsies entered Europe, they would feel under the necessityof saying who they were. Having committed themselvesto that point, how could they afterwards call themselves bythat name which Mr. Borrow supposes the priests andlearned men to have given them? Or, I should rather say,[40]how could the priests and learned men think of giving thema name after they themselves had said who they were? Anddid the priests and learned men invent the idea of the Gipsiesbeing pilgrims, or bestow upon their leaders the titlesof dukes, earls, lords, counts and knights of Little Egypt?Assuredly not; all these matters must have originated withthe Gipsies themselves. The truth is, Mr. Borrow has evidentlyhad no opportunities of learning, or, at least, has notduly appreciated, the real mental acquirements of the earlyGipsies, an idea of which will be found in the history ofthe race on their first general arrival in Scotland, about ahundred years after they were first taken notice of in Europe,during which time they are not supposed to havemade any great progress in mental condition. I may ventureto say that the prophecy of Ezekiel,[8] in regard to thescattering of the Egyptians, does not apply to the Gipsies,for this reason, that such of these Egyptians as werecarriedaway captive would become lost among other nations, whilethe “mixed multitude” which left Egypt with the Jews, travelledEast,their own masters, and became the origin of theGipsy nation throughout the world. If we could but findtraces of an Egyptian origin among the Gipsies of Asia, sayCentral and Western Asia, the question would be beyonddispute. But that might be a matter of some trouble. Iam inclined to believe that the people in India correspondingto the Gipsies in Europe, will be found among those tentedtribes who perform certain services to the British armies;at all events there is such a tribe in India, who are calledGipsies by the Europeans who come in contact with them.A short time ago, one of these people, who followed the occupationof a camel driver in India, found his way to England,[41]and “pulled up” with some English Gipsies, whom he recognizedas his own people; at least he found that they had theways and ceremonies of them. But it would be unreasonableto suppose that such a tribe in India did not follow variousoccupations. Bishop Heber, on several occasions, speaks ofcertain tents of people whom he met in India, as Gipsies.But I can conceive nothing more difficult than an attempt toelucidate the history of any of the infinity of sects, castes, ortribes to be met with in India.[9] What evidently leads Mr.Borrow and others astray, in the matter of the origin of theGipsies, is, that they conclude that, because the languagespoken by the Gipsies is apparently, or for the most part,Hindostanee, therefore the people speaking it originated inHindostan; as just a conclusion as it would be to maintainthat the Negroes in Liberia originated in England becausethey speak the English language!

The leaders of the Gipsies, on the arrival of the body inEurope, and for a long time afterwards, seem to have beena superior class to those known as Gipsies to-day; although,if the more intelligent of the race were observable to thegeneral eye, they would, in many respects, compare most[42]favourably with many of our middle classes. If the leadersof the Gipsies, at that time, fell behind some of even the nobility,in the pittance of the education of letters which thelatter possessed, they made up for it in that practical sagacity,the acquisition of which is almost unavoidable in the school inwhich, from infancy, they had been educated—that of providingfor the shifts and exigencies of which their lives, as awhole, consisted; besides showing that superior aptitude formany of the things of every-day life, so inseparable from thesuccess to which a special pursuit will lead. A Gipsy leaderstood, then, somewhat in the position towards a gentlemanthat a swell does to-day; with this difference, that he wasnot apt to commit himself by the display of that ignorancewhich unmasks the swell; an ignorance which the gentleman,in spite of his little learning, no less shared in. If the latterhappened to be well educated, the Gipsy could still passmuster, from being as well, or rather as ill, informed as manywith whom the gentleman associated. The Gipsy beingalert, capable of playing many characters, often a good musician,an excellent player at games of hazard, famous at taleand repartee, clever at sleight of hand tricks, ready with hisweapon, at least in the boast of it, apt at field and athleticsports, suspicious of everything and everybody around him,the whole energies of his mind given to, and his life spent in,circumventing and plundering those around him, while, inappearance, “living in peaceable and catholic manner,” and“doing a lawful business,” and having that thorough knowledgeof men acquired by mixing with all classes, in everypart of the country—he became even more than a match forthe other, whose life was spent in occasional forays, fieldsports and revellings, with so little to engage his intellectualnature, from his limited education, the non-existence of books,and the forms of government and social institutions, withthose beautifully complicated bearings and interests towardsgeneral society which the present age displays. At such atime, conversation must have been confined to the ordinaryaffairs of common life, the journal of much of which, beyondone’s own immediate neighbourhood, would be found in theconversation of the accomplished Gipsy, who had the tact ofingratiating himself, in a manner peculiar to himself, with allkinds of society, even sometimes the very best. And it isremarkable that, when the Gipsies were persecuted, it was[43]seldom, if ever, at the instance of private individuals, butalmost always by those acting under authority. If theywere persecuted by a private individual, they would naturallyleave for another district, and place themselves, for atime, in the nominal position of a clansman to such barons aswould be always ready to receive them. The people at largegenerally courted their friendship, for the amusement whichthey afforded them, and the various services which they renderedthem, the most important of which was the safety ofproperty which followed from such an acquaintance. Thatbeing the case even with people of influence, it may be judgedwhat position the Gipsies occupied towards the variousclasses downwards; the lowest of which they have alwaysdespised, and delighted to tyrannize over. In coming amongthem, the Gipsies, from the first, exhibited ways of life andhabits so dissimilar to those of the natives, and such tricksof legerdemain so peculiar to Eastern nations, and suchclaims of seeing into the future, as to cause many to believethem in league with the evil one; a conclusion very easilyarrived at, in the darkness in which all were wrapped. Althoughthe rabble of the Gipsies is said to have presented,in point of accoutrements, a most lamentable appearance,that could much more have been said of the same class ofthe natives, then, and long after, if we judge of a Highland“tail,” of a little more than a century ago, as described bythe author of Waverly; or even of the most unwashed ofwhat has been termed the “unwashed multitude” of to-day.In point of adaptability to their respective modes of life, thepoorest of the Gipsies far excelled the others. To carry outthe character of pilgrims, the bulk of the Gipsies would govery poorly dressed; it would only be the chiefs who wouldbe well accoutred.

But the Gipsies that appear to the general eye have fallenmuch from what they were. The superior class of ScottishGipsies, possessing the talents and policy necessary to accommodatethemselves to the change of circumstances aroundthem, have adopted the modes of ordinary life to such anextent, and so far given up their wandering habits, as tobaffle any chance of discovery by any one unacquainted withtheir history, and who will not, like a bloodhound, followthem into the retreats in which they and their descendantsare now to be found. Such Gipsies are still a restless race,[44]and nourish that inveterate attachment to their blood andlanguage which is peculiar to all of them. When we considerthe change that has come over the face of society duringthe last hundred years, or even during a much shortertime, we will find many causes that have contributed to thatwhich has come over the Gipsy character in its more atrociousaspect. All classes of our own people, from the highestto the lowest, have experienced the change; and nowhereto a greater extent than in the Highlands, where, in littlemore than a hundred years, a greater reformation has beeneffected, than took almost any other part of the world perhapsthree centuries to accomplish; and where the people,as a body, have emerged, from a state of sanguinary barbarism,into the most lawful and the most moral and religioussubjects of the British Empire. The Gipsies have likewisefelt the change. Even the wildest of them have had themore outrageous features of their character subdued; but itis sometimes as an animal of prey, sans teeth, sans claws, sanseverything. Officials, in the zeal of their callings, oftengreatly distress those that go about—compelling them, intheir wanderings, to “move on;” and look after them soclosely, that when they become obnoxious to the inhabitants,the offence has hardly occurred, ere, to use an expression,they are snapped up before they have had time to squeak.Amid such a state of things, it is difficult for Gipsies toflourish in their glory; still, such of them as go about in theolden form are deemed very annoying.

The dread which has always been entertained toward theGipsies has been carefully fostered by them, and has becomethe principal means contributing to their toleration. Theyhave always been combined in a brotherhood of sentimentand interest, even when deadly feuds existed among them;an injury toward one being generally taken up by others;and have presented that union of sympathy, and lawlessviolence toward the community, which show what a fewaudacious and desperate men, under such circumstances, willsometimes do in a well regulated society. Sir Walter Scott,relative to the original of one of his heroines, says: “Shewas wont to say that she could bring, from the remotestparts of the island friends, to revenge her quarrel, while shesat motionless in her cottage; and frequently boasted thatthere was a time when she was of still more considerable[45]importance, when there were at her wedding fifty saddledasses, and unsaddled asses without number.” But of theirvarious crimes, none have had such terrors for the grown-upperson as those of fire-raising and child-stealing. The Gipsycould easily steal into a well guarded but scattered premises,by night, and, in an instant, spread devastation around him,and irretrievable ruin to the rural inhabitant. But thatwhich has, perhaps, contributed most to the feeling in question,has been their habit of child-stealing, the terrors ofwhich have grown up with the people from infancy. Thistrait in the Gipsy character has certainly not been so common,in latter times, as some others; still, it has taken place.As an instance, it may be mentioned that Adam Smith, theauthor of the great work called “An Enquiry into theCauses of the Wealth of Nations,” was actually carried offby the Gipsies, when a child, and was some hours in theirpossession before recovery. It is curious to think whatmight have been the political state of so many nations, andof Great Britain in particular, at the present time, if thefather of political economy and free-trade, as he is generallycalled, had had to pass his life in a Gipsy encampment, and,like a white transferred to an Indian wigwam, under similarcircumstances, acquired all their habits, and become moreincorrigibly attached to them than the people themselves;tinkering kettles, pots, pans and old metal, in place of separatingthe ore of a beautiful science from the débris whichhad been for generations accumulating around it, and workingit up into one of the noblest monuments of modern times.

When a child will become unruly, the father will oftensay, in the most serious manner, “Mother, that canna beour bairn—the Tinklers must have taken ours, and lefttheirs—are you sure that this is ours? Gie him back tothe Gipsies again, and get our ain.” The other childrenwill look as bewildered, while the subject of remark willinstantly stop crying, and look around for sympathy; butmeeting nothing but suspicion in the faces of all, willinstinctively flee to its mother, who as instinctively clasps itto her bosom, quieting its terrors, as a mother only can,with the lullaby,

[46]And the result is, that it will remain a “good bairn” for along time after. This feeling, drawn into the juvenile mind,as food enters into the growth of the body, acts like theinfluence of the stories of ghosts and hobgoblins, often soinconsiderately told to children, but differs from it in thisrespect, that what causes it is true, while its effects arealways more or less permanent. It has had this effect uponour youth—in connection with the other habits of the people,so outlandish when compared with the ways of our own—thatshould they happen to go a little distance from home, on suchexpeditions as boys are given to, and fall in with a Gipsycamp, a strange sensation of fear takes possession of them.The camp is generally found to be pitched in some little dellor nook, and so hidden from view as not to be noticed tillthe stranger is almost precipitated into its midst ere he isaware of it. What with the traditionary feeling towardthe Gipsies, and the motley assemblage of wild lookingmen, and perhaps still wilder looking women, ragged littleurchins, ferocious looking dogs, prepared for an assault withan instinct drawn from the character of their masters, andthe droll appearance of so manycuddies (asses,) startled intheir browsing—animals that generally appear singly, but,when driven by Gipsies, come in battalions;—the boys, atfirst rivetted to the spot with terror, will slip away asquietly as possible till a little way off, and then run tillthey have either arrived at home, or come within the reachof a neighbourhood or people likely to protect them,although, it might be, the Gipsies had not even noticedthem.[11] Curiosity is so strong in our youth, in such cases,as often to induce them to return to the spot, after beingsatisfied that the Gipsies have decamped for another district.They will then examine the débris of the encampment witha great degree of minuteness, wreaking their vengeance onwhat is left, by turning up with their feet the refuse ofalmost everything edible, particularly as regards the bonesand feathers of fowl and game, and, if it happened to benear the sea, crab, limpet, and whelk shells, and heaps oftin clippings and horn scrapings. In after life, they willoften think of and visit the scenes of such adventures. Atother times, our youth, when rambling, will often make a[47]detour of several miles, to avoid falling in with the dreadedGipsies. The report of Gipsies being about acts as a salutarycheck upon the depredatory habits of the youth of ourcountry towns on neighbouring crops; for, as the farmersmake up their minds to lose something by the Gipsies, at anyrate, the wholesome dread they inspire, even in grown-uplads, is such as, by night especially, to scare away the thievesfrom those villages, whose plunderings are much greater,and more unwillingly submitted to, from the closeness ofresidence of the offenders; so that the arrival of the Gipsies,in some places, is welcomed, at certain times of the year,as the lesser of two evils; and, to that extent, they havebeen termed the “farmers’ friends.” And if a little encouragementis given them—such as the matter of “dogs’payment,” that is, what they can eat and drink, and a mouthfulof something for thecuddy, for the first day after theirarrival—the farmer can always enlist an admirable police,who will guard his property against others, with a degreeof faithfulness that can hardly be surpassed. I heard of aScottish farmer, very lately, getting the Gipsies to take uptheir quarters every year on the corner of a potato or turnipfield, with the express purpose of using them, as half constableshalf scare-crows, against the common rogues of theneighbourhood. “Now,” said he to the principal Gipsy, “Iput you in charge of this property. If you want anythingfor yourselves, come to the barn.” Whatever might havebeen the experience of farmers near by, this farmer nevermissed anything while the Gipsies were on his premises.

But a greater degree of awe is inspired by the femalesthan the males of the Gipsies. In their periodical wanderings,they will generally, with their fortune-telling, turn theheads of the country girls in matters of matrimony—settingthem all agog on husbands; and render them, for the time,of but little use to their employers. In teaching them the“art of love,” they will professedly so instruct them as tohave as many lovers at once as their hearts can desire. Butif a country girl, with her many admirers, has one to getquit of, who is “no’ very weel faured, but a clever fellow,”or another, who is “no’ very bright in the upper story, butstrapping enough to become the dish-clout,” she will call inthe assistance of the strolling Gipsy; who, after carefullyweighing the circumstances of the case, will sometimes, after[48]ordinary means have failed, collect, unknown to her, abucket full of everything odious about a dwelling, wait atthe back door the return of the rustic Adonis, and, ere he isaware, dash it full in his face; then fold her arms akimbo,and quietly remark, “That will cool your ears, and yourcourting too, my man!” Such Gipsy women are peculiarlydreaded by the males of our own people, who will muchsooner encounter those of the other sex; for, however muchsome of them may be satisfied, in their cooler moments, thatthese Gipsy women will not attempt what they will sometimesthreaten, they generally deem them “unco uncanny,”at any time, and will flee when swearing that they willgutorskin alive all who may have anything to say to them.

To people unacquainted with the peculiarities of the Gipsies,it may appear that this picture is overdrawn. But SirWalter Scott, who is universally allowed to be a true depicterof Scottish life, in every form, says, in reference to theoriginal of Meg Merrilies, in Guy Mannering: “I rememberto have seen one of her grand-daughters; that is, as Dr.Johnson had a shadowy recollection of Queen Anne—a statelylady in black, adorned with diamonds; so my memory ishaunted by a solemn remembrance of a woman, of more thanfemale height, dressed in a long, red cloak, who commencedacquaintance by giving me an apple, but whom, nevertheless,I looked on with as much awe as the future Doctor couldlook upon the Queen.” And he approvingly quotes anotherwriter, as to her daughter, as follows: “Every week, she paidmy father a visit for herawmons, when I was a little boy,and I looked on her with no common degree of awe andterror.” The same feeling, somewhat modified, I have heardexpressed by Germans, Spaniards, and Italians. In England,the people do not like to trouble the Gipsies, owing totheir being so “spiteful,” as they express it. The feeling inquestion cannot well be realized by people reared in towns,who have, perhaps, never seen Gipsies, or heard much aboutthem; but it is different with youths brought up in the country.When the Gipsies, in their peregrinations, will maketheir appearance at a farmer’s house, especially if it is in thepastoral districts, and the farmer be a man of informationand reflection, he will often treat them kindly, from the interestwith which their singular history inspires him; andothers, not unkindly, from other motives. The farmer’s sons,[49]who are young and hasty, probably but recently returnedfrom a town, where they have been jeered at for their cowardicein being afraid to meddle with the Gipsies, will showa disposition to use them roughly, on the cry arising in thehouse, that “the Tinklers are coming.” But the old father,cautious with the teachings of years gone by, will becomealarmed at such symptoms, and, before the Gipsies haveapproached the premises, will urge his children to treat themkindly. “Be canny now, bairns—be canny; for any sakedinna anger them; gie them a’ they want, and somethingmore.” With this, a good fat sheep will sometimes be killed,and the band regaled withkail, and its accompaniments; or,if they are verynice gabbit, it will be served up to them in aroasted form. Thereafter, they will retire to the barn, andstart in the morning on something better than an emptystomach.

And yet it is singular that, if the Gipsies are met in thestreets of a town, or any considerably frequented place, peoplewill, in passing them, edge off a little to the side, andlook at them with a degree of interest, which, on ordinaryoccasions, the Gipsies will but little notice. But if a personof respectable appearance will scrutinize them in an ominousway, they will observe it instantly; and, as a swell-mobsman,on being stared at by a detective, on the mere suspicion ofhis being such, generally turns the first cross street, and, inturning, anxiously looks after his enemy, who, after calculatingthe distance, has also turned to watch his movements,so the Gipsy will become excited, soon turning round towatch the movements of the object of his dread; a fear thatwill be heightened if any of his band has been spoken to.And such is the masonic secrecy with which they keep theirlanguage, that should they at the time have rested on theroad-side, and the stranger assume the most impressive tone,and say: “Sallah, jaw drom“—(curse you, take the road),the effects upon them are at first bewildering, and followedby a feeling of some dire calamity that is about to befallthem. When any of the poorest kind can be prevailed uponto express a candid sentiment, and be asked how they reallydo get on, they will reply, “It’s only day and way we want,ye ken—what a farmer body ne’er can miss; foreby selling aspoon, and tinkering a kettle now and then.”

In viewing the effects of civilization upon a barbarous[50]race, we are naturally led to confine our reflections to someof the instances in which the civilized race has carried itsinfluence abroad to those beyond its pale, to the exclusionof those instances, from their infrequency of occurrence, inwhich the barbarous race, of its own accord or otherwise,has come within its circle. There are but two instances, inmodern times, in which the latter has happened, and they arewell worthy of our notice. The one is, the existence of theGipsies, in the very heart of civilization; the other, that ofthe Africans in the various European settlements in theNew World; and between these a short comparison maybe instituted, although at the risk of it being deemed adigression.

The forcible introduction of barbarous men into the coloniesof civilized nations, in spite of the cruelties which manyof them have undergone, has greatly improved their condition—theirmoral and intellectual nature—at the expenseof the melancholy fact of it being advanced as a reason ofjustification for that sad anomaly in the history of our times.The African, it is admitted, was forcibly brought underthe influence of the refinement, religion, and morals ofthe whites, whether as a domestic under the same roof,a field labourer, in the immediate vicinity of the master, orin some other way under his direct control and example.Not only was he, as it were, forced to become what he is,but his obedient, light-hearted, and imitative nature, evenunder many bodily sufferings, instinctively led him to enterimmediately into the spirit of a new life, presenting to hisbarbarous imagination, so destitute of everything above thegrossest of animal wants and propensities, those wonderfullyincessant and complicated employments of a being, appearingto him as almost a god, when compared with his own savageand unsophisticated nature. The importations comprisedNegroes of many dialects, which were distributed on arrivalin every direction. A large proportion would live singlywith the poorer classes of the colonists, as domestics; twoor three would be the limited number with many others, andthe remainder would be disposed of, in larger or smallernumbers, for the various services necessary in civilized life.Single domestics would be under the necessity of learning thelanguage of the master; and, having none speaking theirown dialect to commune with, or only occasionally meeting[51]such, momentarily, they would soon forget it. When severalof different dialects lived together, they would naturallyfollow the same course, to communicate with each other.All these circumstances, with the frequent changes of mastersand companions, and the general influence which the whitesexercised so supremely over them, have had the effect of almosterasing every trace of the language, customs, and superstitionsof Africa, in parts of the United States of America,in little more than one generation. The same may especiallybe said of what pertains to the religious; for a race of men,in a state of nature, or but slightly civilized, depending forsuch instruction on the adjunct of a superior grade, in theperson of a priest, would, on being deprived of such, soonlose recollection of what had been taught them. Such aninstance as to language, and, I understand, to a great extentas to religion, is to be found in St. Domingo; French andSpanish being spoken in the parts of that island which belongedto these countries respectively. Still, such traces areto be found in Cuba; but, were importations of Africans intothat island to cease, the same result would, in course of time,follow. From such causes as those stated, the Negroes inthe United States have, to a very great extent, nay, as faras their advantages and opportunities have gone, altogether,acquired the ways of civilized life, and adopted the moralsand religion of the white race; and their history comparesfavourably with that of a portion of the Gipsy race, which,being unique, and apparently incomprehensible, I will institutea short enquiry into some of the causes of it.

While the language and common origin of the Gipsies holdthem together as a body, their mode of life has taken such ahold on the innate nature of the representative part of them,as to render it difficult to wean them from it. Like theNorth American Indians, they have been incapable of beingreduced to a state of servitude;[12] and, in their own peculiarway, have been as much attached to a life of unrestrictedfreedom of movement. Being an Oriental people, they havedisplayed the uniformity of attachment to habit, that hascharacterized the people of that part of the world. Likethe maidens of Syria, wearing to-day the identical kind ofveil with which Rebecca covered herself when she met[52]Isaac, they have, with few exceptions, adhered to all thatoriginally distinguished them from those among whom theyare found. In entering Europe, they would meet with fewcustoms which they would willingly adopt in preference totheir own. Their chiefs, being men of ambition, and fondof a distinguished position in the tribe, would influence thebody to remain aloof from the people at large; and societybeing divided between the nobles and their various gradesof dependents, and the restrained inhabitants of towns, withwhat part of the population could the Gipsies have been incorporated?With the lowest classes only, and becomelittle better than serfs—a state to which it was almost impossiblefor a Gipsy to submit. His habits rendered himunfit to till the soil; the close and arbitrary laws of municipalitieswould debar him from exercising almost any mechanicaltrade, in a way suitable to his disposition; and, nomatter what might have been his natural propensities, hehad almost no alternative left him but to wander, peddle,tinker, tell fortunes, and “find things that nobody ever lost.”His natural disposition was to rove, and partake of whateverhe took a liking to; nothing coming so acceptably and sosweetly to him, as when it required an exercise of ingenuity,and sometimes a degree of danger, in its acquisition, andcaused a corresponding chagrin to him from whom it wastaken, without affording him any trace of the purloiner.He must also enjoy the sports of the river and lake, thefield, hill and forest, and the pleasure of his meal, cookedafter his own fashion, in some quiet spot, where he wouldpitch his tent, and quench his thirst at his favouritesprings. Then followed the persecution of his race; bothby law and society it was declared outcast, although, by alarge part of the latter, it was, from selfish motives, tolerated,and, in a measure, courted. The Gipsy’s mode of life; hispredatory habits; his vindictive disposition toward his enemies;his presumptuous bearing toward the lower classes, whohad purchased his friendship and protection; his astutenessin doubling upon and escaping his pursuers; his audacity,under various disguises and pretences, in bearding justice,and the triumphant manner in which he would generallyescape its toils; his utter destitution of religious opinions,or sentiments; his being a foreigner of such strongly markedappearance, under the legal and social ban of proscription;[53]and the hereditary name which has, in consequence, attachedto his race, have created those broad and deep-drawn lines ofisolation, fear and antipathy, which, in the popular mind,have separated him from other men. To escape from thedreadful prejudice that is, in consequence, entertained towardhis race, the Gipsy will, if it be possible, hide the fact of hisbeing a Gipsy; and more especially when he enters uponsettled life, and mixes with his fellow-men in the world.

In the general history of Europe, we can find nothing toillustrate that of the Gipsies. But if we take a glance atthe history of the New World, we will find, in a mild andharmless form, something that bears a slight resemblance toit. In various parts of the eastern division of NorthAmerica are to be found remnants of tribes of Indians,living in the hearts of the settlements, on reserves of landsgranted to them for their support; a race bearing somewhatthe same resemblance to the European settlers that theGipsies, with their dark complexion, and long, coarse, blackhair, seem to have borne to the natives of Europe. Few ofthese Indians, although in a manner civilized, and professingthe Christian religion, and possessing houses, schools andchurches, have betaken, or, if they support their numbers,will ever betake, themselves to the ways of the other inhabitants.They will engage in many things to make aliving, and a bare living; in that respect very much resemblingsome of the Gipsies. They will often leave theirhome, and build their wigwams whenever and whereverthey have a mind, and indulge in the pleasures of huntingand laziness; and often make numerous small wares forsale, with the proceeds of which, and of the timber growingon their lots of land, they will manage to pass their lives inlittle better than sloth, often accompanied by drunkenness.If it prove otherwise, it is generally from the Indian, orrather half or quarter breed, having been wholly or partlyreared with whites, or otherwise brought up under theirimmediate influence; or from the ambition of their chiefs toraise themselves in the estimation of the white race, leading,from the influence which they possess, to some of the lowergrades of the tribes following their example. It may bethat the “poor Indian” has voluntarily exiled himself, in afit of melancholy, from the wreck of his patrimony, to makea miserable shift for himself elsewhere, as he best may. In[54]this respect the resemblance fails: that the Indian in Americais aboriginal, the Gipsy in Europe foreign, to the soil; but bothare characterized by a nature that renders them almostimpervious to voluntary change. In this they resembleeach other: that they are left to live by themselves, andtransmit to their descendants their respective languages,and such of their habits as the change in their outward circumstanceswill permit. But in this they differ: that theseIndians really do die out, while the Gipsies are very prolific,and become invigorated by a mixture of the white blood;under the cover of which they gradually leave the tent, andbecome scattered over and through society, enter into thevarious pursuits common to the ordinary natives, and becomelost to the observation of the rest of the population.

The peculiar feeling that is entertained for what is popularlyunderstood to be a Gipsy, differs from that which isdisplayed toward the Negro, in that it attaches to his traditionalcharacter and mode of life alone. The general prejudiceagainst the Negro is, to a certain extent, natural,and what any one can realize. If the European has adifficulty in appreciating the feeling which is exhibited byAmericans against the African, in their general intercourseof daily life, few Americans can realize the feeling which isentertained toward the tented Gipsy. Should such a Gipsybe permitted to enter the dwelling of a native, the most hewill let him come in contact with will be the chair he willgive him to sit on, and the dish and spoon out of which hewill feed him, all of which can again be cleaned. Hisguest will never weary his patience, owing to the embodimentof restlessness which characterizes his race; nor willhis feelings ever be tried by his asking him for a bed, forwhat the herb commonly called catnip is to the animal somewhatcorresponding to that word, a bundle of straw in anout-house is to the tented Gipsy.

INTRODUCTION.

The new era which the series of splendid works, calledthe Waverly Novels, created in literature, produced, amongother effects, that of directing attention to that singularanomaly in civilization—the existence of a race of menscattered over the world, and known, wherever the Englishlanguage is spoken, as Gipsies; a class as distinct, in somerespects, from the people among whom they live, as the Jewsat the present day. The first of the series in which theirsingular characters, habits, and modes of life were illustrated,was that of Guy Mannering; proving one of the few happyinstances in which a work of fiction has been found to servethe end of specially stirring up the feelings of the humanmind, in its various phases, toward a subject with which ithas a common sympathy. The peasant and the farmer atonce felt attracted by it, from the dread of personal dangerwhich they had always entertained for the race, and the uncertaintyunder which they had lived, for the safety of theirproperty from fire and robbery, and the desire which theyhad invariably shown to propitiate them by the payment ofa species of blackmail, under the form of kind treatment,and a manner of hospitality when occasion called for it.The work at the same time struck a chord in the religiousand humane sentiments of others, and the result, but a verytardily manifested one, was the springing up of associationsfor their reformation; with comparatively little success,however, for it was found, as a general thing, that whilesome of the race allowed their children, very indifferently,even precariously, to attend school, yet to cure them of theirnaturally wandering and other peculiar dispositions, wasnearly as hopeless as the converting of the AmericanIndians to some of the ways of civilized life. That generalclass was also interested, which consist of the more or less[56]educated, moral, or refined, to whom anything excitingcomes with relish. To the historical student, the subjectwas fraught with matter for curious investigation, owing tothe race having been ignored, for a length of time, as beingin no respect different from a class to be found in all countries;and, whatever their origin, as having had theirnationality extinguished in that general process which hasbeen found to level every distinction of race in our country.The antiquary and philologist, in their respective pursuits,found also a sphere which they were unlikely to leave unexplored,considering that they are often so untiring in theirresearches in such matters as sometimes to draw upon themselvesa smile from the rest of mankind: and while thelatter was thinking that he had exhausted the languages ofhis native land, and was contemplating others elsewhere, hestruck accidentally upon a mine under his feet, and at onceturned up a specimen of virgin ore; coming all the moreacceptably to him, from those in possession of it keeping itas secret as if their existence depended on its being concealedfrom others around them. All, indeed, but especiallythose brought up in rural places, knew from childhood moreor less of the Gipsies, and dreaded them by day or night,in frequented or in lonely places, knowing well that, ifinsulted, they would threaten vengeance, if they could notexecute it then; which they in no way doubted, with theterror of doomed men.

Among others, I felt interested in the subject, from havingbeen brought up in the pastoral district of Tweed-dale, theresort of many Gipsies, who were treated with great favourby the inhabitants, for many reasons, the most importantof which were the desire of securing their good-will, fortheir own benefit, and the use which they were to them inselling them articles in request, and the various mechanicalturns which they possessed; and often from the naturalgenerosity of people so circumstanced. My curiosity wasexcited, and having various sources of information at command,I proceeded to write a few short articles for Blackwood’sMagazine, which were well received, as the followingletters from Mr. William Blackwood will show:

“I now send a proof of No. 2 Gipsy article. I hope youare pleased, and will return it with your corrections onMonday or Tuesday. We shall be glad to hear you are[57]going on with the continuation, for I assure you your formerarticle has been as popular as anything almost we ever hadin the magazine.”

“Your magazine was sent this morning by the coach, butI had not time to write you last night. Mr. Walter Scottis quite delighted with the Gipsies.”

“I am this moment favoured with your interesting packet.Your Gipsies, from the slight glance I have given them,seem to be as amusing as ever.”

“It was not in my power to get your number sent off. Itis a very interesting one. You will be much pleased withMr. Scott’s little article on Buckhaven, in which he paysyou some very just compliments.”[13]

At the same time I was much encouraged, by the authorof Guy Mannering, to prosecute my enquiries, by receivingseveral communications from him, and conversing with himat Abbotsford, on the subject.

“This letter has been by me many weeks, waiting for afrank, and besides, our mutual friend, Mr. Laidlaw, underwhose charge my agricultural operations are now proceedingin great style, gave me some hope of seeing you in thispart of the country. I should like much to have asked yousome questions about the Gipsies, and particularly that greatmystery—their language. I cannot determine, in my ownmind, whether it is likely to prove really a corrupt easterndialect, or whether it has degenerated into mere jargon.”

About the same time I received the following letter fromMr. William Laidlaw, the particular friend of Sir WalterScott, and manager of his estate at Abbotsford, as mentionedin the foregoing letter; the author of “Lucy’s Flittin,”and a contributor to Blackwood:

“I was very seriously disappointed at not seeing youwhen you were in this (part of the) country, and so was noless a person than the mighty minstrel himself. He chargedme to let him know whenever you arrived, for he was veryanxious to see you. What would it be to you to take thecoach, and three days before you, and again see your fatherand mother, come here on an evening, and call on Mr. Scottnext day? We would then get you full information uponthe science of defence in all its departments. Quarterstaffis now little practised; but it was a sort of legerdemainway of fighting that I never hadmuckle broo of, although Iknow somewhat of the method. It was a most unfortunateand stupid trick of the man to blow you up with your kittleacquaintances. I hope they will forgive and forget. I amvery much interested about the language (Gipsy). Mr.Scott has repeatedly said, that whatever you hear or see, youshouldnever let on to naebody, no doubt excepting himself.Be sure and come well provided with specimens of thevocables, as he says he might perhaps have it in his powerto assist you in your enquiries.”

“The inclosed letter has long been written. I only nowsend it to show that I have not been ungrateful, though latein expressing my thanks. The progress you have been ableto make in the Gipsy language is most extremely interesting.My acquaintance with most European languages, and withslang words and expressions, enables me to say positively,[59]that the Gipsy words you have collected have no referenceto either, with the exception of three or four.[14] I havelittle doubt, from the sound and appearance, that they areOriental, probably Hindostanee. When I go to Edinburgh,I shall endeavour to find a copy of Grellmann, to comparethe language of the German Gipsies with that of the Scottishtribes. As you have already done so much, I pray youto proceed in your enquiries, but by no means to make anythingpublic, as it might spread a premature alarm, andobstruct your future enquiries. It would be importantto get the same words from different individuals; and inorder to verify the collection, I would recommend you toset down the names of the persons by whom they were communicated.It would be important to know whether theyhave a real language, with the usual parts of speech, orwhether they have a collection of nouns, combined by our ownlanguage. I suspect the former to be the case, from thespecimens I have had. I should like much to see the articleyou proposed for the magazine. I am not squeamish aboutdelicacies, where knowledge is to be sifted out and acquired.I like Ebony’s [15] idea of a history of the Gipsies very much,and I wish you would undertake it. I gave all my scrapsto the magazine at its commencement, but I think myselfentitled to say that you are welcome to the use of them,should you choose to incorporate them into such a work.Do not be in too great a hurry, but get as many materialsas you can.”[16]

“An authentic list of Gipsy words, as used in Scotland,especially if in such numbers as may afford any reasonable[60]or probable conjecture as to the structure of the language,is a desideratum in Scottish literature which would be veryacceptable to the philologist, as well as an addition to generalhistory. I am not aware that any such exists, thoughthere is a German publication on the subject, which it wouldbe very necessary to consult.[17] That the language exists, Ihave no doubt, though I should rather think the number towhich it is known is somewhat exaggerated. I need notpoint out to you the difference between thecant language,orslang, used by thieves or flash men in general, and thepeculiar dialect said to be spoken by the Gipsies.[18] Thedifference ought to be very carefully noticed, to ascertainwhat sort of language they exactly talk; whether it is anoriginal tongue, having its own mode of construction, or aspeech made up of cant expressions, having an English orScotch ground-work, and only patched up so as to be unintelligibleto the common hearer. There is nothing elseoccurs to me by which I can be of service to your enquiry.My own opinion leads me to think that the Gipsies have adistinct and proper language, but I do not consider it isextensive enough to form any settled conclusion. If thereoccur any facts which I can be supposed to know, on whichyou desire information, I will be willing to give them, inillustration of so curious an enquiry. I have found them, ingeneral, civil and amenable to reason; I must, nevertheless,add that they are vindictive, and that, as the knowledgeof their language is the secret which their habits and ignorancemake them tenacious of, I think your researches,unless conducted with great prudence, may possibly exposeyou to personal danger. For the same reason, you oughtto complete all the information you can collect, beforealarming them by a premature publication, as, after you[61]have published, there will be great obstructions to futurecommunications on the subject.”

From what has been said, it will be seen that the followinginvestigation has had quite a different object than adescription of the manners and habits of the common vagrantsof the country; for no possible entertainment could havebeen derived from such an undignified undertaking. Andyet many of our youth, although otherwise well informed,have never made this distinction; owing, no doubt, to theencreased attention which those in power have, in late years,bestowed on the internal affairs of the country, and theunseen, but no less surely felt, pressure of the advancementof the general mass, and especially of the lower classesof the community, forcing many of these people into positionsbeyond the observation of those unacquainted withtheir language and traits of character. When it is, therefore,considered, that the body treated of, is originally anexotic, comprising, I am satisfied, no less than five thousandsouls in Scotland,[19] speaking an original and peculiar language,which is mysteriously used among themselves withgreat secrecy, and differing so widely from the ordinary nativesof the soil, it may well claim some little portion of publicattention. A further importance attaches to the subject,when it is considered that a proportionate number is to befound in the other divisions of the British Isles, and largehordes in all parts of Europe, and more or less in everyother part of the world; in all places speaking the samelanguage, with only a slight difference in dialect, and manifestingthe same peculiarities. In using the language of Dr.Bright, it may be said, that the circumstance is the mostsingular phenomenon in the history of man; much morestriking, indeed, than that of the Jews. For the Jews havebeen favoured with the most splendid antecedents; a commonparentage; a common history; a special and exclusiverevelation; a deeply rooted religious prejudice, and antipathy;a common persecution; and whatever might appearnecessary to preserve their identity in the world, exceptingan isolated territorial and political existence.[20] The Gipsies,[62]on the other hand, have had none of these advantages. Butit is certain that the leaders of their bands, in addition totheir piteous representations, must have had something strikingabout them, to recommend them to the favourable noticewhich they seem to have met with, at the hands of some ofthe sovereigns of Europe, when they made their appearancethere, and spread over its surface. Still, their assumptionsmight, and in all probability did, rest merely upon an amountof general superiority of character, of a particular kind,without even the first elements of education, which in thatage would amount to something; a leading feature of characterwhich their chiefs have ever since maintained; andyet, although everything has been left by them to tradition,the Gipsies speak their language much better than the Jews.

Gipsies and Jews have many things in common. Theyare both strangers and sojourners, in a sense, wherever theyare to be found; “dwelling in tents,” the one literally, theother figuratively. They have each undergone many bloodypersecutions; the one for his stubborn blindness to the adventof the Messiah, the other for being a heathen, andworse than a heathen—for being nothing at all, but linkedwith the evil one, in all manner of witchcraft and sin.Each race has had many crimes brought against it; theGipsy, those of a positive, and the Jew, those of a constructiveand arbitrary nature. But in these respects theydiffer: the Jew has been known and famed for doing almostanything for money; and the Gipsy for the mere gratificationof his most innate nature—that of appropriating tohimself, when he needs it, that which is claimed by any outof the circle of his consanguinity. The one’s soul is givento accumulating, and, if it is in his power, he becomes rich;the other more commonly aims at securing what meets hisordinary wants, and, perhaps, some little thing additional;[63]or, if he prove otherwise, he liberally spends what he acquires.The Gipsy is humane to a stranger, when he hasbeen rightly appealed to; but when that circumstance iswanting, he will never hesitate to rob him, unless when hestands indebted to him, or, it may be, his immediate relations,for previous acts of kindness. To indulge his hatred towardsan enemy, a Jew will oppress him, if he is his debtor,“exacting his bond;” or if he is not his debtor, he will oftenendeavour to get him to become such, with the same motive;or it may be, if his enemy stands in need of accommodation,he will not supply his wants; at other times, if he is poor,he will ostentatiously make a display of his wealth, to spitehim; and, in carrying out his vengeance, will sometimes displaythe malignity, barring, perhaps, the shedding of blood,of almost every other race combined. In such a case, aGipsy will rob, burn, maltreat, maim, carry off a child, andsometimes murder, but not often the two last at the presentday.[21] The two races are to be found side by side, incountries characterized by almost every degree of climateand stage of civilization, each displaying its peculiar type offeature, but differing in this respect, that the Gipsies readilyadopt others into their tribe, at such a tender age as tosecure an infallible attachment to their race and habits.This circumstance has produced, in many instances, a changein the colour of the hair and eyes of the descendants ofthose adopted. In some such cases, it requires an intimateknowledge of the body, to detect the peculiarity common toall, and especially in those who have conformed to the waysof the other inhabitants. In this they agree—that they despiseand hate, and are despised and hated by, those amongwhom they live. But in this they differ—that the Jew enteredEurope, as it were, singly and by stealth, pursuingpretty much the avocations he yet follows; but the Gipsies,in bands, and openly, although they were forced to betakethemselves to places of retreat, and break up into smallerbands. It is true that the Jew was driven from his homeeighteen centuries ago, and that it is not yet five since theGipsy appeared in Europe. We know who the Jew is, andsomething of the providence and circumstances under whichhe suffers, and what future awaits him; but who is this singular[64]and unfortunate exile, whose origin and cause of banishmentnone can comprehend—who is this wandering Gipsy?

After the receipt of the second of Sir Walter Scott’sletters, already alluded to, I discontinued the few short articlesI had written for Blackwood, on the Fifeshire Gipsies;but I have incorporated the most interesting part of theminto the work, forming, however, only a small part of thewhole. Since it was written, I have seen Mr. Borrow onthe Gipsies in Spain, and the short report of the Rev. Mr.Baird, to the Scottish Church Society; the latter printed in1840, and the former in 1841. TheGitanos in Spain andtheTinklers in Scotland are, in almost every particular, thesame people, while the Yetholm Gipsy words in Mr. Baird’sreport and those collected by me, for the most part, betweenthe years 1817 and 1831, are word for word the same.

In submitting this work to the public, I deem it necessaryto say a word or two as to the authorities upon which thefacts contained in it rest. My authorities for those underthe heads of Fife and Linlithgowshire Gipsies, were aged andcreditable persons, who had been eye-witnesses to the greaterpart of the transactions; in some cases, the particulars werequite current in their time. The details under the head ofGipsies who frequented Tweed-dale, Ettrick Forest, Annandale,and the upper ward of Lanarkshire, were chiefly derivedfrom the memories of some of my relatives, and otherindividuals of credit, who had many opportunities of observingthe manners of these wanderers, in the South of Scotland,the greater number being confirmed by the Gipsies, on beinginterrogated. The particulars under the head of the ceremoniesof marriage and divorce, and the sacrifice of horses,were related by Gipsies, and confirmed by other undoubtedtestimony, as will appear in detail. Almost every recentoccurrence and matter relative to the present condition,employment, and number of the body, is the result of my ownpersonal enquiries and observations, while the whole specimensof the language, and the facts immediately connectedtherewith, were written down, with my own hand, from themouths of the Gipsies themselves, and confirmed, at intervals,by others. Indeed, my chief object has been to produce factsfrom an original source, in Scotland, as far as respects manners,customs, and language, for the purpose of ascertainingthe origin of this mysterious race, and the country from[65]which they have migrated; and the result, to my mind, is acomplete confirmation of Grellmann, Hoyland, and Bright,that they are from Hindostan.

In writing the history of any barbarous race, if history itcan be called, the field for our observation must necessarilybe very limited. This may especially be said of a peoplelike the Gipsies; for, having, as a people, neither literature,records, nor education,[22] all that can be drawn together oftheir history, from themselves, must be confined to that ofthe present, or of such time as the freshness of their traditionmay suffice to illustrate; unless it be a few precariousnotices of them, that may have been elicited from their havingcome, it may be, in violent contact with their civilized neighboursaround them. In attempting such a work, in connectionwith so singular a people, the difficulties in the way of succeedingin it are extraordinarily great, as the reader mayhave perceived, from what has already been written, and asthe “blowing up,” alluded to in Mr. Laidlaw’s letter, willillustrate, and which was as follows:

I had obtained some of the Gipsy language from a principalfamily of the tribe, on condition of not publishingnames, or place of residence; and, at many miles’ distance, Ihad also obtained some particulars relative to the customsand manners of the race, from a highly respectable farmer,in the south of Scotland. At his farm, the family alludedto always took up their quarters, in their periodical journeysthrough the country. The farmer, without ever thinking ofthe consequences, told them that I was collecting materialsfor a publication on the Tinklers, in Scotland, and that everythingrelative to their tribe would be given to the world.The aged chief of the family was thrown into the greatestdistress, at the idea of the name and residence of himselfand family being made public. I received a letter from thefamily, deeply lamenting that they had ever communicated aword to me relative to their language, and stating that the oldman was like to break his heart, at his own imprudence, beingin agony at the thought of his language being published to theworld. I assured them, however, that they had no cause forfear, as I had never so much as mentioned their names to[66]their friend, the farmer, and that I would strictly adhere tothe promise I had given them. This was one of the manyinstances in which I was obstructed in my labours, for, howevercautious I might personally be, others, who became insome way or other acquainted with my object, were, frominconsiderate meddling, the cause of many difficulties beingthrown in my way, and the consequent loss of much interestinginformation. But for this unfortunate circumstance, Iam sanguine, from the method I took in managing the Gipsies,I would have been able to collect songs, and sentencesof their language, and much more information than whathas been procured, at whatever value the reader may estimatethat; for the Gipsies are always more or less in communicationwith each other, in their various divisions of thecountry, especially when threatened with anything deemeddangerous, which they circulate among themselves with astonishingcelerity.

And, in revising his works, in 1831, Sir Walter Scott, in anote to Quentin Durward, says, relative to the present work:

“It is natural to suppose, the band, (Gipsy), as it nowexists, is much mingled with Europeans; but most of thesehave been brought up from childhood among them, andlearned all their practices. . . . When they are inclosest contact with the ordinary peasants around them, theystill keep their language a mystery. There is little doubt,however, that it is a dialect of the Hindostanee, from thespecimens produced by Grellmann, Hoyland, and others whohave written on the subject. But the author, (continues SirWalter,) has, besides their authority, personal occasion toknow, that an individual, out of mere curiosity, and availinghimself, with patience and assiduity, of such opportunities asoffered, has made himself capable of conversing with anyGipsy whom he meets, or can, like the royal Hal, drinkwith any tinker, in his own language.[23] The astonishment[67]excited among these vagrants, on finding a stranger participantof their mystery, occasions very ludicrous scenes. Itis to be hoped this gentleman will publish the knowledge hepossesses on so singular a topic. There are prudentialreasons for postponing this disclosure at present, for, althoughmuch more reconciled to society since they havebeen less the objects of legal persecution, the Gipsies arestill a ferocious and vindictive people.”[24]

CHAPTER I.

CONTINENTAL GIPSIES.

Before giving an account of the Gipsies in Scotland, Ishall, by way of introduction, briefly notice the periods oftime at which they were observed in the different states onthe continent of Europe, and point out the different periodsat which their governments found it necessary to expel themfrom their respective territories. I shall also add a fewfacts illustrative of the manners of the continental tribes, forthe purpose of showing that those in Scotland, England, andIreland, are all branches of the same stock. I shall, likewise,add a few facts illustrative of the tribe who foundtheir way into England. I am indebted for my informationon the early history of the continental Gipsies, chiefly tothe works of Grellmann, Hoyland and Bright.

It appears that none of these wanderers had been seen inChristendom before the year 1400.[25] But, in the beginningof the fifteenth century, this people first attracted notice,and, within a few years after their arrival, had spread themselvesover the whole continent. The earliest mentionwhich is made of them, was in the years 1414 and 1417,when they were observed in Germany. In 1418, they werefound in Switzerland; in 1422, in Italy; in 1427, they arementioned as being in the neighbourhood of Paris; andabout the same time, in Spain.[26]

They seem to have received various appellations. InFrance, they were calledBohemians; in Holland,Heydens—heathens;in some parts of Germany, and in Sweden andDenmark, they were thought to beTartars; but over Germany,in general, they were calledZigeuners, a word whichmeans wanderers up and down. In Portugal, they received[70]the name ofSiganos; in Spain,Gitanos; and in Italy,Cingari.They were also called in Italy, Hungary, and Germany,Tziganys; and in Transylvania,Cyganis. Amongthe Turks, and other eastern nations, they were denominatedTschingenes; but the Moors and Arabians applied to them,perhaps, the most just appellation of any—Charami, robbers.[27]

“When they arrived at Paris, 17th August, 1427, nearlyall of them had their ears bored, with one or two silver ringsin each, which, they said, were esteemed ornaments in theircountry. The men were black, their hair curled; the womenremarkably black, and all their faces scarred.”[28] Dr.Hurd, in his account of the different religions of the world,says, that the hair of these men was “frizzled,” and thatsome of the women were witches, and “had hair like ahorse’s tail.” It is, I think, to be inferred from this passage,that the men had designedly curled their hair, and that thehair of the females was long and coarse—not the short, woollyhair of the African. I have, myself, seen English femaleGipsies with hair as long, coarse, and thick as a blackhorse’s tail.

“At the time of the first appearance of the Gipsies, nocertain information seems to have been obtained as to thecountry from which they came. It is, however, supposedthat they entered Europe in the south-east, probably throughTransylvania. At first, they represented themselves asEgyptian pilgrims, and, under that character, obtained considerablerespect during half a century; being favoured bydifferent potentates with passports, and letters of security.Gradually, however, they really became, or were fancied,troublesome, and Italy, Sweden, Denmark and Germany,successively attempted their expulsion, in the sixteenth century.”[29]

With the exception of Hungary and Transylvania, it isbelieved that every state in Europe attempted either theirexpulsion or extermination; but, notwithstanding the dreadfulseverity of the numerous laws and edicts promulgatedagainst them, they remained in every part of Europe, indefiance of every effort made by their respective governmentsto get rid of their unwelcome guests.

[71]“German writers say that King Ferdinand of Spain, whoesteemed it a good work to expatriate useful and profitablesubjects—Jews, and even Moorish families—could much lessbe guilty of an impropriety, in laying hands on the mischievousprogeny of Gipsies. The edict for their exterminationwas published in the year 1492. But, instead of passing theboundaries, they only slunk into hiding places, and shortlyafter appeared in as great numbers as before. The Emperor,Charles V, persecuted them afresh; as did Philip II. Sincethat time, they nestled in again, and were threatened withanother storm, but it blew over without taking effect.

“In France, Francis I passed an edict for their expulsion,and at the assembly of the states of Orleans, in 1561,all governors of cities received orders to drive them outwith fire and sword. Nevertheless, in process of time, theycollected again, and encreased to such a degree that, in 1612,a new order came out for their extermination. In the year1572, they were compelled to retire from the territories ofMilan and Parma; and, at a period somewhat earlier, theywere chased beyond the Venetian jurisdiction.

“They were not allowed the privilege of remaining inDenmark, as the code of Danish law specifies: ‘The TartarGipsies, who wander about everywhere, doing great damageto the people, by their lies, thefts and witchcraft, shall betaken into custody by every magistrate.’ Sweden was notmore favourable, having attacked them at three differenttimes. A very sharp order for their expulsion came out in1662. The diet of 1723 published a second; and that of1727 repeated the foregoing, with additional severity.

“They were excluded from the Netherlands, under thepain of death, by Charles V, and afterwards, by the UnitedStates, in 1582. But the greatest number of sentences ofexile have been pronounced against them in Germany. Thebeginning was made under Maximilian I, at the AugsburgDiet, in 1500; and the same business occupied the attentionof the Diet in 1530, 1544, 1548, and 1551; and was alsoagain enforced, in the improved police regulations of Frankfort,in 1577.”[30] The Germans entertained the notion thatthe Gipsies were spies for the Turks. They were not allowedto pass through, remain, or trade within the Empire. Theywere ordered to quit entirely the German dominions, by a[72]certain day, and whoever injured them, after that period, wasconsidered to have committed no crime.

“But a general extermination never did happen, for thelaw banishing them passed in one state before it wasthought of in the next, or when a like order had long becomeobsolete, and sunk into oblivion. These undesirable guestswere, therefore, merely compelled to shift their quarters toan adjoining state, where they remained till the governmentbegan to clear them away, upon which the fugitives eitherretired whence they came, or went on progressively to athird place—thus making a continual circle.”[31]

That almost the whole of Christendom had been so provokedby the conduct of the Gipsies as to have attemptedtheir expulsion, or rather their extermination, merely becausethey were jugglers, fortune-tellers, astrologers, warlocks,witches and impostors, is a thing not for a moment to besupposed. I am inclined to believe that the true cause ofthe promulgation of the excessively sanguinary laws andedicts, for the extermination of the whole Gipsy nation inEurope, must be looked for in much more serious crimesthan those mentioned; and that these greater offences canbe no other than theft and robbery, and living upon theinhabitants of the countries through which they travelled,at free quarters, or what we, in Scotland, call sorning.[32]But, on the other hand, I am convinced that the Gipsieshave committed few murders on individualsout of their owntribe. As far as our authorities go, the general characterof these people seems to have been the same, wherever theyhave made their appearance on the face of the earth; andthe chief and leading feature of that extraordinary characterappears to me to have been, in general, an hereditarypropensity to theft and robbery, in men, women and children.

In whatever country we find the Gipsies, their manners,habits, and cast of features are uniformly the same. Theiroccupations are in every respect the same. They were, on[73]the continent, horse-dealers, innkeepers, workers in iron,musicians, astrologers, jugglers, and fortune-tellers by palmistry.They are also accused of cheating, lying, and witchcraft,and, in general, charged with being thieves and robbers.They roam up and down the country, without anyfixed habitations, living in tents, and hawking small triflesof merchandise for the use of the people among whom theytravel. The whole race were great frequenters of fairs.They seldom formed matrimonial alliances out of their owntribe.[33] It will be seen, in another part of this work, thatthe language of the continental Gipsies is the same as thatof those in Scotland, England and Ireland. As to thereligious opinions of the continental Gipsies, they appear tohave had none at all. It is said they were “worse thanheathens.” “It is, in reality,” says Twiss, “almost absurdto talk of the religion of this set of people, whose moralcharacters are so depraved as to make it evident they believein nothing capable of being a check to their passions.”“Indeed,” adds Hoyland, “it is asserted that no Gipsy hasany idea of submission to any fixed profession of faith.” Itappears to me that, to secure to themselves protection fromthe different governments, they only conformed outwardlyto the customs and religion of the country in which theyhappened to reside at the time.

Cantemir, according to Grellmann, says that the Gipsiesare dispersed all over Moldavia, where every baron hasseveral families subject to him. In Wallachia and theSclavonian countries they are quite as numerous. In Wallachiaand Moldavia they are divided into two classes—theprincely and boyardish. The former, according to Sulzer,amount to many thousands; but that is trifling in comparisonwith the latter, as there is not a single Boyard in Wallachiawho has not at least three or four of them for slaves; therich have often some hundreds under their command,[34] Grellmann[74]divides those in Transylvania into four classes: 1st.city Gipsies, who are the most civilized of all, and maintainthemselves by music, smith-work, selling old clothes, horse-dealing,&c.; 2d. gold-washers; 3d. tent Gipsies; and 4th.Egyptian Gipsies. These last are more filthy, and moreaddicted to stealing than any of the others. Those whoare gold-washers, in Transylvania and the Banat, have nointercourse with others of their nation; nor do they like tobe called Gipsies. They sift gold sand in summer, and inwinter make trays and troughs, which they sell in an honestway. They seldom beg, and more rarely steal. Dr. Clarkesays of the Wallachian Gipsies, that they are not an idlerace; they ought rather to be described as a laboriousrace; and the majority honestly endeavour to earn a livelihood.

[75]“Bessarabia, all Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, and Romaniaswarm with Gipsies; even in Constantinople they are innumerable.In Romania, a large tract of Mount Hæmus,which they inhabit, has acquired from them the name ofTschenghe Valken—Gipsy Mountain. This district extendsfrom the city of Aydos quite to Phillippopolis, and containsmore Gipsies than any other province in the Turkishempire.

“They were universally to be found in Italy, insomuchthat even Sicily and Sardinia were not free. But they weremost numerous in the dominions of the Church; probablybecause there was the worst police, with much superstition.By the former, they were left undisturbed; and the latterenticed them to deceive the ignorant, as it afforded them anopportunity of obtaining a plentiful contribution by theirfortune-telling and enchanted amulets. There was a generallaw throughout Italy, that no Gipsy should remain morethan two nights in any one place. By this regulation, it istrue, no place retained its guests long; but no sooner wasone gone than another came in his room: it was a continualcircle, and quite as convenient to them as a perfect tolerationwould have been. Italy rather suffered than benefitedby this law; as, by keeping these people in constant motion,they would do more mischief there, than in places wherethey were permitted to remain stationary.

“In Poland and Lithuania, as well as in Courland, thereare an amazing number of Gipsies. A person may live manyyears in Upper Saxony, or in the districts of Hanover andBrunswick, without seeing a single Gipsy. When onehappens to stray into a village or town, he occasions asmuch disturbance as if the black gentleman with his clovenfoot appeared; he frightens children from their play, anddraws the attention of the older people, till the police gethold of him, and make him again invisible. In some of theprovinces of the Rhine, a Gipsy is a very common sight.Some years ago, there were such numbers of them in theDuchy of Wurtemberg, that they were seen lying about everywhere;but the government ordered departments of soldiersto drive them from their holes and lurking-places throughoutthe country, and then transported the congregated swarm,in the same manner as they were treated by the Duke ofDeuxponts. In France, before the Revolution, there were[76]but few Gipsies, for the obvious reason that every Gipsywho could be apprehended fell a sacrifice to thepolice.”[35]

As regards the Gipsies of Spain, Dr. Bright remarks:That the disposition of the Gitano is more inclined to afixed residence than that of the Gipsy of other countries, isbeyond doubt. The generality are the settled inhabitants ofconsiderable towns, and, although the occupations of somenecessarily lead them to a more vagrant life, the proportionis small who do not consider some hovel in a suburb as ahome. ‘Money is in the city—not in the country,’ is a sayingfrequently in their mouths. In the vilest quarters of everylarge town of the southern provinces, there are Gitanos livingtogether, sometimes occupying whole barriers. ButSeville is, perhaps, the spot in which the largest proportionis found. Their principal occupation is the manufactureand sale of articles of iron. Their quarters may always betraced by the ring of the hammer and anvil, and many amassconsiderable wealth. An inferior class have the exclusivetrade in second-hand articles, which they sell at the doorsof their dwellings, or at benches at the entrance of towns, orby the sides of frequented walks. A still inferior orderwander about, mending pots, and selling tongs and othertrifling articles. In Cadiz, they monopolize the trade ofbutchering, and frequently amass wealth. Others, again,exclusively fill the office of Matador of the Bull Plaza, whilethe Toreros are for the most part of the same race. Othersare employed as dressers of mules and asses; some as figure-dancers,and many as performers in the theatre. Some gaina livelihood by their musical talents. Dancing, singing,music and fortune-telling are the only objects of generalpursuit for the females. Sometimes they dance in the inferiortheatres, and sing and dance in the streets. Palmistryis one of their most productive avocations. In Seville, afew make and sell an inferior kind of mat. Besides these,there is a class of Gipsies in Spain who lead a vagrant life[77]throughout—residing chiefly in the woods and mountains,and known as mountaineers. These rarely visit towns, andlive by fraud and pillage. There are also others who wanderabout the country—such as tinkers, dancers, singers, andjobbers in asses and mules.

Bishop Pocoke, prior to 1745, mentions having met withGipsies in the northern part of Syria, where he found themin great numbers, passing for Mahommedans, living in tentsor caravans, dealing in milch cows, when near towns, manufacturingcoarse carpets, and having a much better characterthan their relations in Hungary or England. By the censusof the Crimea, in 1793, the population was set down at157,125, of which 3,225 were Gipsies. Bishop Heber statesthat the Persian Gipsies are of much better caste, and muchricher than those of India, Russia or England. In India, hesays, the Gipsies are the same tall, fine-limbed, bony, slenderpeople, with the same large, black, brilliant eyes, loweringforehead, and long hair, curled at the extremities, which areto be met with on a common in England. He mentions, inhis journal of travels through Bengal, having met with aGipsy camp on the Ganges. The women and children followedhim, begging, and had no clothes on them, except acoarse kind of veil, thrown back from the shoulders, and aragged cloth, wrapped round their waists, like a petticoat.One of the women was very pretty, and the forms of all thethree were such as a sculptor would have been glad to takeas his models.

Besides those in Europe, it is stated by Grellmann thatthe Gipsies are also scattered over Asia, and are to be foundin the centre of Africa. In Europe alone, he supposes (in1782), their number will amount to between seven and eighthundred thousand. So numerous did they become in France,that the king, in 1545, sixteen years before they were expelledfrom that kingdom, entertained an idea of embodyingfour thousand of them, to act as pioneers in taking Boulogne,then in possession of England. It is impossible to ascertain,at the present day, how many Gipsies might be even in aparish; but, taking in the whole world, there must be animmense number in existence.

About the time the Gipsies first appeared in Europe, theirchiefs, under the titles of dukes, earls, lords, counts, andknights of Little Egypt, rode up and down the country on[78]horseback, dressed in gay apparel, and attended by a trainof ragged and miserable inferiors, having, also, hawks andhounds in their retinue. It appears to me, that the excessivevanity of these chiefs had induced them, in imitation of thecustoms of civilized society, to assume these high-soundingEuropean titles of honour. I have not observed, on record,any form of government, laws or customs, by which the internalaffairs of the tribe, on the Continent, were regulated.On these important points, if I am not mistaken, all the authors,with the exception of Grellmann, who have writtenon the Gipsies, are silent. Grellmann says of the HungarianGipsies: “They still continue the custom among themselvesof dignifying certain persons, whom they make heads overthem, and call by the exalted Sclavonian title of Waywode.To choose their Waywode, the Gipsies take the opportunity,when a great number of them are assembled in one place,commonly in the open field. The elected person is lifted upthree times, amidst the loudest acclamation, and confirmedin his dignity by presents. His wife undergoes the sameceremony. When this solemnity is performed, they separatewith great conceit, imagining themselves people of moreconsequence than electors returning from the choice of anemperor. Every one who is of a family descended from aformer Waywode is eligible; but those who are bestclothed, not very poor, of large stature, and about the middleage, have generally the preference. The particular distinguishingmark of dignity is a large whip, hanging over theshoulder. His outward deportment, his walk and air, alsoplainly show his head to be filled with notions of authority.”According to the same authority, the Waywode of the Gipsiesin Courland is distinguished from the principals of thehordes in other countries, being not only much respected byhis own people, but even by the Courland nobility. He isesteemed a man of high rank, and is frequently to be metwith at entertainments, and card parties, in the first families,where he is always a welcome guest. His dress is uncommonlyrich, in comparison with others of his tribe; generallysilk in summer, and constantly velvet in winter.

As a specimen of the manners and ferocious disposition ofthe German Gipsies, so late as the year 1726, I shall heretranscribe a few extracts from an article published in Blackwood’sMagazine, for January, 1818. This interesting article[79]is partly an abridged translation, or rather the substance,of a German work on the Gipsies, entitled “A CircumstantialAccount of the Famous Egyptian Band of Thieves, andRobbers, and Murderers, whose Leaders were executed atGiessen, by Cord, and Sword, and Wheel, on the 14th and15th November, 1726, &c.” It is edited by Dr. John BenjaminWiessenburch, an assessor of the criminal tribunal bywhich these malefactors were condemned, and published atFrankfort and Leipsic, in the year 1727. The translator ofthis work is Sir Walter Scott, who obligingly offered me theuse of his “scraps” on this subject. The following are thedetails in his own words.

“A curious preliminary dissertation records some factsrespecting the German Gipsies, which are not uninteresting.

“From the authorities collected by Wiessenburch, it appearsthat these wanderers first appeared in Germany duringthe reign of Sigismund. The exact year has beendisputed; but it is generally placed betwixt 1416 and 1420.They appeared in various bands, under chiefs, to whomthey acknowledged obedience, and who assumed the titlesof dukes and earls. These leaders originally affected a certaindegree of consequence, travelling well equipped, and onhorseback, and bringing hawks and hounds in their retinue.Like John Faw, ‘Lord of Little Egypt,’ they sometimessucceeded in imposing upon the Germans the belief in theirvery apocryphal dignity, which they assumed during theirlives, and recorded upon their tombs, as appears from threeepitaphs, quoted by Dr. Wiessenburch. One is in a conventat Steinbach, and records that on St. Sebastians’ eve, 1445,‘died the Lord Pannel, Duke of Little Egypt, and Baron ofHirschhorn, in the same land.’ A monumental inscriptionat Bautmer, records the death of the ‘Noble Earl Peter, ofLesser Egypt, in 1453;’ and a third, at Pferz, as late as1498, announces the death of the ‘high-born, Lord John,Earl of Little Egypt, to whose soul God be gracious andmerciful.’

“In describing the state of the German Gipsies, in 1726,the author whom we are quoting gives the leading featuresproper to those in other countries. Their disposition towandering, to idleness, to theft, to polygamy, or rather promiscuouslicence, are all commemorated; nor are the women’spretentions to fortune-telling, and their practice of[80]stealing children, omitted. Instead of travelling in verylarge bands, as at their first arrival, they are described asforming small parties, in which the females are far morenumerous than the men, and which are each under commandof a leader, chosen rather from reputation than by right ofbirth. The men, unless when engaged in robbery or theft,lead a life of absolute idleness, and are supported by whatthe women can procure by begging, stealing or telling fortunes.These resources are so scanty that they often sufferthe most severe extremities of hunger and cold. Some ofthe Gipsies executed at Giessen pretended that they hadnot eaten a morsel of bread for four days before they wereapprehended; yet are they so much attached to freedom,and licence of this wandering life, that, notwithstanding itsmiseries, it has not only been found impossible to reclaimthe native Gipsies, who claim it by inheritance, but eventhose who, not born in that state, have associated themselveswith their bands, and become so wedded to it, as to preferit to all others.[36]

“As an exception, Wiessenburch mentions some gangs,where the men, as in Scotland, exercise the profession oftravelling smiths, or tinkers, or deal in pottery, or practiseas musicians. Finally, he notices that in Hungary thegangs assumed their names from the countries which theychiefly traversed, as the band of Upper Saxony, of Brandenburg,and so forth. They resented, to extremity, any attempton the part of other Gipsies to intrude on their province;and such interference often led to battles, in which they shoteach other with as little remorse as they would have doneto dogs.[37] By these acts of cruelty to each other, they becamegradually familiarized with blood, as well as witharms, to which another cause contributed, in the beginningof the 18th century.

“In former times, these outcasts were not permitted to[81]bear arms in the service of any Christian power, but thelong wars of Louis XIV had abolished this point of delicacy;and both in the French army, and those of the confederates,the stoutest and boldest of the Gipsies wereoccasionally enlisted, by choice or compulsion. These mengenerally tired soon of the rigour of military discipline, andescaping from their regiments on the first opportunity, wentback to their forests, with some knowledge of arms, andhabits bolder and more ferocious than those of their predecessors.Such deserters soon become leaders among thetribes, whose enterprises became, in proportion, more audaciousand desperate.

“In Germany, as in most other kingdoms of Europe,severe laws had been directed against this vagabond people,and the Landgraves of Hesse had not been behind-hand insuch denunciations. They were, on their arrest, brandedas vagabonds, punished with stripes, and banished from thecircle; and, in case of their return, were put to death withoutmercy. These measures only served to make them desperate.Their bands became more strong and more openin their depredations. They often marched as strong asfifty or a hundred armed men; bade defiance to the ordinarypolice, and plundered the villages in open day;wounded and slew the peasants, who endeavoured to protecttheir property; and skirmished, in some instances successfully,with parties of soldiers and militia, dispatchedagainst them. Their chiefs, on these occasions, were JohnLa Fortune, a determined villain, otherwise named Hemperla;another called the Great Gallant; his brother,Antony Alexander, called the Little Gallant; and others,entitled Lorries, Lampert, Gabriel, &c. Their ferocitymay be judged of from the following instances:

“On the 10th October, 1724, a land-lieutenant, or officerof police, named Emerander, set off with two assistants todisperse a band of Gipsies who had appeared near Hirzenhayn,in the territory of Stolberg. He seized on two orthree stragglers whom he found in the village, and whom,females as well as males, he seems to have treated withmuch severity. Some, however, escaped to a large bandwhich lay in an adjacent forest, who, under command of theGreat Gallant, Hemperla, Antony Alexander, and others,immediately put themselves in motion to rescue their comrades,[82]and avenge themselves of Emerander. The land-lieutenanthad the courage to ride out to meet them, withhis two attendants, at the passage of a bridge, where hefired his pistol at the advancing gang, and called out‘charge,’ as if he had been at the head of a party of cavalry.The Gipsies, however, aware, from the report of the fugitives,how weakly the officer was accompanied, continued toadvance to the end of the bridge, and ten or twelve, droppingeach on one knee, gave fire on Emerander, who wasthen obliged to turn his horse and ride off, leaving his twoassistants to the mercy of the banditti. One of these men,called Hempel, was instantly beaten down, and suffered,especially at the hands of the Gipsy women, much crueland abominable outrage. After stripping him of every ragof his clothes, they were about to murder the wretch outright;but at the earnest instance of the landlord of theinn, they contented themselves with beating him dreadfully,and imposing on him an oath that he never more would persecuteany Gipsy, or save anyfleshman, (dealer in humanflesh,) for so they called the officers of justice or police.[38]

“The other assistant of Emerander made his escape.But the principal was not so fortunate. When the Gipsieshad wrought their wicked pleasure on Hempel, they compelledthe landlord of the little inn to bring them a flagonof brandy, in which they mingled a charge of gunpowderand three pinches of salt; and each, partaking of this singularbeverage, took a solemn oath that they would standby each other until they had cut thongs, as they expressedit, out of the fleshman’s hide. The Great Gallant at thesame time distributed to them, out of a little box, billets,which each was directed to swallow, and which were supposedto render them invulnerable.

“Thus inflamed and encouraged, the whole route, amountingto fifty well armed men, besides women armed withclubs and axes, set off with horrid screams to a neighbouring[83]hamlet, called Glazhutte, in which the object of theirresentment sought refuge. They took military possessionof the streets, posting sentinels to prevent interruption orattack from the alarmed inhabitants. Their leaders thenpresented themselves before the inn, and demanded thatEmerander should be delivered up to them. When the innkeeperendeavoured to elude their demand, they forced theirway into the house, and finding the unhappy object of pursuitconcealed in a garret, Hemperla and others fired theirmuskets at him, then tore his clothes from his body, and precipitatedhim down the staircase, where he was dispatchedwith many wounds.

“Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the village began to taketo arms; and one of them attempted to ring the alarm-bell,but was prevented by an armed Gipsy, stationed for thatpurpose. At length their bloody work being ended, theGipsies assembled and retreated out of the town, with shoutsof triumph, exclaiming that the fleshman was slain, displayingtheir spoils and hands stained with blood, and headedby the Great Gallant, riding on the horse of the murderedofficer.

“I shall select from the volume another instance of thispeople’s cruelty still more detestable, since even vengeanceor hostility could not be alleged for its stimulating cause, asin the foregoing narrative. A country clergyman, namedHeinsius, the pastor of a village called Dorsdorff, who hadthe misfortune to be accounted a man of some wealth, wasthe subject of this tragedy.

“Hemperla, already mentioned, with a band of ten Gipsies,and a villain named Essper George, who had joined himselfwith them, though not of their nation by birth, beset thehouse of the unfortunate minister, with a resolution to breakin and possess themselves of his money; and if interruptedby the peasants, to fire upon them, and repel force by force.With this desperate intention, they surrounded the parsonage-houseat midnight; and their leader, Hemperla, havingcut a hole through the cover of the sink or gutter, endeavouredto creep into the house through that passage, holding in hishand a lighted torch made of straw. The daughter of theparson chanced, however, to be up, and in the kitchen, atthis late hour, by which fortunate circumstance she escapedthe fate of her father and mother. When the Gipsy saw[84]there was a person in the kitchen, he drew himself back outof the gutter, and ordered his gang to force the door, regardingthe noise which accompanied this violence as littleas if the place had been situated in a wilderness, instead ofa populous hamlet. Others of the gang were posted at thewindows of the house, to prevent the escape of the inmates.Nevertheless, the young woman, already mentioned, let herselfdown from a window which had escaped their notice,and ran to seek assistance for her parents.

“In the meanwhile the Gipsies had burst open the outwarddoor of the house, with a beam of wood which chancedto be lying in the court-yard. They next forced the doorof the sitting apartment, and were met by the poor clergyman,who prayed them at least to spare his life and that ofhis wife. But he spoke to men who knew no mercy; Hemperlastruck him on the breast with a torch; and receivingthe blow as a signal for death, the poor man staggered backto the table, and sinking in a chair, leaned his head on hishand, and expected the mortal blow. In this postureHemperla shot him dead with a pistol. The wife of theclergyman endeavoured to fly, on witnessing the murder ofher husband, but was dragged back, and slain by a pistol-shot,fired either by Essper George, or by a Gipsy calledChristian. By a crime so dreadful those murderers onlygained four silver cups, fourteen silver spoons, some triflingarticles of apparel, and about twenty-two florins in money.They might have made more important booty, but the sentinel,whom they left on the outside, now intimated to themthat the hamlet was alarmed, and that it was time to retire,which they did accordingly, undisturbed and in safety.

“The Gipsies committed many enormities similar to thoseabove detailed, and arrived at such a pitch of audacity aseven to threaten the person of the Landgrave himself; anenormity at which Dr. Wiessenburch, who never introducesthe name or titles of that prince without printing them inletters of at least an inch long, expresses becoming horror.This was too much to be endured. Strong detachments oftroops and militia scoured the country in different directions,and searched the woods and caverns which served the bandittifor places of retreat. These measures were for sometime attended with little effect. The Gipsies had the advantagesof a perfect knowledge of the country, and excellent[85]intelligence. They baffled the efforts of the officers detachedagainst them, and, on one or two occasions, even engagedthem with advantage. And when some females, unable tofollow the retreat of the men, were made prisoners on suchan occasion, the leaders caused it to be intimated to theauthorities at Giessen that if their women were not set atliberty, they would murder and rob on the high roads, andplunder and burn the country. This state of warfare lastedfrom 1718 until 1726, during which period the subjects ofthe Landgrave suffered the utmost hardships, as no man wassecure against nocturnal surprise of his property and person.

“At length, in the end of 1725, a heavy and continuedstorm of snow compelled the Gipsy hordes to abandon thewoods which had long served them as a refuge, and to approachmore near to the dwellings of men. As their movementscould be traced and observed, the land-lieutenant,Krocker, who had been an assistant to the murdered Emerander,received intelligence of a band of Gipsies havingappeared in the district of Sohnsassenheim, at a villagecalled Fauerbach. Being aided by a party of soldiers andvolunteers, he had the luck to secure the whole gang, beingtwelve men and women. Among these was the notoriousHemperla, who was dragged by the heels from an oven inwhich he was attempting to conceal himself. Others weretaken in the same manner, and imprisoned at Giessen, witha view to their trial.

“Numerous acts of theft, and robbery, and murder werelaid to the charge of these unfortunate wretches; and, accordingto the existing laws of the empire, they were interrogatedunder torture. They were first tormented by meansof thumb-screws, which they did not seem greatly to regard;the Spanish boots, or ‘leg-vices,’ were next applied, andseldom failed to extort confession. Hemperla alone setboth means at defiance, which induced the judges to believehe was possessed of some spell against these agonies.Having in vain searched his body for the supposed charm,they caused his hair to be cut off; on which he himself observedthat, had they not done so, he could have stood thetorture for some time longer. As it was, his resolution gaveway, and he made, under the second application of the Spanishboots, a full confession, not only of the murders of whichhe was accused, but of various other crimes. While he was[86]in this agony, the judges had the cruelty to introduce hismother, a noted Gipsy woman, called the crone, into the torture-chamber;who shrieked fearfully, and tore her face withher nails, on perceiving the condition of her son, and stillmore on hearing him acknowledge his guilt.

“Evidence of the guilt of the other prisoners was alsoobtained from their confessions, with or without torture,and from the testimony of witnesses examined by the fiscal.Sentence was finally passed on them, condemning four Gipsies,among whom were Hemperla and the Little Gallant, tobe broken on the wheel, nine others to be hanged, and thirteen,of whom the greater part were women, to be beheaded.They underwent their doom with great firmness, upon the14th and 15th November, 1726.

“The volume contains . . . . . . . some rude prints, representingthe murders committed by the Gipsies, and the mannerof their execution. There are also two prints representingthe portraits of the principal criminals, in which,though the execution be indifferent, the Gipsy features maybe clearly traced.”

Leaving this view of the character of the continentalGipsies, we may take the following as illustrative of one ofits brighter aspects. So late as the time of the celebratedBaron Trenck, it would appear that Germany was still infestedwith prodigiously large bands of Gipsies. In aforest near Ginnen, to which he had fled, to conceal himselffrom the pursuit of his persecutors, the Baron says: “Herewe fell in with a gang of Gipsies, (or rather banditti,)amounting to four hundred men, who dragged me to theircamp. They were mostly French and Prussian deserters,and, thinking me their equal, would force me to become oneof their band. But venturing to tell my story to theirleader, he presented me with a crown, gave us a small portionof bread and meat, and suffered us to depart in peace,after having been four-and-twenty hours in their company.”[39]

I shall conclude the notices of the continental Gipsies bysome extracts from an article published in a French periodicalwork, for September, 1802, on the Gipsies of the Pyrenees;who resemble, in many points, the inferior class of ourScottish Tinklers, about the beginning of the French war,more, perhaps, than those of any other country in Europe.

[87]“There exists, in the department of the Eastern Pyrenees,a people distinct from the rest of the inhabitants, of a foreignorigin, and without any settled habits. It seems to havefixed its residence there for a considerable time. It changesits situation, multiplies there, and never connects itself bymarriage with the other inhabitants. This people are calledGitanos, a Spanish word which signifies Egyptians. Thereare many Gitanos in Catalonia, who have similar habits tothe above-mentioned, but who are very strictly watched.They have all the vices of those Egyptians, or Bohemians,who formerly used to wander over the world, telling fortunes,and living at the expense of superstition and credulity.These Gitanos, less idle and less wanderers than their predecessors,are afraid of publicly professing the art of fortune-tellers;but their manner of life is scarcely different.

“They scatter themselves among villages, and lonesomefarms, where they steal fruit, poultry, and often even cattle;in short, everything that is portable. They are almost alwaysabroad, incessantly watching an opportunity to practisetheir thievery; they hide themselves with much dexterityfrom the search of the police. Their women, in particular,have an uncommon dexterity in pilfering. When they entera shop, they are watched with the utmost care; but withevery precaution they are not free from their rapines. Theyexcel, above all, in hiding the pieces of silver which aregiven in exchange for gold, which they never fail to offer inpayment, and they are so well hidden that they are oftenobliged to be undressed before restitution can be obtained.

“The Gitanos affect, externally, a great attachment to theCatholic religion; and if one was to judge from the numberof reliques they carry about with them, one would believethem exceedingly devout; but all who have well observedthem assure us they are as ignorant as hypocritical, and thatthey practise secretly a religion of their own. It is not rareto see their women, who have been lately brought to bed,have their children baptized several times, in different places,in order to obtain money from persons at their ease, whomthey choose for godfathers. Everything announces amongthem that moral degradation which must necessarily attachto a miserable, insulated caste, as strangers to society, whichonly suffers it through an excess of contempt.

“The Gitanos are disgustingly filthy, and almost all covered[88]with rags. They have neither tables, chairs, nor beds,but sit and eat on the ground. They are crowded in huts,pell-mell, in straw; and their neglect of the decorum of society,so dangerous to morals, must have the most melancholyconsequences on wretched vagabonds, abandoned to themselves.They consequently are accused of giving themselvesup to every disorder of the most infamous debauchery, andto respect neither the ties of blood nor the protecting lawsof the virtues of families.

“They feed on rotten poultry and fish, dogs and stinkingcats, which they seek for with avidity; and when this resourcefails them, they live on the entrails of animals, orother aliments of the lowest price. They leave their meatbut a very few minutes on the fire, and the place where theycook it exhales an infectious smell.

“They speak the Catalonian dialect, but they have, besides,a language to themselves, unintelligible to the nativesof the country, from whom they are very careful to hide theknowledge of it.

“The Gitanos are tanned like the mulattoes, of a sizeabove mediocrity, well formed, active, robust, supporting allthe changes of seasons, and sleeping in the open fields, whenevertheir interest requires it. Their features are irregular,and show them to belong to a transplanted race. Theyhave the mouth very wide, thick lips, and high cheek-bones.

“As the distrust they inspire causes them to be carefullywatched, it is not always possible for them to live by stealing:they then have recourse to industry, and a trifling trade,which seems to have been abandoned to them; they showanimals, and attend the fairs and markets, to sell or exchangemules and asses, which they know how to procure at a cheaprate. They are commonly cast-off animals, which they havethe art to dress up, and they are satisfied, in appearance,with a moderate profit, which, however, is always more thanis supposed, because they feed these animals at the expenseof the farmers. They ramble all night, in order to stealfodder; and whatever precautions may have been takenagainst them, it is not possible to be always guarded againsttheir address.

“Happily the Gitanos are not murderers. It would,without doubt, be important to examine if it is to the naturalgoodness of their disposition, to their frugality, and the few[89]wants they feel in their state of half savage, that is to beattributed the sentiment that repels them from great crimes,or if this disposition arises from their habitual state of alarm,or from that want of courage which must be a necessaryconsequence of the infamy in which they are plunged.”[40]

CHAPTER II.

ENGLISH GIPSIES.

The first arrival of the Gipsies in England appears tohave been about the year 1512,[41] but this does not seem tobe quite certain. It is probable they may have arrivedthere at an earlier period. The author from which thefact is derived published his work in 1612, and states, generally,that “this kind of people, about a hundred yearsago, began to gather an head, about the southern parts.And this, I am informed and can gather, was their beginning:Certain Egyptians, banished their country, (belikenot for their good condition,) arrived here in England;who, for quaint tricks and devices, not known here at thattime among us, were esteemed, and held in great admiration;insomuch that many of our English loiterers joinedwith them, and in time learned their crafty cozening.

“The speech which they used was the right Egyptianlanguage, with whom our Englishmen conversing at leastlearned their language. These people, continuing aboutthe country, and practising their cozening art, purchasedthemselves great credit among the country people, and gotmuch by palmistry and telling of fortunes; insomuch thatthey pitifully cozened poor country girls both of money,silver spoons, and the best of their apparel, or any goodsthey could make.”[42]

From this author it is collected they had a leader of thename of Giles Hather, who was termed their king; and awoman of the name of Calot was called queen. These,riding through the country on horseback, and in strangeattire, had a pretty train after them.[43]

[91]It appears, from this account, that the Gipsies had beenobserved on the continent about a hundred years beforethey visited England. According to Dr. Bright, theyseemed to have roamed up and down the continent of Europe,without molestation, for about half a century, beforetheir true character was perfectly known. If 1512 wasreally the year in which these people first set foot in England,it would seem that the English government had notbeen so easily nor so long imposed on as the kings of Scotland,and the authorities of Europe generally. For wefind that, within about the space of ten years from thisperiod, they are, by the 10th chapter of the 22d HenryVIII, denominated “an outlandish people, calling themselvesEgyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise,who have come into this realm, and gone from shire toshire, and place to place, in great company; and used greatsubtlety and crafty means to deceive the people—bearingthem in hand that they, by palmistry, could tell men’s andwomen’s fortunes; and so, many times, by craft and subtlety,have deceived the people for their money; and also havecommitted many heinous felonies and robberies.” As farback as the year 1549, they had become very troublesomein England, for, on the 22d June of that year, according toBurnet’s History of the Reformation, “there was privysearch made through all Sussex for all vagabonds, Gipsies,conspirators, prophesiers, players, and such like.”

The Gipsies in England still continued to commit numberlessthefts and robberies, in defiance of the existingstatutes; so that each succeeding law enacted against thembecame severer than the one which preceded it. The followingis an extract from the 27th Henry VIII: “Whereas,certain outlandish people, who do not profess any craft ortrade whereby to maintain themselves, but go about ingreat numbers, from place to place, using insidious means toimpose on his majesty’s subjects, making them believe thatthey understand the art of foretelling to men and womentheir good and evil fortunes, by looking in their hands,whereby they frequently defraud people of their money;likewise are guilty of thefts and highway robberies: It ishereby ordered that the said vagrants, commonly calledEgyptians, in case as thieves and rascals . . . . and on theimportation of any such Egyptians, he, the importer, shall[92]forfeit forty pounds for every trespass.” So much had theconduct of the Gipsies exasperated the government of QueenElizabeth, that it was enacted, during her reign, that “Ifany person, being fourteen years, whether natural born subjector stranger, who had been seen in the fellowship of suchpersons, or disguised like them, and remain with them onemonth at once, or at several times, it should be felony withoutbenefit of clergy.”[44] It would thus appear that, whenthe Gipsies first arrived in England, they had not kepttheir language a secret, as is now the case; for some of theEnglishmen of that period had acquired it by associatingwith them.[45]

In carrying out the foregoing extraordinary enactments,the public was at the expense of exporting the Gipsies tothe continent; and it may reasonably be assumed that greatnumbers of these unhappy people were executed under thesesanguinary laws. A few years before the restoration ofCharles II, thirteen Gipsies were executed “at one Suffolkassize.” This appears to have been the last instance of inflictingthe penalty of death on these unfortunate people inEngland, merely because they were Gipsies.[46] But althoughthese laws of blood are now repealed, the English Gipsiesare liable, at the present day, to be proceeded against underthe Vagrant Act; as these statutes declare all those persons“pretending to be Gipsies, or wandering in the habitand form of Egyptians, shall be deemed rogues and vagabonds.”

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth it was thought Englandcontained above 10,000 Gipsies; and Mr. Hoyland, in hishistorical survey of these people, supposes that there are18,000 of the race in Britain at the present day. A memberof Parliament, it is reported, stated, in the House ofCommons, that there were not less than 36,000 Gipsies inGreat Britain. I am inclined to believe that the statementof the latter will be nearest the truth; as I am convincedthat the greater part of all those persons who traverse Englandwith earthenware, in carts and waggons, are a superiorclass of Gipsies. Indeed, a Scottish Gipsy informed me,[93]that almost all those people are actually Gipsies. Now Mr.Hoyland takes none of these potters into his account, whenhe estimates the Gipsy population at only 18,000 souls.Besides, Gipsies have informed me that Ireland contains agreat many of the tribe; many of whom are now findingtheir way into Scotland.[47]

I am inclined to think that the greater part of the EnglishGipsies live more apart from the other inhabitants ofthe country, reside more in tents, and exhibit a great dealmore of their pristine manners, than their brethren do inScotland.[48]

The English Gipsies also travel in Scotland, with earthenwarein carts and waggons. A body of them, to the numberof six tents, with sixteen horses, encamped, on one occasion,on the farm of Kingledoors, near the source of theTweed. They remained on the ground from Saturday nighttill about ten o’clock on Monday morning, before theystruck their tents and waggons.

At St Boswell’s fair I once inspected a horde of EnglishGipsies, encamped at the side of a hedge, on the Jedburghroad as it enters St. Boswell’s Green. Their name wasBlewett, from the neighbourhood of Darlington. The chiefpossessed two tents, two large carts laden with earthenware,four horses and mules, and five large dogs. He was attendedby two old females and ten young children. One of thewomen was the mother of fourteen, and the other themother of fifteen, children. This chief and the two femaleswere the most swarthy and barbarous looking people I eversaw. They had, however, two beautiful children with them,[94]about five years of age, with light flaxen hair, and very faircomplexions. The old Gipsy women said they were twins;but they might have been stolen from different parents, forall that, as there was nothing about them that had theslightest resemblance to any one of the horde that claimedthem. Apparently much care was taken of them, as theywere very cleanly and neatly kept.[49]

This Gipsy potter was a thick-set, stout man, above themiddle size. He was dressed in an old dark-blue frock coat,with a profusion of black, greasy hair, which covered theupper part of his broad shoulders. He wore a high-crowned,narrow-brimmed, old hat, with a lock of his black hairhanging down before each ear, in the same manner as theSpanish Gipsies are described by Swinburn. He also worea pair of old full-topped boots, pressed half way down hislegs, and wrinkled about his ankles, like buskins. His visagewas remarkably dark and gloomy. He walked up anddown the market alone, without speaking to any one, with apeculiar air of independence about him, as he twirled in hishand, in the Gipsy manner, by way of amusement, a strongbludgeon, about three feet long, which he held by the centre.I happened to be speaking to a surgeon in the fair, at thetime the Gipsy passed me, when I observed to him that thatstrange-looking man was a Gipsy; at which the surgeononly laughed, and said he did not believe any such thing.To satisfy him, I followed the Gipsy, at a little distance,till he led me straight to his tents at the Jedburgh roadalready mentioned.

This Gipsy band had none of their wares unpacked, norwere they selling anything in the market. They werecooking a lamb’s head and pluck, in a pan suspended from atriangle of rods of iron, while beside it lay an abundanceof small potatoes, in a wooden dish. The females woreblack Gipsy bonnets. The visage of the oldest one was remarkablylong, her chin resting on her breast. These threeold Gipsies were, altogether, so dark, grim, and outlandish-looking,that they had little or no appearance of beingnatives of Britain. On enquiring if they were Gipsies,[95]and could speak the language, the oldest female gave methe following answer: “We are potters, and strangers inthis land. The people are civil unto us. I say, God blessthe people; God bless them all.” She spoke these words ina decided, emphatic, and solemn tone, as if she believedherself possessed of the power to curse or bless at pleasure.On turning my back, to leave them, I observed them burstout a laughing; making merry, as I supposed, at the idea ofhaving deceived me as to the tribe to which they belonged.

The following anecdote will give some idea of the mannerof life of the Gipsies in England.

A man, whom I knew, happened to lose his way, one darknight, in Cambridgeshire. After wandering up and downfor some time, he observed a light, at a considerable distancefrom him, within the skirts of a wood, and, being overjoyedat the discovery, he directed his course toward it; but, beforereaching the fire, he was surprised at hearing a man, alittle way in advance, call out to him, in a loud voice, “Peaceor not peace?” The benighted traveller, glad at hearingthe sound of a human voice, immediately answered, “Peace;I am a poor Scotchman, and have lost my way in the dark.”“You can come forward then,” rejoined the sentinel. Whenthe Scotchman advanced, he found a family of Gipsies, withonly one tent; but, on being conducted further into thewood, he was introduced to a great company of Gipsies.They were busily employed in roasting several whole sheep—turningtheir carcasses before large fires, on long woodenpoles, instead of iron spits. The racks on which the spitsturned were also made of wood, driven into the ground,cross-ways, like the letter X. The Gipsies were exceedinglykind to the stranger, causing him to partake of the victualswhich they had prepared for their feast. He remained withthem the whole night, eating and drinking, and dancing withhis merry entertainers, as if he had been one of themselves.When day dawned, the Scotchman counted twelve tentswithin a short distance of each other. On examining hisposition, he found himself a long way out of his road; buta party of the Gipsies voluntarily offered their services,and went with him for several miles, and, with great kindness,conducted him to the road from which he had wandered.

The crimes of some of the English Gipsies have greatlyexceeded those of the Scottish, such as the latter have been.[96]The following details of the history of an English Gipsyfamily are taken from a report on the prisons in Northumberland.The writer of this report does not appear to havebeen aware, however, of the family in question being Gipsies,speaking an Oriental language, and that, according tothe custom of their tribe, a dexterous theft or robbery isone of the most meritorious actions they can perform.

“Crime in Families. William Winters’ Family.

“William himself, and one of his sons, were hanged togetherfor murder. Another son committed an offence forwhich he was sent to the hulks, and, soon after his release,was concerned in a murder, for which he was hanged. Threeof the daughters were convicted of various offences, and themother was a woman of notorious bad character. Thefamily was a terror to the neighbourhood, and, according toreport, had been so for generations. The father, with awoman with whom he cohabited, (himself a married man,)was hanged for house-breaking. His first wife was a womanof very bad character, and his second wife was transported.One of the sons, a notorious thief, and two of thedaughters, were hanged for murder. Mr. Blake believesthat the only member of the family that turned out well wasa girl, who was taken from the father when he was in prison,previous to execution, and brought up apart from herbrothers and sisters. The grandfather was once in a lunaticasylum, as a madman. The father had a quarrel with oneof his sons, about the sale of some property, and shot himdead. The mother co-habited with another man, and wasone morning found dead, with her throat cut. One of thesons, (not already spoken of,) had a bastard child by one ofhis cousins, herself of weak intellect, and, being under suspicionof having destroyed the child, was arrested. While inprison, however, and before the trial came on, he destroyedhimself by cutting his throat.”

This family, I believe, are the Winters noticed by SirWalter Scott, in Blackwood’s Magazine, as follows:

“A gang (of Gipsies), of the name of Winters, long inhabitedthe wastes of Northumberland, and committed manycrimes; among others, a murder upon a poor woman, withsingular atrocity, for which one of them was hung in chains[97]near Tonpitt, in Reedsdale. The mortal reliques havingdecayed, the lord of the manor has replaced them by awooden effigy, and still maintains the gibbet. The remnantof this gang came to Scotland, about fifteen years ago, andassumed the Roxburghshire name of Wintirip, as they foundtheir own something odious. They settled at a cottagewithin about four miles of Earlston, and became great plaguesto the country, until they were secured, after a tight battle,tried before the circuit court at Jedburgh, and banishedback to their native country of England. The dalesmen ofReedwater showed great reluctance to receive these returnedemigrants. After the Sunday service at a little chapel nearOtterbourne, one of the squires rose, and, addressing the congregation,told them they would be accounted no longerReedsdale men, but Reedsdale women, if they permitted thismarked and atrocious family to enter their district. Thepeople answered that they would not permit them to comethat way; and the proscribed family, hearing of the unanimousresolution to oppose their passage, went more southernly,by the heads of the Tyne, and I never heard more ofthem, but I have little doubt they are all hanged.”[50]

CHAPTER III.

SCOTTISH GIPSIES, DOWN TO THE YEAR 1715.

That the Gipsies were in Scotland in the year 1506 iscertain, as appears by a letter of James IV, of Scotland, tothe King of Denmark, in favour of Anthonius Gawino, Earlof Little Egypt, a Gipsy chief. But there is a tradition, recordedin Crawford’s Peerage, that a company of Gipsies,or Saracens, were committing depredations in Scotland beforethe death of James II, which took place in 1460, beingforty-six years after the Gipsies were first observed on thecontinent of Europe, and it is, therefore, probable that thesewanderers were encamped on Scottish ground before theyear 1460, above mentioned. As I am not aware of Saracensever having set foot in Scotland, England, or Ireland, Iam disposed to think, if there is any truth in this tradition,it alludes to the Gipsies.[51] The story relates to the estateand family of McLellan of Bombie, in Galloway, and is asfollows:

In the reign of James II, the Barony of Bombie was againrecovered by the McLellans, (as the tradition goes,) afterthis manner: In the same reign, says our author of smallcredit, (Sir George McKenzie, in his baronage M.S.,) it happenedthat a company of Saracens or Gipsies, from Ireland,[99][52]infested the county of Galloway, whereupon the king intimateda proclamation, bearing, that whoever should dispersethem, and bring in their captain, dead or alive, should havethe Barony of Bombie for his reward. It chanced that abrave young gentleman, the laird of Bombie’s son, fortunatedto kill the person for which the reward was promised, andhe brought his head on the point of his sword to the king,and thereupon he was immediately seized in the Barony ofBombie; and to perpetuate the memory of that brave andremarkable action, he took for his crest a Moor’s head, and‘Think on’ for his motto.[53]

As armorial bearings were generally assumed to commemoratefacts and deeds of arms, it is likely that the crest ofthe McLellans is the head of aGipsy chief. In the reignof James II, alluded to, we find “away putting ofsorners,(forcible obtruders,) fancied fools, vagabonds, out-liers, masterfulbeggars,bairds, (strolling rhymers,) and such likerunners about,” is more than once enforced by acts of parliament.[54]

But the earliest authentic notice which has yet been discoveredof the first appearance of the Gipsies in Scotland, isthe letter of James IV, to the King of Denmark, in 1506.At this period these vagrants represented themselves asEgyptian pilgrims, and so far imposed on our religious andmelancholy monarch, as to procure from him a favourablerecommendation to his uncle of Denmark, in behalf of one ofthese “Earls,” and his “lamentable retinue.” The followingis a translation of this curious epistle:

“Most illustrious, &c.—Anthonius Gawino, Earl of LittleEgypt, and the other afflicted and lamentable tribe of his retinue,whilst, through a desire of travelling, and, by commandof the Pope,[55] (as he says,) pilgriming, over the Christian[100]world, according to their custom, had lately arrived on thefrontiers of our kingdom, and implored us that we, out ofhumanity, would allow him to approach our limits withoutdamage, and freely carry about all things, and the companyhe now has. He easily obtains what the hard fortunewretched men require. Thus he has sojourned here, (as wehave been informed,) for several months, in peaceable andcatholic manner. King and uncle, he now proposes a voyageto Denmark to thee. But, being about to cross the ocean,he hath requested our letters, in which we would informyour Highness of these, and at the same time commend thecalamity of this tribe to your royal munificence. But webelieve that the fates, manners, and race of the wanderingEgyptians are better known to thee than us, because Egyptis nearer thy kingdom, and a greater number of such mensojourn in thy kingdom.—Most illustrious, &c.”[56]

From 1506 to 1540, the 28th of the reign of James V,we find that the true character of the Gipsies had notreached the Scottish court; for, in 1540, the king of Scotlandentered into a league or treaty with “John Faw,Lord and Earl of Little Egypt;” and a writ passed thePrivy Seal, the same year, in favour of this Prince orRajahof the Gipsies. As the public edicts in favour of this raceare extremely rare, I trust a copy of this curious document,in this place, may not be unacceptable to the reader.[57]

“James, by the grace of God, King of Scots: To oursheriffs of Edinburgh, principal and within the constabularyof Haddington, Berwick, Roxburgh, &c., &c.; provosts,aldermen, and baillies of our burghs and cities of Edinburgh,&c., &c., greeting: Forasmuch as it is humbly meant andshown to us, by our loved John Faw, Lord and Earl of LittleEgypt, that whereas he obtained our letter under our greatseal, direct you all and sundry our said sheriffs, stewarts,baillies, provosts, aldermen, and baillies of burghs, and toall and sundry others having authority within our realm, toassist him in execution of justice upon his company andfolk, conform to the laws of Egypt, and in punishing of allthem that rebel against him: nevertheless, as we are informed,Sebastiane Lalow Egyptian, one of the said John’scompany, with his accomplices and partakers under written,that is to say, Anteane Donea, Satona Fingo, Nona Finco,Phillip Hatseyggaw, Towla Bailyow, Grasta Neyn, GeleyrBailyow, Bernard Beige, Demeo Matskalla (or Macskalla),Notfaw Lawlowr, Martyn Femine, rebels and conspiratorsagainst the said John Faw, and have removed them allutterly out of his company, and taken from him divers sumsof money, jewels, clothes and other goods, to the quantityof a great sum of money; and on nowise will pass homewith him, howbeit he has bidden and remained of long timeupon them, and is bound and obliged to bring home withhim all them of his company that are alive, and a testimonyof them that are dead: and as the said John has the said[102]Sebastiane’s obligation, made in Dunfermline before ourmaster household, that he and his company should remainwith him, and on nowise depart from him, as the same bears:In contrary to the tenor of which, the said Sebastiane, bysinister and wrong information, false relation, circumventionof us, has purchased our writings, discharging him and theremnant of the persons above written, his accomplices andpartakers of the said John’s company, and with his goodstaken by them from him; causes certain our lieges assistthem and their opinions, and to fortify and take their partagainst the said John, their lord and master; so that he onnowise can apprehend nor get them, to have them homeagain within their own country, after the tenor of his saidbond, to his heavy damage andskaith (hurt), and in greatperil of losing his heritage, and expressly against justice:Our will is, therefore, and we charge you straightly andcommand that . . . . . . . . . . ye and every one of youwithin the bounds of your offices, command and charge allour lieges, that none of them take upon hand to reset,assist, fortify, supply, maintain, defend, or take part withthe said Sebastiane and his accomplices above written, forno body’s nor other way, against the said John Faw, theirlord and master; but that they and ye, in likewise, takeand lay hands upon them wherever they may be apprehended,and bring them to him, to be punished for their demerits,conform to his laws; and help and fortify him to punish anddo justice upon them for their trespasses; and to that effectlend him your prisons, stocks, fetters, and all other thingsnecessary thereto, as ye and each of you, and all other ourlieges, will answer to us thereupon, and under all highestpain and charge that after may follow: So that the saidJohn have no cause of complaint thereupon in time coming,nor to resort again to us to that effect, notwithstanding anyour writings, sinisterly purchased or to be purchased, by thesaid Sebastiane on the contrary: And also charge all ourlieges that none of them molest, vex, unquiet, or trouble thesaid John Faw and his company, in doing their lawful business,or otherwise, within our realm, and in their passing,remaining, or away-going forth of the same, under the painabove written: And such-like that ye command and chargeall skippers, masters and mariners of all ships within ourrealm, at all ports and havens where the said John and his[103]company shall happen to resort and come, to receive himand them therein, upon their expenses, for furthering of themforth of our realm to the parts beyond sea, as you and eachof them such-like will answer to us thereupon, and underthe pain aforesaid. Subscribed with our hand, and underour privy seal at Falkland, the fifteenth day of February,and of our reign the 28th year.”[58]

[104]This curious league of John Faw with the Scottish king,who acknowledges the laws and customs of the Gipsieswithin his kingdom, was of very short duration. Like thatof many other favourites of princes, the credit which the“Earl of Little Egypt” possessed at court was, the succeedingyear, completely annihilated, and that with a vengeance,as will appear by the following order in council. The Gipsies,quarrelling among themselves, and publicly bringingtheir matters of dispute before the government, had, perhaps,contributed to produce an enquiry into the real characterand conduct of these foreigners; verifying the ancientadage, that a house divided against itself cannot stand.But the immediate cause assigned for the sudden change ofmind in the king, so unfortunate for the Gipsies, is handeddown to us in the following tradition, current in Fife:

King James V, as he was travelling through part of hisdominions, disguised under the character of the Gaberlunzie-man,or Guid-man of Ballangiegh, prosecuting, as was hiscustom, his low and vague amours, fell in with a band ofGipsies, in the midst of their carousals, in a cave, nearWemyss, in Fifeshire. His majesty heartily joined in theirrevels, but it was not long before a scuffle ensued, whereinthe king was very roughly handled, being in danger of hislife.[59] The Gipsies, perceiving at last that he was none oftheir people, and considering him a spy, treated him withgreat indignity. Among other humiliating insults, theycompelled his royal majesty, as an humble servant of a Tinkler,to carry their budgets and wallets on his back, forseveral miles, until he was exhausted; and being unable to[105]proceed a step further, he sank under his load. He wasthen dismissed with scorn and contempt by the mercilessGipsies. Being exasperated at their cruel and contemptuoustreatment of his sacred person, and having seen a fair specimenof their licentious manner of life, the king caused an orderin council immediately to be issued, declaring that, ifthreeGipsies were found together, one of the three was instantlyto be seized, and forthwith hanged or shot, by any one ofhis majesty’s subjects that chose to put the order in execution.

This tradition is noticed by the Rev. Andrew Small, inhis antiquities of Fife, in the following words. His bookcame into my hands after I had written down my accountof the tradition.

“But, surely, this would be the last tinker that ever hewould dub (a knight). If we may judge from what happened,one might imagine he, (James V,) would be heartilysick of them, (tinkers,) being taken prisoner by three of them,and compelled to stay with them several days, so that hisnobles lost all trace of him, and being also forced, not onlyto lead their ass, but likewise to assist it in carrying part ofthe panniers! At length he got an opportunity, when theywere bousing in a house at the east end of the village ofMilnathort, where there is now a new meeting-house built,when he was left on the green with the ass. He contrivedto write, some way, on a slip of paper, and gave a boy half-a-crownto run with it to Falkland, and give it to his nobles,intimating that the guid-man of Ballangiegh was in astate of captivity. After they got it, and knew where hewas, they were not long in being with him, although it wasfully ten miles they had to ride. Whenever he got assistance,he caused two of the tinkers, that were most harshand severe to him, to be hanged immediately, and let thethird one, that was most favourable to him, go free. Theywere hanged a little south-west of the village, at a placewhich, from the circumstance, is called the Gallow-hill tothis day. The two skeletons were lately found after thedivision of the commonty that recently took place. He also,after this time, made a law, that whenever three tinkers, orGipsies, were found going together, two of them should behanged, and the third set at liberty.”[60]

[106]The following order in council is, perhaps, the one towhich this tradition alludes:

“Act of the lords of council respecting John Faw, &c.,June 6, 1541. The which day anent the complaint givenby John Faw and his brother, and Sebastiane Lalow,Egyptians, to the King’s grace, ilk ane plenizeand . . . .upon other and divers faults and injuries; and that it isagreed among them to pass home, and have the same decidedbefore the Duke of Egypt.[61] The lords of council, beingadvised with the points of the said complaints, and understandingperfectly the great thefts andskaiths (hurts) doneby the said Egyptians upon our sovereign lord’s lieges, whereverthey come or resort, ordain letters to be directed to theprovosts and baillies of Edinburgh, St. Johnstown (Perth),Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Elgin, Forres,and Inverness; and to the sheriffs of Edinburgh, Fife,Perth, Forfar, Kincardine, Aberdeen, Elgin and Forres,Banff, Cromarty, Inverness, and all other sheriffs, stewarts,provosts and baillies, where it happens the said Egyptians toresort.[62] To command and charge them, by open proclamation,at the market crosses of the head burghs of the sheriffdoms,to depart forth of this realm, with their wives, children,and companies, within xxx days after they be chargedthereto, under the pain of death; notwithstanding anyother letters or privileges granted to them by the king’sgrace, because his grace, with the advice of the lords, hasdischarged the same for the causes aforesaid: with certificationthat if they be found in this realm, the said xxx daysbeing past, they shall be taken and put to death.”[63]

This sharp order in council seems to have been the firstedict banishing the Gipsies as a whole people—men, women,[107]and children—from Scotland. But the king, whom, accordingto tradition, they had personally so deeply offended, dyingin the following year, (1542) a new reign brought newprospects to the denounced wanderers.[64] They seem to havehad the address to recover their credit with the succeedinggovernment; for, in 1553, the writ which passed the privyseal in 1540, forming a sort of league with “John Faw, Lordand Earl of Little Egypt,” was renewed by Hamilton, Earlof Arran, then Regent during the minority of Queen Mary.McLaurin, in his criminal trials, when speaking of JohnFaw, gravely calls him “this peer.” “There is a writ,”says he, “of the same tenor in favour of this peer from QueenMary, same record, 25 April, 1553; and 8 April, 1554, hegets remission for the slaughter of Ninian Small.” In Blackwood’sMagazine it is mentioned that “Andro Faw, Captainof the Egyptians,[65] and twelve of his gang specified by name,obtained a remission for the slaughter of Ninian Small, committedwithin the town of Linton, in the month of Marchlast by past upon suddenly.” This appears to be the slaughterto which McLaurin alludes. The following are thenames of these thirteen Gipsies: “Andro Faw, captain ofthe Egyptians, George Faw, Robert Faw, and Anthony Faw,his sons, Johnne Faw, Andrew George Nichoah, GeorgeSebastiane Colyne, George Colyne, Julie Colyne, JohnneColyne, James Haw, Johnne Browne, and George Browne,Egyptians.”

From the edict above mentioned, it is evident that theGipsies in Scotland, at that time, were allowed to punish thecriminal members of their own tribe, according to their own[108]peculiar laws, customs and usages, without molestation. Andit cannot be supposed that the ministers of three or four succeedingmonarchs would have suffered their sovereigns to beso much imposed on, as to allow them to put their names topublic documents, styling poor and miserable wretches, aswe at the present day imagine them to have been, “Lordsand Earls of Little Egypt.” Judging from the accountswhich tradition has handed down to us, of the gay and fashionableappearance of the principal Gipsies, as late as aboutthe beginning of the eighteenth century, as will be seen inmy account of the Tweed-dale bands, I am disposed to believethat Anthonius Gawino, in 1506, and John Faw, in1540, would personally, as individuals, that is, as GipsyRajahs,[66] have a very respectable and imposing appearancein the eyes of the officers of the crown. And besides, JohnFaw appears to have been possessed of “divers sums ofmoney, jewels, clothes and other goods, to the quantity of agreat sum of money;” and it would seem that some of theofficers of high rank in the household of our kings had fingeredthe cash of the Gipsy pilgrims. If there is any truthin the popular and uniform tradition that, in the seventeenthcentury, a Countess of Cassilis was seduced from her dutyto her lord, and carried off by a Gipsy, of the name of JohnFaa, and his band, it cannot be imagined, that the seducerwould be a poor, wretched, beggarly Tinkler, such as manyof the tribe are at this day. If a handsome person, elegantapparel, a lively disposition, much mirth and glee, and a constantboasting of extraordinary prowess, would in anyway contribute to make an impression on the heart of thefrail countess, these qualities, I am disposed to think, wouldnot be wanting in the “Gipsy Laddie.” And, moreover,John Faw bore, on paper at least, as high a title as herhusband, Lord Cassilis, from whom she absconded. It issaid the individual who seduced the fair lady was a SirJohn Faw, of Dunbar, her former sweetheart, and not aGipsy; but tradition gives no account of a Sir John Faw, ofDunbar.[67] The Falls, merchants, at Dunbar, were descendedfrom the Gipsy Faas of Yetholm.

[109]It is pretty clear that the Gipsies remained in Scotland,with little molestation, from 1506 till 1579—the year inwhich James VI took the government into his own hands,being a period of about seventy-three years, during whichtime these wanderers roamed up and down the kingdom,without receiving any check of consequence, excepting theshort period—probably about one year—in which the severeorder of James V remained in force, and which, in all probability,expired with the king.[68]

The civil and religious contests in which the nation hadbeen long engaged, particularly during the reign of QueenMary, produced numerous swarms of banditti, who committedoutrages in every part of the country. The slighter depredationsof the Gipsy bands, in the midst of the fierce andbloody quarrels of the different factions that generally prevailedthroughout the kingdom, would attract but little attention,and the Gipsies would thereby escape the punishmentwhich their actions merited. But the government beingmore firmly established, by the union of the different partieswho distracted the country, and the king assuming the supremeauthority, which all acknowledged, vigorous measureswere adopted for suppressing the excess of strolling vagabondsof every description. In the very year the king wasplaced at the head of affairs, a law was passed, “For punishmentof strong and idle beggars, and relief of the poor andimpotent.”

Against the Gipsies this sweeping statute is particularlydirected, for they are named, and some of their practicespointed out, in the following passage: “And that it may be[110]known what manner of persons are meant to be strong andidle beggars and vagabonds, and worthy of the punishmentbefore specified, it is declared that all idle persons goingabout the country of this realm, using subtle, crafty and unlawfulplays—as jugglery, fast-and-loose, and such others, theidle people calling themselves Egyptians, or any other thatfancy themselves to have knowledge of prophecy, charming,or other abused sciences, whereby they persuade the peoplethat they can tell their weirds, deaths, and fortunes, andsuch other fantastical imaginations.”[69] And the following isthe mode prescribed for punishing the Gipsies, and the otheroffenders associated with them in this act of parliament:“That such as make themselves fools and arebairds, (strollingrhymers,) or other such like runners about, being apprehended,shall be put in the king’s ward, or irons, so long asthey have any goods of their own to live on, and if they havenot whereupon to live of their own, that their ears be nailedto the tron or other tree, and cut off, and (themselves) banishedthe country; and if thereafter they be found again,that they be hanged.”[70]

This statute was ratified and confirmed in the 12th parliamentof James VI, cap. 147, 5th June, 1592, wherein theincorrigible Gipsies are again referred to: “And for thebetter trial of commonsorners (forcible obtruders,) vagabonds,and masterful beggars, fancied fools, and counterfeitEgyptians, and to the effect that they may be still preservedtill they be compelled to settle at some certaindwelling, or be expelled forth of the country, &c.”The next law in which the Gipsies are mentioned, withother vagabonds, was passed in the 15th parliament of thesame reign, 19th December, 1597, entitled, “Strong beggars,vagabonds, and Egyptians should be punished.” Thestatute itself reads as follows: “Our sovereign lord and estatesof parliament ratify and approve the acts of parliament[111]made before, against strong and idle beggars, vagabonds,and Egyptians,” with this addition: “That strong beggarsand their children be employed in common works, and theirservice mentioned in the said act of parliament, in the yearof God, 1579, to be prorogate in during their life times, &c.”[71]

All the foregoing laws were again ratified and enforcedby another act, in the same reign, 15th November, 1600.The following extract will serve to give some explanationhow these statutes were neglected, and seldom put in force:“And how the said acts have received little or no effect orexecution, by the oversight and negligence of the personswho were nominated justices and commissioners, for puttingof the said acts to full and due execution, so that the strongand idle beggars, being for the most part thieves,bairds,(strolling rhymers,) and counterfeitlimmers, (scoundrels,)living most insolently and ungodly, without marriage or baptism,are suffered tovaig and wander throughout the wholecountry.”[72] “But,” says Baron Hume, “all ordinary meanshaving proved insufficient to restrain so numerous and sosturdy a crew, the privy council at length, in June, 1603,were induced to venture on the more effectual expedient,(recommended by the example of some other realm,) of atonce ordering the whole race to leave the kingdom by a certainday, and never to return under the pain of death.[73] Afew years after, this proclamation was converted into perpetual[112]law, by statute 1609, cap. 13, with this farther convenient,but very severe, provision toward the more effectualexecution of the order, that it should be lawful to condemnand execute them to the death, upon proof made of the singlefact ‘that they are called, known, repute and holden Egyptians’!”As this is the only statute exclusively relating to,and denouncing, the Gipsies, I shall give it at length.

“13. Act anent the Egyptians. Our sovereign lord andestates of parliament ratify, approve, and perpetually confirmthe act of secret council, made in the month of June orthereby, 1603 years, and proclamation following thereupon,commanding the vagabonds,sorners (forcible obtruders), andcommon thieves, commonly called Egyptians, to pass forthof this kingdom, and remain perpetually forth thereof, andnever to return within the same, under pain of death; andthat the same have force and execution after the first dayof August next to come. After the which time, if any ofthe said vagabonds, called Egyptians, as well women asmen, shall be found within this kingdom, or any part thereof,it shall be lawful to all his majesty’s good subjects, orany one of them, to cause take, apprehend, imprison, andexecute to death the said Egyptians, either men or women,as common, notorious, and condemned thieves, by one assizeonly to be tried, that they are called, known, repute andholden Egyptians: In the which cause, whosoever of theassize happen toclenge (exculpate) any of the aforesaidEgyptians pannelled, as said is, shall be pursued, handledand censured as committers of wilful error: And whoevershall, any time thereafter, reset, receive, supply, or entertainany of the said Egyptians, either men or women, shall losetheir escheat, and be warded at the judge’s will: And thatthe sheriffs and magistrates, in whose bounds they shall publiclyand avowedly resort and remain, be called before thelords of his highness’ secret council, and severely censuredand punished for their negligence in execution of this act:Discharging all letters, protections, and warrants whatsoever,purchased by the said Egyptians, or any of them, from hismajesty or lords of secret council, for their remaining withinthis realm, as surreptitiously and deceitfully obtained bytheir knowledge: Annulling also all warrants purchased,or hereafter to be purchased, by any subject of whatsoeverrank within this kingdom, for their reset, entertaining, or[113]doing any manner of favour to the said Egyptians, at anytime after the said first day of August next to come, for nowand ever.”[74] In a subsequent enactment, in 1617, appointingjustices of the peace and constables, the destruction ofthe proscribed Egyptians is particularly enjoined, in definingthe different duties of the magistrates and their peaceofficers.[75]

But so little respected was the authority of the government,that in 1612, three years after the passing of theGipsy act, his majesty was under the humiliating necessityof entering into a contract with the clan Scott, and theirfriends, by which the clan bound themselves “to give up allbands of friendship, kindness, oversight, maintenance or assurance,if any we have, with common thieves and brokenclans, &c.” It is certain there would be many bonds of thesame nature with other turbulent clans throughout the kingdom.That Scotchmen of respectability and influence protectedthe Gipsies, and afforded them shelter on their lands,after the promulgation of the cruel statute of 1609, is manifestfrom the following passages, which I extract from Blackwood’sMagazine, for 1817; the conductor of which seemsto have been careful in examining the public records for thedocuments quoted by him; having been guided in his researches,I believe, by Sir Walter Scott.

“In February, 1615, we find a remission under the privyseal, granted to William Auchterlony, of Cayrine, for resettingof John Faw and his followers.[76] On the 14th July,1616, the sheriff of Forfar is severely reprimanded for delayingto execute some Gipsies, who had been taken within hisjurisdiction, and for troubling the council with petitions intheir behalf. In November following appears a proclamationagainst Egyptians and their resetters. In December,1619, we find another proclamation against resetters of them;[114]in April, 1620, another proclamation of the same kind, andin July, 1620, a commission against resetters, all with verysevere penalties. The nature of these acts will be betterunderstood from the following extract from that of the 4thJuly, 1616, which also very well explains the way in whichthe Gipsies contrived to maintain their footing in the country,in defiance of all the efforts of the legislature to extirpatethem.” “It is of truth that the thieves andlimmers(scoundrels), aforesaid, having for some short space after thesaid act of parliament, (1609,) . . . dispersed themselvesin certain secret and obscure places of the country . . .they were not known to wander abroad in troops and companies,according to their accustomed manner, yet, shortlythereafter, finding that the said act of parliament was neglected,and that no enquiry nor . . . was made forthem, they began to take new breath and courage, and . . .unite themselves in infamous companies and societies, under. . . commanders, and continually since then have remainedwithin the country, committing as well open andavowedrieffis (robberies) in all parts . . . murders,. . .pleine stouthe (common theft) and pickery, wherethey may not be mastered; and they do shamefully and mischievouslyabuse the simple and ignorant people, by tellingfortunes, and using charms, and a number of juggling tricksand falseties, unworthy to be heard of in a country subjectto religion, law, and justice; and they are encouraged toremain within the country, and to continue in their thievishand juggling tricks and falseties, not only through defaultof the execution of the said act of parliament, but, what isworse, that great numbers of his majesty’s subjects, of whomsome outwardly pretend to be famous and unspotted gentlemen,have given and give open and avowed protection, reset,supply and maintainance, upon their grounds and lands, tothe said vagabonds,sorners, (forcible obtruders,) and condemnedthieves andlimmers, (scoundrels,) and suffer them toremain days, weeks, and months together thereupon, withoutcontroulment, and with connivance and oversight, &c.” “Sothey do leave a foul, infamous, and ignominious spot uponthem, their houses, and posterity, that they are patrons tothieves andlimmers, (scoundrels,)” &c.[77]

[115]From their first arrival in the country till 1579, the Gipsies,as already mentioned, appear to have been treated as aseparate people, observing their own laws and customs. Inthe year 1587, such was the state of society in Scotland,that laws were passed by James VI, compelling all thebaronial proprietors of lands, chiefs and captains of clans,on the Borders and Highlands of Scotland, to find pledgesand securities for the peaceable conduct of their retainers,tenants, clansmen, and other inhabitants of their respectiveestates and districts.[78] In the same parliament another actwas passed, allowing vagabonds and broken and unpledgedmen to produce pledges and securities for their good conduct.The Gipsies, under these statutes, would remain unmolested,as they would readily find protection by becoming,nominally, clansmen, and assuming the surnames, of thosechieftains and noblemen who were willing and able to affordthem protection.[79] Indeed, the act allowing vagabonds tofind sureties would include the Gipsy bands, for, about this[116]period, they seem to have been only classed with our ownnative vagabonds, moss-troopers, Border and Highlandthieves, broken clans and masterless men. It appears bythe act of 1609, that the Gipsies had even purchased theirprotection from the government. The inhabitants of Scotlandbeing at this period still divided into clans, wouldgreatly facilitate the escape of the Gipsies from the lawspassed against them. The clans on the Borders and Highlandswere in a state of almost constant warfare with oneanother; and frequently several of the clans were united inopposition to the regular government of the country, towhose mandates they paid little or no regard. The Gipsieshad no settled residence, but roamed from place to placeover the whole country; and when they found themselvesin danger in one place, they had no more to do but removeinto the district inhabited by a hostile clan, where theywould immediately find protection. Besides, the Borderersand Highlanders, themselves plunderers and thieves, wouldnot be very active in apprehending their brother thieves,the Gipsies. Even, according to Holinshed, “the poison oftheft and robbery pervaded almost all classes of the Scottishcommunity about this period.”

The excessive severity of the sanguinary statute of 1609,and the unrelenting manner in which it was often carriedinto effect, were calculated to produce a great outwardchange on the Scottish Gipsies. Like stags selected from aherd of deer, and doomed to be hunted down by dogs, thesewanderers were now singled out, and separated from thecommunity, as objects to whom no mercy was to be shown.[80]The word Egyptian would never be allowed to escape theirlips; not a syllable of their peculiar speech would be uttered,unless in the midst of their own tribe. It is also highlyprobable that every part of their dress by which their fraternitycould be recognized, would be carefully discontinued.To deceive the public, they would also conformexternallyto some of the religious rites, ceremonies, observances, and[117]other customs of the natives of Scotland. I am further inclinedto think that it would be about this period, and chieflyin consequence of these bloody enactments, the Gipsieswould, in general, assume the ordinary christian and surnamescommon at that time in Scotland. And their usualsagacity pointed out to them the advantages arising fromtaking the cognomens of the most powerful families inthe kingdom, whose influence would afford them ampleprotection, as adopted members of their respective clans.In support of my opinion of the origin of the surnames ofthe Gipsies of the present day, we find that the most prevailingnames among them are those of the most influentialof our noble families of Scotland; such as Stewart, Gordon,Douglas, Graham, Ruthven, Hamilton, Drummond, Kennedy,Cunningham, Montgomery, Kerr, Campbell, Maxwell, Johnstone,Ogilvie, McDonald, Robertson, Grant, Baillie, Shaw,Burnet, Brown, Keith, &c.[81] If, even at the present day,you enquire at the Gipsies respecting their descent, thegreater part of them will tell you that they are sprungfrom a bastard son of this or that noble family, or otherperson of rank and influence, of their own surname.[82] Thispretended connexion with families of high rank and powerhas saved some of the tribe from the gallows even in our owntime. The names, however, of the two principal families,Faw, (now Faa,) and Bailyow, (now Baillie,) appear not tohave been changed since the date of the order in council orleague with James V, in the year 1540, as both of thesenames are inserted in that document.

Baron Hume, on the criminal law of Scotland, gives the[118]following account of some of the trials and executions ofthe Gipsies:

“The statute (1609) annuls at the same time all protectionand warrants purchased by the Egyptians from his majesty’sprivy council, for their remaining within the realm; as alsoall privileges purchased by any person to reset, entertain, ordo them any favour. It appears, indeed, from a paper inthe appendix to McLaurin’s Cases, that even the king’s servantsand great officers had not kept their hands entirelypure of this sort of treaty with the Egyptian chiefs, fromwhom some supply of money might in this way be occasionallyobtained.

“The first Gipsies that were brought to trial on thestatute, were four persons of the name of Faa, who, on the31st July, 1611, were sentenced to be hanged. They hadpleaded upon a special license from the privy council, toabide within the country; but this appearing to be cloggedwith a condition of finding surety for their appearancewhen called on, and their surety being actually at the horn,for failure to present themselves, they were held to have infringedthe terms of their protection.

“The next trial was on the 19th and 24th July, 1616, inthe case of other two Faas and a Baillie, (which seem tohave been noted names among the Gipsies;) and here wasstarted that plea which has since been repeated in almostevery case, but has always been overruled, viz: that the actand proclamation were temporary ordinances, and applicableonly to such Egyptians as were in the country at their date.These pannels, upon conviction, were ordered by the privycouncil to find caution to the extent of 1,000 merks, to leaveScotland and never to return; and having failed to complywith this injunction, they were in consequence condemned todie.

“In January, 1624, follows a still more severe example;no fewer than eight men, among whom Captain John Faaand other five of the name of Faa, being convicted, weredoomed to death on the statute. Some days after, therewere brought to trial Helen Faa, relict of Captain Faa,Lucretia Faa, and other women to the number of eleven; allof whom were in like manner convicted, and condemned tobe drowned! But, in the end, their doom was commutedfor banishment, (under pain of death,) to them and all their[119]race. The sentence was, however, executed on the maleconvicts; and it appears that the terror of their fate hadbeen of material service; as, for the space of more than 50years from that time, there is no trial of an Egyptian.”

But notwithstanding this statement of Baron Hume, ofthe Gipsy trials having ceased for half a century, we find,twelve years after 1624, the date of the above trials, thefollowing order of the privy council: “Anent some Egyptians.At Edinburgh, 10th November, 1636. Forasmuch as SirArthur Douglas of Quhittinghame having lately taken andapprehended some of the vagabond and counterfeit thievesandlimmers, (scoundrels,) called the Egyptians, he presentedand delivered them to the sheriff principal of the sheriffdomof Edinburgh, within the constabulary of Haddington,where they have remained this month or thereby: andwhereas the keeping of them longer, within the said tolbooth,is troublesome and burdensome to the town of Haddington,and fosters the said thieves in an opinion of impunity, tothe encouraging of the rest of that infamousbyke (hive) oflawlesslimmers (scoundrels) to continue in their thievishtrade: Therefore the lords of secret council ordain thesheriff of Haddington, or his deputies, to pronounce doomand sentence of death against so many of these counterfeitthieves as are men, and against so many of the women aswant children; ordaining the men to be hanged, and thewomen to be drowned; and that such of the women as havechildren, to be scourged through the burgh of Haddington,and burned in the cheek; and ordain and command theprovost and baillies of Haddington to cause this doom beexecuted upon the said persons accordingly.”[83]

“Towards the end of that century,” continues BaronHume, “the nuisance seems to have again become troublesome.On the 13th of December, 1698, John Baillie andsix men more of the same name, along with the wife of oneof them, were indicted as Egyptians, and also for sundryspecial misdeeds; and being convicted, (all but the woman,)they were ordered for execution. But in this case it is tobe remarked, that the court had so far departed from therigour of the statute as not to sustain a relevancy on thehabit and repute of being an Egyptian of itself, but only‘along with one or other of the facts of picking and little[120]thieving;’ thus requiring some proof of actual guilt in aidof the fame. In the next trial, which was that of WilliamBaillie, June 26th, 1699, a still further indulgence was introduced;for the interlocutor required a proof, not ofoneonly, but ofseveral, of the facts of ‘picking or little thieving,or of several acts of beating and striking with invasiveweapons.’ He was only convicted as an Egyptian, and ofone act of striking with an invasive weapon, and he escapedin consequence with his life.

“This lenient course of dealing with the Gipsies was nottaken, however, from any opinion of it as a necessary thing,nor was there any purpose of prescribing it as a rule forother times, or for further cases of the kind where such anindulgence might seem improper, as appears from the interlocutorof relevancy in the case of John Kerr, and HelenYorkston, and William Baillie and other seven; in both ofwhich the simple fame and character of being an Egyptianis again foundseparatum relevant to infer the pain of death,(10th and 11th August, 1714.) Kerr and Yorkston had averdict in their favour; Baillie and two of his associateswere condemned to die; but as far as concerns Baillie, (forthe others were executed,) his doom was afterwards mitigatedinto transportation, under pain of death in case of return.

“As early as the month of August, 1715, the same man, (asI understand it,) was again indicted, not only for beingfound in Britain, but for continuing his former practices andcourse of life. Notwithstanding this aggravation, the interlocutoris again framed on the indulgent plan, and only infersthe pain of death, from the fame and character of beingan Egyptian, joined with various acts of violence and sorning,to the number of three, that are stated in the libel.Though convicted nearly to the extent of the interlocutor,he again escaped with transportation.[84]

“Nor have I observed that the court, in any later case,have thought it necessary to proceed upon the repute alone,unavouched by evidence of, at least, one act of theft or violence;so that, upon the whole, according to the practice oflater times, this sort of charge seems to be reduced nearlyto the level of the charge of being habit and repute a thiefat common law.”

[121]It is noticed by Baron Hume that the Faas and the Baillieswere noted names among the Gipsies. Indeed, thetrials referred to by him are all of persons bearing these twosurnames, except two individuals only. The truth is, theFaas and the Baillies were the two principal families amongthe Gipsies; giving, according to their customs, kings andqueens to their countrymen in Scotland. They would bemore bold, daring, and presumptuous in their conduct thanthe most part of their followers; and, being leaders of thebanditti, government, in all probability, would fix upon themas the most proper objects for destruction, as the best andeasiest method of overawing and dispersing the whole tribein the country, by cutting off their chiefs. As I have alreadymentioned, these two principal clans of Faw and Bailyowappear to be the only Gipsy families in Scotland who haveretained the original surnames of their ancestors, at least ofthose whose names are inserted in the treaty with James V,in 1540.

It will be seen, under the head Tweed-dale and ClydesdaleGipsies, that tradition has represented William Baillie, whowas tried in 1714 and 1715, as a bastard son of the ancientfamily of Lamington, (his mother being a Gipsy). It appearsto me that the Gipsy policy of joining themselves to somefamily of rank was, in Baillie’s case, of very important service,not only to himself but to the whole tribe in Scotland.[122][85]The extraordinary lenity shown to him by the court, aftersuch repeated aggravation, cannot be accounted for in anyother way than that great interest had been used in his behalf,in some quarter or other; and that, by creating a mercifulprecedent in his case, it was afterwards followed in thetrial of all others of the race in Scotland.

[51] There is no reason to doubt that these were Gipsies. They were evidentlya roving band, from some of the continental hordes, that had passedover into Scotland, to “prospect” and plunder. They would, very naturally,be called Saracens by the natives of Scotland, to whom any blackpeople, at that time, would appear as Saracens. We may, therefore, assumethat the Gipsies have been fully four hundred years in Scotland. I maymention, however, that Mediterranean corsairs occasionally landed andplundered on the British coast, to as late a period as the reign of CharlesI.—Ed.

[52] Almost all the Scottish Gipsies assert that their ancestors came byway of Ireland into Scotland.

[This is extremely likely. On the publication of the edict of Ferdinandof Spain, in 1492, some of the Spanish Gipsies would likely pass over to thesouth of Ireland, and thence find their way into Scotland, before 1506.Anthonius Gawino, above referred to, would almost seem to be a Spanishname. We may, therefore, very safely assume that the Gipsies of Scotlandare of Spanish Gipsy descent.—Ed.]

[53] Crawford’s Peerage, page 238.

[54] Glendook’s Scots’ acts of parliament.

[55] Mr. Hoyland makes some very judicious remarks upon the capacity ofthe Gipsies, when they first appeared in Europe. He says: “The first ofthis people who came into Europe must have been persons of discernmentand discrimination, to have adapted their deceptions so exactly to the geniusand habits of the different people they visited, as to ensure success in allcountries. The stratagem to which they had recourse, on entering France,evinces consummate artifice of plan, and not a little adroitness and dexterityin the execution. The specious appearance of submission to Papalauthority, in the penance of wandering seven years, without lying in a bed,contained three distinct objects. They could not have devised an expedientmore likely to recommend them to the favour of the ecclesiastics, or betterconcerted for taking advantage of the superstitious credulity of the people,and, at the same time, for securing to themselves the gratification of theirown nomadic propensities. So complete was the deception they practised,that we find they wandered up and down France, under the eye of the magistracy,not for seven years only, but for more than a hundred years, withoutmolestation.”

Mr. Hoyland’s remarks cover only half of the question, for, being “pilgrims,”their chiefs must also assume very high titles, to give them considerationwith the rulers of Europe—such as dukes, earls, lords, countsand knights. To carry out the character of pilgrims, the body would govery poorly clad; it would only be the chiefs who would be flashily accoutred.It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that the Gipsies should havesucceeded so well, and so long, in obtaining an entrance, and a toleration,in every country of Europe.—Ed.

[56] Illustrissime, &c.—Anthonius Gawino, ex Parva Egypto comes, etcætera ejus comitatus, gens afflicta et miseranda, dum Christianam orbemperegrinationes studio. Apostolicæ sedis, (ut refert) jussu, suorum moreperegrinans, fines nostri regni dudum advenerat, atque in sortis suæ, etmiseriarum hujus populi, refugium, nos pro humanitate imploraverat utnostros limites sibi impune adire, res cunctas, et quam habet societatemlibere circumagere liceret. Impetrat facile quæ postulat miserorum hominumdura fortuna. Ita aliquot menses bene et catholice, (sic accepimus,)hic versatus, ad te, Rex et avuncule, in Daciam transitum paret. Sedoceanum transmissurus nostras literas exoravit; quibus celsitudinem tuamhorum certiorum redderemus, simul et calamitatem ejus gentis Regiæ tuæmunificentiæ commendaremus. Ceterum errabundæ Egypti fata, moresque,et genus, eo tibe quam nobis credimus notiora, quo Egyptus tuo regnovicinior, et major hujusmodi hominum frequentia tuo diversatur imperio.Illustrissime,[101]&c.

[57] I have taken the liberty of translating the various extracts from theScottish acts of parliament, quoted in this chapter, as the original languageis not very intelligible to English or even Scottish readers. For doingthis, I may be denounced as a Vandal by the ultra Scotch, for so treatingsuch “rich old Doric,” as the language of the period may be termed.—Ed.

[58] Ex. Registro Secreti Sigilli, Vol. XIV, fol. 59. Blackwood. Appendixto McLaurin’s Criminal Trials.

This document may well be termed the most curious and important recordof the early history of the Gipsy race in Europe; and it is well worthy ofconsideration. The meaning of it is simply this: John Faw had evidentlybeen importuned by the Scottish Court, (at which he appears to have beena man of no small consequence,) to bring his so-called “pilgrimage,” whichhe had undertaken “by command of the Pope,” to an end, so far, at least,as remaining in Scotland was concerned. Being pressed upon the point,he evidently, as a last resource, formed a plan with Sebastiane Lalow, andthe other “rebels,” to leave him, and carryoff, (as he said,) his property.To give the action an air of importance, and make it appear as a real rebellion,they brought the question into court. Then, John could turn round,and reply to the king: “May it please your majesty! I can’t return tomy own country. My company and folk have conspired, rebelled, robbed,and left me. I can’t lay my hands upon them; I don’t even know whereto find them. I must take them home with me, or a testimony of themthat are dead, under the great peril of losing my heritage, at the hands ofmy lord, the Duke of Egypt. However, if your majesty will help me tocatch them, I will not be long in taking leave ofyour kingdom, with allmy company. In the meantime, your majesty will be pleased to issueyour commands to all the shipowners and mariners in the kingdom, to beready,when I gather together my folk(!) to further our passage to Egypt,for which I will pay them handsomely.” The whole business may betermed a piece of “thimble-rigging,” to prolong their stay—that is, enablethem to remain permanently—in the country. Our author, I think, is quitein error in supposing this to have been a real quarrel among the Gipsies.If it had been a real quarrel, the Gipsies would soon have settled the questionamong themselves, by their own laws; it would have been the lastthing, under all the circumstances of the case, they would have thoughtof, to have brought it before the Scottish court. The Gipsies, accordingto Grellmann, assigned the following reason for prolonging their stay inEurope: “They endeavoured to prolong the term (of their pilgrimage) byasserting that their return home was prevented by soldiers, stationed tointercept them; and by wishing to have it believed that new parties ofpilgrims were to leave their country every year, otherwise their land wouldbe rendered totally barren.”

The quarrel between the Faas and the Baillies, for theGipsy crown, inafter times, did not, in all probability, arise from this business, but mostlikely, as the English Gipsies believe, from some marriage between thesefamilies. The Scottish Gipsies, like the two Roses, have had, and for aughtI know to the contrary, may have yet, two rival kings—Faa and Baillie,with their partisans—although the Faas, from the prominent position whichthey have always occupied in Scottish history, have been the only kingsknown to the Scottish public generally.

In perusing this work, the reader will be pleased to take the above mentioneddocument as the starting point of the history of the Gipsies inScotland; and consider the Gipsies of that time as the progenitors of allthose at present in Scotland, including the great encrease of the body, bythe mixture of the white blood that has been brought within their community.He will also be pleased to divest himself of the childish prejudices,acquired in the nursery and in general literature, against the nameof Gipsy; and consider that there are people in Scotland, occupying someof the highest positions in life, who are Gipsies; not indeed Gipsies in pointof purity of blood, but people who have Gipsy blood in their veins, andwho hold themselves to be Gipsies, in the manner which I have, to a certainextent, explained in thePreface, and will more fully illustrate in myDisquisition on the Gipsies.—Ed.

[59] The Gipsies assert that, on this occasion, the king attempted to takeliberties with one of their women: and that one of the male Gipsies“came crack over his head with a bottle.”—Ed.

[60] Small’s Roman Antiquities of Fife, pages 285 and 286. Small also recordsa song composed on James V dubbing a Tinker a knight.

[61] It would seem that John Faw had become frightened at the mishap of oneof his folk “coming crack over the king’s head with a bottle,” and that, topacify his majesty, he had at once gone before him, and informed him thathe had prevailed on his “rebellious subjects” topass home, and have thematter in dispute decided by theDuke of Egypt. This would, so far, satisfythe king; but to make sure of getting rid of his troublesome visitors, heissued his commands to the various authorities to see that they really didleave the country.—Ed.

[62] It would appear, from the mention that is made here of the authoritiesof so many towns and counties, “where it happens the said Egyptians toresort,” that the race was scattered over all Scotland at this time, and thatit must have been numerous.—Ed.

[63] M. S. Act. Dom. Con. vol 15, fol. 155.—Blackwood’s Magazine.

[64] It is perfectly evident that the severe decree of James V against theGipsies arose from the personal insult alluded to, owing to the circumstanceof its falling to the ground after his death, and the Gipsies recovering theirposition with his successor. Apart from what the Gipsies themselves sayon this subject, the ordinary tradition may be assumed to be well founded.If the Gipsies were spoken to on the subject of the insult offered to theking, they would naturally reply, that they did not know, from his havingbeen dressed like a beggar, that it was the king; an excuse which the court,knowing his majesty’s vagabond habits, would probably receive. But itis very likely that John Faw would declare that the guilty parties werethose rebels whom he was desirous to catch, and take home with him toEgypt! This Gipsy king seems to have been a master of diplomacy.—Ed.

[65] The Gipsy chiefs were partial to the title of Captain; arising, I suppose,from their being leaders of large bands of young men employed in theftand robbery. [In Spain, such Gipsy chiefs, according to Mr. Borrow, assumedthe name of Counts.—Ed.]

[66]Rajah—The Scottish Gipsy word for a chief, governor, or prince.

[67] The author, (Mr. Finlay,) who claims a Sir John Faw, of Dunbar, tohave been the person who carried off the Countess of Cassilis, gives no authority,as a writer in Blackwood says, in support of his assertion. Nordoes he account for a person of that name being any other than a Gipsy.Indeed, this is but an instance of the ignorance and prejudice of people generallyin regard to the Gipsies. The tradition of the hero being a Gipsy,I have met with among the English Gipsies, who even gave me the nameof the lady. John Faw, in all probability the king of the Gipsies, who carriedoff the countess, might reasonably be assumed to have been, in pointof education, on a par with her, who, in that respect, would not, in all probability,rise above the most humble Scotch cow-milker at the present day,whatever her personal bearing might have been.—Ed.

[68] During these seventy-three years of peace, the Gipsies in Scotlandmust have multiplied prodigiously, and, in all probability, drawn much ofthe native blood into their body. Not being, at that time, a proscribedrace, but, on the contrary, honoured by leagues and covenants with theking himself, the ignorant public generally would have few of those objectionsto intermarry with them, which they have had in subsequent times.The thieving habits of the Gipsies would prove no bar to such connections,as the Scottish people were accustomed to thieving of all kinds.—Ed.

[69] In this act of parliament are denounced, along with the Gipsies, “allminstrels, songsters, and tale-tellers, not avowed by special licence of someof the lords of parliament or great barons, or by the high burghs andcities, for their common minstrels.” “Allvagabond scholars(!) of the universitiesof St Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, not licenced by the rectorand dean of faculty toask alms.” It would seem, from this last extract,that the Scottish Universities granted diplomas to their students to beg!The Gipsies were associated or classed with good company at this time.But beggar students, or student-beggars, were common in other parts ofEurope during that age.—Ed.

[70] Glendook’s Scots Acts, James VI, 6th Par. cap. 74—20th Oct. 1579.

[71] By the above, and subsequent statutes, in the reign of James VI,“Coal and salt-masters might apprehend, and put to labour, all vagabondsand sturdy beggars.” The truth is, these kidnapped individuals and theirchildren were made slaves of to these masters. The colliers were emancipatedonly within these fifty years. It has been stated to me that some ofthe colliers in the Lothians are of Gipsy extraction. [Our author mighthave saidGipsies; for being “of Gipsy extraction,” and “Gipsies,” are expressionsquite synonymous, notwithstanding the application by the publicof the latter term to the more original kind of Gipsies only.—Ed.]

[72] If Fletcher of Saltoun be correct, when he states that, in his time, whichwas about the end of the 17th century, there were two hundred thousandpeople, (about one-fifth of the whole population,) begging from door to doorin Scotland, it would be a task of no little difficulty, for those in power, toput in force the laws against the Gipsies, and vagabonds generally. Theeditor of Dr. Pennicuick’s history of Tweed-dale, thinks Fletcher’s is anover-charged picture. Some are of opinion that, when he made his statement,he included the greater part of the inhabitants of the Scottish Border,and also those in the north of Scotland; for, he said, the Highlands “was aninexhaustible source of beggars,” and wished these banditti transplantedto the low country, and to people the Highlands from hence.

[73] The records in which this order is contained are lost.

[74] Glendook’s Scots Act.

[75] Ib.

[76] The nature of this crime in Scotch law is fully explained in the followingextract from the original, which also appears curious in other respects.The pardon is granted “pro receptione, supportatione, et detentione supraterra suas de Belmadie, et infra eius habitationis domium, aliaq. edificiaeiusdem,Joannis Fall,Ethiopis,lie Egiptian, eiusq. uxoris, puerorum, servorumet associatorum; Necnon pro ministrando ipsis cibum, potum, pecunias,hospicium, aliaq. necessaria, quocunq. tempore vel occasione preterita,contra acta nostri Parliamenti vel secreti concilii, vel contra quecunq. leges,alia acta, aut constitutiones huius nostri regni Scotiæ in contrarium facta.”Regist. secreti sigilli vol. lxxxiii, fol. 291,Blackwood’s Magazine.—Ed.

[77] The same state of things existed in Spain. Charles II. passed a lawon the 12th June, 1695, the 16th article of which, as given by Mr. Borrow,enacts: “And because we understand that the continuance of those whoare called Gitanos has depended on the favour, protection, and assistancewhich they have experienced from persons ofdifferent stations, we do ordainthat whosoever against whom shall be proved the fact of having, since theday of the publication hereof, favoured, received, or assisted the saidGitanos, in any manner whatever, whetherwithin their houses or without,provided he is a noble, shall be subjected to the fine ofsix thousand ducats,. . . . andif a plebeian, to apunishment of ten years in the galleys.”Such an enactment would surely prove that the Gipsies in Spain weregreatly favoured by the Spanish people generally, even two centuries afterthey entered the country.

The causes to which may be attributed this toleration, even encouragement,of the Gipsies, are various. Among these may be mentioned a fearof consequences to person and property, tinkering, trafficking and amusement,and corruption on the part of those in power. But in the characterof the Gipsies itself may be found a general cause for their escaping theeffects of the laws passed against them, viz.,wheedling. The term Gitanohas been variously modified in the Spanish language, thus:

Gitano.Gipsy,flatterer; Gitanillo,a little Gipsy; Gitanismo,the Gipsytribe; Gitanesco,Gipsy-like; Gitanear,to flatter,entice; Gitaneria,wheedling,flattery; Gitanamento,in a sly, winning manner; Gitanada,blandishment,wheedling,flattery.—Ed.

[78] There were 17 clans on the Borders, and 34 clans in the Highlands,who appear to have had chiefs and captains over them. There were 22baronial proprietors connected with the Borders, and 106 connected withthe Highlands, named in a roll, who were likewise ordered to find pledges.—Glendook’sScots Acts.

[79] It sometimes happened, when an internal quarrel took place in a clan,portions of the tribe left their chief, and united themselves to another, whosename they assumed and dropped their original one.

[80] The reader will see that the Gipsies, at this time, were not greater“vagabonds” than great numbers of native Scotch, if as great. But, beingstrangers in the country, sojourners according to their own account, theking would naturally enough banish them, as they seem always to havebeen saying that they were about leaving for “their own country.” Theirliving in tents, a mode of life so different from that of the natives, would,of itself, make them obnoxious to the king personally.—Ed.

[81] The English Gipsies say that native names were assumed by theirrace in consequence of the proscription to which it was subjected. GermanGipsies, on arrival in America, change, at least modify, their names. Thereare many of them who go under the names of Smith, Miller, and Waggoner.Jews frequently bear names common to the natives of the countriesin which they are to be found, and sometimes, at the present day, assumeChristian ones. I knew two German Jews, of the name of Cohen, whosettled in Scotland. One of them, who was a priest, retained the originalname; but the other, who was a watchmaker, assumed the name of Cowan,which, singularly enough, the priest said, was a corruption of Cohen.—Ed.

[82] It is stated by Paget, in his Travels in Hungary, that the Gipsies inthat country have a profound regard for aristocracy; and that they invariablyfollow that class in the matter of religious opinions. Grellmannsays as much in regard to the Gipsy’s desire of getting hold of a distinguishedold coat to put on his person.—Ed.

[83] Blackwood’s Magazine.

[84] This, and part of the preceding paragraph, will be quoted again, underthe chapter ofTweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies.

[85] From the time of arrival of the Gipsies in the country, in 1506, till1611, the date of the first trials of the tribe, as given by Baron Hume, aperiod of 105 years had elapsed; during which time there had doubtlessbeen five generations of Gipsies added to the population, as Scottish subjects;to put whom to death, on the mere ground of being Egyptians, was contraryto every principle of natural justice. The cruelty exercised uponthem was quite in keeping with that of reducing to slavery the individuals,and their descendants, who constituted the colliers, coal-bearers, and saltersreferred to in the following interesting note, to be found in “My Schoolsand Schoolmasters,” of Hugh Miller.

“The act for manumitting our Scotch colliers was passed in the year1775, forty-nine years prior to the date of my acquaintance with the class ofNiddry. But though it was only such colliers of the village as were intheir fiftieth year when I knew them, (with, of course, all the older ones,)who had been born slaves, even its men of thirty had actually, though notnominally, come into the world in a state of bondage, in consequence ofcertain penalties attached to the emancipation act, of which the poor ignorantworkers under ground were both too improvident and too little ingeniousto keep clear. They were set free, however, by a second act passedin 1799. The language of both these acts, regarded as British ones of thelatter half of the last century, and as bearing reference to British subjectsliving within the limits of the island, strikes with startling effect. ‘Whereas,’says the preamble of the older act—that of 1775—‘by the statute law ofScotland, as explained by the judges of the courts of law there, many colliers,and coal-bearers, and salters, are in a state ofslavery or bondage,bound to the collieries or salt works, where they workfor life, transferablewith the collieries or salt works; and whereas, the emancipation,’ &c., &c. Apassage in the preamble of the act of 1799 is scarcely less striking: it declaresthat, notwithstanding the former act, ‘many colliers and coal-bearersstill continue in a state of bondage’ in Scotland. The history of our Scotchcolliers would be found a curious and instructive one. Their slavery seemsnot to have been derived from the ancient time of general serfship, but tohave originated in comparatively modern acts of the Scottish Parliament,and in decisions of the Court of Session—in acts of Parliament in whichthe poor ignorant subterranean men of the country were, of course, whollyunrepresented, and in decisions of a court in which no agent of theirs evermade appearance in their behalf.”

What is here said of a history of Scotch colliers being “curious and instructive,”is applicable in an infinitely greater degree to that of the Gipsies.—Ed.

CHAPTER IV.

LINLITHGOWSHIRE GIPSIES.[86]

The Gipsies who frequented the banks of the Forth, andthe counties northward, appear to have been more daringthan those who visited some other parts of Scotland.

Within these sixty years, a large horde, of very desperatecharacter, resided on the banks of the Avon, near the burghof Linlithgow. At first, they quartered higher up on theStirling side of the stream, at a place called Walkmilton;but latterly they took up their abode in some old houses, onthe Linlithgow side of the river, at or near the bridge ofLinlithgow.

These Gipsies displayed much sagacity in carrying on theirtrade, by selecting the neighbourhood of Falkirk and Linlithgowfor their headquarters, as this was, perhaps, the mostadvantageous position in all Scotland that a Gipsy bandcould occupy. The district was of itself very populous, anda very considerable trade and bustle then existed at the portof Bo’ness, in the vicinity. All the intercourse betweenEdinburgh and Glasgow passed a few miles to the south oftheir quarters. The traffic, by carts, between Glasgow andthe west of Scotland, and the shipping at Carron-shore, Elphingston-Powand Airth, on the Forth, before the canal wascut, was immense; all which traffic, as well as that betweenFife and the western districts, passed a few miles north of[124]their position. The road for travellers and cattle from theHighlands, by way of Stirling, crossed the above-mentionedroads, and led, through Falkirk and Linlithgow, to Edinburgh,the eastern and southern counties of Scotland, andEngland.

The principal surnames of this Gipsy band were McDonald,Jamieson, Wilson, Gordon and Lundie. Frequently thenumber that would assemble together would amount to upwardsof thirty souls, and it was often observed that a greatmany females and children were seen loitering about theircommon place of residence. No protection was given bythem to our native vagrants, nor were any of our commonplunderers, vagabonds, or outlaws suffered to remain amongthem. When at home, or traversing the country, the tradeand occupation of this band were exactly the same as thoseof their friends in other parts of Scotland, viz: making wool-cards,cast-iron soles for ploughs, smoothing-irons, hornspoons, and repairing articles in the tinker line. The oldfemales told fortunes, while the women in general assistedtheir husbands in their work, by blowing the bellows, scrapingand polishing the spoons with glass and charred wood,and otherwise completing their articles for sale. Many ofthe males dealt in horses, with which they frequented fairs—thatgreat resort of the Gipsies; and these wanderers, ingeneral, were considered excellent judges of horses. Numbersof them were fiddlers and pipers, and the tribe oftenamused themselves with feasting and dancing.[87]

Like their race generally, these Gipsies were extremelycivil and obliging to their immediate neighbours, and thosewho lived nearest to their quarters, and had the most intercoursewith them, in the ordinary affairs of life, were theleast afraid of them.[88] But the farmers and others at a distance,[125]who frequented the markets at Falkirk, and otherfairs in the neighbourhood, were always a plentiful harvestfor the plundering Tinklers. Their plunderings on suchoccasions spread a general alarm over the country. Butthat good humour, mirth, and jocund disposition, peculiar tomany of the males of the Gipsies, seldom failed to gain thegood-will of those who deigned to converse with them withfamiliarity, or treated them with kindness. They evenformed strong attachments to certain individuals of the community,and afforded them protection on all occasions, givingthem tokens to present to others of their fraternity, whiletravelling under night. Notwithstanding the good dispositionwhich they always showed under these circumstances,the fiery Tinklers often fell out among themselves, on dividing,at home, the booty which they had collected at fairs,and excited feelings of horror in the minds of their astonishedneighbours, when they beheld the hurricanes of wrathand fury exhibited by both sexes, and all ages, in the heatof their battles.

The children of these Gipsies attended the principal school[126]at Linlithgow, and not an individual at the school dared tocast the slightest reflection on, or speak a disrespectful wordof, either them or their parents, although their robberies wereeverywhere notorious, yet always conducted in so artful amanner that no direct evidence could ever be obtained ofthem. Such was the fear that the audacious conduct ofthese Gipsies inspired, that the magistrates of the royalburgh of Linlithgow stood in awe of them, and were deterredfrom discharging their magisterial duties, when any matterrelative to their conduct came before their honours. Thetruth is, the magistrates would not interfere with them at all,but stood nearly on the same terms with them that a tribeof American Indians, who worshipped the devil—not fromany respect which they had for his Satanic majesty, but frombeing in constant dread of his diabolical machinations. Nota justice of the peace gave the horde the least annoyance,but, on the contrary, allowed them to remain in peaceablepossession of some old, uninhabited houses, to which theyhad no right whatever. Instead of endeavouring to repressthe unlawful proceedings of the daring Tinklers, numbersof the most respectable individuals in Linlithgowshiredeigned to play at golf and other games with the principalmembers of the body. The proficiency which the Gipsiesdisplayed on such occasions was always a source of interestto the patrons and admirers of such games. At throwingthe sledge-hammer, casting the putting-stone, and all otherathletic exercises, not one was a match for these powerfulTinklers. They were also remarkably dexterous at handlingthe cudgel, at which they were constantly practisingthemselves.

The honourable magistrates, indeed, frequently admittedthe presumptuous Tinklers to share a social bowl with themat their entertainments and dinner parties. Yet thesefriends and companions of the magistrates and gentlemen ofLinlithgowshire were no other than the occasional tenantsof kilns, or temporary occupiers of the ground floor of someruinous, half-roofed houses, without furniture, saving a fewblankets and some straw, to prevent their persons from restingupon the cold earth. But, nevertheless, these Gipsiesmade themselves of considerable importance, and possessedan influence over the minds of the community to an extenthardly to be credited at the present day. It was well[127]known that the provost of Linlithgow, who was much exposedby riding at all times through the country, in the wayof his business as a brewer, had himself received from theGipsies assurance that he would not be molested by theband, and that he was, therefore, at all times, and on all occasions,perfectly safe from being plundered. Having inthis manner rendered the local authorities entirely passive,or rather neutral, from fear and interest, the audacious Gipsiesprosecuted their system of plunder and robbery to analarming extent.

Notwithstanding the fear which these Gipsies inspired inthe mind of the community, there were yet individuals ofcourage who would brave them, if circumstances rendered ameeting with them unavoidable. None, indeed, would dreamof wantonly molesting them, but, if brought to the pinch,some would not shrink from encountering them, when actingunder the influences of those feelings which call forth thelatent courage of even the most timid and considerate ofpeople. Such a rencounter resulted in the death of thechief of the Linlithgow band, of the name of McDonald, towhom the others of the tribe gave the title of captain.

In a dark night, a gentleman of the name of H——, anofficer in the army, and a man of courage, while travellingon the high road, from the eastward to Stirlingshire, to visit,as was said, his sweetheart, had occasion to stop, for refreshment,at a public-house near the bridge of Linlithgow. Thelandlord advised him to go no further that night, owing tothe road being “foul,” meaning that the Tinklers had beenseen lurking in the direction in which he was travelling.Foul or not foul, he would proceed; his particular engagementwith the lady making him reluctant to break his promise,and turn back. He called for a gill of brandy, whichhe shared with the landlord, and deliberately loaded, in hispresence, a brace of pistols which he carried about his person.His courage rose with the occasion, and he declaredthat whoever dared to molest him should not go unpunished.He then mounted his horse and rode forward. On arrivingat a place called Sandy-ford-burn, a man, in the dark, sprangout from the side of the road, and, laying hold of the bridleof his horse, demanded his money. The horseman being onthe alert, and quite prepared for such a demand, with hisspirits, moreover, elevated by his dram of brandy, instantly[128]replied by firing one of his pistols at the robber, who fellto the ground. He, however, held fast the bridle reins inhis convulsive death grasp, and the horse, being urged forward,dragged him a short distance along the ground.Hardly had the shot been fired, ere a voice, close by, washeard to exclaim, “There goes our captain,” while a confusedcry of vengeance was uttered on all sides, against himby whom he had fallen. But the rider, clapping his spursto his horse, instantly galloped forward, yet made a narrowescape, for several shots were fired at him, which were heardby the landlord of the public-house which he had just left.

The Gipsies, in this awkward predicament, carried thebody of their chieftain home, and gave out to their neighbours,the country people, the following morning, (Sunday,)that he had died very suddenly of iliac passion. His lyke-wakewas kept up in their usual manner, and great feastingsand drinkings were held by them while his body lay uninterred.After several days of carousing, the remains of therobber were buried in the church-yard of Linlithgow.[89] Hisfuneral was very respectable, having been attended by themagistrates of Linlithgow, and a number of the most genteelpersons in the neighbourhood. The real cause of the suddendeath of the Tinkler began to spread abroad, a shorttime after the burial, but no enquiry was made into the matter.The individual who had done the public a service, bytaking off the chief of the banditti, mentioned the circumstanceafterwards to his friends, and was afraid of the bandfor some time thereafter; although it was improbable that,in the dark, they were able to make out, or afterwards ascertain,the person who had made himself so obnoxious to them.

Notwithstanding this prompt and well-merited chastisementwhich the Gipsies received, in their leader being shotdead in his attempt at highway robbery, in the immediatevicinity of their ordinary place of rendezvous, they continuedtheir depredations in their usual manner, but generallytook care, as is their custom, to give no molestation to their[129]nearest neighbours. The deceased captain was succeeded, inthe chieftainship of the tribe, by his son, Alexander McDonald,who also assumed the title of captain. This mantrod in the footsteps of his father in every respect, and exercisedhis hereditary profession of theft and robbery, withan activity and audacity unequalled by any among his tribein that part of Scotland. The very name of McDonaldand his gang appalled the boldest hearts of those who venturedto travel under night with money in their pockets, incertain parts of the country. His band appears to havebeen very numerous, as among them some held the subordinaterank of lieutenants, as if they had been organized likea regular military company. James Jamieson, his brother-in-law,was also styled captain in this notorious band ofGipsies, who were connected with similar bands in Englandand Ireland.

McDonald and his brother-in-law, Jamieson, were consideredremarkably stout, handsome, and fine-looking men.By constant training at all kinds of athletic exercises, theybrought themselves to perform feats of bodily strength andagility which were almost incredible. They were oftenelegantly dressed in the finest clothes of the first fashion,with linen to correspond. At the same time they were perfectchameleons in respect to their appearance and apparel.McDonald was frequently observed in three or four differentdresses in one market-day. At one time of the day, he wasseen completely attired in the best of tartan, assuming theappearance and manners of a highland gentleman in full costume.At another time, he appeared ruffled at hands andbreast, booted and spurred, on horseback, as if he had beena man of some consideration. He would again be seen in aragged coat, with a budget and wallet on his back—a commontravelling Tinkler. Both of these men often dealt inhorses, and were themselves frequently mounted on the bestof animals. The Arabians and Tartars are scarcely morepartial to horses than the Gipsies.

The pranks and tricks played by McDonald were numerous,and many a story is yet remembered of his extraordinaryexploits. He took great pains in training and learningsome of his horses various evolutions and tricks. He had,at one time, a piebald horse so efficiently trained, and socompletely under his management, that it, in some respects,[130]assisted him in his depredations. By certain signals andmotions, he could, when he found it necessary, make it clapclose to the ground, like a hare in its furrow. Itwould crouch down in a hollow piece of ground, in a ditch,or at the side of a hedge, so as to hide itself, when McDonald’ssituation was like to expose him to detection. Withthe assistance of one of these well trained-horses, this man,on one occasion, saved his wife, Ann Jamieson, from prison,and perhaps from the gallows. Ann was apprehended nearDunfermline for some of her unlawful practices. As theofficers of the law were conducting her to prison, McDonaldrode up to the party, and requested permission to speakwith their prisoner, which was readily granted, as, fromMcDonald’s appearance, the officers supposed he had somethingto say to the woman. He then drew her aside, underthe pretence of conversing with her in private, when, in aninstant, Ann, with his assistance, sprang upon the horse, behindhim, and bade good-bye to the messengers, who wereamazed at the sudden and unexpected escape of their prisoner.Ann was a little, handsome woman, and was consideredone of the most expert of the Scottish Gipsies atconducting a plundering at a fair; and was, on that account,much respected by her tribe.

McDonald and Jamieson, like others of the superior classesof Gipsies, gave tokens of protection to their particularfriends of the community generally. The butchers of Linlithgow,when they went to the country, with money to buycattle, frequently procured these assurances from the Gipsies.The shoemakers did likewise, when they had to go todistant markets with their shoes. Linlithgow appears evento have been under the special protection of these banditti.Mr. George Hart, and Mr. William Baird, two of the mostrespectable merchants of Bo’ness, who had been peddlers intheir early years, scrupled not to say that, when travellingthrough the country, they were seldom without tokens fromthe Gipsies. But if the Gipsies were kind to those whokept on good terms with them, they, on the other hand, vindictivelytormented their enemies. They would steal sheep,and put the blood and parts of the animal about the premisesof those they hated, that they might be suspected of thetheft, searched and affronted by the enquiries made aboutthe stolen property.

[131]When McDonald and Jamieson attacked individuals onthe highway, or elsewhere, and were satisfied that they hadlittle or no money, they were just as ready to supply theirwants as to rob them. The idea of plundering the wealthy,and giving the booty to the poor, gives the Gipsies greatsatisfaction. The standard by which this people’s conductcan be measured, must be sought for among the robber tribesof Tartary, Afghanistan, or Arabia. Many of our ScottishGipsies have, indeed, been as ready to give a purse as takeone; and it cannot be said that they have lacked in the displayof a certain degree of honour peculiar to themselves,as the following well-authenticated fact will illustrate.[90]

A gentleman, whose name is not mentioned, while travelling,under night, between Falkirk and Linlithgow, fell in,on the road, with a man whom he did not know. Duringthe conversation which ensued, he mentioned to the strangerthat he was afraid of being attacked, for many a one, he observed,had been robbed on that road. He then urged thatthey should return, as the safest plan for them both. Thestranger, however, replied that he had often travelled theroad, yet had never been troubled by any one. After somefurther conversation, he put his hand into his pocket, andgave the traveller a knife, with which he was desired to proceedwithout fear.[91] The traveller now perfectly understoodthe relation that existed between them, and continued hisjourney with confidence; but he had not proceeded far erehe was accosted by a foot-pad, to whom he produced theknife. The pad looked at it carefully, said nothing, butpassed on, without giving the traveller the slightest annoyance.It is needless to say that the mysterious stranger wasno other than the notorious Captain McDonald. The traveller,by his fears and the nature of his conversation, hadplainly informed McDonald of his being possessed of money—aconsiderable quantity of which he had, indeed, with him—andhad the love of booty been the Gipsy’s sole and constant[132]object, how easily could he, in this instance, have possessedhimself of it. But the stronger had put himself, in ameasure, under the protection of the robber, who disdainedto take advantage of the confidence reposed in him.

Another instance of a Gipsy’s honour, generosity, or caprice,or by whatever word the act may be expressed, occurredbetween McDonald and a farmer of the name of Campbell,and exhibits a singular cast of character, which has not beenuncommon among the Scottish Gipsies. On this occasion,it would appear, the Gipsy had been influenced rather by adesire of enjoying the extraordinary surprise of the simplecountryman, than of obtaining booty. The occurrence willalso give some idea of the part which the cautious chiefs takein plundering at a fair. The particulars are derived froma Mr. David McRitchie, of whom I shall again make mention.

While Campbell was on his way to a market in Perth, hefell in with Captain McDonald. Being unacquainted withthe character of his fellow-traveller, the unsuspecting mantold him, among other things, that he had just as much moneyin his pocket as would purchase one horse, for his four-horseplough, having other three at home. McDonald heard allthis with patience till he came to a solitary part of the road,when, all at once, he turned upon the astonished farmer, anddemanded his money. The poor man, having no alternative,immediately produced his purse. But in parting, the robberdesired him to call next day at a certain house in Perth,where he would find a person who might be of some serviceto him. Campbell promised to do as desired, and called atthe house appointed, and great was his surprise, when, onbeing ushered into a room, he found himself face to face withthe late robber, sitting with a large bowl of smoking toddybefore him. The Gipsy, in a frank and hearty manner, invitedhis visitor to sit down and share his toddy with him;a request which he readily complied with, although bewilderedwith the idea of the probable fate of his purse, andthe result of his personal adventure. He had scarcely gottime, however, to swallow one glass, before he was relievedof his suspense, by the Gipsy returning him every farthingof the money he had robbed him of the day before. Beingnow pleased with his good fortune, and the Gipsy pressinghim to drink, Campbell was in no hurry to be gone, hisspirits having become elevated with his good cheer, and the[133]confidence with which his host’s conduct had inspired him.But his suspicions returned upon him, as he saw pocket-bookafter pocket-book brought in to his entertainer, during thetime he was enjoying his hospitality. The Gipsy chief was,in fact, but following a very important branch of his calling,and was, on that day, doing a considerable business, havinga number of youths ferreting for him in the market, andcoming in and going out constantly.

But this crafty Gipsy, and his brother-in-law, Jamieson,were at last apprehended for house-breaking and robbery.Their trials took place at Edinburgh, on the 9th and 13thof August, 1770, and “the fame of being Egyptians” madepart of the charge against them in the indictment; a chargewell founded, as both of them spoke the “right Egyptianlanguage.” It was the last instance, I believe, that the factof their being “called, known, repute, and holden Egyptians,”made part of the indictment against any of the tribein Scotland, under the sanguinary statute of James VI,chap. 13, passed in 1609. So cunning are the Gipsies, however,in committing crimes, that, in this instance, the criminals,it was understood, would have escaped justice, for wantof sufficient proof, had not one of their own band, of thename of Jamieson, a youth of about twenty-two years of age,turned king’s evidence against his associates. The two unhappymen were then found guilty by the jury, and condemnedto die. They were ordered to be executed atLinlithgow bridge, near the very spot where their band hadtheir principal rendezvous, with the apparent object of dauntingtheir incorrigible race.

Immediately after the trial, a report was spread, andgenerally believed, that the Gipsies would attempt a rescueof the criminals on the way to execution, or even from underthe gallows itself; and it was particularly mentioned thatthirty stout and desperate members of the race had undertakento set their chieftains free. Every precaution wastherefore taken, by the authorities, to prevent any suchattempt being made. A large proportion of the gentlemenand farmers of the shire of Linlithgow were requested,with what arms they could procure, to attend, on foot orhorseback, the execution of the desperate Tinklers. Indeed,every third man of all the fencible men of the county wascalled upon to appear on the occasion; while a company of[134]pensioners, with a commissioned officer at their head, and astrong body of the military, completed the force deemednecessary for the due execution of justice. Besides guardingagainst the possibility of a rescue on the part of theGipsies, it was generally understood that the steps taken bythe authorities, in bringing together so large a body of men,had in view the object of exhibiting to the people the ignominiousdeath of two men who had not only been allowedto remain among them, but, in many instances, countenancedby some of the most respectable inhabitants of the county;and that not only in out-door amusements, but even in someof the special hospitalities of daily life, while in fact theywere nothing but the leaders of a band of notorious thievesand robbers.

These precautions being completed, the condemned Gipsieswere bound hand and foot, and conveyed, by the sheriff ofEdinburgh and a company of the military, to the boat-housebridge, on the river Almond—the boundary of the twocounties—and there handed over to the sheriff of Linlithgow;under whose guard they were carried to the jail ofthe town of Linlithgow, and securely bound in irons, to waittheir execution on the morrow.[92] As night approached, fireswere kindled at the door of the prison, and guards postedin the avenues leading to the building, while all the entrancesto the town were guarded, and all ingress and egress prohibited,as if the burgh had been in a state of siege. Sostrictly were these orders put in force, that many of the inhabitantsof Bo’ness, who had gone to Linlithgow, to viewthe bustle occasioned by the assemblage of so great a numberof armed men, were forced to remain in the town overnight; so alarmed were the authorities for the onset of theresolute Gipsies. It was soon perceived, by some sagaciousindividuals, that the fires would do more harm than good,as the light would show the prison, expose the sentinels, andguide the Gipsy bands. They were accordingly extinguished,[135]and the guards placed in such positions as would enablethem, with the most advantage, to repel any attack thatmight be attempted: yet the enemy that caused all thisalarm and precaution was nowhere visible.

On the following morning, McDonald’s wife requestedpermission to visit her husband before being led to execution,with what particular object can only be conjectured; afavour which was readily granted her, in the company of amagistrate. On beholding the object of her affection, shebecame overwhelmed with grief; she threw her arms aroundhis neck, and embraced him most tenderly; and after givingvent to her sorrow in sobs and tears, she tore herself fromhim, and, turning to the magistrate, exclaimed, with a burstingheart, “Is he not a pretty man? What a pity it is tohang him!”

Arrangements were then made to carry the prisoners tothe place of execution, at the bridge of Linlithgow, whichlay about a mile from the town. The armed force wasdrawn up at the town-cross, and those who carried musketswere ordered to load them with ball cartridge, and holdthemselves ready, at the word of command, upon the leastappearance of an attempt at rescue, to fire upon the aggressors.The whole scene presented such an alarming and war-likeappearance, that the people of the town and surroundingcountry compared it to the bustle and military parade whichtook place, twenty-five years before, when the rebel armymade its appearance in the neighbourhood. The judiciousarrangements adopted by the officers of the crown had thedesired effect; for not the slightest symptom of disturbance,not even a movement, was observed among the Gipsies,either on the night before, or on the morning of the execution.The formidable armed bands, ready to overwhelmthe presumptuous Gipsies, clearly showed them that theyhad not the shadow of a chance for carrying out their intendedrescue. All was peace and silence throughout theimmense crowd surrounding the gallows, patiently waitingthe appearance of the criminals. In due time the condemnedmade their appearance, in a cart, accompanied by Charlesand James Jamieson, two youths, sitting beside their fatherand uncle, busily eating rolls, and, to all appearance, totallyindifferent to the fate of their relatives, and the awful circumstancessurrounding them.

[136]On ascending the platform, Jamieson’s demeanour wassuitable to the circumstances in which he found himselfplaced; but McDonald appeared quite unconcerned. Hewas observed frequently to turn a quid of tobacco in hismouth, and squirt the juice of it around him; it was evenevident, from his manner, that he expected to be deliveredfrom the gallows by his tribe; and more especially as hehad been frequently heard to say that the hemp was notgrown that would hang him. He then began to look frequentlyand wistfully around him for the expected aid, yetnone made its appearance; and his heart began to sinkwithin him. Indeed, the overwhelming force then surroundinghim rendered a deliverance impossible. Every hopehaving failed him, and seeing his end at hand, McDonaldresigned himself, with great firmness, to his fate, and exclaimed:“I have neither friends on my right hand nor onmy left; I see I now must die.” Jamieson, who appearedfrom the first never to indulge in vain expectations of beingrescued, exclaimed to his fellow-sufferer: “Sandie, Sandie!it is all over with us, and I told you so long ago.” McDonaldthen turned to the executioner, whose name wasJohn Livingston, and dropping into his hand something,supposed to be money, undauntedly said to him: “Now,John, don’t bungle your job.” Both of the unhappy menwere then launched into eternity. Ever afterwards, the inhabitantsof Linlithgow pestered the hangman, by calling tohim: “Now, John, don’t bungle your job. What was it theTinkler gave you, John?”[93]

McDonald’s wife had stood by, a quiet spectator, amongthe promiscuous crowd, of the melancholy scene displayedbefore her. But when she had witnessed the closing act ofan eventful life—the heroism and fortitude which all sheheld as dear displayed in his last moments—and enjoyed thesatisfaction which it had given her, nature, which the odiumof her fellow-creatures, not of her blood, could not destroy,burst forth with genuine expression. The silence attendingthe awful tragedy was abruptly broken by the lamentableyells and heart-rending screams which she gave vent to, as[137]she beheld her husband turned off the scaffold. Two gentlemen,who were present, informed me that she foamed at themouth, and tore her hair out of her head, and was so completelyfrantic with grief and rage, that the spectators wereafraid to go near her.

On the bodies being taken down from the scaffold, an attemptwas made to restore them to life, by opening a vein,but without effect. It is said they were buried in the moornear Linlithgow, by the Gipsies, and that the magistrates ofthe town ordered them to be taken up, and interred in theeast end of the church-yard of Linlithgow. However thatmay be, the bodies were buried in the church-yard of Linlithgow;but the populace, delivered from the terror withwhich these daring Gipsies inspired them, treated with ignominythe remains of those whom they dared scarcely lookin the face when alive. They dug them out of the place ofChristian sepulture, and interred them in a solitary field inthe neighbourhood. A clump of trees, I believe, marks thespot, and the gloomy pine now waves, in the winds of heaven,over the silent and peaceful graves of the restless and lawlessGipsies.

McDonald, it would appear, was married, first of all, to adaughter of a Gipsy of the name of Eppie Lundie, withwhom he lived unhappy, and was divorced from her over ahorse sacrificed for the occasion, a ceremony which I willdescribe in anotherchapter.[94] He was more fortunate inhis second matrimonial alliance, for, in Ann Jamieson, hefound a wife after his own heart in every way. Previous tohis own execution, she had witnessed the violent deaths ofat least six of her own nearest relatives. But, if anythingcould have influenced, in the slightest degree, a reformationin her own character, it would have been the melancholyscene attending his miserable end; yet, we find it had notthe slightest effect upon her after career, for she continued,to the last, to follow the practices of her race, as an anecdotetold of her will show.

At the North Queensferry was a very respectable inn, keptby a Mr. McRitchie, which was much frequented and patronized[138]by the Gipsies. On such occasions they did not visitthe house in whole families or hordes, fluttering in rags, butas well-dressed individuals, arriving from different directions,as if by chance. In this house they were always treatedwith consideration and kindness, for other reasons than thatof the liberal custom which they brought to it, and, as anatural consequence, the landlord and his family becamegreat favourites with them. One of the members of thefamily, David McRitchie, my informant, happened one dayto purchase a horse, at a fair in Dunfermline, but in feelingfor his pocket-book, to pay for the animal, he found, to hissurprise and grief, that book and money were gone. Theperson from whom he bought the horse commenced at onceto abuse him as an impostor, for he not only would not believehis tale, but would not trust him for a moment. Underthese distressing circumstances, he sought out Ann Jamieson,or Annie McDonald, after her husband’s name, for he knewwell enough where his money had gone to, and the sovereigninfluence which Ann exercised over her tribe. Being wellacquainted with her, from having often met her in his father’shouse, he went up to her, and putting his hand gentlyon her shoulder, in a kind and familiar manner, and with along face, told her of his misfortune, and begged her friendlyassistance to help him out of the difficulty, laying much stresson the horse-dealer charging him with an attempt to imposeon him. “Some o’ my laddies will hae seen it, Davie; I’llenquire,” was her immediate reply. She then took him to apublic-house, called for brandy, saw him seated, and desiredhim to drink. Taking the marks of the pocket-book, sheentered the fair, and, after various doublings and windingsamong the crowd, proceeded to her temporary depot ofstolen goods. In about half an hour she returned, with thebook and all its contents. The cash, bills, and papers whichit contained, were in the same parts of the book in which theowner had placed them. This affair was transacted in ascool and business-like a manner as if Annie and her “laddies”had been following any of the honest callings in ordinarylife. Indeed, no example, however severe, no punishment,however awful, seems to have had any beneficial effect uponthe minds of these Gipsies, or their friends who frequentedthe surrounding parts of the country, for they continued tofollow the ways of their race, in spite of the sanguinary laws[139]of the country. A continuation of their history, up to aperiod, is little better than a melancholy narrative of a seriesof imprisonments, banishments, and executions.

Ann Jamieson’s two nephews, Charles and James Jamieson,who rode alongside of their father and uncle to theplace of their execution, eating rolls, as if nothing unusualwas about to befall them, and who had witnessed theirmiserable end, in 1770, were themselves executed in 1786for robbing the Kinross mail. It was their intention tohave committed the deed upon the highway, for, the nightbefore the robbery, their mother, Euphan Graham, to preventdetection, insisted upon the post-boy being put to death,to which bloody proposition her sons would not consent. Itwas then agreed that they should secure their prize in thestable yard of an inn in the town, where the post-boy usuallystopped. The two highwaymen were traced to a smallhouse near Stirling, in which they made a desperate resistance.One of them attempted to ascend the chimney, toeffect his escape; but, failing in that, they attacked the officers,and tore at them with their teeth, after having struckfuriously at them with a knife. But they were overpowered,and secured in irons. Two females were in their companyat the time, on whom some of the money was found, mostartfully concealed about their persons. So illiterate werethese two men that, in crossing the Forth at Kincardine,they presented a twenty-pound note, to be changed, insteadof a twenty-shilling one. According to Baron Hume, thetrial of these two Gipsies took place on the 18th December,1786. They were assisted in the robbery by other membersof their band, including women and children. Their motherwas said to have been transported for the part which shetook in the affair; while another member of the gang wasbelow the age at which criminals can be tried and punishedin this country. The two brothers, before they committedthe crime, measured themselves in a room in Kinross, keptby a Mary Barclay, and marked their heights on the wall.The one stood six feet two inches, and the other five feetfour inches.[95]

CHAPTER V.

FIFE AND STIRLINGSHIRE GIPSIES.

In this account of the Gipsies in Fife, the horde which atone period resided at the village of Lochgellie are frequentlyreferred to. But it is proper to premise that this notedband were not the only Gipsies in Fife. This populouscounty contained, at one time, a great number of nomadicGipsies. The Falkland hills and the Falkland fairs weregreatly frequented by them;[96] and, not far from St. Andrews,some of the tribe had, within these fifty years, a small farm,containing about twenty acres of waste land, on which theyhad a small foundry, which the country people, on that account,called “Little Carron.” As my materials for thischapter are chiefly derived from the Lochgellie band, andtheir immediate connexions in other districts not far fromFife, their manners and customs are, on that account, broughtmore under review.

The village of Lochgellie was, at one time, a favourite resortof the Gipsies. The grounds in its immediate vicinityare exactly of that character upon which they seem to have[141]fixed their permanent, or rather winter’s residence, in agreat many parts of Scotland. By the statistical account ofthe parish of Auchterderran, Lochgellie was almost inaccessiblefor nearly six months in the year. The bleak andheathy morasses, and rushy wastes, with which the villageis surrounded, have a gloomy and melancholy aspect. Thescenery and face of the adjoining country are very similarto those in the neighbourhood of Biggar, in Lanarkshire,and Middleton, in Midlothian, which were also, at that time,Gipsy stations. A little to the south of the spot where theLinlithgow band, at one period, had their quarters, the countrybecomes moory, bleak, and barren. The village of Kirk-Yetholm,at present full of Gipsies, is also situated upon theconfines of a wild, pastoral tract, among the Cheviot hills.[97]The Gipsies, in general, appear to have located themselvesupon grounds of a flattish character, between the cultivatedand uncultivated districts; having, on one side, a fertile andpopulous country, and, on the other, a heathy, boggy, andbarren waste, into which they could retire in times of danger.[98]

In the statistical account of Auchterderran, just alludedto, is to be found the following notice of the Lochgellie Gipsies:“There are a few persons calledTinkers andHorners,half resident and half itinerant, who are feared andsuspected by the community. Two of them were banishedwithin these six years.” This horde, at one time, consistedof four or five families of the names of Graham, Brown,Robertson, &c. The Jamiesons and Wilsons were also oftenseen at Lochgellie; but such were the numbers that werecoming and going about the village, that it was difficult tosay who were residenters, and who were not. Some ofthem had fens from the proprietor of the estate of Lochgellie.They were dreaded for their depredations, andwere well known to the country people, all over the shiresof Fife, Kinross, Perth, Forfar, Kincardine and Aberdeen,by the name of the “Lochgellie band.” The chiefs of[142]this band were the Grahams, at the head of which was oldCharles Graham, an uncommonly stout and fine-looking man.He was banished the kingdom for his many crimes. Charliehad been often in courts of justice, and on one occasion,when he appeared for some crime or other, the judge, in asurly manner, demanded of him, what had brought himthere?—“The auld thing again, my lord, but nae proof,”was the Tinkler’s immediate reply. Ann Brown, one of hiswives, and the chief female of the band, was also sentenced tobanishment for fourteen years; seven of which, however, shespent in the prison of Aberdeen. She remained altogethernine years at Botany Bay, married a Gipsy abroad, returnedto Scotland, with more than a hundred pounds in cash, andnow sells earthenware at St. Andrews.[99] Being asked whyshe left Botany Bay, while making so much money there,she said, “It was to let them see I could come back again.”

Young Charlie Graham, son and successor, as chief, to oldCharlie, was hanged at Perth, about thirty years ago, forhorse-stealing. The anecdotes which are told of this singularman are numerous. When he was apprehended, a numberof people assembled to look at him, as an object of wonder;it being considered a thing almost impossible to takehim. His dog had discovered to the messengers the placeof his concealment, having barked at them as they camenear the spot. His feelings became irritated at the curiosityof the people, and he called out in great bitterness tothe officers: “Let me free, and gie me a stick three feetlang, and I’ll clear the knowe o’ them.” His feet and handswere so handsome and small, in proportion to the otherparts of his athletic body, that neither irons nor hand-cuffscould be kept on his ankles or wrists; without injury to hisperson the gyves and manacles always slipped over hisjoints. He had a prepossessing countenance, an elegantfigure, and much generosity of heart; and, notwithstandingall his tricks, was an extraordinary favourite with the public.Among the many tricks he played, it is related that heonce, unobserved, in a grass park, converted a young coltinto a gelding. He allowed the animal to remain for sometime in the possession of the owner, and then stole it. He wasimmediately detected, and apprehended; but as the owner[143]swore positively to the description of his horse, and Charlie’sbeing a gelding, he got off clear. The man was amazedwhen he discovered the trick that had been played uponhim, but when, where, and by whom done, he was entirelyignorant. Graham sold the animal to a third person, againstole it, and replaced it in the park of the original owner.He seemed to take great delight in stealing in this ingeniousmanner, trying how dexterously he could carry off theproperty of the astonished natives. He sometimes stolefrom wealthy individuals, and gave the booty to the indigent,although they were not Gipsies; and so accustomedwere the people, in some places, to his bloodless robberies,that some only put their spurs to their horses, calling out, asthey passed him: “Ah ha, Charlie lad, ye hae missed yourmark to-night!” A widow, with a large family, at whosehouse he had frequently been quartered, was in great distressfor want of money to pay her rent. Graham lent herthe amount required; but as the factor was returning homewith it in his pocket, Charlie robbed him, and, without lossof time, returned to the woman, and gave her a full dischargefor the sum she had just borrowed from him.

He was asked, immediately before his execution, if he hadever performed any good action during his life, to recommendhim to the mercy of his offended God. That of givingthe widow and fatherless the money of which he immediatelyafterwards robbed the factor, was the only instance he adducedin his favour; thinking that thereby he had performeda virtuous deed. In the morning of the day on which hewas to suffer, he sent a messenger to one of the magistrates,requesting a razor to take off his beard; at the same time,in a calm manner, desiring the person to tell the magistratethat, “unless his beard was shaven, he could appear beforeneither God nor man.” A short time before he was takenout to the gallows, he was observed reclining very pensivelyand thoughtfully on a seat. All at once he started up, exclaiming,in a mournful tone of voice, “Oh, can ony o’ yeread, sirs; will some o’ ye read a psalm to me?” at thesame time regretting much that he had not been taught toread. The fifty-first psalm was accordingly read to him, bya gentleman present, which soothed his feelings exceedingly,and gave him much ease and comfort. He was greatlyagitated after ascending the platform—his knees knocking[144]against each other; but just before he was cast off, his inveterateGipsy feelings returned upon him with redoubledviolence. He kicked from his feet both of his shoes, insight of the spectators—to set at nought, as was supposed,some prophecy that he would die with them on; and addressedthe assembled crowd in the following words: “Iam this day to be married to the gallows-tree, by sufferingin the manner of many of my ancestors; and I am extremelyglad to see such a number of respectable people at my wedding.”A number of the band attended his execution, and,when his body was returned to them, they all kissed it withgreat affection, and held the usual lyke-wake over it. Hissweetheart, or widow, I am uncertain which, of the nameof Wilson, his own cousin, put his corpse into hot lime, thenburied it, and sat on his grave, in a state of intoxication,till it was rendered unfit for the use of the medical gentlemen;it having been reported that he was to be taken outof his grave for the purpose of dissection. This manboasted greatly, while under sentence of death, of neverhaving spilled human blood by committing murder.

Hugh Graham, brother to Charlie, above-mentioned, wasstabbed with a knife by his own cousin, John Young, inAberdeenshire. These powerful Gipsies never fell in witheach other but a wrestling bout took place. Young generallycame off victorious, but Graham, although worsted,would neither quit Young nor acknowledge his inferiorityof strength. Young frequently desired Graham to keepout of his way, as his obstinate disposition would provefatal to one of them some time or other. They, however,met again, when a desperate struggle ensued. Graham wasthe aggressor; he drew his knife to stab Young, whowrested it out of his hand, and stabbing him in the upperpart of the stomach, close to the breast, laid his opponentdead at his feet.[100] In this battle the Gipsy females, intheir usual manner, took a conspicuous part, by assisting thecombatants on either side.

[145]Jenny Graham, sister of these Grahams, was kept by agentleman as his mistress; but, although treated with affection,such was her attachment to her old wandering way oflife, that she left her protector and his wealth, and rejoinedher erratic associates in the gang. She was a remarkablyhandsome and good-looking woman, and, while she traversedthe country, she frequently rode upon an ass, which wassaddled and bridled. On these occasions, she was sometimesdressed in a blue riding-habit and a black beaver hat. Itwas generally supposed that the stolen articles of value belongingto the family were committed to the care of Jenny.Margaret Graham, another sister, is still living, and is awoman of uncommon bodily strength; so much so, that sheis considered to be a good deal stronger than the generalityof men. She was married to William Davidson, a Gipsy,at Wemyss. They have a large family, and sell earthenwarethrough the country.

John Young, who stabbed his cousin, Hugh Graham, wasone of seven sons, and though above five feet ten inches inheight, his mother used to call him “the dwarf o’ a’ mybairns.” He was condemned and hanged at Aberdeen forthe murder. He wrote a good hand, and the country-peoplewere far from being displeased with his society, whilehe was employed in repairing their pots and pans in the wayof his calling. Sarah Graham, his mother, was of the highestTinkler mettle. She lost a forefinger in a Gipsy fray.Peter Young, another son of Sarah’s, was also hanged atEdinburgh, after breaking a number of prisons in which hewas confined. He is spoken of as a singular man. Suchwas his generosity of character, that he always exerted himselfto the utmost to set his fellow-prisoners free, althoughthey happened not to be in the same apartment of theprison. The life of this man was published about the timeof his execution. When any one asked old John Youngwhere his sons were, his reply was, “They are all hanged.”They were seven in number, and it was certainly a fearfulend of a whole family. The following is an extract of aletter addressed to Mr. Blackwood, from Aberdeen, relativeto Peter Young: “It is said, in your far-famed magazine,that Peter Young, brother to John Young, the Gipsy, likewisesuffered atAberdeen. It is true that he received sentenceto die there, but the prison and all the irons the persons[146]were able to load him with, somehow or other, werefound insufficient to prevent him from making his escape.After he had repeatedly broken loose, and had been as oftenretaken, the magistrates at last resolved that he should beeffectually secured; and, for that purpose, ordered a greatiron chain to be provided, and Peter to be fast bound init. As the jailer was making everything, as he thought,most secure, Peter, with a sigh, gazed on him, and said,‘Ay, ay, I winna come out now till I come out at thedoor;’ making him believe that he would not be able tomake his escape again, nor come out till the day fixed forhis execution. But the great iron chain, bolts and bars,were all alike unable to withstand his skill and strength:he came out, within a few nights, at the ‘door,’ along withsuch of his fellow-prisoners as were inclined to availthemselves of the ‘catch;’ but he was afterwards taken, andconveyed to Edinburgh, and there made to suffer the penaltywhich his crimes deserved.—D. C.”[101]

[147]Charles Brown, one of the principal members of theLochgellie band, was killed in a desperate fight at Raploch,near Stirling. A number of Gipsy boys, belonging toseveral gangs in the south, obtained a considerable quantityof plunder, at a fair in Perth, and had, in thedivision of the spoil, somehow or another, imposed on theLochgellie tribe, and their associates. Charles Graham, alreadymentioned, and Charles Brown, went south in pursuitof the young depredators, for the purpose of compelling themto give up their ill-gotten booty to those to whom, by theGipsy regulations, it of right belonged. After an arduouschase, the boys were overtaken near Stirling, when a furiousbattle immediately commenced. Both parties werearmed with bludgeons. After having fought for a considerabletime, with equal success on both sides, Graham, fromsome unknown cause, fled, leaving his near relation, Brown,to contend alone with the youths, in the best way he could.The boys now became the assailants, and began to press hardupon Brown, who defended himself long and manfully withhis bludgeon, displaying much art in the use of his weapon,in warding off the lighter blows of his opponents, whichcame in upon him from all quarters. At length he wasforced to give way, although very few of the blows reachedhis person. On retreating, with his front to his assailants,his foot struck upon an old feal dyke, when he fell to theground. The enraged youths now sprang in upon him, liketigers, and, without showing him the least mercy, dispatchedhim on the spot, by literally beating out his brains withtheir bludgeons. Brown’s coat was brought home to Lochgellie,by some of his wife’s friends, with the collar andshoulders besmeared all over with blood and brains, withquantities of his hair sticking in the gore. It was preservedfor some time in this shocking condition by his wife, and exhibitedas a proof that her husband had not fled, as well as to[148]arouse the clan to vengeance. My informant, a man aboutfifty years of age, with others, saw this dreadful relique ofBrown, in the very state in which it is now described.

Alexander Brown, another member of the Lochgellie band,happened, on one occasion, to be in need of butcher meat, forhis tribe. He had observed, grazing in a field, in the countyof Linlithgow, a bullock that had, by some accident, lost aboutthree-fourths of its tail. He procured a tail of a skin of thesame colour as that of the animal, and, in an ingenious manner,made it fast to the remaining part of its tail. Disguisedin this way, he drove off his booty; but after shipping thebeast at the Queens-ferry, on his way to the north, a servant,who had been dispatched in quest of the depredator,overtook him as he was stepping into the boat. An altercationimmediately commenced about the ox. The countrymansaid he could swear to the identity of the animal inBrown’s possession, were it not for its long tail; and wasproceeding to examine it narrowly, to satisfy himself on thatparticular, when the ready-witted Gipsy, ever fertile in expedientsto extricate himself from difficulties, took his knifeout of his pocket, and, in view of all present, cut off the tailabove the juncture, drawing blood instantly; and, throwingit into the sea, called out to the pursuer, with some warmth:“Swear to the ox now, and be —— to ye.” The countrymansaid not another word, but returned home, while theTinkler proceeded on his journey with his prize.[102]

[149]But this Gipsy was not always so fortunate as he was onthis occasion. Being once apprehended near Dumblane, it wasthe intention of the messengers to carry him direct to Perth,but they were under the necessity of lodging him in thenearest prison for the night. Brown was no sooner in custodythan he began to meditate his escape. He requested,as a favour, that the officers would sit up all night with him,in a public-house, instead of a prison, promising them asmuch meat and drink, for their indulgence and trouble, asthey should desire. His request having been granted, fouror five officers were placed in and about the room in whichhe was confined, as a guard on his person, being aware ofthe desperate character they had to deal with. He tookcare to ply them well with the bottle; and early next morning,before setting out, he desired one of them to put up thewindow a little, to cool the apartment. After walkingseveral times across the room, the Gipsy, all at once, threwhimself out of the window, which was a considerable heightfrom the ground. The hue and cry was at his heels in aninstant; and as some of the messengers were gaining onhim, he boldly faced about, drew forth, from below his coat,a dagger, which he brandished in the air, and threateneddeath to the first who should approach him. He was, onthis occasion, suffered to make his escape, as none had thecourage to advance upon him.

When in full dress, Brown wore a hat richly ornamentedand trimmed with beautiful gold lace, which was then fashionableamong the first ranks in Scotland, particularlyamong the officers of the army. His coat was made ofsuperfine cloth, of a light green colour, long in the tails, andhaving one row of buttons at the breast. His shirt, of thefinest quality, was ruffled at hands and breast, with a black[150]stock and buckle round the neck. He also wore a pair of handsomeboots, with silver-plated spurs, all in the fashionof the day. Below his garments he carried a large knife,and in the shaft or butt-end of his large whip, a small spear,or dagger, was concealed. His brother-in-law, Wilson, wasfrequently dressed in a similar garb, and both rode the besthorses in the country. Having the appearance of gentlemenin their habits, and assuming the manners of such, whichthey imitated to a wonderful degree, few persons took thesemen for Gipsies. Like many of their race, they are representedas having been very handsome, tall, and stout-mademen, with agreeable and manly countenances. Among thenumerous thefts and robberies which they committed intheir day, they were never known to have taken a sixpencefrom people of an inferior class, but, on the contrary, ratherto have assisted the poor classes in their pecuniary matters,with a generous liberality, not at all to be looked for frommen of their singular habits and manner of life. The followingparticulars are descriptive of the manner and stylein which some of the Gipsies of rank, at one time, traversedthis country.

Within these forty-five years, Mr. McRitchie, alreadyalluded to, happened to be in a smithy, in the neighbourhoodof Carlisle, getting the shoes of his riding-horse roughenedon a frosty day, to enable him to proceed on his journey,when a gentleman called for a like purpose. The animalon which he was mounted was a handsome blood-horse, whichwas saddled and bridled in a superior manner. He was himselfdressed in superfine clothes, with a riding-whip in his hand;was booted and spurred, with saddle-bags behind him; andhad, altogether, man and horse, the equipment and appearanceof a smart English mercantile traveller, riding in theway of his business. There being several horses in thesmithy, he, in a haughty and consequential manner, enquiredof the smith, very particularly, whose turn it was first: indicatinga strong desire to be first served, although he wasthe last that had entered the smithy. This bold assurancemade my acquaintance take a steady look at the intrusivestranger, whom he surveyed from head to foot. And whatwas his astonishment when he found the mighty gentlemanto be no other than Sandie Brown, the Tinkler’s son, fromthe neighbourhood of Crieff; whom he had often seen strolling[151]through the country in a troop of Gipsies, and frequentlyin his father’s house, at the North Queensferry. He couldscarcely believe his eyes, so to prevent any disagreeablemistake, politely asked the “gentleman” if his name was notBrown; observing that he thought he had seen him somewherebefore. The surprised Tinkler hesitated considerablyat the unexpected question, and, after having put somequeries on his part, answered that “he would not denyhimself—his name was really Brown.” He had, in all likelihood,been travelling under a borrowed name, a practicevery common with the Gipsies. When he found himselfdetected, yet seeing no danger to be apprehended from theaccidental meeting, he very shrewdly showed great marksof kindness to his acquaintance. Being now quite free fromembarrassment, he, in a short time, began to display, as isthe Gipsy custom, extraordinary feats of bodily strength,by twisting with his hands strong pieces of iron; takingbets regarding his power in these practices, with those whowould wager with him. Before parting with my friend,Brown very kindly insisted upon treating him with a bottleof any kind of liquor he would choose to drink. At somesequestered station of his tribe, on his way home, the equestrianTinkler would unmask himself—dispose of his horse,pack up his fine clothes, and assume his ragged coat, leathernapron, and budget—before he would venture among thepeople of the country, who were acquainted with his realcharacter. Here we see a haughty, overbearing, highwayrobber, clothed in excellent apparel, and mounted on a goodsteed, metamorphose himself, in an instant, into a poor,wandering, beggarly, and pitiful Gipsy.

This Alexander Brown, and his brother-in-law, Wilson,carried on conjointly a considerable trade in horse-stealingbetween Scotland and England. The horses which werestolen in the South were brought to Scotland, and sold there;those stolen in Scotland were, on the other hand, disposedof in the South by English Gipsies. The crime of horse-stealinghas brought a great many of these wanderers to anuntimely end on the gallows. Brown was at last hanged atEdinburgh, to expiate the many crimes he had, from timeto time, committed. It is said that his brother-in-law, Wilson,was hanged along with him on the same day, havingbeen also guilty of a number of crimes. Brown was taken[152]in a wood in Rannach, having been surprised and overpoweredby a party of Highlanders, raised for the purpose ofapprehending him, and dispersing his band, who lay in thewood in which he was captured. He thought to evade themby clapping close to the ground, like a wild animal. Uponbeing seized, a furious scuffle ensued; and during the violenttossing and struggling which took place, while theywere securing this sturdy wanderer, he took hold of thebare thigh of one of the Highlanders, and bit it most cruelly.Martha, the mother of Brown, and the mother-in-lawof Wilson, was apprehended in the act of stealing a pair ofsheets while attending their execution.

Charles, by some called William, a brother of AlexanderBrown, was run down by a party of the military and somemessengers, near Dundee. He was carried to Perth, wherehe was tried, condemned and executed, to atone for the numerouscrimes of which he was guilty. He was conveyedto Perth by water, in consequence of it being reported thatthe Gipsies of Fife, with the Grahams and Ogilvies at theirhead, were in motion to rescue him. He, also, was a manof great personal strength; and regretting, after beinghandcuffed, having allowed himself to be so easily taken, he,in wrath, drove the messengers before him with his feet, asif they had been children. While in the apartment of theprison called the condemned cell, or the cage, he freed himselffrom his irons, and by some means set on fire the dampstraw on which he lay, with the design of making his escapein the confusion. Surprised at the building being on fire,and suspecting Brown to have been the cause of it, and thathe was free from his chains, ramping like a lion in his den,no one, in the hurry, could be found with resolution enoughto venture near him, till a sergeant of the forty-second regimentvolunteered his services. Before he would face theTinkler, however, he requested authority from the magistratesto defend himself with his broad-sword, and, in casethe prisoner became desperate, to cut him down. This permissionbeing obtained, the sergeant drew his sword, and,assisted by the jailer’s daughter, unbarred the doors, till hecame to the cage, whence the prison was being filled withsmoke. As he advanced to the door, he asked with a loudvoice, “Who is there?” “The devil,” vociferated the Gipsy,through fire and smoke. “I am also a devil, and of the[153]black-watch,” thundered back the intrepid Highlander. Theresolute reply of the soldier sounded like a death knell tothe artful Tinkler—he knew his man—it daunted him completely;for, after some threats from the sergeant, he quietlyallowed himself to be again loaded with irons, andthoroughly secured in his cell, whence he did not stir till theday of his execution.

Lizzy Brown, by some called Snippy, a member of thesame family, was a tall, stout woman, with features far frombeing disagreeable. She lost her nose in a battle, fought inthe shire of Angus. In this rencounter, the Gipsies foughtamong themselves with highland dirks, exhibiting all thefury of hostile tribes of Bedouin Arabs of the desert. Whenthis woman found that her nose was struck off, by the sweepof a dirk, she put her hand to the wound, and, as if littlehad befallen her, called out, in the heat of the scuffle, tothose nearest her: “But, in the middle o’ the meantime,where is my nose?” Poor Lizzy’s tall figure was conspicuousamong the tribe, owing to the want of that ornamentalpart of her face.

The Grahams of Lochgellie, the Wilsons of Raploch, nearStirling, and the Jamiesons, noticed under the head of LinlithgowshireGipsies, were all, by the female side, immediatelydescended from old Charles Stewart, a Gipsy chief, atone period of no small consequence, among these hordes.[103]When I enquired if the Robertsons, who lived, at one time,at Menstry, were related to the Lochgellie band, the answerwhich I received was: “The Tinklers are a’ sib”—meaningthat they are all connected with one another by the ties ofblood, and considered as one family. This is a most powerfulbond of union among these desperate clans, which almostbids defiance to the breaking up of their strongly cementedsociety. Old Charles Stewart was described tome as a stout, good-looking man, with a fair complexion;and I was informed that he lived to a great age. He affirmed,wherever he went, that he was a descendant of theroyal Stewarts of Scotland. His descendants still assertthat they are sprung from the royal race of Scotland. In[154]support of this pretension, Stewart, in the year 1774, at awedding, in the parish of Corstorphine, actually wore a largecocked hat, decorated with a beautiful plume of white feathers,in imitation of the white cockade of the Pretender.On this occasion, he wore a short coat, philabeg and purse,and tartan hose. He sometimes wore a piece of brass, as astar, on his left breast, with a cudgel in his hand. Suchridiculous attire corresponds exactly with the taste andideas of a Gipsy.[104] These pretensions of Stewart are exactlyof a piece with the usual Gipsy policy of makingthe people believe that they are descended from familiesof rank and influence in the country. At the same time, itcannot be denied that some of our Scottish kings, especiallyJames V, the “Gaberlunzie-man,”[105] were far from being scrupulousor fastidious in their vague amours. As old CharlesStewart was, on one occasion, crossing the Forth, at Queensferry,chained to his son-in-law, Wilson, in charge of messengers,he, with considerable shame in his countenance, observedDavid McRitchie, whose father, as already mentioned,kept a first-rate inn at the north-side, and in which theTinkler had frequently regaled himself with his merry companions.Stewart called McRitchie to him, and, taking fiveshillings out of his pocket, said to him, “Hae, Davie, there’sfive shillings to drink my health, man; I’ll laugh at them[155]a’.” He did laugh at them all, for nothing could be provedagainst him and he was immediately set at liberty. It was,as Charles Graham said—“The auld thing again, but naeproof.”[106]

Another very singular Gipsy, of the name of Jamie Robertson,a near relation of the Lochgellie tribe, resided atMenstry, at the foot of the Ochil hills. James was an excellentmusician, and was in great request at fairs and countryweddings. Although characterized by a dissolutenessof manners, and professed roguery, this man, when trusted,was strictly honest. A decent man in the neighbourhood,of the name of Robert Gray, many a time lent him sums ofmoney, to purchase large ox horns and other articles, in theeast of Fife, which he always repaid on the very day hepromised, with the greatest correctness and civility. Thefollowing anecdote will show the zeal with which he wouldresent an insult which he conceived to be offered to hisfriend: In one of his excursions through Fife, he happenedto be lying on the ground, basking himself in the sun, whilebaiting his ass, on the roadside, when a countryman, anentire stranger to him, came past, singing, in lightness ofheart, the song of “Auld Robin Gray,” which, unfortunatelyfor the man, Robertson had never heard before. On theunconscious stranger coming to the words “Auld RobinGray was a kind man to me,” the hot-blooded Gipsy startedto his feet, and, with a volley of oaths, felled him with hisbludgeon to the ground; repeating his blows in the mostviolent manner, and telling him, “Auld Robin Gray was akind man to him indeed, but it was not for him to make asong on Robin for that.” In short, he nearly put the innocent[156]man to death, in the heat of his passion, for satirizing,as he thought, his friend in a scurrilous song. It was an invariablecustom with Robertson, whenever he passed RobertGray’s house, even were it at the dead hour of night, todraw out his “bread winner,” and give him a few of hisbest airs, in gratitude for his kindness.

Robertson’s wife, a daughter of Martha, whose son andson-in-law, Brown and Wilson, were executed, as alreadymentioned, was sentenced to transportation to Botany Bay;but, owing to her advanced years, it was not thought worththe expense and trouble of sending her over seas, and shewas set at liberty. Her grandson, Joyce Robertson, wouldalso have been transported, if not hanged, but for the assistanceof some of his clan rescuing him from Stirling jail.So coolly and deliberately did he go about his operations, inbreaking out of the prison, that he took along with him hisoatmeal bag, and a favourite bird, in a cage, with which hehad amused himself during his solitary confinement. Thefollowing anecdote of this audacious Gipsy, which was toldto me by an inhabitant of Stirling, who was well acquaintedwith the parties, is, I believe, unequalled in the history ofrobberies: While Robertson was lying in jail, an old man,for what purpose is not mentioned, went to the prison window,to speak to him through the iron stauncheons. Joyce,putting forth his hand, took hold of the unsuspecting manby the breast of his coat, and drew him close up to the ironbars of the window; then thrusting out his other hand, andpointing a glittering knife at his heart, threatened him withinstant death, if he did not deliver him the money he had onhim. The poor man, completely intimidated, handed intothe prison all the money he had; but had it returned, onthe jailer being informed of the extraordinary transaction.[107]After escaping from confinement, this Gipsy stole a watchfrom a house at Alva, but had hardly got it into his possessionbefore he was discovered, and had the inhabitants ofthe village in pursuit of him. A man, of the name of Dawson,met him in his flight, and, astonished at seeing the crowdat his heels, enquired, impatiently, what was the matter.[157]“They are all running after me, and you will soon run too,”replied the Tinkler, without shortening his step. He tookto Tullibody plantations, but was apprehended, and had thewatch taken from him.

I will notice another principal Gipsy, closely connectedby blood with the Fife bands, and of that rank that entitledhim to issue tokens to the members of his tribe. The nameof this chief was Charles Wilson, and his place of residence,at one time, was Raploch, close by Stirling castle, where hepossessed some heritable property in houses. He was astout, athletic, good-looking man, fully six feet in stature,and of a fair complexion; and was, in general, handsomelydressed, frequently displaying a gold watch, with many sealsattached to its chain. In his appearance he was respectable,very polite in his manners, and had, altogether, little ornothing about him which, at first sight, or to the generalpublic, indicated him to be a Gipsy. But, nevertheless, Iwas assured by one of the tribe, who was well acquaintedwith him, that he spoke the language, and observed all thecustoms, and followed the practices of the Gipsies.

He was a pretty extensive horse-dealer, having at timesin his possession numbers of the best bred horses in thecountry. He most commonly bought and sold hunters, andsuch as were suitable for cavalry; and for some of his horseshe received upwards of a hundred guineas apiece. In hisdealings he always paid cash for his purchases, but acceptedbills from his customers of respectability. Many a one purchasedhorses of him; and he was taken notice of by manyrespectable people in the neighbourhood; but the communityin general looked upon him, and his people, with suspicionand fear, and were by no means fond of quarrelling withany of his vindictive fraternity. When any of his customersrequired a horse from him, and told him that the matter wasleft wholly to himself, as regards price, but to provide ananimal suitable for the purpose required, no man in Scotlandwould act with greater honour than Charles Wilson. Hewould then fit his employer completely, and charge for thehorse exactly what the price should be. To this manner ofdealing he was very averse, and endeavoured to avoid it asmuch as possible. It is said he was never known to deceiveany one in his transactions, when entire confidence wasplaced in him. But, on the other hand, when any tried to[158]make a bargain with him, without any reference to himself,but trusting wholly to their own judgment, he would takethree prices for his horses, if he could obtain them, andcheat them, if it was in his power. It is said his peoplestole horses in Ireland, and sent them to him, to dispose ofin Scotland. On one occasion his gang stole and sold inEdinburgh, Stirling and Dumbarton a grey stallion, threedifferent times in one week. Wilson himself was almostalways mounted on a blood-horse of the highest mettle.

At one time, Charles Wilson travelled the country with ahorse and cart, vending articles which his gang plunderedfrom shops in Glasgow and other places. He had an associatewho kept a regular shop, and when Wilson happenedto be questioned about his merchandise, he always had fictitiousbills of particulars, invoices and receipts, ready toshow that the goods were lawfully purchased from his merchant,who was no other than his friend and associate. AsCharles was chief of his tribe, he received the title of captain,to distinguish him from the meaner sort of his race.Like others of his rank among the Gipsies, he generally hada numerous gang of youths in fairs, plundering for him in alldirections, among the heedless and unthinking crowd. Buthe always managed matters with such art and address that,however much he might be suspected, no evidence couldever be found to show that he acted a part in such transactions.It was well understood, however, that Charlie, ashe was commonly called, divided the contents of many apurse with his band; all the plundered articles being infact brought to him for distribution.

This chief, as I have already mentioned, issued tokens tothe members of his own tribe; a part of the polity of theGipsies which will be fully described in thefollowing chapter.But, besides these regular Gipsy tokens, he, like manyof his nation, gave tokens of protection to his particularfriends of the community at large. The following is oneinstance, among many, of this curious practice among theGipsies. I received the particulars from the individualhimself who obtained the token or passport from Wilson.My informant, Mr. Buchanan, a retired officer of the Excise,chanced, in his youth, to be in a fair at Skirling, in Peebles-shire,when an acquaintance of his, of the name of JohnSmith, of Carnwath Mill, received, in a tent, fifty pounds[159]for horses which he had sold in the market. Wilson, whowas acquainted with both parties, was in the tent at thetime, and saw the latter receive the money. On leaving thetent, Smith mentioned to his friend that he was afraid ofbeing robbed in going home, as Wilson knew he had moneyin his possession. Mr. Buchanan, being well acquaintedwith Wilson, went to him in the fair, and told him the plainfacts; that Smith and himself were to travel with money ontheir persons, and that they were apprehensive of beingrobbed of it, on their way home. The Gipsy, after hesitatingfor a moment, gave Buchanan a pen-knife, which hewas to show to the first person who should offer to molestthem; at the same time enjoining him to keep the affairquite private. After my informant and his friend hadtravelled a considerable distance on their way home, theyobserved, at a little distance before them, a number ofTinklers—men and women—fighting together on the sideof the road. One of the females came forward to thetravellers, and urged them vehemently to assist her husband,who, she said, was like to be murdered by others who hadfallen upon him on the highway. My friend knew quitewell that all the fighting was a farce, got up for the purposeof robbing him and his companion, the moment they interferedwith the combatants in their feigned quarrel. Insteadof giving the woman the assistance she asked, he privatelyand very quietly, as if he wished nobody to see it, showedher Wilson’s knife in his hand, when she immediately exclaimed,“You are our friends,” and called, at the samemoment, to those engaged in the scuffle, in words to thesame effect. Both the travellers now passed on, but, onlooking behind them, they observed that the squabble hadentirely ceased. The pen-knife was returned to Wilson theday following.

I may give, in this place, another instance of these tokensbeing granted by the Gipsies to their particular favouritesof the community. The particulars were given to me bythe individual with whom the incident occurred; and theGipsy mentioned I have myself seen and spoken to: A——A——, a small farmer, who resided in the west of Fife,happened to be at one of the Falkland fairs, where, in theevening, he fell in with old Andrew Steedman, a Gipsy horse-dealerfrom Lochgellie, with whom he was well acquainted.[160]They entered a public-house in Falkland to have a dram together,before leaving the fair, and after some conversationhad passed, on various subjects, Steedman observed to hisacquaintance that it would be late in the night before hecould reach his home, and that he might be exposed to somedanger on the road; but he would give him his snuff-box,to present and offer a snuff to the first person who shouldoffer to molest him. My informant, possessed of the Gipsy’ssnuff-box, mounted his horse, and left his acquaintance andFalkland behind for his home. He had not proceeded faron his journey, before a man in the dark seized the bridleof his horse, and ordered him to stop; without, however,enforcing his command to surrender in that determined toneand manner common to highwaymen with those they intendto rob. The farmer at once recognized the robber to be noother than young Charles Graham, one of the LochgellieTinklers, whom he personally knew. Instead of deliveringhim his purse, he held out to him the snuff-box, as if nothinghad happened, and, offering him a pinch, asked him if he wasgoing to Lochgellie to-night. A sort of parley now ensued,the farmer feeling confident in the strength of his protection,and Graham confounded at being recognized by an acquaintancewhom he was about to rob, and who, moreover,was in possession of a Gipsy token. At first a dry conversationensued, similar to that between persons unacquaintedwith each other when they happen to meet; but Graham,recovering his self-possession, soon became very frank andkind, and insisted on the farmer accompanying him to apublic-house on the road-side, where he would treat him toa dram. The farmer, a stout, athletic man, and no coward,complied with the Gipsy’s invitation without hesitation.While drinking their liquor, Graham took up the snuff-box,and examined it all over very attentively, by the light ofthe candle, and returned it, without making a single remark,relative either to the untoward occurrence or the snuff-boxitself. The farmer was equally silent as to what had takenplace; but he could not help noticing the particular mannerin which the Gipsy examined the token. They drank ahearty dram together, and parted the best of friends; thefarmer for his home, and Graham, as he supposed, for thehighway, to exercise his calling. Graham, about this period,resided in a house belonging to Steedman, in Lochgellie.

[161]Instances occurred of individuals, who happened to beplundered, applying to Charles Wilson for his assistance torecover their property. The particulars of the followingcase are in the words of a friend who gave me the anecdote:“A boy, having received his hard-earned fee, at theend of a term, set out for Stirling to purchase some clothesfor himself. On the road he was accosted by two men, whoconversed with and accompanied him to Stirling. The ladproceeded accordingly to fit himself in a shop with a newsuit, but, to his utter disappointment and grief, his smallpenny-fee was gone. The merchant questioned him aboutthe road he had come, and whether he had been in companywith any one on the way or otherwise. Upon the appearanceof his companions being described, the shop-keepersuspected they might have picked his pocket unobserved.As a last resource, the boy was advised to call upon CharlieWilson, and relate to him the particulars of his misfortune;which he accordingly did. Charles heard his story to theend, and desired him to call next day, when he might beable to give him some information relative to his loss. Theyoung lad kept the appointment, and, to his great joy, theTinkler chief paid him down every farthing of his lostmoney; but at the same time told him to ask no questions.”

This Gipsy chief died within these thirty-five years in his ownhouse, on the castle-hill at Stirling, whither he had removedfrom Raploch. It is stated that, for a considerable time beforehis death, he relinquished his former practices, and diedin full communion with the church.[108] He was, about thelatter end of his life, reduced to considerable poverty, andwas under the necessity of betaking himself to his originaloccupation of making horn spoons for a subsistence. Inthe days of his prosperity, Charles was considered a verykind-hearted and generous man to the poor; and it seldomhappened that poverty and distress were not relieved byhim, when application was made to him by the needy. Althoughmany of the more original kind of Gipsies have arespectable appearance, and may possess a little money,during the prime of life, yet the most of them, in their oldage, are in a condition of poverty and misery.

[162]Charles Wilson had a family of very handsome daughters,one of whom was considered a perfect beauty. She did nottravel the country, like the rest of her family, but remainedat home, and acted as her father’s housekeeper; and, whenany of the tribe visited him, they always addressed her bythe title of “my lady,” (raunie,) and otherwise treated herwith great respect. This beautiful girl was, about the year1795, kept as a mistress by an adjutant of a Scotch regimentof fencible cavalry. She was frequently seen as handsomelyand fashionably attired as the first females in Stirling; andsome of the troopers were not displeased to see their adjutant’smistress equal in appearance to the highest dames inthe town. But Wilson’s daughters were all frequentlydressed in a very superior manner, and could not have beentaken for Gipsies.

To suit their purposes of deception, in practising theirpilfering habits, the female Gipsies, as well as the males,often changed their wearing apparel. Some of them havebeen seen in four different dresses in one fair day, varyingfrom the appearance of a sturdy female beggar to that of ayoung, flirting wench, fantastically dressed, and throwingherself, a perfect lure, in the way of the hearty, ranting,half-intoxicated, and merry young farmers, for the sole purposeof stripping them of their money.[109] The following isgiven as an instance of this sort of female deception:—On afair-day, in the town of Kinross, a Brae-laird,[110] in the samecounty, fell in with a Gipsy harpy of the above character,of the name of Wilson, one of Charles’ daughters, it wasunderstood. She had a fine person, an agreeable and prepossessingcountenance, was handsomely dressed, and was,altogether, what one would pronounce a pretty girl. Hercharms made a very sudden and deep impression on the susceptiblelaird; and as it was an easy matter, in those times,[163]to make up acquaintance at these large and promiscuousgatherings, the enamoured rustic soon found means to introducehimself to the stranger lady. He treated her in agallant manner, and engaged to pay his respects to her ather place of residence. It happened, however, that a numberof Tinklers were, that very evening, apprehended in thefair, for picking pockets, and a great many purses werefound in their custody. Proclamation was made by theauthorities, that all those who had lost their money shouldappear at a place named, and identify their property. TheBrae-laird, among others, missed his pocket-book and purse,and accordingly went to enquire after them. His purse wasproduced to him; but greatly was he ashamed and mortifiedwhen the thief was also shown to him, lying in prison—thevery person of his handsome and beautiful sweetheart, nowmetamorphosed into a common Tinkler wench. Whether henow provoked the ire of his dulcinea, by harsh treatment, isnot mentioned; but the woman sent, as it were, a dagger tohis heart, by calling out before all present: “Ay, laird, ye’reno sae kind to me noo, lad, as when ye treated me wi’ winein the forenoon.” The man, confounded at his exposure,was glad to get out of her presence, and, rather than bearthe cutting taunts of the Gipsy, fled from the place of investigation,leaving his money behind him.[111]

It is almost needless to mention that the StirlingshireGipsies contributed their full proportion to the list of victimsto the offended laws of the country. Although CharlesWilson, the chieftain of the horde, dexterously eluded justicehimself, two of his brothers were executed within the memoryof people still living. Another of his relatives, of thename of Gordon, also underwent the last penalty of the law,at Glasgow, where an acquaintance of mine saw him hanged.Wilson had a son who carried a box of jewelry through thecountry, and was suspected of having been concerned inrobbing a bank, at, I believe, Dunkeld. Some of the descendantsof this Stirlingshire tribe still roam up and downthe kingdom, nearly in the old Gipsy manner; and several[164]of them have their residence, when not on the tramp, in thetown of Stirling.

The great distinguishing feature in the character of theGipsies is an incurable propensity for theft and robbery,and taking openly and forcibly (sorning) whatever answerstheir purpose. A Gipsy, of about twenty-one years of age,stated to me that his forefathers considered it quite lawful,among themselves, to take from others, not of their own fraternity,any article they stood in need of. Casting his eyesaround the inside of my house, he said: “For instance, werethey to enter this room, they would carry off anything thatcould be of service to them, such as clothes, money, victuals,&c.:” “but,” added he, “all this proceeded from ignorance;they are now quite changed in their manners.” AnotherGipsy, a man of about sixty years of age, informed me thatthe tribe have a complete and thorough hatred of the wholecommunity, excepting those who shelter them, or treat themwith kindness; and that a dexterous theft or robbery, committedon any of the natives among whom they travel, islooked upon as one of the most meritorious actions which aGipsy can possibly perform.

But the Gipsies are by no means the only nation in the worldthat have considered theft reputable. In Sparta, under thecelebrated law-giver Lycurgus, theft was also reputable. InHugh Murray’s account of an embassy from Portugal to theEmperor of Abyssinia, in 1620, we find the following curiouspassage relative to thieves in that part of the world: “Asthe embassy left the palace, a band of thieves carried off anumber of valuable articles, while a servant who attemptedto defend them was wounded in the leg. The ambassadors,enquiring the mode of obtaining redress for this outrage,were assured that these thieves formed a regular part of thecourt establishment, and that officers were appointed wholevied a proportion of the articles stolen, for behoof his imperialmajesty.”[112] In another part of Africa, there is a hordeof Moors who go by the name of the tribe of thieves. Thiswandering, vagabond horde do not blush at adopting thisodious denomination. Their chief is called chief of thetribe of thieves.[113] In Hugh Murray’s Asia, we have the followingpassage relative to the professed thieves in India.

[165]“Nothing tends more to call in question the mildness ofthe Hindoo disposition than the vast scale of the practiceof decoity. This term, though essentially synonymous withrobbery, suggests, however, very different ideas. With us,robbers are daring and desperate outlaws, who hide themselvesin the obscure corners of great cities, shunned anddetested by all society. In India, they are regular andreputable persons, who have not only houses and families,but often landed property, and have much influence in thevillages where they reside. This profession, like all others,is hereditary; and a father has been heard, from the gallows,carefully admonishing his son not to be deterred, by his fate,from following the calling of his ancestors. They are verydevout, and have placed themselves under the patronage ofthe goddess Kali, revered in Bengal above all other deities,and who is supposed to look with peculiar favour on achievementssuch as theirs. They are even recognized by the oldHindoo laws, which contain enactments for the protectionof stolen goods, upon a due share being given to the magistrate.They seldom, however, commit depredations in theirown village, or even in that immediately adjoining, but seeka distant one, where they have no tie to the inhabitants.They are formed into bands, with military organization, sothat when a chief dies, there is always another ready to succeedhim. They calculate that they have ten chances to oneof never being brought to justice.”

The old Hindoo law alluded to in the above passage is, Ipresume, the following enactment in the Gentoo Code, translatedby Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, page 146: “The modeof shares among robbers is this: If any thieves, by the commandof the magistrate, and with his assistance, have committeddepredations upon, and brought any booty from, anotherprovince, the magistrate shall receive a share ofone-sixth of the whole; if they receive no command orassistance from the magistrate, they shall give the magistrate,in that case, one-tenth of his share; and of theremainder, their chief shall receive four shares: and whosoeveramong them is perfect master of his occupation, shallreceive three shares; also whichever of them is remarkablystrong and stout, shall receive two shares; and the rest shallreceive each one share. If any one of the community ofthieves happens to be taken, and should be released from[166]the Cutchery, (court of justice), upon payment of a sum ofmoney, all the thieves shall make good that sum by equalshares.”—“In the Gentoo code containing this law, thereare many severe enactments against theft and robbery ofevery description; but these laws refer to domestic disturbersof their own countrymen, or violators of the first principlesof society. The law which regulates these shares of robbers,refers only to such bold and hardy adventurers as sally forthto levy contributions in a foreign province.”

Now our Gipsies are, in one point, exactly on a level withthe adventurers here mentioned. They look upon themselvesas being in a foreign land, and consider it fair game to rob,plunder, and cheat all and every one of the “strangers”among whom they travel. I am disposed to believe thatthere were also rules among the Gipsy bands for dividingtheir booty, something like the old Hindoo law alluded to.[114]

We find the following curious particulars mentioned of atribe among the mountains in India, who are supposed to bethe aborigines of Hindostan. They are called Kookies orLunctas. “Next to personal valour, the accomplishmentmost esteemed in a warrior is superior address in stealing;and if a thief can convey, undiscovered, to his own house,his neighbour’s property, it cannot afterwards be reclaimed;nor, if detected in the act, is he otherwise punished than byexposure to the ridicule of the Porah, and being obliged torestore what he may have laid hold of.” “It is a greatrecommendation in obtaining a wife, when a Kookie cansay that his house is full of stolen articles.”[115] There areseveral other tribes in the world among whom theft and robberyare considered meritorious actions. It appears thatamong the Coords “no one is allowed to marry a wife tillhe has committed some great act of robbery or murder.” Inan account of Kamtschatka, it is mentioned that “among allthese barbarous nations, excepting the Kamtschadales, theft[167]is reputable, provided they do not steal in their own tribe,or if done with such art as to prevent discovery: on theother hand, it is punished very severely if discovered; notfor the theft, but for the want of address in the art of stealing.A Tschukotskoe girl cannot be married before she hasshown her dexterity in this way.”[116]

Halhed, in apologizing for the Hindoo magistrate participatingin the plunder of banditti, which applies equally wellto the Gipsies, remarks that, “unjust as this behaviour mayappear in the eye of equity, it bears the most genuine stampof antiquity, and corresponds entirely with the manners ofthe early Grecians, at or before the period of the Trojanwar, and of the western nations before their emersion frombarbarism; a practice still kept up among the piratic Statesof Barbary, to its fullest extent by sea, and probably amongmany hordes of Tartars and Arabian banditti by land.” Itis proper to mention that the Gipsies seldom or never stealfrom one another; at least, I never could find out an instanceof a theft having been committed by a Gipsy on one of hisown tribe.

It will be seen, from the following details, that the sanguinarylaws which have been, from time to time, promulgatedall over Europe against the Gipsies, were not enactedto put down fanciful crimes, as an author of the present dayseems, in his travels, to insinuate. To plunder the communitywith more safety to their persons, the Gipsies appearto have had a system of theft peculiar to themselves. Thoseof Lochgellie trained all their children to theft. Indeed,this has been the general practice with the tribe all overScotland. Several individuals have mentioned to me thatthe Lochgellie band were exercised in the art of thievingunder the most rigid discipline. They had various ways ofmaking themselves expert thieves. They frequently practisedthemselves by picking the pockets of each other.Sometimes a pair of breeches were made fast to the end ofa string, suspended from a high part of the tent, kiln, orouthouse in which they happened to be encamped. Thechildren were set at work to try if they could, by sleight ofhand, abstract money from the pockets of the breeches hangingin this position, without moving them. Sometimes they[168]used bells in this discipline. The children who were mostexpert in abstracting the money in this manner, were rewardedwith applause and presents; while, on the other hand, thosewho proved awkward, by ringing the bell, or moving thebreeches, were severely chastised. After the youths wereconsidered perfect in this branch of their profession, a purse,or other small object, was laid down in an exposed part ofthe tent or camp, in view of all the family. While theordinary business of the Gipsies was going forward, thechildren again commenced their operations, by exerting theiringenuity and exercising their patience, in trying to carryoff the purse without being perceived by any one present.If they were detected, they were again beaten; but if theysucceeded unnoticed, they were caressed and liberally rewarded.As far as my information goes, this systematictraining of the Gipsy youth was performed by the chieffemale of the bands. These women seem to have had greatauthority over their children. Ann Brown, of the Lochgellietribe, could, by a single stamp of her foot, cause thechildren to crouch to the ground, like trembling dogs underthe lash of an angry master. The Gipsies, from these constanttrainings, became exceedingly dexterous at pickingpockets. The following instance of their extraordinary addressin these practices, will show the effects of their carefultraining, as well as exhibit the natural ingenuity which theywill display in compassing their ends.

A principal male Gipsy, of a very respectable appearance,whose name it is unnecessary to mention, happened, on amarket day, to be drinking in a public-house, with severalfarmers with whom he was well acquainted. The partyobserved, from the window, a countryman purchase somethingat a stand in the market, and, after paying for it, thrusthis purse into his watch-pocket, in the band of his breeches.One of the company remarked that it would be a very difficultmatter to rob the cautious man of his purse, withoutbeing detected. The Gipsy immediately offered to bet twobottles of wine that he would rob the man of his purse, inthe open and public market, without being perceived by him.The bet was taken, and the Gipsy proceeded about the difficultand delicate business. Going up to the unsuspectingman, he requested, as a particular favour, if he would easethe stock about his neck, which buckled behind—an article[169]of dress at that time in fashion. The countryman mostreadily agreed to oblige the stranger gentleman—as he supposedhim to be. The Gipsy, now stooping down, to allowhis stock to be adjusted, placed his head against the countryman’sstomach, and, pressing it forward a little, he reacheddown one hand, under the pretence of adjusting his shoe,while the other was employed in extracting the farmer’spurse. The purse was immediately brought into the company,and the cautious, unsuspecting countryman did notknow of his loss, till he was sent for, and had his propertyreturned to him.

The Gipsy youth, trained from infancy to plunder, in themanner described, were formed into companies or bands,with a captain at their head. These captains were generallythe grown-up sons of the old chieftains, who, having beenthemselves leaders in their youth, endeavoured, in their oldage, to support, outwardly, a pretty fair character, althoughunder considerable suspicion. The captains were generallywell dressed, and could not be taken for Gipsies. Theyouths varied in age from ten to thirty years. They travelledto fairs singly, or at least never above two together,while their captains almost always rode on horse-back, butnever in company with any of their men.[117] The band consistedof a great number of individuals, and in a fair severalof these companies would be present; each company actingindependent of the others, for behoof of its own membersand chief. Each chief, on such occasions, had his own headquarters,to which his men repaired with their booty, as fastas they obtained it. Some of the chiefs, handsomely dressed,pretended to be busily employed in buying and selling horses,but were always ready to attend to the operations of their[170]tribe, employed in plundering in the market. The purseswere brought to the horse-dealer by the members of his band,who, to prevent being discovered, pretended to be buyinghorses from him, while communicating with him relative totheir peculiar vocation. When a detection was likely totake place, the chief mounted a good horse, and rode off toa distant part of the country, previously made known to hismen, with the whole of the booty in his custody. To thisplace the band, when all was quiet, repaired, and receivedtheir share of the plunder. They could communicate informationto one another by signs, to say nothing of their language,which frequently enabled them to get the start oftheir pursuers. Like the fox, the dog, and thecorbie, theyfrequently concealed their stolen articles in the earth. Partiesof them would frequently commence sham fights in markets,to facilitate the picking of the pockets of the people,while crowded together to witness the scuffles.

Many of the male Gipsies used a piece of strong leather,like a sailmaker’s palm, having a short piece of sharp steel,like the point of a surgeon’s lancet, where the sailmaker hashis thimble. The long sleeves of their coats concealed theinstrument, and when they wished to cut a purse out of anarm-pocket, they stretched out the arm, and ran it flatly andgently along the cloth of the coat, opposite the pocket of theindividual they wished to plunder. The female Gipsieswore, upon their forefingers, rings of a peculiar construction,yet nothing unusual in their appearance, excepting theirvery large size. On closing the hand, the pressure upon aspring sent forth, through an aperture or slit in the ring, apiece of sharp steel, something like the manner in which abee thrusts out and withdraws its sting. With these ingeniousinstruments the female Gipsies cut the outside of thepockets of their victims, exactly as a glazier runs his diamondover a sheet of glass. The opening once made by theback of the forefinger, the hand, following, was easily introducedinto the pocket. In the midst of a crowded fair, thedexterous Gipsies, with their nimble fingers, armed withthese invisible instruments, cut the pocket-books and pursesof the honest farmers, as if they had been robbed by magic.So skillful were the wife and one of the sisters of CharlesWilson, in the art of thieving, that although the loss of thepocket-book was, in some instances, immediately discovered,[171]nothing was ever found upon their persons by which their guiltcould be established. No instrument appeared in their possessionwith which the clothes of the plundered individuals couldhave been cut, as no one dreamt that the rings on their fingerscontained tools so admirably adapted for such purposes.

The Gipsy chiefs in Scotland appear, at one time, to havereceived a share of the plundered articles in the same manneras those of the same rank received from their inferiorsin Hungary. Grellmann says: “Whenever a complaint ismade that any of their people have been guilty of theft, theWaywode (chief) not only orders a general search to bemade in every tent or hut, and returns the stolen goods tothe owner, if they can be found; but he punishes the thief,in presence of the complainant, with his whip. He does not,however, punish the aggressor from any regard to justice,but rather to quiet the plaintiff, and at the same time tomake his people more wary in their thefts, as well as moredexterous in concealing their prey. These very materiallyconcern him, since, by every discovery that is made, his incomesuffers, as the whole profit of his office arises from hisshare of the articles that are stolen. Every time any onebrings in a booty, he is obliged to give information to theArch-gipsy of his successful enterprise, then render a just accountof what and how much he has stolen, in order that theproper division may be made. This is the situation in whicha Gipsy looks on himself as bound to give a fair and truedetail, though, in every other instance, he does not hesitateto perjure himself.”

A shrewd and active magistrate, in the west of Fife, knewour Scottish Gipsy depredators so well, that he caused themall to be apprehended as they entered the fairs held in thetown in which he resided; and when the market, which lastedfor several days, was over, the Gipsies were released fromprison, with empty pockets and hungry bellies—most effectuallybaffled in their designs.

Great numbers of these Gipsy plunderers, at one time,crossed the Forth at the Queensferry, for the purpose ofstealing and robbing at the fairs in the north of Scotland.They all travelled singly or in pairs. Very few personsknew whence they came, or with whom they were connected.They were, in general, well dressed, and could not have beentaken for Gipsies. Every one put up at a public-house, at[172]North Queensferry, kept by a Mr. McRitchie, already mentioned,an inn well known in the neighbourhood for its goodfare, and much frequented by all classes of society. In thishouse, on the morning after a fair in Dunfermline, whentheirbusiness was all over, and themselves not alarmed by detection,or other scaring incidents, no fewer than fourteen ofthese plunderers have frequently been seen sitting at breakfast,with Captain Gordon, their commander, at their head.The landlord’s son informed me that they ate and drank ofthe best in the house, and paid most handsomely for everythingthey called for. I believe they were among the bestcustomers the landlord had. Gipsies, however, are by nomeans habitual drinkers, or tiplers; but when they do sitdown, it is, in the phraseology of the sea, a completeblow-out.About this public-house, these Gipsies were perfectlyinoffensive, and remarkably civil to all connected with it.They troubled or stole from none of the people about the inn,nor from those who lodged in the house, while they werewithin doors, or in the immediate neighbourhood. Anythingcould have been trusted with them on these occasions. Atthese meetings, the landlord’s son frequently heard themtalking in the Gipsy language. Gordon, at times, paid thereckoning for the whole, and transacted any other businesswith the landlord; but, when the Gipsy company was intermixedwith females, which was commonly the case, eachindividual paid his own share of the bill incurred. Itwas sometimes the practice with the young bands to leavetheir reckoning to be paid by their chiefs, who were not present,but who, perhaps next day, came riding up, and paidthe expenses incurred by their men. I am informed thattwo chiefs, of the names of Wilson and Brown, often paid theexpenses of their bands in this way. When any of theseprincipal Gipsies happened to remain in the public-house allnight, they behaved very genteelly. They paid the chamber-maid,boots, and waiter with more liberality than was thecustom with mercantile travellers generally. Captain Gordon,just mentioned, assumed very considerable consequenceat this place. Frequently he hired boats and visited theislands in the Forth, and adjacent coasts, like a gentlemanof pleasure. On one occasion he paid no less than a guinea,with brandy and eatablesad libitum, to be rowed over toInch-colm, a distance of four miles.

[173]The female Gipsies from the south, on visiting their friendsat Lochgellie, in the depth of winter, often hired horses atthe North Queensferry, and rode, with no small pomp andpride, to the village. Sometimes two females would rideupon one horse. A very decent old man, of the name ofThomas Chalmers, a small farmer, informed me that he himselfhad rode to Lochgellie, with a female Gipsy behind him,accompanied by other two, mounted on another of his horses,riding with much spirit and glee by his side. Chalmerssaid that these women not only paid more than the commonhire, but treated the owners of the horses with as much meatand drink as they could take. The male Gipsies also hiredhorses at this Ferry, with which they rode to markets in thenorth.

The young Gipsies, male and female, of whom I havespoken, appear to have been the flower of the different bands,collected and employed in a general plundering at the fairsin the north. So well did they pay their way at the villageand passage alluded to, that the boatmen gave them thekindly name of “our frien’s.” These wanderers were allknown at the village by the name of “Gillie Wheesels,” or“Killie Wheesh,” which, in the west of Fife, signified “thelads that take the purses.” Old Thomas Chalmers informedme that he had frequently seen these sharks of boatmenshake these Gipsy thieves heartily by the hand, and, with asignificant smile on their harsh, weather-beaten countenances,wish them a good market, as they landed them on the northside of the Forth, on their way to picking pockets at fairs.

As an incident in the lives of these Gipsies, I will givethe following, which was witnessed by Chalmers: A Gillieof a Gipsy horse-couper stole a black colt, in the east ofFife, and carried it direct to a fair in Perth, where he exchangedit for a white horse, belonging to a Highlanderwearing a green kilt. The Highlander, however, had notlong put the colt into the stable, before word was brought tohim that it was gone. Suspecting the Gipsy of the theft,the sturdy Gael proceeded in search of him, and receivingpositive information of the fact, he pursued him, like astaunch hound on the warm foot of reynard, till he overtookhim in a house on the north side of Kinross. The Gipsywas taking some refreshment in the same room with Chalmers,when the Highlander, in a storm of broken English,[174]burst into their presence. The astute and polished Gipsyinstantly sprang to his feet, and, throwing his arms aroundthe foaming Celt, embraced and hugged him in the easternmanner, overpowering him with expressions of joy at seeinghim again. This quite exasperated the mountaineer: almostsuffocated with rage, he shook the Gipsy from his person,with the utmost disdain, and demanded the colt he hadstolen from him. Notwithstanding the deceitful embracesand forced entreaties of the Gipsy, he was, with the assistanceof a messenger, at the back of the Highlander, safelylodged in the jail of Cupar.

Considering the great aptitude which the Gipsies havealways shown for working in metals, it is not surprising thatthey should have resorted to coining, among their many expedientsfor circumventing and plundering the “strangers”among whom they sojourn. The following instance willillustrate the singular audacity which they can display inthis branch of their profession: As an honest countryman,of much simplicity of character, of the name of W—— O——,was journeying along the public road, a travelling Tinkler,whom he did not know, chanced to come up to him. Afterwalking and conversing for some time, the courteous Gipsy,on arriving at a public-house, invited him to step in, andhave a “tasting.” They accordingly entered the house, andhad no sooner finished one halfmutchken, than the liberalwanderer called for another; but when the reckoning cameto be thought of, the countryman was surprised when hisfriend the Tinkler declared that he had not a coin in hispossession. Unfortunately, the honest man happened also tobe without a farthing in his pocket, and how they were toget out of the house, without paying the landlord, whomneither of them knew, puzzled him not a little. Whilemeditating over their dilemma, the Gipsy, with his eyesrolling about in every direction, as is their wont, espied apewter basin under a bed in the room. This was all he required.Bolting the door of the apartment, he opened hisbudget, and, taking out a pair of large shears, cut a piecefrom the side of the basin, and, putting it into his crucibleon the fire, in no time, with his coining instruments, threwoff several half-crowns, resembling good, sterling money. Ifthe simple countryman was troubled at not being able topay his reckoning, he was now terrified at being locked up[175]with a man busily engaged in coining base money from anarticle stolen in the very apartment in which he was confined.He expected, every moment, some one to burst thedoor open, and apprehend them, while the Tinkler had allhis coining apparatus about him. His companion, however,was not in the least disturbed, but deliberately finished hiscoin in a superior manner, and cutting the remainder of thebasin into pieces, packed it into his wallet. Unlocking thedoor, he rang the bell, and tendered one of his half-crownsto his host, to pay his score, which was accepted without asuspicion. The Tinkler then offered his fellow-traveller partof his remaining coin; but the unsophisticated man, farfrom touching one of them, was only too glad to rid himselfof so dangerous an acquaintance. The Gipsy, on his part,marched off, with his spirits elevated with liquor, and hispockets replenished with money, smiling at the simplicityand terror of the countryman.

However numerous the crimes which the Gipsies havecommitted, or the murders they have perpetrated in theirown tribe, yet, in justice to them, I must say that only twoinstances have come to my knowledge of their having put todeath natives of Scotland who were not of their own fraternity.One of these instances was that of a man of the nameof Adam Thomson, whom they murdered because he had encroached,it was said, upon one of their supposed privileges—thatof gathering rags through the country. Amongstother acts of cruelty, they placed the poor man on a fire, inhis own house. Two Gipsies were tried for the murder, butwhether they were both executed, I do not know. The followingparticulars connected with this deed will showhow exactly the Gipsies know the different routes and halting-placesof each band, as they travel through the country.Indeed, I have been informed that the track which eachhorde is to take, the different stages, and the number ofdays they are to remain at each place, are all marked outand fixed upon in the spring, before they leave their winterresidence. One of the Gipsies concerned in the murder ofThomson lay in prison, in one of the towns in the south ofScotland, for nearly twelve months, without having had anycommunication with his tribe. There was not sufficient evidenceagainst him to justify his being brought to trial; norwould he give any information regarding the transaction.[176]At last he changed his mind, and told the authorities theywould find the murderer at a certain spot in the Highlands,on a certain day and hour of that day; but if he could notbe found there, they were to proceed to another place, attwenty miles’ distance, where they would be sure to findhim.

The murderer was found at the place, and on the day,mentioned by the Gipsy. But, on entering the house, theconstables could not discover him, although they knew hehad been within its walls a few minutes before they approachedit. A fire having been kindled in the house, anoise was heard in the chimney, which attracted the noticeof the constables; and, on examination, they found the objectof their search; the heat and smoke having caused himto become restless in his place of concealment. He was secured,and some of the country-people were called upon toassist in carrying him to Edinburgh. The prisoner was boundinto a cart with ropes, to prevent him making his escape;the party in charge of him being aware of the desperatecharacter of the man. Nothing particular occurred on theroad, until after they had passed the town of Linlithgow,when, to their astonishment, they found a woman in the pangsof labour, in the open field. She called upon them either tobring her a midwife, or take her to one; a claim that couldnot be resisted. She was accordingly put into the cart, besidethe prisoner, and driven with all speed to a place wherea midwife could be procured. On arriving opposite a dell,full of trees and bushes, about the west-end of Kirkliston,the guards were confounded at seeing their prisoner, all atonce, spring out of the cart, and, darting into the cover,vanish in an instant. Pursuit was immediately given, and,in the excitement, the unfortunate woman was left to herfate. In searching for the Gipsy, they met a gentlemanshooting in the neighbourhood, who had observed a man hidehimself among the bushes. On going to the spot, they foundthe criminal, lying like a fox in his hole. The sportsman,presenting his gun, threatened to blow out his brains, if hedid not come out, and deliver himself up to the constables.On returning with him to the cart, his captors, to their astonishment,found that the woman in labour had also vanished.It is needless to add that she was a Gipsy, who hadfeigned being in travail, and, while in the cart, had cut the[177]ropes with which the prisoner was bound, to enable him tomake his escape.

The female Gipsies have had recourse to many expedientsin their impositions on the public. The following is an instance,of a singular nature, that took place a good manyyears ago. When it is considered that the Gipsies, in theirnative country,[118] would not be encumbered with much wearing-apparel,but would go about in a state little short ofnudity, the extreme indecency of such an action will appearsomewhat lessened. The inhabitants of Winchburgh andneighbourhood were one day greatly astonished at beholdinga female, with a child in her arms, walking along theroad, as naked as when she was born. She stated to thecountry-people that she had just been plundered, and strippedof every article of her wearing-apparel, by a band ofTinklers, to whom she pointed, lying in a field hard by. Shesubmitted her piteous condition to the humanity of the inhabitants,and craved any sort of garment to cover her nakedness.The state in which she was found left not the slightestdoubt on the minds of the spectators as to the truth of herrepresentations. Almost every female in the neighbourhoodran with some description of clothing to the unfortunatewoman; so that, in a short time, she was not only comfortablyclad, but had many articles of dress to spare. Shortlyafter, she left the town, and proceeded on her journey. Butsome one, observing her motions more closely than the rest,was astonished at seeing her go straight to the very Tinklerswho, she said, had stripped her. Her appearance amongher band convulsed them all with laughter, at the dexteroustrick she had played upon the simple inhabitants.

The following anecdote, related to me of one of the well-attiredfemale Gipsies, belonging to the Stirling horde, willillustrate the gratitude which the Scottish Gipsies have, onall occasions, shown to those who have rendered them actsof kindness and attention: A person, belonging to Stirling,had rendered himself obnoxious to the Gipsies, by givinginformation relative to one of the gang, of the name of Hamilton,whom he had observed picking a man’s pocket offorty pounds in a fair at Doune. Hamilton was apprehended[178]immediately after committing the theft, but none of themoney was found upon him. The informer, however, wasmarked out for destruction by the band, for his officious conduct;and they only waited a convenient opportunity toput their resolution into execution. Some time afterwards,the proscribed individual had occasion to go to a market atno great distance from Stirling, and while on his way to it,he observed, on the road before him, a female, in the attireof a lady, riding on horseback. On coming to a pond at theroad-side, the horse suddenly made for the water, and threwdown its head to drink. Not being prepared for the movement,the rider was thrown from her seat, with considerableviolence, to the ground. The proscribed individual, observingthe accident, ran forward to her assistance; but, beingonly slightly stunned, she was, with his help, safely placedin her seat again. She now thanked him for his kind andtimely assistance, and informed him of the conspiracy thathad been formed against him. She said it was particularlyfortunate for him that such an accident had befallen herunder the circumstances; for, in consequence of the informationhe had given about the pocket-picking at Doune, hewas to have been way-laid and murdered; that very nighthaving been fixed upon for carrying the resolution into effect.But, as he had shown her this kindness, she wouldendeavour to procure, from her people, a pardon for him,for the past. She then directed him to follow slowly, whileshe would proceed on, at a quick pace, and overtake someof her people, to whom she would relate her accident, andthe circumstances attending it. She then informed him thatif she waved herhand, upon his coming in sight of herselfand her people, he was to retrace his steps homeward, therebeing then no mercy for him; but if she waved herhandkerchief,he might advance without fear. To his heart-feltdelight, on coming near the party, the signal of peacewas given, when he immediately hastened forward to thespot. The band, who had been in deliberation upon hisfate, informed him that the lady’s intercession had prevailedwith them to spare his life; and that now he might considerhimself safe, provided he would take an oath, thereand then, never again to give evidence against any oftheir people, or speak to any one about their practices,should he discover them. The person in question deemed[179]it prudent, under all the circumstances of the case, to takethe oath; after which, nothing to his hurt, in either purseor person, ever followed.[119] The lady, thus equipped, andpossessed of so much influence, was the chief female ofthe Gipsy band, to whom all the booty obtained at the fairwas brought, at the house where she put up at for the day.It would seem that she was determined to save her friendat all events; for, had her band not complied with herwishes, the waving of her hand—the signal for him to makehis escape—would have defeated their intentions for thattime.

When occurrences of so grave and imposing a nature asthe above are taken into consideration, the fear and awewith which the Gipsies have inspired the community are notto be wondered at.

The Gipsies at Lochgellie had a dance peculiar to themselves,during the performance of which they sung a song,in the Gipsy language, which they called a “croon.” AGipsy informed me that it was exactly like the one oldCharles Stewart, and other Gipsies, used to perform, andwhich I will describe. At the wedding near Corstorphine,which Charles Stewart attended, as already mentioned, therewere five or six female Gipsies in his train. On such occasions[180]he did not allow males to accompany him. At somedistance from the people at the wedding, but within hearingof the music, the females formed themselves into a ring, withCharles in the centre. Here, in the midst of the circle, hedanced and capered in the most antic and ludicrous manner,sweeping his cudgel around his body in all directions, andmoving with much grace and agility. Sometimes he dancedround the outside of the circle. The females danced andcourtesied to him, as he faced about and bowed to them.When they happened to go wrong, he put them to rights bya movement of his cudgel; for it was by the cudgel that allthe turns and figures of the dance were regulated. A twirldismissed the females; a cut recalled them; a sweep madethem squat on the ground; a twist again called them up, inan instant, to the dance. In short, Stewart distinctly spoketo his female dancers by means of his cudgel, commandingthem to do whatever he pleased, without opening his mouthto one of them.

George Drummond, a Gipsy chief of an inferior gang inFife, danced with his seraglio of females, amounting sometimesto half a dozen, in the same manner as Stewart, withoutthe slightest variation, excepting that his gestures were,on some occasions, extremely lascivious. He threw himselfinto almost every attitude in which the human body can beplaced, while his cudgel was flying about his person withgreat violence. All the movements of the dance were regulatedby the measures of an indecent song, at the chorus ofwhich the circular movements of Drummond’s cudgel ceased;when one of the females faced about to him, and joined himwith her voice, the gestures of both being exceedingly obscene.Drummond’s appearance, while dancing, has beendescribed to me, by a gentleman who has often seen him performing,as exactly like what is called a “jumping-jack”—thatis, a human figure, cut out of wood or paste-board, withwhich children often amuse themselves, by regulating itsludicrous movements by means of strings attached to variousparts of it.

Dr. Clark, in his account of his travels through Russia,gives a description of a Gipsy dance in Moscow, which is,in all respects, very similar to that performed by Stewartand Drummond. These travels came into my hands some timeafter I had taken notes of the Scottish Gipsy dance. Napkins[181]appear to have been used by the Russian Gipsies, wheresticks were employed by our Scottish tribes. No mention,however, is made, by Dr. Clark, whether the females, in thedance at Moscow, were guided by signs with the napkins, inthe manner in which Stewart and Drummond, by their cudgels,directed their women in their dances. The eyes of thefemales were constantly fixed upon Stewart’s cudgel. Dr.Clark is of opinion that the national dance in Russia, calledthebarina, is derived from the Gipsies; and thinks it probablethat our common hornpipe is taken from these wanderers.[120]

George Drummond was, in rank, quite inferior to theLochgellie band, who called him a “beggar Tinkler,” andseemed to despise him. He always travelled with a numberof females in his company. These he married after thecustom of the Gipsies, and divorced some of them over thebody of a horse, sacrificed for the occasion; a descriptionof both of which ceremonies will be given inanother chapter.He chastised his women with his cudgel, withoutmercy, causing the blood to flow at every blow, and frequentlyknocked them senseless to the ground; while hewould call out to them, “What the deevil are ye fightingat—can ye no’ ‘gree? I’m sure there’s no’ sae mony o’ye!” although, perhaps, four would be engaged in the scuffle.Such was this man’s impudence and audacity, that he sometimescarried off the flesh out of the kail-pots of the farmers;and so terrified were some of the inhabitants of Fife, atsome of the Gipsy women who followed him, that, the momentthey entered their doors, salt was thrown into the fire,to set at defiance the witchcraft which they believed theypossessed. One female, called Dancing Tibby, was, in particular,an object of apprehension and suspicion. In Drummond’sjourneys through the country, when he came at nightto a farmer’s premises, where he intended to lodge, andfound his place occupied by others of his gang, he, withouthesitation, turned them out of their quarters, and[182]took possession of their warm beds himself; letting themshift for themselves as they best might. This man livedtill he was ninety years of age, and was, from his youth, impressedwith a belief that he would die in the house inwhich he was born; although he had travelled a great partof the continent, and, while in the army, had been in variousengagements. He fell sick when at some distance from theplace of his nativity, but he hired a conveyance, and drovewith haste to die on his favourite spot. To this house hewas allowed admittance, where he closed his earthly career,in about forty-eight hours after his arrival. Like others ofhis tribe, Drummond, at times, gave tokens of protection tosome of his particular friends, outside of the circle of hisown fraternity.

James Robertson, a Gipsy closely related to the Lochgellieband, of whom I have already made mention, frequentlydanced, with his wife and numerous sisters, in a particularfashion, changing and regulating the figures of thedance by means of a bonnet; being, I believe, the samedance which I have attempted to describe as performed byothers of the tribe in Scotland. When his wife and sistersgot intoxicated, which was often the case, it was a wild andextravagant scene to behold those light-footed damsels, withloose and flowing hair, dancing, with great spirit, on thegrass, in the open field, while James was, with all his “mightand main,” like the devil playing to the witches, in “Tamo’ Shanter,” keeping the bacchanalians in fierce and animatedmusic. When like to flag in his exertions to pleasethem with his fiddle, they have been heard calling loudly tohim, like Maggy Lawder to Rob the Ranter, “Play up,Jamie Robertson; if ever we do weel, it will be a wonder;”being totally regardless of all sense of decorum and decency.

The Gipsies in Fife followed the same occupations, in allrespects, as those in other parts of Scotland, and were alsodexterous at all athletic exercises. They were exceedinglyfond of cock-fighting, and, when the season came round forthat amusement, many a good cock was missing from thefarm-yards. The Lochgellie band considered begging a disgraceto their tribe. At times they were handsomely dressed,wearing silver buckles in their shoes, gold rings on theirfingers, and gold and silver brooches in the bosoms of theirruffled shirts. They killed, at Martinmass, fat cattle for[183]their winter’s provisions, and lived on the best victuals thecountry could produce. It is, I believe, the common practice,among inferior Scotch traders, for those who receive moneyto treat the payer, or return a trifle of the payment, calleda luck-penny: but, in opposition to this practice, the LochgellieGipsies always treated those to whom they paidmoney for what they purchased of them. They occasionallyattended the church, and sometimes got their children baptized;but when the clergyman refused them that privilege,they baptized them themselves. At their baptisms, they hadgreat feastings and drinkings. Their favourite beverage,on such occasions, was oatmeal and whiskey, mixed. Whenintoxicated, they were sometimes very fond of arguing andexpostulating with clergymen on points of morality. Withregard to the internal government of the Lochgellie Gipsies,I can only find that they held consultations among themselves,relative to their affairs, and that the females hadvotes as well as the males, but that old Charles Graham hadthe casting vote; while, in his absence, his wife, Ann Brown,managed their concerns.

There is a strict division of property among the Gipsies;community of goods having no place among them. Theheads of each family, although travelling in one band, manufactureand vend their own articles of merchandise, for thesupport of their own families. The following particularsare illustrative of this fact among the Gipsies:—A farmerin Fife, who would never allow them to kindle fires in hisout-houses, had a band of them, of about twenty-five persons,quartered one night on his farm. Next morning, the chieffemale borrowed from the family a large copper caldron,used for the purposes of the dairy, with which she had requestedpermission to cook the breakfast of the horde uponthe kitchen fire. This having been granted, each familyproduced a small linen bag, (not the beggar’s wallet,) madeof coarse materials, containing oatmeal; of which at leastfour were brought into the apartment. The female whoprepared the repast went regularly over the bags, takingout the meal in proportion to the members of the families towhich they respectively belonged, and repeated her visits inthis manner till the porridge was ready to be served up.

I shall conclude my account of the Gipsies in Fife bymentioning the curious fact that, within these sixty years, a[184]gentleman of considerable landed property, between theForth and the Tay, abandoned his relatives, and travelledover the kingdom in the society of the Gipsies. He marriedone of the tribe, of the name of Ogilvie, who had twodaughters to him. Sometimes he quartered, it is said, uponhis own estate, disguised, of course, among the gang, to thegreat annoyance of his relatives, who were horrified at theidea of his becoming a Tinkler, and alarmed at the claimswhich he occasionally made upon the estate. His daughterstravel the country, at the present day, as common Gipsies.

[96] In Oliver and Boyd’s Scottish Tourist, (1832), page 181, occurs the followingpassage: “A singular set of vagrants existed long in Falkland,calledScrapies, who had no other visible means of existence than a horseor a cow. Their ostensible employment was the carriage of commoditiesto the adjoining villages, and in the intervals of work they turned out theircattle to graze on the Lomond Hill. Their excursions at night were longand mysterious, for the pretended object of procuring coals, but theyroamed with their little carts through the country-side, securing whateverthey could lift, and plundering fields in autumn. Whenever any enquirywas addressed to a FalklandScrapie as to the support of his horse, theready answer was, ‘Ou, he gangs up the (Lomond) Hill, ye ken.’ This isnow prevented; the Lomond is enclosed, and theScrapies now managetheir affairs on the road-sides.”

The people mentioned in this extract are doubtless those to whom ourauthor alludes. The reader will notice some resemblance between themand the tribe in the Pyrenees, as described atpage 87.—Ed.

[97] Yetholm lies in a valley which, surrounded on all sides by lofty mountains,seems completely sequestered from the rest of the world—alike inaccessiblefrom without, and not to be left from within. The valley has,however, more than one outlet.—Chambers’ Gazetteer of Scotland.—Ed.

[98] In Hungary, their houses, which are always small, and poor in appearance,are commonly situated in the outskirts of the village, and, if possible,in the neighbourhood of some thicket or rough land.—Bright.—ED.

[99] This woman is most probably dead, and the same may be said of someof the other characters mentioned in this and other chapters.—Ed.

[100] Young was chased for nearly thirty miles, by Highlanders, on foot, andGeneral Gordon of Cairnfield, and others, on horseback; and, as he wasfrequently in view, the affair much resembled a fox-hunt. The houndswere most of them game-keepers—an active race of men; and so exhaustedwere they, before the Gipsy was caught, that they were seen lying by thesprings, lapping water with their tongues, like dogs.—Blackwood’s Magazine.—Ed.

[101] Our author says that the Life of Peter Young was published. Thefollowing particulars, quoted in an account of the Gipsies, in the sixteenthvolume of Chambers’ Miscellany, are probably taken from that source:

“Peter was Captain of a band well known in the north of Scotland,where his exploits are told to this day. Possessed of great strength ofbody, and very uncommon abilities, he was a fine specimen of his race,though he retained all their lawless propensities. He was proud, passionate,revengeful, a great poacher, and an absolute despot, although a tolerablyjust one, over his gang, maintaining his authority with an oak stick,the principal sufferers from which were his numerous wives.”—“Heesteemed himself to be a very honourable man, and the keepers of thedifferent public-houses in the country seem to have thought that, to a certainextent, he was so. He never asked for trust as long as he had a half-pennyin his pocket. At the different inns which he used to frequent, hewas seldom or never denied anything. If he pledged his word that hewould pay his bill the next time he came that way, he punctually performedhis promise.”

“Peter’s work was that of a very miscellaneous nature. It comprehendedthe profession of a blacksmith, in all its varieties, a tin-smith, and brazier.His original business was to mend pots, pans, kettles, &c., of every description,and this he did with great neatness and ingenuity. Having an uncommonturn for mechanics, he at last cleaned and repaired clocks andwatches. He could also engrave on wood or metal; so also could hisbrother John; but where they learned any of these arts I never heard.Peter was very handy about all sorts of carpenter work, and occasionallyamused himself, when the fancy seized him, in executing some pieces ofcurious cabinet work that required neatness of hand. He was particularlyfamous in making fishing-rods, and in the art of fishing he was surpassedby few.”

Immediately beforeone of the days fixed for his execution, he seized thejailer, and, upon the threat of instant death, compelled him to lay on hisback, as one dead, till he had set at liberty every one in the prison, himselfbeing the last to leave the building. After travelling twenty-four miles,he went to sleep in the snow, and was apprehended by a company of sportsmen,whose dogs had made a dead set at him. On being taken to the gallows,one of the crowd cried: “Peter, deny you are the man!”—which hedid, declaring that his name was John Anderson, and wondered what thepeople wanted with him. And there being none present who could identifyhim, although he was well known in Aberdeen, he managed to get offclear.—Ed.

[102] Besides getting themselves out of scrapes in such an adroit manner, theScotch Gipsies have been known to serve a friend, when innocently placedin a position of danger. It happened once that Billy Marshall, the Gipsychief in Gallowayshire, attacked and robbed the laird of Bargally, and inthe tussle lost his cap. A respectable farmer, passing by, some time afterwards,picked up the cap, and put it on his head. The laird, with his mindconfused by the robbery and the darkness combined, accused the farmer ofthe crime; and it would have gone hard with him at the trial, had notBilly come to his rescue. He seized the cap, in the open court, and, puttingit on his head, addressed the laird: “Look at me, sir, and tell me, by theoath you have sworn, am not I the man that robbed you?”—“By heaven!you are the very man.”—“You see what sort of memory this gentlemanhas,” exclaimed the Gipsy; “he swears to the bonnet, whatever featuresare under it. If you, yourself, my lord, will put it on your head, he willbe willing to swear that your lordship was the person who robbed him.”The farmer was unanimously acquitted.

Notwithstanding Billy’s courage in “taking care of theliving,” an anecdoteis related of his having been frightened almost out of his wits, undervery ludicrous circumstances. He and his gang had long held possessionof a cavern in Gallowayshire, where they usually deposited their plunder,and sometimes resided, secure from the officers of the law. Two Highlandpipers, strangers to the country, happened to enter it, to rest themselvesduring the night. They perceived, at once, the character of its absent inhabitants;and they were not long within it, before they were alarmed bythe voices of a numerous band advancing to its entrance. The pipers,expecting nothing but death from the ruthless Gipsies, had the presence ofmind to strike up a pibroch, with tremendous fury; at the terrific receptionof which—the yelling of the bag-pipes issuing from the bowels of theearth—Billy and his gang precipitately fled, as before a blast from the infernalregions, and never afterwards dared to visit their favourite haunt. Thepipers, as might naturally be expected, carried off, in the morning, thespoils of the redoubted Gipsies.—Sir Walter Scott.—Ed.

[103] It is interesting to notice that the three criminals who gave occasion tothe Porteous mob, in 1736, were named Stewart, Wilson and Robertson.They were doubtless Gipsies of the above mentioned clans. Their crimesand modes of escape were quite in keeping with the character of the Gipsies.—Ed.

[104] Grellmann, in giving an account of the attire of the poorer kind of HungarianGipsies, says: We are not to suppose however that they are indifferentabout dress; on the contrary, they love fine clothes to an extravagantdegree. Whenever an opportunity offers of acquiring a good coat,either by gift, purchase, or theft, the Gipsy immediately bestirs himself tobecome master of it. Possessed of the prize, he puts it on directly, withoutconsidering in the least whether it suits the rest of his apparel. If hisdirty shirt had holes in it as big as a barn door, or his breeches so out ofcondition that any one might, at the first glance, perceive their antiquity;were he unprovided with shoes and stockings, or a covering for his head;none of these defects would prevent his strutting about in a laced coat,feeling himself of still greater consequence in case it happened to be a redone. They are particularly fond of clothes which have been worn by peopleof distinction, and will hardly ever deign to put on a boor’s coat. Theywill rather go half naked, or wrap themselves up in a sack, than condescendto wear a foreign garb. Green is a favourite colour with the Gipsies, butscarlet is held in great esteem among them. It is the same with the Hungarianfemale Gipsies. In Spain, they hang all sorts of trumpery in theirears, and baubles around their necks.

Mr. Borrow says of the Spanish Gipsies, that there is nothing in thedress of either sex differing from that of the other inhabitants. The samemay be said of the Scottish tribes, and even of those in England.—Ed.

[105]Gaberlunzie-man—The beggar-man with the ragged apparel.

[106] The unabashed hardihood of the Gipsies, in the face of suspicion, oreven of open conviction, is not less characteristic than the facility withwhich they commit crimes, or their address in concealing them. A Gipsyof note, (known by the title of the “Earl of Hell”) was, about twenty yearsago, tried for a theft of a considerable sum of money at a Dalkeith market.The proof seemed to the judge fully sufficient, but the jury rendered a verdictof “not proven.” On dismissing the prisoner from the bar, the judgeinformed him, in his own characteristic language, “That he had rubbitshouthers wi’ the gallows that morning;” and warned him not again toappear there with a similar body of proof against him as it seemed scarcelypossible he should meet with another jury who would construe it as favourably.His counsel tendered him a similar advice. The Gipsy, however,replied, to the great entertainment of all around, “That he was provenan innocent man, and that naebody had ony right to use siccan languageto him.”—Blackwood’s Magazine.—Ed.

[107] The “game” of such a Gipsy may be fitly compared to that of asparrow-hawk. This bird has been known, while held in the hand, afterbeing wounded, to seize, when presented to it, a sparrow with each claw,and a third with its beak.—Ed.

[108] In the “Monthly Visitor” for February, 1856, will be found an accountof the conversion of one of this Gipsy clan, of the name of Jeanie Wilson.The tract is very appropriately headed, “A lily among thorns.”—Ed.

[109] An old woman, whom I found occupying the house of Charles Wilson,at Raploch, in 1845, informed me that she had seen his wife infive differentdresses, in one market-day. She was, at the time, a servant in ablacksmith’sfamily in Stirling, who weregreat friends of Charles Wilson; andevery time Mrs. Wilson came into the smith’s house, from her plunderingin the market, this servant girl, then nine years old,cleaned her shoes for afresh expedition in the crowd. When suspected, or even detected, in theirpractices, these female Gipsies, by such change of dress and character,easily escaped apprehension by the authorities.

[110] There are a number of small landed proprietors in the hilly parts ofKinross-shire; hence the appellation of Brae-laird.

[111] It is interesting to notice such rencounters between these pretty, genteel-lookingGipsies and the ordinary natives. The denouement, in this instance,might have been a marriage, and the plantation of a colony of Gipsiesamong the Braes of Kinross-shire. The same might have happened in thecase of the other lady Wilson, with the adjutant at Stirling, or with oneof his acquaintances.—Ed.

[112] Vol. ii., page 17.

[113] Golbery’s Travels, translated by Francis Blagden. Vol. i, page 158.

[114] What is said here is, of course, applicable to a class, only, of the Gipsies.Our author need not have gone so very far away from home, for instancesof theft and robbery being, under certain circumstances, deemed honourable.Both were, at one time, followed in Scotland, when all practised

“The good old rule, the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can.”

SeeDisquisition on the Gipsies.—Ed.

[115] Asiatic Researches, vol. vii., pages 189 and 193.

[116] Dr. James Grieve’s translation of a Russian account of Kamtschatka,page 323.

[117] An old Gipsy told me that he had seen one of the principal chiefs,dressed like a gentleman, travelling in a post-chaise, for the purpose ofattending fairs.

[Vidocq, of the French secret police, thus writes of the Hungarian Gipsies,visiting the west of Europe: Raising my eyes towards a crowd in frontof a menagerie, I perceived one of thefalse jockeys taking the purse of a fatglazier, whom we saw the next moment seeking for it in his pocket; theBohemian then entered a jeweller’s shop, where were already two of thepretendedZealand peasants, and my companion assured me that he would notcome out until he had pilfered some of the jewels that were shown to him.In every part of the fair where there was a crowd, I met some of thelodgers of the Duchess, (the inn kept by a Gipsy woman in which he hadspent the previous night.)—Ed.]

[118] It is pretty certain that the Gipsies came from a warm country, forthey have no words for frost or snow, as will be seen in my enquiry intothe history of their language.

[119] Such interference with the Gipsies causes them much greater offencethan if the informer was a principal in the transaction. To such people,their advice has always been: “Follow your nose, and let sleeping dogslie.” The following anecdote will illustrate the way in which they haverevenged themselves, under circumstances different from the above:

Old Will, of Phaup, at the head of Ettrick, was wont to shelter them formany years. They asked nothing but house-room, and grass for their horses;and, though they sometimes remained for several days, he could haveleft every chest and press about the house open, with the certainty thatnothing would be missing; for, he said, “he aye ken’d fu’ weel that thetoad wad keep his ain hole clean.” But it happened that he found one ofthe gang, through the trick of a neighbouring farmer, feeding six horses onthe best piece of grass on his farm, which he was keeping for winter fodder.A desperate combat followed, and the Gipsy was thrashed to hisheart’s content, and hunted out of the neighbourhood. A warfare of fiveyears’ duration ensued between Will and the Gipsies. They nearly ruinedhim, and, at the end of that period, he was glad to make up matters withhis old friends, and shelter them as formerly. He said he could have heldhis own with them, had it not been for their warlockry; for nothing couldhe keep from them—they once found his purse, though he had made hiswife bury it in the garden.—Blackwood’s Magazine. It is the afterclap thatkeeps the people off the Gipsies, and secures for them a sort of tolerationwherever they go.—Ed.

[120] If I am not mistaken, Col. Todd is of opinion that the Gipsies originallycame from Cabool, in Afghanistan. I will here give a description ofan Afghan dance, very like the Gipsy dance in Scotland. “The westernAfghans are fond of a particular dance calledAttum, orGhoomboor, inwhich from fourteen to twenty people move, in strange attitudes, with shouting,clapping of hands, and snapping of fingers, in a circle, round a singleperson, who plays on an instrument in the centre.”—Fraser’s Library.

CHAPTER VI.

TWEED-DALE AND CLYDESDALE GIPSIES.

The county of Peebles, or Tweed-dale, appears to havebeen more frequented by the Gipsies than, perhaps, anyother part of Scotland. So far back as the time of HenryLord Darnley, when the Gipsies were countenanced by thegovernment, we find, according to Buchanan, that this countywas a favourite resort of banditti; so much so, that whenDarnley took up his residence in Peebles, for the purpose ofshunning the company of his wife, Queen Mary, he “foundthe place so cold, so infested with thieves, and so destituteof provisions, that he was driven from it, to avoid beingfleeced and starved by rogues and beggars.” In the poemsof Dr. Pennecuik, as well as in his history of Peebles-shire,published in the year 1715, the Gipsy bands are frequentlytaken notice of. But, notwithstanding the attachment whichthe tribe had for the romantic glens of Tweed-dale, no evidenceexists of their ever having had a permanent habitationwithin the shire. They appear to have resorted to that pastoraldistrict during only the months of spring, summer andautumn. Their partiality for this part of Scotland may beattributed to three reasons.

The first reason is, Tweed-dale was part of the district inwhich, if not the first, at least the second, Gipsy family inScotland claimed, at one time, a right to travel, as its ownpeculiar privilege. The chief of this family was called Baillie,who claimed kindred, in the bastard line, to one of the mostancient families in the kingdom, of the name of Baillie, onceBalliol.[121] In consequence of this alleged connexion, thisGipsy family also claimed, as its right, to travel in the upper[186]ward of Lanarkshire, adjoining Tweed-dale, in whichdistrict the Scottish family alluded to possessed estates;and one of the principal places of the Gipsy rendezvous wasan old ruin, among the hills, in the upper part of the parishof Lamington, or rather Wanel in those days.

The second reason is, that the surface of Tweed-dale ismuch adapted to the wandering disposition of the Gipsies.It is mountainous, but everywhere intersected by foot-pathsand bridle-roads, affording an easy passage to the Gipsies,on foot or horseback. On its many hills are plenty of game;and its infinite number of beautiful streams, including aboutthirty-five miles of the highest part of the Tweed, aboundwith trout of the finest quality. The Gipsies, being fond ofgame, and much addicted to poaching and fishing, flocked toTweed-dale and the adjoining upland districts of a similarcharacter, comprehending some of the most remote and leastfrequented parts in the south of Scotland. All these districtsbeing covered with vast flocks of sheep, many of whichwere frequently dying of various diseases, the Gipsies neverwanted a plentiful supply of that sort of food from the familiesof the store-masters.[122]

And the third reason is, that, in the pastoral districts inthe upper parts of the shires of Peebles, Selkirk, Dumfries,and Lanark, including all that mountainous tract of land inwhich the rivers Tweed, Annan and Clyde have theirsources, the Gipsies were, in a great measure, secure fromthe officers of the law, and enjoyed their favourite amusementswithout molestation or hindrance.

Before, and long after, the year 1745, the male branchesof the Baillies traversed Scotland, mounted on the best horses[187]to be found in the country; themselves dressed in longcoats, made of the finest scarlet and green cloth, ruffled athands and breast, booted and spurred; with cocked hats ontheir heads, pistols in their belts, and broad-swords by theirsides: and at the heels of their horses followed greyhounds,and other dogs of the chase, for their amusement. Some ofthem assumed the manners and characters of gentlemen,which they supported with wonderful art and propriety.The females attended fairs in the attire of ladies, riding onponies, with side-saddles, in the best style. On these occasions,the children were left in charge of their servants, perhapsin an old out-house or hut, in some wild, sequesteredglen, in Tweed-dale or Clydesdale.

The greater part of the tenantry were kind to the Gipsies,and many encouraged them to frequent their premises.Tweed-dale being the favourite resort of the principal horde,they generally abstained from injuring the property of thegreater part of the inhabitants. Indeed, I have been informed,by eye-witnesses, that several of the farmers inTweed-dale and Clydesdale, at so late a period as about theyear 1770, accepted of entertainments from the principalGipsies, dining with them in the open fields, or in some old,unoccupied out-house, or kiln. Their repast, on such occasions,was composed of the best viands the country couldproduce. On one occasion, a band dined on the green-sward,near Douglass-mill, when the Gipsies drank their wine, afterdinner, as if they had been the best in the land. Some ofthe landed proprietors, however, introduced clauses in theirleases prohibiting their tenants from harbouring the Gipsies;and the Laird of Dolphington is mentioned as one.The tribe, on hearing of the restriction, expressed great indignationat the Laird’s conduct in adopting so effectual amethod of banishing them from the district. But so strongwere the attachments which some of the Gipsies displayedtowards the inhabitants, that the chief of the Ruthvensactually wept like a child, whenever the misfortunes of theancient family of Murray, of Philliphaugh, were mentionedto him.

In giving an account of the Gipsies who frequentedTweed-dale, and the country adjacent, I have thought it properto mention particularly the family of Baillie; for thisfamily produced kings and queens, or, in their language,[188]baurie rajahs andbaurie raunies, to the Scottish Gipsies. Atone period they seem to have exercised a sort of sovereignauthority in the tribe, over almost the whole of Scotland;and, according to the ordinary practice of writing history ofa great deal more importance, they should, as the chief familyof a tribe, be particularly noticed.

The quarrels of the Gipsies frequently broke out in aninstant, and almost without a visible cause. A farmer’swife, with whom I was acquainted, was one day sitting inthe midst of a band of them, at work in an old out-house, enquiringthe news of the country of them, when, in an instant,a shower of horns and hammers, open knives, files,and fiery peats, were flying through the house, at one another’sheads. The good-wife took to her heels immediately,to get out of the fray. Some of their conflicts were terriblein the extreme. Dr. Pennecuik, in his history of Peebles-shire,alreadyreferred to, gives an account of a sanguinarystruggle that took place on his estate of Romanno, in Tweed-dale.The following are the particulars in his own words:

“Upon the 1st of October, 1677, there happened at Romanno,on the very spot where now the dove-cot is built, aremarkable polymachy betwixt two clans of Gipsies, theFawes and the Shawes, who had come from Haddington fair,and were going to Harestanes, to meet two other clans ofthese rogues, the Baillies and Browns, with a resolution tofight them. They fell out, at Romanno, among themselves,about dividing the spoil they had got at Haddington, andfought it manfully. Of the Fawes, there were four brethrenand a brother’s son; of the Shawes, the father with threesons; and several women on both sides. Old Sandie Fawe,a bold and proper fellow,[123] with his wife, then with child,were both killed dead upon the place; and his brotherGeorge very dangerously wounded. In February, 1678, oldRobin Shawe, the Gipsy, and his three sons, were hangedat the Grass-market, for the above-mentioned murder, committedat Romanno; and John Fawe was hanged, the Wednesdayfollowing, for another murder. Sir Archibald Primrosewas justice general at the time, and Sir GeorgeMcKenzie king’s advocate.” Contrasting the obstinate[189]ferocity of the Gipsy with the harmless and innocent natureof the dove, Dr. Pennecuik erected on the spot a dove-cot;and, to commemorate the battle, placed upon the lintel ofthe door the following inscription:

This Gipsy battle is also noticed by Lord Fountainhall, inthe following extract from his MS., now in the Advocate’sLibrary:—“Sixth February, 1678.—Four Egyptians, of thename of Shaw, were this day hanged—the father and threesons—for the slaughter committed by them on the Faws,(another tribe of these vagabonds, worse than the mendicantsvalidi, mentioned in the code,) in a drunken squabble,made by them in a rendezvous they had at Romanno, with adesign to unite their forces against the clans of Browns andBailezies (Baillies), that were come over from Ireland,[124] tochase them back again, that they might not share in theirlabours; but, in their ramble, they discovered and committedthe foresaid murder; and sundry of them, of both sides,were apprehended.”—“The four being thrown into a holedug for them in the Greyfriars churchyard, with theirclothes on, the next morning the body of the youngest ofthe three sons, (who was scarce sixteen,) was missed. Somethought that, being last thrown over the ladder, and firstcut down, and in full vigour, and not much earth placed uponhim, and lying uppermost, and so not so ready to smother,the fermentation of the blood, and heat of the bodies underhim, might cause him to rebound, and throw off the earth,and recover ere the morning, and steal away. Which, iftrue, he deserved his life, though the magistrates deserved areprimand. But others, more probably, thought his bodywas stolen away by some chirurgeon, or his servant, to makean anatomical dissection on.”

About a century after this conflict, we find the nature ofthe Gipsies still unchanged. The following details of one[190]of their general engagements will serve as a specimen ofthe obstinate and desperate manner in which, to a lateperiod, they fought among themselves. The battle tookplace at the bridge of Hawick, in the spring of the year1772, or 1773. The particulars are derived from the lateMr. Robert Laidlaw, Tenant of Fanash, a gentleman ofrespectability, who was an eye-witness to the scene of action.It was understood that this battle originated in some encroachmentsof the one tribe upon the district assigned tothe other; a principal source of quarrels among these wanderers.And it was agreed to, by the contending parties,that they were to fight out their dispute the first time theyshould meet, which, as just said, happened at Hawick.

On the one side, in this battle, was the celebrated AlexanderKennedy, a handsome and athletic man, and head ofhis tribe. Next to him, in consideration, was little WullRuthven, Kennedy’s father-in-law. This man was known, allover the country, by the extraordinary title of the Earl ofHell;[125] and, although he was above five feet ten inches inheight, he got the appellation of Little Wull, to distinguishhim from Muckle William Ruthven, who was a man of uncommonstature and personal strength.[126] The earl’s son wasalso in the fray. These were the chief men in Kennedy’sband. Jean Ruthven, Kennedy’s wife, was also present;with a great number of inferior members of the clan, malesas well as females, of all ages, down to mere children. Theopposite band consisted of old Rob Tait, the chieftain of hishorde, Jacob Tait, young Rob Tait, and three of old RobTait’s sons-in-law. These individuals, with Jean Gordon,old Tait’s wife, and a numerous train, of youths of bothsexes and various ages, composed the adherents of old RobertTait. These adverse tribes were all closely connectedwith one another by the ties of blood. The Kennedys andRuthvens were from the ancient burgh of Lochmaben.

[191]The whole of the Gipsies in the field, females as well asmales, were armed with bludgeons, excepting some of theTaits, who carried cutlasses, and pieces of iron hoops,notched and serrated on either side, like a saw, and fixed tothe end of sticks. The boldest of the tribe were in frontof their respective bands, with their children and the othermembers of their clan in the rear, forming a long train behindthem. In this order both parties boldly advanced, withtheir weapons uplifted above their heads. Both sides foughtwith extraordinary fury and obstinacy. Sometimes the oneband gave way, and sometimes the other; but both, againand again, returned to the combat with fresh ardour. Nota word was spoken during the struggle; nothing was heardbut the rattling of the cudgels and the strokes of the cutlasses.After a long and doubtful contest, Jean Ruthven,big with child at the time, at last received, among manyother blows, a dreadful wound with a cutlass. She was cutto the bone, above and below the breast, particularly on oneside. It was said the slashes were so large and deep thatone of her breasts was nearly severed from her body, andthat the motions of her lungs, while she breathed, were observedthrough the aperture between her ribs. But, notwithstandingher dreadful condition, she would neither quit thefield nor yield, but continued to assist her husband as longas she was able. Her father, the Earl of Hell, was alsoshockingly wounded; the flesh being literally cut from thebone of one of his legs, and, in the words of my informant,“hanging down over his ankles, like beef steaks.” The earlleft the field to get his wounds dressed; but observing hisdaughter, Kennedy’s wife, so dangerously wounded, he lostheart, and, with others of his party, fled, leaving Kennedyalone, to defend himself against the whole of the clan ofTait.

Having now all the Taits, young and old, male and female,to contend with, Kennedy, like an experienced warrior,took advantage of the local situation of the place. Postinghimself on the narrow bridge of Hawick, he defendedhimself in the defile, with his bludgeon, against the wholeof his infuriated enemies. His handsome person, his undauntedbravery, his extraordinary dexterity in handlinghis weapon, and his desperate situation, (for it was evidentto all that the Taits thirsted for his blood, and were determined[192]to despatch him on the spot,) excited a general andlively interest in his favour, among the inhabitants of thetown, who were present, and had witnessed the conflict withamazement and horror. In one dash to the front, and withone powerful sweep of his cudgel, he disarmed two of theTaits, and cutting a third to the skull, felled him to theground. He sometimes daringly advanced upon his assailants,and drove the whole band before him, pell-mell. Whenhe broke one cudgel on his enemies, by his powerful arm,the town’s people were ready to hand him another. Still,the vindictive Taits rallied, and renewed the charge withunabated vigour; and every one present expected that Kennedywould fall a sacrifice to their desperate fury. A partyof messengers and constables at last arrived to his relief,when the Taits were all apprehended, and imprisoned; but,as none of the Gipsies were actually slain in the fray, theywere soon set at liberty.[127]

In this battle, it was said that every Gipsy, except AlexanderKennedy, the brave chief, was severely wounded;and that the ground on which they fought was wet withblood. Jean Gordon, however, stole, unobserved, from herband, and, taking a circuitous road, came behind Kennedy,and struck him on the head with her cudgel. What astonishedthe inhabitants of Hawick the most of all, was thefierce and stubborn disposition of the Gipsy females. Itwas remarked that, when they were knocked down senselessto the ground, they rose again, with redoubled vigour andenergy, to the combat. This unconquerable obstinacy andcourage of their females is held in high estimation by the[193]tribe. I once heard a Gipsy sing a song, which celebratedone of their battles; and, in it, the brave and determinedmanner in which the girls bore the blows of the cudgel overtheir heads was particularly applauded.

The battle at Hawick was not decisive to either party.The hostile bands, a short time afterwards, came in contact,in Ettrick Forest, at a place, on the water of Teema, calledDeephope. They did not, however, engage here; but thefemales on both sides, at some distance from one another,with a stream between them, scolded and cursed, and, clappingtheir hands, urged the males again to fight. The men,however, more cautious, only observed a sullen and gloomysilence at this meeting. Probably both parties, from experience,were unwilling to renew the fight, being aware ofthe consequences which would follow, should they againclose in battle. The two clans then separated, each takingdifferent roads, but both keeping possession of the disputeddistrict. In the course of a few days, they again met inEskdale moor, when a second desperate conflict ensued.The Taits were here completely routed, and driven fromthe district, in which they had attempted to travel by force.

The country-people were horrified at the sight of thewounded Tinklers, after these sanguinary engagements.Several of them, lame and exhausted, in consequence of theseverity of their numerous wounds, were, by the assistanceof their tribe, carried through the country on the backs ofasses; so much were they cut up in their persons. Some ofthem, it was said, were slain outright, and never more heardof. Jean Ruthven, however, who was so dreadfully slashed,recovered from her wounds, to the surprise of all who hadseen her mangled body, which was sewed in different partsby her clan. These battles were talked of for thirty milesaround the country. I have heard old people speak of them,with fear and wonder at the fierce, unyielding dispositionof the willful and vindictive Tinklers.[128]

[194]We have already seen that the female Gipsies are nearlyas expert at handling the cudgel, and fully as fierce and unyieldingin their quarrels and conflicts, as the males of theirrace. The following particulars relative to a Gipsy scuffle,derived from an eye-witness, will illustrate how a Gipsy woman,of the name of Rebecca Keith, displayed no little dexterityin the effective use which she made of her bludgeon.

Two gangs of Gipsies, of different tribes, had taken uptheir quarters, on a Saturday, the one at the town of Dumblane,the other at a farm-steading on the estate of Cromlix,in the neighbourhood. On the Sunday following, the Dumblanehorde paid a visit to the others, at their countryquarters. The place set apart for their accommodation wasan old kiln, of which they had possession, where they werefeasted with abundance of savoury viands, and regaled withmountain dew, in copious libations, of quality fit for a prince.The country squad were of the Keith fraternity, and theirqueen, or head personage, at the time, was Rebecca Keith,past the middle age, but of gigantic stature, and great muscularpower. In the course of their carousal, a quarrelensued between the two gangs, and a fierce battle followed.The Keiths were the weaker party, but Becca, as she wascalled by the country people, performed prodigies of valour,against fearful odds, with only the aid of her strong, hard-wornshoe, which she wielded with the dexterity and effectof an experienced cudgelist. She appeared, however, unablemuch longer to contend against her too numerous opponents.Being a great favourite with all, especially with the inmatesof the farm which was the scene of encounter, two youngboys—the informant and the herd-callant—who witnessedthe engagement, and whose sympathy was altogether on theside of the valourous Becca, exchanged a hurried and whisperingremark to each other that, “if she had thesoople ofa flail, they thought she would do gude wark.” No soonersaid than done. The herd-boy went off at once to the barn,cut the thongs asunder, and returned, in a twinkling, with[195]the soople below his jacket, concealing it from view, with thecunning of a thief. Edging up to Becca, and uncovering theend of the weapon, it was seized upon by her with avidity.She flourished it in the air, and plied it with such effect,about the ears of her adversaries, that they were speedilydriven off the field, with “sarks full of sore bones.” In thisfurious manner would the friendly meetings of the Gipsiesfrequently terminate.[129]

So formidable were the numbers of the nomadic Gipsies,at one time, and so alarming their desperate and sanguinarybattles, in the upper parts of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale,that the fencible men in their neighbourhood, (thecountry-sidewas the expression,) had sometimes to turn out to quelland disperse them. A clergyman was, on one occasion, underthe necessity of dismissing his congregation, in themiddle of divine service, that they might quell one of thesefurious Gipsy tumults, in the immediate vicinity of thechurch.[130]

[196]About the year 1770, the mother of the Baillies receivedsome personal injury, or rather insult, at a fair at Biggar,from a gardener of the name of John Cree. The insult wasinstantly resented by the Gipsies; but Cree was luckilyprotected by his friends. In contempt and defiance of thewhole multitude in the market, four of the Baillies—Matthew,James, William, and John—all brothers, appeared onhorse-back, dressed in scarlet, and armed with broad-swords,and, parading through the crowd, threatened to beavenged of the gardener, and those who had assisted him.Burning with revenge, they threw off their coats, rolled upthe sleeves of their shirts to the shoulder, like butchers whenat work, and, with their naked and brawny arms, and glitteringswords in their clenched hands, furiously rode up anddown the fair, threatening death to all who should opposethem. Their bare arms, naked weapons, and resolute looks,showed that they were prepared to slaughter their enemieswithout mercy. No one dared to interfere with them, tillthe minister of the parish appeased their rage, and persuadedthem to deliver up their swords. It was found absolutelynecessary, however, to keep a watch upon the gardener’shouse, for six months after the occurrence, to protect himand his family from the vengeance of the vindictive Gipsies.

To bring into view and illustrate the character and practicesof our Scottish Gipsies, I will transcribe the following details,in the original words, from a MS. which I receivedfrom the late Mr. Blackwood, as a contribution towards ahistory of the Gipsies. Mr. Blackwood did not say who thewriter of the paper was, but some one mentioned to me thathe was a clergyman. I am satisfied that the statements itcontains are true, and that the William Baillie therein mentionedwas, in his day and generation, well known, over thegreater part of Scotland, as chief of his tribe within thekingdom. He was the grandfather of the four Gipsies who,as just mentioned, set at defiance the whole multitude atBiggar fair. It will be seen, by this MS., that while theprincipal Gipsies, with their subordinates, were plunderingthe public, in all directions, they sometimes performed actsof gratitude and great kindness to their favourites of thecommunity among whom they travelled. In it will also be[197]exhibited the cool and business-like manner in which theydelivered back stolen purses, when circumstances renderedsuch restoration necessary.

“There was formerly a gang of Gipsies, or pick-pockets,who used to frequent the fairs in Dumfries-shire, headed bya William Baillie, or Will Baillie, as the country-peoplewere accustomed to call him, of whom the old men used totell many stories.

“Before any considerable fair, if the gang were at a distancefrom the place where it was to be held, whoever ofthem were appointed to go, went singly, or, at most, neverabove two travelled together. A day or so after, Mr. Bailliehimself followed, mounted like a nobleman; and, as journeys,in those days, were almost all performed on horseback, hesometimes rode, for many miles, with gentlemen of the firstrespectability in the country. And, as he could discoursereadily and fluently on almost any topic, he was often takento be some country gentleman of property, as his dress andmanners seemed to indicate.

“Once, in a very crowded fair at Dumfries, an honest farmer,from the parish of Hatton, in Annandale, had his pocketpicked of a considerable sum, in gold, with which he wasgoing to buy cattle. On discovering his loss, he immediatelywent and got a purse like the one he had lost, into which heput a good number of small stones, and, going into a crowdedpart of the fair, he kept a watchful eye on his pocket, and, ina little while, he caught a fellow in the very act of pickingit. The farmer, who was a stout, athletic man, did not wishto make any noise, as he knew a more ready way of recoveringhis money; but whispered to the fellow, while he stillkept fast hold of him, to come out of the throng a little, ashe wanted to speak to him. There he told him that he hadlost his money, and that, if he would get it to him again, hewould let him go; if not, he would have him put in jail immediately.The pick-pocket desired him to come along withhim, and he would see what could be done, the farmer stillkeeping close to him, lest he should escape. They enteredan obscure house, in an unfrequented close, where they foundMr. Baillie sitting. The farmer told his tale, concludingwith a promise that, as the loss of the money would hurthim very much, he would, if he could get it back again,make no more ado about it. On which, Mr. Baillie went to[198]a concealment in the wall, and brought out the very pursethe farmer had lost, with the contents untouched, which hereturned to the farmer, who received it with much gratitude.

“The farmer, after doing his business in the fair, got alittle intoxicated in the evening; on which he thought hewould call on Mr. Baillie, and give him a treat, for his kindnessin restoring his purse; but on entering the house, thewoman who kept it, a poor widow, fell on him and abusedhim sadly, asking him what he had done to cause Mr.Stewart, by which name she knew Mr. Baillie, to leave herhouse; and saying she had lost the best friend that ever shehad, for always when he stayed a day or two in her house,(which he used to do twice a year,) he gave her as much aspaid her half-year’s rent; but after he, (the farmer,) calledthat day, Mr. Stewart, she said, left her house, telling her hecould not stay with her any longer; but before he went, shesaid, he had given her what was to pay her half-year’s rent,a resource, she lamented, she would lose in future. Abouttwo years afterwards, the farmer again had the curiosity tocall on her, and ask her if her lodger had ever returned.She said he never had, but that, ever since, a stranger hadcalled regularly, and given her money to pay her rent.

“In the parish of Kirkmichael, about eight miles fromDumfries, lived a widow who occupied a small farm. Asshe had a number of young children, and no man to assisther, she fell behind in paying her rent, and at last got asummons of removal. She had a kiln that stood at a considerabledistance from the other houses, which was muchfrequented by Baillie’s people, when they came that way;and she gave them, at all times, peaceable possession, as shehad no person to contend with them, or put them away, andshe herself did not wish to differ with them. They, on theother hand, never molested anything she had. One evening,a number of them arrived rather late, and went into thekiln, as usual; after which, one came into the house, to aska few peats, to make a fire. She gave the peats, saying shebelieved they would soon have to shift their quarters, as sheherself was warned to flit, and she did not know if the nexttenant would allow them such quiet possession, and she didnot know what would become of herself and her helplessfamily. Nothing more was said, but, after having put herchildren to bed, as she was sitting by the fire, in a disconsolate[199]manner, she heard a gentle tap at the door. On openingit, a genteel, well-dressed man entered, who told her hejust wished to speak with her for a few minutes, and, sittingdown, said he had heard she was warned to remove, andasked how much she was behind. She told him exactly.On which, rising hastily, he slipt a purse into her hand, andwent out before she could say a single word.

“The widow, however, kept the farm, paid off all olddebts, and brought up her family decently; but still, itgrieved her that she did not know who was her benefactor.She never told any person till about ten years afterwards,when she told a friend who came to see her, when shewas rather poorly in health. After hearing the story, heasked her what sort of a man he was who gave her themoney. She said their interview was so short, and it wasso long past, that she could recollect little of him, but onlyremembered well that he had the scar of a cut across hisnose. On which, her friend immediately exclaimed, ‘ThenWill Baillie was the man.’

“Before the year 1740, the roads were bad through allthe country. Carts were not then in use, and all the merchants’goods were conveyed in packs, on horseback.Among others, the farmers on the water of Ae, in Dumfries-shire,were almost all pack-carriers. As there was littleimprovement of land then, they had little to do at home,and so they made their rents mostly by carrying. Amongothers, there was an uncle of my father, whose name wasRobert McVitie, who used to be a great carrier. This man,once, in returning from Edinburgh, stopt at Broughton, andin coming out of the stable, he met a man, who asked himif he knew him. Robert, after looking at him for a little,said: ‘I think you are Mr. Baillie.’ He said, I am, andasked if Robert could lend him two guineas, and it shouldbe faithfully repaid. As there were few people who wishedto differ with Baillie, Robert told him he was welcome totwo guineas, or more if he wanted it. He said that wouldjust do; on which Robert gave them to him, and he put theminto his pocket. Baillie then asked, if ever he was molestedby any person, when he was travelling late with his packs.He said he never was, although he was sometimes a littleafraid. Baillie then gave him a kind of brass token, aboutthe size of a half-crown, with some marks upon it, which he[200]desired him to carry in his purse, and it might be of useto him some time, as he was to show it, if any person offeredto rob him. Baillie then mounted his horse and rode off.

“Some considerable time after this, as Robert was oneevening travelling with his packs, between Elvanfoot andMoffat, two men came up to him, whom he thought verysuspicious-looking fellows. As he was a stout man himself,and carried a good cudgel, he kept on the alert for a considerableway, lest they should take him by surprise. Atlast, one of them asked him if he was not afraid to travelalone, so late at night. He said he was under a necessityto be out late, sometimes, on his lawful business. But recollectinghis token, he said a gentleman had once given hima piece of brass, to show, if ever any person troubled him.They desired him to show it, as it was moonlight. He gaveit to them. On seeing it, they looked at one another, andthen, whispering a few words, told him it was well for himhe had the token, which they returned; and they left himdirectly.

“After a lapse of nearly two years, when he had almostforgotten his two guineas, as he was one morning loadinghis packs, at the door of a public-house, near Gretna-green,he felt some person touch him behind, and, on lookinground, saw it was Mr. Baillie, who slipped something intohis hand, wrapped in paper, and left him, without speakinga single word. On opening the paper, he found threeguineas, which was his own money, and a guinea for interest.

“There was another gang of Gipsies that stayed mostlyin Annandale, headed by a Jock Johnstone, as he was calledin the country. These were counted a kind of lower castethan Baillie’s people, who would have thought themselvesdegraded if they had associated with any of the Johnstonegang. Johnstone confined his travels mostly to Dumfries-shire;while Baillie went over all Scotland, and even madelong excursions into England. Johnstone kept a greatmany women about him,[131] several of whom had children tohim; and, in kilns and in barns, Johnstone always slept inthe middle of the whole gang. Baillie sometimes told his[201]select friends that he had a wife, but never any of themcould find out where she stayed; and as he used to disappearnow and then, for a considerable time together, it wassupposed he was with her. He never slept, in barn or kiln,with any of his people. Johnstone travelled all day in themidst of a crowd of women and children, mounted on asses.Baillie travelled always by himself, mounted on the besthorse he could get for money.

“Some time in the year 1739, Johnstone, with a number ofhis women, came to the house of one Margaret Farish, anold woman who sold ale at Lonegate, six miles from Dumfries,on the Edinburgh road. After drinking for a longtime, some of Jock’s wives and the old woman quarrelled.On which he took up the pewter pint-stoup, with which shemeasured her ale, and, giving her two or three severe blowson the head, killed her on the spot. Next day he was apprehendednear Lockerby, and brought into Dumfries’ jail.He had a favourite tame jack-daw that he took with him inall his travels, and he desired it might be brought to staywith him in the jail, which was done. When the lords werecoming into the circuit, as they passed the jail, the trumpetersgave a blast, on which the jack-daw gave a flutteragainst the iron bars of the window, and dropped down dead.When Jock saw that, he immediately exclaimed: ‘Lordhave mercy on me, for I am gone.’ He was accordinglytried and condemned. When the day of execution came, hewould not walk to the scaffold, and so they were forced tocarry him. The executioner, being an old man, could notturn him over. Several of the constables refused to touchhim. At last, one of the burgh officers turned him off; butthe old people about Dumfries used to say that the officernever prospered any more after that day.”[132]

[202]The extraordinary man Baillie, who is here so often mentioned,was well known in Tweed-dale and Clydesdale; andmy great-grandfather, who knew him well, used to say thathe was the handsomest, the best dressed, the best looking,and the best bred man he ever saw. As I have alreadymentioned, he generally rode one of the best horses thekingdom could produce; himself attired in the finest scarlet,with his greyhounds following him, as if he had been aman of the first rank. With the usual Gipsy policy, he representedhimself as a bastard son of one of the Baillies ofLamington, his mother being a Gipsy. On this account, considerableattention was paid to him by the country-people;indeed, he was taken notice of by the first in the land. But,from his singular habits, his real character at last becamewell known. He acted the character of the gentleman, therobber, the sorner, and the tinker, whenever it answeredhis purpose. He was considered, in his time, the bestswordsman in all Scotland. With this weapon in his hand,and his back at a wall, he set almost everything, saving fire-arms,at defiance. His sword is still preserved by hisdescendants, as a relic of their powerful ancestor. Thestories that are told of this splendid Gipsy are numerous andinteresting. I will relate only two well-authenticated anecdotesof thisbaurie rajah, this king of the Scottish Gipsies;who was, in all probability, a descendant of Towla Bailyow,who, with other Gipsies, rebelled against, and plundered,John Faw, “Lord and Earl of Little Egypt,” in the reign ofJames V. The following transaction of his has some resemblanceto a custom among the Arabians.

William, with his numerous horde, happened to fall inwith a travelling packman, on a wild spot between Hawkshawand Menzion, near the source of the Tweed. The packmanwas immediately commanded to halt, and lay his packsupon the ground. Baillie then unsheathed his broadsword,with which he was always armed, and, with the point of theweapon, drew, on the ground, a circle around the tremblingpackman and his wares. Within this circle no one of thetribe was allowed by him to enter but himself.[133] The poorman was now ordered to unbuckle his packs, and exhibit hismerchandise to the Gipsies. Baillie, without the least ceremony,helped himself to some of the most valuable things inthe pack, and gave a great many to the members of his band.The unfortunate merchant, well aware of the character ofhis customers, concluded himself a ruined man; and, in placeof making any resistance, handed away his property to theGipsies. But when they were satisfied, he was most agreeablysurprised by Baillie taking out his purse, and payinghim, on the spot, a great deal more than the value of everyarticle he had taken for himself and given to his band. Thedelighted packman failed not to extol, wherever he went,the gentlemanly conduct and extraordinary liberality of“Captain Baillie”—a title by which he was known all overthe country.

The perilous situations in which Baillie was often placeddid not repress the merry jocularity and sarcastic wit whichhe, in common with many of his tribe, possessed. He sometimesalmost bearded and insulted the judge while sitting on thebench. On one of these occasions, when he was in court,the judge, provoked at seeing him so often at the bar, observedto him that he would assuredly get his ears cut outof his head, if he did not mend his manners, and abandonhis way of life. “That I defy you to do, my lord,” repliedthe Tinkler. The judge, perceiving that his ears had alreadybeen “nailed to the tron, and cut off,” and being displeasedat the effrontery and levity of his conduct, told him[204]that he was certainly a great villain. “I am not such avillain as your lordship,” retorted Baillie. “What do yousay?” rejoined the judge, in great surprise at the bold mannerof the criminal. “I say,” continued the Gipsy, “that Iam not such a villain as your lordship —— takes me to be.”“William,” quoth the judge, “put your words closer together,otherwise you shall have cause to repent of your insolenceand audacity.”[134]

Tradition states that William Baillie’s conduct involvedhim in numerous scrapes. He was brought before the JusticiaryCourt, and had “his ears nailed to the tron, or othertree, and cut off, and banished the country,” for his manycrimes of “sorning, pickery, and little thieving.” It alsoappears, from popular tradition, that he is the same WilliamBaillie who is repeatedly noticed by Hume and McLaurin,in their remarks on the criminal law of Scotland.

In June, 1699, William Baillie, for being an Egyptian, andfor forging and using a forged pass, was sentenced to be“hanged; but the privy council commuted his sentence tobanishment, but under the express condition that, if ever hereturned to this country, the former sentence should be executedagainst him.” William entered into a bond with theprivy council, under the penalty of 500 merks, to leave thekingdom, and to “suffer the pains of death, in case of contraventionthereof.”

This Gipsy chief paid little regard to the terrible conditionsof his bond, in case of failure; for, on the 10th and 11th August,1714, “Baillie,” says Hume, “and two of his associates,were convicted and condemned to die; but as far as concernedBaillie, (for the others were executed,) his doom wasafterwards mitigated into transportation, under pain of deathin case of return.” “The jury,” says McLaurin, “broughtin a special verdict as to the sorning,[135] but said nothing at[205]all as to any other points; all they found proved was, thatWilliam, in March, 1713, had taken possession of a barn,without consent of the owner, and that, during his abode init, there was corn taken out of the barn, and he went awaywithout paying anything for his quarters, or for any cornduring his abode, which was for several days; and that hewas habit and repute an Egyptian, and did wear a pistol [136]and shable,” (a kind of sabre.)

“As early as the month of August, 1715, the same man,as I understand it,” says Baron Hume, “was again indicted,not only for being found in Britain, but for continuing hisformer practices and course of life. Notwithstanding thisaggravation, the interlocutor is again framed on the indulgentplan; and only infers the pain of death from the fameand character of being an Egyptian, joined with various actsof violence and sorning, to the number of three that arestated in the libel. Though convicted nearly to the extentof the interlocutor, he again escaped with transportation.”

Baillie’s policy in representing himself as a bastard son ofan ancient and honourable family had, as I have already observed,been of great service to him; and in no way wouldit be more so than in his various trials. It is almost certain,as in cases of more recent times, that great interest wouldbe used to save a bastard branch of an honourable housefrom an ignominious death upon the scaffold, when his crimesamounted only to “sorning, pickery, and little thieving, andhabit and repute an Egyptian.”[137]

[206]The descendants of William Baillie state that he wasmarried to a woman of the name of Rachel Johnstone; andthat he was killed, in a scuffle, by a Gipsy of the name ofPinkerton, in a quarrel among themselves. Baillie beingquite superior in personal strength to Pinkerton, his wifetook hold of him, for fear of his destroying his opponent,and, while he was in her arms, Pinkerton ran him throughwith his sword. Upon his death, his son, then a youth ofthirteen years of age, took a solemn oath, on the spot, thathe would never rest until the blood of his father should beavenged. And, true to his oath, his mother and himself followedthe track of the murderer over Scotland, England,and Ireland, like staunch bloodhounds, and rested not, tillPinkerton was apprehended, tried, and executed.

The following particulars, relative to the slaughter of WilliamBaillie, were published in Blackwood’s Magazine, butapparently without any knowledge, on the part of the writer,of that individual’s history, further than that he was aGipsy.

“In a precognition, taken in March, 1725, by Sir JamesStewart, of Coltness, and Captain Lockhart, of Kirkton, twoof his majesty’s justices of the peace for Lanarkshire, anentthe murder of William Baillie, brazier,[138] commonly calledGipsy, the following evidence is adduced:—John Meikle,wright, declares, that, upon the twelfth of November last, he,being in the house of Thomas Riddle, in Newarthill, withsome others, the deceased, William Baillie, James Kairns,and David Pinkerton, were in another room, drinking, where,after some high words, and a confused noise and squabble,the said three persons, above-named, went all out; and thedeclarant, knowing them to be three of those idle sornersthat pass in the country under the name of Gipsies, in hopesthey were gone off, rose, and went to the door, to take theair; where, to his surprise, he saw William Baillie standing,[207]and Kairns and Pinkerton on horseback, with drawn swordsin their hands, who both rushed upon the said William Baillie,and struck him with their swords; whereupon, the saidWilliam Baillie fell down, crying out he was gone; uponwhich, Kairns and Pinkerton rode off: That the declaranthelped to carry the said William Baillie into the house,where, upon search, he was found to have a great cut orwound on his head, and a wound in his body, just below theslot of his breast: And declares, he, the said William Baillie,died some time after.

“Thomas Riddle, tenant and change-keeper in Newarthill,&c., declares, that the deceased, William Baillie, JamesKairns, and David Pinkerton, all idle sorners, that areknown in the country by the name of Gipsies, came to thedeclarant’s, about sun-setting, where, after some stay,andtalking a jargon the declarant did not well understand, theyfell a squabbling, when the declarant was in another room,with some other company; upon the noise of which, the declarantran in to them, where he found the said James Kairnslying above the said William Baillie, whose nose the saidJames Kairns had bitten with his teeth till it bled; uponwhich, the declarant and his wife threatened to raise thetown upon them, and get a constable to carry them toprison; but Kairns and Pinkerton called for their horses,William Baillie saying he would not go with them: Declaresthat, after the said Kairns and Pinkerton had got theirhorses, and mounted, they ordered the declarant to bring achopin of ale to the door to them, where William Baillie wasstanding, talking to them: That, when the declarant had filledabout the ale, and left them, thinking they were going off,the declarant’s wife went to the door, where Kairns struckat her with a drawn sword, to fright her in; upon whichshe ran in; and thereupon the declarant went to the door,where he found the said William Baillie, lying with thewounds upon him, mentioned in John Meikle’s declaration.”

By Hume’s work on the criminal law, it appears that thetrial of David Pinkerton, with others of his tribe, took placeon the 22nd August, 1726, for “sorning and robbery;” butno mention is made of the murder of Baillie; yet it wasBaillie’s relatives that pursued Pinkerton to the gallows.Probably sufficient evidence could not then be adduced tosubstantiate the fact, being about twenty-one months after[208]the murder was committed; and, besides, Baillie was himselfdead in law, having either returned from banishment, orremained at large in the country, and so forfeited his life,when he was killed by Pinkerton, in 1724. The followingis part of the interlocutor pronounced upon the indictmentof the prisoners: “Find the said David Pinkerton, alias Maxwell,John Marshall, and Helen Baillie, alias Douglass, orany of them, their being habit and repute Egyptians, sornersor masterful beggars, in conjunction with said pannels, orany of them, their being, at the times and places libelled,guilty, art and part, of the fact of violence, theft, robbery, orattempts of robbery libelled, or any of the said facts relevantto infer the pain of death and confiscation of moveables.”

William Baillie was succeeded, in the chieftainship, byhis son Matthew, who married the celebrated Mary Yowstonor Yorkston, and became the leader of a powerful horde ofGipsies in the south of Scotland. He frequently visited thefarms of my grandfather, about the year 1770. It appearsthat his courtship had been after the Tartar manner; for heused to say that the toughest battle he ever fought wasthat of taking, by force, his bride, then a very young girl,from her mother, at the hamlet of Drummelzier.[139] ThisMatthew Baillie had, by Mary Yorkston, a son, who wasalso named Matthew, and who married Margaret Campbell,and had by her a family of remarkably handsome and prettydaughters. Of this principal Gipsy family, I can trace,distinctly, six generations in descent, and have myself seenthe great-great-great-grand-children of the celebrated WilliamBaillie. Some of his descendants still travel the country,in the manner of their ancestors, and at this momentspeak the Gipsy language with fluency. Some of them,however, are little better than common beggars. Therewere, at one period, a captain and a quarter-master in thearmy, belonging to the Baillie clan; and another was acountry surgeon.

Mary Yorkston, above mentioned, went under the appellationsof “my lady,” and “the duchess,” and bore the title ofqueen, among her tribe. She presided at the celebration of[209]their barbarous marriages, and assisted at their equallysingular ceremonies of divorce. What the custom of thisqueen of the Gipsies was, when in full dress, in her youth,on gala days, cannot now be easily known; but the followingis a description of her masculine figure, andpublic travellingapparel, when advanced in years. It was taken from themouth of an aged and very respectable gentleman, the lateMr. David Stoddart, at Bankhead, near Queensferry, whohad often seen her in his youth: She was fully six feet instature, stout made in her person, with very strongly-markedand harsh features; and had, altogether, a very imposingaspect and manner. She wore a large black beaver-hat,tied down over her ears with a handkerchief, knotted belowher chin, in the Gipsy fashion. Her upper garment was adark-blue short cloak, somewhat after the Spanish fashion,made of substantial woollen cloth, approaching to superfinein quality. The greater part of her other apparel was madeof dark-blue camlet cloth, with petticoats so short that theyscarcely reached to the calves of her well-set legs. [Indeed,all the females among the Baillies wore petticoats of thesame length.] Her stockings were of dark-blue worsted,flowered and ornamented at the ankles with scarlet thread;and in her shoes she displayed large, massy, silver buckles.The whole of her habiliments were very substantial, withnot a rag or rent to be seen about her person. [She wassometimes dressed in a green gown, trimmed with redribbons.] Her outer petticoat was folded up round herhaunches, for a lap, with a large pocket dangling at eachside; and below her cloak she carried, between her shoulders,a small flat pack, or pad, which contained her mostvaluable articles. About her person she generally kept alarge clasp-knife, with a long, broad blade, resembling a daggeror carving-knife; and carried in her hand a long poleor pike-staff, that reached about a foot above her head.

It was a common practice, about the middle of last century,for old female Gipsies of authority to strip, withouthesitation, defenceless individuals of their wearing-apparelwhen they met them in sequestered places. Mary Yorkstonchanced, on one occasion, to meet a shepherd’s wife,among the wild hills in the parish of Stobo, and stripped herof the whole of her clothes. The shepherd was horrified atbeholding his wife approaching his house in a state of perfect[210]nakedness. A Jean Gordon was once detected, by a shepherd,stripping a female of her wearing-apparel. He at onceassisted the helpless woman; but Jean drew from below hergarments a dagger, and threw it at him. Evading the blow,the shepherd closed in upon her, and struck her over thehead with his staff, knocking her to the ground. AnotherGipsy of the old fashion, of the name of Esther Grant, wasalso celebrated for the practice of stripping people of theirclothing. The Arabian principle, expressed in these words,on meeting a stranger in the desert, “Undress thyself—mywife, (thy aunt,) is in want of a garment,” is truly applicableto the disposition of the old female Gipsies.

Nothing was more common, in the counties of Peeblesand Lanark, when the country-people lost their purses atfairs, than to have recourse to the chief Gipsy females, toget their property returned to them. Mary Yorkston, havinga sovereign influence and power among her tribe, wasoften applied to, in such cases of distress, of which the followingis a good specimen:—On one of these occasions, in amarket in the South of Scotland, a farmer lost his purse,containing a considerable sum of money, which greatly perplexedand distressed him. He immediately went to MaryYorkston, to try if she would exert her wonderful influenceto recover his property. Being a favourite of Mary’s, she,without the least hesitation, took him along with her to theplace in the fair where her husband kept his temporarydepôt, or rather his office, in which he exercised his extraordinarycalling during the continuance of the market. Thepresence of Mary was a sufficient assurance that all wasright; and, upon the matter being explained, MatthewBaillie instantly produced, and spread out before the astonishedfarmer, from twenty to thirty purses, and desiredhim to pick out his own from amongst them. The countrymansoon recognized his own, and grasped at it withoutceremony. “Hold on,” said Baillie, “let us count its contentsfirst.” The Gipsy chief, with the greatest coolnessand deliberation, as if he had been an honest banker ormoney-changer, counted over the money in the purse, whennot a farthing was found wanting. “There is your purse,sir,” continued Baillie; “you see what it is, when honestpeople meet!”

The following incident, that occurred one night after a[211]fair, in a barn belonging to one of my relatives, will strikinglyillustrate the character of the Gipsies in the matter ofstealing purses:—A band of superior Gipsies were quarteredin the barn, after several of them had attended thefair, in their usual manner. The principal female, whom Ishall not name, had also been at the market; but the oldchief had thought proper to remain at home, in the barn.My relative, as was sometimes his custom, chanced to takea turn about his premises that night, when it was prettylate. He heard the voice of a female weeping in the barn,and, being curious to know the cause of the disturbanceamong the Tinklers, stepped softly up, close to the back ofthe door, to listen to what they were doing, as the womanwas crying bitterly. He was greatly astonished at hearing,and never could forget, the following expressions: “Oh,cruel man, to beat me in this way. I have had my hands inas good as twenty pockets, but the honest people had it notto themselves.” The chieftain was, in fact, chastising hiswife, in the presence of his family, for her want of diligenceor success, in not obtaining enough of booty at the fair.And yet this individual bore, among the country-people, thecharacter of an honest man.

Another story is told of Mary Yorkston and the Goodmanof Coulter-park. It differs in its nature from theabove anecdote, yet is very characteristic of the Gipsies.Mary and her band were lurking one night at a place inClydesdale, called Raggingill. As a man on horseback approachedthe spot where they were concealed, some of thetribe immediately laid hold of the horse, and, without ceremony,commenced to plunder the rider. But Mary, steppingforth to superintend the operation, was astonished tofind that the horseman was her particular friend, the Goodmanof Coulter-park. She instantly exclaimed, with all hermight: “It’s Mr. Lindsay, the Gudeman o’ Couter-park—lethim gang—let him gang—God bless him, honest man!”It is needless to add that Mr. Lindsay had always givenMary and her horde the use of an out-house when they requiredit.

Mary Yorkston despised to ask what is properly understoodto be alms. She sold horn spoons and otherarticles; and, when she made a bargain, she would take,almost by force, what she called her “boontith,” which is[212]a present of victuals, exclusive of the cash paid; a practicewhich I will explain further on in the chapter.

Matthew Baillie had, by Mary Yorkston, among otherchildren, a son, named James Baillie, who, along with hisbrothers, as we have seen, threatened with destruction thepeople assembled in Biggar fair, in consequence of an affrontoffered to his mother by a gardener of that town. He wascondemned, in 1771, to be hung, for the murder of his wife,by beating her with a horse-whip, and tumbling her over asteep; but he “obtained a pardon from the king, on conditionthat he transported himself beyond seas within a limitedtime, otherwise the pardon was to have no effect.” Baillie,paying little regard to the serious conditions of this pardon,did not “transport himself beyond seas,” but continuedhis former practices, as appears by the following extractfrom the Weekly Magazine of the 8th October, 1772:—“JamesBaillie, who was last summer condemned for themurder of a woman, and afterwards obtained his majesty’spardon, on condition of transporting himself to America, forlife, was lately apprehended at Falkirk, on suspicion of robbery.On the 1st October he was brought to town, andcommitted to the Tolbooth, by a warrant of Lord Auchinleck.This warrant was granted upon the petition of theprocurator fiscal of Stirling, in which he set forth that, asBaillie was a very daring fellow, and suspected of beingconcerned with a gang equally so with himself, there wasgreat reason to apprehend a rescue might be attempted, bybreaking the prison; and therefore praying that he mightbe removed to Edinburgh, where a scheme of that naturecould not so easily be effected.” On the 18th December,1773, and 27th February, 1774, the “Lords, in terms of thesaid former sentence, decree and adjudge the said JamesBaillie to be hanged on the 30th March then next.” Hethus appears to have remained in prison from October, 1772,till March, 1774. “Soon after this sentence, he got anotherpardon,” and was again discharged from prison, in order tohis transporting himself; but he remained at home, and againrelapsed into his former way of life. He was, some timeafterwards, committed to Newcastle gaol, but made hisescape. A short time after that, he was committed toCarlisle gaol, on suspicion of having stolen some plate. Onthe 4th December, 1776, three sheriff-officers set out from[213]Edinburgh, to bring him hither; but before they reachedCarlisle, he had again broken prison and escaped.[140]

During one of the periods of Baillie’s imprisonment, heescaped from jail, attired as a female; having been assistedby some of his tribe, residing in the Grass-market of Edinburgh.Tradition states that the then Mistress Baillie, ofLamington, and her family, used all their interest in obtainingthese pardons for James Baillie; who, like his fathersbefore him, pretended to be a bastard relative of the familyof Lamington, and thereby escaped the punishment of death.McLaurin justly remarks that “few cases have occurred inwhich there has been such an expenditure of mercy.”[141]

I have already mentioned how handsomely the superiororder of Gipsies dressed at the period of which we arespeaking. The male head of the Ruthvens—a man six feetsome inches in height—who, according to the newspapersof the day, lived to the advanced age of 115 years, when infull dress, in his youth, wore a white wig, a ruffled shirt, ablue Scottish bonnet, scarlet breeches and waistcoat, a longblue superfine coat, white stockings, with silver buckles inhis shoes. Others wore silver brooches in their breasts,and gold rings on their fingers. The male Gipsies in Scotlandwere often dressed in green coats, black breeches, andleathern aprons. The females were very partial to greenclothes. At the same time, the following anecdote willshow how artful they were at all times, by means of dressand other equipments, to transform themselves, like actorson the stage, into various characters, whenever it suitedtheir purposes.[142]

My father, when a young lad, noticed a large band of[214]Gipsies taking up their quarters one night in an old out-houseon a farm occupied by his father. The band hadnever been observed on the farm before, and seemed all tobe strangers, with, altogether, a very ragged and miserableappearance. Next morning, a little after breakfast, as theband began to pack up their baggage, and load their asses,preparatory to proceeding on their journey, the youth, outof curiosity, went forward to see the horde decamp. Amongother articles of luggage, he observed a large and heavysack put upon one of the asses; and, as the Gipsies werefastening it upon the back of the animal, the mouth of itburst open, and the greater part of its contents fell uponthe ground. He was not a little surprised when he behelda great many excellent cocked hats, suits of fine greenclothes, great-coats, &c.; with several handsome saddles andbridles, tumble out of the bag. At this unexpected accident,the Gipsies were much disconcerted. By some strange expressionsand odd manœuvres, they endeavoured to drivethe boy from their presence, and otherwise engage his attention,to prevent him observing the singular furniturecontained in the unlucky sack. By thus carrying alongwith them these superior articles, so unlike their ordinarywretched habiliments, the ingenious Gipsies had it alwaysin their power to disguise themselves, whenever circumstancescalled for it. The following anecdote will, in somemeasure, illustrate the “gallant guise” in which these wanderers,at one time, rode through Scotland:

About the year 1768, early in the morning of the day ofa fair, held annually at Peebles, in the month of May, twogentlemen were observed riding along the only road thatled to my grandfather’s farm. One of the servant girls wasimmediately told to put the parlour in order, to receive thestrangers, as, from their respectable appearance, at a distance,it was supposed they were friends, coming to breakfast,before going to the market; a custom common enoughin the country. This preparation, however, proved unnecessary,as the strangers rode rapidly past the dwelling-house,and alighted at the door of an old smearing-house, nearlyroofless, situated near some alder trees, about three hundredyards further up a small mountain stream. In passing, theywere observed to be neatly dressed in long green coats,cocked hats, riding-boots and spurs, armed with broad-swords,[215]and mounted on handsome grey ponies, saddled andbridled; everything, in short, in style, and of the bestquality. The people about the farm were extremely curiousto know who these handsomely-attired gentlemen could be,who, without taking the least notice of any one, dismountedat the wretched hovel of a sheep-smearing house, wherenothing but a band of Tinklers were quartered. Theircuriosity, however, was soon satisfied, and not a little mirthwas excited, on it being ascertained that the gallant horsemenwere none other than James and William Baillie, sonsof old Matthew Baillie, who, with part of his tribe, were, atthe moment, in the old house, making horn spoons. Butgreater was their surprise, when several of the femaleGipsies set out, immediately afterwards, for the fair, attiredin very superior dresses, with the air of ladies in the middleranks of society.[143]

Besides the large hordes that traversed the south of Scotland,parties of twos and threes also passed through thecountry, apparently not at all connected, nor in communication,at the time, with the large bands. When a singleGipsy and his wife, or other female, were observed to takeup their quarters by themselves, it was supposed they hadeither fallen out with their clan, or had the officers of thelaw in pursuit of them. Sometimes the chiefs would enquireof the country people, if such and such a one of their tribehad passed by, this or that day, lately. Under any circumstances,the presence of a female does not excite so muchsuspicion as a single male. In following their profession, astinkers, the Gipsies seldom, or never, travel without a femalein their company, and, I believe, they sometimes hire themto accompany them, to hawk their wares through the country.The tinker keeps himself snug in an out-house, at hiswork, while the female vends his articles of sale, and foragesfor him, in the adjoining country.

One of these straggling Gipsies, of the name of WilliamKeith, was apprehended in an old smearing-house, on a farmoccupied by my grandfather, in Tweed-dale. William hadbeen concerned, with his brother Robert, in the murder of[216]one of their clan, of the name of Charles Anderson, at a smallpublic-house among the Lammermoor hills, called Lourie’sDen. Robert Keith and Anderson had fallen out, and hadfollowed each other for some time, for the purpose of fightingout their quarrel. They at last met at Lourie’s Den, whena terrible combat ensued. The two antagonists were brothers-in-law;Anderson being married to Keith’s sister.Anderson proved an over-match for Keith; and WilliamKeith, to save his brother, laid hold of Anderson; but MageGreig, Robert’s wife, handed her husband a knife, and calledon him to despatch him, while unable to defend himself.Robert repeatedly struck with the knife, but it reboundedfrom the ribs of the unhappy man, without much effect. Impatientat the delay, Mage called out to him, “strike laigh,strike laigh in;” and, following her directions, he stabbedAnderson to the heart. The only remark made by any ofthe gang was this exclamation from one of them: “Gudefaith, Rob, ye have done for him noo!” But William Keithwas astonished when he found that Anderson was stabbedin his arms, as his interference was only to save the life ofhis brother from the overwhelming strength of Anderson.Robert Keith instantly fled, but was immediately pursued bypeople armed with pitchforks and muskets. He was apprehendedin a braken-bush, in which he had concealed himself,and was executed at Jedburgh, on the 24th November,1772.

Sir Walter Scott, and the Ettrick Shepherd, slightly noticethis murder at Lourie’s Den, in their communications toBlackwood’s Magazine. One of the individuals who assistedat the apprehension of Keith was the father of Sir WalterScott. The following notice of this bloody scene appearedin one of the periodical publications at the time it occurred:“By a letter from Lauder, we are informed of the followingmurder: On Wednesday se’night, three men, with a boy,supposed to be tinkers, put up at a little public-house nearSoutra. From the after conduct of two of the men, it wouldappear that a difference had subsisted between them, beforethey came into the house, for they had drunk but very littlewhen the quarrel was renewed with great vehemence, and, inthe dispute, one of the fellows drew a knife, and stabbed theother in the body no less than seven different times, of whichwounds he soon after expired. The gang then immediately[217]made off; but upon the country-people being alarmed, themurderer himself and one of the women were apprehended.”[144]

Long after this battle took place, James Bartram andRobert Brydon, messengers-at-arms in Peebles, were dispatchedto apprehend William Keith, in the ruinous housealready mentioned. As they entered the building, early inthe morning, with cocked pistols in their hands, Keith, apowerful man, rose up, half naked, from hisshake-down, and,holding out a pistol, dared them to advance. Bartram, thechief officer, with the utmost coolness and bravery, advancedclose up to the muzzle of the Gipsy’s pistol, and, clapping hisown to the head of the desperate Tinkler, threatened himwith instant death if he did not surrender. A Gipsy, whohad informed against Keith, was with the officers, as theirguide; but the moment he saw Keith’s pistol, he artfullythrew himself, upon his back, to the ground. He immediatelyrose to his feet, but, in great terror, sprang, like agreyhound, over afauld dyke, to escape the shot whichKeith threatened. The intrepid conduct of the officers completelydaunted the Gipsy. He yielded, and allowed himselfto be hand-cuffed, thinking that the messengers werestrongly supported by the servants on the farm; for, on perceivingonly the two officers, he became desperate, but hewas now fast in irons. In great bitterness he exclaimed,“Had I not, on Saturday night, observed five stout men onMr. Simson’s turf-hill, ye wadna a’ hae ta’en me.” The fiveindividuals were all remarkably strong men. It was onMonday morning the Gipsy was apprehended, and it wouldappear he had been reconnoitering on Saturday, before riskingto take up his quarters, which he did without askingpermission from any one. He imagined that the five turf-casterswere ready to assist the officers in the execution oftheir duty, and that it would have been in vain for him tomake any resistance. The frantic Gipsy now leaped andtossed about in the most violent manner imaginable. Hestruck with so much vigour, with his hands bound in irons,and kicked so powerfully with his feet, that it was with thegreatest difficulty the officers could get him carried to thejail at Peebles. His wife came into the kitchen of the farm-house,weeping and wailing excessively; and on some of theservant-girls endeavouring to calm her grief, she, among[218]other bitter expressions, exclaimed, “Had a decent, honestman, like the master, informed, I would not have cared; butfor a blackguard like ourselves to inform, is unsufferable.”Keith was tried, condemned, and banished to the plantations,for the part he acted at the slaughter at Lourie’s Den.

Here we have seen the melancholy fate of two, if notthree, of the thenGipsy constabulary force in Peebles-shire;one murdered, another hanged, and the third banished.However strange it may appear at the present day, it isnevertheless true, that the magistrates of this county, aboutthis period, (1772,) actually appointed and employed a numberof the principal Gipsies as peace officers, constables, orcountry-keepers, as they were called, of whom I will speakagain in another place.

The nomadic Gipsies in general, like the Baillies in particular,have gradually declined in appearance, till, at thepresent day, the greater part of them have become littlebetter than beggars, when compared to what they were informer times. Among those who frequented the south ofScotland were to be found various grades of rank, as in allother communities of men. There were then wretched andruffian-looking gangs, in whose company the superior Gipsieswould not have been seen.

The reader will have observed the complete protectionwhich William Baillie’s token afforded Robert McVitie,when two men were about to rob him, while travelling withhis packs, between Elvanfoot and Moffat. This system oftokens made part of the general internal polity of the Gipsies.These curious people stated to me that Scotland wasat one time divided into districts, and that each district wasassigned to a particular tribe. The chieftains of these tribesissued tokens to the members of their respective hordes,“when they scattered themselves over the face of the country.”The token of a local chieftain protected its beareronly while within his own district. If found without thistoken, or detected travelling in a district for which thetoken was not issued, the individual was liable to be plundered,beaten, and driven back into his own proper territory,by those Gipsies on whose rights and privileges he had infringed.These tokens were, at certain periods, called inand renewed, to prevent any one from forging them. Theywere generally made of tin, with certain characters impressed[219]upon them; and the token of each tribe had its ownparticular mark, and was well known to all the Gipsies inScotland. But while these passes of the provincial chieftainswere issued only for particular districts, a token of theBaillie family protected its bearer throughout the kingdomof Scotland; a fact which clearly proves the superiority ofthat ancient clan. Several Gipsies have assured me that“a token from a Baillie was good over all Scotland, and thatkings and queens had come of that family.” And an oldGipsy also declared to me that the tribes would get intoutter confusion, were the country not divided into districts,under the regulations of tokens. It sometimes happened, asin the case of Robert McVitie and others, that the Gipsiesgave passes or tokens to some of their particular favouriteswho were not of their own race.

This system of Gipsy polity establishes a curious fact,namely, the double division and occupation of the kingdomof Scotland; by ourselves as a civilized people, and by abarbarous community existing in our midst, each subject toits own customs, laws and government; and that, while theGipsies were preying upon the vitals of the civilized societywhich harboured them, and were amenable to its laws, theywere, at the same time, governed by the customs of theirown fraternity.

The surnames most common among the old Tweed-dalebands of Gipsies were Baillie, Ruthven, Kennedy, Wilson,Keith, Anderson, Robertson, Stewart, Tait, Geddes, Grey,Wilkie and Halliday. The three principal clans were theBaillies, Ruthvens and Kennedys; but, as I have alreadymentioned, the tribe of Baillie were superior to all others,in point of authority as well as in external appearance.[145]

Besides the christian and surnames common to them inScotland, the Gipsies have names in their own language;[220][146]and, while travelling through the country, assume new namesevery morning, before commencing the day’s journey, andretain them till money is received, in one way or other, byeach individual of the company; but if no money is receivedbefore twelve o’clock, they all, at noon-tide, resume theirpermanent Scottish names. They consider it unlucky to setout on a journey, in the morning, under their own propernames; and if they are, by any chance, called back, by anyof their neighbours, they will not again stir from home forthat day. The Gipsies also frequently change their Britishnames when from home: in one part of the country theyhave one name, and in another part they appear under adifferent one, and so on.

I will now describe the appearance of the Gipsies inTweed-dale during the generation immediately following theone in which we have considered them; and would makethis remark, that this account applies to them of late years,with this exception, that the numbers in which the nomadicclass are to be met with are greatly reduced, their conditiongreatly fallen, and the circumstances attending theirreception, countenance and toleration, much modified, and insome instances totally changed.

Within the memories of my father and grandfather, whichtake in about the last hundred years, none of the Gipsieswho traversed Tweed-dale carried tents with them for theiraccommodation. The whole of them occupied the kilns andout-houses in the country; and so thoroughly did they knowthe country, and where these were to be found, and the dispositionof the owners of them, that they were never at aloss for shelter in their wanderings.

Some idea may be formed of the number of Gipsies whowould sometimes be collected together, from the followingextract from the Clydesdale Magazine, for May, 1818:“Mr. Steel, of Kilbucho Mill, bore a good name among‘tanderal gangerals.’ His kiln was commodious, and somehardwood trees, which surrounded his house, bid defianceto the plough, and formed a fine pasture-sward for the cuddies,on a green of considerable extent. On a summer Saturdaynight, Mary came to the door, asking quarters, pretty[221]late. She had only a single ass, and a little boy swung inthe panniers. She got possession of the kiln, as usual, andthe ass was sent to graze on the green; but Mary was onlythe avant-garde. Next morning, when the family rose, theycounted no less than forty cuddies on the grass, and a manfor each of them in the kiln, besides women and children.”Considering the large families the Gipsies generally have,and allowing at this meeting two asses for carrying the infantsand luggage of each family, there could not have beenless than one hundred Gipsies on the spot.

My parents recollect the Gipsies, about the year 1775,traversing the county of Tweed-dale, and parts of the surroundingshires, in bands varying in numbers from ten toupwards of thirty in each horde. Sometimes ten or twelvehorses and asses were attached to one large horde, for thepurpose of carrying the children, baggage, &c. In the summerof 1784, forty Gipsies, in one band, requested permissionof my father to occupy one of his out-houses. It wasgood-humouredly observed to them that, when such numbersof them came in one body, they should send their quarter-masterin advance, to mark out their camp. The Gipsiesonly smiled at the remark. One half of them got the houserequested; the other half occupied an old, ruinous mill, amile distant. There were above seven of these large bandswhich frequented the farms of my relatives in Tweed-daledown to about the year 1790. A few years after this period,when a boy, I assisted to count from twenty-four to thirtyGipsies who took up their quarters in an old smearing-houseon one of these farms. The children, and the young folksgenerally, were running about the old house like bees flyingabout a hive. Their horses, asses, dogs, cats, poultry, andtamed birds were numerous.

These bands did not repeat their visits above twice ayear, but in many instances the principal families remainedfor three or four weeks at a time. From their manner andconduct generally, they seemed to think that they had aright to receive, from the family on whose grounds theyhalted, food gratis for twenty-four hours; for, at the end ofthat period, they almost always provided victuals for themselves,however long they might remain on the farm. Theservants of my grandfather, when these large bands arrived,frequently put on the kitchen fire the large familykail-pot,[222]of the capacity of thirty-two Scotch pints, or about sixteengallons, to cook victuals for these wanderers.

The first announcement of the approach of a Gipsy bandwas the chief female, with, perhaps, a child on her back, andanother walking at her feet. The chieftain himself, with hisasses and baggage, which he seldom quits, is, perhaps, a mileand a half in the rear, baiting his beasts of burden, near theside of the road, waiting the return and report of his quarter-mistress.This chief female requests permission for hergude-man andweary bairns to take up their quarters for thenight, in an old out-house. Knowing perfectly the dispositionof the individual from whom she asks lodgings, she isseldom refused. A farmer’s wife, whom I knew, on grantingthis indulgence to a female in advance of her band, added,by way of caution, “but ye must not steal anything fromme, then.” “We’ll no’ play ony tricks on you, mistress;but others will pay for that,” was the Gipsy’s reply.

Instead, however, of the chief couple and a child or two,the out-house, before nightfall, or next morning, will perhapscontain from twenty to thirty individuals of all ages andsexes. The different members of the horde are observed toarrive at head-quarters as single individuals, in twos, and inthrees; some of the females with baskets on their arms,some of the males with fishing-rods in their hands, troutcreels on their backs, and large dogs at their heels. Thesame rule is observed when the camp breaks up. The oldchief and two or three of his family generally take the van.The other members of the band linger about the old housein which they have been quartered, for several days afterthe chiefs are gone; they, however, move off, in small partiesof twos or as single individuals, on different days, till thewhole horde gradually disappear. Above three grown-upGipsies are seldom seen travelling together. In this mannerhave the Gipsies traversed the kingdom, concealing theirnumbers from public observation, and only appearing in largebands on the grounds of those individuals of the communitywho were not disposed to molest them. On such occasions,when the chief Gipsies continued encamped, they would bevisited by small parties of their friends, arriving and departingalmost daily.

Excepting that of sometimes allowing their asses to go,under night, into the barn-yard, as if it were by accident, to[223]draw the stacks of corn, it is but fair and just to state, thatI am not aware of a single Gipsy ever having injured theproperty of any of my relatives in Tweed-dale, althoughtheir opportunities were many and tempting. My ancestor’sextensive business required him, almost daily, to travel, onhorseback, over the greater part of the south of Scotland;and he was often under the necessity of exposing himself,by riding at night, yet he never received the slightest molestation,to his knowledge, from the Gipsies. They were asinoffensive and harmless as lambs to him, and to every oneconnected with his family. Whenever they beheld him,every head was uncovered, while they would exclaim,“There is Mr. Simson; God bless him, honest man!” Andwoe would have been to that man who would have dared totreat him badly, had these determined wanderers beenpresent.

The Gipsies may be compared to the raven of the rock, asa complete emblem of their disposition. Allow thecorbieshelter, and to build her nest in your cliffs and wastes, andshe will not touch your property; but harass her, and destroyher brood, and she will immediately avenge herself uponyour young lambs, with terrible fury.[147] Washings of clothes,of great value, were often left out in the fields, under night,and were as safe as if they had been within the dwelling-house,under lock and key, when the Gipsies happened to bequartered on the premises. If any of their children haddared to lay its hands upon the most trifling article, its parentswould have given it a severe beating. On one occasion,when a Gipsy was beating one of his children, forsome trifling offence it had committed, my relative observedto him that the boy had done no harm. “If he has notbeen in fault just now, sir, it will not be long till he be inone; so the beating he has got will not be thrown away onhim,” was the Tinkler’s reply.

[224]When the Gipsies took up their residence on the coldearthen floor of an old out-house, the males and females ofthe different families had always beds by themselves, madeof straw and blankets, and called shake-downs. The youngerbranches also slept by themselves, in separate beds, themales apart from the females. When the band consisted ofmore families than one, each family occupied a separate partof the floor of the house, distinct from their neighbours;kindled a separate fire, at which they cooked their victuals;and made horn spoons and other articles for themselves, forsale in the way of their calling. They formed, as it were,a camp on the ground-floor of the ruinous house, in whichwould sometimes be observed five mothers of families, someof whom would be such before they were seventeen years ofage. The principal Gipsies who, about this period, travelledTweed-dale, were never known to have had more than onewife at a time, or to have put away their wives for triflingcauses.

On such occasions, the chief and the grown-up males ofthe band seldom or never set foot within the door of thefarm-house, but generally kept themselves quite aloof andretired; exposing themselves to observation as little as possible.They employed themselves in repairing brokenchina, utensils made of copper, brass and pewter, pots, pansand kettles, and white-iron articles generally; and in makinghorn spoons, smoothing-irons, and sole-clouts for ploughs.But working in horn is considered by them as their favouriteand most ancient occupation. It would certainly be one ofthe first employments of man, at a very early stage of humansociety—that of converting the horns of animals for the useof the human race: and such has been the regard whichthe Gipsies have had for it, that every clan knows thespoons which are made by another. The females alsoassisted in polishing, and otherwise finishing, the spoons.However early the farm-servants rose to their ordinary employments,they always found the Tinklers at work.

A considerable portion of the time of the males was occupiedin athletic amusements. They were constantly exercisingthemselves in leaping, cudgel-playing, throwing thehammer, casting the putting-stone, playing at golf, quoits,and other games; and while they were much given, on otheroccasions, to keep themselves from view, the extraordinary[225]ambition which they all possessed, of beating every one theymet with, at these exercises, brought them sometimes in contactwith the men about the farm, master as well as servants.They were fond of getting the latter to engage with them,for the purpose of laughing at their inferiority in thesehealthy and manly amusements; but when any of the country-peoplechanced to beat them at these exercises, as wassometimes the case, they could not conceal their indignationat the affront. Their haughty scowl plainly told that theywere ready to wipe out the insult in a different and moreserious manner. Indeed, they were always much disposedto treat farm-servants with contempt, as quite their inferiorsin the scale of society; and always boasted of their ownhigh birth, and the antiquity of their family. They wereextremely fond of the athletic amusement of “o’erendingthe tree,” which was performed in this way: The end of aspar or beam, above six feet long, and of a considerablethickness and weight, is placed upon the upper part of theright foot, and held about the middle, in a perpendicularposition, by the right hand. Standing upon the left foot,and raising the right a little from the ground, and drawingit as far back as possible, and then bringing the foot forwardquickly to the front, the spar is thrown forward intothe air, from off the foot, with great force. And he who“overends the tree” the greatest number of times in theair, before it reaches the ground, is considered the most expert,and the strongest man. A great many of these Gipsieshad a saucy military gesture in their walk, and generallycarried in their hands short, thick cudgels, about threefeet in length. While they travelled, they generally unbuttonedthe knees of their breeches, and rolled down the headsof their stockings, so as to leave the joints of their kneesbare, and unincumbered by their clothes.

During the periods they occupied the out-houses of thefarms, the owners of which were kind to them, the Gipsieswere very orderly in their deportment, and temperate inthe use of spirituous liquors, being seldom seen intoxicated;and were very courteous and polite to all the members ofthe family. Their behaviour was altogether very orderly,peaceable, quiet, and inoffensive. In gratitude for theirfree-quarters, they frequently made, from old metal, smoothing-ironsfor the mistress, and sole-clouts for the ploughs of[226]the master, and spoons for the family, from the horns oframs, or other horns that happened to be about the house;for all of which they would take nothing. They, however,did not attend the church, while encamped on the premises;at the same time, they took especial care to give no molestation,or cause of offence, to any about the farm, on Sunday;being, indeed, seldom seen on that day out-side of the doorof the house in which they were quartered, saving an individualto look after their horses or asses, while grazing inthe neighbouring fields. Their religious sentiments wereconfined entirely within their own breasts; and it was impossibleto know what were their real opinions on the scoreof religion. However, within the last ten years, I enquired,very particularly, of an intelligent Gipsy, what religion hisforefathers professed, and his answer was, that “the Gipsieshad no religious sentiments at all; that they worshipped nosort of thing whatever.”

Many practised music; and the violin and bag-pipeswere the instruments they commonly used. This musicaltalent of the Gipsies delighted the country-people; it operatedlike a charm upon their feelings, and contributed muchto procure the wanderers a night’s quarters. Many of thefamilies of the farmers looked forward to the expected visitsof the merry Gipsies with pleasure, and regretted their departure.Some of the old women sold salves and drugs,while some of the males had pretensions to a little surgery.One of them, of the name of Campbell, well known by thetitle of Dr. Duds, traversed the south of Scotland, accompaniedby a number of women. He prescribed, and sold medicinesto the inhabitants; and several odd stories are toldof the very unusual, but successful, cures performed byhim.

As in arranging for, and taking up, their quarters, theprincipal female Gipsy almost always negotiates the transactionswhich the horde have with the farmer’s family, duringtheir abode on his premises. Indeed, the females are the mostactive, if not the principal, members of the tribe, in vendingtheir articles of merchandise. The time at which, on suchoccasions, they present these for sale, is the day after theirarrival on the farm, and immediately after the breakfast ofthe farmer’s family is over. When there are more familiesthan one in the band, but all of one horde, the chief female[227]of the whole gets the first chance of selling her wares; butevery head female of the respective families bargains forher own merchandise, for the behoof of her own family.When the farmer’s family is in want of any of their articles,an extraordinary higgling and chaffering takes place inmaking the bargain. Besides money, the Gipsy woman insistsupon having what she calls her “boontith”—that is, apresent in victuals, as she is fond of bartering her articlesfor provisions. If the mistress of the house agrees, and goesto her larder or milk-house for the purpose of giving herthis boontith, the Gipsy is sure to follow close at her heels.Admitted into the larder, the voracious Tinkler will havepart of everything she sees—flesh, meal, butter, cheese, &c.,&c. Her fiery and penetrating eye darts, with rapidity, fromone object to another. She makes use of every argumentshe can think of to induce the farmer’s wife to complywith her unreasonable demands. “I’m wi’ bairn, mistress,”she will say; “I’m greenin’; God bless ye, gie me a wee bitflesh to taste my mouth, if it should no’ be the book o’ arobin-red-breast.”[148] If the farmer’s wife still disregards herimportunities, the Gipsy will, in the end, snatch up a pieceof flesh, and put it into her lap, in a twinkling; for out ofthe larder she will not go, without something or other. Thefarmer’s wife, ever on the alert, now takes hold of thesorner,to wrest the flesh from her clutches, when a serious personalstruggle ensues. She will frequently be under the necessityof calling for the assistance of her servants, to thrust theintruder out of the apartment; but the cautious Gipsy takescare not to let matters go too far: she yields the contest,and, laughing heartily at the good-wife losing her temper,immediately assumes her ordinary polite manner. And notwithstandingall that has taken place, both parties generallypart on good terms.

On one of these bargain-making occasions, as the wife of thefarmer of Glencotha, in Tweed-dale, went to give a boontithto Mary Yorkston, the harpy thrust, unobserved, about four[228]pounds weight of tallow into her lap. On the return of thegood-wife, the tallow was missed. She charged Mary withthe theft, but Mary, with much gravity of countenance, exclaimed:“God bless ye, mistress, I wad steal from mony aone before I wad steal from you.” The good-wife, however,took hold of Mary, to search her person. A struggleensued, when the tallow fell out of Mary’s lap, on the kitchen-floor.At this exposure, in the very act of stealing, theGipsy burst into a fit of laughter, exclaiming: “The Lordhae a care o’ me, mistress; ye hae surely little to spare,whan ye winna let a body take a bit tauch for a candle, tolight her to bed.” At another time, this Gipsy gravelytold the good-wife of Rachan-mill, that she must give her apound of butter for her boontith, that time, as it would bethe last she would ever give her. Astonished at the extraordinarysaying, the good-wife demanded, with impatience,what she meant. “You will,” rejoined the Gipsy, “be ineternity (by a certain day, which she named,) and I willnever see you again; and this will be the last boontith youwill ever give me.” The good-wife of Rachan-mill, however,survived the terrible prediction for several years.[149]

The female Gipsies also derived considerable profits fromtheir trade of fortune-telling. The art of telling fortuneswas not, however, general among the Gipsies; it was onlycertain old females who pretended to be inspired with the[229]gift of prophecy. The method which they adopted to getat the information which often enabled them to tell, if notfortunes, at least the history, and condition of mind, of individuals,with great accuracy, was somewhat this:

The inferior Gipsies generally attended our large country“penny-weddings”, in former times, both as musicians andfor the purpose of receiving the fragments of the entertainments.At the wedding in the parish of Corstorphine, towhich I have alluded, under the chapter ofFife and StirlingshireGipsies, Charles Stewart entered into familiar conversationwith individuals present; joking with them abouttheir sweet-hearts, and love-matters generally; telling themhe had noticed such a one at such a place; and observingto another that he had seen him at such a fair, and so on.He always enquired about their masters, and places of abode,with other particulars relative to their various connectionsand circumstances in life. Here, the Gipsy character displaysitself; here, we see Stewart, while he seems a meremerry-andrew, to the heedless, merry-making people at theseweddings, actually reading, with deep sagacity, their charactersand dispositions; and ascertaining the places ofresidence, and connexions, of many of the individuals of thecountry through which he travelled. In this manner, bycontinually roaming up and down the kingdom, now as individualsin disguise, at other times in bands—not passinga house in their route—observing everything taking placein partial assemblies, at large weddings, and general gatheringsof the people at fairs—scanning, with the eye of ahawk, both males and females, for the purpose of robbingthem—did the Gipsies, with their great knowledge of humancharacter, become thoroughly acquainted with particularincidents concerning many individuals of the population.Hence proceed, in a great measure, the warlockry andfortune-telling abilities of the shrewd and sagacious Gipsies.

Or, suppose an old Gipsy female, who traverses the kingdom,has a relative a lady’s maid in a family of rank, andanother a musician in a band, playing to the first classes ofsociety, in public or private assemblies, the travellingspae-wifewould not be without materials for carrying on hertrade of fortune-telling. The observant handmaid, and theacute, penetrating fiddler would, of course, communicate totheir wandering relative every incident and circumstance[230]that came under their notice, which would, at an after andsuitable period, enable the cunning fortune-teller to astonishsome of the parties who had been at these meetings, when inanother part of the country, remote in time, and distant inplace, from the spot where the occurrences happened.

In order that they might not lessen the importance andvalue of their art, these Gipsies pretended they could tellno one’s fortune for anything less than silver, or articlesof wearing-apparel, or other things of value. Besides tellingfortunes by palmistry,[150] they foretold destinies by divinationof the cup, their method of doing which appears to be nearlythe same as that practised among the ancient Assyrians,Chaldeans, and Egyptians, perhaps, about the time of Joseph.The Gipsy method was, and I may say is, this: The diviningcup, which is made of tin, or pewter, and about threeinches in diameter, was filled with water, and sometimeswith spirits. Into the cup a certain quantity of a meltedsubstance, resembling tin, was dropped from a crucible,which immediately formed itself, in the liquid, into curiousfigures, resembling frost-work, seen on windows in winter.The compound was then emptied into a trencher, and fromthe arrangements or constructions of the figures, the destinyof the enquiring individual was predicted.[151] While performing[231]the ceremony, the Gipsies muttered, in their ownlanguage, certain incantations, totally unintelligible to thespectator. The following fact, however, will, more particularly,show the manner in which these Gipsy sorceresses imposedon the credulous.

A relative of mine had several servant-girls who would,one day, have their fortunes told. The old Gipsy took them,one at a time, into an apartment of the house, and locked thedoor after her. My relative, feeling a curiosity in the matter,observed their operations, and overheard their conversation,through a chink in the partition of the room. Abottle of whiskey, and a wine glass, were produced by thegirl, and the sorceress filled the glass, nearly full, with thespirits. Into the liquor she dropped part of the white of araw egg, and taking out of her pocket something like chalk,scraped part of it into the mixture. Certain figures nowappeared in the glass, and, muttering some jargon, unintelligibleto the girl, she held it up between her eyes and thewindow. “There is your sweetheart now—look at him—doyou not see him?” exclaimed the Gipsy to the tremblinggirl; and, after telling her a number of events which wereto befall her, in her journey through life, she held out theglass, and told her to “cast that in her mouth”—“Me drinkthat? The Lord forbid that I should drink a drap o’t.”“E’ens ye like, my woman; I can tak’ it mysel,” quoth theGipsy, and, suiting the action to the word, “cast” the whiskey,eggs and chalk [152] down her throat, in an instant. Knowingwell that the idea of swallowing the glass in whichtheir future husbands were seen, and their own fortunestold, in so mysterious a manner, would make the girls shudder,the cunning Gipsy gave each of them, in succession, theorder to drink, and, the moment they refused, threw the contentsof the “divining cup” into her own mouth. In thismanner did the Gipsy procure, at one time, no less thanfour glasses of ardent spirits, and sixpence from each of thecredulous girls.

The country-girls, however, never could stand out theoperations of telling fortunes by the method of turning acorn-riddle, with scissors attached, in a solitary out-house.[232]Whenever the Gipsy commenced her work, and, with hermysterious mutterings, called out: “Turn riddle—turn—shearsand all,” the terrified girls fled to the house, impressedwith the belief that the devil himself would appear tothem, on the spot.

The Gipsies in Tweed-dale were never in want of the bestof provisions, having always an abundance of fish, flesh, andfowl. At the stages at which they halted, in their progressthrough the country, it was observed that the principal families,at one time, ate as good victuals, and drank as goodliquors, as any of the inhabitants of the country. A lady ofrespectability informed me of her having seen, in her youth, aband dine on the green-sward, near Douglass-mill, in Lanarkshire,when, as I have already mentioned, the Gipsies handedabout their wine, after dinner, as if they had been as gooda family as any in the land. Those in Fifeshire, as we havealready seen, were in the habit of purchasing and killing fatcattle, for their winter’s provisions. In a communication toBlackwood’s Magazine, to which I will again allude, theillustrious author of “Waverley” mentions that his grandfatherwas, in some respects, forced to accept a dinner froma party of Gipsies, carousing on a moor, on the Scottish Border.The feast consisted of “all the varieties of game,poultry, pigs, and so forth.” And, according to the samecommunication, it would appear that they were in the practiceof stewing game and all kinds of poultry into soup,which is considered very rich and savoury, and is nowtermed “Pottage a la Meg Merrilies de Derncleugh;” aname derived from the singular character in the celebratednovel of Guy Mannering.

But the ancient method of cooking practised among theScottish Gipsies, and which, in all probability, they broughtwith them, when they arrived in Europe, upwards of fourhundred years ago, is, if I am not mistaken, new to the world,never having as yet, that I am aware of, been described.[153]It is very curious, and extremely primitive, and appears tobe of the highest antiquity. It is admirably adapted to thewants of a rude and barbarous people, travelling over a wildand thinly-inhabited country, in which cooking utensils couldnot be procured, or conveniently carried with them.[233]My facts are from the Gipsies themselves, and are corroboratedby people, not of the tribe, who have witnessed someof their cooking operations.

The Gipsies, on such occasions, make use of neither pot,pan, spit, nor oven, in cooking fowls. They twist astrong rope of straw, which they wind very tightly aroundthe fowl, just as it is killed, with the whole of its featherson, and its entrails untouched. It is then covered withhot peat ashes, and a slow fire is kept up around and aboutthe ashes, till the fowl is sufficiently done. When taken outfrom beneath the fire, it is stripped of its hull, or shell, ofhalf-burned straw-rope and feathers, and presents a veryfine appearance. Those who have tasted poultry, cooked bythe Gipsies, in this manner, say that it is very palatableand good. In this invisible way, these ingenious peoplecould cook stolen poultry, at the very moment, and in thevery place, that a search was going on for the pilferedarticle.

The art of cooking butcher-meat among the Gipsies issimilar to that of making ready fowls, except that linenand clay are substituted for feathers and straw. The pieceof flesh to be cooked is first carefully wrapped up in a coveringof cloth or linen rags, and covered over with wellwrought clay, and either frequently turned before a strongfire, or covered over with hot ashes, till it is roasted, orrather stewed. The covering or crust, of the shape of thearticle enclosed, and hard with the fire, is broken, and themeat separated from its inner covering of burned rags,which, with the juice of the meat, are reduced to a thicksauce or gravy. Sometimes a little vinegar is poured uponthe meat. The tribe are high in their praise of flesh cookedin this manner, declaring that it has a particularly fineflavour. These singular people, I am informed, also boiledthe flesh of sheep in the skins of the animals, like theScottish soldiers in their wars with the English nation,when their camp-kettles were nothing but the hides of theoxen, suspended from poles, driven into the ground.

The only mode of cooking butcher-meat, bearing anyresemblance to that of the Gipsies, is practised by some ofthe tribes of South America, who wrap flesh inleaves, and,covering it over with clay, cook it like the Gipsies. Someof the Indians of North America roast deer of a small size[234]in their skins, among hot ashes. An individual of greatrespectability, who had tasted venison cooked in this fashion,said that it was extremely juicy, and finely flavoured. Inthe Sandwich Islands, pigs are baked on hot stones in pits,or in the leaves of the bread-fruit tree, on hot stones, coveredover with earth, during the operation of cooking. It is probablethat the Gipsy art of cooking would be amongst thefirst modes of making ready animal food, in the first stageof human society, in Asia—the cradle of the human race.[154]Substitute linen rags for the leaves of trees, and what methodof cooking can be more primitive than that of ourScottish Gipsies?

The Gipsy method of smelting iron, for sole-clout forploughs, and smoothing-irons, is also simple, rude, and primitive.[155]The tribe erect, on the open field, a small circle,built of stone, turf, and clay, for a furnace, of about three feetin height, and eighteen inches in diameter, and plastered,closely round on the outside, up to the top, with mortar madeof clay. The circle is deepened by part of the earth beingscooped out from the inside. It is then filled with coal orcharred peat; and the iron to be smelted is placed in smallpieces upon the top. Below the fuel an aperture is leftopen, on one side, for admitting a large iron ladle, linedinside with clay. The materials in the furnace are powerfullyheated, by the blasts of a large hand-bellows, (generallywrought by females,) admitted at a small hole, a littlefrom the ground. When the metal comes to a state of[235]fusion, it finds its way down to the ladle, and, after beingskimmed of its cinders, is poured into the different sandmoulds ready to receive it.

[121] This claim appears doubtful, for there were Gipsies of the name ofBaillie (Bailyow) as far back as 1540, as already mentioned. However,the particulars of the laird’s intrigue with the beautiful Gipsy girl, are imprintedon the minds of the Gipsies of that name at the present day.

[122] The Gipsies were not spared ofbraxy, of which they were fond. I haveknown natives of Tweed-dale and Ettrick Forest, who preferredbraxy tothe best meatkilled by the hand of man. It has a particularsharp relish,which made them so fond of it.

[Braxy is the flesh of sheep which have died of a certain disease. Whenthe Gipsies are taunted with eating what some call carrion, they verywittily reply: “The flesh of a beast which God kills must be better thanthat of one killed by the hand of man.” Such flesh, “killed by the hand ofGod,” is often killed in this manner: They will administer to swine a drugaffecting the brain only, which will cause speedy death; when they willcall and obtain the carcass, without suspicion, and feast on the flesh, whichhas been in no way injured.—Borrow. They will also stuff wool down asheep’s throat, and direct the farmer’s attention to it when near its last gasp,and obtain the carcass after being skinned.—Ed.]

[123] It is interesting to notice that the Doctor calls this Gipsy a “bold andproper fellow.” He was, in all probability, a fine specimen of physicalmanhood.—Ed.

[124] The Scottish Gipsies, as I have already said, have a tradition that theirancestors came into Scotland by way of Ireland.

[The allusion to that circumstance by the Gipsies, on this occasion, wasevidently to throw dust into the eyes of the Scottish authorities, by whomthe whole tribe in Scotland were proscribed.—Ed.]

[125] This seems a favourite title among the Tinklers. One, of the name ofYoung, bears it at the present time. But the Gipsies are not singular inthese terrible titles. In the late Burmese war, we find his Burmese majestycreating one of his generals “King of Hell, Prince of Darkness.”—SeeConstable’s Miscellany.

[126] A friend, in writing me, says: “I still think I see him, (Muckle Wull,)bruising the charred peat over the flame of his furnace, with hands equalto two pair of hands of the modern day; while his withered and hairyshackle-bones were more like the postern joints of a sorrel cart-horse thananything else.”

[127] This Gipsy battle is alluded to by Sir Walter Scott, in a postscript to aletter to Captain Adam Ferguson, 16th April, 1819.

“By the by, old Kennedy the tinker swam for his life at Jedburgh,and was only, by the sophisticated and timed evidence of a seceding doctor,who differed from all his brethren, saved from a well-deserved gibbet. Hegoes to botanize for fourteen years. Pray tell this to the Duke (of Buccleuch,)for he was an old soldier of the Duke, and the Duke’s old soldier. Six ofhis brethren were, I am told, in the court, and kith and kin without end.I am sorry so many of the clan are left. The cause of the quarrel withthe murdered man, was an old feud between two Gipsy clans, the Kennedysand Irvings, which, about forty years since, gave rise to a desperate quarreland battle at Hawick-green, in which the grandfather of both Kennedy andthe man whom he murdered were engaged.”—Lockhart’s Life of Sir WalterScott. Alexander Kennedy was tried for murdering Irving, at Yarrowford.

[This Gipsy fray at Hawick is known among the English Gipsies as“the Battle of the Bridge.”—Ed.]

[128] Grellmann, on the Hungarian Gipsies, says: “They are loquaciousand quarrelsome in the highest degree. In the public markets, and beforeale-houses, where they are surrounded by spectators, they bawl, spit ateach other, catch up sticks and cudgels, vapour and brandish them overtheir heads, throw dust and dirt; now run from each other, then backagain, with furious gestures and threats. The women scream, drag theirhusbands by force from the scene of action; these break from them again,and return to it. The children, too, howl piteously.” But I am at a lossto understand the object of such an affray, as given by this author, onany other theory than that of collecting crowds, in the places mentioned,to enable them the more easily to pick pockets. For Grellmann adds:“After a short time, without any persons interfering, when they have criedand make a noise till they are tired, and without either party having receivedany personal injury, the affair terminates, and they separate withas much ostentation as if they had performed the most heroic feat.”—Ed.

[129] It is astonishing how trifling a circumstance will sometimes set suchGipsies by the ears. In England, they will frequently “cast up” the historyof their respective families on such occasions. “What was your father, Iwould like to know? He hadn’t even an ass to carry his traps, and was arogue at that, you —— Gipsy.My father was an honest man.” “Honestman?”—“Yes, honest man, and that’s more than you can say of your kin.”The other, having more of “the blood,” will taunt his acquaintance withsome such expression as “Gorgio like,” (like the white.)—“And what areyou, you black trash? Will blood put money in your pocket? Blood,indeed! I’m a better Gipsy than you are, in spite of the black devil thatevery one sees in your face!” Then the fray commences.

When Gipsies take up their quarters on the premises of country people,a very effectual way of sometimes getting rid of them is to stir up discordamong them. For when it comes to “hammers and tongs,” “tongs andhammers,” they will scatter, uttering howls of vengeance, on some moreappropriate occasion, against their most intimate friends, who have justincurred their wrath, yet who will be seen “cheek by jowl” with them, perhaps,the next day, or even before the sun has gone down upon them; soeasily are they sometimes irritated, and so easily reconciled.—Ed.

[130] A writer in Blackwood’s Magazine mentions that the Gipsies, late inthe seventeenth century, broke into the house of Pennicuik, when the greaterpart of the family were at church. Sir John Clerk, the proprietor, barricadedhimself in his own apartment, where he sustained a sort of siege—firingfrom the windows upon the robbers, who fired upon him in return.One of them, while straying through the house in quest of booty, happenedto ascend the stairs of a very narrow turret, but, slipping his foot, caughthold of the rope of the alarm bell, the ringing of which startled the congregationassembled in the parish church. They instantly came to the rescueof the Laird, and succeeded, it is said, in apprehending some of the Gipsies,who were executed. There is a written account of this daring assault keptin the records of the family.—Ed.

[131] A great many of the inferior Gipsy chiefs travelled with a number ofwomen in their company; such as George Drummond, Doctor Duds, JohnLundie, and others.

[132] Dr. Alexander Carlyle, in a note to his autobiography, mentions havingseen this Jock Johnstone hanged. The date given by him (1738), differs,however, from that mentioned above. According to him, Johnstonewas but twenty years of age, but bold, and a great ringleader, and was condemnedfor robbery, and being accessory to a murder. The usual place ofexecution was a moor, adjoining the town; but, as it was strongly reportedthat the “thieves” were collecting from all quarters, to rescue the criminalfrom the gallows, the magistrates erected the scaffold in front of the prison,with a platform connecting, and surrounded it with about a hundred of thestoutest burgesses, armed with Lochaber axes. Jock made his appearance,surrounded by six officers. He was curly-haired, and fierce-looking, aboutfive feet eight inches in height, and very strong of his size. At first he appearedastonished, but, looking around awhile, proceeded with a bold step.Psalms and prayers being over, and the rope fastened about his neck, hewas ordered to mount a short ladder, attached to the gallows, in order tobe thrown off; when he immediately seized the rope, and pulled so violentlyat it as to be in danger of bringing down the gallows—causing muchemotion among the crowd, and fear among the magistrates. Jock, becomingfurious, like a wild beast, struggled and roared, and defied the six officersto bind him; and, recovering the use of his arms, became more formidable.The magistrates then with difficulty prevailed on by far the strongestman in Dumfries, for the honour of the town, to come on the scaffold.Putting aside the six officers, this man seized the criminal, with as littledifficulty as a nurse handles her child, and in a few minutes bound himhand and foot; and quietly laying him down on his face, near the edgeof the scaffold, retired. Jock, the moment he felt his grasp, found himselfsubdued, and, becoming calm, resigned himself to his fate.—Carlyle’s Autobiography.—Ed.

[133] Bruce, in his travels, when speaking of the protection afforded by theArabs to shipwrecked Christians, on the coasts of the Red Sea, says:—“TheArabian, with his lance, draws a circle large enough to hold you andyours. He then strikes his lance in the sand, and bids you abide within thecircle. You are thus as safe, on the desert coast of Arabia, as in a citadel;there is no example or exception to the contrary that has ever been known.”—Bruce’sTravels in Abyssinia.

[134] It might be supposed that the pride of a Gipsy would have the goodeffect of rendering him cautious not to be guilty of such crimes as subjecthim to public shame. But here his levity of character is rendered conspicuous;for he never looks to the right or to the left in his transactions;and though his conceit and pride are somewhat humbled, during the timeof punishment, and while the consequent pain lasts; these being over, heno longer remembers his disgrace, but entertains quite as good an opinionof himself as before.—Grellmann on the Hungarian Gipsies.—Ed.

[135]Sorn, (Scottish and Irish:) an arbitrary exaction, by which a chieftainlived at pleasure, in free quarters, among his tenants: also one who obtrudeshimself upon another, for bed and board, is said to sorn.—Bailey.

[136] A great many of the Scottish Gipsies, in former times, carried arms.One of the Baillies once left his budget in a house, by mistake. A person,whom I knew, had the curiosity to examine it; and he found it to contain apair of excellent pistols, loaded and ready for action.

[137] What our author says of “the usual Gipsy policy of making the peoplebelieve that they are descended from families of rank and influence in thecountry,” (page 154,) and that “the greater part of them will tell you thatthey are sprung from a bastard son of this or that noble family, or otherperson of rank and influence, of their own surname,” (117,) is doubtlesstrue as a rule; but there were as likely cases of what the Gipsies assert,and that Gipsy women, “in some instances, bore children to some of the‘unspotted gentlemen’ mentioned by act of parliament as having so greatlyprotected and entertained the tribe,” (114,) and that Baillie was one ofthem, (121 and185.) If Baillie had been following the occupation, andbearing the reputation, of an ordinary native of Scotland, there would havebeen some chance “that great interest would be used to save a bastardbranch of an honourable house from an ignominious death upon the scaffold,”for almost any offence he had committed, but not for one who wasguilty of “sorning, pickery, and little thieving, and habit and repute anEgyptian.” There was doubtless a connexion, inGipsy blood, between Baillieand his influential friends who saved him and his relatives so often fromthe gallows.—See Baillies of Lamington and McLaurin’s Criminal Trials,in the Index.—Ed.

[138] On some of the tombstones of the Gipsies, the word “brazier” isadded to their names. [Brazier is a favourite name with the Gipsies, andsounds better than tinker. Southey, in his Life of Bunyan, says: “It isstated, in a history of Bedfordshire, that he was bred to the business of abrazier, and worked, as a journeyman, at Bedford.”—Ed.]

[139] The English Gipsies say that the old mode of getting a wife among thetribe was tosteal her. The intended bride was nothing loth, still it wasnecessary to steal her, while the tribe were on the watch to detect andprevent it.—Ed.

[140] Scot’s Magazine, vol xxxviii., page 675.

[141] McLaurin’s Trials, page 555. [Seenote at page 205.—Ed.]

[142] It appears, from Vidocq’s memoirs, that the Gipsies on the continentchanged their apparel, so as they could not again be recognized: “At breakof day everybody was on foot, and the general toilet was made. But fortheir (the Gipsies’) prominent features, their raven-black tresses, and oilyand tanned skins, I should scarcely have recognized my companions of thepreceding evening. The men, clad in rich jockey Holland vests, withleathern sashes like those worn by the men of Poirsy, and the women,covered with ornaments of gold and silver, assumed the costume of Zealandpeasants; even the children, whom I had seen covered with rags, wereneatly clothed, and had an entirely different appearance. All soon left thehouse, and took different directions, that they might not reach the marketplace together, where the country-people were assembled in crowds.”—Vidocqhad lodged all night in a ruinous house, with a band of Gipsies.

[143] The females of this tribe also rode to the fairs at Moffat and Biggar, onhorses, with side-saddles and bridles, the ladies themselves being verygaily dressed. The males wore scarlet cloaks, reaching to their knees, andresembling exactly the Spanish fashion of the present day.

[144] Weekly Magazine, 10th September, 1772, page 354.

[145] According to Hoyland, the most common names among the Englishtented Gipsies are Smith, Cooper, Draper, Taylor, Boswell, Lee, Lovel,Loversedge, Allen, Mansfield, Glover, Williams, Carew, Martin, Stanley,Berkley, Plunket, and Corrie. Mr. Borrow says: “The clans Young andSmith, or Curraple, still haunt two of the eastern counties. The name Currapleis a favourite among the English Gipsies. It means a smith—a namevery appropriate to a Gipsy. The root isCuraw, to strike, hammer, &c.”Among the English and Scottish Gipsies in America, I have found a greatvariety of surnames.—Ed.

[146] In the “Gipsies in Spain,” Mr. Borrow says: “Every family in Englandhas two names; one by which they are known to the Gentiles, andanother which they use among themselves.”—Ed.

[147] It is known that the rock-raven, orcorbie, seldom preys upon the flocksaround her nest; but the moment she is deprived of her young, she will,to the utmost of her power, wreak her vengeance on the young lambs inher immediate neighborhood. I have known the corbie, when bereaved ofher brood, tear, with her beak, the very foggage from the earth, and tossit about; and before twenty-four hours elapsed, several lambs would falla sacrifice to her fury. I have also observed that grouse, where theground suits their breeding, are generally very plentiful close around theeyrie of the relentless falcon.

[148] After recovery from child-birth, the Gipsy woman recommences hercourse of begging or stealing, with her child in her arms; and then she ismore rapacious than at other times, taking whatever she can lay her handsupon. For she calculates upon escaping without a beating, by holding upher child to receive the blows aimed at her; which she knows will havethe effect of making the aggrieved person desist, till she finds an opportunityof getting out of the way.—Grellmann on the Hungarian Gipsies.—Ed.

[149] The following facts will show what a Scottish Tinkler, at the presentday, will sometimes do in the way of “sorning,” or masterful begging.

One of the race paid a visit to the house of a country ale-wife, and, in acrowded shop, vaulted the counter, and applied his bottle to her whiskey-tap.Immediately a cry, with up-lifted hands, was raised for the police, butthe prudent ale-wife treated the circumstance with indifference, and exclaimed:“Hout, tout, tout!let the deil tak’ a wee drappie.”

On another occasion, a Gipsy woman entered a country public-house,leaving her partner at a short distance from the door. Espying a drawnbottle of porter, standing on a table, in a room in which were two femalessitting, she, without the least ceremony, filled a glass, and drank it off;but before she could decant another, the other Gipsy, feeling sure of theluck of his mate, from her being admitted into the premises, immediatelyproceeded to share it with her. But he had hardly drank off the remainderof the porter, ere a son of the mistress of the house made his appearance,and demanded what was wanted. “Want—want?” replied the Gipsy, witha leering eye towards the empty bottle; “we want nothing—we’ve got allthat we want!” On being ordered to “walk out of that,” they left, with asmile of satisfaction playing on their weather-beaten countenances.

Such displays of Gipsy impudence sometimes call forth only a heartylaugh from the people affected by them.—Ed.

[150] The Kamtachadales, says Dr. Grieve, in his translation of a Russianaccount of Kamtachatka, pretend to chiromancy, and tell a man’s good orbad fortune by the lines of his hand; but the rules which they follow arekept a great secret.Page 206.

[151] Julius Serenus, says Stackhouse, tells us, that the method among theAssyrians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians was to fill the cup with water, thenthrow into it thin plates of gold and silver, together with some preciousstones, whereon were engraven certain characters, and, after that, the personwho came to consult the oracle used certain forms of incantation, and,so calling upon the devil, were wont to receive their answer several ways:sometimes by particular sounds; sometimes by the characters which werein the cup rising upon the surface of the water, and by their arrangementforming the answer; and many times by the visible appearance of the personsthemselves, about whom the oracle was consulted. Cornelius Agrippa(De Occult. Philos. LI, c. 57,) tells as, likewise, that the manner of some wasto pour melted wax into the cup wherein was water; which wax wouldrange itself in order, and so form answers, according to the questions proposed.—Saurin’sDissertation, 38, and Heidegger’s His. patriar. exercit. 20.

Fortune-telling is punishable by the 9th Geo. II, chap. 5th. In June,1805, a woman, of the name of Maxwell, commonly called the Gallowaysorceress, was tried for this offence, by a jury, before the Stewart of Kirkcudbright,and was sentenced to imprisonment and the pillory.—Burnet onCriminal Law, page 178.

[152] It is not unlikely that the “something like chalk,” here mentioned, wasnothing but a nutmeg, with which, and the eggs and whiskey, the Gipsywould make, what is called, “egg-nogg.”—Ed.

[153] I published the greater part of the Gipsy method of cooking, in theFife Herald, of the 18th April, 1833.

[154] Ponqueville considers the Gipsies contemporary of the first societies.Paris, 1830.

[155] According to Grellmann, working in iron is the most usual occupationof the Gipsies. In Hungary it is so common, as to have given riseto the proverb, “So many Gipsies, so many smiths.” The same may besaid of those in Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia, and all Turkey inEurope; at least, Gipsies following that occupation are very numerous inthose countries.

This occupation seems to have been a favourite one with them, from themost distant period. Uladislaus, King of Hungary, in the year 1496, ordered:“That every officer and subject, of whatever rank or condition, doallow Thomas Polgar, leader of twenty-five tents of wandering Gipsies, freeresidence everywhere, and on no account to molest either him or hispeople, because they prepared musket balls and other military stores, forthe Bishop Sigismund, at Fünf-kirchen.” In the year 1565, when Mustapa,Turkish Regent of Bosnia, besieged Crupa, the Turks having expendedtheir powder and cannon balls, the Gipsies were employed to makethe latter, part of iron, the rest of stone, cased with lead.

Observe the Gipsies at whatever employment you may, there alwaysappear sparks of genius. We cannot, indeed, help wondering, when weconsider the skill they display in preparing and bringing their work toperfection, from the scarcity of proper tools and materials.—Grellmann onthe Hungarian Gipsies.—Ed.

CHAPTER VII.

BORDER GIPSIES.

It would be an unpardonable omission were I to overlookthe descendants of John Faw, “Lord and Earl of LittleEgypt,” in this history of the Gipsies in Scotland. But toenter into details relative to many of the members of thisancient clan, would be merely a repetition of actions, similarin character to those already related of some of the otherbands in Scotland.

It would appear that the district in which the Faw tribecommonly travelled, comprehended East Lothian, Berwickshireand Roxburghshire; and that Northumberland was alsopart of their walk. I can find no traces of Gipsies, of thatsurname, having, in families, traversed the midland or westernparts of the south of Scotland, for nearly the last seventyyears; and almost all the few ancient public documentsrelative to this clan seem to imply that they occupied thecounties above mentioned.

I am inclined to believe that the Faws and the Baillies,the two principal Gipsy clans in Scotland, had frequentlylived in a state of hostility with one another. These twotribes quarrelled in the reign of James V, when theybrought their dispute before the king in council; and fromthe renewal of the order in council, in the reign of QueenMary, it appears their animosities had then existed. In theyear 1677, the Faws and the Shaws, as already noticed,advanced into Tweed-dale, to fight the Baillies and theBrowns, as mentioned by Dr. Pennecuik, in his history ofTweed-dale. At the present day, the Baillies considerthemselves quite superior in rank to the Faas; and, on theother hand, the Faas and their friends speak with greatbitterness and contempt of the Baillies, calling them “aparcel of thieves and vagabonds.”[156]

[237]In Ruddiman’s Weekly Magazine, of the 4th August, 1774,the following notice is taken of this tribe, which shows thefear which persons of respectability entertained for them:“The descendants of this Lord of Little Egypt continued totravel about in Scotland till the beginning of this century,mostly about the southern Border; and I am most crediblyinformed that one, Henry Faa, was received, and ate at thetables of people in public office, and that men of considerablefortune paid him a gratuity, called blackmail, in order tohave their goods protected from thieves.”

One of the Faas rose to great eminence in the mercantileworld, and was connected by marriage with Scotch familiesof the rank of baronets. This family was the highly respectableone of Fall, now extinct, general merchants in Dunbar,who were originally members of the Gipsy family atYetholm. So far back as about the year 1670, one of thebaillies of Dunbar was of the surname of Faa, spelled exactlyas the Gipsy name, as appears by the Rev. J. Blackadder’sMemoirs. On the 18th of May, 1734, Captain James Fall,of Dunbar, was elected member of parliament for the Dunbardistrict of burghs. On the 28th of May, 1741, Captain Fallwas again elected member for the same burghs; but, therebeing a double return, Sir Hew Dalrymple ousted him. Thefamily of Fall gave Dunbar provosts and baillies, and ruledthe political interests of that burgh for many years. Whenhearty over their cups, they often mentioned their origin;and, to perpetuate the memory of their descent from thefamily of Faa, at Yetholm, the late Mrs. Fall, of Dunbar,whose husband was provost of the town, had the wholefamily, with their asses, &c., &c., as they took their departurefrom Yetholm, represented, by herself, in needle-work, ortapestry.[157] The particulars, or details, of this family group[238]were derived from her husband, who had the facts from hisgrandfather, one of the individuals represented in the piece.A respectable aged gentleman, yet living in Dunbar, hasoften seen this family piece of the Falls, and had its detailspointed out and explained to him by Mrs. Fall herself.[158]

The mercantile house of the Falls, at Dunbar, was so extensiveas to have many connexions in the ports of the Balticand Mediterranean, and supported so high a character thatseveral of the best families in Scotland sent their sons to it,to be initiated in the mysteries of commerce. Amongstothers who were bred merchants by the Falls, were SirFrancis Kinloch, and two sons of Sir John Anstruther. Itappears that the Falls were most honourable men in all theirtransactions; and that the cause of the ruin of their eminentfirm was the failure of some considerable mercantile houseswho were deeply indebted to them.

One of the Misses Fall was married to Sir John Anstruther,of Elie, baronet. It appears that this alliance withthe family of Fall was not relished by the friends of SirJohn, of his own class in society. The consequence wasthat Lady Anstruther was not so much respected, and didnot receive those attentions from her neighbours, to which[239]her rank, as Sir John’s wife, gave her a title. The traditionof her Gipsy descent was fresh in the memories of those inthe vicinity of her residence; and she frequently got noother name, or title, when spoken of, than “Jenny Faa.”She was, however, a woman of great spirit and activity.Her likeness was taken, and, I believe, is still preserved bythe family of Anstruther.[159]

At a contested election, for a member of parliament, forthe burghs in the east of Fife, in which Sir John was a candidate,his opponents thought to annoy him, and his activelady, by reference to the Gipsy origin of the latter. WheneverLady Anstruther entered the burghs, during the canvass,the streets resounded with the old song of the “GipsyLaddie.” A female stepped up to her ladyship, and expressedher sorrow at the rabble singing the song in her presence.“Oh, never mind them,” replied Lady Anstruther; “they areonly repeating what they hear from their parents.”[160] Thefollowing is the song alluded to:

JOHNNY FAA, THE GIPSY LADDIE.

Tradition states that John Faa, the leader of a band ofGipsies, seizing the opportunity of the Earl of Cassilis’ absence,on a deputation to the Assembly of divines at Westminster,in 1643, to ratify the solemn league and covenant,carried off the lady. The Earl was considered a sullen andill-tempered man, and perhaps not a very agreeable companionto his lady.[161]

Before proceeding to give an account of the modern Gipsieson the Scottish Border, I shall transcribe an interestingnote which Sir Walter Scott gave to the public, in explainingthe origin of that singular character Meg Merrilies, inthe novel Guy Mannering. The illustrious author kindlyoffered me the “scraps” which he had already given toBlackwood’s Magazine, to incorporate them, if I chose, inmy history of the Gipsies; but I prefer giving them in hisown words.

“My father,” says Sir Walter, “remembered Jean Gordon[242]of Yetholm, who had a great sway among her tribe.She was quite a Meg Merrilies, and possessed the savagevirtue of fidelity in the same perfection. Having been hospitablyreceived at the farm-house of Lochside, near Yetholm,she had carefully abstained from committing any depredationson the farmer’s property. But her sons, (nine innumber,) had not, it seems, the same delicacy, and stole abrood-sow from their kind entertainer. Jean was so muchmortified at this ungrateful conduct, and so much ashamedof it, that she absented herself from Lochside for severalyears. At length, in consequence of some temporary pecuniarynecessity, the good-man of Lochside was obliged to goto Newcastle, to get some money to pay his rent. Returningthrough the mountains of Cheviot, he was benighted,and lost his way. A light, glimmering through the windowof a large waste-barn, which had survived the farm-house towhich it had once belonged, guided him to a place of shelter;and when he knocked at the door, it was opened byJean Gordon. Her very remarkable figure, for she wasnearly six feet high, and her equally remarkable featuresand dress, rendered it impossible to mistake her for a moment;and to meet with such a character, in so solitary aplace, and probably at no great distance from her clan, wasa terrible surprise to the poor man, whose rent, (to losewhich would have been ruin to him,) was about his person.Jean set up a loud shout of joyful recognition. ‘Eh, sirs!the winsome gude-man of Lochside! Light down, lightdown; for ye manna gang farther the night, and a friend’shouse sae near!’ The farmer was obliged to dismount, andaccept of the Gipsy’s offer of supper and a bed. There wasplenty of meat in the barn, however it might be come by,and preparations were going on for a plentiful supper, whichthe farmer, to the great encrease of his anxiety, observedwas calculated for ten or twelve guests of the same description,no doubt, with his landlady. Jean left him in no doubton the subject. She brought up the story of the stolen sow,and noticed how much pain and vexation it had given her.Like other philosophers, she remarked that the world growsworse daily, and, like other parents, that the bairns got outof her guiding, and neglected the old Gipsy regulationswhich commanded them to respect, in their depredations, theproperty of their benefactors. The end of all this was an[243]enquiry what money the farmer had about him, and an urgentrequest that he would make her his purse-keeper, asthe bairns, as she called her sons, would be soon home. Thepoor farmer made a virtue of necessity, told his story, andsurrendered his gold to Jean’s custody. She made him puta few shillings in his pocket; observing it would excite suspicionshould he be found travelling altogether penniless.This arrangement being made, the farmer lay down on asort ofshake-down, as the Scotch call it, upon some straw;but, as is easily to be believed, slept not. About midnightthe gang returned with various articles of plunder, andtalked over their exploits, in language which made the farmertremble. They were not long in discovering theirguest, and demanded of Jean whom she had got there.‘E’en the winsome gude-man of Lochside, poor boy,’ repliedJean; ‘he’s been at Newcastle, seeking siller to pay his rent,honest man, but deil-be-licket he’s been able to gather in;and sae he’s gaun e’en hame wi’ a toom purse and a sairheart.’ ‘That may be, Jean,’ replied one of the banditti,‘but we maun ripe his pouches a bit, and see if it be true orno.’ Jean set up her throat in exclamation against thisbreach of hospitality, but without producing any change oftheir determination. The farmer soon heard their stifledwhispers and light steps by his bed-side, and understoodthey were rummaging his clothes. When they found themoney which the prudence of Jean Gordon had made himretain, they held a consultation if they should take it or not;but the smallness of the booty, and the vehemence of Jean’sremonstrances, determined them on the negative. Theycaroused, and went to rest. So soon as day dawned, Jeanroused her guest, produced his horse, which she had accommodatedbehind thehallan, and guided him for some miles,till he was on the high-road to Lochside. She then restoredhis whole property, nor could his earnest entreaties prevailon her to accept so much as a single guinea.

“I have heard the old people at Jedburgh say that allJean’s sons were condemned to die there on the same day.It is said the jury were equally divided, but that a friend ofjustice, who had slept during the whole discussion, wakedsuddenly, and gave his vote for condemnation, in the emphaticwords: ‘Hang them a’.’ Jean was present, andonly said, ‘The Lord help the innocent in a day like this.’[244]Her own death was accompanied with circumstances ofbrutal outrage, of which poor Jean was, in many respects,wholly undeserving. Jean had, among other demerits, ormerits, as you may choose to rank it, that of being a staunchJacobite. She chanced to be at Carlisle, upon a fair ormarket day, soon after the year 1746, where she gave ventto her political partiality, to the great offence of the rabblein that city. Being zealous in their loyalty when therewas no danger, in proportion to the tameness with whichthey had surrendered to the Highlanders, in 1745, they inflictedupon poor Jean Gordon no slighter penalty than thatof ducking her to death in the Eden. It was an operationof some time, for Jean was a stout woman, and, strugglingwith her murderers, often got her head above water; and,while she had voice left, continued to exclaim, at such intervals,‘Charlie yet! Charlie yet!’

“When a child, and among the scenes which she frequented,I have often heard these stories, and cried piteouslyfor poor Jean Gordon.

“Before quitting the Border Gipsies, I may mention thatmy grandfather, riding over Charter-house moor, then a veryextensive common, fell suddenly among a large band ofthem, who were carousing in a hollow of the moor, surroundedby bushes. They instantly seized on his horse’sbridle, with many shouts of welcome, exclaiming, (for hewas well known to most of them,) that they had often dinedat his expense, and he must now stay, and share their good-cheer.My ancestor was a little alarmed, for, like the goodman of Lochside, he had more money about his person thanhe cared to venture with into such society. However, beinga bold, lively man, he entered into the humour of thething, and sate down to the feast, which consisted of all thedifferent varieties of game, poultry, pigs, and so forth, thatcould be collected by a wide and indiscriminate system ofplunder. The feast was a very merry one, but my relativegot a hint, from some of the elder Gipsies, to retire justwhen ‘The mirth and fun grew fast and furious;’ and,mounting his horse, accordingly, he took French leaveof his entertainers, but without experiencing the leastbreach of hospitality. I believe Jean Gordon was at thisfestival.

“The principal settlements of the Gipsies, in my time,[245]have been the two villages of Easter and Wester Gordon,and what is called Kirk-Yetholm,

In giving an account of the modern Gipsies on the ScottishBorder, I shall transcribe, at full length, the faithfuland interesting report of Baillie Smith, of Kelso, which waspublished in Hoyland’s “Historical Survey of the Gipsies.”

“A considerable time,” says Mr. Smith, “having elapsedsince I had an opportunity or occasion to attend to thesituation of the colony of Gipsies in our neighbourhood, Iwas obliged to delay my answer to your enquiries, until Icould obtain more information respecting their presentnumbers.

“The great bar to the benevolent intentions of improvingtheir situation, will be the impossibility to convince themthat there either is, or can be, a mode of life preferable, oreven equal, to their own.

“A strong spirit of independence, or what they woulddistinguish by the name of liberty, runs through the wholetribe. It is, no doubt, a very licentious liberty, but entirelyto their taste. Some kind of honour peculiar to themselvesseems to prevail in their community. They reckon it a disgraceto steal near their homes, or even at a distance, if detected.I must always except that petty theft of feedingtheirshelties and asses, on the farmer’s grass and corn, whichthey will do, whether at home or abroad.

“When avowedly trusted, even in money matters, theynever deceived me, nor forfeited their promise. I am sorryto say, however, that when checked in their licentious appropriations,&c., they are very much addicted both to threatenand to execute revenge.

“Having so far premised with respect to their generalconduct and character, I shall proceed to answer, as far as Iam able, the four queries subjoined to the circular whichyou sent me; and then subjoin, in notes, some instances oftheir conduct in particular cases, which may perhaps elucidatetheir general disposition and character.

“Answer. I know of none except the colony of Yetholm,and one family who lately removed from that place to Kelso.[246]Yetholm consists of two towns, or large villages, calledTown-Yetholm and Kirk-Yetholm. The first is in the estateof Mr. Wauchope, of Niddry; the latter in that of theMarquis of Tweed-dale. The number of the Gipsy colonyat present in Kirk-Yetholm amounts to, at least, 109 men,women and children; and perhaps two or three may haveescaped notice. They marry early in life; in general havemany children; and their number seems to be encreasing.

“Answer. I have known the colony between forty andfifty years. At my first remembrance of them, they werecalled theTinklers (Tinkers) of Yetholm, from the malesbeing chiefly then employed in mending pots and other culinaryutensils, especially in their peregrinations through thehilly and less frequented parts of the country. Sometimesthey were calledHorners, from their occupation in makingand selling horn-spoons, calledcutties. Now, their commonappellation is that ofMuggers, or, what pleases them better,Potters. They purchase, at a cheap rate, the cast or faultyarticles from the different manufacturers of earthenware, whichthey carry for sale all over the country; consisting of groupsof six, ten, and sometimes twelve or fourteen persons, maleand female, young and old, provided with a horse and cart,to transport the pottery, besides shelties and asses, to carrythe youngest of the children, and such baggage as they findnecessary. A few of the colony also employ themselves,occasionally, in making besoms, foot-basses, &c., from heath,broom, and bent, and sell them at Kelso and the neighbouringtowns. After all, their employment can be consideredlittle better than an apology for idleness and vagrancy. Ido not see that the women are otherwise employed thanattending the young children, and assisting to sell the potterywhen carried through the country.

“They are, in general, great adepts in hunting, shootingand fishing; in which last they use the net and spear,as well as the rod; and often supply themselves witha hearty meal by their dexterity. They have no notion ofbeing limited in their field sports, either in time, place, ormode of destruction. In the country, they sleep in barnsand byres, or other out-houses; and when they cannot findthat accommodation, they take the canvas covering from the[247]pottery cart and squat below it, like a covey of partridgesin the snow.

“Answer. Their residence, with the exception of a singlefamily, who, some years ago, came to Kelso, is at Kirk-Yetholm,and chiefly confined to one row of houses, orstreet, of that town, which goes by the name of theTinklerRow. Most of them have leases of their possessions,granted for a term of nineteen times nineteen years, for paymentof a small sum yearly, something of the nature of aquit-rent. There is no tradition in the neighbourhood concerningthe time when the Gipsies first took up their residenceat that place, nor whence they came. Most of theirleases, I believe, were granted by the family of the Bennets,of Grubit, the last of whom was Sir David Bennet, who diedabout sixty years ago. The late Mr. Nisbet, of Dirlton,then succeeded to the estate, comprehending the baroniesof Kirk-Yetholm and Grubit. He died about the year1783; and long after, the property was acquired by the lateLord Tweed-dale’s trustees. During the latter part of thelife of the late Mr. Nisbet, he was less frequently at hisestate in Roxburghshire than formerly. He was a greatfavourite of the Gipsies, and was in use to call them hisbody-guards, and often gave them money, &c.

“On the other hand, both the late and present Mr. Wauchopewere of opinion that the example of these people hada bad effect upon the morals and industry of the neighbourhood;and seeing no prospect of their removal, and as littleof their reformation, considered it as a duty to the publicto prevent the evil encreasing; and never would consent toany of the colony taking up their residence inTown Yetholm.

“They mostly remain at home during winter, but as soonas the weather becomes tolerably mild, in spring, most ofthem, men, women and children, set out on their peregrinationsover the country; and live in a state of vagrancy, untildriven into their habitations by the approach of winter.

“Seeming to pride themselves as a separate tribe, theyvery seldom intermarry out of the colony; and, in rare instances,when that happens, the Gipsy, whether male orfemale, by influence and example, always induces the strangerhusband, or wife, to adopt the manners of the colony; so[248]that no improvement is ever obtained in that way. Theprogeny of such alliances have almost universally the tawnycomplexion, and fine black eyes, of the Gipsy parent, whetherfather or mother. So strongly remarkable is the Gipsy castof countenance, that even a description of them to a stranger,who has had no opportunity of formerly seeing them, willenable him to know them whenever he meets them. Someindividuals, but very rarely, separate from the colony altogether;and when they do so, early in life, and go to a distance,such as London, or even Edinburgh, their acquaintancesin the country get favourable accounts of them. Afew betake themselves to regular and constant employmentsat home, but soon tire, and return to their old way of life.

“When any of them, especially a leader, or man of influence,dies, they have full meetings, not only of the colony,but of the Gipsies from a distance; and those meetings, orlate-wakes, are by no means conducted with sobriety ordecency.

“Query 4th. Are any of their children taught to read, andwhat portion of them? With any anecdotes respectingtheir customs and conduct.

“Answer. Education being obtained at a cheaper rate,the Gipsies, in general, give their male children as good aone as is bestowed on those of the labouring people, andfarm servants, in the neighbourhood; such as reading, writing,and the first principles of arithmetic. They all applyto the clergyman of the parish for baptism to their children;and a strong, superstitious notion universally prevails withthem, that it is unlucky to have an unchristened child in thehouse. Only a very few ever attend divine service, andthose as seldom as they can, just to prevent being refused assponsors at their children’s baptism.

“They are, in general, active and lively, particularly whenengaged in field sports, or in such temporary pursuits as areagreeable to their habits and dispositions; but are destituteof the perseverance necessary for a settled occupation, oreven for finishing what a moderate degree of continuedlabour would enable them to accomplish in a few weeks.

“I remember that, about 45 years ago, being then apprenticedto a writer, who was in use to receive the rents andthe small duties of Kirk-Yetholm, he sent me there with alist of names, and a statement of what was due, recommending[249]me apply to the landlord of the public-house, in thevillage, for any information or assistance which I mightneed.

“After waiting a long time, and receiving payment frommost of the feuers, or rentalers, I observed to him, that noneof the persons of the names of Faa, Young, Blythe, Fluckie,&c., who stood at the bottom of the list, for small sums, hadcome to meet me, according to the notice given by the baron-officer,and proposed sending to inform them that they weredetaining me, and to request their immediate attendance.

“The landlord, with a grave face, enquired whether mymaster had desired me to ask money from those men. Isaid, not particularly; but they stood on the list. ‘So Isee,’ said the landlord; ‘but had your master been here himself,he did not dare to ask money from them, either as rentor feu duty. He knows that it is as good as if it were inhis pocket. They will pay when their own time comes, butdo not like to pay at a set time, with the rest of the barony,and still less to be craved.’

“I accordingly returned without their money, and reportedprogress. I found that the landlord was right: my mastersaid, with a smile, that it was unnecessary to send to them,after the previous notice from the baron-officer; it wasenough if I had received the money, if offered. Their rentand feu duty was brought to the office in a few weeks.I need scarcely add that those persons all belonged to thetribe.

“Another instance of their licentious, independent spiritoccurs to me. The family of Niddry always gave a decentannual remuneration to a baron-baillie, for the purpose ofkeeping good order within the barony of Town-Yetholm.The person whom I remember first in possession of thatoffice was an old man, called Doctor Walker, from his beingalso the village surgeon; and from him I had the followinganecdote:

“Between Yetholm and the Border farms, in Northumberland,there were formerly, as in most Border situations,some uncultivated lands, called the Plea-lands, or Debatable-lands,the pasturage of which was generally eaten upby the sorners and vagabonds, on both sides of the marches.Many years ago, Lord Tankerville and some others of theEnglish Borderers made their request to Sir David Bennet,[250]and the late Mr. Wauchope, of Niddry, that they would accompanythem at a riding of the Plea-lands, who readilycomplied with their request. They were induced to this, asthey understood that the Gipsies had taken offence, on thesupposition that they might be circumscribed in the pasturagefor their shelties and asses, which they had held a longtime, partly by stealth, and partly by violence.

“Both threats and entreaties were employed to keep themaway; and, at last, Sir David obtained a promise from someof the heads of the gang, that none of them should showtheir faces on the occasion. They, however, got upon thehills, at a little distance, whence they could see everythingthat passed. At first they were very quiet. But whenthey saw the English court-book spread out, on a cushion,before the clerk, and apparently him taking in a line ofdirection, interfering with what they considered to be theirprivileged ground, it was with great difficulty that the mostmoderate of them could restrain the rest from running downand taking vengeance, even in sight of their own lord of themanor.

“They only abstained for a short time; and no soonerhad Sir David and the other gentlemen taken leave of eachother, in the most polite and friendly manner, as Borderchiefs were wont to do, since Border feuds ceased, and haddeparted to a sufficient distance, than the clan, armed withbludgeons, pitchforks, and such other hostile weapons asthey could find, rushed down in a body, and before the chiefson either side had reached their home, there was neitherEnglish tenant, horse, cow nor sheep left upon the premises.

“Meeting at Kelso, with Mr. Walter Scott, whose discriminatinghabits and just observations I had occasion toknow, from his youth, and, at the same time, seeing one ofmy Yetholm friends in the horse-market, I said to Mr. Scott,‘Try to get before that man with the long drab coat, lookat him on your return, and tell me whether you ever sawhim, and what you think of him.’ He was as good as to indulgeme; and, rejoining me, he said, without hesitation:‘I never saw the man that I know of; but he is one of theGipsies of Yetholm, that you told me of, several years ago.’I need scarcely say that he was perfectly correct.

“When first I knew anything about the colony, old WillFaa was king, or leader; and had held the sovereignty[251]for many years. The descendants of Faa now take thename of Fall, from the Messrs. Fall, of Dunbar, who, theypride themselves in saying, are of the same stock and lineage.When old Will Faa was upwards of eighty years ofage, he called on me, at Kelso, on his way to Edinburgh,telling me that he was going to see the laird, the late Mr.Nisbet, of Dirlton, as he understood that he was very unwell;and he himself being now old, and not so stout as he hadbeen, he wished to see him once more before he died. Heset out by the nearest road, which was by no means his commonpractice. Next market-day, some of the farmers informedme that they had been in Edinburgh, and seen WillFaa, upon the bridge, (the south bridge was not then built;)that he was tossing about his old brown hat, and huzzaing,with great vociferation, that he had seen the laird before hedied. Indeed, Will himself had no time to lose; for, havingset his face homewards, by the way of the sea-coast, to varyhis route, as is the general custom of the gang, he only gotthe length of Coldingham, when he was taken ill and died.

“His death being notified to his friends at Yetholm, theyand their acquaintances at Berwick, Spittal, Horncliff, &c.,met to pay the last honours to their old leader. His obsequieswere continued three successive days and nights, andafterwards repeated at Yetholm, whither he was brought. Icannot say that the funeral rites were celebrated with decencyand sobriety, for that was by no means the case. Thishappened in the year 1783, or 1784, and the late Mr. Nisbetdid not long survive.”[162]

In addition to the above graphic report of Baillie Smith,I will now give a few details from a MS., given to me byMr. Blackwood, towards the elucidation of the history ofthe Gipsies. This MS. bears the initials of A. W., and appearsto have been written by a gentleman who had ampleopportunities of observing the manners of the Border Gipsies.

[252]“I am a native of Yetholm parish, and a residenter in it,with a little exception, for upwards of fifty years. I wellremember Kirk-Yetholm, when the Faas and Youngsalone had a footing in it.[163] The Taits came next, and latterly,at various periods, the Douglasses, Blyths, Montgomerys,&c. Old William Faa, (with whom I was well acquainted,and saw him married to his third wife,[164]) constantlyclaimed kindred with the Falls of Dunbar; and persisted,to the last, that he himself was the male descendant,in a direct line, from the Earl of Little Egypt. For manyyears before his death, Mr. Nisbet of Dirlton, (the then lairdof Kirk-Yetholm,) gave him the charge of his house, atMarlfield, and all its furniture, although he resided six milesdistant from it. The key of the principal door was regularlydelivered to him, at the laird’s departure. I remembera sale of wood at Cherry-trees, belonging to the late SheriffMurray. William Faa was a purchaser at the roup, andthe sheriff proclaimed aloud to the clerk, that he would beMr. Faa’s cautioner. All the Tinklers in the village, andeven strangers resorting thither, considered William Faaas the head and leader of the whole. His corpse was escorted[253]betwixt Coldstream and Yetholm by above threehundred asses.

“He was succeeded by his eldest son William, one of thecleverest fellows upon the Border. For agility of person,and dexterity in every athletic exercise, he had rarely metwith a competitor. He had a younger brother impressed,when almost a boy. He deserted from his ship, in India;enlisted as a soldier, and, by dint of merit, acquired a commissionin a regular regiment of foot, and died a lieutenant,within these thirty years, at London. He was an officer underGovernor Wall, at Goree, when he committed the crimefor which he suffered, twenty years after, in England.

“It was the present William Faa that the ‘Earl ofHell’ contended with; not for sovereignty, but to revengesome ancient animosity.[165] His lordship lives at New Coldstream,and was the only person in Berwickshire that durst encounter,in single combat, the renowned Bully-More. Youngfought three successive battles with Faa, and one desperateengagement with More, midway between Dunse andColdstream; and was defeated in all of them. He is ayounger son of William Young, of Yetholm, the cotemporarychieftain of old William Faa. It was still a youngerbrother that migrated to Kelso, where he supported a goodcharacter till he died. Charles Young, the eldest brother, isstill alive, and chief of the name. The following anecdote ofhim will serve to establish his activity.

“Mr. Walker, of Thirkstane, the only residing heritor inYetholm parish, missed a valuable mare, upon a Sundaymorning. After many fruitless enquiries, at the adjacentkirks and neighbourhood, he dispatched a servant forCharles, in the evening. He privately communicated to himhis loss, and added, that he was fully persuaded he couldbe the means of recovering the mare. Charles boldly answered,‘If she was betwixt the Tyne and the Forth, sheshould be restored.’ On the Thursday after, at sunrise, themare was found standing at the stable door, much jaded, andvery warm.

“When the Kirk-Yetholm families differed among themselves,[254](and terrible conflicts at times they had,) this sameMr. Walker was often chosen sole arbitrator, to decide theirdifferences. He has often been locked up in their housesfor twenty-four hours together, but carefully concealed theirsecrets.[166]

“The Yetholm Tinklers keep up an intercourse with theirfriends at Horncliff, Spittal, Rothbury, Hexam, and Harbottle.They go frequently to Newcastle, and even to Staffordshire,for earthenware, and the whole family embark inevery expedition.

“I was at school with most of the present generation ofTinklers. I mean the males; for, to speak truth, I neverheard of a female Gipsy being educated at all.

“None of this colony have been either impeached or triedfor a crime for fifty years past. Two Tinklers have beenexecuted at Jedburgh, in my remembrance, named Keith andClark, for murder and horse-stealing. They were strangers,from a distance.”

When I visited Yetholm, I fell in with a gentleman whoresided at that time in Town-Yetholm. I chanced to mentionto him that I was sure all the Gipsies had a method oftheir own in handling the cudgel, but he would not believeit. At my request, he took me into some of their houses,and, observing an old, rusty sword lying upon the joists ofan apartment in which we were sitting, I took it down, and,under pretence of handling it, in their fashion, gave some ofthe guards of the Hungarian sword-exercise. An old Gipsy,of the name of Blyth, shook his head, and observed: “Ay,[255]that is an art easily carried about with you; it may be ofservice to you some day.” My friend was then convincedof his mistake.

William Faa, when I was in his house, showed me themark of a stroke of a sword on his right wrist, by which hehad nearly lost his hand. With others of his clan, he hadbeen engaged in a smuggling speculation, on the coast ofNorthumberland, when they were overtaken by a party ofdragoons, one of whom singled out and attempted to takeFaa prisoner. William was armed with a stick only, but,with his stick in his dexterous hand, he, for a long time, setthe dragoon, with all his arms, at defiance. The horseman,now galloping round and round him, attempting to capturehim, became exasperated at the resistance of a man on foot,armed with a cudgel only, and struck with such vigour thatthe cudgel became shattered, and cut in pieces, till nothingbut a few inches of it remained. Still holding up the stump,to meet the stroke of his antagonist’s sword, William wascut to the bone, and compelled to yield himself a prisoner.A person, present at the scuffle, informed me that the onlyremark the brave Tinkler made to the dragoon was, “Ye’vespoiled a good fiddler.”

William Faa, the lineal descendant of John Faw, “Lordand Earl of Little Egypt,” when I saw him, appeared aboutsixty years of age, and was tall and genteel-looking, withgrey hair, and dark eyes. He is the individual who foughtthe three battles with Young, between Dunse and Coldstream.The following notice of his death I have extractedfrom the “Scotsman” newspaper, of the 20th October, 1847:

“A LAMENT FOR WILL FAA,
“The Deceased King of Little Egypt.

CHAPTER VIII.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE CEREMONIES.

The Gipsies in Scotland are all married at a very earlyage. I do not recollect ever having seen or heard of them,male or female, being unmarried, after they were twentyyears old. There are few instances of bastard childrenamong them; indeed, they declare that their children are allborn in wedlock.[168] I know, however, of one instance to thecontrary; and of the Gipsy being dreadfully punished forseducing a young girl of his own tribe.

The brother of the female, who was pregnant, took uponhimself the task of chastising the offender. With a knife in hishand, and at the dead hour of night, he went to the houseof the seducer. The first thing he did was deliberately tosharpen his knife upon the stone posts of the door of theman’s house; and then, in a gentle manner, tap at the door,to bring out his victim. The unsuspecting man came to thedoor, in his shirt, to see what was wanted; but the salutationhe received was the knife thrust into his body, and thestabs repeated several times. The avenger of his sister’swrongs fled for a short while; the wounded Tinkler recovered,and, to repair the injury he had done, made the girlhis wife. The occurrence took place in Mid-Lothian, abouttwenty years ago. The name of the woman was Baillie, andher husband, Tait.

[258]I have not been able to discover any peculiarity in themanner of Gipsy courtships, except that a man, above sixtyyears of age, affirmed to me that it was the universal custom,among the tribe, not to give away in marriage the youngerdaughter before the elder. In order to have this informationconfirmed, I enquired of a female, herself one of elevensisters,[169] if this custom really existed among her people. Shewas, at first, averse, evidently from fear, to answer myquestion directly, and even wished to conceal her descent.But, at last, seeing nothing to apprehend from speakingmore freely, she said such was once the custom; and that ithad been the cause of many unhappy marriages. She saidshe had often heard the old people speaking about the lawof not allowing the younger sister to be married before theelder. She, however, would not admit of the existence ofthe custom at the present day, but appeared quite well acquainted[259]with it, and could have informed me fully of it,had she been disposed to speak on the subject.

The exact parallel to this custom is to be found in theGentoo code of laws, translated by Halhed; wherein it ismade criminal for “a man to marry while his elder brotherremains unmarried; or when a man marries his daughter tosuch a person; or where a man gives the younger sister inmarriage while the elder sister remains unmarried.”[170] Thelearned translator of the code considers this custom of theGentoos of the remotest antiquity, and compares it with thatpassage in the Book of Genesis, where Laban excuses himselfto Jacob for having substituted Leah for Rachel, inthese words, “It must not be so done in our country, to givethe younger before the first-born.”

The nuptial ceremony of the Gipsies is undoubtedly of thehighest antiquity, and would, probably, be one of the firstmarriage ceremonies observed by mankind, in the very firststages of human society. When we consider the extraordinarylength of time the Gipsies have preserved their speech,as a secret among themselves, in the midst of civilized society,all over Europe, while their persons were proscribed andhunted down in every country, like beasts of the chase, weare not at all surprised at their retaining some of their ancientcustoms; for these, as distinguished from their language,are of easy preservation, under any circumstances inwhich they may have been placed. That may much morebe said of this ceremony, as there would be an occasion forits almost daily observance. It was wrapped up with theirvery existence—the choice of their wives, and the love of theiroffspring—the most important and interesting transactionsof their lives; and would, on that account, be one of the longestobserved, the least easily forgotten, of their ancient usages.

The nuptial rites of the Scottish Gipsies are, perhaps, unequalledin the history of marriages. At least, I have neitherseen nor heard of any marriage ceremony that has theslightest resemblance to it, except the extraordinary benedictionwhich our countryman, Mungo Park, received fromthe bride at the Moorish wedding in Ali’s camp, at Benown;and that of a certain custom practised by the Mandingoes,[260]at Kamalia, in Africa, also mentioned by Park.[171] This customwith the Mandingoes and the Gipsies is nearly the sameas that observed by the ancient Hebrews, in the days ofMoses, mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy. When wehave the manners and customs of every savage tribe hithertodiscovered, including even the Hottentots and Abyssinians,described, in grave publications, by adventurous travellers,I can see no reason why there should not be preserved,and exhibited for the inspection of the public, the mannersand customs of a barbarous race that have lived so long atour own doors—one more interesting, in some respects, thanany yet discovered; and more particularly as marriage is avery important, indeed the most important, institution amongthe inhabitants of any country, whether civilized or in astate of barbarism. How much would not our antiquariansnow value authenticated specimens of the language, manners,and customs of the ancient Pictish nation that onceinhabited Scotland!

In describing the marriage ceremony of the Scottish Gipsies,it is scarcely possible to clothe the curious facts inlanguage fit to be perused by every reader. But I mustadopt the sentiment of Sir Walter Scott, as given in theIntroduction, and “not be squeamish about delicacies, whereknowledge is to be sifted out and acquired.”[172]

A marriage cup, or bowl, made out of solid wood, and ofa capacity to contain about two Scotch pints, or about onegallon, is made use of at the ceremony. After the wedding-partyis assembled, and everything prepared for the occasion,[261]the priest takes the bowl and gives it to the bride,who passes urine into it; it is then handed, for a similarpurpose, to the bridegroom. After this, the priest takes aquantity of earth from the ground, and throws it into thebowl, adding sometimes a quantity of brandy to the mixture.He then stirs the whole together, with a spoon madeof a ram’s horn, and sometimes with a large ram’s horn itself,which he wears suspended from his neck by a string.He then presents the bowl, with its contents, first to thebride, and then to the bridegroom; calling at the sametime upon each to separate the mixture in the bowl, if theycan. The young couple are then ordered to join handsover the bowl containing the earth, urine, and spirits; whenthe priest, in an audible voice, and in the Gipsy language,pronounces the parties to be husband and wife; and as nonecan separate the mixture in the bowl, so they, in their persons,cannot be separated till death dissolves their union.

As soon as that part of the ceremony is performed, thecouple undress, and repair to their nuptial couch. Afterremaining there for a considerable time, some of the mostconfidential relatives of the married couple are admittedto the apartment, as witnesses to the virginity of the bride;certain tokens being produced to the examining friends,at this stage of the ceremony. If all the parties concernedare satisfied, the bride receives a handsome present from thefriends, as a mark of their respect for her remaining chastetill the hour of her marriage. This present is, in some instances,a box of a particular construction.[173]

[262]These matters being settled on the spot, the wedded pairrise from the marriage-bed, again dress themselves in theirfinest apparel, and again join the wedding-party. The joyand happiness on all sides is now excessive. There isnothing to be heard or seen but fiddling and piping, dancing,feasting and drinking, which are kept up, with the utmostspirit and hilarity imaginable, for many hours together.[174]

[263]The nuptial mixture is carefully bottled up, and the bottlemarked with the Roman character, M. In this state, it isburied in the earth, or kept in their houses or tents, and iscarefully preserved, as evidence of the marriage of the parties.When it is buried in the fields, the husband and wifeto whom it belongs frequently repair to the spot, and lookat it, for the purpose of keeping them in remembrance oftheir nuptial vows. Small quantities of the compound arealso given to individuals of the tribe, to be used for certainrare purposes, such, perhaps, as pieces of the bride’s cakeare used for dreaming-bread, among the natives of Scotland,at the present day.

What is meant by employing earth, water, spirits, and, ofcourse, air, in this ceremony, cannot be conjectured; unlessthese ingredients may have some reference to the four elementsof nature—fire, air, earth, and water. That of usinga ram’s horn, in performing the nuptial rites, has also itsmeaning, could information be obtained concerning thatpart of the ceremony.

This marriage ceremony is observed by the Gipsies inScotland at the present day. A man, of the name of JamesRobertson, and a girl, of the name of Margaret Graham,were married, at Lochgellie, exactly in the manner described.Besides the testimony of the Gipsies themselves, it is apopular tradition, wherever these people have resided inScotland, that they were all married by mixing of earth andurine together in a wooden bowl. I know of a girl, of aboutsixteen years of age, having been married in the Gipsyfashion, in a kiln, at Appindull, in Perthshire. A Gipsy informedme that he was at a wedding of a couple on a moornear Lochgellie, and that they were married in the ancient[264]Gipsy manner described. Shortly after this, a pair weremarried near Stirling, after the custom of their ancestors.In this instance, a screen, made of an old blanket, was putup in the open field, to prevent the parties seeing eachother, while furnishing the bowl with what was necessaryto lawfully constitute their marriage.[175] The last-namedGipsy further stated to me, that when two young folks ofthe tribe agree to be married, the father of the bridegroomsleeps with the bride’s mother, for three or four nights immediatelyprevious to the celebration of the marriage.

Having endeavoured to describe the ancient nuptial ceremonyof the Scottish Gipsies, I have considered it proper togive some account of an individual who acted as priest onsuch occasions. The name of a famous celebrator of Gipsymarriages, in Fifeshire, was Peter Robertson, well known,towards the latter end of his days, by the name of BlindPate. Peter was a tall, lean, dark man, and wore a largecocked hat, of the olden fashion, with a long staff in hishand. By all accounts, he must have been a hundred yearsof age when he died. He was frequently seen at the headof from twenty to forty Gipsies, and often travelled in themidst of a crowd of women. Whenever a marriage wasdetermined on, among the Lochgellie horde, or their immediateconnexions, Peter was immediately sent for, howeverfar distant he happened to be at the time from the partiesrequiring his assistance, to join them in wedlock: for hewas the oldest member of the tribe at the time, and head ofthe Tinklers in the district, and, as the oldest member, itwas his prerogative to officiate, as priest, on such occasions.A friend, who obligingly sent me some anecdotes of thisGipsy priest, communicated to me the following facts regardinghim:

“At the wedding of a favourite Brae-laird, in the shire ofKinross, Peter Robertson appeared at the head of a numerous[265]band of Tinklers, attended by twenty-four asses. Hewas always chief and spokesman for the band. At the weddingof a William Low, a multerer, at Kinross, Peter, forthe last time, was seen, with upwards of twenty-three assesin his retinue. He had certain immunities and privilegesallowed him by his tribe. For one thing, he had the soleprofits arising from the sale of keel, used in marking sheep,in the neighbouring upland districts; and one of the assesbelonging to the band was always laden with this articlealone. Peter was also notorious as a physician, and administeredto his favourites medicines of his own preparation,and numbers of extraordinary cures were ascribed to hissuperior skill. He was possessed of a number of wise sayings,a great many of which are still current in the country.Peter Robertson was, altogether, a very shrewd and sensibleman, and no acts of theft were ever laid to his charge, thatI know of. He had, however, in his band, several femaleswho told fortunes. The ceremony of marriage which heperformed was the same you mentioned to me. The wholecontents of the bowl were stirred about with a large ram’shorn, which was suspended from a string round his neck, asa badge, I suppose, of his priestly office.[176] He attended allthe fairs and weddings for many miles round. TheBraes of Kinross were his favourite haunt; so much sothat, in making his settlement, and portioning his children,he allowed them all districts, in the country round[266]about, to travel in; but he reserved the Braes of Kinross ashis own pendicle, and hence our favourite toast in the shireof Kinross, ‘The lasses of Blind Pate’s Pendicle.’ Besidesthe Braes of Kinross, this Gipsy, in his sweeping verbal testament,reserved the town of Dunfermline, also, to himself,‘because,’ said he, ‘Dunfermline was in cash, what Lochlevenwas in water—it never ran dry.’” A great deal ofbooty was obtained by the Tinklers, at the large and long-continuedfairs which were frequently held in this populousmanufacturing town, in the olden times.

This Gipsy priest was uncommonly fond of a bottle ofgood ale. Like many other celebrators of marriages, hederived considerable emoluments from his office. A Gipsyinformed me that Robertson, on these occasions, always receivedpresents, such as a pair of candlesticks, or basins andplatters, made of pewter, and such like articles. The disobedientand refractory members of his clan were chastisedby him at all times, on the spot, by the blows of his cudgel,without regard to age or sex, or manner of striking. Whenany serious scuffle arose among his people, in which he waslike to meet with resistance, he would, with vehemence, callto his particular friends, “Set my back to the wa’;” and,being thus defended in the rear, he, with his cudgel, madehis assailants in front smart for their rebellion. Althoughhe could not see, his daughter would give him the word ofcommand. She would call to him, “Strike down”—“Strikelaigh” (low)—“Strike amawn” (athwart,)—“Strike haunch-ways,”—“Strikeshoulder-ways,” &c. In these, we seenearly all the cuts or strokes of the Hungarian sword-exercise.As I have frequently mentioned, all the Gipsies wereregularly trained to a peculiar method of their own in handlingthe cudgel, in their battles. I am inclined to think thatpart of the Hungarian sword-exercise, at present practisedin our cavalry, is founded upon the Gipsy manner of attackand defence, including even the direct thrust to the front,which the Gipsies perform with the cudgel.

Notwithstanding all that has been said of the licentiousmanners of the Scottish Gipsies, I am convinced that theslightest infidelity, on the part of their wives, would be punishedwith the utmost severity. I am assured that nothingcan put a Gipsy into so complete a rage as to impute incontinenceto his wife. In India, the Gipsy men “are extremely[267]jealous of their wives, who are kept in strict subservance,and are in danger of corporeal punishment, or absolute dismissal,if they happen to displease them.”[177] The Gipsies arecomplete Tartars in matters of this kind.[178]

But in the best-regulated society—in the most virtuous offamilies—the sundering of the marriage-tie is often unavoidable,even under the most heinous of circumstances. And itis not to be expected that the Gipsies should be exemptedfrom the lot common to humanity, under whatever circumstancesit may be placed. The separation of husband andwife is, with them, a very serious and melancholy affair—anevent greatly to be lamented, while the ceremony is attendedwith much grief and mourning, blood having to be shed, andlife taken, on the occasion.

It would be a conclusion naturally to be drawn from thecircumstance of the Gipsies having so singular a marriageceremony, that they should have its concomitant in as singulara ceremony of divorce. The first recourse to which asavage would naturally resort, in giving vent to his indignation,and obtaining satisfaction for the infidelity of the female,(assuming that savages are always susceptible of sucha feeling,) would be to despatch her on the spot. But theprinciple of expiation, in the person of a dumb creature, foroffences committed against the Deity, has, from the verycreation of the world, been so universal among mankind,that it would not be wondered at if it should have been appliedfor the atonement of offences committed against eachother, and nowhere so much so as in the East—the land offigure and allegory. The practice obtains with the Gipsiesin the matter of divorce, for they lay upon the head of thatnoble animal, the horse, the sins of their offending sister,and generally let her go free. But, it may be asked, howhas this sacrifice of the horse never been mentioned in Scotlandbefore? The same question applies equally well totheir language, and marriage ceremony, yet we know thatboth of these exist at the present day. The fact is, the Gipsieshave hitherto been so completely despised, and held insuch thorough contempt, that few ever thought of, or would[268]venture to make enquiries of them relative to, their ancientcustoms and manners; and that, when any of their ceremonieswere actually observed by the people at large, theywere looked upon as the mere frolics, the unmeaning andextravagant practices, of a race of beggarly thieves and vagabonds,unworthy of the slightest attention or credit.[179] Inwhatever country the Gipsies have appeared, they have alwaysbeen remarkable for an extraordinary attachment tothe horse. The use which they make of this animal, in sacrifice,will sufficiently account, in one way at least, for thispeculiar feature in their character. Many of the horseswhich have been stolen by them, since their arrival in Europe,I am convinced, have been used in parting with theirwives, an important religious ceremony—or at least a custom—whichthey would long remember and practise.[180]

It is the general opinion, founded chiefly upon the affinityof language, that this singular people migrated from Hindostan.None of the authors on the Gipsies, however, thatI am aware of, have, in their researches, been able to discover,among the tribe, any customs of a religious nature,by which their religious notions and ceremonies, at the timethey entered Europe, could be ascertained. Indeed, thelearned and industrious Grellmann expressly states that theGipsies did not bring any particular religion with them,from their native country, by which they could be distinguishedfrom other people. The Gipsy sacrifice of the horse,at parting with their wives, however, appears to be aremnant of the great Hindoo religious sacrifice of theAswamedha,orAssummeed Jugg, observed by all the fourprincipal castes in India, enumerated in the Gentoo code oflaws, translated from the Persian copy, by Nathaniel BrasseyHalhed, and is proof, besides the similarity of language,[269]that the Gipsies are from Hindostan. Before the Gentoocode of laws came into my hands, I was inclined to believethat this ceremony of sacrificing horses might be a Tartarcustom, as the ancient Pagan tribes of Tartary also sacrificedhorses, on certain occasions; and my conjectures were countenancedby the Gipsy and Tartar ceremonies being somewhatsimilar in their details. Indeed, in Sweden andDenmark, and in some parts of Germany, the Gipsies, as Ihave already stated, obtained the name of Tartars. “Theywere not allowed the privilege of remaining unmolested inDenmark, as the code of Danish laws specifies: The TartarGipsies, who wander about everywhere, doing great damageto the people, by their lies, thefts, and witchcraft, shall betaken into custody by every magistrate.” And it also appears,according to Grellmann, that the Gipsies sometimescalled themselves Tartars. If it was observed, on the continent,that they sacrificed horses, a custom very common atone time among the Tartars, their supposed Tartar originwould appear to have had some foundation. The Tartarprinces seem to have ratified and confirmed their militaryleagues by sacrificing horses and drinking of a runningstream; and we find our Scottish Gipsies dissolving theirmatrimonial alliances by the solemn sacrifice of the sameanimal, while some Gipsies state that horses were also, atone time, sacrificed at their marriage ceremonies. At thesesacrifices of the Scottish Gipsies, no Deity—no invisibleagency—appears, as far as I am informed, to have been invokedby the sacrificers.

I have alluded to this custom of the Tartars, more particularly,to show that the Gipsies are not the only peoplewho have sacrificed horses. The ancient Hindoos, as alreadystated, sacrificed horses. The Greeks did the same to Neptune;the ancient Scandinavians to their god, Assa-Thor,the representative of the sun; and the Persians, likewise, tothe sun.[181] But I am inclined to believe that the Gipsy sacrificeof the horse is the remains of the greatAssummeed Juggof the Hindoos, observed by tribes of greater antiquity than[270]the modern nations of India, as appears by the Gentoo codeof laws alreadyreferred to.

The sacrificing of horses is a curious as well as a leadingand important fact in the history of the Gipsies, and, as faras I know, is new to the world. I shall, in establishing itsexistence among the Scottish Gipsies, produce my authoritieswith my details.

In the first place, it was, and I believe it still is, a generaltradition, over almost all Scotland, that, when the Tinklersparted from their wives, the act of separation took placeover the carcass of a dead horse. In respect to McDonald’scase, alluded to under the head of Linlithgowshire Gipsies,my informant, Mr. Alexander Ramsay, late an officer of theExcise, a very respectable man, who died in 1819, at the ageof 74 years, stated to me that he saw McDonald and hiswife separated over the body of a dead horse, on a moor, atShieldhill, near Falkirk, either in the year 1758 or 1760, hewas uncertain which. The horse was laying stretched outon the heath. The parties took hold of each other by thehand, and, commencing at the head of the dead animal,walked—the husband on one side, and the wife on the other—tillthey came to the tail, when, without speaking a wordto each other, they parted, in opposite directions, as if proceedingon a journey. Mr. Ramsay said he never couldforget the violent swing which McDonald gave his wife atparting. The time of the day was a little after day-break.My informant, at the time, was going, with others, to Shieldhillfor coals, and happened to be passing over a piece ofrising ground, when they came close upon the Gipsies, in ahollow, quite unexpectedly to both parties.

Another aged man of credibility, of the name of JamesWilson, at North Queensferry, also informed me that it waswithin his own knowledge, that a Gipsy, of the name of JohnLundie, divorced four wives over dead horses, in the mannerdescribed. Wilson further mentioned that, when Gipsieswere once regularly separated over a dead horse, they couldnever again be united in wedlock; and that, unless theywere divorced in this manner, all the children which thefemale might have, subsequently to any other mode of separation,the husband was obliged to support. In fact, thetransaction was not legal, according to the Gipsy usages,without the horse. The facts of Lundie, and another Gipsy,[271]of the name of Drummond, having divorced many wivesover dead horses, have been confirmed to me by severalaged individuals who knew them personally. One intelligentgentleman, Mr. Richard Baird, informed me that, in hisyouth, he actually saw John Lundie separated from one ofhis wives over a dead horse, in the parish of Carriden, nearBo’ness. My father, who died in 1837, at the age of nearly83 years, also stated that it was quite current, in Tweed-dale,that Mary Yorkston, wife of Matthew Baillie, the Gipsychief, parted married couples of her tribe over dead horses.

About ten years after receiving the above information,Malcolm’s Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of Londoncame into my hands; wherein I found the followingquotations, from a work published in 1674, describing thedifferent classes of impostors at that period in England:“Patricos,” says this old author, “are strolling priests;every hedge is their parish, and every wandering roguetheir parishioner. The service, he saith, is the marrying ofcouples, without the Gospels or Book of Common Prayer;the solemnity whereof is this: The parties to be marriedfind out a dead horse, or other beast; standing, one on theone side, and the other on the other, the Patrico bids themlive together till death part them; so, shaking hands, thewedding is ended.” Now the parties here described seemto have been no other than Gipsies. But it also appearsthat the ceremony alluded to is that of dissolving a marriage,and not that of celebrating it. It is proper, however,to mention, as I have already done, that horses, at one time,were sacrificed at their marriages, as well as at their divorces.

Feeling now quite satisfied that Gipsies were, at onetime, actually separated over the bodies of dead horses, andhorses only, (for I could find no other animal named buthorses,) I proceeded to have the fact confirmed by the directtestimony of the people themselves. And whether thesehorses were sacrificed expressly for such purposes, or whetherthe rites were performed over horses accidentally founddead, I could not discover till the year 1828. It occurredto me that the using of dead horses, in separating man andwife, was a remnant of some ancient ceremony, which inducedme to persevere in my enquiries, for the purpose of ascertaining,if not the origin, at least the particulars, of so extraordinary[272]a custom. In the year mentioned, and in theyear following, I examined a Gipsy on the subject; a manof about sixty years of age, who, a few years before, hadgiven me a specimen of his language. He said that he himselfhad witnessed the sacrifices and ceremonies attendingthe separation of husband and wife. From this man I receivedthe following curious particulars relative to the sacrificeof horses and ceremony of divorce; which I think maybe depended on, as I was very careful in observing that hisstatements, taken down at four different times, agreed witheach other.

When the parties can no longer live together as husbandand wife, and a separation for ever is finally determined on,a horse, without blemish, and in no manner of way lame, isled forth to the spot for performing the ceremony of divorce.The hour at which the rites must be performed is, if possible,twelve o’clock at noon, “when the sun is at his height.”[182]The Gipsies present cast lots for the individual who is tosacrifice the animal, and whom they call the priest, for thetime. The priest, with a long pole or staff in his hand,[183]walks round and round the animal several times; repeatingthe names of all the persons in whose possession it has been,and extolling and expatiating on the rare qualities of so usefulan animal. It is now let loose, and driven from theirpresence, to do whatever it pleases. The horse, perfect andfree, is put in the room of the woman who is to be divorced;[273]and by its different movements is the degree of her guiltascertained. Some of the Gipsies now set off in pursuit ofit, and endeavour to catch it. If it is wild and intractable,kicks, leaps dykes and ditches, scampers about, and will notallow itself to be easily taken hold of, the crimes and guiltof the woman are looked upon as numerous and heinous. Ifthe horse is tame and docile, when it is pursued, and suffersitself to be taken without much trouble, and without exhibitingmany capers, the guilt of the woman is not consideredso deep and aggravated; and it is then sacrificed in herstead. But if it is extremely wild and vicious, and cannotbe taken without infinite trouble, her crimes are consideredexceedingly wicked and atrocious; and my informant saidinstances occurred in which both horse and woman weresacrificed at the same time; the death of the horse, alone,being then considered insufficient to atone for her excessiveguilt. The individuals who catch the horse bring it beforethe priest. They repeat to him all the faults and tricks ithad committed; laying the whole of the crimes of whichthe woman is supposed to have been guilty to its charge;and upbraiding and scolding the dumb creature, in an angrymanner, for its conduct. They bring, as it were, an accusationagainst it, and plead for its condemnation. When thispart of the trial is finished, the priest takes a large knifeand thrusts it into the heart of the horse; and its blood isallowed to flow upon the ground till life is extinct. Thedead animal is now stretched out upon the ground. Thehusband then takes his stand on one side of it, and the wifeon the other; and, holding each other by the hand, repeatcertain appropriate sentences in the Gipsy language. Theythen quit hold of each other, and walk three times round thebody of the horse, contrariwise, passing and crossing eachother, at certain points, as they proceed in opposite directions.At certain parts of the animal, (thecorners of the horse, wasthe Gipsy’s expression,) such as the hind and fore feet, theshoulders and haunches, the head and tail, the parties halt,and face each other; and again repeat sentences, in theirown speech, at each time they halt. The two last stops theymake, in their circuit round the sacrifice, are at the head andtail. At the head, they again face each other, and speak;and lastly, at the tail, they again confront each other, uttersome more Gipsy expressions, shake hands, and finally part,[274]the one going north, the other south, never again to beunited in this life.[184] Immediately after the separation takesplace, the woman receives a token, which is made of cast-iron,about an inch and a half square, with a mark upon itresembling the Roman character, T. After the marriage hasbeen dissolved, and the woman dismissed from the sacrifice,the heart of the horse is taken out and roasted with fire,then sprinkled with vinegar, or brandy, and eaten by thehusband and his friends then present; the female not beingallowed to join in this part of the ceremony. The body ofthe horse, skin and everything about it, except the heart, isburied on the spot; and years after the ceremony has takenplace, the husband and his friends visit the grave of theanimal, to see whether it has been disturbed. At thesevisits, they walk round about the grave, with much grief andmourning.

The husband may take another wife whenever he pleases,but the female is never permitted to marry again.[185] Thetoken, or rather bill of divorce, which she receives, mustnever be from about her person. If she loses it, or attemptsto pass herself off as a woman never before married, shebecomes liable to the punishment of death. In the event ofher breaking this law, a council of the chiefs is held uponher conduct, and her fate is decided by a majority of themembers; and, if she is to suffer death, her sentence mustbe confirmed by the king, or principal leader. The culpritis then tied to a stake, with an iron chain, and there cudgelledto death. The executioners do not extinguish life at onebeating, but leave the unhappy woman for a little while, andreturn to her, and at last complete their work by despatchingher on the spot.

I have been informed of an instance of a Gipsy falling outwith his wife, and, in the heat of his passion, shooting hisown horse dead on the spot with his pistol, and forthwith[275]performing the ceremony of divorce over the animal, withoutallowing himself a moment’s time for reflection on thesubject. Some of the country-people observed the transaction,and were horrified at so extraordinary a proceeding.It was considered by them as merely a mad frolic of an enragedTinkler. It took place many years ago, in a wild, sequesteredspot between Galloway and Ayrshire.

This sacrifice of the horse is also observed by the Gipsiesof the Russian Empire. In the year 1830, a Russian gentlemanof observation and intelligence, proprietor of estates onthe banks of the Don, stated to me that the Gipsies in theneighbourhood of Moscow, and on the Don, several hundredversts from the sea of Asoph, sacrificed horses, and ate partof their flesh, in the performance of some very ancient ceremonyof idolatry. They sacrifice them under night, in thewoods, as the practice is prohibited by the Russian Government.The police are often detecting the Gipsies in thesesacrifices, and the ceremony is kept as secret as possible.My informant could not go into the particulars of the Gipsysacrifice in Russia; but there is little doubt that it is thesame which the tribe performed in Scotland. In Russia, theGipsies, like those in this country, have a language peculiarto themselves, which they retain as a secret among their ownfraternity.

As regards the sacrificing of horses by the Gipsies ofScotland, at the present day, all that I can say is that I donot know of its taking place; nor has it been denied to me.The only conclusion to which I can come, in regard to thequestion, is that it is in the highest degree probable that,like their language and ceremony of marriage, it is stillpractised when it can be done. In carrying out this ceremony,there is an obstacle to be overcome which does notlay in the way of that of marriage, and it is this: Where aremany of the Tinklers to find a horse, over which they canobtain a divorce? The difficulty with them is as great asit is with the people of England, who must, at a frightfulexpense, go to no less than the House of Lords to obtain anact to separate legally from their unfaithful partners.[186] TheGipsies, besides being generally unable or unwilling to bearthe expense of what will procure them a release in their ownway, find it a difficult matter, in these days, to steal, carry off,[276]and dispose of such a bulky article as a horse, in the sacrificeof which they will find a new wife. I am not awarehow they get quit of this solemn and serious difficulty, beyondthis, that a Gipsy, a native of Yetholm, informed methat some of his brethren in that colony knock down theirasses, for the purpose of parting with their wives, at the presentday.[187]

As the code of the ancient laws of Hindostan is not inthe hands of every one, I shall here transcribe from thework the account of the Gentoo Institution of theAswamedhaor theAssummeed Jugg,[188] that the reader may compareit with the Gipsy sacrifice of horses; for which, owingto its length, I must crave his indulgence. It is under thechapter of evidence, and is as follows:

“AnAssummeed Jugg is when a person, having commenceda Jugg, writes various articles upon a scroll ofpaper on a horse’s neck, and dismisses the horse, sending,along with the horse, a stout and valiant person, equippedwith the best necessaries and accoutrements, to accompanythe horse day and night, whithersoever he shall choose togo; and if any creature, either man, genius or dragon,should seize the horse, that man opposes such attempt, and,having gained the victory, upon a battle, again gives thehorse his freedom. If any one in this world, or in heaven,or beneath the earth, would seize this horse, and the horseof himself comes to the house of the celebrator of theJugg,upon killing that horse, he must throw the flesh of him uponthe fire of theJuk, and utter the prayers of his Deity; such aJugg is called aJugg Assummeed, and the merit of it, asa religious work, is infinite.”Page 127.

In another part of the same chapter of the Hindoo codeof laws, are the following particulars relative to horses,which show the great respect in which these animals wereheld among the ancient natives of Hindostan. “In an affairconcerning a horse: if any person gives false evidence, hisguilt is as great as the guilt of murdering one hundred persons.”Page 128. In the Asiatic Researches, the sacrifice[277]of the horse is frequently noticed; and in Sir WilliamJones’ Institutes of Menu, chapter viii., page 202, it is said:“A false witness, in the case of a horse, kills, or incurs theguilt of killing, one hundred kinsmen.” “TheAswamedha,or sacrifice of the horse: Considerable difficulties usuallyattend that ceremony; for the consecrated horse was to beset at liberty for a certain time, and followed at a distanceby the owner, or his champion, who was usually one of hisnear kinsmen; and if any person should attempt to stop itin its rambles, a battle must inevitably ensue; besides, asthe performer of an hundredAswamedhas became equal tothe god of the firmaments.” (Asiatic Researches, vol. iii.,page 216.) “The inauguration ofIndra, (the Indian God ofthe firmaments,) it appears, was performed by sacrificing anhundred horses. It is imagined that this celebration becomesa cause of obtaining great power and universal monarchy;and many of the kings in ancient India performedthis sacrifice at their inauguration, similar to that of Indra’s.”“These monarchs were consecrated by these greatsacrifices, with a view to become universal conquerors.”(Asiatic Researches.) It appears, by the Hindoo mythology,thatIndra was at one time a mere mortal, but by sacrificingan hundred horses, he became sovereign of the firmament;and that should any Indian monarch succeed in immolating anhundred horses, he would displaceIndra.

The above are literal and simple facts, which took placein performing the sacrifice; but the following is the explanationof the mystic signification contained in the ceremony.

“TheAssummeed Jugg does not merely consist in theperformance of that ceremony which is open to the inspectionof the world, namely, in bringing a horse, and sacrificinghim; butAssummeed is to be taken in a mystic signification,as implying that the sacrificer must look upon himselfto be typified in that horse, such as he shall be described;because the religious duty of theAssummeed Jugg comprehendsall those other religious duties, to the performance ofwhich all the wise and holy direct all their actions; and bywhich all the sincere professors of every different faith aimat perfection. The mystic signification thereof is as follows:The head of that unblemished horse is the symbolof the morning; his eyes are the sun; his breath the wind;his wide-opening mouth is theBishwāner, or that innate[278]warmth which invigorates all the world; his body typifiesone entire year; his back, paradise; his belly, the plains;his hoof, this earth; his sides, the four quarters of the heavens;the bones thereof, the intermediate spaces betweenthe four quarters; the rest of his limbs represent all distinctmatter; the places where those limbs meet, or his joints, implythe months, and halves of the months, which are calledPĕchĕ(or fortnights); his feet signify night and day; and night andday are of four kinds; first, the night and day of Brihma;second, the night and day of angels; third, the night and dayof the world of the spirits of deceased ancestors; fourth, thenight and day of mortals. These four kinds are typified inhis four feet. The rest of his bones are the constellationsof the fixed stars, which are the twenty-eight stages of themoon’s course, called the lunar year; his flesh is the clouds;his food the sand; his tendons the rivers; his spleen andliver the mountains; the hair of his body the vegetables,and his long hair the trees. The fore part of his body typifiesthe first half of the day, and the hinder part the latterhalf; his yawning is the flash of the lightning, and histurning himself is the thunder of the cloud; his urine representsthe rain; and his mental reflection is his onlyspeech.

“The golden vessels, which are prepared before the horseis let loose, are the light of the day; and the place wherethese vessels are kept is a type of the ocean of the East;the silver vessels, which are prepared after the horse is letloose, are the light of the night; and the place where thosevessels are kept is a type of the ocean of the West. Thesetwo sorts of vessels are always before and after the horse.The Arabian horse, which, on account of his swiftness, iscalledHy, is the performer of the journeys of angels; theTājee, which is of the race of Persian horses, is the performerof the journeys of theKundherps (or the good spirits);theWāzbā, which is of the race of the deformedTājeehorses, is the performer of the journeys ofJins (or demons);and theAshoo, which is of the race of Turkish horses, isthe performer of the journeys of mankind. This one horsewhich performs these several services, on account of hisfour different sorts of riders, obtains the four different appellations.The place where this horse remains is the greatocean, which signifies the great spirit ofPerm-atmā, or the[279]universal soul, which proceeds also from thatPerm-atmā,and is comprehended in the samePerm-atmā.

“The intent of this sacrifice is, that a man should considerhimself to be in the place of that horse, and look uponall these articles as typified in himself; and conceiving theAtmā (or divine soul) to be an ocean, should let all thoughtof self be absorbed in thatAtmā.”Page 19.

Mr. Halhed, the translator, justly observes: “This is thevery acme and enthusiasm of allegory, and wonderfully displaysthe picturesque powers of fancy in an Asiatic genius;yet, unnatural as the account there stands, it is seriouslycredited by the Hindoos of all denominations.” On theother hand, he thinks there is a great resemblance betweenthis very ancient Hindoo ceremony and the sacrifice of thescape-goat, in the Bible, described in the 21st and 22dverses of the 16th chapter of Leviticus, viz.: “And Aaronshall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, andconfess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,and all their transgressions, in all their sins, putting themupon the head of the goat; and shall send him away, by thehand of a fit man, into the wilderness: and the goat shallbear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited;and he shall let go the goat into the wilderness.”Page 17.In the same manner, all the iniquities of the sacrificer, inthe Gentoo ceremony, are laid upon the horse, which is letloose, and attended by a stout and valiant person. Thesame is done in the Gipsy sacrifice, as typifying the womanto be divorced.

The resemblance between the Gipsy and the Hindoo sacrificeis close and striking in their general bearings. TheHindoo sacrificer is typified in the horse, and his sins areascertained and described by the motions or movements ofthe animal; for if the horse is very docile and tame, and ofits own accord comes to the Hindoo celebrator of the sacrifice,his merits are then infinite, and extremely acceptable tothe Deity worshipped. In the Gipsy sacrifice, if the horseis in like manner quiet, and easily caught, the woman, whomit represents, is then comparatively innocent. In India, partof theflesh of the horse was eaten: among the Gipsies, theheart is eaten. The Hindoos sacrificed theirenemies, bysubstituting for them abuffalo, &c.: the Gipsies sacrificetheirunfaithful wives, by the substitute of ahorse. In the[280]Hindoo sacrifice, particular parts of the horse allegoricallyrepresent certain parts of the earth: at certain parts of thehorse, (thecorners, as the Gipsies call them,) the Gipsies, intheir circuit round the animal, halt, and utter particularsentences in their own language, as if these parts were ofmore importance, and had more influence, than the otherparts. And it is probable that, in these sentences, some invisibleagency was addressed and invoked by the Gipsies.

As theAswamedha, or sacrifice of the horse, was the mostimportant of all the religious ceremonies of every caste ofHindoos, in ancient India, so it would be the last to be forgottenby the wandering Gipsies. And as both sacrificed attwelve o’clock, noon, I am inclined to believe that both offeredtheir sacrifice to the sun, the animating soul of universalnature. As already stated, the Gipsies, while travelling,assume new names every morning before setting out; butwhen noon-tide arrives, they resume their permanent Englishones. This custom is practised daily, and has undoubtedlyalso some reference to the sun. By the account of the Gipsyalready mentioned, the horse must, if possible, be killed atnoon. According to Southey, in his curse of Kehamah, thesacrifice of the horse in India was performed at the sametime. Colonel Tod, in his history of India, says: “Thesacrifice of the horse is the most imposing, and the earliest,heathenish rite on record, and was dedicated to the sun, anciently,in India.” According to the same author, the horsein India must be milk-white, with particular marks upon it.The Gipsy’s horse to be sacrificed must be sound, and withoutblemish; but no particular colour is mentioned. Accordingto Halhed, the horse sacrificed in India was alsowithout blemish.

I have, perhaps, been too minute and tedious in describingthese rites and ceremonies of the Gentoos; but the singularfact that our Scottish Tinklers yet—at least till very lately—retainedthe important fragments of the ancient mythologyof the Pagan tribes of Hindostan, is offered as an apology tothe curious reader for the trouble of perusing the details. Ishall only add, that there appears to be nearly as great aresemblance between the sacrifices of the Gipsies and theancient Hindoos, as there is affinity between modern Hindostaneeand the language of the Gipsies in Scotland, at thepresent day, as will be seen in thefollowing chapter.

[168] There is one word in the Gipsy language to which is attached moreimportance than to any other thing whatever—Lácha—the corporeal chastityof woman; the loss of which she is, from childhood, taught to dread.To ensure its preservation, the mother will have occasion to theDiclé—akind of drapery which she ties around the daughter; and which is neverremoved, but continually inspected, till the day of marriage; but not forfear of the “stranger” or the “white blood.” A girl is generally betrothedat fourteen, and never married till two years afterward. Betrothal is invariable.But the parties are never permitted, previous to marriage, tohave any intimate associations together.—Borrow on the Spanish Gipsies.—Ed.

[169]A GIPSY MULTIPLICATION TABLE.

Births of Children.	Marriages.	Births of Grand- children.	1
1822, Oct. 1.	1842	1843, Jul.	1	2
1824, Jan. 1.	1844	1844, Oct.	1	1	3
1825, Apl. 1.	1845	1846, Jan.	1	1	1	4
1826, Jul. 1.	1846	1847, Ap.	1	1	1	1	5
1827, Oct. 1.	1847	1848, Jul	1	1	1	1	1	6
1829, Jan. 1.	1849	1849, Oct.	1	1	1	1	1	1	7
1830, Apl. 1.	1850	1851, Jan.	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
1831, Jul. 1.	1851	1852, Ap.	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9
1832, Oct. 1.	1852	1853, Jul.	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
1834, Jan. 1.	1854	1854, Oct.	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	11
1835, Apl. 1.	1855	1856, Jan.	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	12
1836, Jul. 1.	1856		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	Total.
12			11	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	78

The above table will give a general idea of the natural encrease of theGipsies. The reader can make what allowances he pleases, for ages at timeof marriage, intervals between births, twins, deaths, or numbers of childrenborn. By this table, the Gipsy, by marrying at twenty years of age,would, when 54 years old, have a “following” of no less than 78 souls.“There is one of the divine laws,” said I to a Gipsy, “which the Gipsiesobey more than any other people.” “What is that?” replied he, withgreat gravity. “The command to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish(but not subdue) the earth.’” Even five generations can be obtained fromthe male, and six from the female Gipsy, in a century, counting from first-bornto first-born. The reader will notice how large are the Gipsy familiesincidentally mentioned by our author.—Ed.

[170] Major Archer says that this law is still in force.

[171] “I was soon tired,” says Park, “and had retired into my tent. WhenI was sitting, almost asleep, an old woman entered with a wooden bowl inher hand, and signified that she had brought me a present from the bride.Before I could recover from the surprise which this message created, thewoman discharged the contents of the bowl full in my face. Finding thatit was the same sort of holy water with which, among the Hottentots, apriest is said to sprinkle a new-married couple, I began to suspect that thelady was actuated by mischief or malice; but she gave me seriously to understandthat it was a nuptial benediction from the bride’s own person;and which, on such occasions, is always received by the young unmarriedMoors, as a mark of distinguished favour. This being the case, I wiped myface, and sent my acknowledgment to the lady.”—Park’s Travels, pages 205and 206.

[172] Whatever prudes and snobs may think of this chapter, I believe that thesensible and intelligent reader will agree with me in saying, that the marriageand divorce ceremonies of the Gipsies are historical gems of the mostantique and purest water.—Ed.

[173] On their return from church, the bride is seated at one extremity of aroom, with the unmarried girls by her; the bridegroom on the right, andthe father and mother, or those who perform their office, on the left. Themale part of the company stand in the corners, singing, and playing on theguitar. About one o’clock, the oldest matron, accompanied by others advancedin years, conducts the bride into the bed-room, which, according tothe custom of Spain, is usually a small chamber, without a window, openinginto the general apartment.Tune vetula, manu sud sponsæ naturalibus admotamembranam, vulvæ ori oppositam unguibus scindit et cruorem à plagâfusum linteolo excipit. The Gitanos without make a loud noise with theirwhistles, and the girls, striking the door, sing the following couplets, orsome other like them:

“Abra viñd la puerta Snr. Joaquin
Que le voy à viñd à poner un pañuelito
En las manos que tienen que llorar
Toditas las callis.”

The bride then returns from the chamber, accompanied by the matrons,and the new-married couple are placed upon a table, where the bridedances,et coram astantibus linteolum, internerati pudoris indicium explicat;whilst the company, throwing down their presents of sweetmeats, &c.,dance and cry, “Viva la honra.”—Bright, on the Spanish Gipsy marriage.

Before the marriage festival begins, four matrons—relations of the contractingparties—are appointed to scrutinize the bride; in which a handkerchief,of the finest French cambric, takes a leading part. Should sheprove frail, she will likely be made away with, in a way that will leave notrace behind. In carrying out some marriage festivals, a procession willtake place, led by some vile-looking fellow, bearing, on the end of a longpole, thediclé and unspotted handkerchief; followed by the betrothed andtheir nearest friends, and a rabble of Gipsies, shouting and firing, and barkingof dogs. On arriving at the church, the pole, with its triumphantcolours, is stuck into the ground, with a loud huzza; while the train defile,on either side, into the church. On returning home, the same takes place.Then follows the most ludicrous and wasteful kind of revelling, which oftenleaves the bridegroom a beggar for life.—Borrow, on the Spanish Gipsy marriage.—Ed.

[174] The part of the marriage ceremony of the Gipsies which relates to thechastity of the bride has a great resemblance to a part of the nuptial ritesof the Russians, and the Christians of St. John, in Mesopotamia and Chaldea.Dr. Hurd says: “When a new-married couple in Russia retire to the nuptialbed, an old domestic servant stands sentinel at the chamber-door.Some travellers tell us that this old servant, as soon as it is proper, attendsnearer the bedside, to be informed of what happens. Upon the husband’sdeclaration of his success and satisfaction, the kettle-drums and trumpetsproclaim the joyful news.” Among the Christians of St. John, as soon asthe marriage is consummated, “both parties wait upon the bishop, and thehusband deposes before him that he found his wife a virgin; and then thebishop marries them, puts several rings on their fingers, and baptizes themagain . . . . A marriage with one who is discovered to have lost herhonour beforehand but very seldom, if ever, holds good.”

When speaking of the marriages of the Mandingoes, at Kamalia, about500 miles in the interior of Africa, Park says: “The new-married coupleare always disturbed toward morning by the women, who assemble to inspectthe nuptial sheet, (according to the manners of the ancient Hebrews, asrecorded in Scripture,) and dance around it. This ceremony is thoughtindispensably necessary, nor is the marriage considered valid without it.”Park’s Travels, page 399.

By the laws of Menu, the Hindoo could reject his bride, if he found hernot a virgin.—Sir William Jones.

[The reader will observe that the marriage ceremony of the Gipsies,though barbarous, is very figurative and emphatic, and certainly moralenough. To show that the Gipsies, as a people, have not been addictedto the most barbarous customs, in regard to marriage, I note the followingvery singular form of the Scottish Highlanders, which, according to Skene,continued in useuntil a very late period. “This custom was termedhand-fasting,and consisted in a species of contract between two chiefs, by whichit was agreed that the heir of one should live with the daughter of theother, as her husband, for twelve months and a day. If, in that time, thelady became a mother, or proved to be with child, the marriage becamegood in law, even although no priest had performed the marriage in dueform; but should there not have occurred any appearance of issue, the contractwas considered at an end, and each party was at liberty to marry, orhand-fast, with any other.” Which fact shows that Highland chiefs, at onetime, would have annulled any, or all, of the laws of God, whenever itwould have served their purposes.—Ed.]

[175] On reading the above ceremony to an intelligent native of Fife, he saidhe had himself heard a Gipsy, of the name of Thomas Ogilvie, say thatthe Tinklers were married in the way mentioned. On one occasion, whena couple of respectable individuals were married, in the usual ScottishPresbyterian manner, at Elie, in Fife, Ogilvie, Gipsy-like, laughed at sucha wedding ceremony, as being, in his estimation, no way binding on theparties. He at the same time observed that, if they would come to him,he would marry them in the Tinkler manner, which would make it a difficultmatter to separate them again.

[176] Two ram’s horns and two spoons, crossed, are sculptured on the tombstoneof William Marshall, a Gipsy chief, who, according to a writer inBlackwood’s Magazine, died at the age of 120 years, and whose remains aredeposited in the church-yard of Kirkcudbright.

A horn is the hieroglyphic of authority, power, and dignity, and is ametaphor often made use of in the Scriptures. The Jews held ram’s hornsin great veneration, on account, it is thought, of that animal having beencaught in a bush by the horns, and used as a substitute, when Isaac wasabout to be sacrificed by his father; or, perhaps, on account of this animalbeing first used in sacrifice. So much were ram’s horns esteemed by theIsraelites, that their Priests and Levites used them as trumpets, particularlyat the taking of Jericho. The modern Jews, when they confess their sins,in our month of September, announce the ceremony by blowing a ram’shorn, the sound of which, they say, drives away the Devil. In ancientEgypt, and other parts of Africa, Jupiter Ammon was worshipped under thefigure of a ram, and to this deity one of these animals was sacrificed annually.A ram seems to have been an emblem of power in the East, from theremotest ages. It would, therefore, appear that the practice of the Gipsypriest “wearing a ram’s horn, suspended from a string, around his neck,”must be derived from the highest antiquity.

[177] Edinburgh Encyclopædia, vol, x.

[178] Mr. Borrow bears very positive testimony to thepersonal virtue ofGipsy females. I have heard natives of Hungary speak lightly of them inthat respect; but I conclude that they alluded to exceptions to the generalrule among the race.—Ed.

[179] What our author says, relative to the sacrifice of the horse, by the Gipsies,not being known to the people of Scotland at large, is equally applicableto the entire subject of the tribe. And we see here how admirably thepassions—in this case, the prejudice and incredulity—of mankind are calculatedto blind them to facts, perhaps to facts the most obvious and incontestible.What is stated of the Gipsies in this work, generally, should beno matter of wonder; the real wonder, if wonder there should be, is that itshould not have been known to the world before.—Ed.

[180] Grellmann says, of the Hungarian Gipsies, “The greatest luxury tothem is when they can procure a roast of cattle that have died of any distemper,whether it be sheep, pig, cow, or other beast,a horse only excepted.”—Ed.

[181] It appears that the Jews, when they lapsed into the grossest idolatry,dedicated horses to the sun. “And he (Josiah) took away the horses thatthe kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house ofthe Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech, the chamberlain, which was inthe suburbs, and burnt the chariots of the sun with fire.” II Kings, xxiii. 11.

[182] This Gipsy mentioned one particular instance of having seen a coupleseparated in this way, on a wild moor, near Huntly, about the year 1805.He particularly stated that a horse found dead would not do for a separation,but that one must be killed for the express purpose; and that “thesun must be at his height” before the horse could be properly sacrificed.From the fact of Ramsay stumbling upon the Gipsies “a little after day-break,”it would seem that circumstances had compelled them to changethe time, or adjourn the completion, of the sacrifice; or that the extremewildness of the victim had prevented its being caught, and so led to the“violent swing which McDonald gave his wife at parting.” And it mightbe that Ramsay had come upon them when McDonald and his wife wereperforming the last part of the ceremony, or had caused them to finish itabruptly; as the old Gipsy stated that not only are none but Gipsiesallowed to be present on such occasions, but that the greatest secrecy isobserved, to prevent discovery by those who are not of the tribe.

[183] It appears all the Gipsies, male as well as female, who perform ceremoniesfor their tribe, carry long staffs. In the Institutes of Menu, page28, it is written: “The staff of a priest must be of such length as to reachhis hair; that of a soldier to reach his forehead; and that of a merchantto reach the nose.”

[184] That I might distinctly understand the Gipsy, when he described themanner of crossing and wheeling round the corners of the horse, a commonsitting-chair was placed on its side between us, which represented theanimal lying on the ground.

[185] Bright, on the Spanish Gipsies, says: “Widows never marry again,are distinguished by mourning-veils, and black shoes made like thoseof a man; no slight mortification, in a country where the females are so remarkablefor the beauty of their feet.” It is most likely thatdivorced femaleGipsies are confounded here withwidows.—Ed.

[186] This difficulty has been removed by recent legislation.—Ed.

[187] “An ass is sometimes sacrificed by religious mendicants, as an atonementfor some fault by which they had forfeited their rank as devotees.”—Accountof the Hindoos.

[188] Jugg, in Hindostanee, is a word which signifies a religious ceremony;hence the well-known temple Juggernaut.

CHAPTER IX.

LANGUAGE.

The Scottish Gipsies appear to be extremely tenacious ofretaining their language, as their principal secret, amongthemselves, and seem, from what I have read on the subject,to be much less communicative, on this and other mattersrelative to their history, than those of England and othercountries. On speaking to them of their speech, they exhibitan extraordinary degree of fear, caution, reluctance,distrust, and suspicion; and, rather than give any informationon the subject, will submit to any self-denial. It hasbeen so well retained among themselves, that I believe it isscarcely credited, even by individuals of the greatest intelligence,that it exists at all, at the present day, but as slang,used by common thieves, house-breakers and beggars, andby those denominated flash and family men.[189]

[282]Among the causes contributing to this state of thingsamong the Scottish Gipsies, and what are called Tinklersor Tinkers, for they are the same people, may be mentionedthe following: The traditional accounts of the numerousimprisonments, banishments, and executions, whichmany of the race underwent, for merely being “by habitand repute Gipsies,” under the severe laws passed againstthem, are still fresh in the memories of the present generation.They still entertain the idea that they are a persecutedrace, and liable, if known to be Gipsies, to all thepenalties of the statutes framed for the extirpation of thewhole people. But, apart from this view of the question,it may be asked, how is it that the Gipsies in Scotland aremore reserved, (they are generally altogether silent,) in respectto themselves, than their brethren in other countriesseem to be? It may be answered, that our Scottish tribes[283]are, in general, much more civilized, their bands more brokenup, and the individuals more mixed with, and scatteredthrough, the general population of the country, than theGipsies of other nations; and it therefore appears to methat the more their blood gets mixed with that of the ordinarynatives, and the more they approach to civilization, themore determinedly will they conceal every particular relativeto their tribe, to prevent their neighbours ascertainingtheir origin and nationality. The slightest taunting allusionto the forefathers of half-civilized Scottish Tinklerskindles up in their breasts a storm of wrath and fury: forthey are extremely sensitive to the feeling which is entertainedtoward their tribe by the other inhabitants of thecountry.[190] “I have,” said one of them to me, “wrought allmy life in a shop with fellow-tradesmen, and not one ofthem ever discovered that I knew a single Gipsy word.” AGipsy woman also informed me that herself and sister hadnearly lost their lives, on account of their language. Thefollowing are the particulars: The two sisters chanced tobe in a public-house near Alloa, when a number of colliers,belonging to the coal-works at Sauchie, were present. Theone sister, in a low tone of voice, and in the Gipsy language,desired the other, among other things, to make ready somebroth for their repast. The colliers took hold of the twoGipsy words,shaucha andblawkie, which signify broth andpot; thinking the Tinkler women were calling themSauchieBlackies, in derision and contempt of their dark, subterraneouscalling. The consequence was, that the savage colliersattacked the innocent Tinklers, calling out that they would“grind them to powder,” for calling themSauchie Blackies.But the determined Gipsies would rather perish than explainthe meaning of the words in English, to appease the enragedcolliers; “for,” said they, “it would have exposedour tribe, and made ourselves odious to the world.” Thetwo defenceless females might have been murdered by theirbrutal assailants, had not the master of the house fortunatelycome to their assistance. The poor Gipsies felt the effects[284]of the beating they had received, for many months thereafter;and my informant had not recovered from her bruises at thetime she mentioned the circumstances to me.[191]

They are also anxious to retain their language, as a secretamong themselves, for the use which it is to them in conductingbusiness in markets or other places of public resort.But they are very chary of the manner in which they employit on such occasions. Besides this, they display all thepride and vanity in possessing the language which is commonwith linguists generally. The determined and uniformprinciple laid down by them, to avoid all communicationswith “strangers” on the subject, and their resolutionto keep it a secret within their own tribe, will be strikinglyillustrated by the following facts.

For seven years, a woman, of the name of Baillie, aboutfifty years of age, and the mother of a family, called regularlyat my house, twice a year, while on her peregrinationsthrough the country, selling spoons and other articles madefrom horn. Every time I saw her, I endeavoured to prevailupon her to give me some of her secret speech, as I was certainshe was acquainted with the Gipsy tongue. But, notto alarm her by calling it by that name, I always said toher, in a jocular manner, that it was themason word I wishedher to teach me. She, however, as regularly and firmlydeclared that she knew of no such language among theTinklers. I always treated her kindly, and desired her tocontinue her visits. I gave her, each time she called, aglass of spirits, a piece of flesh, and such articles; andgenerally purchased some trifle from her, for which I intentionallypaid her more than its value. She so far yieldedto my importunities, that, for the last three years she called,she went the length of saying that she would tell me “something”the next time she came back. But when she returned,she guardedly evaded all my questions, by constantly repeatingnearly the same answer, such as, “I will speak to youthe next time I come back, sir.” After having been put offforseven years in this manner, I was determined to put her[285]to the usual test, should she never enter my door again, and,as she was walking out of the gate of my garden, I called toher, in the Gipsy language, “Jaw vree, managie!“—(go away,woman.) She immediately turned round, and, laughing, replied,“I willjaw with you when I come back,gaugie“—(Iwill go or speak with you, when I come back, man.) Shereturned, as usual, in December following. I again requestedher to give me some of her words, assuring her thatshe would be in no danger from me on that account. I furthertold her it was of no use to conceal her speech from me,having, the last time she was in my house, shown her that Iwas acquainted with it. After considerable hesitation andreluctance, she consented; but then, she said, she would notallow any one in the house to hear her speak to me but mywife. I took her at once into my parlour, and, on beingdesired, she, without the least hesitation or embarrassment,took the seat next the fire. Observing the door of the rooma little open, she desired it to be shut, in case of her beingoverheard, again mentioning that she had no objections tomy wife being present, and gravely observing that “husbandsand wives were one, and should know all one another’ssecrets.” She stated that the public would look upon herwith horror and contempt, were it known she could speakthe Gipsy language. She was extremely civil and intelligent,yet placed me upon a familiar equality with herself,when she found I knew of the existence of her speech, andcould repeat some of the words of it. Her nature, to appearance,seemed changed. Her bold and fiery disposition wassoftened and subdued. She was very frank and polite; retainedher self-possession, and spoke with great propriety.[192]The words which I got on this occasion will be found inanother part of the chapter.

In corroboration of this principle of concealment observedby the Scottish Gipsies, relative to their language, I maygive a fact which will show how artful they are in avoidingany allusion to it. One evening, as a band ofpotters, witha cart of earthenware, were travelling on the high-road, ina wild glen in the south of Scotland, a brother of mine overheard[286]them, male and female, conversing in a language, aword of which he did not understand. As the road wasvery bad, and the night dark, one of the females of the bandwas a few yards in advance of the cart, acting as a guide tothe horde. Every now and then, among other unintelligibleexpressions, she called out “Shan drom.” My brother’scuriosity was excited by hearing the potters conversing inthis manner, and, next morning, he went to where they lodged,in an out-house on the farm, and enquired of the femalewhat she was saying on the road, the night before, and whatshe meant by “Shan drom.” The woman appeared confusedat the unexpected question; but in a short time recoveredher self-possession, and artfully replied that theywere talkingLatin (!) and that “Shan drom,” in Latin,signified “bad road.” But the truth is, “Shan drom” isthe Gipsy expression for bad road, as will by and by be seen.

Besides the difficulties mentioned in the way of gettingany of their language from them, there is a general one thatarises from the suspicious, unsettled, restless, fickle and volatilenature by which they are characterized. It is a rarething to get them to speak consecutively for more than afew minutes on any subject, thus precluding the possibility,in most instances, of taking advantage of any favourablehumour in which they may be found, in the matter of theirgeneral history—leaving alone the formal and serious procedurenecessary to be followed in regard to their language.If this favourable turn in their disposition is allowedto pass, it is rarely anything of that nature can be got fromthem at that meeting; and it is extremely likely that, atany after interviews, they will entirely evade the matter somuch desired.

With these remarks, I will now proceed to state themethod I adopted to get at the Gipsy language.

Short vocabularies of the language of theTschengenes ofTurkey, theCyganis of Hungary, theZigeuners of Germany,theGitanos of Spain, and theGipsies of England, have, atdifferent periods, since 1783, issued from the press, in thiscountry and in Germany; but I am not aware of any specimensof our ScottishTinkler or Gipsy language having asyet been submitted to the public. Some of the former Icommitted to memory, and used, intermixed with Englishwords, in questions I would put to the Scottish Gipsies. In this[287]way, one word would lead to another. I would address themin a confident and familiar manner, as if I were one of themselves,and knew exactly who they were, and all about them.I would, for instance, ask them: Have you agrye (horse)?How manychauvies (children) have you? Where is yourgaugie (husband)? Do you sellroys (spoons)? Beingtaken completely by surprise, they would give me at once atrue answer. For, being the first, as far as I know, to applythe language of the Gipsies of the continent to our owntribes, they could naturally have no hesitation in replying tomy questions; although they would wonder what kind of aGipsy I could possibly be—dressed, as I was, in black, withblack neck-cloth, and no display of linen, save a ruffledbreast, thick-soled shoes and gaiters. The consequencewas, I became a character of interest to many of the Gipsiesto be found in a circuit of many miles; and great wonderwas excited in their untutored minds, leading to a desire tosee, and know something of, theRiah Nawken, or the gentlemanGipsy. On such occasions, I would treat them as Iwould land a fish—give them hook and line enough. Butthe circumstance was to them something incomprehensible,for, although Gipsies are very ready-witted, and possessgreat natural resources, in thieving, and playing tricks ofevery kind, and great tact in getting out of difficulties ofthat nature—which, with them, are matters of instinct, training,and practice—their whole mind being bent, and exclusivelyemployed, in that direction, it was almost impossiblefor them to form any intelligible opinion as to my true character,provided I was any way discreet in disguising my realposition among them. As little chance was there of any ofthemselves informing the others of what assistance they hadinadvertently been to me, in getting at their language.Some of them might have an idea that one of their race had,in their own way of thinking, peached, turned traitor totheir blood, and let the cat out of the bag. At times, if theyhappened to see me approach them, so as to have an opportunityto scrutinize me—which they are much given to, withpeople generally—they would not be so easily disconcertedat any question put to them in their language; but the resultwould be either direct replies, or the most ludicrousscenes of surprise and terror imaginable, which, to be enjoyed,were only to be seen, but could not be described,[288]although the sequel will in some measure illustrate them.At other times, if I addressed a Gipsy in his own language,and spoke to him in a kind and familiar manner, as if I hadbeen soothing a wild and unmanageable horse, before mountinghim, he would either very awkwardly pretend not tounderstand what I meant, or, with a downcast and guiltylook, and subdued voice, immediately answer my Gipsywords in English. But if I put the words to him in an abrupt,hasty, or threatening manner, he would either take tohis heels, or turn upon me, like a tiger, and pour out uponme a torrent of abusive language. The following instanceswill show the manner in which my use of their language wassometimes appreciated by the female Gipsies.

When I spoke in a sharp manner to some of the old women,on the high-road, by way of testing them, they wouldquicken their paces, look over their shoulders, and call out,in much bitterness of spirit, “You are no gentleman, sir,otherwise you would not insult us in that way.” On oneoccasion, I observed a woman with her son, who appearedabout twelve years of age, lingering near a house at whichthey had no business, and I desired her, rather sharply, toleave the place, telling her that I was afraid her chauviewas achor—(that her son was a thief). I used these twowords merely to see what effect they would have upon her,as I did not really think she was a Gipsy. She instantlyflew into a dreadful passion, telling me that I had beenamong thieves and robbers myself, otherwise I could notspeak to her in such words as these. She threatened to goto Edinburgh, to inform the police that I was the head andcaptain of a band of thieves,[193] and that she would have meimmediately apprehended as such. Four sailors who werepresent with me were astonished at the sudden wrath andinsolence of the woman, as they could not perceive any provocationshe had received from me—being ignorant of themeaning of the wordschauvie andchor, which I applied toher boy.

One day I fell in by chance, on a lonely part of the oldpublic road, on the hills within half a mile of the village ofNorth Queensferry, with a woman of about twenty-sevenyears of age, and the mother, as she said, of seven children.[289]She had light hair, blue eyes, and a fair complexion. Theyoungest of her children appeared to be about nine monthsold, and the eldest about ten years. The mother was dressedin a brown cloak, and the group had altogether a verysqualid appearance. In the most lamentable tone of voice,she informed me that her husband had set off with anotherwoman, and left her and her seven children to starve; andthat he had been lately employed at a paper-mill in Mid-Lothian.She sometimes appeared almost to choke withgrief, but, nevertheless, I observed no tears in her eyes. Sheoften repeated, in a sort of hypocritical and canting manner,“The Lord has been very kind to me, and will still protectme and my helpless babes. Last night we all slept inthe open fields, and gathered peas and beans from the stubblefor our suppers.” She certainly seemed to be in very indigentcircumstances; but that her husband had abandonedher, I did not credit. However, I gave her a few half-pence,for which she thanked me very civilly. From her extravagantbehaviour, and a peculiar wildness in her looks, it occurredto me that she belonged to the lowest caste of Gipsies,although her appearance did not indicate it; that her griefwas, for the most part, feigned, and that the story of herhusband having abandoned her was got up merely to excitepity, for the purpose of procuring a little money for the subsistenceof her band. I now put a number of questions toher, relative to many individuals whom I knew were Gipsiesof a superior class, taking care not to call them by that name,in case of alarming her. I spoke to her as if I had beenquite intimate with all the persons I was enquiring about.She gave me satisfactory answers to almost every question,and seemed well acquainted with every individual I named.She now appeared quite calm and collected, and answeredme very gravely. But she said that some of the men I mentionedwere rogues, and that their wives played many clevertricks. On mentioning the tricks of the wives, I noticed asmile come over her countenance. I observed to her thatthey were not faultless, but that they were often blamed forcrimes of which they were not guilty. Upon perceiving thatI took their part, which I did on purpose, to hear what shewould say, she gradually changed her mind, and came overto my opinion. She said that they were exceedingly good-heartedpeople, and that some of them had frequently paid[290]a night’s lodging for herself and family. I now ventured toput a question to her, half in Gipsy and half in English.After a short pause and hesitation, she signified that she understoodwhat I said. I then asked one or two questionsin Gipsy words only. A Gipsy, with crockery-ware in abasket, happened to pass us at the very moment I was speakingto her; and to show her the knowledge I had of herspeech and people, I said, “There is anawken“—(there is aGipsy.) She, in a very civil and polite manner, immediatelyreplied, “Sir, I hope you will not take it ill, when I use thefreedom of saying that you must have been among the peopleyou are enquiring about, otherwise you could not speak tome in that way.” To show her that I did not despise herfor understanding my Gipsy words, I gave her a few pencemore, and spoke kindly to her. She then became quitecheerful and frank, as if we had been old acquaintances.Instead of trying to impose upon me, by tales of grief andwoe, and feigned piety, she appeared happy and contented,her whole conduct indicating that it was useless to play offher tricks upon me, as she was now sensible that I knew exactlywhat she was, and yet did not treat her contemptuously.She said her husband’s name was Wilson, and herown Jackson, (the names of two Gipsy tribes;) that she couldtell fortunes, and was acquainted with theIrish words Ispoke, being afraid to call them by their right name. Shefurther stated that every one of the people I was enquiringabout spoke in the same language.

About half an hour after I parted with her, on the road,I met her in the village of North Queensferry, while I waswalking with a friend. I then put a question to her inGipsy words, in the presence of this third party, who knewnot what she was, to see how she would conduct herself inpublic. She seemed surprised at my question, as if she didnot understand a word of it—to prevent it being discoveredto others of the community that she was a Gipsy. But shepublicly praised me highly, for having given her somethingto help her poor children; and, with her trumped-up storyat her tongue’s end, proceeded on her travels.

These poor people were much alarmed when I let themsee that I knew they were Gipsies. They thought I wasdespising them, and treating them with contempt; or theywere afraid of being apprehended under the old sanguinary[291]laws, condemning the whole unfortunate race to death; forthe Gipsies, as I have already said, still believe that thesebloody statutes are in full force against them at the presentday.

I was advised by Sir Walter Scott, as mentioned in theIntroduction, to “get the same words from different individuals;and, to verify the collection, to set down the names ofthe persons by whom they were communicated;” which Ihave done. For this reason, the words now furnished willappear as the confessions of so many individuals, rather thana vocabulary drawn up in the manner in which such is usuallydone; and which will be more satisfactory to the generalreader, as well as the philologist, than if I had presentedthe words by themselves, without any positive or circumstantialevidence of their genuineness. To the generalreader, as distinguished from the philologist, the anecdotesconnected with the collection may prove interesting, if thewords themselves have no attraction for him; while theywill satisfy the latter, as far as they go, as to the existenceof a language which has almost always been denied, yetwhich is known, at the present day, to a greater number ofthe population of the country than could at first have beenimagined; this part of it having been drawn from a varietyof individuals, at different and widely-separated times andplaces. On this account, I hope that the minuteness of thedetails of the present enquiry may not appear tedious, but,on the contrary, interesting, to my readers generally; inasmuchas the present collection is the first, as far as I know,of the Scottish Gipsy language that has ever been made;although the people themselves have lived amongst us forthree hundred and fifty years, and talked it every hour ofthe day, but hardly ever in the hearing of the other inhabitants,excepting, occasionally, a word of it now and then, todisguise their discourse from those around them; which, onbeing questioned, they have always passed off forcant, toprevent the law taking hold of them, and punishing themfor being Gipsies. These details will also show that ourScottish Tinklers, or Gipsies, are sprung from the commonstock from which are descended those that are to be foundin the other parts of Europe, as well as those that are scatteredover the world generally; what secrecy they observein all matters relative to their affairs; what an extraordinary[292]degree of reluctance and fear they evince in answeringquestions tending to develop their history; and, consequently,how difficult it is to learn anything satisfactoryabout them.[194]

I fell in one day, on the public road, with an old womanand her two daughters, of the name of Ross, selling hornspoons, made by Andrew Stewart, a Tinkler at Bo’ness. Irepeated to the woman, in the shape of questions, some ofthe Gipsy words presented in these pages. She at firstaffected, though very awkwardly, not to understand what Isaid, but in a few minutes, with some embarrassment in hermanner, acknowledged that she knew the speech, and gaveme the English of the following words:

I observed to this woman, that I saw no harm in speakingthis language openly and publicly. “None in the least, sir,”was her reply.

Two girls, of the name of Jamieson, came one day beggingto my door. They appeared to be sisters, of abouteight and seventeen years of age, and were pretty decentlyclothed. Both had light-blue eyes, light-yellow, or ratherflaxen, hair, and fair complexions. To ascertain whetherthey were Tinklers or not, I put some Gipsy words to theeldest girl. She immediately hung down her head, as if shehad been detected in a crime, and, pretending not to understandwhat was said, left the house; but, after proceedingabout twelve paces, she took courage, turned round, and,with a smile upon an agreeable countenance, called back,“There are eleven of us, sir.” I had enquired of her howmany children there were of her family. I called both thegirls back to my house, and ordered them some victuals, forwhich they were extremely grateful, and seemed muchpleased that they were kindly treated. After I had discovered[293]they were Gipsies, I wormed out of them the followingwords:

When I enquired of the eldest girl the English ofJucal,she did not, at first, catch the sound of the word; but herlittle sister looked up in her face, and said to her, “Don’tyou hear? That is dog. It is dog he means.” The otherthen added, with a downcast look, and a melancholy toneof voice, “You gentlemen understand all languages now-a-days.”

At another time, four or five children were loitering about,and diverting themselves, before the door of a house, nearInverkeithing. The youngest appeared about five, and theeldest about thirteen years of age. One of the boys, of thename of McDonald, stepped forward, and asked some moneyfrom me in charity. From his importunate manner of begging,I suspected the children were Gipsies, although theirappearance did not indicate them to be of that race. Aftersome questions put to them about their parents and theiroccupations, they gave me the English of the followingwords:

A gentleman, an acquaintance of mine, was in my presencewhile the children were answering my words; and as thesubject of their language was new to him, I made some remarksto him in their hearing, relative to their tribe, whichgreatly displeased them. One of the boys called out to me,with much bitterness of expression, “You are a Gipsy yourself,sir, or you never could have got these words.”

Some years since, a female, of the name of Ruthven, wasin the habit of calling at a farm occupied by one of mybrothers. My mother, being interested about the Gipsies,began, on one occasion, to question this female Tinkler, relativeto her tribe, and, among other things, asked if she was[294]a Gipsy. “Yes,” replied Ruthven, “I am a Gipsy, and adesperate, murdering race we are. I will let you hear mespeak our language, but what the better will you be ofthat?” She accordingly uttered a few sentences, and thensaid, “Now, are you any the wiser of what you have heard?But that infant,” pointing to her child of about five years ofage, “understands every word I speak.” “I know,” continuedthe Tinkler, “that the public are trying to find outthe secrets of the Gipsies, but it is in vain.” This womanfurther stated that her tribe would be exceedingly displeased,were it known that any of their fraternity taughttheir language to “strangers.”[195] She also mentioned that theGipsies believe that the laws which were enacted for theirextirpation were yet in full force against them. I may mention,however, that she could put confidence in the family inwhose house she made these confessions.

On another occasion, a female, with three or four children,the eldest of whom was not above ten years of age, cameup to me while speaking to an innkeeper, on a public pieron the banks of the Forth. She stated to us that her propertyhad been burned to the ground, and her family reducedto beggary, and solicited charity of us both. After receivinga few half-pence from the innkeeper, she continued herimportunities with an unusual impertinence, and hung uponme for a contribution. Her barefaced conduct displeasedme. I thought I would put her to the test, and try if shewas not a Gipsy. Deepening the tone of my voice, I calledout to her, in an angry manner, “Sallah, jaw drom“—(“Curseyou, take the road.”) The woman instantly wheeledabout, uttered not another word, but set off, with precipitation;and so alarmed were her children, that they took holdof her clothes, to hasten and pull her out of my presence;calling to her, at the same time, “Mother, mother, comeaway.” Mine host, the innkeeper, was amazed at the effectualmanner in which I silenced and dismissed the importunateand troublesome beggars. He was anxious that I[295]should teach him the unknown words that had so terrifiedthe poor Gipsies; with the design, it appeared to me, offrightening others, should they molest him with their begging.Had I not proved this family by the language, it wasimpossible for any one to perceive that the group wereGipsies.

In prosecuting my enquiries into the existence of theGipsy language, I paid a visit to Lochgellie, once the residenceof four or five families of Gipsies, as already mentioned,and procured an interview with young AndrewSteedman, a member of the tribe. At first, he appearedmuch alarmed, and seemed to think I had a design to dohim harm. His fears, however, were in a short whilecalmed; and, after much reluctance, he gave me the followingwords and expressions, with the corresponding Englishsignifications. Like a true Gipsy, the first expression whichhe uttered, as if it came the readiest to him, was, “Choar achauvie“—(“rob that person”) which he pronounced with asmile on his countenance.

The first expression which the Gipsies use in saluting oneanother, when they first meet, anywhere, is “Auteenie, auteenie.”Steedman, however, did not give me the Englishof this salutation. He stated to me that, at the present day,the Gipsies in Scotland, when by themselves, transact theirbusiness in their own language, and hold all their ordinaryconversations in the same speech. In the course of a fewminutes, Steedman’s fears returned upon him. He appearedto regret what he had done. He now said he had forgottenthe language, and referred me to his father, old AndrewSteedman, who, he said, would give me every information Imight require. I imprudently sent him out, to bring the oldman to me; for, when both returned, all further communication,with regard to their speech, was at an end. Bothwere now dead silent on the subject, denied all knowledgeof the Gipsy language, and were evidently under greatalarm. The old man would not face me at all; and when Iwent to him, he appeared to be shaking and trembling, whilehe stood at the head of his horses, in his own stable. YoungSteedman entreated me to tell no one that he had given meany words, as the Tinklers, he said, would be exceedinglydispleased with him for doing so. This man, however, bybeing kindly treated, and seeing no intention of doing himany harm, became, at an after period, communicative onvarious subjects relative to the Gipsies.

The following are the words which I obtained during anhour’s interrogation of the woman that baffled me for sevenyears, and of whom I have said something already:

I observed to this woman that her language would, incourse of time, be lost. She replied, with great seriousness,“It will never be forgotten, sir; it is in our hearts, andas long as a single Tinkler exists, it will be remembered.”I further enquired of her, how many of her tribe were inScotland. Her answer was, “There are several thousand;and there are many respectable shop-keepers and house-holdersin Scotland that are Gipsies.” I requested of thiswoman the Gipsy word for God.[196] She said they had no[298]corresponding word for God in their speech; adding, thatshe thought “it as well, as it prevented them having theirMaker’s name often unnecessarily and sinfully in theirmouths.” She acknowledged the justice, and highly approvedof the punishment of death for murder; but shecondemned, most bitterly, the law that took away the livesof human beings for stealing. She dwelt on the advantageswhich her secret speech gave her tribe in transacting businessin markets. She said that she was descended from thefirst Gipsy family in Scotland. I was satisfied that she wassprung from the second, if not the first, family. I couldmake out, with tolerable certainty, the links of her descentfor four generations of Gipsies. I have already describedthe splendid style in which her ancestors travelled in Tweed-dale.Her mother, above eighty years of age, also calledat my house. Both were fortune-tellers. It was evident,from this woman’s manner, that she knew much she wouldnot communicate. Like the Gipsy chief, in presence of Dr.Bright, at Csurgo, in Hungary, she, in a short time, becameimpatient; and, apparently, when a certain hour arrived, sheinsisted upon being allowed to depart. She would not submitto be questioned any longer.

Owing to the nature of my enquiries, and more particularlythe fears of the tribe, I could seldom venture to questionthe Gipsies regarding their speech, or their ancientcustoms, with any hope of receiving satisfactory answers,when a third party was present. The following, however,is an instance to the contrary; and the facts witnessed bythe gentleman who was with me at the time, are, besidesthe testimony of the Gipsies themselves, convincing proofsthat these people, at the present day, in Scotland, can converseamong themselves, on any ordinary subject, in theirown language, without making use of a single word of theEnglish tongue.[197]

In May, 1829, while near the manse of Inverkeithing, myfriend and I accidentally fell in, on the high road, with fourchildren, the youngest of whom appeared to be about four,[299]and the eldest about thirteen, years of age. They were accompaniedby a woman, about twenty years old, who had theappearance of being married, but not the mother of any ofthe children with her. Not one of the whole party couldhave been taken for a Gipsy, but all had the exact appearanceof being the family of some indigent tradesman or labourer.Excepting the woman, whose hair was dark, all of the companyhad hair of a light colour, some of them inclining toyellow, with fair complexions. In not one of their countenancescould be seen those features by which many pretendthe Gipsies can, at all times, be distinguished from the restof the community. The manner, however, in which thewoman, at first, addressed me, created in my mind a suspicionthat she was one of the tribe. In order to ascertain thefact, I put a question to her in Gipsy, in such a manner thatit might appear to her that I was quite certain she was oneof the fraternity. She immediately smiled at my question,held down her head, cast her eyes to the ground, then appearedas if she had been detected in something wrong, andpretended not to understand what I said. One of the children,however, being thrown entirely off his guard, immediatelysaid to her, “You know quite well what he says.”The woman, recovering from her surprise and confusion, andbeing assured she had nothing to fear from me, now answeredmy question. She also replied to every other interrogationI put to her, without showing the least fear or hesitation.After I had repeated a few words more, and a sentence inthe Gipsy tongue, one of the boys exclaimed, “He has goodcant!” and then addressed me entirely in the Gipsy language.(All the Gipsies, as I have already mentioned, call their languagecant, for the purpose of concealing their tribe.) Thewhole party seemed extremely happy that I was acquaintedwith their speech. The woman put several questions to me,in return, some of which were wholly in her own peculiartongue. She asked my name, place of residence, and whetherI was anawken—that is a Gipsy. She further enquiredwhether my friend was also anawken; adding, with a smile,that she was sure I was atramper. The children sometimesconversed among themselves wholly in their own language;and, when I could not understand the woman, asshe requested, in her own speech, to know my name, &c.,one of them instantly interpreted the sentence into English[300]for me. One of the oldest boys, however, thinking I wasonly pretending to be ignorant of their speech, observed, inEnglish, to his companions, “I am sure he is a tramper, andcan speak as good cant as any of us.” To keep up the character,my friend told them that I had been a tramper in myyouth, but that I had now nearly lost the language. Onhearing this, the woman, with great earnestness, exclaimed,“God bless the gentleman!” In order to confirm their beliefthat I was one of their tribe, I bade the woman good-dayin her own tongue, and parted with them. She informedme, on leaving, that she resided at Banff, but that her husbandwas then at Perth.

During the short interview which I had with these Gipsies,I collected the following words:

The method I adopted with them, as I have alreadyhinted, was to ask them the English of the words I gavethem in Gipsy, so that the answers I got were confirmationsof the same words collected from other individuals, andwhich I drew from memory for the occasion. Had I attemptedto write down any of their sentences, it would haveinstantly shut the door to all further conversation on thesubject, and, in all probability, the Gipsies would have takento their heels, muttering imprecations against me for havinginsulted them. Of this I was satisfied, that had I really beenacquainted with their speech, these Gipsy children couldhave kept up a regular and connected conversation with me,with the greatest fluency, and without their sentences being[301]intermixed with any English or Scotch words whatever, afact which has been repeatedly stated to me by the Gipsies.

In confirmation of these facts, I shall transcribe a letteraddressed to me by the gentleman who was present on theoccasion.[198]

“Agreeably to your desire, I have looked over that partof your manuscript of the Scottish Gipsies which details theparticulars of a short and accidental interview which wehad with a woman and four children, whom we met nearInverkeithing Manse, on the 22d inst., and who turned outto be Gipsies. I have no hesitation in averring that yourstatements, to my knowledge, are substantially correct—beingpresent during the whole conversation which tookplace with the individuals mentioned. It was the first timeI ever heard the Gipsy language spoken, and it appearedquite evident that those Gipsies could converse, in a regularand connected manner, on any subject, without making useof a single English word; and which particularly appearedfrom the questions which they put to you, as well as fromthe conversation which they had among themselves, in theirown peculiar speech: and that, otherwise, the woman andchildren had not, in the colour of their hair, complexion, andgeneral appearance, any resemblance to those people whomI always considered to be Gipsies. I am, &c.,

I have already mentioned having succeeded in obtaining[302]a few words of Gipsy, from two sisters, of the name of Jamieson,who came begging to my door. I had reason to supposethey would acquaint their relatives of having beenquestioned in their own speech, and would greatly exaggeratemy knowledge of it; for I always observed that the individualswith whom I conversed were at first impressed with abelief that I knew much more of it than I really did.

During the following summer, a brother and a cousin ofthese girls called at my house, selling baskets. The onewas about twenty-one, the other fifteen, years of age. Ihappened to be from home, but one of my family, suspectingthem to be Gipsies, invited them into the house, and mentionedto them, (although very incorrectly,) that I understoodevery word of their speech. “So I saw,” replied the eldestlad, “for when he passed us on the road, some time ago, Icalled, in our language, to my neighbour, to come out of theway, and he understood what I said, for he immediatelyturned round, and looked at us.” I, however, knew nothingof the circumstance; I did not even recollect having seenthem pass me. It is likely, however, I had been examiningtheir appearance, and it is as likely they had been trying ifI understood their speech. At all events, they appeared tohave known me, while I was entirely ignorant of who theywere, and to have had their curiosity excited, on account, asI imagined, of their relatives having told them I was acquaintedwith their language. This occurrence produced awonderful effect upon the two lads, for they appeared pleasedto think I could speak their language. At this moment, oneof my daughters, about seven years of age, repeated, in theirhearing, the Gipsy word for pot, having picked it up fromhearing me mention it. The young Tinklers now thoughtthey were in the midst of a Gipsy family, and seemed quitehappy. “But are you really anawken?” I asked the eldestof them. “Yes, sir,” he replied; “and to show youI am no impostor, I will give you the names of everythingin your house;” which, in the presence of my family, hedid, to the extent I asked of him. “My speech,” he continued,“is not the cant of packmen, nor the slang of commonthieves.”

But Gipsy-hunting is like deer-stalking. In prosecutingit, it is necessary to know the animal, its habits, and thelocality in which it is to be found. I saw the unfavourable[303]turn approaching: the Gipsies’ time was up; their patiencewas exhausted. I dropped the subject, and ordered themsome refreshment. On their taking leave of me, I said tothem, “Do you intend coming round this part of the countryagain?” (I need not have asked them such a question asthat.) “That we do, sir; and we will not fail to come andsee you again.” They thus left me, with the strong impressionon their minds, that I was anawken, like themselves,but ariah—a gentleman Gipsy. I waited patiently fortheir return, which would happen in due season, on theirhalf-yearlytramp. Everything looked so favourably, circumstanceshad contributed so fortunately, to the end whichI had so much at heart, that I looked upon the informationto be drawn from these poor Tinkler lads, with as muchsolicitude and avarice as one would who had discovered atreasure hid in his field.

This species of Gipsy-hunting, I believe, I had exclusivelyto myself. I had none of the difficulties to contend with,which would be implied in the field of it having been goneover by others before me. That kind of Gipsy-huntingwhich implied imprisonment, banishment, and hanging, wasa thing of which the Gipsies had had sad experience; if notin their own persons, at least in that which the traditionsof their tribe had so carefully handed down to them. Besidesthis, the experience of the daily life of the membersof their tribe afforded an excellent school of training, foracquiring a host of expedients for escaping every dangerand difficulty to which their habits exposed them. But sothoroughly had they preserved their secrets, and especiallythe grand one—their language—that they came to theirwits’ end how to understand, and how to act in, the newsphere of danger into which they were now thrown, or evento comprehend its nature. Such was the advantage whicheducation and enlightenment had given their civilized neighbourover them. How couldthey imagine that the commencementof my knowledge of their language had beendrawn frombooks? What did some of them know ofbooks,beyond, perhaps, a youth sent to school, where, owing to hisrestless and unsettled good-for-nothingness, he would advancelittle beyond his alphabet?[200] For we know that some Gipsies[304]are so intensely vain as to send a child to school, merelyto brag before their civilized neighbours that their childrenhave been educated. How couldthey comprehend thattheir language had found, or could find, its way intobooks?The thing to them was impossible; the idea of it couldnot, by any exertion of their own, even enter into theirimagination. The danger to arise from such a quarter wasaltogether beyond their capacity of comprehension. Knowing,however, that there was danger of some singular naturesurrounding them, yet being unable to comprehend it,they flickered about it, like moths about a candle; till atlast they did come to comprehend, if not its origin, or extent,at least its tendency, and the consequences to which itwould lead.

According to promise, the eldest of the Gipsy boys calledat my house, in about six months, accompanied by his sister.He was selling white-iron ware, for he was a tin-smith byoccupation. Without entering into any preliminary conversation,for the purpose of smoothing the way for more directquestions, I took him into my parlour, and at once enquiredif hecould speak the Tinkler language? He applied to myquestion the construction that I doubted if he could, and theconsequences which that would imply, and answered firmly,“Yes, sir; I have been bred in that line all my life.” “Willyou allow me,” said I, “to write down your words?” “O yes,sir; you are welcome to as many as you please.” “Have younames for everything, and can you converse on any subject,in that language?” “Yes, sir; we can converse, and have aname for everything, in our own speech.” I now commencedto “make hay while the sun shone,” as the phrase runs; forI knew that I could have only about an hour with the Gipsy,[305]at the most. The following, then, are the words and sentenceswhich I took down, on this occasion:

This young man sang part of two Gipsy songs to me, inEnglish; and then, at my request, he turned one of theminto the Gipsy language, intermingled a little, however,with English words; occasioned, perhaps, by the difficultyin translating it. The subject of one of the songs was thatof celebrating a robbery, committed upon a Lord Shandos;and the subject of the other was a description of a Gipsybattle. The courage with which the females stood the rattleof the cudgels upon their heads was much lauded in the song.Like the Gipsy woman with whom I had no less than sevenyears’ trouble ere getting any of her speech, this Gipsy ladbecame, in about an hour’s time, very restless, and impatientto be gone. The true state of things, in this instance,dawned upon his mind. He now became much alarmed, andwould neither allow me to write down his songs, nor stopto give me any more of his words and sentences. Histerror was only exceeded by his mortification; and, on partingwith me, he said that, had he, at first, been aware I wasunacquainted with his speech, he would not have given mea word of it.

As far as I can judge, from the few and short specimenswhich I have myself heard, and had reported to me, thesubjects of the songs of the Scottish Gipsies, (I mean thosecomposed by themselves,) are chiefly their plunderings, theirrobberies, and their sufferings. The numerous and deadlyconflicts which they had among themselves, also, affordedthem themes for the exercise of their muse. My father, inhis youth, often heard them singing songs, wholly in their[307]own language. They appear to have been very fond of ourancient Border marauding songs, which celebrate the daringexploits of the lawless freebooters on the frontiers of Scotlandand England. They were constantly singing these compositionsamong themselves. The song composed on HughieGræme, the horse-stealer, published in the second volume ofSir Walter Scott’s Border Minstrelsy, was a great favouritewith the Tinklers. As this song is completely to the tasteof a Gipsy, I will insert it in this place, as affording agood specimen of that description of song in the singing ofwhich they take great delight. It will also serve to showthe peculiar cast of mind of the Gipsies.

HUGHIE THE GRÆME.

[309]I will now give the testimony of the Gipsy chief fromwhom I received the “blowing up” alluded to, by Mr. Laidlaw,in theIntroduction to the work.[202]

One of the greatest fairs in Scotland is held, annually, onthe 18th day of July, at St. Boswell’s Green, in Roxburghshire.I paid a visit to this fair, for the purpose of takinga view of the Gipsies. An acquaintance, whom I met atthe fair, observed to me, that he was sure if any one couldgive me information regarding the Tinklers, it would be old ——,the horner, at ——. To ensure a kind reception fromthe Gipsies, it was agreed upon, between us, that I shouldintroduce myself by mentioning who my ancestors were, onwhose numerous farms, (sixteen, rented by my grandfather,in 1781,[203]) their forefathers had received many a night’squarters, in their out-houses. We soon found out the oldchieftain, sitting in a tent, in the midst of about a dozen ofhis tribe, all nearly related to him. The moment I mademyself known to them, the whole of the old persons immediatelyexpressed their gratitude for the humane treatmentthey, and their forefathers, had received at the farms of myrelatives. They were extremely glad to see me; and “Godbless you,” was repeated by several of the old females. “Ay,”said they, “those days are gone. Christian charity has nowleft the land. We know the people are growing more hardand uncharitable every year.” I found the old man shrewd,sensible, and intelligent; far beyond what could have beenexpected from a person of his caste and station in life. He,besides, possessed all that merriness and jocularity which I[310]have often observed among a number of the males of hisrace. After some conversation with this chief, who appearedabout eighty years of age, I enquired if his people, who, inlarge bands, about sixty years ago, traversed the south ofScotland, had not an ancient language, peculiar to themselves.He hesitated a little, and then readily replied, thatthe Tinklers had no language of their own, except a fewcant words. I observed to him that he knew better—thatthe Tinklers had, beyond dispute, a language of their own;and that I had some knowledge of its existence at the presentday. He, however, declared that they had no such language,and that I was wrongly informed. In the hearingof all the Gipsies in the tent, I repeated to him four or fiveGipsy words and expressions. At this he appeared amazed;and on my adding some particulars relative to some of theancestors of the tribe then present, enumerating, I think,three generations of their clan, one of the old females exclaimed,“Preserve me, he kens a’ about us!” The oldchief immediately took hold of my right hand, below thetable, with a grasp as if he were going to shake it: and, ina low and subdued tone of voice, so as none might near butmyself, requested me to say not another word in the placewhere we were sitting, but to call on him, at the town of ——,and he would converse with me on that subject. Iconsidered it imprudent to put any more questions to himrelative to his speech, on this occasion, and agreed to meethim at the place he appointed.

Several persons in the tent, (it being one of the publicbooths in the market,) who were not Gipsies, were equallysurprised, when they observed an understanding immediatelytake place between me and the Tinklers, by means of a fewwords, the meaning of which they could not comprehend. Afarmer, from the south of Scotland, who was present in thetent, and had that morning given the Tinklers a lamb to eat,met me, some days after, on the banks of the Yarrow. Heshook his head, and observed, with a smile, “Yon was queer-lookingwark wi’ the Tinklers.”

As I was anxious to penetrate to his secret speech, I resolvedto keep the appointment with the Gipsy, whatevermight be the result of our meeting, and I therefore proceededto the town which he mentioned, eleven days after I hadseen him at the fair. On enquiring of the landlord of the[311]principal inn, at which I put up my horse, where the houseof ——, the Tinkler, was situated in the town, he appearedsurprised, and eyed me all over. He told me the street, butsaid he would not accompany me to the house, thinking thatI wished him to go with me. It was evident that the landlord,whom I never saw before, considered himself in badcompany, in spite of my black clothes, black neck-cloth, andruffles aforesaid, and was determined not to be seen on thestreet, either with me or the Tinkler. I told him I by nomeans wished him to accompany me, but only to tell me inwhat part of the town the Tinkler’s house was to be found.

On entering the house, I found the old chief sitting, withouthis coat, with an old night-cap on his head, a leathernapron around his waist, and all covered with dust or soot,employed in making spoons from horn. After conversingwith him for a short time, I reminded him of the ancientlanguage with which he was acquainted. He assumed agrave countenance, and said the Tinklers had no such language,adding, at the same time, that I should not troublemyself about such matters. He stoutly denied all knowledgeof the Tinkler language, and said no such tongue existed inScotland, except a few cant words. I persisted in assertingthat they were actually in possession of a secret language,and again tried him with a few of my words; but to no purpose.All my efforts produced no effect upon his obstinacy.At this stage of my interview, I durst not mention the wordGipsy, as they are exceedingly alarmed at being known asGipsies. I now signified that he had forfeited his promise,given me at the fair, and rose to leave him. At this remark,I heard a man burst out a-laughing, behind a partition thatran across the apartment in which we were sitting. Theold man likewise started to his feet, and, with both his sootyhands, took hold of the breast of my coat, on either side,and, in this attitude, examined me closely, scanning me allover from head to foot. After satisfying himself, he said,“Now, give me a hold of your hand—farewell—I will knowyou when I see you again.” I bade him good-day, and leftthe house.[204]

[312]I had now no hope of obtaining any information from thisman, regarding his peculiar language. I had scarcely, however,proceeded a hundred yards down the street, from thehouse, when I was overtaken by a young female, who requestedme to return, to speak with her father. I immediatelycomplied. On reaching the door, with the girl, Imet one of the old man’s sons, who said that he had overheardwhat passed between his father and me, in the house.He assured me that his fatherwas ashamed to give me hislanguage; but that, if I would promise not to publish theirnames, or place of residence, he would himself give me someof their speech, if his father still persevered in his refusal.I accordingly agreed not to make public the names, and placeof residence, of the family. I again entered the little factoryof horn spoons. Matters were now, to all appearance,quite changed. The old man was very cheerful, and seemedfull of mirth. “Come away,” said he; “what is this youare asking after? I would advise you to go to Mr. Stewart,at Hawick, and he will tell you everything about our language.”“Father,” said the son, who had resumed his placebehind the partition before mentioned, “you know that Mr.Stewart will give our speech to nobody.” The old chiefagain hesitated and considered, but, being urged by his sonand myself, he, at last, said, “Come away, then; I will tellyou whatever you think proper to ask me. I gave you myoath, at the fair, to do so. Get out your paper, pen and ink,and begin.” He gave me no other oath, at the fair, than his[313]word, and taking me by the hand, that he would conversewith me regarding the speech of the Tinklers. But, I believe,joining hands is considered an oath in some countriesof the Eastern world. I was fully convinced, however, thathe wasashamed to give me his speech, and that it was withthe greatest reluctance he spoke one word on the subject.The following are the words and sentences which I collectedfrom him:[205]

I was desirous to learn, from this Gipsy, if there were anytraditions among the Scottish Gipsies, as to their origin,and the country from which they came. He stated that thelanguage of which he had given me a specimen was an Ethiopiandialect, used by a tribe of thieves and robbers; andthat the Gipsies were originally from Ethiopia, althoughnow called Gipsies.[208] He now spoke of himself and histribe by the name of Gipsies, without hesitation or alarm.“Our Gipsy language,” added he, “is softer than your harshGaelic.” He was at considerable pains to give me theproper sound of the words. The lettera is pronounced broad[316]in their language, likeaw in paw, ora in water; andie, oree, in the last syllable of a great many words, are soundedshort and quick; andch soft, as in church. Their speechappears to be copious, for, said he, they have a greatmany words and expressions for one thing. He furtherstated that the Gipsy language has no alphabet, or character,by which it can be learned, or its grammatical constructionascertained. He never saw any of it written. I observedto him that it would, in course of time, be lost. He replied,that “so long as there existed two Gipsies in Scotland, itwould never be lost.” He informed me that every one ofthe Yetholm Tinklers spoke the language; and that almostall those persons who were selling earthen-ware at St. Boswell’sfair were Gipsies. I counted myself twenty-four families,with earthen-ware, and nine female heads of families,selling articles made of horn. These thirty-three families,together with a great many single Gipsies scatteredthrough the fair, would amount to above three hundred Gipsieson the spot. He further mentioned that none of theYetholm Gipsies were at the market. The old man also informedme that a great number of our horse-dealers areGipsies. “Listen attentively,” said he, “to our horse-coupers,in a market, and you will hear them speaking in theGipsy tongue.” I enquired how many there were in Scotlandacquainted with the language. He answered, “Thereare several thousand.” I further enquired, if he thought theGipsy population would amount to five thousand souls. Hereplied he was sure there were fully five thousand of histribe in Scotland. It was further stated to me, by this family,that the Gipsies are at great pains in teaching theirchildren, from their very infancy, their own language; andthat they embrace every opportunity, when by themselves,of conversing in it, about their ordinary affairs. They alsopride themselves very much in being in possession of aspeech peculiar to themselves—quite unknown to the public.

I then sent for some spirits wherewith to treat the oldchief; but I was cautioned, by one of the family, not topress him to drink much, as, from his advanced age and infirmities,little did him harm. The moment you speak toan intelligent Gipsy chief, in a familiar and kindly manner,putting yourself, as it were, on a level with him, you findhim entirely free from all embarrassment in his manners.[317]He speaks to you, at once, in a free, independent, confident,emphatic tone, without any rudeness in his way of addressingyou. He never loses his self-possession. The old chieftainsang part of a Gipsy song, in his own language, but hewould not allow me to write it down.[209] Indeed, by his manner,he seemed frequently to hesitate whether he would proceedany further in giving me information, and appeared toregret that he had gone so far as he had done. I nowand then stopped him in his song, and asked him the meaningof some of the expressions. It was, however, intermixedwith a few English words; perhaps every fifth word wasEnglish. The Gipsy words,graunzie (barn),caunies (chickens),molzie (wine),staurdie (prison),mort andchauvies(wife and children), were often repeated. In short, the subjectof the song was that of a Gipsy, lying in chains inprison, lamenting that he could not support his wife andchildren by plunder and robbery. The Gipsy was representedas mourning over his hard fate, deprived of his liberty,confined in a dungeon, and expressing the happiness and delightwhich he had when free, and would have were he lyingin a barn, or out-house, living upon poultry, and drinkingwine with his tribe.[210]

This family, like all their race, now became much alarmedat their communications; and it required considerable troubleon my part to allay their fears. The old man was inthe greatest anguish of mind, at having committed himselfat all, relative to his speech. I was very sorry for his distress,and renewed my promise not to publish his name, orplace of residence, assuring him he had nothing to fear. It[318]is now many years since he died. He was considered a verydecent, honest man, and was a great favourite with thosewho were acquainted with him. But his wife, and someother members of his family, followed the practices of theirancestors.

Publish their language! Give to the world that whichthey had kept to themselves, with so much solicitude, somuch tenacity, so much fidelity, for three hundred and fiftyyears! A parallel to such a phenomenon cannot be foundwithin the whole range of history.[211] What will the Tinklers,the “poor things,” as Sir Walter Scott so feelingly calledthem—what will they think of me, after the publication ofthe present work?[212]

[319]While walking one day, with a friend, around the harbourof Grangemouth, I observed a man, who appeared aboveseventy years of age, carrying a small wooden box on hisshoulder, a leathern apron tied around his waist, with awhitish coloured bull-dog following him. He was enquiringof the crews of the vessels in the port, whether they hadany pots, kettles, or pans to repair. Just as my friend andI came up to him, on the quay, I said to him, in a familiarmanner, as if I knew exactly what he was, “Baurie jucal,”words which signify, in the Gipsy language, a “good dog.”Being completely taken by surprise, the old man turnedquickly round, and, looking down at his dog, said, withoutthinking what he was about, “Yes, the dog is not bad.”But the words had scarcely escaped his lips ere he affectednot to comprehend my question, after he had distinctly answeredit. He looked exceedingly foolish, and afforded myfriend a hearty laugh, at his attempt at recovering himself.He became agitated and angry, and called out, “What doyou mean? I don’t understand you—yes, the dog ishairy.”I said not another word, nor took any further notice of him,but passed on, in case of provoking him to mischief. Hestood stock-still upon the spot, and, keeping his eyes fixedupon me, as long as I was in sight, appeared to be consideringwith himself what I could be, or whether he might nothave seen me before. He looked so surprised and alarmed,that he could scarcely trust himself in the place, since hefound, to a certainty, that his grand secret was known. Isaw him a short while afterwards, at a little distance, withhis glasses on, sitting on the ground, in the manner of theEast, with his hammers and files, tin and copper, about him,repairing cooking utensils belonging to a vessel in the basin;with his trustyjucal, sitting close at his back, like a sentinel,to defend him. The truth is, I was not very fond ofhaving anything further to do with this member of the tribe,in case he had resented my interference with him and hisspeech. This old man wore a long great-coat, and externallylooked exactly like a blacksmith. No one of ordinaryobservation could have perceived him to be a Gipsy; asthere were no striking peculiarities of expression about hiscountenance, which indicated him as being one of that race.I was surprised at my own discovery.

A Gipsy informed me that almost all our thimble-riggers,[320]or “thimble-men,” as they are sometimes called, are a superiorclass of Gipsies, and converse in the Gipsy language.In the summer of 1836, an opportunity presented itself tome to verify the truth of this information. On a by-road,between Edinburgh and Newhaven, I fell in with a band ofthese thimble-riggers, employed at their nefarious occupation.The band consisted of six individuals, all personatingdifferent characters of the community. Some had the appearanceof mercantile clerks, and others represented youngfarmers, or dealers in cattle, of inferior appearance. Theman in charge of the board and thimbles looked like ajourneyman blacksmith or plumber. They all pretended tobe strangers to each other. Some were betting and playing,and others looking on, and acting as decoys. None besidesthemselves were present, except myself, a young lad, and arespectable-looking elderly female. I stood and looked atthe band for a little; but as nobody was playing but themselves,the man with the thimbles, to lead me on, urged meto bet with him, and try my fortune at his board. I said Idid not intend to play, and was only looking at them. Itook a steady look at the faces of each of the six villains;but, whenever their eyes caught mine, they looked away, ordown to the ground, verifying the saying that a rogue cannotlook you in the face. The man at the board againurged me to play, and, with much vapouring and insolence,took out a handful of notes, and said he had many hundredsa year; that I was a poor, shabby fellow, and had no moneyon me, and, therefore, could not bet with him. I desiredhim to let me alone, otherwise I would let them see I wasnot to be insulted, and that I knew more about them thanthey were aware of. “Who the devil are you, sir, to speakto us in that manner,” was the answer I received. I againreplied, that, if they continued their insolence, I wouldshow them who I was. This only provoked them the more,and encreased their violent behaviour. High words thenarose, and the female alluded to, thinking I was in danger,kindly entreated me to leave them. I now thought it timeto try what effect my Gipsy words would produce uponthem. In an authoritative tone of voice, I called out tothem, “Chee, chee!” which, in the Scottish Gipsy language,signifies “Hold your tongue,” “be silent,” or “silence.”[321][213]The surprised thimble-men were instantly silent. Theyspoke not a word, but looked at one another. Only, oneof them whispered to his companions, “He is not to bemeddled with.” They immediately took up their board,thimbles and all, and left the place, apparently in considerablealarm, some taking one direction and some another.The female in question was also surprised at seeing theirinsolent conduct repressed, in a moment, by a single expression.“But, sir,” said she, “what was that you said tothem, for they seem afraid?” I was myself afraid to sayanother word to them, and took care they did not see mego to my dwelling-house.[214]

One of the favourite, and permanent, fields of operation ofthese thimblers is on the Queensferry road, from where it is[322]intersected by the street leading from the back of LeithFort, on the east, to the new road leading from Grantonpier, on the west. This part of the Queensferry road isintersected by about half-a-dozen cross-roads, all leadingfrom the landing and shipping places at the piers ofGranton, Trinity, and Newhaven. These cross-roads arecut by three roads running nearly parallel to each other,viz., the road along the sea-beach, Trinity road, and theQueensferry road. A great portion of the passengers, bythe many steamboats, pass along all these different roads,to and from Edinburgh. On all of these roads, between thewater of Leith and the Forth, the thimble-riggers stationthemselves, as single individuals, or in numbers, as it mayanswer their purpose. In fact, this part of the countrybetween the sea and Edinburgh, is so much chequered byroads crossing each other, that it may be compared to themeshes of a spider’s web, and the thimblers as so manyspiders, watching to pounce upon their prey. The momentone of these sentinels observes a stranger appear, signals aremade to his confederates, when their organized plan ofoperations for entrapping the unwary person is immediatelyput in execution. Strangers, unacquainted with thelocality, are greatly bewildered among all the cross-roadsmentioned, and have considerable difficulty in threadingtheir way to the city. One of the gang will then step forward,and, pretending to be a stranger himself, will enquireof the others the road to such and such a place. Frequentlythe unsuspecting and bewildered individual will enquire ofthe thimbler for some street or place in Edinburgh. Thedecoy and the victim now walk in company, and conversefamiliarly together on various topics; the thimbler offerssnuff to his friend, and makes himself as agreeable as hecan; while one of the gang, at a distance in front, drops awatch, chain, or other piece of mock jewelry, or commencesplaying at the thimble-board. The decoy is sure to leadhis dupe exactly to the spot where the trap is laid, andwhere he will probably be plundered. One or these entrapmentsterminated in the death of its subject. A workingman, having risked his half-year’s wages at the thimble-board,of course lost every farthing of the money; and tookthe loss so much to heart as, in a fit of despondency, todrown himself in the water of Leith.

In the beginning of 1842, I fell in with six of these thimble-riggersand chain-droppers, on Newhaven road, on theirway to Edinburgh. I was anxious to discover the natureof their conversation, and kept as close to them as I could,without exciting their suspicions. Like that of most peoplebrought up in one particular line of life, their conversationrelated wholly to their own trade—that of swindling, theft,and robbery. I overheard them speaking of “bloody swells,”and of dividing their booty. One of them was desired bythe others to look after a certain steamboat, expected toarrive, and to get a bill to ascertain its movements exactly.He said he would “require three men to take care of thatboat”; meaning, as I understood him, that all these menwere necessary for laying his snares, and executing hisdesigns upon the unsuspecting passengers, as they landedfrom the vessel, and were on their way to their destinations.The manager of the steamboat company could not haveconsulted with his subordinates, about their lawful affairs,with more care and deliberation, or in a more cool, business-likeway, than were these villains in contriving plans forplundering the public. On their approach to Pilrig street, theband separated into pairs; some taking the north, and somethe south, side of Leith walk, for Edinburgh, where theyvanished in the crowd. Their language was fearful, everyexpression being accompanied by a terrible oath.

On another occasion, I fell in with another band of thesevagabond thimble-men, on the Dalkeith road, near CraigmillerCastle. I asked the fellow with the thimbles, “Isthatgaugie a nawken?” pointing to one of the gang whohad just left him. The question, in plain English, was, “Isthat man a Gipsy?” The thimbler flew at once into a greatpassion, and bawled out, “Ask himself, sir.” He then fellupon me, and a gentleman who was with me, in most abusivelanguage, applying to us the most insulting epithets he couldthink of. It was evident to my friend that the thimble-manperfectly understood my Gipsy question. So enraged washe, that we were afraid he would follow us, and do us someharm. My friend did not consider himself safe till he wasin the middle of Edinburgh, for many a look did he cast behindhim, to see whether the Gipsy was not in pursuit of us.[215]

[324]The Gipsies in Scotland consider themselves to be of thesame stock as those in England and Ireland, for they are allacquainted with the same speech. They afford assistance toone another, whenever they happen to meet. The following[325]facts will at least show that the Scottish and Irish Gipsiesare one and the same people.

In the county of Fife, I once fell in with an Irishfamily, to appearance in great poverty and distress, restingthemselves on the side of the public road. A shelty[326]and an ass were grazing hard by. The ass they used incarrying a woman, who, they said, was a hundred and oneyears of age. She was shrunk and withered to a skeleton,or rather, I should say, to a bundle of bones; and her chinalmost rested on her knees, and her body was nearly doubledby age. On interrogating the head of the family, I foundthat his name was Hugh White, and that he was an Irishman,and a son of the old woman who was with him. I putsome Gipsy words to him, to ascertain whether or not hewas one of the tribe. He pretended not to understand whatI said; but his daughter, of about six years of age, replied,“But I understand what he says.” I then called outsharply to him, “Jaw vree“—(“Go away,” or “get out ofthe way.”) “As soon as I can,” was his answer. Onleaving him, I again called, “Beenship-davies“—(“Good-day.”)“Good-day, sir; God bless you,” was his immediatereply.

I happened, at another time, to be in the court-house ofone of the burghs north of the Forth, when two Irishmen,of the names of O’Reilly and McEwan, were at the bar forhaving been found drunk, and fighting within the town.They were sentenced by the magistrates to three days’ imprisonment,and to be “banished the town,” for their riotousconduct. The men had the Irish accent, and had certainlybeen born and brought up in Ireland; but their habilimentsand general appearance did not correspond exactly with theordinary dress and manners of common Irish peasants, althoughtheir features were in all respects Hibernian. Whenthe magistrates questioned them in respect to their conduct,the prisoners looked very grave, and said, “Sure, and itplase your honours, our quarrel was nothing but whiskey,and sure we are the best friends in the world;” and seemedvery penitent. But when the magistrates were not lookingat them, they were smiling to each other, and keeping up acommunication in pantomime. Suspecting them to be IrishGipsies, I addressed the wife of McEwan as follows: “Forwhat is theriah (magistrate) going to put yourgaugie(man) instaurdie, (prison)?” “Only for a little whiskey,sir,” was her immediate reply. She gave me, on the spot,the English of the following words; adding, at the sametime, that I had got theGipsy language, but that hers wasonly theEnglish cant. She was afraid to acknowledge that[327]she was a Gipsy, as such a confession might, in her opinion,have proved prejudicial to her husband, in the situation inwhich he was placed.

I observed the woman instantly communicate to her husbandthe conversation she had with me. She immediatelyreturned to me, and, after questioning me as to my name,occupation, and place of residence, very earnestly entreatedme to save hergaugie from thestaurdie. I asked her, howmanychauvies she had? “Twelve, sir.” Were any ofthemchors? “None, sir.” Two of herchauvies were inher hand, weeping bitterly. The woman was in great distress,and when she heard the sound of her own language,she thought she saw a friend. I informed one of the magistrates,whom I knew, that the prisoners were Gipsies; andproposed to him to mitigate the punishment of the woman’shusband, on condition of his giving me a specimen of hissecret speech. But the reply of the man of authority was,“The scoundrel shall lie in prison till the last hour of hissentence.” The “scoundrel” however, did not remain in duranceso long. While the jailer was securing him in prison,the determined Tinkler, with the utmost coolness and indifference,asked him, which part of the jail would be the easiestfor him to break through. The jailer told him that, if heattempted to escape, the watchman, stationed in the church-yard,close to the prison, would shoot him. On visiting theprison next morning, the turnkey found that the Gipsy hadundone the locks of the doors, and fled during the night.O’Reilly, the other Gipsy, remained, in a separate cell, thewhole period of his sentence. When the officers were completingthe other part of his punishment—“banishing himfrom the town”—the regardless, light-hearted Irish Tinklerwent capering along the streets, with his coat off, brandishing,and sweeping, and twirling his shillalah, in the Gipsyfashion. Meeting, in this excited state, his late judge, theTinkler, with the utmost contempt and derision, called out[328]to him, “Plase your honour! won’t you now take a fightwith me, for the sake of friendship?” This worthy IrishGipsy represented himself as the head Tinkler in Perth, andthe first of the second class of boxers.

On another occasion, I observed a horde of Gipsies onthe high street of Inverkeithing, employed in making spoonsfrom horn. I spoke to one of the young married men, partlyin Scottish Gipsy words, when he immediately answered mein English. He said they were all natives of Ireland. Theyhad, male and female, the Irish accent completely. I invitedthis man to accompany me to a public-house, that I mightobtain from him a specimen of his Irish Gipsy language.The town-clerk being in my company at the time, I askedhim to go with me, to hear what passed; but he refused,evidently because he considered that the company of aGipsy would contaminate and degrade him. I treated theTinkler with a glass of spirits, and obtained from him thefollowing words:

[329]This man conducted himself very politely, his behaviour beingvery correct and becoming; and he seemed much pleasedat being noticed, and kindly treated. At first, he spokewholly in the Gipsy language, thinking that I was as wellacquainted with it as himself. But when he found that Iknew only a few words of it, he, like all his tribe, stoppedin his communications, and, in this instance, began to quizand laugh at my ignorance. On returning to the street, Irepeated some of the words to one of the females. Shelaughed, and, with much good humour, said, “You will putme out, by speaking to me in that language.”

These facts prove that the Irish Gipsies have the samelanguage as those in Scotland. The English Gipsy is substantiallythe same. There are a great many Irish Gipsiestravelling in Scotland, of whom I will again speak, in thefollowing chapter. They are not easily distinguishedfrom common Irish peasants, except that they are generallyemployed in some sort of traffic, such as hawkingearthen-ware, trinkets, and various other trifles, through thecountry.

It may interest the reader to know how the idea originatedthat the Gipsies, at all events their speech, came, orwas thought to have come, from Hindostan. According toGrellmann, it was in this way:

“The following is an article to be found in the ViennaGazette, from a Captain Szekely, who was thinking ofsearching for (the origin of) the Gipsies, and their language,in the East Indies: In the year 1763, on the 6th of November,a printer, whose name was Stephen Pap Szathmar Nemethi,came to see me. Talking upon various subjects, weat last fell upon that of the Gipsies; and my guest relatedto me the following anecdote, from the mouth of a preacherof the Reformed Church, Stephen Vali, at Almasch. Whenthe said Vali studied at the University of Leyden, he wasintimately acquainted with some young Malabars, of whomthree are obliged constantly to study there; nor can they returnhome till relieved by three others. Having observed thattheir native language bore a great affinity to that spokenby the Gipsies, he availed himself of the opportunity to notedown from themselves upwards of one thousand words, togetherwith their significations. After Vali was returnedfrom the University, he informed himself of the Raber Gipsies,[330]concerning the meaning of his Malabar words, whichthey explained without trouble or hesitation.”[216]

None of the Scottish Gipsy words have as yet, I believe,been collated with the Hindostanee, the supposed mothertongue of the Gipsies.[217] I showed my list to a gentlemanlately from India, who, at first sight, pointed out, fromamong several hundred words and sentences scatteredthrough these pages, about thirty-nine which very closely resembledHindostanee. But in ascertaining the origin of theGipsies, the traveller, Dr. Bright, thinks it would be desirableto procure some of the speech of the lowest classes inIndia, and compare it with the Gipsy, as spoken in Europe;for the purpose of showing, more correctly, the affinity ofthe two languages. He supposes, as I understand him, thatthe terms used by the despised and unlettered Gipsieswould probably resemble more closely the vulgar idiom ofthe lowest castes in India, than the Hindostanee spoken bythe higher ranks, or that which is to be found in books.The following facts show that Dr. Bright’s conjectures arenot far from the truth.

I had occasion at one time to be on board of a vessellying in the harbour of Limekilns, Fifeshire, where I observeda black man, acting as cook, of the name of JohnLobbs, about twenty-five years of age, and a native of Bombay,who could neither read nor write any language whatever.He stated that he was now a Christian, and hadbeen baptized by the name of John. He had been absentfrom India three years, as cabin boy, in several British vessels,and spoke English well. He appeared to be of a lowcaste in his native land, but sharpened by his contact withEuropeans. Recollecting Dr. Bright’s hint, it occurred to[331]me that this Hindoo’s vulgar dialect might resemble thelanguage of our Scottish Gipsies. I repeated to him aboutone hundred and eighty Gipsy words and expressions. Thegreater part were familiar to his ear, but many of themthat meant one thing in Gipsy, had quite a different significationin his speech. I shall, however, give the followingGipsy words, with the corresponding words of Lobb’s language,and the English opposite.[218]

My informant understood, he said, two of the dialects ofHindostan, the one called the Hindoo, and the other theMoors’ language. The former, he said, the English in[334]India generally spoke, but understood little of the latter;and that he himself did not know a word of the languageof the Brahmins. When he failed to produce, in the Moors’language, the word corresponding to the Gipsy one, he frequentlyfound it in what he called the Hindoo speech. Thegreater part of the Gipsy words, as I have already mentioned,were familiar to his ear; but many of them thatsignified one thing in his speech, meant quite another inGipsy. For example, the wordGraunagie, in Gipsy, signifiesabarn; with Lobbs, it meant anold rich man.Coories,bed clothes or blankets, signified, in Lobbs’ dialect,ornamentsfor the ears.Dill, a servant maid, according to Lobbs,was achurch.Shan davies, a bad day, was the Hindostaneeforholiday.Managie, a woman, signifies thenameof a person, such as John or James.Chavo, a son, meantafemale child; andPooklie, hulled barley,anythingfine. The two Gipsy wordsCallo andRat are black andnight; but, according to Lobbs,Callorat is simply anythingdark.[220]

To confirm my collection of Scottish Gipsy words, I willcollate some of those which I sent to Sir Walter Scott, forexamination but not for publication, with those to be foundin Mr. Baird’s report, a publication which I first saw in1842.

[336]The following Scottish Gipsy words appear to have somerelation to the Sanscrit:

In order to show the relationship of the language of theGipsies in Scotland, England, Germany, Hungary, Spain, andTurkey, and the affinity between it and the Persian, Hindostanee,Sanscrit, Pali, and Kawi, I append a table containingthe first ten numerals in all these tongues:[337]

[338]That the Gipsy language, in Scotland, is intermixed withcant, or slang, and other words, is certain, as will appear by thespecimens I have exhibited.[222] I am inclined to believe, however,that were the cant and slang used by our flash men andothers carefully examined, much of it would turn out to becorrupted Hindostanee, picked up from the Gipsies. I have,after considerable trouble, produced, and, I may venture tosay, faithfully recorded, the raw materials as I found them:to separate the other words from the original and genuineGipsy, is a task I leave to the learned philologist. I shallonly observe, that the way in which the Gipsy language hasbeen corrupted is this: That whenever the Gipsies findwords not understood by the people among whom theytravel, they commit such to memory, and use them in theirconversation, for the purpose of concealment. In the Lowlandsof Scotland, for example, they make use of Gaelic,[223] Welsh,Irish, and French words. These picked-up words and termshave, in the end, become part of their own peculiar tongue;yet some of the Gipsies are able to point out a number ofthese foreign words, as distinguished from their own. Inthis manner do the Gipsies carry along with them part ofthe language of every country through which they pass.[224]

[339]In concluding my account of the Scottish Gipsy language,I may observe, that I think few who have perused my detailswill hesitate for a moment in pronouncing that thepeople have migrated from Hindostan. Many convincingproofs of the origin of the race have been adduced by Grellmann,Hoyland, and Bright; and I think that my researches,made in Scotland alone, have confirmed the statements ofthese respectable authors.

The question which now remains to be solved is this:From what tribe or nation at present in, or originally from,Hindostan are the Gipsies descended? That they havebeen a robber or predatory nation, from principle as wellas practice, I am convinced little doubt can be entertained.Even yet, the greater the art and address displayed in committinga dexterous theft or robbery, the higher is the meritof such an action esteemed among their fraternity. I amalso convinced that this general, or national, propensity toplunder has been the chief cause of the Gipsies concealingtheir origin, language, customs, and religious observances,at the time they entered the territories of civilized nations,and up to this time. The intelligent old Gipsy, whose acquaintanceI made at St. Boswell’s, distinctly told me, thathis tribe were originally a nation of thieves and robbers;and it is quite natural to suppose that, when they foundtheft and robbery punished with such severity, in civilizedsociety, everything relating to them would be kept a profoundsecret.

The tribe in India whose customs, manners, and habitshave the greatest resemblance to those of the Gipsies, aretheNuts, orBazegurs; an account of which is to be foundin the 7th volume of the Asiatic Researches, page 451. InBlackwood’s Magazine we find the following paragraph relativeto these Nuts, or Bazegurs, which induces a belief thatthese people are a branch of the Gipsy nation, and a tribeof the highest antiquity. They are even supposed to be thewild, aboriginal inhabitants of India.

[340]“A lady of rank, who has resided some time in India,lately informed me that the Gipsies are to be found there,in the same way as in England, and practise the same arts ofposture-making and tumbling, fortune-telling, stealing, andso forth. The Indian Gipsies are called Nuts, or Bazegurs,and they are believed by many to be the remains of anaboriginal race, prior even to the Hindoos, and who havenever adopted the worship of Bramah. They are entirelydifferent from the Parias, who are Hindoos that have lostcaste, and so become degraded.”

The Nuts, or Bazegurs, under the name of Decoits orDukyts, are, it seems, guilty of frequently sacrificing victimsto the goddess Calie, under circumstances of horror andatrocity scarcely credible. Now the old Gipsy, who gaveme the particulars relative to the Gipsy sacrifice of thehorse, stated that sometimes both woman and horse weresacrificed, when the woman, by the action of the horse, wasfound to have greatly offended.

In the ordinances of Menu, the Nuts, or Bazegurs, are calledNata. Now, our Scottish Gipsies, at this moment, callthemselvesNawkens, a word not very dissimilar in sound toNata. When I have spoken to them, in their own words,I have been asked, “Are you anawken?” a word to whichthey attach the meaning of awanderer, ortraveller—onewho can do any sort of work for himself that may be requiredin the world.

[189] Before considering this trait in the character of the Scottish Gipsies,it may interest the reader to know that the same peculiarity obtains amongthose on the continent.

Of the Hungarian Gipsies, Grellmann writes: “It will be recollected, fromthe first, how great a secret they make of their language, and how suspiciousthey appear when any person wishes to learn a few words of it.Even if the Gipsy is not perverse, he is very inattentive, and is consequentlylikely to answer some other rather than the true Gipsy word.”

Of the Hungarian Gipsies, Bright says: “No one, who has not had experience,can conceive the difficulty of gaining intelligible information, frompeople so rude, upon the subject of their language. If you ask for a word,they give you a whole sentence; and on asking a second time, they givethe sentence a totally different turn, or introduce some figure altogethernew. Thus it was with our Gipsy, who, at length, tired of our questions,prayed most piteously to be released; which we granted him, only on conditionof his returning in the evening.”

Of the Spanish Gipsies, Mr. Borrow writes: “It is only by listeningattentively to the speech of the Gitanos, whilst discoursing among themselves,that an acquaintance with their dialect can be formed, and by seizingupon all unknown words, as they fall in succession from their lips. Nothingcan be more useless and hopeless than the attempt to obtain possessionof their vocabulary, by enquiring of them how particular objects and ideasare styled in the same; for, with the exception of the names of the mostcommon things, they are totally incapable, as a Spanish writer has observed,of yielding the required information; owing to their great ignorance, theshortness of their memories, or, rather, the state of bewilderment to whichtheir minds are brought by any question which tends to bring their reasoningfaculties into action; though, not unfrequently, the very words whichhave been in vain required of them will, a minute subsequently, proceedinadvertently from their mouths.”

What has been said by the two last-named writers is very wide of themark; Grellmann, however, hits it exactly. The Gipsies have excellent memories.It is all they have to depend on. If they had not good memories, howcould they, at the present day, speak a word of their language at all? Thedifficulty in question is down-right shuffling, and not a want of memory onthe part of the Gipsy. The present chapter will throw some light on thesubject. Even Mr. Borrow himself gives an ample refutation to his sweepingaccount of the Spanish Gipsies, in regard to their language; for, in anotherpart of his work, he says: “I recited the Apostles’ Creed to theGipsies, sentence by sentence, which they translated as I proceeded. Theyexhibited the greatest eagerness and interest in their unwonted occupation,and frequently broke into loud disputes as to the best rendering, many beingoffered at the same time. I then read the translation aloud, whereuponthey raised a shout of exultation, and appeared not a little proud of thecomposition.” On this occasion, Mr. Borrow evidently had the Gipsies inthe right humour—that is, off their guard, excited, and much interested inthe subject. He says, in another place: “The language they speak amongthemselves, and they are particularly anxious to keep others in ignoranceof it.” As a general thing, they seem to have been bored by people muchabove them in the scale of society; with whom, their natural politeness,and expectations of money or other benefits, would naturally lead them todo anything than give them that which it is inborn in their nature tokeep to themselves.—Ed.

[190] This opinion is confirmed by the fact that the Gipsies whom the Rev.Mr. Crabbe has civilized will not now be seen among the others of thetribe, at his annual festival, at Southampton. We have already seen, underthe head of Continental Gipsies, that “those who are gold-washers inTransylvania and the Banat have no intercourse with others of their nation;nor do they like to be called Gipsies.”

[191] On the whole, however, our Scottish peasantry, in some districts, donot greatly despise the Tinklers; at least not to the same extent as theinhabitants of some other countries seem to do. When not involved inquarrels with the Gipsies, our country people, with the exception of a considerableportion of the land-owners, were, and are even yet, rather fondof thesuperior families of thenomadic class of these people, than otherwise.

[192] Their (the female’s) speech is as fluent, and their eyes as unabashed, inthe presence of royalty, as before those from whom they have nothing tohope or fear; the result of which is, that most minds quail before them.—Borrowon the Spanish Gipsies.—Ed.

[193] This woman evidently mistook our author for a Gipsygent, such as heis described atpage 169.—Ed.

[194] It would be well for the reader to consider what aGipsy is, irrespectiveof thelanguage which he speaks; for therace comesbefore thespeechwhich it uses. That will be done fully in myDisquisition on the Gipsies.The language, considered in itself, however interesting it may be, is a secondaryconsideration; it may ultimately disappear, while the people whonow speak it will remain.—Ed.

[195] The Gipsies are always afraid to say what they would do in such cases.Perhaps they don’t know, but have only a general impression that the individualwould “catch it;” or there may be some old law on the subject.What Ruthven said of her’s being a desperate race is true enough, andmurderous too, among themselves as distinguished from the inhabitantsgenerally. Her remark was evidently part of thatfrightening policy whichkeeps the natives from molesting the tribe. Seepage 44.—Ed.

[196] Ponqueville, in his travels, says that the Gipsies in the Levant haveno words in their language to express either God or the soul. Of tenwords of the Greek Gipsy, given by him, five of them are in use in Scotland.—Paris,1820.

[The Gipsy for God, according to Grellmann, isDewe,Dewel,Dewol,Dewla.]—Ed.

[197] Had a German listened a whole day to a Gipsy conversation, he wouldnot have understood a single expression.—Grellmann.

The dialect of the English Gipsies, though mixed with English, is tolerablypure, from the fact of its being intelligible to the race in the centre ofRussia.—Borrow.—Ed.

[198] This letter is interesting to the extent that it illustrates the amount ofknowledge possessed by the Scottish community, generally, regarding thesubject of the Gipsies.—Ed.

[199] Sir Walter Scott was disposed to think that our Gipsy population wasrather exaggerated at five thousand souls; but when families such as theabove mentioned are taken into account—leaving alone those who may beclassed as settled Gipsies—I am convinced that their number is not over-estimated.

[Not being in possession of sufficient information on the subject of theGipsies, the opinion of Sir Walter Scott, on the point in question, amountedto nothing. See the Index, forSir Walter Scott’s ideas of the ScottishGipsy population.—Ed.]

[200] In speaking of the more original kind of Gipsy, Grellmann says: “NoGipsy has ever signalized himself in literature, notwithstanding many ofthem have partaken of the instruction to be obtained at public schools.Their volatile disposition and unsteadiness will not allow them to completeanything which requires perseverance or application. In the midst of hiscareer of learning, the recollection of his origin seizes him; he desires toreturn to what he thinks a more happy manner of life; this solicitude encreases;he gives up all at once, turns back again, and consigns over hisknowledge to oblivion.”

There are too many circumstances surrounding such a Gipsy to remindhim of his origin, and arrest him in his career of learning: for his racenever having been tolerated—that is, no position ever having been assignedit, he feels as if he were a vagabond, if known or openly avowed to thepublic as a member of the tribe. And this, in itself, is sufficient to discouragesuch a Gipsy in every effort towards improvement.—Ed.

[201] On mentioning to Sir Walter Scott, when at Abbotsford, that the Gipsieswere very partial to Hughie the Græme, he caused his eldest daughter,afterwards Mrs. Lockhart, to sing this ancient Border song, which shereadily did, accompanying her voice with the harp. We were, at the time,in the room which contained his old armour and other antiquities; to whichplace he had asked me, after tea, to hear his daughter play on the harp.She sang Hughie the Græme, in a plain, simple, unaffected manner, exactlyin the style in which I have heard the humble country-girls singing thesame song, in the south of Scotland. Sir Walter was much interested aboutthe Gipsies; and when I repeated to him a short sentence in their speech,he, with great feeling, exclaimed, “Poor things! do you hear that?” Thiswas the first time, I believe, that he ever heard a Scottish Gipsy wordpronounced. It appeared to me that the mind of the great magician wasnot wholly divested of the fear that the Gipsies might, in some way orother, injure his young plantations.

[202] Seepages 58 and65.—Ed.

[203] These sixteen farms embraced about 25,000 acres of mountainous land,maintained 13,000 sheep, 100 goats, 250 cattle, 50 horses, 20 draught-oxen,and 60 dogs; 29 shepherds, 26 other servants, and 15 cotters, making,with their families, 228 souls, supported by my ancestor’s property, as thatof a Scotch gentleman-farmer. On the farms mentioned, which lay in Mid-Lothian,Tweed-dale, and Selkirkshire, the Gipsies were allowed to remainas long as they pleased; and no loss was ever sustained by the indulgence.

[204] I am convinced the Gipsies have a method of communicating with oneanother by their hands and fingers, and it is likely this man tried me, inthat way, both at the fair and in his own house. I know a man who hasseen the Gipsies communicating their thoughts to each other in this way.

“Bargains among the Indians are conducted in the most profound silence,and by merely touching each other’s hands. If the seller takes the wholehand, it implies a thousand rupees or pagodas; five fingers import fivehundred; one finger, one hundred; half a finger, fifty; a single joint onlyten. In this manner, they will often, in a crowded room, conclude the mostimportant transactions, without the company suspecting that anythingwhatever was doing.”—Historical Account of Travels in Asia, by HughMurray.

“Method of the English selling their cargoes, at Jedda, to the Turks:Two Indian brokers come into the room to settle the price, one on the partof the Indian captain, the other on that of the buyer or Turk. They areneither Mahommedans nor Christians, but have credit with both. They sitdown on the carpet, and take an Indian shawl, which they carry on theirshoulders like a napkin, and spread it over their hands. They talk, in themeantime, indifferent conversation, of the arrival of ships from India, or ofthe news of the day, as if they were employed in no serious business whatever.After about twenty minutes spent in handling each other’s fingers,below the shawl, the bargain is concluded, say for nine ships, without oneword ever having been spoken on the subject, or pen or ink used in anyshape whatever.”—Bruce’s Travels.

[205] It is interesting to notice the reason for this old Gipsy chief being sobackward in giving our author some of his language. “He was ashamedto do it.” Pity it is that there should be a man in Scotland, who, independentof personal character, should be ashamed of such a thing. Then, seehow the Gipsy woman, in our author’s house, said that “the public wouldlook upon her with horror and contempt, were it known she could speak theGipsy language.” And again, the two female Gipsies, who would ratherallow themselves to be murdered, than give the meaning of two Gipsywords to Sauchie colliers, for the reason that “it would have exposed theirtribe, and made themselves odious to the world.” And all for knowing theGipsy language!—which would be considered an accomplishment in anotherperson! What frightful tyranny! Mr. Borrow, as we will by andby see, says a great deal about the law of Charles III, in regard to the prospectsof the Spanish Gipsies. But there is a law above any legislativeenactment—the law of society, of one’s fellow-creatures—which bears sohard upon the Gipsies; the despotism of caste. If Gipsies, in such humblecircumstances, are so afraid of being known to be Gipsies, we can form someidea of the morbid sensitiveness of those in a higher sphere of life.

The innkeeper evidently thought himself in bad company, when our authorasked him for the Tinkler’s house, or that any intercourse with a Tinklerwould contaminate and degrade him. In this light, read an anecdotein the history of John Bunyan, who was one of the same people, as I shallafterwards show. In applying for his release from Bedford jail, his wifesaid to Justice Hale, “Moreover, my lord, I have four small children thatcannot help themselves, of which one is blind, and we have nothing to liveupon but the charity of good people.” Thereat, Justice Hale, looking verysoberly on the matter, said, “Alas, poor woman!” “What is his calling?”continued the judge. And some of the company, that stood by, said, (evidentlyin interruption, and with a bitter sneer,) “A Tinker, my lord!”“Yes,” replied Bunyan’s wife, “and because he is a Tinker, and a poorman, therefore he is despised, and cannot have justice.” Noble woman!wife of a noble Gipsy! If the world wishes to know who John Bunyanreally was, it can find him depicted in our author’s visit to this ScottishGipsy family, where it can also learn the meaning of Bunyan, at a timewhen Jews were legally excluded from England, taking so much trouble toascertain whether he was of that race, or not. From the present workgenerally, the world can learn the reason why Bunyan said nothing of hisancestry and nationality, when giving an account of his own history.—Ed.

[206]Sallah, in the Scottish Gipsy speech, properly signifies accursed, or detested.It is one of the most abusive expressions that can be used towardsyour fellow creatures. Nothing terrifies a young Gipsy so much as to bawlout to him, “Sallah, jaw drom,” which, in plain English, nearly means,“You accursed, take the road.”

It appears that, in Hindostanee,Salla is a word of the highest reproach,and that nothing can provoke a Hindoo so much as the applying of it tohim. When cursing and swearing, by what would appear to be the Deity,the Gipsies make use of the wordSallahen.

[207]Nawken has a number of significations, such as Tinkler, Gipsy, a wanderer,a worker in iron, a man who can do anything for himself in themechanical arts, &c., &c.

[208] The tradition among the Scottish Gipsies of being Ethiopians, whateverweight the reader may attach to it, dates as far back, at least, as theyear 1615; for it is mentioned in the remission under the privy seal,granted to William Auchterlony, of Cayrine, for resetting John Faa andhis followers.Seepage 113.—Ed.

[209] The Scottish Gipsies have doubtless an oral literature, like their brethrenin other countries. It would be strange indeed if they did not rank ashigh, in that respect, as many of the barbarous tribes in the world. Peopleso situated, with no written language, are wonderfully apt at picking up,and retaining, any composition that contains poetry and music, to whichoral literature is chiefly confined. In that respect, their faculties, like thoseof the blind, are sharpened by the wants which others do not experience inindulging a feeling common to all mankind.

A striking instance of a people, unacquainted with the art of writing,possessing a literature, is said to have been found in Hawaii; and to suchan extent, as to “possess a force and compass that, at the beginning of thestudy of it, would not have been credited.”—Ed.

[210] A song which a female Gipsy sang to Mr. Borrow, at Moscow, commencedin this way, “Her head is aching with grief, as if she had tastedwine;” and ended thus, “That she may depart in quest of the lord of herbosom, and share his joys and pleasures.”—Ed.

[211] Smith, in his “Hebrew people,” writes: “The Jews had almost lost, intheseventy years’ captivity, their original language; that was now becomedead; and they spoke a jargon made up of their own language and that ofthe Chaldeans, and other nations with whom they had mingled. Formerly,preachers had only explained subjects; now, they were obliged to explainwords; words which, in the sacred code, were become obsolete, equivocal,dead.”—Ed.

[212] The Gipsies have been much annoyed, in late times, by people anxiousto find out their secrets. The circumstance caused them, at first, muchalarm as to what it meant; but when they came to learn the object of thismodern Gipsy-hunting, they became, in a measure, reconciled to their troubles;for they were perfectly satisfied that the labours of these inquisitivepeople would, in the language of Ruthven, “be in vain.” But the attemptof our author, with his “open sesame,” caused not a few of them to travelthrough life with the weight of a millstone hanging about their necks,which the publication, now, is perhaps calculated to lighten. The “givingto the world everything relative to their tribe,” was something they weremore apt to over than under estimate. To be “put in the papers,” judgingfrom the horror with which such is regarded by our own humble people,was bad enough; still, the end of that would, in their peculiar way ofthinking, be merely the “lighting of the candles, and curling the hair, ofthe gentle folk.” But to have themselves put in a book—to see themselves,in their imaginations, “carried about in every bit herd-laddie’s pouch,” wassomething that aggravated them. The presumptuous pride, the overweeningconceit of a high-mettled Scottish Gipsy; his boasted descent—a descentat once high, illustrious, and lost in antiquity; his unbounded contemptfor the rabble of town and country—rendered him, under the circumstances,almost incapable of brooking the idea of seeing his raceexposed to, what he would consider, the ridicule of the very herds. Thevery idea of it was to him mortifying and maddening. Well might ourauthor, from having been so much mixed up with the Gipsies, show somehesitancy ere taking a step that would have brought such a nest of hornetsabout his ears. But, all things considered, my impression is, that the outdoorGipsies, at the present day, will feel extremely proud of the presentwork; and that the same may be said of all classes of them, if one subjecthad been excluded from the volume, over which they will be very apt togrowl a little in secret.—Ed.

[213] A lady, who had been seventeen years in India, told me that “Chee,chee” was, in Hindostanee, an expression of reproof, corresponding exactlywith our “Fie, shame!” “Oh fie, shame!”

[214] About four years after this occurrence, I was invited to dine at thehouse of a friend, with whose wife I was not acquainted. On being introducedto her, I was rather surprised at the repeated hard looks which she took atme. At last she said, “I think I have seen you before. Were you neverengaged with a band of thimble-men, near Newhaven?” I said I was,some years ago. “Do you recollect,” continued she, “of a female takingyou by the arm, and urging you to leave them?” I said, “Perfectly.”“Well, then, I am the female; and I yet recollect your words wereChee,chee.” She mentioned the circumstance to her husband at the time; but healways said to her that I must have been only one of the blackguardsthemselves, deceiving her. He would not listen to her when she describedme as not at all like a thimble-rigger, but always answered her, “I tell ye,woman, the man you spoke to was nothing but one of these villains.”

The thimble-riggers who molested Mr. Rose, ship-builder, so much, alsoanswered my Gipsy words distinctly; and, ever afterwards, took off theirhats to me, as I passed them playing at their game.

[The thimble-men here alluded to took up their quarters immediately tothe west of Leith Fort, where the road takes a turn, at a right angle, alittle in front of Mr. Rose’s house, and there takes a similar turn towardsthe west: the best position for carrying on the thimble game. So exasperatedwas this gentleman, when, by every means in his power, he failedto dislodge them, that he sent some of the men from his yard, to erect, onthe spot, a pole, which he covered with sheet-iron, to prevent its being cutdown; and placed on the top of it a board, having this upon it, “Bewareof thimble-riggers and chain-droppers,” with a hand pointing directlybelow. This had no effect, however, for the “knights of the thimble” pursuedtheir game right under it. A gentleman, in passing one day, directedtheir attention to the board, but the only reply he got was, “Bah! that’snothing. Where can you find a shop without a sign? and where’s theother person that gets a sign from the public for nothing?”

Thimble-rigging is peculiarly a Gipsy game. In Great Britain, theGipsies nearly monopolize it; and it would be singular if some of theAmerican thimblers were not Gipsies.—Ed.]

[215] There is a Gipsy belonging to one of these bands, known by the soubriquetof the “winged duck,” from having lost an arm, of whom I haveoften heard our author speak. He is what may be called the captain ofthe company. A description of him, and his way of life, may be interesting,inasmuch as it illustrates a class of Scottish Gipsies at the presentday.

About the year 1853, three young gentlemen, from the town of Leith, hadoccasion to take a stroll over Arthur’s Seat, a hill that overhangs Edinburgh,on the east side of the city. In climbing the hill, they observed, alittle way before them, a man toiling up the ascent, whom they did notnotice till they came close upon him, and who had evidently been laying offon the side of the path, and entered it as they approached it. He appearsabout sixty years of age, is well dressed, and carries a fine cane, which hekeeps pressing into the ground, to help him up the hill. Just as they makeup to him, he abruptly stops, and turns round, so as almost to touch them.“Hech, how! I’m blown, I’m blown; I’m fairly done up. Young gentlemen,you have the advantage of me; I’m getting old, and it is hard for meto climb the hill.” (Blown, done up, indeed! The fellow has staminaenough to outclimb any of them for years yet.) An agreeable conversationensues, such as at once gains for him the confidence of the youths. Heappears to them so mild, so bland, so fatherly, so worthy of respect, in short,a “nice old cove,” who is evidently enjoying hisotium cum dignitate in hisold age, in some cottage near by, upon a pension, an annuity, or a moderatecompetency of some sort. During the conversation, he manages to ascertainthat his young friends have not been on the hill for some time—thatone of them, indeed, has never been there before. All at once he exclaims,“Ah! what can this be? Let us go and see.” Upon which they step forwardto look at a person like a mechanic playing at the thimbles. Placinghis arm around the neck of one of the young men, he begins to moralize:“Pray, young gentlemen, don’t bet, (they had not shown the least symptomsof doing that;) it’s wrong to bet; it’s a thing I never do; I would adviseyou not to do it. This is a rascally thimbler; he’ll cheat, he’ll rob you.”At this time there are three playing at the board, winning and losingmoney rapidly. The “old cove” becomes impatient to be gone, and motionsso as to imply, “Boys, let us go, let us go.” Moving a few stepsforward, he halts to admire the scenery, (but casts a leering eye in thedirection of the board.) “Ah! there’s another goose gone to be plucked;let us see what luck he meets with.”

Now thimble rigging is the game, of all others, by which the uninitiatedcan be duped. They see the pea put under one of the thimbles, (nutshellsthey are, indeed;) there seems to be no doubt of that. The thimbles arethen so gently moved, that any one can follow them. The pea is not afterwardstampered with—that is evident. All, then, that remains to be done,is to lift the thimble under which the pea is, and secure your prize. Butthe thimble man, with his long nail, and nimble finger, has secured the peaunder his nail, or, with the crook of his little finger, thrust it into the palmof his hand, while he pretended to cover it with the thimble. An accomplice,to make doubly sure of the pea being under the thimble, lifts it, andshows a pea, which he, by sleight of hand, drops, and, while pretending tocover it, as nimbly takes it up again.

Betting and playing go on as before. The player makes some fine hauls,but loses a game. He swears that foul play has been used. An altercationfollows. The man at the board gets excited, and to show that he really ishonourable in his playing, exclaims, “Well, sir, there’s your money again;try another game if you have a mind.” “Now that is really honest, andno mistake about it,” remarks the “old cove.” Then the thimbler avertshis head, to speak to a person behind him, and the “old cove” slyly lifts athimble and shows the pea, and whispers very confidentially to his friends,“Now, young gentlemen, you can safely bet a few shillings on that.” Theyshake their heads, however, for they know too much about thimbling. The“old cove” now gets fidgety, and, managing to edge a little away from theboard, commences, in a subdued tone, to speak, in a strange gibberish, toanother bystander; but, forgetting himself, drops a word rather louderthan the others, on which, as he turns round and catches the eyes of hisyoung friends, he coughs and hems. On hearing the gibberish, a fear stealsover the young men, on finding themselves surrounded by a band of desperadoes,in so solitary a place, and they make haste to be off. But the“old cove,” to quiet their suspicions, accompanies them to a convenientspot, where he leaves them, to go to his home, by a side-path that soonleads him out of sight. On separating, he looks around him at the scenery,now lets fall his stick, now picks up something, that he may, with less suspicion,watch the movements of his escaped victims. They feel a singularrelief in getting rid of his company, and, with tact, dog him over the hill,till they see him go back to the thimblers. They then think over theiradventure, and the strange jargon they have heard, and unanimously exclaim,“Wasn’t he a slippery old serpent, after all!”

On this occasion, there were no less than fourteen of these fellows present,some of them stationed here, some there, while they kept artfully movingaround and about the hill, so as not to appear connected, but frequentlyapproached the board, to contribute to and watch their luck. They personatedvarious characters. One of them played the country lout, whosedress, gait, gape, and stare were inimitable. On the slightest symptom ofdanger manifesting itself, they would, by the movement of a hat, scatter,and vanish in an instant.

Among the people generally, a mystery attaches to these and otherthimble-men. No one seems to know any thing about them—who they areor where they come from—and yet they are seen flitting everywhere throughthe country; but hardly ever two days together in one dress. But themystery is solved by their being Gipsies. They are dangerous fellows tomeddle with; yet they seem to prefer thimbling, chain-dropping, card-playing,pocket-picking, in fairs and thoroughfares, and pigeon-pluckingin every form, to robbery on the high-way, after the manner of their ancestors.

Thimble-rigging, according to Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, was practisedin ancient Egypt. He calls it “thimble-rig, or the game of cups, underwhich a ball was put, while the opposite party guessed under which of fourit was concealed.”—Ed.

[216] “The opinion, that the Gipsies came originally from India, seems tohave been very early entertained, although it was again soon forgotten, orsilently relinquished. Hieronymus Foroliviensis, in the nineteenth volumeof Muratori, says, that on the 7th day of August, A. D. 1422, 200 of theCingari came to his native town, and remained there two days, on theirway to Rome, and that some of them said that they came from India, ‘etut audivi aliqui dicebant quod erant de Indiâ;’ and the account which Munstergives of what he gathered from one of the Cingari, in 1524, seems toprove that an impression existed amongst them of their having come fromthat country.”—Bright.—Ed.

[217] Mr. Baird’s Missionary Report contained a collation of the ScottishGipsy with Hindostanee, but that appeared considerably after what ourauthor has said was written.—Ed.

[218] Meeting a Bengalee at Peebles, begging money to pay his passage backto India, I repeated to him, from memory, a few of the Gipsy words I hadcollected a week before. After listening attentively, he answered that itwas the Moor’s language I had got, and gave me the English ofpaunie,water, anddavies, day. I took the first opportunity of mentioning this interviewto the Gipsies, observing it was the general opinion that their forefatherscame from India. They, however, persisted in their own tradition,that they were a tribe of Ethiopians, which is believed by all the ScottishGipsies. [Seepages 113 and315.—Ed.]

[219] A lady who resided seventeen years in India, already alluded to, mentionedto me that the pronunciation of the Hindoos is broad, like that ofthe Scotch, particularly where the letter a occurs; and that the Scotchlearn Hindostanee sooner, and more correctly, than the natives of othercountries. For this reason, I am inclined to think that the Scottish Gipsywill have a greater resemblance to Hindostanee than the Gipsy of someother countries.

[220] In the report of the Fourteenth Gipsies’ Festival, held at Southampton,under the superintendence of the Rev. James Crabb, the Gipsies’ friend, onthe 25th December, 1841, is the following statement:

“The above gentleman, (the Rev. J. West, one of the speakers at thefestival,) with the Rev. Mr. Crabb, and two elderly Gipsies, who speak theGipsy language, called, the following morning, on a lady who had longresided in India, and speaks the Hindostanee language; and it was clearthat many of the Rommany (Gipsy) words were pure Hindostanee, andother words strongly resembled that language.”—Hampshire Advertiser,1st January, 1842.

This statement, made some years subsequent to the period at which Itook down the words from Lobbs and the Gipsies in Scotland, is nearly inmy own words, and proves that my opinion, as to the close affinity betweenHindostanee and the Scottish Gipsy language, is correct.

[221] The four last of these numerals, in the Scottish Gipsy language, differ very considerably from the corresponding ones in the Table. I leavethe matter to be settled by philologists.

[222] It is remarkable, considering how much the habits and occupations ofthe Gipsies bring them in contact with beggars, thieves, and other badand disorderly characters, how few of the slang words used by such personshave been adopted by them.—Rev. Mr. Baird’s Missionary Report tothe Scottish Church, 1840.—Ed.

[223] Of the Highland Gipsies, I had the following account from a person ofobservation, and highly worthy of credit: There are many settled in Kintyre,who travel through the Highlands and Lowlands annually. Theycertainly speak, among themselves, a language totally distinct from eitherGaelic or Lowland Scotch.—Blackwood’s Magazine.—Ed.

[224] “There is reason for supposing that the Gipsies had been wandering inthe remote regions of Sclavonia, for a considerable time previous to enteringBohemia—the first civilized country of Europe in which they madetheir appearance; as their language abounds with words of Sclavonicorigin, which could not have been adopted in a hasty passage through awild and half populated country.”—Borrow.

That the Gipsies were, in some way, drawn together, at a very remoteage, and became amalgamated, so as to form a race, can hardly admit of adoubt. But it is an opinion that has no reasonable foundation which supposesthat they suddenly took their departure from India, and travelledtogether, till they entered and spread over Europe. They may, as I haveconjectured in theIntroduction, have separated into bands, and passed intocountries in Asia, as they have done in Europe; and existed in Asia, andAfrica, long before they appeared in Europe. For this reason, their languageought to vary in different countries; and it would be enough toidentify them as the same race, were the substance of their language andtheir customs, or even their cast of mind, the same. In speaking of theHungarian Gipsies, Grellmann says, that their speech contains words fromthe Turkish, Sclavonian, Greek, Latin, Wallachian, Hungarian, and German;but that it would not be absurd to pronounce that there remain more, or atleast different, Gipsy words among those residing in one country than another.—Ed.

CHAPTER X.

PRESENT CONDITION AND NUMBER OF THE GIPSIES IN SCOTLAND.

Every author who has written on the subject of the Gipsieshas, I believe, represented them as all having remarkablydark hair, black eyes, and swarthy complexions. Thisnotion has been carried to such an extent, that Hume, on thecriminal laws of Scotland, thinks the black eyes shouldmake part of the evidence in proving an individual to be ofthe Gipsy race. The Gipsies, in Scotland, of the last century,were of all complexions, varying from light flaxen hair,and blue eyes, and corresponding complexions, to hair ofraven black, dark eyes, and swarthy countenances. Manyof them had deep-red and light-yellow hair, with very faircomplexions. I am convinced that one-half of the Gipsiesin Scotland, at the present day, have blue eyes, instead ofblack ones. According to the statistical account of theparish of Borthwick, Mid-Lothian, (1839,) the Baillies, Wilsons,and Taits, at Middleton, the descendants of the oldTweed-dale Gipsies, are described as, “in general, of acolour rather cadaverous, or of a darkish pale; their cheek-boneshigh; their eyes small, and light coloured; their hairof a dingy white or red colour, and wiry; and their skin,drier and of a tougher texture than that of the people ofthis country.” This question of colour has been illustratedin my enquiry into the history of the Gipsy language; forthe language is the only satisfactory thing by which to testa Gipsy, let his colour be what it may.

In other countries, besides Scotland, the Gipsies are not allof one uniform swarthy hue. A Russian gentleman statedto me that many of the Gipsies in Finland have light hair,and fair complexions. I am also informed there are Gipsiesin Arabia with fair hair.

[342]Among many other mal-practices, the Gipsies have, in allcountries, been accused of stealing children; but what becameof these kidnapped infants, no one appears to havegiven any account, that I am aware of. To satisfy myselfon this trait of their character, I enquired of a Gipsy thereasons which induced his tribe to steal children. He candidlyacknowledged the practice, and said that the stolenchildren were adopted as members of the tribe, and instructedin the language, and all the mysteries of the body.They became, he said, equally hardy, clever, and expert inall the practices of the fraternity. The male Gipsies werevery fond of marrying the stolen females. Some of the kidnappedchildren were made servants, or, rather, a sort ofslaves, to the tribe. They considered that the occasionalintroduction of another race into their own, and mixing theGipsy blood, in that manner, invigorated and strengthenedtheir race. In this manner would the Gipsies alter thecomplexion of their race, by the introduction of foreignblood among them.[225]

[343]Before going into details to show the condition in whichthe Gipsies are at the present day, I will consider, shortly,the causes which have contributed to the change that hascome over their outward circumstances, and driven so manyof them, as it were, “to cover,” in consequence of the unfortunatetimes on which they had fallen; a state of thingswhich, however unfortunate to them, in their peculiar wayof thinking, has been of so much benefit to civilization, andsociety at large.

About the commencement of the American war of independence,in 1775, the Gipsies, in Scotland, occupied a verysingular position in society. Instead of being the proscribed,and, as they thought, persecuted, members of the community,many of them then became thepreservers of the peace andgood order of the country. The country, as appears by theperiodical publications of the day, was, about this time,greatly pestered by rogues and vagabonds. The Gipsieshad art enough to get a number of their chiefs appointedconstables, peace-officers, andcountry-keepers, in severalcounties in Scotland. These public officers were to clearthe country of all idle vagrants, vagabonds, and disturbersof the peace. This was, sure enough, a very extraordinaryemployment for the Gipsies. The situation of country-keeperwas, of all others, the office in society the most completely[344]to their liking. It gave them authority over everyrogue in the country, and they certainly followed out theirinstructions to the very letter. They hunted down, withthe utmost vigilance, every delinquent who was not of theirtribe; but, on the other hand, they took especial care toprotect every individual of their own fraternity, exceptingthose that were obnoxious to themselves. When it agreedwith their inclinations, these Gipsy country-keepers sometimescaused stolen property to be returned to the owners, asif it had been done by magic. It is needless to observe thatthey were themselves the very chiefs of the depredators, buthad generally the dexterity never to be seen in the transactions.[226]

A Gipsy country-keeper was at the height of his vanityand glory, when he got an unfortunate individual of thecommunity into his clutches. In the presence of his captive,he would draw his sword, flourish it in the air, and swear aterrible oath, that he would, at a blow, cut the head fromhis body, if he made the least attempt at escape.

The public services of the Gipsies were in a short timediscontinued, as their conduct only made matters a greatdeal worse. A friend of mine [227] saw those Gipsy constables,for Peebles-shire, sworn into office, at the town of Peebles,when they were first appointed. He said he never sawsuch a set of gloomy, strange-looking fellows, in his life;and expressed his surprise at the conduct of the countymagistrates, for employing such banditti as conservators ofthe public peace. The most extraordinary circumstanceattending their appointment, he said, was, that not one ofthem had a permanent residence within the county.

During the American war, however, the tide of fortuneagain completely turned against the Gipsies. The Governmentwas in need of soldiers and sailors; the Gipsies werea proscribed race; their peculiar habits were continually[345]involving them in serious scrapes and difficulties; the consequencewas, that the Tinklers were apprehended all overthe country, and forced into our fleets and armies thenserving in America. All the aged persons of intelligencewith whom I have conversed on this subject, agree in representingthat the kidnapping system at that period was themeans of greatly breaking up and dispersing the Gipsybands in Scotland. From this blow these unruly vagrantshave never recovered their former position in the country.[228]

The war in America had been concluded only a few yearsbefore that with France broke out. Our army and navywere, of necessity, again augmented to an extent beyondprecedent. It was not difficult to find pretences for renewingthe chase of the Gipsies, and apprehending them, underthe name of vagrants and disorderly persons. They wereagain compelled to enlist into our regiments, and embarkon board our ships of war, as sailors and marines. An individualstated to me that, about the commencement of thiswar, he had seen English Gipsies sent, in scores at a time,on board of men-of-war, in the Downs.

But, rather than be forced into a service so much againsttheir inclinations, numerous instances occurred of Gipsiesvoluntarily mutilating themselves. In the very custody ofpress-gangs, and other hardened kidnappers, the determinedGipsies have, with hatchets, razors, and other sharp instruments,struck from their hands a thumb, or finger or two,to render them unfit for a military life. Several instanceshave come to my knowledge of these resolute acts of theScottish Gipsies. I have myself seen several of the tribewithout fingers; and, on enquiry, I found that they themselveshad struck them from their hands, in consequence oftheir aversion to become soldiers and sailors. One man, ofthe name of Graham, during the last war, laid his hand upona block of wood, and, in a twinkling, struck, with a hatchet,his thumb from one of his hands. Another, of the nameof Gordon, struck two of his fingers from one of his hands[346]with a razor. Such, indeed, was the aversion which thewhole Gipsy race had to a military life, that even motherssometimes mutilated their infants, by cutting off certain fingers,to render them, when they became men, entirely incapableof serving in either the army or navy.[229]

Such causes as these, taken in connection with the improved[347]internal administration of the country, and the progressionof the age, have cast a complexion over the outward aspectof the bulk of the Scottish Gipsy race, entirely differentfrom what it was before they came into existence.

Many of the Gipsies now keep shops of earthen-ware,china, and crystal. Some of them, I am informed on thebest authority, have from one to eight thousand pounds investedin this line of business.[230] I am disposed to think thatfew of these shops were established prior to the commencementof the French war; as I find that several of theirowners travelled the country in their early years. Perhapsthe fear of being apprehended as vagrants, and compelledto enter the army or navy, forced some of the better sort tosettle in towns.[231] Like their tribe in other countries, numbersof our Scottish Gipsies deal in horses; others keeppublic-houses; and some of them, as innkeepers, will, inheritable and moveable property, possess, perhaps, two orthree thousand pounds. These innkeepers and stone-waremerchants are scarcely to be distinguished as Gipsies; yetthey all retain the language, and converse in it, amongthemselves. The females, as is their custom, are particularlyactive in managing the affairs of their respective concerns.

Many of them have betaken themselves to some of theregular occupations of the country, such as coopers, shoemakers,and plumbers; some are masons—an occupation towhich they seem to have a partiality. Some of them aremembers of masons’ lodges. There are many of them itinerantbell-hangers, and umbrella-menders. Among themthere are tin-smiths, braziers, and cutlers, in great numbers;and the tribe also furnish a proportion of chimney-sweeps.I recollect of a Gipsy, who travelled the country, selling[348]earthen-ware, becoming, in the end, a master-sweep. Severalwere, and I believe are, constables; and I am inclined tothink that the police establishments, in large as well assmall towns, contain some of the fraternity.[232] Individualsof the female Gipsies are employed as servants, in the familiesof respectable persons, in town and country. Some ofthem have been ladies’ maids, and even house-keepers toclergymen and farmers.[233] I heard of one, in a very respectablefamily, who was constantly boasting of her ancientand high descent; her father being a Baillie, and hermother a Faa—the two principal families in Scotland.Some of those persons who sell gingerbread at fairs, orwhat the country-people callrowly-powly-men, are also ofthe Gipsy race. Almost all these individuals hawking earthen-warethrough the country, with carts, and a large proportionof those hawking japan and white-iron goods, areGipsies.

Some of the itinerant venders of inferior sorts of jewelry,part of which they also manufacture, and carry about inboxes on their shoulders, are of the tribe; and some ofthem even carry these articles in small, handsome, light-madecarts. I had frequently observed, in my neighbourhood,[349]a very smart-looking and well-dressed man, who, withhis wife and family, and a servant to take care of his children,travelled the country, in a neat, light cart, sellingjewelry. All the family were well dressed. I was curiousto know the origin of this man, and, upon enquiring of oneof the tribe, but of a different clan, I found that he was aGipsy, of the name of Robertson, descended from the oldhorners who traversed the kingdom, about half a centuryago. He still retained the speech, peculiar dance, and mannerof handling the cudgel, the practices and roguish tricksof his ancestors. I believe he also practised chain-dropping.To show the line of life which some of the descendants ofthe old style of Gipsies are now pursuing, in Scotland, I willgive the following anecdote, which I witnessed, relative tothis Gipsy jeweller.

I happened to be conversing, about twenty years ago,with four or five individuals, on a public quay in Fifeshire,when a smart, well-dressed sailor, apparently of the rank ofa mate, obtruded himself on our company. He said he was“a sailor, and had spent all his money in a frolic, as manythoughtless sailors had done;” and, pulling out a watch, hecontinued, “he would give his gold watch for a mere trifle,to supply his immediate wants.” One of the company atonce thought he was an impostor, and told him his watchwas not gold at all, and worth very little money. “Notworth much money!” he exclaimed; “why, I paid not lessthan ten francs for it, in France, the other day!” At thisassertion, all present burst out a laughing at the impostor’signorance in exposing his own trick. “Why, friend,” said aship-master, who was one of the company, “a franc is onlyworth tenpence; so you have paid just eight and fourpencefor this valuable watch of yours. Do not attempt tocheat us in this manner.” At finding himself so completelyexposed, the villain became furious, and stepping close up tothe ship-master, with abusive language,chucked him underthe chin, to provoke him to fight. I at once perceived thatthe feigned sailor was a professional boxer and cudgelist,and entreated the ship-master not to touch him, notwithstandinghis insolence. The “sailor,” now disappointed onall hands, brandished his bludgeon, and retreated backwards,dancing in the Gipsy manner, and twirling hisweapon before him, till he got his back to a wall. Here[350]he set all at defiance, with a design that some one shouldstrike at him, that he might avenge the affront he had received.But he was allowed to go away without interruption.This man was, in short, Robertson, the Gipsy travellingjeweller, disguised as a sailor, and a well-known prize-fighter.

Almost all those cheats called thimble-riggers, who infestthoroughfares, highways and byways, are also Gipsies, of asuperior class. I have tried them by the language, andfound they understood it, as has been seen in my account ofthe Gipsy language.

I need scarcely say, that all those females who travel thecountry in families, selling articles made from horn, whilethe males practise the mysteries of the tinker, are that portionof the Gipsies who adhere more strictly to their ancientcustoms and manner of life. Some of the principal familiesof these nomadic horner bands have yet districts on whichnone others of the tribe dare encroach. This division ofthe Gipsies are, by superficial observers, considered the onlyGipsies in existence in Scotland; which is a great mistake.The author of Guy Mannering, himself, seems to have hadthis class of Gipsies, only, in view, when he says, “There arenot now above five hundred of the tribe in Scotland.”Those who deal in earthen-ware, and work at the tinsmithbusiness, call these horners Gipsies; and nothing can givegreater offence to these Gipsy potters and smiths than toask them if they evermade horn spoons; for, by askingthem this question, you indirectly call them Gipsies, an appellationthat alarms them exceedingly.[234]

Since the termination of the long-protracted French war,the Gipsies have, to some extent, resumed their ancient manners;and many of them are to be seen encamped in theopen fields. There are six tents to be observed at present,for one during the war. To substantiate what I have saidof the numbers and manners of the nomadic Gipsies since[351]the peace, I will give the two following paragraphs, takenfrom the Caledonian Mercury newspaper:

“Tinklers and vagabonds: The country has been muchinfested, of late years, by wandering hordes of vagabonds,who, under pretence of following the serviceable calling oftinkers, assume the name and appearance of such, merely toextort contributions of victuals, and other articles of value,from the country-people, particularly in lonely districts.The evil has encreased rapidly of late, and calls loudly forredress upon those in whose charge the police of the countrydistricts is placed. They generally travel in bands, varyingin number from ten to thirty; and wherever they pitch theircamp, the neighbours are certain of suffering loss of cattleor poultry, unless they submit to pay a species of black-mail,to save themselves from heavier and more irregular contributions.These bands possess all the vices peculiar to theregular Gipsies, without any of the extenuating qualitieswhich distinguish these foreign tribes. Unlike the latter,they do not settle in one place sufficiently long to attachthemselves to the soil, or to particular families; and seempossessed of no industrious habits, but those of plunder,knavery, and riot. The chief headquarters of the hordesare at the caves of Auchmithie, on the east coast of Forfarshire;from which, to the wilds of Argyleshire, seems tobe the usual route of their bands; small detachments beingsent off, at intermediate places, to extend the scene of theirplunder. Their numbers have been calculated by one wholives on the direct line of their passage, through the braesof Perthshire, and who has had frequent opportunities forobservation; and he estimates them at several hundred.”—22dAugust, 1829.

“A horde of Gipsies and vagabonds encamped, last week,in a quarry, on the back of the hill opposite Cherry-bank.Their number amounted to about thirty. The inhabitantsin that quarter became alarmed; and Provost Ross, whosemansion is in the vicinity of the new settlers, ordered out astrong posse of officers from Perth, to dislodge them; whichthey effected. The country is now kept in continual terrorby these vagabonds, and it will really be imperative on thelanded proprietors to adopt some decided measure for thesuppression of this growing evil.”—3d October, 1829.[235]

[352]A gentleman informed me that, in the same year, hecounted, in Aberdeenshire, thirty-five men, women, and children,in one band, with six asses and two carts, for carryingtheir luggage and articles of merchandise. Another individualstated to me, that upwards of three hundred of theGipsies attended the funeral of one of their old females,who died near the bridge of Earn. So late as 1841, thesheriff of East Lothian addressed a representation to thejustices of the peace of Mid-Lothian, recommending a newlaw for the suppression of the numerous Gipsy tents in theLothians. I have, myself, during a walk of two hours,counted, in Edinburgh and its suburbs, upwards of fifty ofthese vagrants, strolling about.[236]

When I visited St. Boswell’s, I felt convinced, as mentionedin the last chapter, that there were upwards of three hundredGipsies in the fair held at that place. Part of them formedtheir carts, laden with earthen-ware, into two lines, leaving aspace between them, like a street. In the rear of the cartswere a few small tents, in which were Gipsies, sleeping inthe midst of the noise and bustle of the market; and numbersof children, horses, asses, and dogs, hanging aroundthem. There were also kettles, suspended from triangles, inwhich victuals were cooking; and many of the Gipsies enjoyeda warm meal, while others at the market had to contentthemselves with a cold repast. In the midst of thethrong of this large and crowded fair, I noticed, without theleast discomposure on their part, some of the male Gipsieschanging their dirty, greasy-looking shirts for clean ones,[353]leaving no covering on their tawny persons, but theirbreeches; and some of the old females, with bare shouldersand breasts, combing their dark locks, like black horses’tails, mixed with grey. “Ae whow! look at that,” exclaimeda countryman to his companion; and, without waitingfor his friend’s reply, he gravely added: “Everythingafter its kind.” The Gipsies were, in short, dressing themselvesfor the fair, in the midst of the crowd, regardless ofeverything passing around them.

On my return from the English Border, I passed over thefield where the fair had been held, two days before, andfound, to my surprise, the Gipsies occupying their originalencampment. They, alone, were in possession of St. Boswell’sGreen. I counted twenty-four carts, thirty horses, twentyasses, and about thirty dogs; and I thought there were upwardsof a hundred men, women, and children, on the spot.The horses were, in general, complete rosinantes—as lean,worn-out, wretched-looking animals, as possibly could be imagined.The field trampled almost to mortar, by the multitudeof horses, cattle, and sheep, and human beings, at thefair; the lean, jaded and lame horses, braying asses, andsurly-looking dogs; the groups of miserable furniture, raggedchildren, and gloomy-looking parents; a fire, here and there,smoking before as many miserable tents—when contrastedwith the gaily-dressed multitude, of both sexes, on the spot,two days before—presented a scene unequalled for itswretched, squalid and desolate appearance. Any one desirousof viewing an Asiatic encampment, in Scotland, should visitSt. Boswell’s Green, a day or two after the fair.[237]

The following may be said to be about the condition inwhich the present race of Scottishtinkering Gipsies are to[354]be found: I visited, at one time, a horde of Gipsy tinsmiths,bivouacked by the side of a small streamlet, about half amile from the town of Inverkeithing. It consisted of threemarried couples, the heads of as many families, one grown-up,unmarried female, and six half-clad children below sixyears of age. Including the more grown-up members, scatteredabout in the neighbourhood, begging victuals, theremust have been above twenty souls belonging to this band.The tinsmiths had two horses and one ass, for carryingtheir luggage, and several dogs. They remained, duringthree cold and frosty nights, encamped in the open fields,with no tents or covering, for twenty individuals, but twopairs of old blankets.[238] Some of the youngest children, however,were pretty comfortably lodged at night. The bandhad several boxes, or rather old chests, each about four feetlong, two broad, and two deep, in which they carried theirwhite-iron plates, working tools, and some of their infants,on the backs of their horses. In these chests the childrenpassed the night, the lids being raised a little, to preventsuffocation. The stock of working tools, for each family,consisted of two or three files, as many small hammers, apair of bellows, a wooden mallet, a pair of pincers, a pair oflarge shears, a crucible, a soldering-iron or two, and a smallanvil, of a long shape, which was stuck into the ground.

The females as well as the males of this horde of Gipsieswere busily employed in manufacturing white-iron intohousehold utensils, and the clink of their hammers was[355]heard from daybreak till dark.[239] The males formed theplates into the shapes of the different utensils required, andthe females soldered and otherwise completed them, whilethe younger branches of the families presented them for salein the neighbourhood. The breakfast of the band consistedof potatoes and herrings, which the females and childrenhad collected in the immediate neighbourhood by begging.I noticed that each family ate their meals by themselves,wrought at their calling by themselves, and sold their goodsfor themselves. The name of the chief of the gang wasWilliamson, who said he travelled in the counties of Fifeand Perth. When I turned to leave them, they heaped uponme the most fulsome praises, and so loud, that I might distinctlyhear them, exactly in the manner as those in Spain,mentioned by Dr. Bright.

I have, for many months running, counted above twentyGipsies depart out of the town of Inverkeithing, about teno’clock in the forenoon, every day, on their way to variousparts of the country; and I have been informed that fromtwenty to thirty vagrants lodged in this small burgh nightly.Some of the bakers declared that the persons who were theworst to please with hot rolls for breakfast, were the beggars,or rather Gipsies, who frequented the place. On oneoccasion, I observed twelve females, without a single maleamong them, decamp out of the town, all travelling in andaround a cart, drawn by a shagged pony. The whole partywere neatly attired, some of the young girls having trowsers,with frills about their ankles; and very few wouldhave taken them for Gipsies. A large proportion of thosemiserable-looking females, who are accompanied by a numberof ragged children, and scatter themselves through thestreets, and beg from door to door, are Gipsies. I do notrecollect, distressing as the times ever have been, of havingseen reduced Scotch tradesmenbegging in families. Iremember once seeing a man with a white apron wrappedaround his waist, his coat off, an infant in his arms, and[356]two others at his feet, accompanied by a dark-looking fellowof about twenty, singing through the town mentioned. Theyrepresented themselves as broken-down tradesmen, and hadthe appearance of having just left their looms, to sing forbread; and many half-pence they received. Suspectingthem to be impostors, I observed their motions, and soonsaw them join other vagrants, outside of the town, amongwhom were females. The poor tradesmen were nowdressed in very substantial drab surtouts. They werenothing but a family of Tinklers. They were proceeding,with great speed, to the next town, to practise theirimpositions on the inhabitants; and I learned that theyhad, in this manner, traversed several counties in Scotland.At a subsequent period, I fell in with another family, consistingof five children and their parents, driving an ass andits colt, near the South Queensferry. Upon the back of theass were two stone-hammers, and two reaping-hooks, placedin such a manner as any one, in passing, might observethem. I enquired where they had been. “We have beenin England, sir, seeking work, but could find none.” Fewwould have taken them for anything but country labourers;but the truth was, they were a family of Gipsies, of thewell-known name of Marshall, from about Stranraer. Theirimplements of industry, so conspicuously exhibited on theback of their ass, was all deception.

It is only about twenty-five years since the Irish Gipsies,in bands, made their appearance in Scotland. Many severeconflicts they had with our Scottish tribes, before they obtaineda footing in the country. But there is a new swarm ofIrish Gipsies at present scattered, in bands, over Scotland,all acquainted with the Gipsy language. They are a set ofthe most wretched creatures on the face of the earth. Ahorde of them, consisting of several families, encamped, atone time, at Port Edgar, on the banks of the Forth, nearSouth Queensferry. They had three small tents, two horses,and four asses, and trafficked in an inferior sort of earthen-ware.On the outside of one of the tents, in the open air,with nothing but the canopy of heaven above her, and thegreensward beneath her, one of the females, like the deerin the forest, brought forth a child, without either the infantor mother receiving the slightest injury.[240] The woman,[357]however, was attended by a midwife from Queensferry, whosaid that these Irish Gipsies were so completely coveredwith filth and vermin, that she durst not enter one of theirtents, to assist the female in labour. Several individualswere attracted to the spot, by the novelty of such an occurrence,in so unusual a place as the open fields. Immediatelyafter the child was born, it was handed about to every oneof the band, that they might look at the “young donkey,”as they called it. In about two days after the accouchement,the horde proceeded on their journey, as if nothinghad happened.[241]

[358]But there are Irish Gipsies of a class much superior tothe above, in Scotland. In 1836, a very respectable andwealthy master-tradesman informed me that the whole ofthe individuals employed in his manufactory, in Edinburgh,were Irish Gipsies.[242]

The Gipsies do not appear to have been altogether free fromthe crime of destroying their offspring, when, by infirmities,they could not be carried along with them in their wanderings,and thereby became an encumbrance to them. It has,indeed, been often noticed that few, or no, deformed orsickly individuals are to be found among them.[243] The followingappears to be an instance of something like the practicein question. A family of Gipsies were in the habit ofcalling periodically, in their peregrinations over the country,at the house of a lady in Argyleshire. They frequentlybrought with them a daughter, who was ailing of some lingeringdisorder. The lady noticed the sickly child, andoften spoke kindly to her parents about her condition. Onone occasion, when the family arrived on her premises, shemissed the child, and enquired what had become of her, andwhether she had recovered. The father said his daughterwas “a poor sickly thing, not worth carrying about withthem,” and that he had “made away with her.” Whetherany notice was taken of this murder, by the authorities, is[359]not mentioned. The Gipsies, however, are generally notedfor a remarkable attachment to their children.[244]

Several authors have brought a general charge ofcowardice against the Gipsies, in some of the countries ofEurope; but I never saw or heard of any grounds forbringing such a charge against the Scottish Gipsies. Onthe contrary, I always considered our Tinklers the veryreverse of cowards. Heron, in his journey through part ofScotland, before the year 1793, when speaking of the Gipsiesin general, says: “They make excellent soldiers, wheneverthe habit of military discipline can be sufficiently impressedupon them.” Several of our Scottish Gipsies have evenenjoyed commissions, as has already been noticed.[245] But the[360]military is not a life to their taste, as we have already seen;for, rather than enter it, they will submit to even personalmutilation. There is even danger in employing them in ourregiments at the seat of war; as I am convinced that, ifthere are any Gipsies in the ranks of the enemy, an improperintercourse will exist between them in both armies.During the last rebellion in Ireland, the Gipsy soldiers inour regiments kept up an intimate and friendly correspondencewith their brethren among the Irish rebels.[246]

The Scottish Gipsies have ever been distinguished fortheir gratitude to those who treated them with civility andkindness, during their progress through the country. The[361]particulars of the following instance of a Gipsy’s gratitudeare derived from a respectable farmer, to whom one of thetribe offered assistance in his pecuniary distress. I waswell acquainted with both of them. The occurrence, whichtook place only about ten years ago, will show that gratitudeis still a prominent feature in the character of the ScottishGipsy.

The farmer became embarrassed in his circumstances, inthe spring of the year, when an ill-natured creditor, for asmall sum, put him in jail, with a design to extort paymentof the debt from his relatives. The farmer had always alloweda Gipsy chief, of the name of ——, with his family,to take up his quarters on his premises, whenever the hordecame to the neighbourhood. The Gipsy’s horse received thesame provender as the farmer’s horses, and himself and familythe same victuals as the farmer’s servants. So sure wasthe Gipsy of his lodgings, that he seldom needed to ask permissionto stay all night on the farm, when he arrived. Onlearning that the farmer was in jail, he immediately went tosee him. When he called, the jailer laughed at him, and,for long, would not intimate to the farmer that he wished tosee him. With tears in his eyes, the Gipsy then told himhe “would be into the jail, and see the honest man, whetherhe would or not.” At last, an hour was fixed when hewould be allowed to enter the prison. When the time arrived,the Gipsy made his appearance, with a quantity ofliquor in his hand, for his friend the farmer. “Weel, man,”said he to the turnkey, “is this your hour, now?” being displeasedat the delay which had taken place. The jaileragain said to him that he was surely joking, and still refusedhim admittance. “Joking, man?” exclaimed theGipsy, with the tears again glistening in his dark eyes, “Iam not joking, for into this prison I shall be; and if it is notby the door, it shall be by another way.” Observing thedetermined Gipsy quite serious, the jailer at last allowedhim to see the object of his search. The moment he saw thefarmer, he took hold of both his hands, and, immediatelythrowing his arms around him, burst into tears, and was forsome time so overcome by grief, that he could not give utteranceto his feelings. Recovering himself, he enquired if itwas the laird that had put him in prison; but on being toldit was a writer, one of his creditors, the Gipsy exclaimed,[362]“They are a d——d crew, thae writers,[247] and the lairds arelittle better.” With much feeling, he now said to his friend,“Your father, honest man, was aye good to my horse, andyour mother, poor body, was aye kind to me, when I cameto the farm. I was aye treated like one of their own household,and I can never forget their kindness. Many a night’squarters I received from them, when others would not sufferme to approach their doors.” The grateful Gipsy now offeredthe farmer fifty pounds, to relieve him from prison.“We are,” said he, “not so poor as folk think we are;” and,putting his hand into his pocket, he added, “Here is partof the money, which you will accept; and if fifty poundswill not do, I will sell all that I have in the world, horsesand all, to get you out of this place.” “Oh, my bonnie man,”continued the Gipsy, “had I you in my camp, at the backof the dyke, I would be a happy man. You would be farbetter there than in this hole.” The farmer thanked himfor his kind offer, but declined to accept it. “We are,” resumedthe Gipsy, “looked upon as savages, but we have ourfeelings, like other people, and never forget our friends andbenefactors. Kind, indeed, have your relatives been to me,and all I have in this world is at your service.” When theGipsy found that his offer was not accepted, he insisted thatthe farmer would allow him to supply him, from time totime, with pocket money, in case he should, during his confinement,be in want of the necessaries of life. Before leavingthe prison, the farmer asked the Gipsy to take a cup oftea with him; but long the Gipsy modestly refused to eatwith him, saying, “I am a black thief-looking deevil, to sitdown and eat in your company; but I will do it, this day,for your sake, since you ask it of me.” The Gipsy’s wife,with all her family, also insisted upon being allowed to seethe farmer in prison.[248]

[363]This interview took place in presence of several persons,who were surprised at the gratitude and manner of the determinedGipsy. It is proper to mention that he is considereda very honest man, and is a protection to the propertyof the country-people, wherever he is quartered. Hesells earthen-ware, through the country, and has, sometimes,several horses in his possession, more for pleasure thanprofit, some of which the farmers graze for nothing, as he isa great favourite with those who are intimately acquaintedwith him. He is about fifty years of age, about six feet inheight, is spare made, has small black eyes, and a swarthycomplexion. He is styled King of the Gipsies, but the country-peoplecall him “Terrible,” for a by-name. It was saidhis mother was a witch, and many of the simple, ignorantpeople, in the country, actually believed she was one. That[364]her son believed she possessed supernatural power, will appearfrom the following fact: As some one was lamentingthe hard case of the farmer remaining in prison, the Gipsygravely said, “Had my mother been able to go to the jail,to see the honest man, she possessed the power to set himfree.”

That numbers of our Gipsies attend the church, and publiclyprofess Christianity, and get their children baptized, iscertain; and that many of the male heads of principal familieshave the appearance and reputation of great honestyof character, is also certain. Yet their wives and othermembers of their families are, in general, little better thanprofessed thieves; and are secretly countenanced and encouragedin their practices by many of those very chiefmales, who designedly keep up an outward show of integrity,for the purpose of deception, and of affording their plunderingfriends protection. When the head of the family is believedto be an honest man, it excites a feeling of sympathyfor his tribe on his account, and it enables him to step forward,with more freedom, to protect his kindred, when theyhappen to get into scrapes. I am convinced, could the factbe ascertained, that many of the offenders who are dailybrought before our courts of justice are Gipsies, thoughtheir external appearance does not indicate them to be ofthat race.

With regard to the education of our Scottish Gipsies, Iam convinced that very few of them receive any educationat all; except some of those among the superior classes,who have property in houses, and permanent residences. AGipsy, of some property, who gave one of her sons a goodeducation, declared that the young man was entirely spoiled.[249]It appears, however, that the males of the Yetholm colonyreceived such an education as is commonly given to theworking classes; but it is supposed there is scarcely such athing as a female Gipsy who has been educated. Thereare, however, instances to the contrary; and I know one[365]female at least, who can handle her pen with some dexterity.[250]

As to their religious sentiments, I am inclined to thinkthat the greater part of the Scottish Gipsies are quite indifferenton the subject. Numbers of them certainly attendchurch, occasionally, when at home, in their winter quarters;but not one of them will enter its door when travellingthrough the country.[251] On Sundays, while resting themselvesby the side of the public roads, the females employ themselvesin washing and sewing their apparel, without any regardfor that sacred day. It appears to me that a largeproportion of them comply with our customs and forms ofworship, more for the purpose of concealing their tribe andpractices, than from any serious belief in the doctrines ofChristianity. I recollect, however, of once conversing withan aged man who professed much apparent zeal in religiousmatters; and I mind well that he stoutly maintained, inopposition to Calvin’s ideas on the subject of free grace,that everything depended upon our own works. “By myworks in this life,” said he, “I must stand, or fall, in theworld to come.” This very man acknowledged to me thatthe Gipsies were a tribe of thieves. But almost all the Gipsies,when the subject of religion is mentioned to them, affectto be very pious; speak of the goodness of God to them,[366]with much apparent sincerity; lament the want of education;and reprobate, in strong terms, every act of immorality.This, I am sorry to say, is, in general, all hypocrisyand deception. There is not a better test, in a general way,for discovering who are Gipsies, than the expression of “Godbless you,” which is constantly in the mouth of every female.[252]

With regard to the general politics of the Scottish Gipsies,if they entertain any political sentiments at all, I amconvinced they are monarchical; and that, were any revolutionaryconvulsion to loosen the bonds of society, andseparate the lower from the higher classes, they would taketo the side of the superior portion of the community. Theyhave, at all times, heartily despised the peasantry, and beendisposed to treat menials with great contempt, though, atthe very moment, they were begging at the doors of theirmasters. In the few instances which have come to myknowledge, of Scottish Gipsies forming matrimonial connexions[367]with individuals of the community, those individualswere not of the working or lower classes of society.[253]

I believe there are Gipsies, in more or less numbers, inalmost every town in Scotland, permanent as well as periodicalresidenters. In many of the villages there are alsoGipsy inhabitants. In Mid-Lothian there are great numbersof them, who have houses, in which they reside permanently,but a portion of them travel in other districts, during thesummer season. I have been at no ordinary pains and troublein making enquiries regarding the number of the Gipsies,and the result of my numerous investigations inducesme to believe that there are about five thousand of them inScotland, at the present day. Indeed, some of the Gipsiesthemselves entertain the same opinion, and they must certainlybe allowed to have some idea of the number of theirown fraternity.[254]

It appears to me that the civilization and improvement ofthe body, generally, would be a work of great difficulty. Iwould be apt to give nearly the same answer which a Hungariannobleman gave to Dr. Bright, when that travellerasked him if he could not devise a plan for bettering thecondition of the race in Hungary. The nobleman said heknew of no manner of improving the Gipsies.[255] The bestplan yet proposed for improving the race appears to be[368]the one suggested by the Rev. James Crabb, of Southampton,and the Rev. John Baird, of Yetholm.[256] One of the first[369]steps, however, should be a complete publicity to their language,if that was possible; and encouragement held out tothem to speak it openly, without fear or reproach. Theirsecret speech is a strong bond of union among them, andforms, as it were, a wall of separation between them andthe other inhabitants of the country.

Many of the Gipsies, following the various occupationsenumerated, are not now to be distinguished from others ofthe community, except by the most minute observation; yetthey appear a distinct and separate people; seldom contractingmarriage out of their own tribe.[257] A tradesman ofGipsy blood will sooner give his hand to a lady’s maid ofhis own race, than marry the highest female in the land;while the Gipsy lady’s maid will take a Gipsy shoemaker,in preference to any one out of her tribe. A Gipsy womanwill far rather prefer, in marriage, a man of her own bloodwho has escaped the gallows, to the most industrious andbest-behaved tradesman in the kingdom. Like the Jews,almost all those in good circumstances marry among themselves,and, I believe, employ their poorer brethren as servants.I have known Gipsies most solemnly declare, that[370]no consideration would induce them to marry out of theirown tribe; and I am informed, and convinced, that almostevery one of them marries in that way. One of them statedto me that, let them be in whatever situation of life theymay, they all “stick to each other.”

[225] An objection is perhaps started, that these incorporated individuals arenot Gipsies. They have been brought into the body at such an age as toleave no trace of past recollections, leaving alone past associations. Therewas no occasion for such children being either “squalling infants,” or ofsuch an age as was likely to lead them to “betray the Gipsies,” as Mr.Borrow supposes would be the case, when he says that Gipsies have neverstolen children, to bring them up as Gipsies. How are they to discovertheir origin, when so many of the body around them have the same colourof hair and complexion? If the idea has ever entered into their imaginations,it has led to a greater antipathy towards their own race, and attachmentto the tribe, from the special education which they have received tothose ends. So far as the matter of blood is concerned, they are not whatmay be physiologically called Gipsies; and, by being married to Gipsies,they become doubly attached to the body. What has been said of childrenintroduced among the Gipsies, in the way described, applies with infinitelygreater force to those born of one of such parents.

Suppose, for instance, that the Spanish race was originally of an exclusivelydark hair and complexion: should we therefore say that afairSpaniard, at the present day, was no Spaniard? Or that the Turks of Constantinople,on account of the mixture of their blood, were not Turks? Inthe same manner are Gipsies with white blood in their veins Gipsies. Theymay be half-breed, but it would be improper to call them half-caste, Gipsies.But what are full-blood Gipsies, to commence with? The idea itself is intangible;for, by adopting, more or less, wherever they have been, othersinto their body, during their singular history, a pure Gipsy, like the pureGipsy language, is doubtless nowhere to be found.

An English Gipsy acquaintance, of perfect European appearance, who,for love of race and language, may be termed “a Gipsy of the Gipsies,”admitted that he was only one-eighth Gipsy; his father, a full-blood white,having married a quadroon Gipsy. He spoke Gipsy with great fluency.He married a seven-eighths Gipsy. Were his descendants to marry whatare supposed to be pure Gipsies, the result would be as follows: the firstgeneration, (his children,) would be one-half Gipsy; the second, three-fourths;the third, seven-eighths; the fourth, fifteen-sixteenths; the fifth,thirty-one thirty-seconds; and the sixth, sixty-three sixty-fourths. If thiswere to go onad infinitum, the issue would always lack the one part tomake the full blood. But the Gipsies do not calculate their vulgar fractionsso closely as that; the division of the blood doubtless bothers them, so thatthey “lump” the question. What has been said, is breedingup. Sometimesthey breeddown, and sometimesacross. Mixing the blood, in thisway, is quite a peculiarity among the English Gipsies. I asked my friend,if he was sure his wife was a pure Gipsy. He said she was consideredsuch, (I have put her down at seven-eighths,) but that one of her forefatherswas a fair-haired French Gipsy. According to a well-admitted principle inphysiology, a fair-haired Gipsy, of almost full blood, is by no means soraraavis in terris as a white crow. Some of the children of my acquaintancetook after himself, and had blue eyes; and others after the mother, andhad black ones. But the English Gipsies, (the tented ones at least,) aremuch purer, in point of blood, than their brethren in Scotland. Many ofthe Irish Gipsies have very red hair—fiery and shaggy in the extreme.Indeed, they seem to be pretty much all of a fairish kind.—Ed.

[226] The following extract from the Fife Herald, for the 18th June, 1829,will give the reader an idea of a Scotch “country-keeper,” at the timealluded to: “A Gipsy chief, of the name of Pat Gillespie, was keeper forthe county of Fife. He rode on horse-back, armed with a sword and pistolsattended by four men, on foot, carrying staves and batons. He appears tohave been a sort of travelling justice of the peace. The practice seems tohave been general. About the commencement of the late French war, aman, of the name of Robert Scott, (Rob the Laird,) was keeper for the countiesof Peebles, Selkirk, and Roxburgh.”

[227] The late Mr. Charles Alexander, tenant of Happrew.

[228] We may very readily believe that almost all of the Gipsies woulddesert the army, on landing in America, and marry Gipsy women in thecolonies, or bring others out from home, or marry with common natives,or return home. Indeed, native-born American Gipsies say that many ofthe British Gipsies voluntarily accepted the bounty, and a passage to thecolonies, during the war of the Revolution, and deserted the army on landing.This would lead to a migration of the tribe generally to America.—Ed.

[229] “When Paris was garrisoned by the allied troops, in the year 1815, Iwas walking with a British officer, near a post held by the Prussian troops.He happened, at the time, to smoke a cigar, and was about, while passingthe sentinel, to take it out of his mouth, in compliance with a general regulationto that effect; when, greatly to the astonishment of the passengers,the soldier addressed him in these words; ‘Rauchen Sie immer fort; verdamtsey der Preussische Dienst;’ that is: ‘Smoke away; may the Prussianservice be d——d.’ Upon looking closer at the man, he seemed plainly tobe aZigeuner, or Gipsy, who took this method of expressing his detestationof the duty imposed on him. When the risk he ran, by doing so, is considered,it will be found to argue a deep degree of dislike which could makehim commit himself so unwarily. If he had been overheard by a sergeantor corporal, theprugel would have been the slightest instrument of punishmentemployed.”—Sir Walter Scott: Note to Quentin Durward.

Mutilation was also very common among the English Gipsies, during theFrench war. Strange as it may appear, the same took place among them,at the commencement of the late Russian war; from which we may conclude,that they had suffered severely during the previous war, or theywould not have resorted to so extreme a measure for escaping military duty,when a press-gang was not even thought of. An English Gipsy, at the lattertime, laid two of his fingers on a block of wood, and, handing his broom-knifeto his neighbour, said, “Now, take off these fingers, or I’ll take offyour head with this other hand!”

During the French war, Gipsies again and again accepted the bountyfor recruits, but took “French leave” of the service. The idea is finelyillustrated in Burns’ “Jolly Beggars:”

“Tune—Clout the caudron.

“My bonny lass, I work in brass,
A Tinkler is my station:
I’ve travell’d round all Christian ground,
In this my occupation.
I’ve ta’en the gold, an’ been enroll’d
In many a noble squadron:
But vain they searched when off I march’d
To go and clout the caudron.”

Poosie Nancie and her reputed daughter, Racer Jess, were very probablyGipsies, who kept a poor “Tinkler Howff” at Mauchline.

Gipsies sometimes voluntarily join the navy, as musicians. Here theirvanity will have a field for conspicuous display; for a good fifer, on boardof a man-of-war, in accompanying certain work with his music, is equal tothe services of ten men. There were some Gipsy musicians in the fleet atSebastopol. But, generally speaking, Gipsies are like cats—not very fondof the water.—Ed.

[230] Mr. Borrow mentions having observed, at a fair in Spain, a family ofGipsies, richly dressed, after the fashion of their nation. They had comea distance of upwards of a hundred leagues. Some merchants, to whom hewas recommended, informed him, that they had a credit on their house, tothe amount of twenty thousand dollars.—Ed.

[231] In his enquiry into the present condition of the Gipsies, our authorhas apparently confined his remarks exclusively to the body in its presentwandering state, and such part of it as left the tent subsequently to thecommencement of the French war. In theDisquisition on the Gipsies, thesubject will be fully reviewed, from the date of arrival of the race in thecountry.—Ed.

[232] This is quite common. An English mixed Gipsy spontaneously informedme that he had been a constable In L——, and that he had a cousinwho was lately arunner in the police establishment of M——. Amongother motives for the Gipsies joining the police is the following: that suchis their dislike for the people among whom they live, owing to the prejudicewhich is entertained against them, that nothing gives them greatersatisfaction than being the instruments of affronting and punishing theirhereditary enemies. Besides this, the lounging and idle kind of life, coupledwith the activity, of a constable, is pretty much to their natural disposition.An intelligent mixed Gipsy is calculated to make a first-rate constableand thief-catcher. Of course, he will not be very hard on those ofhis own race who come in his way.—Ed.

[233] Our author frequently spoke of a dissenting Scottish clergyman havingbeen married to a Gipsy, but was not aware, as far as I know, of the circumstancesunder which the marriage took place. The clergyman was not,in all probability, aware that he was taking a Gipsy to his bosom; and aslittle did the public generally; but it was well known to the initiated thatboth her father and mother had cut and divided many a purse. The unquestionablecharacter and standing of the father, and the prudent conductof the mother, protected the children. One of the daughters married anotherdissenting clergyman, which fairly disarmed those not of the Gipsyrace of any prejudice towards the grand-children. The issue of thesemarriages would pass into Gipsydom, as explained in theDisquisition onthe Gipsies.—Ed.

[234] It is only within these forty years that spoon-making from horn becamea regular trade. It would seem the Gipsies had a monopoly of the business;for I am informed that the first man in Scotland who served a regular apprenticeshipto it was alive, in Glasgow, in 1836. [There is nothing in thisremark to imply that the manufacturing of spoons, and other articles, fromhorn, may not be monopolized by the Gipsies yet, whatever the way inwhich it may be carried on.—Ed.]

[235] From the numerous enquiries I have made, I am fully satisfied that thegreater part of the vagrants mentioned in these notices are Gipsies; atleast most of them speak the Gipsy language. [It matters not whether thepeople mentioned are wholly or only partly of Gipsy blood; it is sufficientif they have been reared as Gipsies. There are enough of the tribe in thecountry to follow the kind of life mentioned, to the extent the people canafford to submit to, without having their prerogatives infringed upon byordinary natives. Where will we find any of the latter, who would betakethemselves to the tent, and follow such a mode of life? Besides, the Gipsies,with their organization, would not tolerate it; and far less would theyallow any common natives, of the lowest class, to travel in their company.—Ed.]

[236] Owing to such causes as these, many of the Gipsies have been againdriven into their holes. It is amusing to notice the tricks which some ofthem resort to, in evading the letter of the Vagrant Act. They generallyencamp on the borders of two counties, which they will cross—passingover into the other—to avoid being taken up: for county officers have nojurisdiction over them, beyond the boundaries of their respective shires.—Ed.

[237] St. Boswell’s fair “is the resort of many salesmen of goods, and, inparticular, oftinkers. Bands of these very peculiar people, the direct descendantsof the original Gipsies, who so much annoyed the country in thefifteenth century, haunt the fair, for the disposal of earthen-ware, hornspoons, and tin culinary utensils. They possess, in general, horses andcarts, and they form their temporary camp by eachwhomling his cart upsidedown, and forming a lodgement with straw and bedding beneath. Cookingis performed outside thecraal, in Gipsy fashion. There could not, perhaps,be witnessed, at the present day, in Britain, a more amusing andinteresting scene, illustrative of a rude period, than is here annually exhibited.”—Chambers’Gazetteer of Scotland. [This writer is in error as tothe Gipsies annoying the country in thefifteenth century: that occurredduring the three following centuries.—Ed.]

[238] The Gipsies’ supreme luxury is to lie, day and night, so near the fireas to be in danger of burning. At the same time, they can bear to travelin the severest cold, bare-headed, with no other covering than a torn shirt,or some old rags carelessly thrown over them, without fear of catchingcold, cough, or any other disorder. They are a people blessed with aniron constitution. Neither wet nor dry weather, heat nor cold, let the extremesfollow each other ever so close, seems to have any effect upon them.—Grellmannon the Hungarian Gipsies.

Their power of resisting cold is truly wonderful, as it is not uncommonto find them encamped, in the midst of the snow, in light canvas tents,when the temperature is 25 or 30 degrees below freezing point, accordingto Raumer.—Borrow on the Russian Gipsies.

It is no uncommon thing to see a poor Scottish Gipsy wrap himself andwife in a thin, torn blanket, and pass the night, in the cold of December, inthe open air, by the wayside. On rising up in the morning, they willshake themselves in their rags, as birds of prey, in coming off their perch,do their feathers; make for the nearest public-house, with, perhaps, theirlast copper, for a gill; and, like the ravens, go in search of a breakfast,wherever and whenever Providence may send it to them.—Ed.

[239] Some of the itinerant Gipsies, doubtless, use their trades, in a greatmeasure, as a cover for living by means such as society deems very objectionable.Many of them work hard while they are at it, as in the aboveinstance, when “the clink of their hammers was heard from daybreak tilldark;” and as has been said of those in Tweed-dale—“however early thefarm servants rose to their ordinary employments, they always found theTinklers at work.”—Ed.

[240] I know another instance of a Gipsy having a child in the open fields.It took place among the rushes on Stanhope-hangh, on the banks of theTweed. In the forenoon, she was delivered of her child, without theassistance of a midwife, and in the afternoon the hardy Gipsy resumed herjourney. The infant was a daughter, named Mary Baillie.

[When a Gipsy woman is confined, it is either in a miserable hut or inthe open air, but always easily and fortunately. True Gipsy-like, for wantof some vessel, a hole is dug in the ground, which is filled with cold water,and the new-born child is washed in it—Grellmann, on the HungarianGipsies. We may readily believe that a child coming into the world underthe circumstances mentioned, would have some of the peculiarities of a wildduck. Mr. Hoyland says that “on the first introduction of a Gipsy childto school, he flew like a bird against the sides of its cage; but by a steadycare, and the influence of the example of the other children, he soon becamesettled, and fell into the ranks.” It pleases the Gipsies to know thattheir ancestors came into the world “like the deer in the forest,” and, whenput to school, “flew like a bird against the sides of its cage.”—Ed.]

[241] This invasion of Scotland by Irish Gipsies has, of late years, greatlyaltered the condition of the nomadic Scottish tribes; for this reason, thatas Scotland, no less than any other country, can support only a certainnumber of such people who “live on the road,” so many of the ScottishGipsies have been forced to betake themselves to other modes of making aliving. To such an extent has this been the case, that Gipsies, speakingthe Scottish dialect, are in some districts comparatively rarely to be metwith, where they were formerly numerous. The same cause may even leadto the extinction of the Scottish Gipsies as wanderers; but as the descendantsof the Irish Gipsies will acquire the Scottish vernacular in the secondgeneration, (a remarkably short period among the Gipsies,) what will thenpass for Scottish Gipsies will be Irish by descent. The Irish Gipsies areallowed, by their English brethren, to speak good Gipsy, but with a broadand vulgar accent; so that the language in Scotland will have a still betterchance of being preserved.

England has likewise been invaded by these Irish swarms. The EnglishGipsies complain bitterly of them. “They have no law among them,”they say; “they have fairly destroyed Scotland as a country to travel in;if they get a loan of anything from the country-people, to wrap themselvesin, in the barn, at night, they will decamp with it in the morning. Theyhave brought a disgrace upon the very name of Gipsy, in Scotland, and areheartily disliked by both English and Scotch.” “There is a family of IrishGipsies living across the road there, whom I would not be seen speakingto,” said a superior English Gipsy; “I hate a Jew, and I dislike an IrishGipsy.” But English and Scottish Gipsies pull well together; and are onvery friendly terms in America, and frequently visit each other. TheEnglish sympathise with the Scottish, under the wrongs they have experiencedat the hands of the Irish, as well as on account of the persecutionsthey experienced in Scotland, so long after such had ceased in England.

Twenty-five years ago, there were many Gipsies to be found betweenLondonderry and Belfast, following the style of life described under thechapter ofTweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies. Their names were Docherty,McCurdy, McCloskey, McGuire, McKay, Holmes, Dinsmore, Morrow, Allan,Stewart, Lindsay, Cochrane, and Williamson. Some of these seem to havemigrated from Scotland and the North of England.—Ed.

[242] In England, some of the Irish Gipsies send their children to learntrades. There are many of such Irish mechanic Gipsies in America. Ashort time ago, a company of them landed in New York, and proceeded on toChicago. Their occupations, among others, were those of hatters andtailors.—Ed.

[243] They are neither overgrown giants nor diminutive dwarfs; and theirlimbs are formed in the justest proportions. Large bellies are as uncommonamong them as humpbacks, blindness, or other corporeal defects.—Grellmannon the Hungarian Gipsies.—Ed.

[244] TheRoss-shire Advertiser, for April, 1842, says: “Gipsy Recklessness.—Lastweek, two Gipsy women, who were begging through the country, eachwith a child on her back, having got intoxicated, took up their lodgings,for the night, in an old sawpit, in the parish of Logie-Easter. It is supposedthat they forgot to take the children off their backs, when going torest; for, in the morning, they were found to be both dead, having beensmothered by their miserable mothers lying upon them through the night.One of the women, upon awakening in the morning, called to the other,‘that her baby was dead,’ to which the reply was, ‘that it could not behelped.’ Having dug a hole, they procured some straw, rolled up thechildren in it, put them in the hole, and then filled it up with the earth.”

[245] Though Gipsies everywhere, they differ, in some respects, in thevarious countries which they inhabit. For example, an English Gipsy, ofpugilistic tendencies, will, in a vapouring way, engage tothrash a dozen ofhis Hungarian brethren. The following is the substance of what Grellmannsays on this feature of their character:

Sulzer says a Gipsy requires to have been a long time in the army beforehe can meet an enemy’s balls with decent soldiers’ resolution. They haveoften been employed in military expeditions, but never as regular soldiers.In the thirty years’ war, the Swedes had a body of them in the army; andthe Danes had three companies of them at the siege of Hamburg, in 1686.They were chiefly employed in flying parties, to burn, plunder, or laywaste the enemy’s country.

In two Hungarian regiments, nearly every eighth man is a Gipsy. Inorder to prevent either them(!) or any others from remembering their descent,it is ordered, by the Government, that as soon as a Gipsy joins the regiment,he is no longer to be called by that appellation. Here he is placed promiscuouslywith other men. But whether he would be adequate to asoldier’s station—unmixed with strangers, in the company of his equalsonly—is very doubtful. He has every outward essential for a soldier,yet his innate properties, his levity, and want of foresight, render himincompatible for the services of one, as an instance may illustrate.Francis von Perenyi, who commanded at the siege of Nagy Ida, beingshort of men, was obliged to have recourse to the Gipsies, of whomhe collected a thousand. These he stationed behind the entrenchments,while he reserved his own men to garrison the citadel. The Gipsies supportedthe attack with so much resolution, and returned the fire of theenemy with such alacrity, that the assailants—little suspecting who werethe defendants—were compelled to retreat. But the Gipsies, elated withvictory, immediately crept out of their holes, and cried after them, “Go,and be hanged, you rascals! and thank God that we had no more powderand shot, or we would have played the devil with you!” “What!” theyexclaimed, bearing in mind the proverb, “You can drive fifty Gipsies beforeyou with a wet rag,” “What! areyou the heroes?” and, so saying, thebesiegers immediately wheeled about, and, sword in hand, drove the blackcrew back to their works, entered them along with them, and in a fewminutes totally routed them.—Ed.

[246] A Gipsy possesses all the properties requisite to render him a fit agentto be employed in traitorous undertakings. Being necessitous, he is easilycorrupted; and his misconceived ambition and pride persuade him that hethus becomes a person of consequence. He is, at the same time, too inconsiderateto reflect on danger; and, artful to the greatest decree, he workshis way under the most difficult circumstances. Gipsies have not onlyserved much in the capacity of spies, but their garb and manner of lifehave been assumed by military and other men for the same purpose.—Grellmannon the Hungarian Gipsies.

Mr. Borrow gives a very interesting description of a meeting of twoGipsies, in a battle between the French and Spaniards, in the Peninsula,in Bonaparte’s time. In the midst of a desperate battle—when everythingwas in confusion—sword to sword and bayonet to bayonet—a French soldiersingled out one of the enemy, and, after a severe personal contest, gothis knee on his breast, and was about to run his bayonet through him.His cap at this moment fell off, when his intended victim, catching his eye,cried, “Zincali, Zincali!” at which the other shuddered, relaxed his grasp,smote his forehead, and wept. He produced his flask, and poured wineinto his brother Gipsy’s mouth; and they both sat down on a knoll, whileall were fighting around. “Let the dogs fight, and tear each other’sthroats, till they are all destroyed: what matters it to us? They are notof our blood, and shall that be shed for them?”

What our author says of there being danger in employing Gipsies intime of war has little or no foundation; for the associations between thosein the opposite ranks would be merely those of interest, friendship, assistance,and scenes like the one depicted by Mr. Borrow. The objection toGipsies, on such occasions, is as applicable to Jews and Freemasons.—Ed.

[247] Awriter in Scotland corresponds with anattorney in England. It isinteresting to notice the opinion which the Gipsy entertained of the writers.Possibly he had been a good deal worried by them, in connection with theconduct of some of his folk.—Ed.

[248] There is something singularly inconsistent in the mind of the Gipsies.They pride themselves, to an extraordinary degree, in their race and language;at the same time, they are extremely sensitive to the prejudice thatexists against them. “We feel,” say they, “that every other creaturedespises us, and would crush us out of existence, if it could be done. Nodoubt, there are things which many of the Gipsies do not hold to be ashame, that others do; but, on the other hand, they hold some things tobe a shame which others do not. They have many good points. They arekind to their own people, and will feed and clothe them, if it is in theirpower; and they will not molest others who treat them civilly. They aresomewhat like the wild American Indians: they even go so far as to despisetheir own people who will willingly conform to the ways of the peopleamong whom they live, even to putting their heads under a roof. But,alas! a hard necessity renders it unavoidable; a necessity of two kinds—thatof making a living under the circumstances in which they find themselvesplaced, and the impossibility of enforcing their laws among themselves.Let them do what they may, live as they may, believe what theymay, they are looked upon as everything that is bad. Yet they are apeople, an ancient and mysterious people, that have been scattered by thewill of Providence over the whole earth.”

It is to escape this dreadful prejudice that all Gipsies, excepting thosewho avowedly live and profess themselves Gipsies, will hide their race, ifthey can, and particularly so, in the case of those who fairly leave the tent,conform to the ordinary ways of society, and engage in any of its variouscallings. While being convoyed by the son of an English Gipsy, whosefamily I had been visiting, at their house, where I had heard them freelyspeak of themselves as Gipsies, and converse in Gipsy, I said, in quite apleasant tone, “Ah, my little man, and you are a young Gipsy?—Eh,what’s the matter?” “I don’t wish to be known to the people as a Gipsy.”His father, on another occasion, said, “We are not ashamed to say to afriend that we are Gipsies; but my children don’t like people to be cryingafter them, ‘Look at the Gipsies!’” And yet this family, like all Gipsies,were strongly attached to their race and language. It was pitiful to thinkthat there was so much reason for them to make such a complaint. On oneoccasion, I was asked, “If you would not deem it presumptuous, might weask you to take a bite with us?” “Eat with you? Why not?” I replied.“What will your people think, if they knew that you had been eating withus? You will lose caste.” This was said in a serious manner, but slightlytinged with irony. Bless me, I thought, are all our Scottish Gipsies, ofhigh and low degree, afraid that the ordinary natives would not even eatwith them, if they knew them to be Gipsies?—Ed.

[249] It it well to notice the fact, that by giving a Gipsy child a good education,it became “entirely spoiled.” It would be well if we could “spoil”all the Gipsies. A thoroughly spoiled Gipsy makes a very good man, butleaves him a Gipsy notwithstanding. A “thorough Gipsy” has two meanings;one strongly attached to the tribe, and itsoriginal habits, or onewithout these original habits. There are a good many “spoiled” Gipsies,male and female, in Scotland.—Ed.

[250] The education and acquirements of the Spanish Gipsies, according toMr. Borrow, are, on the whole, not inferior to those of the lower classesof the Spaniards; some of the youngmen being able to read and write ina manner by no means contemptible; but such never occurs among the females.Neglecting females, in the matter of education, is quite in keepingwith the Oriental origin of the Gipsies. The same feature is observableamong the Jews; and the Talmud bears heavily upon Jewish women.Every Jew says, in his morning prayer, “Blessed art thou, O Lord, ourGod, King of the Universe, who hast not made me a woman!” And thewoman returns thanks for having been “created according to God’s will.”—Ed.

[251] The ostensible reason which the Gipsy gives for not attending church,when travelling, is to prevent himself being ridiculed by the people. Ifhe enters a place of worship, he makes the old people stare, and frightensthe children. On returning from church, a child will exclaim, “Mother,mother, there was a Tinkler at the kirk, to-day.”—“A what? aTinkler atthe kirk? What could have possessedhim to go there?”

Gipsies are extremely sensitive to the feeling in question. A short timeago, one of them entered ——, in the State of ——, with a “shears togrind,” having a small bell attached. Some bar-room gentry assembledaround him, and saluted him with, “Oh, oh, a Gipsy in a new rig!” Sokeenly did he feel the insult, that he at once left the village.—Ed.

[252] According to Grellmann, the Gipsies did not bring any particular religionwith them from their own country, but have regulated it according tothose of the countries in which they have lived. They suffer themselves tobe baptized among Christians, and circumcised among Mahommedans. Theyare Greeks with Greeks, Catholics with Catholics, Protestants with Protestants,and as inconstant in their creed as their place of residence. Theysuffer their children to be several times baptised. To-day, they receive thesacrament as a Lutheran; next Sunday, as a Catholic; and, perhaps beforethe end of the week, in the Reformed Church. The greater part of themdo not go so far as this, but live without any religion at all, and worse thanheathens. So thoroughly indifferent are they in this respect, as to havegiven rise to the adage, “The Gipsy’s church was built of bacon, and thedogs ate it.” So perfectly convinced are the Turks of the insincerity ofthe Gipsy in matters of religion, that, although a Jew, by becoming aMahommedan, is freed from the payment of the poll-tax, a Gipsy—at least inthe neighbourhood of Constantinople—is not, even although his ancestors,for centuries, had been Mahommedans, or he himself should actually havemade a pilgrimage to Mecca. His only privilege is to wear a white turban,which is denied to unbelieving Jews and Gipsies.

Mr. Borrow says, that when the female Gipsies, who sing in the choirsof Moscow, were questioned, in their own language, about their externallyprofessing the Greek religion, they laughed, and said it was only to pleasethe Russians.

The same author mentions an instance in which he preached to them;taking, for his text, the situation of the Hebrews in Egypt, and drawing acomparison between it and theirs in Spain. Warming with his subject, hespoke of the power of God in preserving both, as a distinct people, in theworld to this day. On concluding, he looked around to see what impressionhe had made upon them, but the only response he got from them allwas—a squint of the eye!—Ed.

[253] What our author says of the politics of the Gipsies is rather more applicableto their ideas of their social position. Being a small body incomparison with the general population of the country, they entertain avery exclusive and, consequently, a very aristocratic idea of themselves,whatever others may think of them; and therefore scorn the prejudice ofthe very lowest order of the common natives.—Ed.

[254] Before the reformation of our criminal law, many of the male Gipsiesperished on the gallows, but now, the greatest punishment they meet withis banishment, or a short imprisonment, for “sorning, pickery, and littlethieving.” Few of them are now “married to the gallows tree,” in the mannerof Graham, as described under the head of Fifeshire Gipsies. Owing totheir, (the more original kind especially,) all marrying very young, andhaving very large families, their number cannot fail to encrease, under thepresent laws, in a ratio far beyond that of our own population. Instead ofthere being only 5,000 Gipsies in Scotland, there are, as I have already said,nearer 100,000, for reasons to be given in myDisquisition on the Gipsies.—Ed.

[255] Speaking of the attempted civilization of the Gipsies, by the EmpressMaria Theresa, Grellmann says, “A boy, (for you must leave the old stockalone,) would frequently seem in the most promising train to civilization;on a sudden, his wild nature would appear, a relapse follow, and he becomea perfect Gipsy again.”

“Curate.—Could you not, by degrees, bring yourself to a more settledmode of life?

“Gipsy.—I would not tell you a lie, sir; I really think I could not, havingbeen brought up to it from a child.”—Hoyland on the English Gipsies.

The restless desire which the more original kind of Gipsies, and thosemore recently from the tent, have for moving about, is generally gratifiedin some way or other. The poorer class will send their wives and youngones to the “grass,” in company with the nomadic portion, or to thestreets in towns. In either case, they have no great occasion to feel uneasyabout their support; for she would be a poor wife indeed, if she couldnot forage for herself and “weary bairns.” Among other things, she canhire herself to assist in disposing of the wares made by another Gipsy. Herhusband will then work at his calling, or go on thetramp, like some of ourordinary mechanics.

The feeling which mankind in general have for the sweets of the country,and the longing which so many of us have to end our days in the midst ofthem, amount almost to a mania with these Gipsies. Frequently will Gipsies,in England, after spending the best part of their lives in a settled occupation,again take to the tent; while others of them, on arrival in America,will buy themselves places, and live on them till seized with the travellingepidemic, communicated by a roving company of their tribe accidentallyarriving in their neighbourhood. Some of the more recently settled classof Gipsies, whose occupations do not easily admit of their enjoying thepleasure of a country or travelling life, show a great partiality to theirwandering brethren, however poor, with whom they are on terms ofintimacy, and especially if they happen to be related. Their children, fromhearing their parents speak of the “good old times”—the “golden age” ofthe Gipsies—when they could wander hither and thither, with little molestation,and live, in a measure, at free-quarters, wherever they went, growimpatient under the restraint which society has thrown around them; andvent their feelings in abusing that same society, and all the membersthereof. They envy the lot of these “country cousins.” Meetings of thatkind render these Gipsies, (old as well as young,) irritable, discontented,and gloomy: they feel like “birds in a cage,” as a Gipsy expressed it. Notunfrequently will a young town Gipsy travel in the company of thesecountry relatives, dresseda la Tinklaire, as a relief to the discontentmentwhich a restrained and pent-up life creates within him. At other times,his parents will know nothing of his movements, beyond his coming hometo “roost” at night.

The nomadic class take to winter-quarters in some village, towards theclose of the year, and fret themselves all day long, till, on the return ofspring, they can say, “To your tents, O Gipsies!” There is as little directrelation existing between the tent and the long-settled Gipsies, as there isbetween it and ordinary Scotch people. But there is that tribal or nationalassociation connected with it, that is inseparable from the feelings of aGipsy, however high may be the position in life to which he may haverisen.—Ed.

[256] The Fourteenth Annual Festival of the Rev. James Crabb’s Association,for civilizing and teaching the principles of Christianity to the Gipsies inEngland, was held on the 25th December, 1841. At that time, twentyGipsy youths were attending his school. He was very sanguine of ultimatelyameliorating the condition of the British Gipsies.

At Yetholm, in the same year, after the Rev. John Baird’s school hadbeen in existence about two years, there were about forty Gipsy childrenreceiving instruction. When they were educated, they were hired as servantsto families, or bound apprentices to different trades.

[I will offer some remarks on the improvement of the Gipsies, in theDisquisitionon the Gipsies.—Ed.]

[257] It is a difficult matter to tell some of the settled Scottish Gipsies. Insearching for them, some regard must be had to the employment of the individual,his associations, and his isolation from the community generally,beyond what is necessary in following his calling and out-door relations, ascontrasted with his hospitality to strangers from a distance; a close scrutinyof the habits of himself and his numerous motley visitors; the rough-and-tumbleway in which he sometimes lives; his attachment to animals,such as horses, asses, dogs, cats, birds, or pets of any kind; these, andother relative circumstances, go a great way to enable one to pounce uponsome of them. But the use of their language, and the effect it has uponthem, (barring their responding to it,) is, at the present stage of their history,the only satisfactory test. Scottish Gipsy families will generally befound to be all dark in their appearance, or all very fair or reddish, orpartly very fair, and partly very dark, and sometimes dark or fair nondescript.Many of the residentary class of mechanic Gipsies are difficultof detection; so are the better classes, generally, if it is long since theirancestors left the tent—Ed.

A DISQUISITION ON THE PAST, PRESENT, ANDFUTURE OF GIPSYDOM.

In giving an account of the Gipsies, the subject would bevery incomplete, were not something said about the mannerin which they have drawn into their body the blood of otherpeople, and the way in which the race is perpetuated; anda description given of their present condition, and futureprospects, particularly as our author has overlooked someimportant points connected with their history, which I willendeavour to furnish. One of these important points is,that he has confined his description of the present generationof settled Gipsies to the descendants of those who leftthe tent subsequently to the commencement of the French war,to the exclusion of those who settled long anterior to thattime. It is also necessary to treat the subject abstractly—tothrow it into principles, to give the philosophy of it—to ensurethe better understanding, and perpetuate the knowledgeof it, amid the shifting objects that present themselves tothe eye of the world, and even of the people described.

Gipsydom may, in a word, be said to be literally a sealedbook, aterra incognita, to mankind in general. The Gipsiesarrived in Europe a strange race; strange in their origin,appearance, habits and disposition. Supposing that theirhabits had never led them to interfere with the property ofothers, or obtain money by any objectionable way, but thatthey had confined their calling to tinkering, making andselling wares, trading, and such like, they would, in all probability,still have remained a caste in the community, witha strong feeling of sympathy for those living in other countries,in consequence of the singularity of their origin anddevelopment, as distinguished from those of the other inhabitants,their language and that degree of prejudice which[372]most nations have for foreigners settling among them andparticularly so in the case of a people so different in theirappearance and mode of life as were the Gipsies from thoseamong whom they settled. That may especially be said oftented Gipsies, and even of those who, from time to time,would be forced to leave the tent, and settle in towns, orlive astramps, as distinguished from tented Gipsies. Thesimple idea of their origin and descent, tribe and language,transmitted from generation to generation, being so differentfrom those of the people among whom they lived, was, in itself,perfectly sufficient to retain them members of Gipsydom,although, in cases of intermarriages with the natives,the mixed breeds might have gone over to the white race,and been lost to the general body. But in most of suchcases that would hardly have taken place; for between thetwo races, the difference of feeling, were it only a slightjealousy, would have led the smaller and more exclusive andbigoted to bring the issue of such intermarriages within itsinfluence. In Great Britain, the Gipsies are entitled, in onerespect at least, to be called Englishmen, Scotchmen, orIrishmen; for their general ideas as men, as distinguishedfrom their being Gipsies, and their language, indicate them,at once, to be such, nearly as much as the common nativesof these countries. A half or mixed breed might moreespecially be termed or pass for a native; so that, by clingingto the Gipsies, and hiding his Gipsy descent and affiliationfrom the native race, he would lose nothing of the outwardcharacter of an ordinary inhabitant; while any benefitarising from his being a Gipsy would, at the same time, beenjoyed by him.

But the subject assumes a totally different aspect when,instead of a slight jealousy existing between the two races,the difference in feeling is such as if a gulf had been placedbetween them. The effect of a marriage between a whiteand a Gipsy, especially if he or she is known to be a Gipsy,is such, that the white instinctively withdraws from any connexionwith his own race, and casts his lot with the Gipsies.The children born of such unions become ultra Gipsies.A very fine illustration of this principle of half-breedultra Gipsyism is given by Mr. Borrow, in his “Gipsies inSpain,” in the case of an officer in the Spanish army adoptinga young female Gipsy child, whose parents had been[373]executed, and educating and marrying her. A son of thismarriage, who rose to be a captain in the service of DonnaIsabel, hated the white race so intensely, as, when a child,to tell his father that he wished he (his father) was dead.At whose door must the cause of such a feeling be laid?One would naturally suppose that the child would have left,perhaps despised, his mother’s people, and clung to thosewhom the world deemed respectable. But the case wasdifferent. Suppose the mother had not been prompted bysome of her own race, while growing up, and the son, in histurn, not prompted by the mother, all that was necessary tostir up his hatred toward the white race was simply toknow who he was, as I will illustrate.[258]

Suppose that a great iron-master should fancy a Cinderella,living by scraping pieces of iron from the refuse of his furnaces,educate her, and marry her, as great iron-masters havedone. Being both of the same race, a complete amalgamationwould take place at once: perhaps the wife was thebest person of the two. Silly people might sneer at such amarriage; but if no objection attached to the personal characterof the woman, she might be received into society atonce, and admired by some, and envied by others, particularlyif she had no “low relations” living near her. Shemight even boast of having been a Cinderella, if it happenedto be well known; in which case she might be deemed freeof pride, and consequently a very sensible, amiable woman,and worthy of every admiration.

But who ever heard of such a thing taking place with aGipsy? Suppose a Gipsy elevated to such a position as that[374]spoken of; she would not, she dare not, mention her descentto any one not of her own race, and far less would she giveanexposé of Gipsydom; for she instinctively perceives, orat least believes, that, such is the prejudice against her race,people would avoid her as something horridly frightful, althoughshe might be the finest woman in the world. Whoever heard of a civilized Gipsy, before Mr. Borrow mentionedthose having attained to such an eminent position insociety at Moscow? Are there none such elsewhere than inMoscow? There are many in Scotland. It is this unfortunateprejudice against the name that forces all our Gipsies,the moment they leave the tent, (which they almost invariablydo with their blood diluted with the white,) to hidefrom the public their being Gipsies; for they are morbidlysensitive of the odium which attaches to the name and racebeing applied to them. It is quite time enough to discoverthe great secret of Nature, when it is unavoidable to enter

As little disposition is manifested by these Gipsies to “showtheir hands:” the uncertainty of such an experiment makesthe very idea dreadful to them. Hence it is that the constantaim of settled Gipsies is to hide the fact of their beingGipsies from other people.

It is a very common idea that Gipsies do not mix theirblood with that of other people. Now, what is the fact? Imay, indeed, venture to assert, that there is not a full-bloodedGipsy in Scotland;[259] and, most positively, that in England,where the race is held to be so pure, all that can be said ofsome families is, that they have not been crossed,as faras is known; but that, with these exceptions, the body ismuch mixed: “dreadfully mixed” is the Gipsies’ description,as, in many instances, my own eyes have witnessed.This brings me to an issue with a writer in the EdinburghReview, who, in October, 1841, when reviewing the“Gipsies in Spain,” by Mr. Borrow, says, “Their descentis purity itself; no mixture of European blood has contaminated[375]theirs. . . . . . They, (the stranger and Gipsy,)may live together; the European vagrant is often to befound in the tents of the Gipsies; they may join in the fellowshipof sport, the pursuit of plunder, the management oftheir low trades, but they can never fraternize.” A writerin Blackwood’s Magazine, on the same occasion, says, “Theircare to preserve the purity of their race might, in itself,have confuted the unfounded charge, so often brought againstthem, of stealing children, and bringing them up as Gipsies.”More unfounded ideas than those put forth by these twowriters are scarcely possible to be imagined.[260]

This mixture of “the blood” is notorious. Many a full ornearly full-blood Gipsy will say that Gipsies do not mixtheir blood with that of the stranger. In such a case heonly shuffles; for he whispers to himself two words, in hisown language, which contradict what he says; which wordsI forget, but they mean “I belie it;” that is, he belies whathe has just said. Besides, it lets the Gipsies down in theirimagination, and, they think, in the imagination of others,to allow that the blood of their race is mixed. It is also asecret which they would rather hide from the world.[261] I amintimate with English Gipsy families, in none of whom isfull blood; the most that can be said of them is, that theyrange from nearly full, say from seven-eighths, down to one-eighth,and perhaps less. Suppose that a fair-haired commonnative marries a full-blood Gipsy: the issue of such anunion will show some of the children, in point of external[376]appearance, perfectly European, like the father, and others,Gipsies, like the mother. If two such European-like Gipsiesmarry, some of their children will take after the Gipsy,and be pretty, even very, dark, and others after the whiterace. In crossing a second time with full white blood, theissue will take still more after the white race. Still, theGipsy cannot be crossed altogether out; he will come up,but of course in a modified form. Should the white bloodbe of a dark complexion and hair, and have no tendency,from its ancestry, to turn to fair, in its descent, then theissue between it and the Gipsy will always be dusky. Ihave seen all this, and had it fully explained by the Gipsiesthemselves.

The result of this mixture of the Gipsy and Europeanblood is founded, not only on the ordinary principles ofphysiology, but on common sense itself; for why should notsuch issue take after the European, in preference to theGipsy? If a residence in Europe of 450 years has had noeffect upon the appearance of what may be termed pureGipsies, (a point which, at least, is questionable,) the lengthof time, the effects of climate, and the influence of mind,should, at least, predispose it to merge, by mixture, intosomething bearing a resemblance to the ordinary European;which, by a continued crossing, it does. Indeed, it soon disappearsto the common eye: to a stranger it is not observable,unless the mixture happens to be met with in a tent,or under such circumstances as one expects to meet withGipsies. In paying a visit to an English Gipsy family, Iwas invited to call again, on such a day, when I would meetwith some Welsh Gipsies. The principal Welsh Gipsy Ifound to be a very quiet man, with fair hair, and quite likean ordinary Englishman; who was admitted by his Englishbrethren to “speak deep Gipsy.” He had just arrived fromWales, where he had been employed in an iron work. UnlessI am misinformed, the issue of a fair-haired Europeanand an ordinary Hindoo woman, in India, sometimes showsthe same result as I have stated of the Gipsies; but it oughtto be much more so in the case of the Gipsy in Europe, onaccount of the race having been so long acclimated there.Indeed, it is generally believed, that the population ofEurope contains a large part of Asiatic blood, from that continenthaving at one time been overrun by Asiatics, who[377]mixed their blood with an indigenous race which they metwith there.

Of the mixed Spanish Gipsy, to whom I have alluded, Mr.Borrow says, that “he hadflaxen hair; his eyes small, and,like ferrets, red and fiery; and his complexion like a brick,or dull red, chequered with spots of purple.” This description,with, perhaps, the exception of the red eyes, and spotsof purple, is quite in keeping with that of many of the mixedGipsies. The race seems even to have given a preferenceto fair or red hair, in the case of such children and grown-upnatives as they have adopted into their body. I havemet with a young Spaniard from Corunna, who is so muchacquainted with the Gipsies in Spain, that I took him to bea mixed Gipsy himself; and he says that mixtures amongthe Spanish Gipsies are very common; the white man, insuch cases, always casting his lot with the Gipsies. Noneof the French, German, or Hungarian Gipsies whom I havemet with in America are full blood, or anything like it; butI am told there are such, and very black too, as the EnglishGipsies assert. Indeed, considering how “dreadfully mixed”the Gipsies are in Great Britain and Ireland, I cannot butconclude that they are more or less so all over the world.[262]

The blood once mixed, there is nothing to prevent a littlemore being added, and a little more, and so on. There areEnglish Gipsy girls who have gone to work in factories inthe Eastern States, and picked up husbands among theordinary youths of these establishments. And what differencedoes it make? Is not the game in the Gipsy woman’sown hands? Will she not bring up her children Gipsies,initiate them in all the mysteries of Gipsydom, and teachthem the language? There is another married to an Americanfarmer “down east.” All that she has to do is simplyto “tell her wonderful story,” as the Gipsies express it.[378]Jonathan must think that he has caged a queer kind of a birdin the English Gipsy woman. But will he say to his friends,or neighbours, that his wife is a Gipsy? Will the childrentell that their mother, and, consequently, they themselvesare Gipsies? No, indeed. Jonathan, however, will findher a very active, managing woman, who will always bea-stirring, and will not allow her “old man” to kindle thefires of a morning, milk his cows, or clean his boots, and, asfar as she is concerned, will bring him lots ofchabos.

Gipsies, however, do not like such marriages; still theytake place. They are more apt to occur when they haveattained to that degree of security in a community where noone knows them to be Gipsies, or when they have settled ina neighbourhood to which they had come strangers. Theparents exercise more constraint over their sons than daughters;they cannot bear the idea of a son taking a strangewoman for a wife; for a strange woman is a snare unto theGipsies. If a Scottish Gipsy lad shows a hankering after astranger lass, the mother will soon “cut his comb,” by askinghim, “What would she say if she knew you to be a loonof a Gipsy? Take such or such a one (Gipsies) for a wife,if you want one.” But it is different with the girls. If aGipsy lass is determined to have the stranger for a husband,she has only to say, “Never mind, mother; it makes noearthly difference; I’ll turn that fellow round my little finger;I’ll take care of the children when I get them.” I donot know how the settled Scottish Gipsies broach the subjectof being Gipsies to the stranger son-in-law when he isintroduced among them. I can imagine the girl, during thecourtship, saying to herself, with reference to her intended,“I’ll lead you captive, my pretty fellow!” And captive shedoes lead him, in more senses than one. Perhaps the subjectis not broached to him till after she has borne him children;or, if he is any way soft, the mother, with a leeringeye, will say to him at once, “Ah ha, lad, ye’re among Gipsiesnow!” In such a case, the young man will be perfectlybewildered to know what it all means, so utterly ignorantis he about Gipsies; when, however, he comes to learn allabout it, it will bemum with him, as if his wife’s friendshadburked him, or some “old Gipsy” had come along, andsworn him in on the point of a drawn dirk. It may be thatthe Gipsy never mentions the subject to her husband at all,[379]for fear he should “take her life;” she can, at all events, trusther secret with her children.

Why should there be any hard feelings towards a Gipsyfor “taking in and burking” a native in this way? Shedoes not propose—she only disposes of herself. She has nobusiness to tell the other that she is a Gipsy. She does notconsider herself a worse woman than he is a man, but, onthe contrary, a better. She would rather prefer achabo,but, somehow or other, she sacrifices her feelings, and takesthegorgio, “for better or worse.” Or there may be considerableadvantages to be derived from the connexion, sothat she spreads her snares to secure them. Being a Gipsy,she has the whip-hand of the husband, for no considerationwill induce him to divulge to any one the fact that his wifeis a Gipsy—should she have told him; in which case shehas such a hold upon him, as to have “turned him round herlittle finger” most effectually. “Married a Gipsy! it’s no’possible!” “Ay, it is possible. There!” she will say, chatteringher words, and, with her fingers, showing him thesigns. He soon gets reconciled to the “better or worse”whichhe has taken to his bosom, as well as to her “folk,”and becomes strongly attached to them. The least thingthat the Gipsy can then do is to tell her “wonderful story”to her children. It is not teaching them any damnablecreed; it is only telling them who they are; so that theymay acknowledge herself, her people, her blood, and theblood of the children themselves.

And how does the Gipsy woman bring up her children inregard to her own race? She tells them her “wonderfulstory”—informs them who they are, and of the dreadful prejudicethat exists against them, simply for being Gipsies.She then tells them about Pharaoh and Joseph in Egypt,terming her people, “Pharaoh’s folk.” In short, she dazzlesthe imagination of the children, from the moment they cancomprehend the simplest idea. Then she teaches them herwords, or language, as the “real Egyptian,” and frightensand bewilders the youthful mind by telling them that theyare subject to be hanged if they are known to be Gipsies,or to speak these words, or will be looked upon as wildbeasts by those around them. She then informs the childrenhow long the Gipsies have been in the country; howthey lived in tents; how they were persecuted, banished,[380]and hanged, merely for being Gipsies. She then tells themof her people being in every part of the world, whom theycan recognize by the language and signs which she isteaching them; and that her race will everywhere be readyto shed their blood for them. She then dilates upon thebenefits that arise from being a Gipsy—benefits negative aswell as positive; for should they ever be set upon—garroted,for example—all that they will have to do will be to cryout some such expression as “Biené raté, calo chabo,” (good-night,Gipsy, or black fellow,) when, if there is a Gipsy nearthem, he will protect them. The children will be fondledby her relatives, handed about and hugged as “little ducksof Gipsies.” The granny, while sitting at the fireside, likea witch, performs no small part in the education of the children,making them fairly dance with excitement. In thismanner do the children of Gipsies have the Gipsy soul literallybreathed into them.[263]

In such a way—what with the supreme influence whichthe mother has exercised over the mind of the child from itsvery infancy; the manner in which its imagination has beendazzled; and the dreadful prejudice towards the Gipsies,which they all apply, directly or indirectly, to themselves—doesthe Gipsy adhere to his race. When he comes to bea youth, he naturally enough endeavours to find his way toa tent, to have a look at the “old thing.” He does not,however, think much of it as a reality; but it presents somethingvery poetical and imaginative to his mind, when hecontemplates it as the state from which his mysterious forefathershave sprung.[264] It makes very little difference, in the[381]case to which I have alluded, whether the father be a Gipsyor not; the children all go with the mother, for they inheritthe blood through her. What with the blood, the education,the words, and the signs, they are simply Gipsies,and will be such, as long as they retain a consciousness ofwho they are, and any peculiarities exclusively Gipsy.As it sometimes happens that the father, only, is a Gipsy, theattachment may not be so strong, on the part of the children,as if the blood had come through the mother; still, it likewiseattaches them to the body. A great deal of jealousyis shown by the Gipsies, when a son marries a strange woman.A greater ado is not made by some Catholics, tobring up their children Catholics, under such circumstances,than is exhibited by Gipsies for their children knowing theirsecret—that is, the “wonderful story;” which has the effectof leading them, in their turn, to marry with Gipsies. Therace is very jealous of “the blood” being lost; or that their“wonderful story” should become known to those who arenot Gipsies.

There are people who cannot imagine how a man can bea Gipsy and have fair hair. They think that, from his havingfair hair, he cannot have the same feelings of what theyimagine to be a true Gipsy, that is, a black-haired one.One naturally asks, what effect can the matter of colour ofhair have upon themind of a member of any community orclan, whether the hair be black, brown, red, fair, or white,or the person have no hair at all? Let us imagine a Gipsywith fair hair. How long is it since the white blood wasintroduced among his ancestors? Perhaps three hundredand fifty years. The race of which he comes has been,more or less, mixing and crossing ever since, but alwaysretaining the issue within its own community. Is he fair-haired?Then he may be half a Gipsy; he may be three-fourthsGipsy, and perhaps even more. At the present day,[382]the “points” of such a Gipsy are altogether arbitrary; someprofess to know their points, but it is a thing altogether uncertain.All that they know and adhere to is, that they areGipsies, and nothing else. In this manner are the BritishGipsies, (with the exception of some English families, aboutwhom there is no certainty,) members of the Gipsy community,or nation, as such—each having some of the blood; andnot Gipsies of an ideal purity of race. What they know is,that their parents and relatives are Gipsies; that Gipsiesseparate them from the eternity that is past; and, consequently,that they are Gipsies. They, indeed, accept theirdescent, blood, and nationality as instinctively as they acceptthe very sex which God has given them. Which of the twoknows most of Gipsydom—the fair-haired or black? Almostinvariably the fair.[265]

We naturally ask, what effect has this difference in appearanceupon two such members of one family—the one withEuropean, the other with Gipsy, features and colour? andthe answer is this: The first will hide the fact of his beinga Gipsy from strangers; indeed, he is ashamed to let it beknown that he is a Gipsy; and he is afraid that people, notknowing how it came about, would laugh at him. “What!”they would ask, “you a Gipsy? The idea is absurd.” Besides,it facilitates his getting on in the world, to prevent itbeing known that he is a Gipsy. The other member cannotdeny that he is a Gipsy, because any one can see it. Suchare the Gipsies who are more apt to cling to the tent, or themore original ways of the old stock. They are very proud[383]of their appearance; but it is a pride accompanied with disadvantages,and even pain. For, after all, the beauty andpleasure in being a Gipsy is to have the other cast of featuresand colour; he has as much of the blood and languageas the other, while he can go into any kind of company—asort of Jack-the-Giant-Killer in his invisible coat. Thenearer the Gipsy comes to the original colour of his race,the less chance is there of improving him. He knows whathe is like; and well does he know the feeling that peopleentertain for him. In fact, he feels that there is no use inbeing anything but what people call a Gipsy. But it is differentwith those of European countenance and colour, orwhen these have been modified or diluted by a mixture ofwhite blood. They can, then, enter upon any sphere of employmentto which they have a mind, and their personal advantagesand outward circumstances will admit of.[266]

Let us now consider the destiny of such European-likeGipsies. Suppose a female of this description marries anative in settled life, which both of them follow. She bringsthe children up as Gipsies, in the way described. The childrenare apt to become ultra Gipsies. If they, in their turn,marry natives, they do the same with their children; so that,if the same system were always followed, they would continueGipsies forever. For all that is necessary to perpetuatethe tribe, is simply for the Gipsies to know who they are,and the prejudice that exists toward the race of which theyare a part; to say nothing of the innate associations connectedwith their origin and descent. Such a phenomenonmay be fitly compared to the action of an auger; with thisdifference, that the auger may lose its edge, but the Gipsywill drill his way through generations of the ordinarynatives, and, at the end, come out as sharp as ever; all thecircumstances attending the two races being exactly thesame at the end as at the beginning. In this way, let theirblood be mixed as it may, let even their blood-relationshipoutside of their body be what it may, the Gipsies still remain,in their private associations, a distinct people, into whatever[384]sphere of human action they may enter; although, in pointof blood, appearance, occupation, character, and religion,they may have drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from thestakes and tent of the original Gipsy.

There can surely be no great difficulty in comprehendingso simple an idea as this. Here we have a foreign race introducedamongst us, which has been proscribed, legally aswell as socially. To escape the effects of this double proscription,the people have hidden the fact of their belongingto the race, although they have clung to it with an ardourworthy of universal admiration. The proscription is towardthe name and race as such, that is, the blood; and is notgeneral, but absolute; none having ever been received intosociety as Gipsies. For this reason, every Gipsy, every onewho has Gipsy blood in his veins, applies the proscriptionto himself. On the other hand, he has his own descent—theGipsy descent; and, as I have already said, he hasnaturally as little desire to wish a different descent, as hehas to have a different sex. As Finns do not wish to havebeen born Englishmen, or Englishmen Finns, so Gipsies areperfectly satisfied with their descent, nay, extremely proudof it. They would not change it, if they could, for any consideration.When Gipsies, therefore, marry natives, they donot only willingly bring up their children as Gipsies, but byevery moral influence they are forced to do it, and cling toeach other. In this way has the race been absolutely cut offfrom that of the ordinary natives; all intercourse betweenthe two, unless on the part of thebush Gipsy, in the way ofdealings, having been of a clandestine nature, on the side ofthe Gipsy, or, in other words,incog. How melancholy it isto think that such a state of things exists in the BritishIslands!

The Gipsy, born of a Gipsy mother and a native father,does, therefore, most naturally, and, I may say, invariably,follow the Gipsy connexion; the simplest impulse of manhoodcompels him to do it. Being born, or becoming amember of settled society, he joins in the ordinary amusementsor occupations of his fellow-creatures of both races;which he does the more readily when he feels conscious ofthe incognito which he bears. But he has been brought upfrom his mother’s knee a Gipsy; he knows nothing else; hisassociations with his relatives have been Gipsy; and he has[385]in his veins that which the white damns, and, he doubts not,would damn in him, were he to know of it. He has, moreover,the words and signs of the Gipsy race; he is broughtin contact with the Gipsy race; he perceives that his feelingsare reciprocated by them, and that both have the samereserve and timidity for “outsiders.” He does not reasonabstractly what he isnot, but instinctively holds that he is“one of them;” that he has in his mind, his heart, and hisblood, that which the common native has not, and whichmakes him achabo, that is, a Gipsy.

The mother, in the case mentioned, is certainly not a full-bloodGipsy, nor anything like it; she does not know herreal “points;” all that she knows is, that she is a “Gipsy:”so that, if the youth’s father is an ordinary native, the youthholds himself to be a half-and-half, nominally, though hedoes not know what he really is, as regards blood. Imagine,then, that he takes such a half-and-half Gipsy for a wife, andthat both tell their children that they are “Gipsies:” thechildren, perhaps, knowing nothing of the real origin oftheir parents, take up the “wonderful story,” and hand itdown to their children, initiating them, in their turn, in the“mysteries.” These children never doubt thatthey are“Gipsies,” althoughtheir Gipsyism may, as I have alreadysaid, have “drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from thestakes and tent of the original Gipsy.” In this manner isGipsydom kept alive, by its turning round and round in aperpetual circle. And in this manner does it happen, thata native finds his own children Gipsies, from having, in seekingfor a wife, stumbled upon an Egyptian woman. Gipsydomis, therefore, the aggregate of Gipsies, wherever, orunder whatever circumstances, they are to be found. It is,in two respects, an absolute question; absolute as to blood,and absolute as to those teachings, feelings, and associations,that, by a moral necessity, accompany the possession of theblood.

This brings me to an issue with Mr. Borrow. Speakingof the destination of the Spanish Gipsies, he says: “If theGitanos are abandoned to themselves, by which we mean, noarbitrary laws are again enacted for their extinction, thesect will eventually cease to be, and its members becomeconfounded with the residue of the population.” I can wellunderstand that such procedure, on the part of the Spanish[386]Government, was calculated to soften the ferocious dispositionof the Gipsies; but did it bring them a point nearerto an amalgamation with the people than before? Mr. Borrowcontinues: “The position which they occupy is thelowest. . . . . The outcast of the prison and thepresidio,who calls himself Spaniard, would feel insulted by beingtermed Gitano, and would thank God that he is not.” Hecontinues: “It is, of course, by intermarriage, alone, that thetwo races will ever commingle; and before that event isbrought about, much modification must take place amongstthe Gitanos, in their manners, in their habits, in their affectionsand their dislikes, and perhapseven in their physicalpeculiarities, (yet ‘no washing,’ as Mr. Borrow approvinglyquotes, ‘will turn the Gipsy white;’) much must be forgottenon both sides, and everything is forgotten in courseof time.” So great, indeed, was the prejudice against theGipsies, that the law of Charles III, in 1783, forbade thepeople calling them Gitanos, under the penalty of beingpunished forslander! because, his majesty said: “I declarethat those who go by the name of Gitanos are not so byorigin or nature; nor do they proceed from any infectedroot(!)” What regard would the native Spaniards pay tothe injunction, that they would be punished for “slander,”for calling the GipsiesGitanos, in place ofSpaniards?We may well believe that such a law would be a dead letterin Spain; where, according to Mr. Borrow, “justice has invariablybeen a mockery; a thing to be bought and sold,terrible only to the feeble and innocent, and an instrumentof cruelty and avarice.”

Mr. Borrow leaves the question where he found it. Evenremove the prejudice that exists against the Gipsies, as regardstheir colour, habits, and history; what then? Wouldthey, as a people cease to be? Would they amalgamatewith the natives,so as to be lost? Assuredly not. Theymay mix their blood, but they preserve their mental identityin the world; even although, in point of physical appearance,habits, manners, occupation, character, and creed, theymight “become confounded with the residue of the population.”In that respect, they are the most exclusive peopleof almost any to be found in the world. We have only toconsider what Freemasonry is, and we can form an idea ofwhat Gipsyism is, in one of its aspects. It rests upon the[387]broadest of all bases—flesh and blood, a common andmysterious origin, a common language, a common history, acommon persecution, and a common odium, in every part ofthe world. Remove the prejudice against the Gipsies, makeit as respectable to be Gipsies, as the world, with its ignoranceof many of the race, deem it desreputable; whatthen? Some of them might come out with their “tents andencampments,” and banners and mottoes: the “cuddy andthe creel, the hammer and tongs, the tent and the tin kettle”forever. People need not sneer at the “cuddy and thecreel.” The idea conveys a world of poetry to the mind ofa Gipsy. Mrs. Fall, of Dunbar, thought it so poetical, thatshe had it, as we have seen, worked in tapestry; and it isdoubtless carefully preserved, as an heir-loom, among hercollateral descendants.[267]

Mr. Borrow speaks of the Gipsies “declining” in Spain.Ask a Scotchman about the Scottish Gipsies, and he will answer:“The Scotch Gipsies have pretty much died out.”“Died out?” I ask; “that is impossible; for who are moreprolific than Gipsies?” “Oh, then, they have become settled,[388]and civilized.” “Andceased to be Gipsies?” I continue.“Exactly so,” he replies. What idea can be more ridiculousthan that of saying, that if a Gipsy leaves the tent,settles in a town, and attends church, he ceases to be aGipsy; and that, if he takes to the tent again, he becomes aGipsy again? What has a man’s occupation, habits, or character,to do with his clan, tribe, or nationality? Does education,does religion, remove from his mind a knowledge ofwho he is, or change his blood? Are not our own Borderersand Highlanders as much Borderers and Highlanders as everthey were? Are not Spanish Gipsies still Spanish Gipsies, althougha change may have come over the characters and circumstancesof some of them? It would be absurd to deny it.[268]

Mr. Borrow has not sufficiently examined into SpanishGipsyism to pass a reliable opinion upon it. He says:“One thing is certain, in the history of the Gitanos; thatthe sect flourished and encreased, so long as the law recommendedand enjoined measures the most harsh and severefor its suppression. . . . The caste of the Gitanos stillexists, but is neither so extensive, nor so formidable, as acentury ago, when the law, in denouncing Gitanismo, proposed[389]to the Gitanos the alternatives of death for persistingin their profession, or slavery for abandoning it.” Theseare very singular alternatives. The latter is certainly notto be found in any of the Spanish laws quoted by Mr. Borrow.I am at a loss to perceive the point of his reasoning.There can be no difficulty in believing that Gipsies wouldratherencrease in a state of peace, than if they were huntedfrom place to place, like wild beasts; and consequently,having renounced their former mode or life, they would, inMr. Borrow’s own words, “cease to play a distinct part inthe history of Spain, and thelaw would no longer speak ofthem as a distinct people.” And the same might, to a certainextent, be said of the Spanishpeople. Mr. Borrowagain says: “That the Gitanos are not so numerous as informer times, witness thosebarrios, in various towns, still denominatedGitanerias, but from whence the Gitanos havedisappeared, even like the Moors from theMorerias.” ButMr. Borrow himself, in the same work, gives a good reasonfor the disappearance of the Gipsies from theseGitanerias;for he says: “TheGitanerias were soon considered as publicnuisances, on which account the Gitanos were forbidden tolive together in particular parts of the town, to hold meetings,and even to intermarry with each other.” If the disappearanceof the Gipsies from Spain was like that of theMoors, it would appear that they had left, or been expelledfrom, the country; a theory which Mr. Borrow does not advance.The Gipsies, to a certain extent, may have left thesebarriers, or been expelled from them, and settled, as tradesmen,mechanics, and what not, in other parts of the same orother towns; so as to be in a position the more able to geton in the world. Still, many of them are in the colonies.In Cuba there are many, as soldiers and musicians, dealersin mules and red pepper, which businesses they almostmonopolize, and jobbers and dealers in various wares; anddoubtless there are some of them innkeepers, and othersfollowing other occupations. In Mexico there are not a few.I know of a Gitano who has a fine wholesale and retail cigarstore in Virginia.[269]

[390]Mr. Borrow concludes, in regard to the Spanish Gipsies,thus: “We have already expressed our belief that the castehas diminished of latter years; whether this diminution wasthe result of one or many causes combined; of apartialchange of habits, of pestilence or sickness, of war orfamine, or of afreer intercourse with the Spanish population,we have no means of determining, and shall abstain fromoffering conjectures on the subject.” In this way does heleave the question just where he found it. Is there anyreason to doubt that Gipsydom is essentially the same inSpain as in Great Britain; or that its future will be guidedby any other principles than those which regulate that ofthe British Gipsies? Indeed, I am astonished that Mr.Borrow should advance the idea that Gipsies shoulddecreaseby “changing their habits;” they might notencrease so fast,in a settled life, as when more exposed to the air, and notmolested by the Spanish Government. I am no less astonishedthat he should think they would decrease by “a freerintercourse with the Spanish population;” when, in fact,such mixtures are well known to go with the Gipsies; themixture being, in the estimation of the British Gipsies, calculatedto strengthen and invigorate the race itself. HadMr. Borrow kept in mind the case of the half-blood Gipsycaptain, he could have had no difficulty in learning whatbecame of mixed Gipsies.[270]

[391]It doubtless holds in Spain, as in Great Britain, that asthe Gipsy enters into settled life, and engages in a respectablecalling, he hides his descent, and even mixes his bloodwith that of the country, and becomes ashamed of the namebefore the public; but is as much, at heart, a Gipsy, as anyothers of his race. And this theory is borne out by Mr.Borrow himself, when he speaks of “the unwillingness ofthe Spanish Gipsies to utter, when speaking of themselves,the detested expression Gitano; a word which seldom escapestheir mouths.” We might therefore conclude, thatthe Spanish Gipsies, with the exception of the more originaland bigoted stock, wouldhide their nationality from the commonSpaniards, and so escape their notice. It is not at alllikely that the half-pay Gipsy captain would mention to thepublic that he was a Gipsy, although he admitted it to Mr.Borrow, under the peculiar circumstances in which he methim. My Spanish acquaintance informs me that the Gitanos,generally, hide their nationality from the rest of the world.

Such a case is evidently told by Mr. Borrow, in the vagabondGipsy, Antonio, at Badajoz, who termed a rich Gipsy,living in the same town, a hog, because he evidently wouldnot countenance him. Antonio may possibly have beenkicked out of his house, in attempting to enter it. He accusedhim of having married a Spaniard, and of fain attemptingto pass himself for a Spaniard. As regards the wife,she might have been a Gipsy with very little of “the blood”in her veins; or a Spaniard, reared by Gipsies; or an ordinarySpanish maiden, to whom the Gipsy would teach hislanguage, as sometimes happens among the English Gipsies.His wishing to pass for a Spaniard had nothing to do withhis being, but not wishing to be known as, a Gipsy. Thesame is done by almost all our Scottish Gipsies. In England,those who do not follow the tent—I mean the moremixed and better-class—are even afraid of each other.“Afraid of what?” said I, to such an English Gipsy;“ashamed of being Gipsies?” “No, sir,” (with great emphasis;)“not ashamed of being Gipsies, but of beingknown[392]to other people as Gipsies.” “A world of difference,” I replied.What does the world hold to be aGipsy, and whatdoes it hold to be thefeelings of a man? If we considerthese two questions, we can have little difficulty in understandingthe wish of such Gipsies to disguise themselves.It is in this way, and in the mixing of the blood, that thisso-called “dying out of the Gipsies” is to be accountedfor.[271]

It is singular that Mr. Borrow should attribute the changewhich has come over the Spanish Gipsies, so much to thelaw passed by Charles III. in 1783; and that he shouldcharacterize it as an enlightened, wise, and liberal law; distinguishedby justice and clemency; and as being calculatedto exert considerable influence over the destiny of the race;nay, as being the principal, if not the only, cause for the“decline” of it in Spain. It was headed: “Rules forrepressingandchastising the vagrant mode of life, and other excesses,of those who are called Gitanos.” Article II. forbids,under penalties, the Gipsies “using theirlanguage, dress, orvagrant kind of life, which they had hitherto followed.”Article XI. prohibits them from “wandering about theroads and uninhabited places, even with the pretext ofvisiting markets and fairs.” Article IX. reads thus: “Thosewho have abandoned the dress, name, language or jargon,associations and manners of Gitanos, and shall have, moreover,chosen and established a domicile, but shall not havedevoted themselves to any office or employment, though itbe only that of day-labourer, shall beproceeded against ascommon vagrants.” Articles XVI. and XVII. enact, that“the children, and young people of both sexes, who are notabove sixteen years of age, shall be separated from theirparents,who wander about and have no employment, [whichwas forbidden by the law itself,] and shall be destined tolearn something, or shall be placed out in hospices or housesof instruction.” Article XX.dooms to death, without remission,[393]Gipsies who, for the second time, relapse into their oldhabits.

I cannot agree with Mr. Borrow, when he says, that thislaw “differs incharacter” from any which had hitherto beenenacted, in connection with the body in Spain, if I takethose preceding it, as given by himself. The only differencebetween it and some of the previous laws is, that it allowedthe Gipsy to be admitted to whatever office or employmentto which he might apply himself, and likewise to any guildsor communities; but it prohibited him from settling in thecapital, or any of the royal residences; and forbade him,onpain of death, to publicly profess what he was—that is, aGipsy. With the trifling exceptions mentioned, the law ofCharles III. was as foolish a one as ever was passedagainst the Gipsies. These very exceptions show what theletter, whatever the execution, of previous laws must havebeen. Nor can we form any opinion as to the effects thelaw in question had upon the Gipsies, unless we know howit was carried out. The law of the Empress Maria Theresaproduced no effect upon the Gipsies in Hungary. “In Hungary,”says Mr. Borrow, “two classes are free to do whatthey please—the nobility and the Gipsies—the one abovethe law, the other below it.” And what did Mr. Borrowfind the Gipsies in Hungary? In England, the last instancesof condemnation, under the old sanguinary laws, happeneda few years before the Restoration, although these were notrepealed till 23d Geo. III., c. 54. The Gipsies in Englandcan follow any employment, common to the ordinary natives,they please: and how has Mr. Borrow described themthere? In Scotland, the tribe have been allowed to donothing, not even acknowledge their existence, as Gipsies:and this work describes what they are in that country.

Instead of the law of Charles III. exercising any greatbeneficial influence over the character of the Spanish Gipsies,I would attribute the change in question to what Mr.Borrow himself says: “It must be remembered that duringthe last seventy years, a revolution has been progressing inSpain, slowly it is true; and such a revolution may haveaffected the Gitanos.” The Spanish Gipsy proverb, “Moneyis to be found in the town, not in the country,” has had its influenceon bringing the race to settle in towns. And by residingin towns, and not being persecuted, they have, in Mr. Borrow’s[394]own words, “insensibly become more civilized than theirancestors, and their habits and manners less ferocious.” Theonly good which the law of Charles III. seems to have doneto the Spanish Gipsies was, as already said, to permit themto follow any occupation, and be admitted to any guilds, orcommunities, (barring the capital, and royal residences,) theypleased; but only on the condition, and thaton the pain ofdeath, that theyrenounced every imaginable thing connectedwith their tribe; which, we may reasonably assume, noGipsy submitted to, however much in appearance he mighthave done so.

But it is doubtful if the law of Charles III. was anythingbut the one which it was customary for every Spanish monarchto issue against the tribe. Mr. Borrow says: “Perhapsthere is no country in which more laws have beenframed, having in view the suppression and extinction ofthe Gipsy name, race, and manner of life, than Spain. Everymonarch, during a period of three hundred years, appears,at his accession to the throne, to have considered that oneof his first and most imperative duties consisted in suppressingand checking the robberies, frauds, and other enormitiesof the Gitanos, with which the whole country seems to haveresounded since the time of their first appearance.” Thefact of so many laws being passed against the Gipsies, is, tomy mind, ample proof, as I shall afterwards explain, thatfew, if any, of them were put, to any extent, in force; andthat the act in question, viewed in itself, as distinct from thelaws previously in existence, was little more than a form. Itcontains a flourish of liberality, implied in the Gitanos beingallowed to enter, if they pleased, any guilds, (which theywere not likely to do,) or communities, (where they weredoubtless already;) but it debars, (that is, expels,) them fromthe king’s presence, at the capital or any of the royal residences.Moreover, it allowed the Gitano to be “admitted towhatever office or employment to which he might apply himself,”(against which, there probably was, or should havebeen, no law in existence.) His majesty must also imposehis pragmatical conceit upon his loyal subjects, by tellingthem, that “Gitanos arenot Gitanos”—that they “donotproceed from any infected root;” and threaten them, that ifthey maintain the contrary, and call them Gitanos, he willhave them punished for slander!

[395]The Gipsies, after a residence of 350 years in the country,would have comparatively little notice taken of them,under this law, except when they made themselves reallyobnoxious, or gave an official an occasion to display hisauthority, or his zeal for the public service.[272] Whatever mayhave been the treatment which the Gipsies experienced atthe hands of thecivil authorities, thechurch does not seemto have disturbed, and far less distressed, them. Mr. Borrowrepresents a priest of Cordova, formerly an Inquisitor,saying to him: “I am not aware of one case of a Gitanohaving been tried or punished by the Inquisition. The Inquisitionalways looked upon them with too much contempt,to give itself the slightest trouble concerning them; for, asno danger, either to the State or to the Church of Rome,could proceed from the Gitanos, it was a matter of perfectindifference to the holy office whether they lived without religionor not. The holy office has always reserved its angerfor people very different; the Gitano having, at all times,beenGente barrata y despreciable.”

Should the Spanish Gipsies not now assist each other, tothe extent they did when banditti, under the special proscriptionof the Government, it would be absurd to say thatthey were therefore not as much Gipsies as ever they were.The change in this respect arose, to some extent, from thetoleration extended to them, as a people and as individuals,whether by the law, or society in general. Such Gipsiesas Mr. Borrow seems to have associated with, in Spain,were not likely to be very reliable authority on the questionsat issue; for he has described them as “being endowedwith a kind of instinct, (in lieu of reason,) which assists themto a very limited extent, and no further.”

Might it not be in Spain as in Great Britain? Even inEngland, those that pass for Gipsies are few in number,compared to the mixed Gipsies, following various occupations;for a large part of the Gipsy blood in England has,as it were, been spread over a large surface of the white. InScotland it is almost altogether so. There seems considerable[396]reason for believing that Gipsydom is, perhaps, as muchmixed in Spain as in Great Britain, although Mr. Borrowhas taken no notice of it. We have seen, (page 92.) howsevere an enactment was passed by Queen Elizabeth, against“any person, whether natural born orstranger, to be seenin the fellowship of the Gipsies, or disguised like them.” Inthe law of Ferdinand and Isabella, the first passed againstthe Gipsies, in Spain, a class of people is mentioned, in conjunctionwith them, but distinguished from them, by thename of “foreign tinkers.” Philip III., at Belan, in Portugal,in 1619, commands all Gipsies to quit the kingdomwithin six months. “Those who should wish to remain areto establish themselves in cities, and are not to be allowedto use the dress, name, and language, in order, that forasmuchas they are not such by nation,(!) this name, and mannerof life, may be for evermore confounded and forgotten(!)”Philip IV., on the 8th May, 1633, declares “that they arenot Gipsies by origin or nature, but have adopted this formof life(!)” This idea of “Gitanosnot being Gitanos, andnot proceeding from any infected root,” was not originalwith Charles III., in 1783; his proclamation having been informal keeping with previous ones, whether of his owncountry, or, as in Scotland, in 1603, “recommended by theexample of some other realm,” (page 111.) There had evidentlybeen a great curiosity to know who some of the “notGipsies by origin and nature,” (evidently judging from theirappearance,) could be; for Philip IV. enacts, “that theyshall, within two months, leave the quarters where now theylive with the denomination of Gitanos, and that they shallseparate from each other, andmingle with the other inhabitants:that the ministers of justice are to observe,with particulardiligence, whether theyhold communication with eachother, ormarry among themselves.”

The “foreign tinkers” mentioned in the Act of Ferdinandand Isabella, and the individuals distinguished fromthe Gipsies in that of Queen Elizabeth, were doubtlessmixedGipsies; whose relationship with the Gipsies proper, andisolation from the common natives, are very distinctly pointedout in the above extract from the law of Philip IV. Mr.Borrow expresses a great difficulty to understand who thesepeople could be,if not Gipsies. How easy it is to get quitof the difficulty, by concluding that they were Gipsies whose[397]blood, perhaps for the most part, was native; and who hadbeen brought into the body in the manner explained in thePreface to this work, and more fully illustrated in thisDisquisition.If Mr. Borrow found in Spain a half-pay captain,in the service of Donna Isabel, withflaxen hair, athoroughGipsy, who spoke Gipsy and Latin, with great fluency, andhis cousin, Jara, in all probability another Gipsy, what difficultycan there be in believing, that the “foreign tinkers,”or tinkers of any kind, now to be met with in Spain, are,like the same class in Great Britain and Ireland, Gipsies ofmixed blood? Indeed, the young Spaniard, to whom I havealluded, informs me that the Gipsies in Spain are very muchmixed. Mr. Borrow himself admits that the Gipsy blood inSpain has been mixed; for, in speaking of the old Gipsycounts, he says: “It was the counts who determined what individualswere to be admitted into the fellowship and privilegesof the Gitanos. . . . . They (the Gipsies) werenot to teach the language to any but those who, by birth orinauguration, belonged to that sect.” And he gives acase in point, in the bookseller of Logrono, who was marriedto the only daughter of a Gitano count; upon whosedeath, the daughter and son-in-law succeeded to the authoritywhich he had exercised in the tribe. If the Gipsies inSpain were not mixed in point of blood, why should theyhave taken Mr. Borrow for a Gipsy, as he said they did?The persecutions to which the race in Spain were subjectedwere calculated to lead to a mixture of the blood, as inScotland, for the reasons given in thePreface; but, perhaps,not to the same extent; as the Spanish Acts seem to havegiven the tribe an opportunity of escape, under the conditionof settling, &c., &c., which would probably be compliedwith, nominally, for the time being; while the face of partof the country would afford a refuge till the storm hadblown over. (Seepages 71 and114.)

It is very likely that the following people, described byPaget, in his travels in Central Europe, are mixed Gipsies.He says: “In almost every part of the Austrian dominionsare to be found a kind of wandering tinkers, wire-workers,and menders of crockery, whose language appears to bethat of the Sclaves, who travel about, and, at certain seasons,return to their own settlements, where the women andchildren remain during their absence.” The wandering[398]Rothwelsh, perhaps the same mentioned by Paget, may bemixed Gipsies. In the Encyclopædia Britannica they arespoken of as “a vagabond people, in the south of Germany,who have sometimes been confounded with the Gipsies.”Theappearance of such persons has nothing to do withtheir being, or not being, members of Gipsydom.[273]

I will now consider the present condition of the ScottishGipsies. But, to commence with, what is the native capacityof a Gipsy? It is good. Take a common tinkering Gipsy,without a particle of education, and compare him with acommon native, without a particle of education, and the tinker,in point of smartness, is worth, perhaps, a dozen of theother. If not a learned, he is at least a travelled, Athenian,considerably rubbed up by his intercourse with the world.This is the proper way by which to judge of the capacityof a Gipsy. It will differ somewhat according to the countriesand circumstances in which he is found. Grellmann,about the year 1780, says, of evidently the more originalkind of Hungarian Gipsies: “Imagine a people of childishthoughts, whose minds are filled with raw, undigested conceptions,guided more by sense than reason, and using understandingand reflection only so far as they promote thegratification of any particular appetite; and you have aperfect sketch of the general character of the Gipsies.”“They are lively, uncommonly loquacious, fickle to an extreme;consequently, inconstant in their pursuits.” Bischoff,in speaking of the German Gipsies, in 1827, says: “Theyhave a good understanding, an excellent memory, are quickof comprehension, lively and talkative.” Mr. Borrow, inevident allusion to the very lowest, and most ignorant, classof the Spanish Gipsies, says: “They seem to hunt for theirbread, as if they were not of the human, but rather of theanimal, species, and, in lieu of reason, were endowed with akind of instinct, which assists them to a very limited extent,and no further.” I admit that this class of Gipsiesmay have as little intellect as there is in an ant-catcher’snose, but the remark can apply to them exclusively.

Without taking into account any opinion expressed byother writers on the Gipsies, Mr. Borrow says: “Should it[399]be urged that certain individuals have found them very differentfrom what they are represented in these volumes,(‘The Gipsies in Spain,’) he would frankly say that heyields no credit to the presumed fact.” And he refers hisreaders to his Spanish-Gipsy vocabulary for the wordshoaxandhocus, as a reason for such an opinion! He himselfgives descriptions of quite a different caste. For example,he speaks of a rich Gipsy appearing in a fair, at Leon, inSpain, with a twenty thousand dollar credit in his pocket.And of another Gipsy, a native of Constantinople, who hadvisited the most remote and remarkable portions of the world,“passing over it like a cloud;” and who spoke several dialectsof the Malay, and understood the original language ofJava. This Gipsy, he says, dealt in precious stones andpoisons; and that there is scarcely a bey or satrap in Persia,or Turkey, whom he has not supplied with both. In Moscow,he says, “There are not a few who inhabit statelyhouses, go abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind thehigher orders of the Russians, neither in appearance normental acquirements.” From these specimens, one mightnaturally conclude that there was some room for discriminationamong different classes of Gipsies, instead of ratingthem as having the intellect of ant-catchers.

When the Gipsies appeared in Scotland, the natives themselves,as I have already said, were nearly wholly uneducated.Many of the Gipsies, then, and long afterwards,being smart, presumptuous, overbearing, audacious fellows,seem to have assumed great importance, and been lookedupon as no small people by the authorities and the inhabitantsof the country. In every country in which they havesettled, they seem to have instinctively and very readilyappreciated the ways and spirit of the people, while, at thesame time, they preserved what belonged particularly tothemselves—their Gipsyism. Gipsydom being, in its veryessence, a “working in among other people,” “a peoplewithin a people,” it followed, that marriages between adoptedGipsies, and even Gipsies themselves, and the ordinary natives,would be encouraged, were it only to contribute totheir existence in the country. The issue of such marriages,go where they might, would become centres of little Gipsycircles, which, in their turn, would throw off members thatwould become the centres of other little Gipsy circles; the[400]leaven of Gipsydom leavening into a lump everything thatproceeded out of itself. To such an extent has this beenfollowed, that, at the present day, the Scottish Gipsies—atleast the generality of them—have every outward characteristicof Scotchmen. But the secret of being Gipsies,which they carry in their bosoms, makes them appear a littlequeer to others; they have a something about them thatmakes them look somewhat odd to the other Scotchman, whois not “one of them,” although he does not know the causeof it.

Upon, or shortly after, their arrival, they seem to havedivided the country among themselves; each tribe exercisingits rights over its own territory, to the exclusion ofothers, just as a native lord would have done against othernatives; with a system of passes, regulated by councils oflocal or provincial chieftains, and a king, over all. TheScottish Gipsies, from the very first, seem to have beenthoroughly versed in their vocation, from having had abouta hundred years’ experience, in some other part of Europe,before they settled in Scotland; although stragglers of theirrace evidently had made their appearance in the countrymany years before. What might have been the number ofGipsies then in Scotland, it is impossible to conjecture; itmust have been considerable, if we judge from what is saidin Wraxall’s History of France, vol. 2, page 32, when, inreference to the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in 1563, he states,that, in her reign, the Gipsies throughout England were supposedto exceed ten thousand. The employments of theoriginal Gipsies, within their respective districts, seem tohave been what is described under the head of Tweed-daleand Clydesdale Gipsies; that is, tinkering, making spoonsand other wares, petty trading, telling fortunes, living asmuch as possible at free-quarters, dealing in horses, andvisiting fairs. It is extremely likely that those who travelledTweed-dale, for example, always averaged about thesame number, down to the time of the American Revolution,(except in times of civil commotion, when they would havethe country pretty much to themselves,) and were confinedto such of the families of the respective tribes, or the membersof these families, in whom the right was hereditary.The consequence seems to have been, that perhaps theyounger members of the family had to betake themselves to[401]towns and villages, and engage in whatever they could possiblyturn their hands to. Some would, of course, take tothe highway, and kindred fields of industry. Admittingthat the circumstances attending the Gipsies in Scotland, atthat time, and subsequently, were the same, as regards themanner of making a living, which attend those in England,at the present day, (with this difference, that they couldmore easily roam at large then than now,) and we can haveno difficulty in coming to a conclusion how the surplus ofthe tented Gipsy population was disposed of. Among theEnglish Gipsies of to-day, taking year with year, and tentwith tent, there is, yearly, a continual moving out of the tent;a kind of Gipsy crop is annually gathered from tented Gipsydom;and some of these gradually find themselves drawninto almost every kind of mechanical or manual labour, evento working in coal-mines and iron-works; others becomepeddlers, itinerant auctioneers, andtramps of almost everyimaginable kind; not to speak of those who visit fairs, invarious capacities, or engage in various settled traffic.

Put a Gipsy to any occupation you like, and he shows acapability and handiness that is astonishing, if he can onlymuster up steadiness in his new vocation. But it is difficultto break him off the tent; he will return, and lounge, forweeks together, about that of his father, or some other relative.But get him fairly out of the tent, married, and, in adegree, settled to some occupation, in a town where thereare not too many of his own race in close proximity to him,but where he gets mixed up, in his daily avocation, with thecommon natives, and he sooner or later falls into the ranks.Still, his intimate associations are always with Gipsies; forhis ardent attachment to his people, and a correspondingresentment of the prejudice that exists against it, keep himaloof from any intimate intercourse with the ordinary inhabitants;his associations with them hardly ever extendingbeyond the commons or the public-house. If he experiencesan attack from his old habits, he will take to the tramp, fromtown to town, working at his mechanical occupation; leavinghis wife and children at home. But it is not long beforehe returns. His children, having been born and reared in atown, become habituated to a settled life, like other people.

There is a vast amount of ambition about every Gipsy,which is displayed, among the humble classes, in all kinds[402]of athletic exercises.[274] The same peculiarity is discernibleamong the educated Scottish Gipsies. Carrying about withthem the secret of being Gipsies, which they assume wouldbe a terrible imputation cast upon them by the ordinary natives,if they knew of it, they, as it were, fly up, like game-cocks,and show a disposition to surpass the others in oneway or other; particularly as they consider themselves betterthan the common inhabitants. They must always be“cock of the company,” master of ceremonies, or stand atthe top of the tree, if possible. The reader may ask, howdo they consider themselves better than the ordinary natives?And I answer, that, from having been so long in Scotland,they are Scotchmen, (as indeed they are, for the most part, inpoint of blood,) and consider themselves as good as theothers—nay, smarter than others in the same sphere, which,generally speaking, they are; and, in addition to that, beingGipsies, a great deal better. They pique themselves ontheir descent, and on being in possession of secrets whichare peculiarly and exclusively theirs, and which they imagineno other knows, or will ever know. They feel thatthey are part and parcel of those mysterious beings who arean enigma to others, no less than to themselves. Besidesthis vanity, which is peculiar to the Gipsy everywhere, theScottish Gipsies have chimed in with all the native Scotchideas of clanism, kith, kin, and consequence, as regardsfamily, descent, and so forth; and applied them so peculiarlyto themselves, as to render their opinion of their bodyas something of no small importance. Some of them,whose descent leads them more directly back to the tentedstock, speak of their families having possessed this districtor the other district of the country, as much, almost, as wewould expect to hear from some native Scottish chieftain.

As regards the various phases of history through whichmany of the Scottish Gipsies have passed, we can only forman estimate from what has been observed in recent times.The further back, however, we go, the greater were theirfacilities to rise to a position in society; for this reason,[403]that a very little education, joined to good natural talents,were all that was necessary, in a mixed Gipsy, to raisehimself in the world, at the time to which I allude. Hecould leave the district in which, when a youth, he hadtravelled, with his parents; settle in a town where hewas not personally known; commence some traffic, and,by his industry, gradually raise himself up, and acquirewealth. He would not lack a proper degree of innate manners,or personal dignity, to deport himself with proprietyin any ordinary company into which he might enter. Evenat the present day, in Scotland, a poor Gipsy will commencelife with a wheelbarrow, then get a donkey-cart, and, in afew years, have a very respectable crockery-shop. I am intimatewith an English mixed Gipsy family, the father ofwhich commenced life as a basket-maker, was afterwards aconstable, and now occasionally travels with the tent. Hisson is an M. D., for I have seen his diploma; and is a smart,intelligent fellow, and quite an adept at chemistry. Toillustrate the change that has taken place among some of theScottish Gipsies, within the last fifty years, I may mentionthat the grand-children of a prominent Gipsy, mentioned inchapter V., follow, at the present day, the medical, the legal,and the mercantile professions. Such occurrences have beenfrequent in Scotland. There are the cases mentioned by ourauthor; such as one of the Faas rising to such eminence inthe mercantile world, at Dunbar; and another who rose tothe rank of lieutenant in the East India Company’s service;and the Baillie family, which furnished a captain and aquarter-master to the army, and a country surgeon. Theseare but instances of many others, if they were but known.Some may object, that these were not full-blood Gipsies.That, I readily admit. But the objection is more nominalthan real. ‘If a white were to proceed to the interior ofthe American continent, and cast his lot with a tribe ofIndians, his children would, of course, be expected to besuperior, in some respects, to the children of the nativeblood exclusively, owing to what the father might be supposedto teach them. But it is different in the case of awhite marrying a Scottish Gipsy woman, born and reared inthe same community with himself; for the white, in generalcases, brings only his blood, which enables the children, ifthey take after himself, in appearance, to enter such places[404]as the black Gipsies would not enter, or might not beallowed to enter. The white father, in such a case, mightnot even be so intelligent as the Gipsy mother. Be that asit may, the individuals to whom I have alluded were nothingbut Gipsies; possibly they did not know when, or throughwhom, the white blood was introduced among them; theyknew, at least, that they were Gipsies, and that the linkswhich connected them with the past were substantiallyGipsy links. Besides the Scottish Gipsies rising to respectablepositions in life, by their own exertions, I can well believethat Gipsydom has been well brought up through thefemale line; especially at a time when females, and particularlycountry females, were rude and all but uneducated.Who more capable of doing that than the lady Baillies, ofTweed-dale, and the lady Wilsons, of Stirlingshire? SuchGipsy girls could “turn natives round their little fingers”and act, in a way, the lady at once; “turn over a new leaf,”and “pin it down;” and conduct themselves with greatpropriety.

Upon a superior Scottish Gipsy settling in a town, andespecially a small town, and wishing to appear respectable,he would naturally take a pew in the church, and attendpublic worship, were it only, as our author asserts, to hidethe fact of his being a Gipsy. Because, among the Scotch,there is that prying inquisitiveness into their neighbours’affairs, that compels a person to be very circumspect, in allhis actions, movements, and expressions, if he wishes to bethought anything of, at all. The habit of attending churchwould then become as regular, in the Gipsy’s family, as inthe families of the ordinary natives, and, in a great measure,proceed from as legitimate a motive. The family would bevery polite, indeed, extra polite, to their neighbours. Afterthey had lulled to sleep every suspicion of what they were,or, by their really good conduct, had, according to thepopular idea, “ceased to be Gipsies,” they would naturallyencourage a formal acquaintance with respectable (andnothing but respectable,) people in the place. The Gipsyhimself, a really good fellow at heart, honourable in hisdealings, but fond of a bargain, when he could drive a bargain,and, moreover, a jovial fellow, would naturally makeplenty of business and out-door friends, at least. Rising incircumstances and the public esteem, he makes up his mind[405]that his children ought to be something better than himself,at all events; in short, that they ought not to be behindthose of his respectable neighbours. Some of them he,therefore, educates for a liberal profession. The Gipsyhimself becomes more and more ambitious: besides attendingchurch, he must become an elder of the church; or itmay be that the grace of God takes hold of him, and bringshim into the fold. He and his wife conduct themselveswith much propriety; but some of the boys are rather wild;the girls, however, behave well. Altogether, the wholefamily is very much thought of. Such is a Scottish Gipsyfamily, (the parents of which are now dead,) that I have inmy mind at the present moment. No suspicion existed inregard to the father, but there was a breath of suspicion inregard to the mother. But what difference did that make?What knowledge had the public of the nature of Gipsydom?

Consider, then, that the process which I have attemptedto describe has been going on, more or less, for at least thelast three hundred and fifty years; and I may well ask,where might wenot expect to meet with Gipsies, in Scotland,at the present day? And I reply, that we will meet withthem in every sphere of Scottish life, not excepting, perhaps,the very highest. There are Gipsies among the very bestEdinburgh families. I am well acquainted with Scotchmen,youths and men of middle age, of education and character,and who follow very respectable occupations, that areGipsies, and who admit that they are Gipsies. But, apartfrom my own knowledge, I ask, is it not a fact, that, a fewyears ago, a pillar of the Scottish church, at Edinburgh,upon the occasion of founding a society for the reformationof the poor class of Scottish Gipsies, and frequently thereafter,said that he himself was a Gipsy? I ask, again, is notthat a fact? It is a fact. And such a man! Such prayers!Such deep-toned, sonorous piety! Such candour! Suchjudgment! Such amiability of manners! How much respected!How worthy of respect! The good, the godly,the saintly doctor! When will we meet his like again?[275]

[406]This leads me to speak of a high-class Scottish Gipsyfamily—the Falls, who settled at Dunbar, as merchants, alludedto under the chapter onBorder Gipsies.[276] Who candoubt that they were Gipsies to the last? How could theyavoid being Gipsies? The Gipsies were their people; theirblood was Gipsy blood. How could they get rid of theirblood and descent? Could they throw either off, as theywould an old coat? Could medical science rid them ofeither? Assuredly not. They admitted their descent,overtheir cups. But beingdescendants of Gipsies, and yetnotGipsies, is a contradiction in terms. The principles whichregulate the descent of other Gipsy families applied equallyto theirs. The fact that Mrs. Fall had the history of herpeople, in the act of leaving Yetholm, represented in tapestry,may be taken as but a straw that indicated how thewind blew. Was not old Will Faa, the Gipsy king, downto his death, at the end of the first American war, admittedto their hospitality as a relative? And do not the Scottish[407]Gipsies, at the present day, claim them to have been Gipsies?Why might not the Falls glory in being Egyptiansamong themselves, but not to others? Were not their ancestorskings? “Wee kings,” no doubt, but still kings;one of them being the “loved John Faw,” of James V., whomall the tribe consider as a great man, (which, doubtless, hewas, in that barbarous age,) and the principal of the thirteenpatriarchs of Scottish Gipsydom. Was not a Gipsy king,(themselves being Gipsies,) an ancestor of far more respect,in their eyes, than the founder of a native family, in theirneighbourhood; who, in the reign of Charles II., was a commoncountrysnip, and most likely commenced life with“whipping the cat” around the country, for fivepence aday, and victuals and clippings?[277]

The truth of the matter is, these Falls must have consideredthemselves a world better than other people, merelyon account of their being Gipsies, as all Gipsies do, arising,in part, from that antagonistic spirit of opposition which theprejudice of their fellow-creatures is so much calculated tostir up in their minds. Saying, over their cups, that theywere descended from the Faws, the historical Gipsy namein Scotland, did not divulge very much to the public. Forwhat idea had the public of theworking of Gipsydom—whatidea of the Gipsy language? Did the public know ofthe existence of a Gipsy language in Scotland? In all probability,it generally did not. If the public heard a Tinkleruse a strange word, all that it would think of it would be,that it wascant, confined to vagabonds strolling the country.Would it ever dream that what the vagabonds usedwas carefully preserved and spoken among the greatFalls, of Dunbar, within the sanctity of their own dwellings,as it assuredly must have been? Would the public believein such a thing, if even its own ears were made the witnessesto it? Was the love which the Falls had for their Yetholmconnexion confined to a mere group of their ancestorsworked in tapestry? Where was the Gipsy language, duringall this time? Assuredly it was well preserved in theirfamily. If it showed the least symptoms of falling off, howeasily could the mothers bring into the family, as servants,[408]other Gipsies, who would teach it to the children! For, besidesthe dazzling hold which the Gipsy language takes ofthe mind of a Gipsy, as the language of those black, mysteriousheroes from whom he is descended, the keeping of itup forms the foundation of that self-respect which a Gipsyhas for himself, amidst the prejudice of the world; fromwhich, at the bottom of his heart, whatever his position inlife, or character, or associations, may be, he considers himselfseparated. I am decidedly of opinion that all the domesticsabout this Fall family were Gipsies of one caste,colour, condition, or what not.

Then, we are told that Miss Fall, who married Sir JohnAnstruther, of Elie, baronet, was looked down upon by herhusband’s friends, and received no other name than JennyFaa; and that she was indirectly twitted with being aGipsy, by the rabble, while attending an election in whichSir John was a candidate. What real satisfaction could Jenny,or any other Gipsy, have for ordinary natives of the country,when she was conscious of being what she was, and howshe was spoken of, by her husband’s relatives and the publicgenerally? She would take comfort in telling her “wonderfulstory” to her children, (for I presume she would havechildren,) who would sympathize with her; and in conversingwith such of her own race as were near her, were itonly her trusty domestics. It is the Gipsy woman who feelsthe prejudice that exists towards her race the most acutely;for she has the rearing of the children, and broods moreover the history of her people. As the needle turns to thepole, so does the mind of the Gipsy woman to Gipsydom.

We are likewise told that this eminent Gipsy family wereconnected, by marriage, with the Footies, of Balgonie; theCoutts, afterwards bankers; Collector Whyte, of Kirkaldy,and Collector Melville, of Dunbar. We may assume, as amathematical certainty, that Gipsydom, in a refined form, isin existence in the descendants of these families, particularlyin such of them as were connected with this Gipsyfamily by the female side.[278]

[409]A person who has never considered this subject, or anyother cognate to it, may imagine that a Gipsy reproacheshimself with his own blood. Pshaw! Where will youfind a man, or a tribe of men, under the heavens, that willdo that? It is not in human nature to do it. All menvenerate their ancestors, whoever they have been. A Gipsyis, to an extraordinary degree, proud of his blood. “I havevery little of the blood, myself,” said one of them, “but justcome and see my wife!” But people may say that the ancestorsof the Falls were thieves. And were not all theBorderers, in their way, the worst kind of thieves? Theymight not have stolen from their nearest relatives; but, withthat exception, did they not steal from each other? Now,Gipsies never, or hardly ever, steal from each other. Werenot all the Elliots and Armstrongs thieves of the firstwater? Were not the Scotts and the Kers thieves, longafter the Gipsies entered Scotland? When the servants ofScott of Harden drove out his last cow, and said, “There goesHarden’s cow,” did not the old cow-stealer say, “It will soonbe Harden’skye“—meaning, that he would set out on a cow-stealingexpedition? In fact, he lived upon spoil. Was itnot his lady’s custom, on the last bullock being killed, toplace on the table a dish, which, on being uncovered, wasfound to contain a pair of clean spurs—a hint, to her husbandand his followers, that they must shift for their nextmeal? The descendants of these Scotts, and the Scottishpublic generally, look, with the utmost complacency andpride, upon the history of such families; yet would be veryapt to make a great ado, if the ancestress of a Gipsy should,in such a predicament, have hung out a cock’s tail at themouth of her tent, as a hint to her “laddies” to look after[410]poultry. Common sense tells us, that, for one excuse to beoffered for such conduct, on the part of thelanded-gentryof the country, a hundred can be found for the ancestor of aGipsy—an unfortunate wanderer on the face of the earth,who was hunted about, like a wolf of the forest.[279]

And what shall we say of our Highland thieves? Highlandersmay be more touchy on this point, for their ancestorswere the last of the British race to give up that kind oflife. Talk of the laws passed against the Gipsies! Variousof our Scottish monarchs issued decrees against “thewicked thieves and limmers of the clans and surnames, inhabitingthe Highlands and Isles,” accusing “the chieftainsprincipal of the branches worthy to be esteemed the veryauthors, fosterers, and maintainers, of the wicked deeds ofthe vagabonds of their clans and surnames.” Indeed, thedoweries of the chiefs’ daughters were made up by a shareof the booty collected on their expeditions. The Highlandswere, at one time, little better than a nest of thieves;thieving from each other, and more particularly from theirsouthern neighbours. It is notorious that robbery, in theHighlands, was “held to be a calling not merely innocent,but honourable;” and that a high-born Highland warriorwas “much more becomingly employed, in plundering thelands of others, than in tilling his own.” At stated times ofthe year, such as at Candlemas, regular bands of Highlanders,the sons of gentlemen and what not, proceeded southin quest of booty, as part of their winter’s provisions. TheHighlanders might even have been compared, at one time, toas many tribes of Afghans. Mr. Skene, the historian of theHighlands, and himself a Highlander, says that the Highlandersbelieved that theyhad a right to plunder the peopleof the low country,whenever it was in their power. We[411]naturally ask, how did the Highlandersacquire this right ofplunder? Were they ever proscribed? Were any of themhung, merely for being Highlanders? No. What plea,then, did the Highlanders set up, in justification of thiswholesale robbery?—“They believed,from tradition, thatthe Lowlands,in old times, were the possessions of their ancestors.”(Skene.) But that was no excuse for their plunderingeach other.[280]

The Gipsy’s ordinary pilfering was confined to such pettythings as “hens and peats at pleasure,” “cutting a bit lamb’sthroat,” and “a mouthfu’ o’ grass and a pickle corn, for thecuddy”—“things that a farmer body ne’er could miss.” Butyour Highlanders did not content themselves with such“needles and pins;” they must have “horned cattle.” Ifthe coast was clear, they would table their drawn dirks,and commence theirspulzie, by making their victims furnishthem with what was necessary to fill their bellies; upon thestrength of which, they would “lift” whatever they couldcarry and drive, or take its equivalent in black-mail.

What an effort is made by our McGregors, at the presentday, to scrape up kin with this or the other bandit McGregor;and yet how apt the McGregor is to turn up hisnose—just as Punch, only, could make him turn it up—if aGipsy were to step out, and say, that he was a descendant,and could speak the language, of Will Baillie, mentionedunder the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies: aGipsy, described by my ancestor, (and he could judge,) tohave been “the handsomest, the best dressed, the best looking,and the best bred, man he ever saw; and the best[412]swordsman in Scotland, for, with his weapon in his hand,and his back at a wall, he could set almost everything, savingfire-arms, at defiance; a man who could act the gentleman,the robber, the sorner, and the tinker, whenever itanswered his purpose.”[281] And yet, some of this man’s descendantswill doubtless be found among our medical doctors,and even the clergy. I recollect our author pointingout a clergyman of the Scottish Church, who, he was prettysure, was “one of them.” What name could have stoodlower, at one time, than McGregor? Both by legal andsocial proscription, it was looked upon as vagabond; anddoubtless the clan brought it, primarily and principally, uponthemselves; but as for the rapine they practised upon theirneighbours, and the helpless southerners, they were, at first,no worse, in that respect, than others of their nation. Arethe McGregors sure that there are no Gipsies among them?There are plenty of Gipsies of, at least, the name of McGregor,known to both the Scottish and English Gipsies.What more likely than some of the McGregors, when “out,”and leading their vagabond lives, getting mixed up with thebetter kind of mixed Gipsies? They were both leading awild life, and it is not unlikely that some of the McGregors,of even no small consequence, might have been led captiveby such Gipsy girls as the lady Baillies, of Tweed-dale. Leta Gipsy once be grafted upon a native family, and she riseswith it; leavens the little circle of which she is the centre,and leaves it, and its descendants, for all time coming,Gipsies.

I now come to ask, what constitutes a Gipsy at the presentday? And common sense replies: the simple fact of knowingfrom whom he is descended, that is, who he is, in connectionwith having the Gipsy words and signs, althoughthese are not absolutely necessary. It requires no argumentto show that there is no tribe or nation but finds somethingthat leads it to cling to its origin and descent, and not despisethe blood that runs in its own veins, although it maydespise the condition or conduct of some of its members.Where shall we find an exception to this rule? The Gipsyrace is no exception to it. Civilize a Gipsy, and you makehim a civilized Gipsy; educate him, and you make him aneducated Gipsy; bring him up to any profession you like,[413]Christianize him as much as you may, and he still remains aGipsy; because he is of the Gipsy race, and all the influencesof nature and revelation do not affect the questionsof blood, tribe, and nationality. Take all the Gipsies thatever came out of the tent, or their descendants, includingthose brought into the body through the male and femaleline; and what are they now? Still Gipsies. They evenpass into the other world Gipsies. “But they will forgetthat they are Gipsies,” say, perhaps, some of my readers.Forget that they are Gipsies! Will we hear, some of thesedays, that Scotch people, themselves, will get up of a morning,toss about their night-caps, and forget that they areScotch? We may then see the same happen with the Gipsies.What I have said, of the Gipsy always being a Gipsy,is self-evident; but it has a wide difference of meaningfrom that contained in the quotation given by Mr. Borrow,in which it is said: “For that which is unclean by naturethou canst entertain no hope; no washing will turn theGipsy white.”[282] But, taking the world all over, there willdoubtless be Gipsies, in larger or smaller numbers, who willalways be found following the original ways of their race.

What were the Hungarians, at one time, and what arethey now? Pritchard says of them: “The Hungarians[414]laid aside the habits of rude and savage hunters, far belowthe condition of the nomadic hordes, for the manners ofcivilized life. In the course of a thousand years, they havebecome a handsome people, of fine stature, regular Europeanfeatures, and have the complexion prevalent in that tract ofEurope where they dwell.” Now the Gipsies have been inScotland at least three hundred and fifty years; and whatwith the mixture of native blood, (which, at least, helped toremove the prejudice against the man’s appearance, and, consequently,gave him a larger and freer scope of action;) thehard laws of necessity, and the being tossed about by society,like pebbles on the seashore; the influences of civilization,education, and the grace of God itself; by such means asthese, some of the Scottish Gipsies have risen to a respectable,even eminent, position in life. But some people maysay: “These are not Gipsies; they have little of the bloodin them.” That is nothing. Ask themselves what they are,and, if they are at all candid, they will reply that they areGipsies. “No doubt,” they say, “we have fair, or red, orblack, hair, (as the case may be;) we know nothing aboutthat; but we know that weare Gipsies; that is all.” Thereis as much difference between such a high-class Gipsy and apoor Gipsian, as there is between a Scottish judge and thejudge’s fourth cousin, who makes his living by clipping dogs’ears. The principle of progression, the passing through onephase of history into another, while the race maintains itsidentity, holds good with the Gipsies, as well as with anyother people.

Take a Gipsy in his original state, and we can find nothingreallyvulgar about him. What is popularly understoodto be Gipsy life may be considered low life, by people whodo not overmuch discriminate in such matters; but view itafter its kind, and it is not really low; for a Gipsy is naturallypolite and well mannered. He does not consider himselfas belonging to the same race as the native, and wouldrather be judged by a different standard. The life whichhe leads is not that of the lowest class of the country inwhich he dwells, but the primitive, original state of a peopleof great antiquity, proscribed by law and society; himselfan enemy of, and an enemy to, all around him; with thepopulation so prejudiced against him, that attempts to changehis condition, consistently with his feelings as a man, are[415]frequently rendered in vain: so that, on the ground ofstrict morals, or even administrative justice, the man can besaid to be only half responsible. The subject, however,assumes quite a different aspect, when we consider a Gipsyof education and refinement, like the worthy clergymanmentioned, between whose condition and that of his tentedancestor an interval of, perhaps, two or three centuries haselapsed. We should then put him on the footing of anyother race having a barbarous origin, and entertain no prejudiceagainst him on account of the race to which he belongs.He is then to be judged as we judge Highland andBorder Scots, for the whole three were at one time robbers;and all the three having welled up to respectable life together,they ought to be judged on their merits, individually,as men, and treated accordingly. And the Gipsy ought tobe the most leniently dealt with, on the principle that theactions of his ancestors were far more excusable, and evenless heinous, than those of the others. And as regards antiquityof descent, the Gipsy’s infinitely surpasses the others,being probably no less than the shepherd kings, part ofwhose blood left Egypt, in the train of the Jews. I wouldplace such a Gipsy on the footing of the Hungarian race;with this difference, that the Hungarians entered Europe inthe ninth century, and became a people, occupying a territory;while the Gipsies appeared in the fifteenth century,and are now to be found, civilized and uncivilized, in almostevery corner of the known world.

The admission of the good man alluded to casts a floodof light upon the history of the Scottish Gipsy race,shrouded as it is from the eye of the general population;but the information given by him was apt to fall flat uponthe ear of the ordinary native, unless it was accompanied bysome such exposition of the subject as is given in this work.Still, we can gather from it, where Gipsies are to be found,whata Scottish Gipsy is, and what the race is capable of;and what might be expected of it, if the prejudice of theirfellow-creatures was withdrawn from the race, as distinguishedfrom the various classes into which it may be divided,or, I should rather say, the personal conduct of each Gipsyindividually. View the subject any way I may, I cannotresist coming to the conclusion that, under more favourablecircumstances, it is difficult to say what the Gipsies[416]might not attain to. But that would depend greatly uponthe country in which they are to be found. Scotland hasbeen peculiarly favourable for them, in some respects.

As regards the Scottish Gipsy population, at the presentday, I can only adopt the language of the immortal DominieSampson, and say, that it must be “prodigious.” If we considerthe number that appear to have settled in Scotland,the length of time they have been in Scotland, the greatamount of white blood that has, by one means or other, beenbrought into, and mixed up with, the body, and its greatnatural encrease; the feelings that attach them to their descent—feelingsthat originate, more properly, within themselves,and feelings that press upon them from without—thevarious occupations and positions in life in which they areto be found; we cannot set any limit to their number.Gipsies are just like other people; they have their own setsor circles of associates, out of which, as a thing that isalmost invariable, they will hide, if not deny, themselves toothers of their race, for reasons which have already beengiven. So almost invariable is this, at the present day,amongst Gipsies that are not tented Gipsies, that, should anEnglish Gipsy come across a settlement of them in America—GermanGipsies, for example—and cast his sign, and addressthem in their own speech, they will pretend not toknow what he means, although he sees the Gipsy in theirfaces and about their dwellings. But should he meet withthem away from their homes, and where they are not known,they would answer, and be cheek-by-jowl with him, in a moment.I have found, by personal experience, that the sameholds with the French and other continental Gipsies inAmerica.[283] It is particularly so with the Scottish Gipsies.[417]For these reasons, it seems to be beyond question that thenumber at which our author estimates them in Scotland, viz.,5,000, must be vastly below the real number. If I were tosay 100,000, I do not think I would over-estimate them.The opinion of the Gipsies whom our author questionedwas a guess, so far as it referred to the class to which theybelonged, or with which they were acquainted; so that, ifwe take all kinds of Gipsies into account, it would be a verymoderate estimate to set the Scottish Gipsies down at100,000; and those in all the British Isles at 300,000. Thenumber might be double what I have stated. The intelligentEnglish Gipsies say that, in England, they are not only“dreadfully mixed,” but extremely numerous. There is nota race of men on the face of the earth more prolific thantented Gipsies; in a word, tented Gipsydom, if I may hazardsuch an expression, is, comparatively speaking, like a rabbitwarren. The rough and uncouth kind of settled Gipsies arelikewise very prolific; but the higher classes, as a rule, areby no means so much so. To set down any specific numberof Gipsies to be found in the British Isles, would be a thingtoo arbitrary to serve any purpose; I think sufficient datahave been given to enable the intelligent reader to form anopinion for himself.[284]

[418]That many Gipsies were banished to America, in colonialtimes, from England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, sometimesfor merely being “by habit and repute Gipsies,” isbeyond dispute. “Your Welsh and Irish,” said an EnglishGipsy, in the United States, “were so mean, when theybanished a Gipsy to the Plantations, as to make him findhis own passage; but the English always paid the Gipsy’spassage for him.” The Scotch seem also to have made theGipsy find his own passage, and failing that, to have hangedhim. It greatly interests the English Gipsies arriving inAmerica, to know about the native American Gipsies. Ihave been frequently in the company of an English Gipsy,in America, whose great-grandfather was so banished; buthe did not relish the subject being spoken of. Gipsies maybe said to have been in America almost from the time of itssettlement. We have already seen how many of them foundtheir way there, during the Revolution, by being impressedas soldiers, and taken as volunteers, for the benefit of the[419]bounty and passage; and how they deserted on landing.Tented Gipsies have been seen about Baltimore for the lastseventy years. In New England, a colony is known whichhas existed for about a hundred years, and has always beenlooked upon with a singular feeling of distrust and mysteryby the inhabitants, who are the descendants of the earlyemigrants, and who did not suspect their origin till lately.These Gipsies have never associated, in the common senseof the word, with the other settlers, and, judging from theirexterior, seem poor and miserable, whatever their circumstancesmay be. They follow pretty much the employmentand modes of life of the same class in Europe; the moststriking feature being, that the bulk of them leave the homesteadfor a length of time, scatter in different directions,and reunite, periodically, at their quarters, which are leftin charge of some of the feeble members of the band.

It is not likely that many of the colonial Gipsies wouldtake to the tent; for, arriving, for the most part, as individuals,separated from family relations, they were more aptto follow settled, semi-settled, or general itinerant occupations;and the more so, as the face of the country, and thethin and scattered settlements, would hardly admit of it.They were apt to squat on wild or unoccupied lands, in theneighbourhood of towns and settlements, like their brethrenin Europe, when they took up their quarters on the bordersof well-settled districts, with a wild country to fall back on,in times of danger or prosecution by the lawful authorities.Besides disposing of themselves, to some little extent,in this way, many of the Gipsies, banished, or going to thecolonies of their own accord, would betake themselves to thevarious occupations common to the ordinary emigrants; themore especially as, when they arrived, they would find a field[420]in which they were not known to be Gipsies; which wouldgive them greater scope and confidence, and enable them togo anywhere, or enter upon any employment, where, notbeing known to be Gipsies, they would meet with no prejudiceto contend with. Indeed, a new country, in which thepeople had, more or less, to be, in a sense, tinkers, that is,jacks-of-all-trades, and masters of none, was just the sphereof a handy Gipsy, who could “do a’ most of things.” Theywould turn to the tinkering, peddling, horse-dealing, tavern-keeping,and almost all the ordinary mechanical trades, and,among others, broom-making. Perhaps the foundation ofthe American broom manufacture was laid by the BritishGipsies, by whom it may be partly carried on at the presentday; a business they pretty much monopolize, in a roughway, in Great Britain. We will doubtless find, among thefraternity, some of those whittling, meddling Sam Slick peddlers,so often described: I have seen some of those itinerantvenders of knife-sharpeners, and such “Yankee notions,”with dark, glistening eyes, that would “pass for the article.”Some of them would live by less legitimate business. I entertainno doubt, what from the general fitness of things,and the appearance of some of the men, that we will findsome of the descendants of the old British mixed Gipsiesmembers of the various establishments of Messrs. PeterFunks and Company,[285] of the city of New York, as well aselsewhere. And I entertain as little doubt that many ofthose American women who tell fortunes, and engage inthose many curious bits of business that so often come upat trials, are descendants of the British plantation stock ofGipsies. But there are doubtless many of these Gipsies inrespectable spheres of life. It would be extremely unreasonableto say that the descendants of the colonial Gipsiesdo not still exist as Gipsies, like their brethren in GreatBritain, and other parts of the Old World. The EnglishGipsies in America entertain no doubt of it; the more especiallyas they have encountered such Gipsies, of at leasttwo descents. I have myself met with such a Gipsy, followinga decidedly respectable calling, whom I found as muchone of the tribe, barring the original habits, as perhaps anyone in Europe.

There are many Hungarian and German Gipsies in America;[421]some of them long settled in Pennsylvania and Maryland,where they own farms. Some of them leave theirfarms in charge of hired hands, during the summer, and proceedSouth with their tents. In the State of Pennsylvania,there is a settlement of them, on the J—— river, a littleway above H——, where they have saw-mills. About theAlleghany Mountains, there are many of the tribe, followingsomewhat the original ways of the race. In the UnitedStates generally, there are many Gipsy peddlers, British aswell as continental. There are a good many Gipsies inNew York—English, Irish, and continental—some of whomkeep tin, crockery, and basket stores; but these are allmixed Gipsies, and many of them of fair complexion. Thetin-ware which they make is generally of a plain, coarsekind; so much so, that a Gipsy tin store is easily known.They frequently exhibit their tin-ware and baskets on thestreets, and carry them about the city. Almost all, if notall, of those itinerant cutlers and tinkers, to be met with inNew York, and other American cities, are Gipsies, principallyGerman, Hungarian, and French. There are a goodmany Gipsy musicians in America. “What!” said I, to anEnglish Gipsy, “those organ-grinders?” “Nothing so low asthat. Gipsies don’tgrind their music, sir; theymake it.”But I found in his house, when occupied by other Gipsies, ahurdy-gurdy and tambourine; so that Gipsies sometimesgrind music, as well asmake it. I know of a HungarianGipsy who is leader of a Negro musical band, in the city ofNew York; his brother drives one of the Avenue cars.There are a number of Gipsy musicians in Baltimore, whoplay at parties, and on other occasions. Some of the fortune-tellingGipsy women about New York will make asmuch as forty dollars a week in that line of business. Theygenerally live a little way out of the city, into which theyride, in the morning, to their places of business. I know ofone, who resides in New Jersey, opposite New York, andwho has a place in the city, to which ladies, that is, femalesof the highest classes, address their cards, for her to callupon them. When she gets a chance of a young fellow withhis female friend, she “puts the screws on;” for she knowswell that he dare not “back out;” so she frequently managesto squeeze five dollars out of him.

Many hundred, perhaps several thousand, of English[422]tented, and partly tented Gipsies, have arrived in Americawithin the last ten years. They, for the most part, travel,and have travelled every State in the Union, east of theRocky Mountains, as well as the British Provinces, as horse-dealers,peddlers, doctors, exhibitors, fortune-tellers, andtramps generally. Such English Gipsies, above all men inAmerica, may, with the greatest propriety, say,

The fortune-tellers, every time they set out on their peregrinations,choose a new route; for they say it is more difficultto go over the same ground in America, than it is in England.The horse-dealers say that Jonathan is a good judgeof a horse; that sometimes they get the advantage of him,and sometimes he of them; but that his demand for a warrantysometimes bothers them a deal. “What then?” I asked.“Well, we give him a warranty; and should the beasthappento turn out wrong, let him catch us if he can!” It isreally astonishing how sensibly these English Gipsies talkof American affairs generally; they are very discriminatingin their remarks, and wonderfully observant of places andlocalities. They do not like the Negroes. In their societythey drop the name of king, and adopt that of president.“Cunning fellows,” said I, “to eschew the name of king,and look down upon Negroes. That will do, inAmerica!”

I have found the above kind of Gipsies, in America, to begenerally pretty well off; they all seem to flourish, andhave plenty of money about them. The fortune-telling, horse-dealing,and peddling branches of them have a fine field forfollowing their respective businesses. America, indeed, is a“great country” for the Gipsies; for it contains “no end”of chickens, to say nothing of ducks, geese, and turkeys,many of which are carried off byvarmint, anyhow. There,they will find, for some time, many opportunities of gatheringrich harvests, among what has been termed the shrewdest,but, in some things, the most gullible, of mortals, as aninstance may illustrate. A Gipsy woman, known as such,drags, into the meshes of her necromancy, ‘cute Jonathan;who, with an infinite reliance on his own smartness, to “trythe skill of the critter,” by her directions, ties up, in gold[423]and paper, something like a thousand dollars, and, after shehas passed her hands over it, and muttered a few cabalisticwords, deposits it in his strong box. She sets a day, onwhich she calls, handles the “dimes,” while muttering somemore expressions, rather accidentally drops them, then returnsthem to the box, and sets another day when she willcall, and add much to his wealth. She does not appear,however, on the day mentioned. Our simpleton gets firstanxious, then excited, then suspicious, then examines his“pile,” and finds it transformed into a lot of copper and oldpaper! For, in dropping the parcel, Meg does it adroitlyabout the folds of her dress, quickly substitutes another, exactlyalike, and makes off with the fruits of her labour.Then come the hue and cry, telegraphing, and dispatchingof warrants everywhere. But why need he trouble himself?So, after a harder day’s work than, perhaps, he ever underwentin his life, he returns home: but knowing the sympathyhe will find there, he puts on his best face, and, tohave the first word of it, (for he is not to be laughed at,)wipes his forehead, twitches his mouth, winks his eyes, andremarks: “Waal, I reckon I’ve been most darnedly sold, anyhow!”Such occurrences are very common among almostall classes of rural Americans. Sometimes it is to discovertreasure on the individual’s lands, or in the neighbourhood;sometimes a mine, and sometimes an Indian, a trapper, apirate, or a revolutionary deposit. When the Gipsy escapeswith her spoil, she frequently makes for her home, butwhere that is, no one knows. On being molested, while there,she produces friends, in fair standing, whoprove an alibi;and, with the further assistance of a well-feed lawyer, defiesall the requisitions, made by the governors of neighbouringStates, for her delivery. At other times, she willdividewith the inferior authorities, or surrender the whole of theplunder; for, to go to jail she will not, if she can help it.[286]

[424]In Virginia, the more original kind of Gipsies are veryfrequently to be met with. It is in the Slave States theyare more apt to flourish in the olden form. The plantersneed not trouble themselves about their tampering with theNegroes, for they have no sympathy with them. Were itotherwise, they would soon bemum, on finding what the resultswould be to them. I have given some of them someuseful hints on that score. The general disposition of thepeople, the want oflearning among so many of them, the distancesbetween dwellings, the small villages, the handy mechanicalservices of the Gipsies, the uncultivated tracts ofland, the game of various kinds, and the climate, seem topoint out some of the Slave States as an elysium for the Gipsies;unless the wealthier part of the inhabitants should usethe poorer class as tools to drive them out of the country.[287]

There are a good many very respectable Scottish Gipsiesin the United States; but I do not wish to be too minute indescribing them. In Canada, I know of a doctor, a lawyer,and an editor, Scottish Gipsies. The fact of the matter is,that, owing to the mixture of the blood, the improvement,and perpetuation, and secrecy, of the race, there may bemany, very many, Gipsies, in almost every place in theworld, and other people not know of it: and it is not[425]likely that, at the present time, they will say that they areGipsies. Indeed, the intelligent English travelling Gipsiessay that there are an immense number of Gipsies, of all countries,colours, and occupations, in America.

There is even some resemblance between the formation ofGipsydom and that of the United States. The children ofemigrants, it is well known, frequently prove the most ultraAmericans. Instead of the original colonists, at the Declarationof Independence, imagine the commencement of Gipsydomas proceeding from the original stock of Gipsies.The addition to their number, from without, differs fromthat which takes place among Americans, in this way: thatall such additions to Gipsydom are made in such a manner,that the new blood gets innoculated, as it were, with theold, or part of the old; so that it may be said of the wholebody,

The simple fact of a person having Gipsy blood in his veins,in addition to the rearing of a Gipsy parent, acts upon himlike a shock of electricity; it makes him spring to his feet,and—“snap his teeth at other dogs!” A very importantcircumstance contributing to this state of things is the antipathywhich mankind have for the very name of Gipsy,which, as I have already said, they all take to themselves;insomuch that the better class will not face it. They imaginethat, socially speaking, they are among the damned, and theynaturally cast their lot with the damned. Still, the antagonisticspirit which would naturally arise towards society,in the minds of such Gipsies, remains, in a measure, latent;for they feel confident in their incognito, while movingamong their fellow-creatures; which circumstance robs it ofits sting.

Let a Lowlander, in times that are past, but have cast upa Highlander’s blood to him, and what would have been theconsequences? “Her ainsel would have drawn her dirk, orwhipped out her toasting-iron, and seen whichwas the prettiestman.” Let the same have been done to a ScottishGipsy, in comparatively recent times, and he would havetaken his own peculiar revenge. See how the Baillies, asmentioned under the chapter ofTweed-dale and ClydesdaleGipsies, mounted on horseback, and with drawn swords in[426]their hands, threatened death to all who opposed them, foran affront offered to their mother. Twit a respectableGipsy with his blood, at the present day, and he would sufferin silence; for, by getting into a passion, he would lethimself out. For this reason, it would be unmanly to hintit to him, in any tone of disparagement. The difference offeeling between the two races, at the present day, proceedsfrom positive ignorance on the part of the native towardsthe other; an ignorance in which the Gipsy would ratherallow him to remain; for, let him turn himself in whateverdirection he may, he imagines he sees, and perhaps does see,nothing but a dark mountain of prejudice existing betweenhim and every other of his fellow-creatures. He wouldrather retain his incognito, and allow his race to go downto posterity shrouded in its present mystery. The historyof the Gipsy race in Scotland, more, perhaps, than in anyother country, shows, to the eye of the world, as few tracesof its existence as would a fox, in passing over a ploughedfield. The farmer might see the foot-prints of reynard, buthow is he to find reynard himself? He must bring out thedogs and have a hunt for him. As an Indian of the prairie,while on the “war path,” cunningly arranges the long grassinto its natural position, as he passes through it, to preventhis enemy following him, so has the Scottish Gipsy, as heentered upon a settled life, destroyed, to the eye of the ordinarynative, every trace of his being a Gipsy. Still, Icannot doubt but that he has misgivings that, some day, hewill be called up to judgment, and that all about him willbe exposed to the world.

What is it that troubles the educated Gipsies? Nothingbut the word Gipsy; a word which, however sweet whenused among themselves, conveys an ugly, blackguard, andvagabond meaning to other people. The poet asks, What isthere in a name? and I reply, Everything, as regards the nameGipsy. For a respectable Scottish Gipsy to say to the public,that “his mother is a Gipsy,” or, that “his wife is a Gipsy,” or,that “he is a Gipsy;” such a Gipsy simply could not do it.These Gipsies will hardly ever use the word among themselves,except in very select circles; but they will say “he’s one ofus;” “he’s from Yetholm;” “he’s from the metropolis,”(Yetholm being the metropolis of Scottish Gipsydom;) or, “he’sa traveller.” If the company is not over classical, they will[427]say “he’s from the black quarry,” or, “he’s been with the cuddies.”Imagine a select party of educated Scottish Gipsies,all closely related. They will then chatter Gipsy over theirtea; but if a person should drop in, one of the party, who isnot acquainted with him, will nudge and whisper to another,“Is he one of the tribe?” or, “Is he one of us?” The betterclass of Scottish Gipsies are very exclusive in matters ofthis kind.

All things considered, in what other position could theGipsy race, in Scotland especially, be, at the present day,than that described? How can we imagine a race of peopleto act otherwise than hide themselves, if they could, fromthe odium that attaches to the name of Gipsy? And whatestimate should we place on that charity which would leada person to denounce a Gipsy, should he deny himself to bea Gipsy?[288] As a race, what can they offer to society atlarge to receive them within its circle? They can offer little,as a race; but, if we consider them as individuals, wewill find many of them whose eduction, character, and positionin life, would warrant their admission into any ordinarysociety, and some of them into any society. Notwithstandingall that, none will answer up to the name of Gipsy.It necessarily follows, that the race must remain shroudedin its present mystery, unless some one, not of the race,should become acquainted with its history, and speak forit. In Scotland, the prejudice towards the name of Gipsymight be safely allowed to drop, were it only for this reason:that the race has got so much mixed up with the nativeblood, and even with good families of the country, as tobe, in plain language, a jumble—a pretty kettle of fish, indeed.One’s uncle, in seeking for a wife, might havestumbled over an Egyptian woman, and, either known orunknown to himself, had his children brought up bitterGipsies; so that one’s cousins may be Gipsies, for anythingone knows. A man may have a colony of Gipsies inhis own house, and know nothing about it! The Gipsiesdied out? Oh, no. They commenced in Scotland by wringingthe necks of one’schickens, and now they sometimes[428]. . . . . . ! But what is Gipsydom, after all, but a“working in among other people?”

In seeking for Gipsies among Scotch people, I know whereto begin, but it puzzles me where to leave off. I would payno regard to colour of hair or eyes, character, employment,position, or, indeed, any outward thing. The reader may say:“It must be a difficult matter to detect such mixed and educatedGipsies as those spoken of.” It is not only difficult,but outwardly impossible. Such Gipsies cannot even telleach other, from their personal appearance; but they havesigns, which they can use, if the others choose to respond tothem. If I go into a company which I have reason to believeis a Gipsy one, and it know nothing of me, so far asmy pursuit is concerned, I will bring the subject of the Gipsiesup, in a very roundabout way, and mark the effect whichthe conversation makes, or the turn it takes. What I knowof the subject, and of the ignorance of mankind generally inregard to it, enables me to say, in almost every instance,who they are, let them make any remark they like, look asthey like, pretend what they like, wriggle about as they like,or keep dead silent. As I gradually glide into the subject,and expatiate upon the “greatness of the society,” one remarks,“I know it;” upon the “respectability of some of itsmembers,” and another emphatically exclaims, “That’s afact;” and upon “its universality,” and another bawls out,“That’s so.” Indeed, by finding the Gipsies, under suchcircumstances, completely off their guard, (for they do notdoubt their secret being confined to themselves,) I can generallydraw forth, in one way or other, as much moral certainty,barring their direct admission, as to their being Gipsies,as a dog, by putting his nose into a hole, can tellwhether a rat is there, or not.

The principle of the transmutation of Gipsy blood intowhite, in appearance, is illustrated, in the ninth chapter of Mr.Borrow’s “Bible in Spain,” by its changing into almost pureblack. A Gipsy soldier, in the Spanish army, killed hissergeant, for “calling himcalo, (Gipsy,) and cursing him,” andmade his escape. His wife remained in the army, as a sutler,selling wine. Two years thereafter, a strange man cameto her wine shop. “He was dressed like a Moor, (corahano,)and yet he did not look like one; he looked more like ablack, and yet he was not a black, either, though he was[429]almost black. And, as I looked upon him, I thought helooked something like the Errate, (Gipsies,) and he said tome, ‘Zincali, chachipé,’ (the Gipsy salutation.) And thenhe whispered to me, in queer language, which I could scarcelyunderstand,’Your husband is waiting; come with me, mylittle sister, and I will take you to him.’ About a leaguefrom the town, beneath a hill, we found four people, menand women, all very black, like the strange man; and wejoined ourselves with them, and they all saluted me, andcalled me ‘little sister.’ And away we marched, for manydays, amidst deserts and small villages. The men wouldcheat with mules and asses, and the women told baji. Ioften asked him (her husband) about the black men, and hetold me that he believed them to be of the Errate.” Herhusband, then a soldier in the Moorish army, having beenkilled, this Gipsy woman married the black man, with whomshe followed real Gipsy life. She said to him: “Sure I amamongst the Errate; . . . . and I often said that theywere of the Errate; and then they would laugh, and saythat it might be so; and that they were not Moors, (corahai,)but they could give no account of themselves.” From thisit would seem that, while preserving their identity, whereverthey go, there are Gipsies who may not be known to theworld, or to the tribe, in other continents, by the samename.[289]

[430]A word upon the universality of the Gipsies. EnglishGipsies, on arriving in America, feel quite taken aback, oncoming across a tent or wigwam of Indians. “Didn’t youfeel,” said I to some of them, “very like a dog when hecomes across another dog, a stranger to him?” And, witha laugh, they said, “Exactly so.” After looking awhile atthe Indians, they will approach them, and “cast their sign,and salute them in Gipsy;” and if no response is made, theywill pass on. They then come to learn who the Indians are.The same curiosity is excited among the Gipsies on meetingwith the American farmer, on the banks of the Mississippior Missouri; who, in travelling to market, in the summer,will, to save expenses, unyoke his horses, at mid-day or evening,at the edge of the forest, light his fire, and prepare hismeal. What with the “kettle and tented wagon,” the tall,lank, bony, and swarthy appearance of the farmer, the Gipsywill approach him, as he did the Indian; and pass on, whenno response is made to his sign and salutation. Under suchcircumstances, the Gipsy would cast his sign, and give hissalutation, whether on the banks of the Mississippi or theGanges. Nay, a very respectable Scottish Gipsy boasted tome, that, by his signs alone, he could push his way to thewall of China, and even through China itself. And thereare doubtless Gipsies in China. Mr. Borrow says, that whenhe visited the tribe at Moscow, they supposed him to be oneof their brothers, who, they said, were wandering about inTurkey,China, and other parts. It is very likely that RussianGipsies have visited China, by the route taken byRussian traders, and met with Gipsies there.[290] But it ticklesthe Gipsy most, when it is insinuated, that if Sir John Franklinhad been fortunate in his expedition, he would havefound a Gipsy tinkering a kettle at the North Pole.

The particulars of a meeting between English and American[431]Gipsies are interesting. Some English Gipsies wereendeavouring to sell some horses, in Annapolis, in the Stateof Maryland, to what had the appearance of being respectableAmerican farmers; who, however, spoke to each otherin the Gipsy language, dropping a word now and then, suchas “this is a good one,” and so on. The English Gipsiesfelt amazed, and at last said: “What is that you are saying?Why, you are Gipsies!” Upon this, the Americanswheeled about, and left the spot as fast as they could. Hadthe English Gipsies taken after the Gipsy in their appearance,they would not have caused such a consternation totheir American brethren, who showed much of “the blood”in their countenances; but as, from their blood being muchmixed, they did not look like Gipsies, they gave the others aterrible fright, on their being found out. The English Gipsiessaid they felt disgusted at the others not owning themselvesup. But I told them they ought rather to have feltproud of the Americans speaking Gipsy, as it was the prejudiceof the world that led them to hide their nationality.On making enquiry in the neighbourhood, they found thatthese American Gipsies had been settled there since, atleast, the time of their grandfather, and that they bore anEnglish name.

There are Scottish Gipsies in the United States, followingrespectable callings, who speak excellent Gipsy, accordingto the judgment of intelligent English Gipsies. The EnglishGipsies say the same of the Gipsy families in Scotland,with whom they are acquainted; but that some of theirwords vary from those spoken in England. There is, however,a rivalry between the English and Scottish Gipsies, asto whose pronunciation of the words is the correct one:in that respect, they somewhat resemble the English andScottish Latinists. One intelligent Gipsy gave it as hisopinion, that the word great,baurie, in Scotland, was softerthanboro, in England, and preferable, indeed, the right pronunciationof the word. The German Gipsies are said, bytheir English brethren, to speak Gipsy backwards; fromwhich I would conclude, that it follows the construction ofthe German language, which differs so materially, in thatrespect, from the English.[291] It is a thing well-nigh impossible,[432]to get a respectable Scottish Gipsy to own up toeven a word of the Gipsy language. On meeting with a respectable—Scotchman,I will call him—in a company, lately,I was asked by him: “Are ye a’ Tinklers?” “We’re travellers,”I replied. “But who is he?” he continued, pointingto my acquaintance. Going up to him, I whispered“Hisdade is abaurie grye-femler,” (his father is a greathorse-dealer;) and he made for the door, as if a bee hadgot into his ear. But he came back; oh, yes, he cameback. There was a mysterious whispering of “pistols andcoffee,” at another time.

It is beyond doubt that the Gipsy language in Great Britainis broken, but not so broken as to consist of words only;it consists, rather, of expressions, or pieces, which are tackedtogether by native words—generally small words—whichare lost to the ordinary ear, when used in conversation. Inthat respect, the use of Gipsy may be compared to the revolutionsof a wheel: we know that the wheel has spokes, but,in its velocity, we cannot distinguish the colour or materialof each individual spoke; it is only when it stands still thatthat can be done. In the same manner, when we come toexamine into the British Gipsy language, we perceive itsbroken nature. But it still serves the purpose of a speech.Let any one sit among English Gipsies, in America, andhear them converse, and he cannot pick up an idea, andhardly a word which they say. “I have always thoughtDutch bad enough,” said an Irishman, who has often heard[433]English Gipsies, in the State of New Jersey, speak amongthemselves; “but Gipsy is perfect gibble-gabble, like ducksand geese, for anything I can make of it.” Some Gipsiescan, of course, speak Gipsy much better than others. It ismost unlikely that the Scottish Gipsies, with the head, thepride, and the tenacity of native Scotch, would be the firstto forget the Gipsy language. The sentiments of the peoplethemselves are very emphatic on that head. “It will neverbe forgotten, sir; it is in our hearts, and, as long as a singleTinkler exists, it will be remembered,” (page 297.) “Solong as there existed two Gipsies in Scotland, it would neverbe lost,” (page 316.) The English Gipsies admit that thelanguage is more easily preserved in a settled life, but moreuseful to travelling and out-door Gipsies; and that it iscarefully kept up by both classes of Gipsies. This informationagrees with our author’s, in regard to the settled ScottishGipsies. There is one very strong motive, among many,for the Gipsies keeping up their language, and that is, as Ihave already said, their self-respect. The best of them believethat it is altogether problematical how they would bereceived in society, were they to make an avowal of theirbeing Gipsies, and lay bare the history of their race to theworld. The prejudice that exists against the race, andagainst them, they imagine, were they known to be Gipsies,drives them back on that language which belongs exclusivelyto themselves; to say nothing of the dazzling hold which ittakes of their imagination, as they arrive at years of reflection,and consider that the people speaking it have beentransplanted from some other clime. The more intelligentthe Gipsy, the more he thinks of his speech, and the morecare he takes of it.

People often reprobate the dislike, I may say the hatred,which the more original Gipsy entertains for society; forgettingthat society itself has had the greatest share in theorigin of it. When the race entered Europe, they are notpresumed to have had any hatred towards their fellow-creatures.[292]That hatred, doubtless, sprang from the severe[434]reception, and universal persecution, which, owing to thesingularity of their race and habits, they everywhere metwith. The race then became born into that state of things.What would subsequent generations know of the origin ofthe feud? All that they knew was, that the law madethem outlaws and outcasts; that they were subject, as Gipsies,to be hung, before they were born. Such a Gipsymight be compared to Pascal’s man springing up out of anisland: casting his eyes around him, he finds nothing but alegal and social proscription hanging over his head, in whateverdirection he may turn. Whatever might be assumedto have been the original, innate disposition of a Gipsy, thecircumstances attending him, from his birth to his death, werecertainly not calculated to improve him, but to make himmuch worse than he might otherwise have been. The worstthat can be said of the Scottish Gipsies, in times past, hasbeen stated by our author. With all their faults, we find avein of genuine nobility of character running through alltheir actions, which is the more worthy of notice, consideringthat they were at war with society, and society at warwith them. Not the least important feature is that of gratitudefor kind and hospitable treatment. In that respect,a true Scottish Gipsy has always been as true as steel; andthat is saying a great deal in his favour. The instancegiven by our author, (pages 361-363,) is very touching, andto the point. I do not know how it may be, at the presentday, in Scotland, where are to be found so many IrishGipsies, of whom the Scottish and English Gipsies have notmuch good to say, notwithstanding the assistance they rendereach other when they meet, (page 324.) If the Englishfarmers are questioned, I doubt not that a somewhat similartestimony will be borne to the English Gipsies, to this extent,at least, that, when civilly and hospitably treated, and personally[435]acquainted, they will respect the farmers’ property,and even keep others off it. Indeed, both Scottish andEnglish Gipsies call this “Gipsy law.” It is certainly notthe Scottish Gipsies, or, I may venture to say, the EnglishGipsies, to whom Mr. Borrow’s words may be applied, whenhe says: “I have not expatiated on their gratitude towardsgood people, who treat them kindly, and take an interest intheir welfare; for I believe, that, of all beings in the world,they are the least susceptible of such a feeling.” Such acharacter may apply to the Spanish Gipsies for anything Iknow to the contrary; and the causes to which it may beattributed must be the influences which the Spanish character,and general deportment towards the tribe, have exercisedover them. In speaking of the bloody and wolfishdisposition which especially characterizes the Gitanos, Mr.Borrow says: “The cause to which this must be attributed,must be their residence in a country, unsound in everybranch of its civil polity, where right has ever been in lessesteem, and wrong in less disrepute, than in any other part ofthe world.” Grellmann bears as poor testimony to thecharacter of the Hungarian Gipsies, in the matter of gratitude,as Mr. Borrow does to the Spanish Gipsies, to whom Iapprehend his remarks are intended to apply. But both ofthese authors give an opinion, unaccompanied by facts.Their opinion may be correct, however, so far as it is applicableto the class of Gipsies, or the individuals, to whom theyrefer. Gratitude is even a characteristic of the lower animals.“For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents,and of things in the sea, is tamed and hath beentamed of mankind,” saith St. James; the means of attainingto which is frequently kindness. I doubt not that the samecan be said of Gipsies anywhere; for surely we can expectto find as much gratitude in them as can be called forthfrom things that creep, fly, or swim in the sea. It is unreasonable,however, to look for much gratitude from suchGipsies as the two authors in question have evidently alludedto; for this reason: that it is a virtue rarely to be met withfrom those “to whom much has been given;” and, consequently,very little should be required of those to whomnothing has been given, in the estimation of their fellow-creatures.In doing a good turn to a Gipsy, it is not theact itself that calls forth, or perhaps merits, a return in[436]gratitude; but it is the way in which it is done: for, whilehe is doubtless being benefited, he is, frequently if not generally,as little sympathized with, personally, as if he weresome loathsome creature to which something had beenthrown.

As regards the improvement of the Gipsies, I would makethe following suggestions: The facts and principles of thepresent work should be thoroughly canvassed and imprintedupon the public mind, and an effort made to bring, if possible,our high-class Gipsies to own themselves up to beGipsies. The fact of these Gipsies being received into society,and respected, as Gipsies, (as it is with them, at present,as men,) could not fail to have a wonderful effect upon manyof the humble, ignorant, or wild ones. They would perceive,at once, that the objections which the community had tothem, proceeded, not from their being Gipsies, but fromtheir habits, only. What is the feeling which Gipsies, whoare known to be Gipsies, have for the public at large?The white race, as a race, is simply odious to them, for theyknow well the dreadful prejudice which it bears towardsthem. But let some of their own race, however mixed theblood might be, be respected as Gipsies, and it would, in agreat measure, break down, at least in feeling, the wall ofcaste that separates them from the community at large. Thisis the first, the most important, step to be taken to improvethe Gipsies, whatever may be the class to which they belong.Let the prejudice be removed, and it is impossible to saywhat might not follow. Before attempting to reform theGipsies, we ought to reform, or, at least, inform, mankind inregard to them; and endeavour to reconcile the world tothem, before we attempt to reconcile them to the world; andtreat them as men, before we try to make them Christians.Thepoor Gipsies know well that there are many of their raceoccupying respectable positions in life; perhaps they do notknow many, or even any, of them, personally, but they believein it thoroughly. Still, they will deny it, at least hide it fromstrangers, for this reason, among others, that it is a state towhich their children, or even they themselves, look forward,as ultimately awaiting them, in which they will manage toescape from the odium of their fellow-creatures, which clingsto them in their present condition. The fact of the poortravelling Gipsies knowing of such respectable settled Gipsies,[437]gives them a certain degree of respect in their owneyes, which leads them to repel any advance from the otherrace, let it come in almost whatever shape it may. Thewhite race, as I have already said, is perfectly odious tothem. This is exactly the position of the question. Themore original kind of Gipsies feel that the prejudice whichexists against the race to which they belong is such, that anintercourse cannot be maintained between them and theother inhabitants; or, if it does exist, it is of so clandestine anature, that their appearance, and, it may be, their generalhabits, do not allow or lead them to indulge in it. I willmake a few more remarks on this subject further on in thistreatise.

What are the respectable, well-disposed Scottish Gipsiesbut Scotch people, after all? They are to be met with inalmost every, if not every, sphere in which the ordinary Scotis to be found. The only difference between the two is,that, however mixed the blood of these Gipsies may be,their associations of descent and tribe go back to thoseblack, mysterious heroes who entered Scotland, upwards ofthree hundred and fifty years ago; and that, with this descent,they have the words and signs of Gipsies. The possessionof all these, with the knowledge of the feelingswhich the ordinary natives have for the very name of Gipsy,makes the only distinction between them and other Scotchmen.I do not say that the world would have any prejudiceagainst these Gipsies, as Gipsies, still, they are morbidly sensitivethat it would have such a feeling. The light of reason,of civilization, of religion, and the genius of Britons, forbidsuch an idea. What object more worthy of civilization, andof the age in which we live, than that such Gipsies would comeforward, and, by their positions in society, their talents andcharacters, dispel the mystery and gloom that hang over thehistory of the Gipsy race!

But will these Gipsies do that? I have my misgivings.They may not do it now, but I am sanguine enough to thinkthat it is an event that may take place at some future time.The subject must, in the meantime, be thoroughly investigated,and the mind of the public fully prepared for such amovement. The Gipsies themselves, to commence with,should furnish the public with information, anonymously, sofar as they are personally concerned, or confidentially,[438]through a person of standing, who can guarantee the trustworthinessof the Gipsy himself. I do not expect that theywould give us any of the language; but they can furnish uswith some idea of the position which the Gipsies occupy inthe world, and throw a great deal of light upon the historyof the race in Scotland, in, at least, comparatively recenttimes. In anticipation of such an occurrence, I would makethis suggestion to them: that they must be very carefulwhat they say, on account of the “court holding them interestedwitnesses;” and, whatever they may do, to denynothing connected with the Gipsies. They certainly havekept their secret well; indeed, they have considered thesubject, so far as the public is concerned, as dead and buriedlong ago. It is of no use, however, Gipsies; “murder willout;” the game is up; it is played out. I may say to youwhat the hunter said to the ‘coon, or rather what the ‘coonsaid to the hunter: “You may just as well come down thetree.” Yes! come down the tree; you have been too longup; come down, and let us know all about you.[293]

Scottish Gipsies! I now appeal to you as men. Am I notright, in asserting, that there is nothing you hold more dearthan your Egyptian descent, signs, and language? Andnothing you more dread than such becoming known to yourfellow-men around you? Do you not read, with the greatestinterest, any and everything printed, which comes in yourway, about the Gipsies, and say, that you thank God all thatis a thousand miles away from you? Whence this inconsistency?[439]Ah! I understand it well. Shall the prejudice ofmankind towards the name of Gipsy drive you from theposition which you occupy? Can it drive you from it? No,it cannot. The Gipsies, you know, are a people; a “mixedmultitude,” no doubt, but still a people. You know you areGipsies, for your parents before you were Gipsies, and, consequently,that you cannot be anything but Gipsies. Whateffect, then, has the prejudice against the race upon you?Does it not sometimes appear to you as if, figuratively speaking,it would put a dagger into your hands against the restof your species, should they discover that you belonged tothe tribe? Or that it would lead you to immediately “taketo your beds,” or depart, bed and baggage, to parts unknown?But then, Gipsies, what can you do? The thought of itmakes you feel as if you were sheep. Some of you may bebold enough to face a lion in the flesh; but who so bold asto own to the world that he is a Gipsy? There is just one ofthe higher class that I know of, and he was a noble specimenof a man, a credit to human nature itself. Althoughyou might shrink from such a step, would you not like, andcannot you induce,some one to take it? Take my word forit, respectable Scottish Gipsies, the thing that frightens youis, after all, a bug-bear—a scare-crow. But, failing some ofyou “coming out,” would you not rather that the worldshould now know that much of the history of the Gipsy race,as to show that it was no necessary disparagement in anyof you to be a Gipsy? Would you not rather that a Gipsymight pass, anywhere, for agentleman, as hedoes now, everywhere,for avagabond; and that you and your childrenmight, if they liked, show their true colours, than, as at present,go everywhereincog, and carry within them thatsecret which they are as afraid of being divulged to theworld, as if you and all your kin were conspirators and murderers?The secret being out, the incognito of your racegoes for nothing. Come then, Scottish Gipsy, make a cleanbreast of it, like a man. Which of you will exclaim,

[440]American Gipsies, descendants of the real old Britishstock! I make the same appeal to you. Let the worldknow how you are getting on, in this land of “liberty andequality;” and whether any of your race are senators, congressmen,and what not. I have heard of a Gipsy, a sheriffin the State of Pennsylvania; and I know of a ScottishGipsy, who was lately returned a member of the Legislatureof the State of New York.

The reader may ask: Is it possible that there is a race ofmen, residing in the British Isles, to be counted by its hundredsof thousands, occupying such a position as that described?And I reply, Alas! it is too true. Exeter Hallmay hobnob with Negroes, Hottentots, and Bosjesmen—alwayswith something or other from a distance; but whathas it ever done for the Gipsies? Nothing! It will railat the American prejudice towards the Negro, and entirelypass over a much superior race at its own door! Theprejudice against the Negro proceeds from two causes—hisappearance and the servitude in which he is, or has been,held. But there can be no prejudice against the Gipsy, onsuch grounds. It will not do to say that the prejudice isagainst the tented Gipsies, only; it is against the race, rootand branch, as far as it is known. What is it but thatwhich compels the Gipsy, on entering upon a settled life, tohide himself from the unearthly prejudice of his fellow-creatures?The Englishman, the Scotchman, and the Irishmanmay rail at the American for his peculiar prejudices;but the latter, if he can but capitalize the idea, has, in allconscience, much to throw back upon society in the mothercountry. Instead of a class of the British public spendingso much of their time in an agitation against an institutionthousands of miles away from home, and over which theyhave, and can expect to have, no control, they might directtheir attention to an evil laying at their own doors—thatsocial prejudice which is so much calculated to have a blastinginfluence upon the condition of so many of their fellow-subjects.It is beyond doubt that there cannot be less thana quarter of a million of Gipsies in the British Isles, whoare living under a grinding despotism of caste; a despotismso absolute and odious, that the people upon whom it bearscannot, as in Scotland, were it almost to save their lives,even say who they are! Let the time and talents spent on[441]the agitation in question be transferred, for a time, intosome such channel as would be implied in a “British Anti-Gipsy-prejudiceAssociation,” and a great moral evil maydisappear from the face of British society. In such a movement,there would be none of that direct or indirect interestto be encountered, which lies on the very threshold of slavery,in whatever part of the world it exists; nor would therebe any occasion to appeal to people’s pockets.[294] After thework mentioned has been accomplished, the British publicmight turn their attention to wrongs perpetrated in otherclimes. Americans, however, must not attempt to seek, inthe British Gipsy-prejudice, an excuse for their excessiveantipathy towards Negroes. I freely admit that the dislikeof white men, generally, for the Negro, lies in something thatis irremovable—something that is irrespective of character,or present or previous social condition. But it is not so withthe Gipsy, for his race is, physically, among the finest thatare to be found on the face of the earth. Americans oughtalso to consider that there are plenty of Gipsies amongthemselves, towards whom, however, there are none of thoseprejudices that spring from local tradition or association,but only such as proceed from literature, and that towardsthe tented Gipsy.

What is to be the future of the Gipsy race? A reply tothis question will be found in the history of it during thepast, as described; for it resolves itself into two very simplematters of fact. In the first place, we have a foreign race,deemed, by itself, to be, as indeed it is, universal, introducedinto Scotland, for example, taken root there, spread, andflourished; a race that rests upon a basis the strongestimaginable. On the other hand, there is the prejudice ofcaste towards the name, which those bearing it escape, only,by assuming an incognito among their fellow-creatures.These two principles, acting upon beings possessing the feelingsof men, will, of themselves, produce that state of thingswhich will constitute the history of the Gipsies during alltime coming, whatever may be the changes that may come[442]over their character and condition. They may, in courseof time, lose their language, as some of them, to a great extent,have done already; but they will always retain a consciousnessof being Gipsies. The language may be lost, buttheir signs will remain, as well as so much of their speechas will serve the purpose of pass-words. “There is somethingthere,” said an English Gipsy of intelligence, smitinghis breast, “There is something there which a Gipsy cannotexplain.” And, said a Scottish Gipsy: “It will never beforgotten; as long as the world lasts, the Gipsies will beGipsies.” What idea can be more preposterous than thatof saying, that a change of residence or occupation, or alittle more or less of education or wealth, or a change ofcharacter or creed, can eradicate such feeling from the heartof a Gipsy; or that these circumstances can, by any humanpossibility, change his descent, his tribe, or the blood that isin his body? How can we imagine this race, arriving inEurope so lately as the fifteenth century, and in Scotland thecentury following, with an origin so distinct from the restof the world, and so treated by the world, can possibly havelost a consciousness of nationality in its descent, in so shorta time after arrival; or, that that can happen in the future,when there are so many circumstances surrounding it tokeep alive a sense of its origin, and so much within it topreserve its identity in the history of the human family?Let the future history of the world be what it may, Gipsydomis immortal.[295]

In considering the question of the Gipsies being openlyadmitted, as a race, into the society of mankind, I ask, whatpossible reason could a British subject advance against suchtaking place with, at least, the better kind of Scottish Gipsies?Society, generally, would not be over-ready to lessenthe distance between itself and the tented Gipsies, or thosewho live by means really objectionable; but it should havethat much sense of justice, as to confine its peculiar feelings[443]to the ways of life of these individuals, and not keep themup against their children, when they follow different habits.If, for example, I should have made the acquaintance ofsome Scottish Gipsies, associated with them, and acquired arespect for them, (as has happened with me,) how could Itake exceptions to them, on account of it afterwards leakingout that they were Gipsies? A sense of ordinary justicewould forbid me doing so. I can see nothing objectionablein their conduct, as distinguished from that of other people;and as for their appearance, any person, on being asked topoint out the Gipsy, would, so far as colour of hair and eyesgoes, pitch upon many a common native, in preference tothem. A sense of ordinary justice, as I have said, woulddisarm me of any prejudice against them; nay, it would urgeme to think the more of them, on account of their beingGipsies. To the ordinary eye, they are nothing but Scotchpeople, and pass, everywhere, for such. There is a ScottishGipsy in the United States, with whom I am acquainted—aliberal-minded man, and good company—who carrieson a wholesale trade, in a respectable article of merchandise,and he said to me: “I will not deny it, nor am I ashamedto say it—I come from Yetholm.” And I replied: “Whyshould you be ashamed of it?”

It is this hereditary prejudice of centuries towards thename, that constitutes the main difficulty in the way of recognitionof these Gipsies by the world generally. How longit may be since they or their ancestors left the tent, is athing of no importance; personal character, education, andposition in life, are the only things that should be considered.The Gipsies to whom I allude do not require to be reformed,unless in that sense in which all men stand in need of reformation:what is wanted is, that the world should raise upthe name of Gipsy. And why should not that be done bythe people of Great Britain, and Scotland especially, inwhose mouths are continually these words: “God hath madeof one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the faceof the earth?” Will the British public spend its hundredsof thousands, annually, on every other creature under heaven,and refuse to countenance the Gipsy race? Will itsquander its tens of thousands to convert, perhaps, on anaverage, one Jew, and refuse a kind word, nay, grudge asmile, towards that body, a member of which may be an[444]official of that Missionary Society, or, it may be, the verychairman of it? I can conceive no liberal-minded Scotchman,possessing a feeling of true self-respect, entertaining aprejudice against such Gipsies. The only people in Scotlandin whose mind such a prejudice might be supposed to exist,are those miserable old women around the neighbourhood ofStirling, who, under the influence of the old Highland feud,will look with the greatest contempt upon a person, if he butcome from the north of the Ochils. I would class, with suchold women, all of our Scotch people who would object to theGipsies to whom I have alluded. A Scotchman should evenhave that much love of country, as to take hold of his ownGipsies, and “back them up” against those of other countries:and particularly should he do that, when the “Gipsies”might be his cousins, nay, his own children, for anythingthat he might know to the contrary. Scotch peopleshould consider that the “Tinklers,” whom they see goingabout, at the present day, are, if not the very lowest kind ofGipsies, at least those who follow the original ways of theirrace; and are greatly inferior, not only relatively, but actually,to many of those who have gone before them. Theyshould also consider that Gipsies are a race, however mixedthe blood may be; subject, as a race, to be governed, in theirdescent, by those laws which regulate the descent of allraces; and that a Gipsy is as much a Gipsy in a house as ina tent, in a “but and a ben” as in a palace.

Wherever a Gipsy goes, he carries his inherent peculiaritieswith him; and the objection to him he considers to beto something inseparable from himself—that which he cannotescape; but the confidence which he has in his incognitoneutralizes, as I have already said, the feelings which such acircumstance would naturally produce. But, to disarm himaltogether of this feeling, all that is necessary is to state hiscase, and have it admitted by the “honourable of the earth;”so that his mind may be set at perfect rest on that point.He would, doubtless, still hide the fact of his being a Gipsy,but he would enjoy, in his retreat, that inward self-respect,among his fellow-creatures, which such an admission wouldgive him; and which is so much calculated to raise the people,generally, in every moral attribute. It is, indeed, a melancholything, to contemplate this cloud which hangs oversuch a man, as he mixes with other people, in his daily calling;[445]but to dispel it altogether, the Gipsy himself must, inthe manner described, give us some information about hisrace. Apart from the sense of justice which is implied inadmitting these Gipsies, as Gipsies, to a social equality withothers, a motive of policy should lead us to take such a step;for it can augur no good to society to have the Gipsy raceresiding in its midst, under the cloud that hangs over it.Let us, by a liberal and enlightened policy, at least bluntthe edge of that antipathy which many of the Gipsy racehave, and most naturally have, to society at large.

In receiving a Gipsy, as a Gipsy, into society, there shouldbe no kind of officious sympathy shown him, for he is too proudto submit to be made the object of it. Should he say that he isa Gipsy, the remark ought to be received as a mere matterof course, and little notice taken of it; just as if it made nodifference to the other party whether he was a Gipsy or not.A little surprise would be allowable; but anything like condolencewould be out of the question. And let the Gipsyhimself, rather, talk upon the subject, than a desire be shownto ask him questions, unless his remarks should allow them,in a natural way, to be put to him. As to the course to bepursued by the Gipsy, should he feel disposed to own himselfup, I would advise him to do it in an off-handed, heartymanner; to show not the least appearance that he had anymisgivings about any one taking exceptions to him on thataccount. Should he act otherwise, that is, hesitate, andtake to himself shamefacedness, in making the admission, itwould, perhaps, have been better for him not to have committedhimself at all: for, in such a matter, it may be said,that “he that doubteth is damned.” The simple fact of aman, in Scotland, saying, after the appearance of this workthere, that he is a Gipsy, if he is conscious of having theesteem of his neighbours, would probably add to his popularityamong them; especially if they were men of goodsense, and had before their eyes the expression of good-willof the organs of society towards the Gipsy race. Such anadmission, on the part of a Gipsy, would presumptivelyprove, that he was a really candid and upright person; forfew Scottish Gipsies, beyond those about Yetholm, wouldmake such a confession. Having mentioned the subject, theGipsy should allude to it, on every appropriate occasion,and boast of being in possession of those words and signs[446]which the other is entirely ignorant of. He could well say:“What was Borrow to him, or he to Borrow; that, for hispart, he could traverse the world over, and, in the centre ofany continent, be received and feasted, by Gipsies, as a king.”If but one respectable Scottish Gipsy could be prevailedupon to act in this way, what an effect might it not haveupon raising up the name of this singular race! But thereis a very serious difficulty to be encountered in the outset ofsuch a proceeding, and it is this, that if a Gipsy owns himselfup, he necessarily “lets out,” perhaps, all his kith andkin; a regard for whom would, in all probability, keep himback. But there would be no such difficulty to be met within the way of the Gipsy giving us information by writing.Let us, then, Gipsy, have some writing upon the Gipsies. Itwill serve no good purpose to keep such information back;the keeping of it back will not cast a doubt upon the factsand principles of the present work; for rest assured, Gipsy,that, upon its own merits, your secret is exploded. I wouldsay this to you, young Scottish Gipsy; pay no regard to whatthat old Gipsy says, when he tells you, that “he is too olda bird to be caught with chaff in that way.”

The history of the Gipsies is the history of a people(mixed, in point of blood, as it is,) which exists; not the historyof a people, like the Aborigines of North America,which has ceased to exist, or is daily ceasing to exist.[296] Itis the history of a people within a people, with whom wecome in contact daily, although we may not be aware of it.Any person of ordinary intelligence can have little difficultyin comprehending the subject, shrouded as it is from the eyeof the world. But should he have any such difficulty, it willbe dispelled by his coming in contact with a Gipsy who hasthe courage to own himself up to be a Gipsy. It is no argumentto maintain that the Gipsy race is not a race, becauseits blood is mixed with other people. That can besaid of all the races of Western Europe, the English moreespecially; and, in a much greater degree, of that of theUnited States of America. Every Gipsy has part of the[447]Gipsy blood, and more or less of the words and signs; which,taken in connection with the rearing of Gipsies, act uponhis mind in such a manner, that he is penetrated with thesimple idea that he is a Gipsy; and create that distinct feelingof nationality which the matters of territory, and sometimesdialect, government, and laws, do with most of otherraces. Take a Gipsy from any country in the world youmay, and the feeling of his being a Gipsy comes as naturallyto him as does the nationality of a Jew to a Jew; althoughwe will naturally give him a more definite name, to distinguishhim; such as an English, Welsh, Scotch, or IrishGipsy, or by whatever country of which the Gipsy happensto be a native.

But I am afraid that what has been said is not sufficientlyexplanatory to enable some people to understand this subject.These people know what a Gipsy, in the popular sense,means; they have either seen him, and observed his generalmode of life, or had the same described to them in books.This idea of a Gipsy has been impressed upon their mindsalmost from infancy. But it puzzles most people to form anyidea of a Gipsy of a higher order; such a Gipsy, for example,as preaches the gospel, or argues the law: that seems,hitherto, to have been almost incomprehensible to them.They know intuitively what is meant by any particular peoplewho occupy a territory—any country, tract of land, orisle. They also know what is meant by the existence of theJews. For the subject is familiar to them from infancy;it is wrapt up in their early reading; it is associated withthe knowledge and practice of their religion, and the attendance,on the part of the Jews, at a place of worship. Theyhave likewise seen and conversed with the Jews, or otherswho have done either or both; or they are acquainted withthem by the current remarks of the world. But a peopleresembling, in so many respects, the Jews, without havingany territory, or form of creed, peculiar to itself, or any history,or any peculiar outward associations or residences, orany material difference in appearance, character, or occupation,is something that the general mind of mankindwould seem never to have dreamt of, or to be almost capableof realizing to itself. We have already seen how awriter in Blackwood’s Magazine gravely asserts, that, although“Billy Marshall left descendants numberless, the race,[448]of which he was one, was in danger of becoming extinct;”when, in fact, it had only passed from its first stage of existence—thetent, into its second—tramping, without thetent; and after that, into its ultimate stage—a settled life.We have likewise seen how Sir Walter Scott imagines thatthe Scottish Gipsies have decreased, since the time ofFletcher, of Saltoun, about the year 1680, from 100,000 to500, by “the progress of time, and encrease of the means oflife, and the power of the laws.” Mr. Borrow has not goneone step ahead of these writers; and, although I naturallyenough excuse them, I am not inclined to let him go scot-free,since he has set himself forward so prominently as anauthority on the Gipsy question.[297]

In explaining this subject, it is by no means necessary to“crack an egg” for the occasion. There is doubtless a“hitch,” but it is a hitch so close under our very noses, thatit has escaped the observation of the world. Still, the pointcan be readily enough realized by any one. Take, for example,the Walker family. Walker knows well enough whohis father, grandfather, and so forth were; and holds himselfto be a Walker. Is it not so with the Gipsies? Whatis it but a question of “folk?” A question more familiarto Scotch people than any other people. If one’s ancestorswere all Walkers, is not the present Walker still a Walker?If such or such a family was originally of the Gipsy race, isit not so still? How did Billy Marshall happen to be aGipsy? Was he a Gipsy because he lived in a tent? or,did he live in a tent, like a Gipsy of the old stock? If Billywas a Gipsy, surely Billy’s children must also have beenGipsies!

The error committed by writers, with reference to the so-called“dying-out” of the Gipsy race, arises from their notdistinguishing between the questions of race, blood, descent,and language, and a style of life, or character, or mode ofmaking a living. Suppose that a native Scottish cobblershould leave his last, and take to peddling, as a packman,[449]and ultimately settle again in a town, as a respectable tradesman.On quitting “the roads,” he would cease to be apackman; nor could his children after him be called packmen,because the whole family were native Scotch from thefirst; following the pack having been only the occupation ofthe father, during part of his life. Should a company ofAmerican youths and maidens take to the swamp, cranberryingand gipsying, for a time, it could not be said that theyhad become Gipsies; for they were nothing but ordinaryAmericans. Should the society of Quakers dissolve into itsoriginal elements, it would just be English blood quakerized,returning to English blood before it was quakerized.But it is astonishing that intelligent men should conceive,and others retail, the ideas that have been expressed in regardto the destiny of the Gipsy race. What avails the lessonsof history, or the daily experience of every family ofthe land, the common sense of mankind, or the instinct of aHottentot, if no other idea of the fate of the Gipsy race canbe given than that referred to? Upon the principle of theGipsies “dying out,” by settling, and changing their habits,it would appear that, when at home, in the winter, they werenot Gipsies; but that they were Gipsies, when they resumedtheir habits, in the spring! On the same principle, it wouldappear, that, if every Gipsy in the world were to disappearfrom the roads and the fields, and drop his original habits,there would be no Gipsies in the world, at all! What ideacan possibly be more ridiculous?[298]

It is better, however, to compare the Gipsy tribe in Scotland,at the present day, to an ordinary clan in the oldentime; although the comparison falls far short of the idea.[450]We know perfectly well what it was to have been a memberof this or that clan. Sir Walter Scott knew well thathe was one of the Buccleuch clan, and a descendant ofAuldBeardie; so that he could readily say that he was a Scott.Wherein, then, consists the difficulty in understanding whata Scottish Gipsy is? Is it not simply that he is “one ofthem;” a descendant of that foreign race of which we havesuch notice in the treaty of 1540, between James V. andJohn Faw, the then head of the Scottish Gipsy tribe? AScottish Gipsy has the blood, the words, and the signs, ofthese men, and as naturally holds himself to be “one ofthem,” as a native Scotchman holds himself to be one of hisfather’s children. How, then, can a “change of habits”prevent a man from being his father’s son? How could a“change of habits” make a McGregor anything but a McGregor?How could the effects of any just and liberal lawtowards the McGregors lead to the decrease, and final extinction,of the McGregors? Every man, every family,every clan, and every people, are continually “changingtheir habits,” but still remain the same people. It would bea treat to have a treatise from Mr. Borrow upon the Gipsyrace “dying out,” by “changing its habits,” or by the actsof any government, or by ideas of “gentility.”

I have already alluded to a resemblance between the positionof the Gipsy race, at the present day, and that of theEnglish and American races. Does any one say that theEnglish race is not a race? Or that the American is not arace? And yet the latter is a compost of everything thatmigrates from the Old World. But take some families, andwe will find that they are almost pure English, in descent,and hold themselves to be actually such. But ask them ifthey are English, and they will readily answer: “English?No, siree!” The same principle holds still more with theGipsy race. It is not a question of country against country,or government against government, separated by an ocean;but the difference proceeds from a prejudice, as broad anddeep as the ocean, that exists between two races—the native,and that of such recent introduction—dwelling in the samecommunity.

I have explained the effect which the mixing of nativeblood with Gipsy has upon the Gipsy race, showing that itonly modifies its appearance, and facilitates its passing into[451]settled and respectable life. I will now substantiate theprinciple from what is daily observed among the native raceitself. Take any native family—one of the Scotts, for example.Let us commence with a family, tracing its originto a Scott, in the year 1600, and imagine that, in its descent,every representative of the name married a wife ofanother family, or clan, having no Scotts’ blood in her veins.In the seventh descent, there would be only one one-hundredand twenty-eighth part of the original Scott in the last representativeof the family. Would not the last Scott be aScott? The world recognizes him to be a Scott; he holdshimself to be a Scott—“every inch a Scott;” and doubtlesshe is a Scott, as much as his ancestor who existed in the year1600. What difficulty can there, therefore, be, in understandinghow a man can be a Gipsy, whose blood is mixed,even “dreadfully mixed,” as the English Gipsies express it?Gipsies are Gipsies, let their blood be mixed as much as itmay; whether the introduction of the native blood mayhave come into the family through the male or the femaleline.

In the descent of a native family, in the instance given,the issue follows the name of the family. But, with theGipsy race, the thing to be transmitted is not merely a questionof family, but a race distinct from any particular family.If a Gipsy woman marries into a native family, the issueretains the family name of the husband, but passes into theGipsy tribe; if a Gipsy man marries into a native family,the issue retains his name, in the general order of society,and likewise passes into the Gipsy tribe; so that suchintermarriages, which almost invariably take place unknownto the native race, always leave the issue Gipsy.For the Gipsy element of society is like a troubledspirit, which has been despised, persecuted, and damned;cross it out, to appearance, as much as you may, it stillretains its Gipsy identity. It then assumes the form ofa disembodied spirit, that will enter into any kind oftabernacle, in the manner described, dispel every otherkind of spirit, clean or unclean, as the case may be, andcome up, under any garb, colour, character, occupation, or creed—Gipsy.It is perfectly possible, but not very probable, tofind a Gipsy a Jew, in creed, and, for the most part, in pointof blood, in the event of a Jew marrying a mixed Gipsy.[452]He might follow the creed of the Jewish parent, and be admittedinto the synagogue; but, although outwardly recognisedas a Jew, and having Jewish features, he would stillbe achabo; for there are Gipsies of all creeds, and, likeother people in the world, of no creed at all. But it is extremelydisagreeable to a Gipsy to have such a subject mentionedin his hearing; for he heartily dislikes a Jew, andsays that no one has any “chance” in dealing with him. AGipsy likewise says, that the two races ought not to be mentionedin the same breath, or put on the same footing, whichis very true; for reason tells us, that, strip the Gipsy ofevery idea connected with “taking bits o’ things,” and leadinga wild life, and there should be no points of enmitybetween him and the ordinary native; certainly not that ofcreed, which exists between the Jew and the rest of theworld, to which question I will by and by refer.

The subject of the Gipsies has hitherto been treated as aquestion of natural history, only, in the same manner as wewould treat ant-bears. Writers have sat down beside them,and looked at them—little more than looked at them—describedsome of their habits, and reported theirchaff. Toget to the bottom of the subject, it is necessary to sound themind of the Gipsy, lay open and dissect his heart, identifyone’s self with his feelings, and the bearings of his ideas,and construct, out of these, a system of mental science, basedupon the mind of the Gipsy, and human nature generally.For it is the mind of the Gipsy that constitutes the Gipsy;that which, in reference to its singular origin and history,is, in itself, indestructible, imperishable and immortal.

Consider, then, this race, which is of such recent introductionupon the stage of the European world, of such a singularorigin and history, and of such universal existence,with such a prejudice existing against it, and the merestimpulse of reflection, apart from the facts of the case, willlead us to conclude, that, as it has settled, it has remainedtrue to itself, in the various associations of life. In whateverposition, or under whatever circumstances, it is to befound, it may be compared, in reference to its past history,to a chain, and the early Gipsies, to those who have chargedit with electricity. However mixed, or however polished,the metal of the links may have since become, they have alwaysserved to convey the Gipsy fluid to every generation[453]of the race. It is even unnecessary to enquire, particularly,how that has been accomplished, for it is self-evident thatthe process which has linked other races to their ancestry,has doubly linked the Gipsy race to theirs. Indeed, theidea of being Gipsies never can leave the Gipsy race. AGipsy’s life is like a continual conspiracy towards the restof the world; he has always a secret upon his mind, and,from his childhood to his old age, he is so placed as if hewere, in a negative sense, engaged in some gunpowder plot,or as if he had committed a crime, let his character be asgood as it possibly may. Into whatever company he mayenter, he naturally remarks to himself: “I wonder if thereare any of us here.” That is the position which the mixedand better kind of Gipsy occupies, generally and passively.Of course, there are some of the race who are alwaysactually hatching some plot or other against the rest of theworld. Take a Gipsy of the popular kind, who appears assuch to the world, and there are two ideas constantly beforehim—that of theGorgio andChabo: they may slumberwhile he is in his house, or in his tent, or when he is asleep,or his mind is positively occupied with something; but letany one come near him, or him meet or accost any one, andhe naturally remarks, to himself, that the person “isnot oneof us,” or that he “is one of us.” He knows well what thenative may be thinking or saying of him, and he as naturallyresponds in his own mind. This circumstance of itself, thisfrightful prejudice against the individual, makes, or at leastkeeps, the Gipsy wild; it calls forth the passion of resentment,and produces a feeling of reckless abandon, that mightotherwise leave him. To that is to be added the feeling, inthe Gipsy’s mind, of his race having been persecuted, for heknows little of the circumstances attending the origin of thelaws passed against his tribe, and attributes them to persecutionalone. He considers that he has a right to travel;that he has been deprived of rights to travel, which weregranted to his tribe by the monarchs of past ages; and,moreover, that his ancestors—the “ancient wandering Egyptians”—alwaystravelled. He feels perfectly independent of,and snaps his fingers at, everybody; and entertains a profoundsuspicion of any one who may approach him, inasmuchas he imagines that the stranger, however fair he may speakto him, has that feeling for him, as if he considered it pollution[454]to touch him. But he is very civil and plausible whenhe is at home.

It is from such material that all kinds of settled Gipsies,at one time or other, have sprung. Such is the prejudiceagainst the race, that, if they did not hide the fact of theirbeing Gipsies from the ordinary natives, they would hardlyhave the “life of a dog” among them, because of their havingsprung from a race which, in its original state, has beenpersecuted, and so much despised. By settling in life, andconforming with the ways of the rest of the community, they“cease to be Gipsies,” in the estimation of the world; forthe world imagines that, when the Gipsy conforms to itsways, there is an end of his being a Gipsy. Barring the“habits,” such a Gipsy is as much a Gipsy as before, althoughhe is oneincog. The wonder is not that he and hisdescendants should be Gipsies; but the real wonder is, thatthey should not be Gipsies. Neither he nor his descendantshave any choice in the matter. Does the settled Gipsy keepa crockery or tin establishment, or an inn, or follow anyother occupation? Then his children cannot all follow thesame calling; they must betake themselves to the variousemployments open to the community at large, and, theirblood being mixed, they become lost to the general eye,amid the rest of the population. While this process isgradually going on, the Gipsy population which always remainsin the tent—the hive from which the tribe swarms—attractsthe attention of the public, and prevents it fromthinking anything about the matter. In England, alone, wemay safely assume that the tented Gipsy population, aboutthe commencement of this century, must have encreased atleast four-fold by this time, while, to the eye of the public, itwould appear that “the Gipsies are gradually decreasing, sothat, by and by, they will become extinct.”

The world, generally, has never even thought about thissubject. When I have spoken to people promiscuously inregard to it, they have replied: “We suppose that the Gipsies,as they have settled in life, have got lost among thegeneral population:” than which nothing can be more unfounded,as a matter of fact, or ridiculous, as a matter oftheory. Imagine a German family settling in Scotland.The feeling of being Germans becomes lost in the first generation,who do not, perhaps, speak a word of German.[455]There is no prejudice entertained for the family, but, on thecontrary, much good-will and respect are shown it by itsneighbours. The parents identify themselves with thosesurrounding them; the children, born in the country, become,or rather are, Scotch altogether; so that all that remainsis the sense of a German extraction, which, but forthe name of the family, would very soon be lost, or becomea mere matter of tradition. In every other respect, the family,sooner or later, becomes lost amid the general population.In America, we daily see Germans getting mixed with, andlost among, Americans; but where is the evidence of sucha process going on, or ever having taken place, in GreatBritain, between the Gipsy and the native races? Theprejudice which the ordinary natives have for the very nameof Gipsy is sufficient proof that the Gipsy tribe has not beenlost in any such manner. Still, it has not only got mixed,but “dreadfully mixed,” with the native blood; but ithas worked up the additional blood within itself, havingthoroughly gipsyfied it. The original Gipsy blood may becompared to liquid in a vessel, into which native liquid hasbeen put: the mixture has, as a natural consequence, lost,in a very great measure, its original colour; but, inasmuchas the most important element in the amalgamation has beenmind, the result is, that, in its descent, it has remained, asbefore, Gipsy. Instead, therefore, of the Gipsies havingbecome lost among the native population, a certain part ofthe native blood has been lost among them, greatly addingto the number of the body.

We cannot institute any comparison between the introductionof the Gipsies and the Huguenots, the last body offoreigners that entered Great Britain, relative to the destinyof the respective foreign elements. For the Huguenots werenot a race, as distinguished from every other creature in theworld, but a religious party, taking refuge among a peopleof cognate blood and language, and congenial religious feelingsand faith; and were, to say the least of it, on a par, inevery respect, with the ordinary natives, with nothing connectedwith them to prevent an amalgamation with theother inhabitants; but, on the contrary, having this characteristic,in common with the nations of Europe, that theplace of birth constitutes the fact, and, taken in connectionwith the residence, creates the feelings of nationality and[456]race. Many of my readers are, doubtless, conversant withthe history of the Huguenots. Even in some parts ofAmerica, nothing is more common than for people to saythat they are Huguenots, that is, of Huguenot descent,which is very commonly made the foundation of the connectionsand intimate associations of life. The peculiarityis frequently shown in the appearance of the individuals, andin such mental traits as spring from the contemplation ofthe Huguenots as an historical and religious party, evenwhen the individual now follows the Catholic faith. Butthese people differ in no essential respect from the otherinhabitants.

But how different is the position always occupied by theGipsies! Well may they consider themselves “strangersin the land;” for by whom have they ever been acknowledged?They entered Scotland, for example, and haveencreased, progressed, and developed, with so great a prejudiceagainst them, and so separated in their feelings fromothers around them, as if none had almost existed in thecountry but themselves, while they were “dwelling in themidst of their brethren;” the native blood that has beenincorporated with them having the appearance as if it hadcome from abroad. They, a people distinct from any otherin the world, have sprung from the most primitive stage ofhuman existence—the tent, and their knowledge of theirrace goes no further back than when it existed in otherparts of the world, in the same condition, more or less, asthemselves. They have been a migratory tribe, whereverthey have appeared or settled, and have never ceased to bethe same peculiar race, notwithstanding the changes whichthey have undergone; and have been at home wherever theyhave found themselves placed. The mere place of birth, orthe circumstance under which the individual has beenreared, has had no effect upon their special nationality,although, as citizens of particular countries, they have assimilated,in their general ideas, with others around them.And not only have they had a language peculiar to themselves,but signs as exclusively theirs as are those of Freemasons.For Gipsies stand to Gipsies as Freemasons toFreemasons; with this difference—that Masons are bound torespond to and help each other, while such associations,among the Gipsies, are optional with the individual, who,[457]however, is persuaded that the same people, with these exclusivepeculiarities, are to be met with in every part of theworld. A Gipsy is, in his way, a Mason born, and, from hisinfancy, is taught to hide everything connected with his race,from those around him. He is his owntyler, andtyles hislips continually. Imagine, then, a person taught, from hisinfancy, to understand that he is a Gipsy; that his blood, (atleast part of it,) is Gipsy; that he has been instructed in thelanguage, and initiated in all the mysteries, of the Gipsies;that his relations and acquaintances in the tribe have undergonethe same experience; that the utmost reserve towardsthose who are not Gipsies has been continually inculcatedupon him, and as often practised before his eyes; and whatmust be the leading idea, in that person’s mind, but that heis a Gipsy? His pedigree is Gipsy, his mind has been castin a Gipsy mould, and he can no more “cease to be a Gipsy”than perform any other impossibility in nature. Thus it isthat Gipsydom is not a work of man’s hand, nor a creed,that is “revealed from faith to faith;” but a work which hasbeen written by the hand of God upon the heart of a familyof mankind, and is reflected from the mind of one generationto that of another. It enters into the feelings of the veryexistence of the man, and such is the prejudice against hisrace, on the part of the ordinary natives, that the betterkind of Scottish Gipsy feels that he, and more particularlyshe, would almost be “torn in pieces,” if the public reallyknew all about them.

These facts will sufficiently illustrate how a people, “resembling,in so many respects, the Jews, without having anyterritory, or form of creed, peculiar to itself, or any history,or any peculiar outward associations or residences, or anymaterial difference in appearance, character, or occupation,”can be a people, living among other people, and yet be distinctfrom those among whom they live. The distinctionconsists in this people havingblood,language, acast of mind,andsigns, peculiar to itself; the three first being the onlyelements which distinguish races; for religion is a secondaryconsideration; one religion being common to many distinctraces. This principle, which is more commonly applied topeople occupying different countries, is equally applicable toraces, clans, families, or individuals, living within theboundary of a particular country, or dwelling in the same[458]community. We can easily understand how two individualscan be two distinct individuals, notwithstanding their beingmembers of the same family, and professing the same religion.We can still more easily understand the same of two families,and still more so of two septs or clans of the same generalrace. And, surely, there can be no difficulty in understandingthat the Gipsy tribe, whatever may be its habits, issomething different from any native tribe: for it has neveryet found rest for the sole of its foot among the native race,although it has secured a shelter clandestinely; and of theextent, and especially of the nature, of its existence, theworld may be said to be entirely ignorant. The positionwhich the Gipsy race occupies in Scotland is that which itsubstantially occupies in every other country—unacknowledged,and, in a sense, damned, everywhere. There is, therefore,no wonder that it should remain a distinct familyamong mankind, cemented by its language and signs, andthe knowledge of its universality. The phenomenon restsupon purely natural causes, and differs considerably fromthat of the existence of the Jews. For the Jews are, everywhere,acknowledged by the world, after a sort; they haveneither language nor, as far as I know, signs peculiar tothemselves, (although there are secret orders among them,)but possess the most ancient history, an original country, towhich they, more or less, believe they will be restored, anda religion of divine origin, but utterly superseded by anew and better dispensation. Notwithstanding all that, thefollowing remark, relative to the existence of the Jews, sincethe dispersion, may very safely be recalled: “The philosophicalhistorian confesses that he has no place for it in allhis generalizations, and refers it to the mysteries of Providence.”For the history of the Gipsies bears a very greatresemblance to it; and, inasmuch as that is not altogether“the device of men’s hands,” it must, also, be referred toProvidence, for Providence has a hand in everything.

It is very true that the “philosophical historian has noplace, in all his generalizations, for the phenomenon of theexistence of the Jews, since the dispersion,” for he has neverinvestigated the subject inductively, and on its own merits.It is poor logic to assert that, because the American Indiansare, to a great extent, and will soon be, extinct, thereforethe existence of the Jews, to-day, is a miracle. And it would[459]be nearly as poor logic to maintain the same of the Jews inconnection with any of the ancient and extinct nations.There is no analogy between the history of the Jews, sincethe dispersion, and that of any other people, (excepting theGipsies;) and, consequently, no comparison can be institutedbetween them.[299] Before asking how it is that the Jews existto-day, it would be well to enquire by what possible processthey could cease to be Jews. And by what human meansthe Jews, as a people, or even as individuals, will receiveChrist as their Messiah, and thereby become ChristianJews. This idea of the Jews existing by a miracle hasbeen carried to a very great length, as the following quotation,from an excellent writer, on the Evidences of Christianity,will show: “What is this,” says he, “but a miracle?connected with the prophecy which it fulfills, it is a doublemiracle. Whether testimony can ever establish the credibilityof a miracle is of no importance here. This one isobvious to every man’s senses. All nations are its eye-witnesses. . . . .The laws of nature have been suspendedin their case.” This writer, in a spirit of gambling, stakesthe whole question of revelation upon his own dogma; and,according to his hypothesis, loses it. The laws of naturewould, indeed, have been suspended, in their case, and amiracle would, indeed, have been wrought, if the Jews hadceased to be Jews, or had become anything else than whatthey are to-day. Writers on the Christian Evidences shouldcontent themselves with maintaining that the Jews havefulfilled the prophecies, and will yet fulfill them, and assertnothing further of them.

The writer alluded to compares the history of the Jews,since the dispersion, to the following phenomenon: “Amighty river, having plunged, from a mountain height, intothe depths of the ocean, and been separated into its componentdrops, and thus scattered to the ends of the world,and blown about, by all winds, during almost eighteen centuries,is still capable of being disunited from the waters ofthe ocean; its minutest drops, never having been assimilatedto any other, are still distinct, unchanged, and ready to begathered.” Such language cannot be applied to the Jews;for the philosophy of their existence, to-day, is so very simplein its nature, as to have escaped the observation of mankind.[460]I will give it further on in thisDisquisition. Thelanguage in question is somewhat applicable to the Gipsies,for they have becomeworked into all other nations, in regardto blood and language, and are “still distinct andunchanged,” as to their being Gipsies, whatever their habitsmay be; and, although there is no occasion for them to be“gathered,” they would yet, outwardly or inwardly, heartilyrespond to any call addressed to them.[300]

There is, as I have already said, no real outward differencebetween many settled and educated Scottish Gipsies andordinary natives; for such Gipsies are as likely to have fairhair and blue eyes, as black. Their characters and occupationsmay be the same; they may have intimate associationstogether; may be engaged in business as partners; mayeven be cousins, nay, half-brothers. But let them, onseparate occasions, enter a company of Gipsies, and the receptionshown to them will mark the difference in the twoindividuals. The difference between two such Scotchmen,(for they really are both Scotch,) the reader may remark,makes the Gipsy only a Gipsy nominally, which, outwardly,he is; but he is still a Gipsy, although, in point of colour,character, or condition, not one of the old stock; for he has“the blood,” and has been reared and instructed as a Gipsy.But such a Gipsy is not fond of entering a company of Gipsies,strangers to him, unless introduced by a friend in whomhe has confidence, for he is afraid of being known to be aGipsy. He is more apt to visit some of the more originalkind of the race, where he is not known. On sitting downbeside them, with a friendly air, they will be sure to treathim kindly, not knowing but that they may be entertaininga Gipsy unawares; for such original Gipsies, believing that“the blood” is to be found well up in life, feel very curiouswhen they meet with such a person. If he “lets out” anidea in regard to the race, and expresses a kindly feelingtowards “the blood,” the suspicions of his friends are atonce excited, so that, if he, in an equivocal manner, remarksthat he is “not one of them,” hesitates, stammers, and proteststhat he really is not one of them, they will as readilyswear that heis one of them; for well does the blackguard[461]Gipsy, (as the world calls him,) know the delicacy of suchsettled and educated Gipsies in owning the blood. Thereis less suspicion shown, on such occasions, when the settledGipsy is Scotch, and thebush Gipsy English; and particularlyso should the occasion be in America; for, when they meet inAmerica, away from the peculiar relations under which theyhave been reared, and where they can “breathe,” as they expressit, the respective classes are not so suspicious of each other.

Besides the difference just drawn between the Gipsy andordinary native—that of recognizing and being recognizedby another Gipsy—I may mention the following generaldistinction between them. The ordinary Scot knows thathe is a Scot, and nothing more, unless it be something abouthis ancestors of two or three generations. But the Gipsy’sidea of Scotland goes back to a certain time, indefinite tohim, as it may be, beyond which his race had no existencein the country. Where his ancestors sojourned, immediately,or at any time, before they entered Scotland, he cannot tell;but this much he knows of them, that they are neither Scottishnor European, but that they came from the East. Thefact of his blood being mixed exercises little or no influenceover his feelings relative to his tribe, for, mixed as it maybe, he knows that he is one of the tribe, and that the originof his tribe is his origin. In a word, he knows that he hassprung from the tent. Substitute the word Scotch for Moor,as related of the black African Gipsies, atpage 429, and hemay say of himself and tribe: “We are not Scotch, but cangive no account of ourselves.” It is a little different, if themixture of his blood is of such recent date as to connect himwith native families; in that case, he has “various bloods”to contend for, should they be assailed; but his Gipsy blood,as a matter of course, takes precedence. By marrying intothe tribe, the connection with such native families graduallydrops out of the memory of his descendants, and leaves thesensation of tribe exclusively Gipsy. Imagine, then, thatthe Gipsy has been reared a Gipsy, in the way so frequentlydescribed, and that he “knows all about the Gipsies,” whilethe ordinary native knows really nothing about them; andwe have a general idea of what a Scottish Gipsy is, as distinguishedfrom an ordinary Scotchman. If we admit thatevery native Scot knows who he is, we may readily assumethat every Scottish Gipsy knows whohe is. But, to place[462]the point of difference in a more striking light, it may beremarked, that the native Scot will instinctively exclaim,that “the present work has no earthly relation either tohim or his folk;” while the Scottish Gipsy will as instinctivelyexclaim: “It’s us, there’s no mistake about it;” andwill doubtless accept it, in the main, with a high degree ofsatisfaction, as the history of his race, and give it to hischildren as such.

A respectable, indeed, any kind of, Scottish Gipsy doesnot contemplate his ancestors—the “Pilgrim Fathers,” and“Pilgrim Mothers,” too—as robbers, although he could dothat with as much grace as any Highland or Border Scot,but as a singular people, who doubtless came from the Pyramids;and their language, as something about which hereally does not know what to think; whether it is Egyptian,Sanscrit, or what it is. Still, he has part of it; he loves it;and no human power can tear it out of his heart. He knowsthat every intelligent being sticks to his own, and clings tohis descent; and he considers it his highest pride to be anEgyptian—a descendant of those swarthy kings and queens,princes and princesses, priests and priestesses, and, of course,thieves and thievesses, that, like an apparition, found theirway into, and, after wandering about, settled down in, Scotland.Indeed, he never knew anything else than that hewas an Egyptian; for it is in his blood; and, what is more,it is in his heart, so that he cannot forget it, unless he shouldlose his faculties and become an idiot; and then he wouldbe an Egyptian idiot. How like a Gipsy it was for Mrs.Fall, of Dunbar, to “work in tapestry the principal eventsin the life of the founder of her family, from the day theGipsy child came to Dunbar, in its mother’s creel, until thesame Gipsy child had become, by its own honourable exertions,the head of the first mercantile establishment thenexisting in Scotland.”

The Scottish Gipsies, when their appearance has beenmodified by a mixture of the white blood, have possessed, incommon with the Highlanders, the faculty of “getting out”of the original ways of their race, and becoming superior incharacter, notwithstanding the excessive prejudice thatexists against the nation of which they hold themselvesmembers. Except his strong partiality for his blood andtribe, language, and signs, such a Gipsy becomes, in his general[463]disposition and ways, like any ordinary native. It isimpossible that it should be otherwise. Whenever a Gipsy,then, forsakes his original habits, and conforms with theways of the other inhabitants, he becomes, for all practicalpurposes, an ordinary citizen of the Gipsy clan. If he is aman of good natural abilities, the original wild ambition ofhis race acquires a new turn; and his capacity fits him forany occupation. Priding himself on being an Egyptian, amember of this world-wide community, he acquires, as hegains information, a spirit of liberality of sentiment; hereads history, and perceives that every family of mankindhas not only been barbarous, but very barbarous, at onetime; and, from such reflections, he comes to consider hisown origin, and very readily becomes confirmed in his early,but indistinct, ideas of his people, that they really are somebody.Indeed, he considers himself not only as good, butbetter than other people. His being forced to assume anincognito, and “keep as quiet as pussy,” chafes his proudspirit, but it does not render him gloomy, for his naturaldisposition is too buoyant for that. How, then, does such aScottish Gipsy feel in regard to his ancestors? He feelsexactly as Highlanders do, in regard to theirs, or, as theScottish Borderers do, with reference to the “Border Ruffians,”as I have heard a Gipsy term them. Indeed, the gallowsof Perth and Stirling, Carlisle and Jedburgh, could tellsome fine tales of many respectable Scottish people, in timesthat are past.

The children of such a Gipsy differ very much from thoseof the same race in their natural state, although they mayhave the same amount of blood, and the same eye. The eyeof the former is subdued, for his passions, in regard to hisrace, have never been called forth; while the eye of the latterrolls about, as if he were conscious that every one hemeets with is remarking of him, “There goes a vagabond ofa Gipsy.” Two fine specimens of the former kind of Gipsiesattended the High School of Edinburgh, when I was at that institution.Hearing the family frequently spoken of at home, myattention was often taken up with the boys, without understandingwhat a Gipsy ofthat kind could mean; although Ihad a pretty good idea of the common Gipsy, or Tinkler, ashe is generally called in Scotland. These two young Gipsieswere what might be called sweet youths; modest and shy,[464]among the other boys, as young tamed wild turkeys; verydark in colour, with an eye that could be caught in whateverway I might look at them. They now occupy veryhonourable positions in life. There were other Gipsies at theHigh School, at this time, but they were of the “brown sort.”I have met, in the United States, with a Scottish Gipsy,taking greatly after the Gipsy, in his appearance; a manvery gentlemanly in his manner and bearing, and asneat and trim as if he had “come out of a box.” It is natural,indeed, to suppose that there must be a great difference,in many respects, between a wild, original Gipsy,and one of the tame and educated kind, whose descentis several, perhaps many, generations from the tent. Inthe houses of the former, things are generally found lyingabout, here-away, there-away, as if they were just goingto be taken out and placed in the waggon, or on the ass’sback.

It is certainly a singular position which is occupied, fromgeneration to generation, and century to century, by our settledScottish, as well as other, Gipsies, who are not knownto the world as such, yet maintain a daily intercourse withothers not of their own tribe. It resembles a state of semi-damnation,with a drawn sword hanging over their heads,ready to fall upon them at any moment. But the mattercannot be mended. They are Gipsies, by every physical andmental necessity, and they accommodate themselves to theircircumstances as they best may. This much is certain, thatthey have the utmost confidence in their incognito, as regardstheir descent, personal feelings, and exclusively private associations.The word “Gipsy,” to be applied to them bystrangers, frightens them, in contemplation, far more thanit does the children of the ordinary natives; for they imagineit a dreadful thing to be known to their neighbours as Gipsies.Still, they have never occupied any other position;they have been born in it, and reared in it; it has evenbeen the nature of the race, from the very first, always to“work in the dark.” In all probability, it has never occurredto them to imagine that it will ever be otherwise:nor do they evidently wish it; for they can see no possibleway to have themselves acknowledged, by the world, asGipsies. The very idea horrifies them. So far from lettingthe world know anything of them, as Gipsies, their constant[465]care is to keep it in perpetual darkness on the subject. Ofall men, these Gipsies may say:

Indeed, the only thing that worries such a Gipsy is theidea that the public should know all abouthim; otherwise,he feels a supreme satisfaction in being a Gipsy; as well asin having such a history of his race as I have informed himI proposed publishing, provided I do not in any way mixhimup with it, or “lethim out.” By bringing up the body in themanner done in this work, by making a sweep of the wholetribe, the responsibility becomes spread over a large numberof people; so that, should the Gipsy become, by any means,known, personally, to the world, he would have the satisfactionof knowing that he had others to keep him company;men occupying respectable positions in life, and respected, bythe world at large, as individuals.

Here, then, we have one of the principal reasons foreverything connected with the Gipsies being hidden fromthe rest of mankind. They have always been looked uponas arrant vagabonds, while they have looked upon their ancestorsas illustrious and immortal heroes. How, then, arewe to bridge over this gulf that separates them, in feeling,from the rest of the world? The natural reply is, thatwe should judge them, not by their condition and characterin times that are past, but by what they are to-day.

That the Gipsies were a barbarous race when they enteredEurope, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, is just whatcould have been expected of any Asiatic, migratory, tentedhorde, at a time when the inhabitants of Europe were littlebetter than barbarous, themselves, and many of them absolutelyso. To speak of the Highland clans, at that time, asbeing better than barbarous, would be out of the question;as to the Irish people, it would be difficult to say what theyreally were, at the same time. Even the Lowland Scotch, ahundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies in Europe,were, with some exceptions, divided into two classes—“beggarsand rascals,” as history tells us. Is it, therefore, unreasonableto say, that, in treating of the Gipsies of to-day,we should apply to them the same principles of judgmentthat have been applied to the ordinary natives? If we refer[466]to the treaty between John Faw and James V., in 1540, wewill very readily conclude that, three centuries ago, theleaders of the Gipsies were very superior men, in their way;cunning, astute, and slippery Oriental barbarians, with theexperience of upwards of a century in European societygenerally; well up to the ways of the world, and the generalways of Church and State; and, in a sense, at home withkings, popes, cardinals, nobility, and gentry. That was thecharacter of a superior Gipsy, in 1540. In 1840, we findthe race represented by as fine a man as ever graced theChurch of Scotland. “Grand was the repose of his loftybrow, dark eye, and aspect of soft and melancholy meaning.It was a face from which every evil and earthly passionseemed purged. A deep gravity lay upon his countenance,which had the solemnity, without the sternness, of one ofour old reformers. You could almost fancy a halo completingits apostolic character.” Some of the Scottish Gipsiesof to-day could very readily exclaim:

But it is impossible for any one to give an account of theGipsies in Scotland, from the year 1506, down to the presenttime. This much, however, can be said of them, that theyare as much Gipsies now as ever they were; that is, theGipsies of to-day are the representatives of the race as it appearedin Scotland three centuries and a half ago, and holdthemselves to be Gipsies now, as, indeed, they always will do.

Ever since the race entered Scotland, we may reasonablyassume that it has been dropping out of the tent into settledlife, in one form or other, and sometimes to a greater extentat one time than another. It never has been a nomadic race,in the proper sense of the word; for a nomad is one whopossesses flocks and herds, with which he moves about frompasturage to pasturage, as he does in Asia to-day. Mr.Borrow says that there are Gipsies who follow this kind oflife, in Russia; but that, doubtless, arises from the circumstancesin which they have found themselves placed.[301] “I[467]think,” said an English Gipsy to me, “that we must takepartly of the ancient Egyptians, and partly of the Arabs;from the Egyptians, owing to our settled ways, and from theArabs, owing to our wandering habits.” Upon enteringEurope, they must have wandered about promiscuously, forsome short time, before pitching upon territories, which theywould divide among themselves, under their kings and chieftains.Here we find the proper sphere of the Gipsy, in hisoriginal state. In 1506, Anthonius Gawino is represented, byJames IV., to his uncle, the king of Denmark, as having“sojourned in Scotland in peaceable and catholic manner:”and John Faw, by James V., in 1540, during his “pilgrimage,”as “doing a lawful business;” which evidently hadsome meaning, as we find that seven pounds were paid to theEgyptians by the king’s chamberlain. In 1496, the Gipsiesmade musket-balls for the king of Hungary; and, in 1565,cannon-balls for the Turks. In short, they were travellingsmiths, or what has since been called tinkers, with a turn forany kind of ordinary mechanical employment, and particularlyas regards working in metals; dealers in animals, pettytraders, musicians, and fortune-tellers, with a wonderfulknack for “transferring money from other people’s pocketsinto their own;” living representatively, but apparently notwholly, in tents, and “helping themselves” to whatever theystood in need of.[302]

Speaking of the Gipsy chiefs mentioned in the act of JamesV., our author, as we have seen, very justly remarks: “Itcannot be supposed that the ministers of three or four succeedingmonarchs would have suffered their sovereigns tobe so much imposed on, as to allow them to put their names[468]to public documents styling poor and miserable wretches, aswe at the present day imagine them to have been, ‘Lordsand Earls of Little Egypt.’. . . . . I am disposedto believe that Anthonius Gawino, in 1506, and John Faw, in1540, would personally, as individuals, that is, as Gipsyrajahs, have a very respectable and imposing appearance, inthe eyes of the officers of the crown.” (Page 108.)[303] Wehave likewise seen how many laws were passed, by the Scotsparliament, against “great numbers of his majesty’s subjects,of whom some outwardly pretend to be famous and unspottedgentlemen,” for encouraging and supporting the Gipsies;and, in the case of William Auchterlony, of Cayrine, for receivinginto their houses, and feasting them, their wives,children,servants, and companies. All this took placemore than a hundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies inScotland, and seventy-six years after the date of the treatybetween James V. and John Faw. We can very readilybelieve that the sagacity displayed by this chief and hisfolk, to evade the demand made upon them to leave thecountry, was likewise employed to secure their perpetualexistence in it; for, from the first, their intention was evidentlyto possess it. Hence their original story of beingpilgrims, which would prevent the authorities from disturbingthem, but which had no effect upon Henry VIII., whom,of all the monarchs of Europe, they did not hoax. Grellmannmentions their having obtained passports from theEmperor Sigismund, and other princes, as well as from theking of France, and the Pope.

Entering Scotland with the firm determination to “possess”the country, the Gipsies would, from the very first,direct their attention towards its occupation, and draw intotheir body much of the native blood, in the way which Ihave already described. And there was certainly a large[469]floating population in the country, from which to draw it.It would little consist with the feelings of Highland or Lowlandoutlaws to exist without female society; nor was thatfemale society easily to be found, apart from some kind ofsettled life; hence, in seeking for a home, which is inseparablefrom the society of a female, our native outlaw wouldvery naturally and readily “haul up” with the Gipsy woman;for, being herself quite “at home,” in her tent, she wouldpresent just the desideratum which the other was in questof. For, although “Gipsies marry with Gipsies,” it is onlyas a rule, the exceptions being many, and, in all probability,much more common, in the early stage of their Europeanhistory. The present “dreadfully mixed” state of Gipsydomis a sufficient proof of this fact. The aversion, on thepart of the Gipsy, to intermarry with the ordinary natives,proceeds, in the first place, from the feelings which the nativesentertain for her race. Remove those feelings, and theGipsies, as a body, would still marry among themselves; fortheir pride in their peculiar sept, and a natural jealousy ofthose outside of their mystic circle, would, alone, keep theworld from penetrating their secrets, without its being extendedto him who, by intermarriage, became “one of them.”There is no other obstacle in the way of marriages betweenthe two races, excepting the general one, on the part of theGipsies, and which is inherent in them, to preserve themselvesas a branch of a people to be found in every country.Admitting the general aversion, on the part of the Gipsies,tomarry with natives, and we at once see the unlikelihoodof their womenplaying the wanton with them. Still, it isvery probable that they, in some instances, bore children tosome of the “unspotted gentlemen,” mentioned, by act ofparliament, as having so greatly protected and entertainedthe tribe. Such illegitimate children would be put to goodservice by the Gipsy chiefs. By one means or other, thereis no doubt but the Gipsies made a dead-set upon certainnative families of influence. The capacity that could devisesuch a scheme for remaining in the country, as is containedin the act of 1540, and influence the courts of the regency,and of Queen Mary, to reinstate them in their old position,after the severe order of 1541, proclaiming banishmentwithin thirty days, and death thereafter, even when the“lords understood, perfectly, the great thefts andskaiths,[470](damages,) done by the said Egyptians,” could easily executeplans to secure a hold upon private families. If to all thiswe add the very nature of Gipsydom; how it always remainstrue to itself, as it gets mixed with the native blood; how itworks its way up in the world; and how its members “stickto each other;” we can readily understand how the tribeacquired important and influential friends in high places.Do not speak of the attachment of the Jewess to her people:that of the Gipsy is greater. A Jewess passes current, anywhere,as a Jewess; but the Gipsy, as she gets connectedwith a native circle, and moves about in the world, does soclandestinely, for, as a Gipsy, she isincog.; so that her attachmentremains, at heart, with her tribe, and is all thestronger, from the feelings that are peculiar to her singularlywild descent. I am very much inclined to think that Mrs.Baillie, of Lamington, mentioned under the head of Tweed-daleand Clydesdale Gipsies, was a Gipsy; and the more so,from having learned, from two different sources, that thepresent Baillie, of ——, is a Gipsy. Considering thatcourts of justice have always stretched a point, to convict,andexecute, Gipsies, it looks like something very singular, thatWilliam Baillie, a Gipsy, who was condemned to death, in1714, should have had his sentence commuted to banishment,and been allowed to go at large, while others, condemned withhim, were executed. And three times did he escape in thatmanner, till, at last, he was slain by one of his tribe. Italso seems very singular, that James Baillie, another Gipsy,in 1772, should have been condemned for the murder of hiswife, and, also, had his sentence commuted to banishment,and been allowed to go at large: and that twice, at least.Well might McLaurin remark: “Few cases have occurredin which there has been such an expenditure of mercy.”And tradition states that “the then Mistress Baillie, ofLamington, and her family, used all their interest in obtainingthese pardons for James Baillie.” No doubt of it. Butthe reason for all this was, doubtless, different from that of“James Baillie, like his fathers before him,pretending thathe was a bastard relative of the family of Lamington.”

A somewhat similar case of pardoning Gipsies is relatedby a writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, as having occurredtowards the end of last century; the individual procuringthe pardon being the excitable Duchess of Gordon, the same,[471]I presume, whom Burns’ genius “fairly lifted off her feet.”The following are the circumstances, as given by this writer:A Berwickshire farmer had been missing sheep, and lay inwait, one night, with a servant, for the depredators. Theyseized upon Tam Gordon, the captain of the Spittal Gipsies,and his son-in-law, Ananias Faa, in the very act of stealingthe sheep; when the captain drew a knife, to defend himself.They were convicted and condemned for the crime;“but afterwards, to the great surprise of their Berwickshireneighbours, obtained a pardon, a piece of unmerited and ill-bestowedclemency, for which, it was generally understood,they were indebted to the interest of a noble northern family,of their own name. We recollect hearing a sort of balladupon Tam’s exploits, and his deliverance from the gallows,through the intercession of a celebrated duchess, but do notrecollect any of the words.”[304]

A transaction like this must strike the reader as somethingvery remarkable. Sheep-stealing, at the time mentioned,was a capital offence, for which there was almost nopardon; and more especially in the case of people who wereof notorious “habit and repute Gipsies,” caught in the veryact, which was aggravated by their drawing an “invasiveweapon.” Not only were they condemned, but we mayreadily assume that the “country-side” were crying, “Hangand bury the vagabonds;” and death seemed certain; whenin steps the duchess, and snatches them both from the veryteeth of the gallows. What guarantee have we that theduchess was not a Gipsy? It certainly was not likely thata Gipsy woman would step out of her tent, and seize acoronet; but what cannot we imagine to have taken place,in “the blood” working its way up, during the previous 250years? What guarantee have we that Professor Wilsonwas not “taking a look at the old thing,” when ramblingwith the Gipsies, in his youth? There are Gipsy families inEdinburgh, to-day, of as respectable standing, and of as gooddescent, as could be said of him, or many others who havedistinguished themselves in the world.

We must not forget that, when the Gipsies entered Scotland,it was for better or for worse, just for what wasto “turn up.” Very soon after their arrival, the country[472]would become their country, as much as that of the ordinarynatives; so that Scotland became their home, as much as ifit had always been that of their race, except their retaininga tradition of their recent arrival from some part of theEast, and a singular sense of being part and parcel of “theEgyptians that were scattered over the face of the earth;”neither of which the odious prejudice against “the blood”allowed them to forget; assuming that they were willing,and, moreover, that the cast of their minds allowedthem, to do either. The idea which has been expressed bythe world, generally, of the Gipsy tribe gradually assimilatingwith the native race, and ultimately “getting lostamong it,” applies to the principle at issue; for, as I havealready said, ithas got greatly lost, in point of appearance,and general deportment, among the ordinary natives, but hasremained, heart and soul, Gipsy, as before. Even with thenative race, we will find that the blood of the lowly is alwaysgetting mixed with that in the higher circles of life. Wehave the case of a girl going to service with a London brewer,then becoming his wife, then his widow, then employing alawyer to manage her affairs, and afterwards marrying him,who, in his turn, became Earl of Clarendon, and father, byher, of the queen of James II. Towards the end of last, orbeginning of the present, century, we hear of a poor actress,who commenced life in a provincial theatre, marrying oneof the Coutts, the bankers, and dying Duchess of St. Albans.Such events have been of much more common occurrence inless elevated spheres of life; and the Gipsy race has had itsshare of them. For this reason, it is really impossible tosay, who, among the Scotch, are, and who are not, of theGipsy tribe; such a thorough mess has the “mixing of theblood” made of the Scottish population. Notwithstandingall that, there is a certain definite number of “Gipsies” inScotland, known to God only; while each Gipsy is knownin his or her conscience to belong to the tribe. Thismuch is certain, that we need not consult the census returnsfor the number of the tribe in Scotland. However easy, orhowever difficult, it may be, to define what a Gipsy, in regardto external or internal circumstances, is, this much iscertain, that the feeling in his mind as to his being a Gipsy,is as genuine and emphatic as is the feeling in the mind ofa Jew being a Jew.

[473]The circumstances connected with the perpetuation of theGipsy and Jewish races greatly resemble each other. Bothraces are scattered over the face of the earth. The Jew hashad a home; he has a strong attachment to it, and looksforward to enter it at some future day. The Gipsy may besaid never to have had a home, but is at home everywhere.“What part of England did you come from?” said I to anEnglish semi-tented Gipsy, in America. “Whatpart ofEngland did I come from, did you say? I come fromallover England!” The Scottish race, as a race, is confined topeople born in Scotland; for the children of expatriatedScots are not Scotchmen. And so it is with people of othercountries. The mere birth upon the soil constitutes theirrace or nationality, although subsequent events, in early life,may modify the feelings, or draw them into a new channel,by a change of domicile, in infancy. But the Jew’s nationalityis everywhere; ‘tis in his family, and his associationswith others of his race. Make the acquaintance of theJews, and you will find that each generation of them telltheir “wonderful story” to the following generation, andthe story is repeated to the following, and the following.The children of Jews are taught to know they are Jews, beforethey can even lisp. Soon do they know that much ofthe phenomenon of their race, as regards its origin, its history,and its universality, to draw the distinction betweenthem and those around them who are not Jews. Soon dothey learn how their race has been despised and persecuted,and imbibe the love which their parents have for it, and theresentment of the odium cast upon it by others. It has beenso from the beginning of their history out of Palestine, andeven while there. Were it only religion, considered in itself,that has kept the Jews together as a people, they mighthave got lost among the rest of mankind; for among theJews there are to be found the rankest of infidels; evenJewish priests will say that, “it signifies not what a man’sreligion may be, if he is only sincere in it.” Is it a feeling,or a knowledge, of religion that leads a Jewish child, almostthe moment it can speak, to say that it is a Jew? It issimply the workings of the phenomena of race that accountfor this; the religion peculiar to Jews having been introducedamong them centuries after their existence as apeople. Being exclusively theirs in its very nature, they[474]naturally follow it, as other people do theirs; but, although,from the nature of its origin, it presents infinitely greaterclaims upon their intelligent belief and obedience, they haveyielded no greater submission to its spirit and morals, oreven to its forms, than many other people have done to theirreligion, made up, as that has been, of the most fabuloussuperstition, on the principle, doubtless, that

The Jews being a people before they received the religionby which they are distinguished, it follows that the religion,in itself, occupies a position of secondary importance, althoughthe profession of it acts and reacts upon the people,in keeping them separate from others. The most, then, thatcan be said of the religion of the Jews is, that, following inthe wake of their history as a people, it is only one of the pillarsby which the building is supported.[305] If enquiry is madeof Jewish converts to Christianity, we will find that, notwithstandingtheir having separated from their brethren,on points of creed, they hold themselves as much Jews asbefore. But the conversions of Jews are,

In the case of individuals forsaking the Jewish, and joiningthe Christian, Church, that is, believing in the Messiahhaving come, instead of to come, it is natural, I may sayinevitable, for them to hold themselves Jews. They havefeelings which the world cannot understand. But beyondthe nationality, physiognomy, and feelings of Jews, thereare no points of difference, and there ought to be nogrounds of offense, between them and the ordinary inhabitants.[475]While the points of antipathy between the Jewand Christian rest, not upon race, considered in itself, butmainly upon religion, and the relations proceeding from it,it has to be seen what is to be the feeling, on the part ofthe world, towards the Gipsy race; such part of it, at least,whose habits are unexceptionable. This is one of the questionswhich it is the object of thisDisquisition to bring toan issue.

Substitute the language and signs of the Gipsies for thereligion of the Jews, and we find that the rearing of theGipsies is almost identical with that of the Jews; and inthe same manner do they hold themselves to be Gipsies.But the one can be Gipsies, though ignorant of their languageand signs, and the other, Jews, though ignorant oftheir religion; the mere sense of tribe and community beingsufficient to constitute them members of their respectivenationalities. The origin of the Gipsies is as distinct fromthat of the rest of the world, in three continents, at least,as is that of the Jews; and, laying aside the matter of religion,their history, so far as it is known to the world, is asdifferent. If they have no religion peculiar to themselves,to assist in holding them together, like the Jews, they havethat which is exclusively theirs—language and signs; aboutwhich there are no such occasions to quarrel, as in the affairof a religious creed. Indeed, the Gipsy race stands towardsreligions, as the Christian religion does towards races.

People are very apt to speak of the blood of the Jewsbeing “purity itself;” than which nothing is more unfounded.If a person were asked, What is a pure Jew? he would feelpuzzled to give an intelligent answer to the question. Weknow that Abraham and Sarah were the original parents ofthe Jewish race, but that much blood has been added to it,from other sources, ever since. Even four of the patriarchs,the third in descent from Abraham, were the sons of concubines,who were, doubtless, bought with money, from thestranger, (Gen. xvii. 12 and 13,) or the descendants of such,and were, in all probability, of as different a race from theirmistresses, Leah and Rachel, as was the bondmaid, Hagar,the Egyptian, from her mistress, Sarah. Joseph married adaughter of the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses, a daughterof an Ethiopian priest of Midian. From a circumstancementioned in the Exodus, it would appear that Egyptian[476]blood, perhaps much of it, had been incorporated with thatof the Jews, while in Egypt.[306] And much foreign bloodseems to have been added to the body, between the Exodusand the Babylonian captivity, through the means of proselytesand captives, strange women and bondmaids, concubinesand harlots. We read of Rahab, of Jericho, an innkeeper,or harlot, or both, marrying Salmon, one of the chiefmen in the tribe of Judah, and becoming the mother ofBoaz, who married Ruth, a Moabitish woman, the daughter-in-lawof Naomi, and grandmother of David, from whomChrist was lineally descended. Indeed, the Jews have alwaysbeen receiving foreign blood into their body. Weread of Timothy having been a Greek by the father’s side,and a Jew by the mother’s; and of his having been broughtup a Jew. Such events are of frequent occurrence. Thereis no real bar to marriages between Jews and Christians,although circumstances render them difficult. The childrenof such marriages sometimes resemble the Jew, and sometimesthe Christian; sometimes they cast their lot withthe Jews, in the matter of religion, and sometimes with theChristians; but they generally follow the mother in thatmatter. Such, however, is the conceit which the Jew displaysin regard to his race, that he is very reserved inspeaking about this “mixing of the blood.” I once addresseda string of questions to a Christian-Jew preacher,on this subject, but he declined answering them. I am intimatewith a family the parents of which are half-bloodJews, all of whom belong to the Jewish connexion, and I[477]find that, notwithstanding the mixture of the blood, there isas little mental difference between them and the other Jews,as there is between Americans of six descents, by both sidesof the house, and Americans whose descent, through oneparent, goes as far back, while, through the other parent, itis from abroad. Purity of blood, as applicable to almostany race, and, among others, to the Jewish, is a figment.There are many Jews in the United States, and, doubtless,in other countries, who are not known to other people asJews, either by their appearance or their attendance at thesynagogue. As a general principle, no Jew will tell theworld that he belongs to the race; he leaves that to befound out by other people. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson saysthat the Jews of the East, to this day, often have red hairand blue eyes, and are quite unlike their brethren in Europe.He found the large nose at Jerusalem an invariable proofof mixture with a Western family. It is singular, however,how easy it is to detect the generality of Jews; the nose,the eyes, or the features, tell who they are, but not alwaysso. What may be termed a “pure Jew,” is when the personhas no knowledge of any other blood being in his veinsthan Jewish blood; or when his feelings are entirely Jewishas to nationality, although his creed may not be verystrongly Jewish.

I will now consider the relative positions which the Jewsand Gipsies occupy towards the rest of mankind. I readilyadmit that, in their original and wild state, the Gipsies havenot been of any use to the world, but, on the contrary, agreat annoyance. Still, that cannot be said altogether; forthe handy turn of the Gipsies in some of the primitive mechanicalarts, and their dealing in various wares, have been,in a measure, useful to a certain part of the rural population;and themselves the sources of considerable amusement; but,taking everything into account, they have been decidedlyannoying to the world generally. In their wild state, theyhave never been charged by any one with an outward contemptfor religion, whatever their inward feelings may havebeen for it; but, on the contrary, as always having shownan apparent respect for it. No one has ever complained ofthe Gipsy scoffing at religion, or even for not yielding to itsgeneral truths; what has been said of him is, that he is, atheart, so heedless and volatile in his disposition, that everything[478]in regard to religion passes in at the one ear, and goesout at the other. There are, doubtless, Gipsies who will be“unco godly,” when they can make gain by it; but it morefrequently happens that they will assume such an air, in thepresence of a person of respectable appearance, to show himthat they are really not the “horrible vagabonds” which,they never doubt, he holds them to be. They are then sureto overdo their part. As a general thing, they wish peopleto believe that “they are not savages, but have feelings likeother people,” as “Terrible” expressed it. This much is certain,that whenever the Gipsy settles, and acquires an incognito,we hear of little or nothing of the canting in question.As regards the question of religion, it is very fortunatefor the Gipsy race that they brought no particular onewith them; for, objectionable as they have been held to be,the feeling towards them would have been worse, if they hadhad a system of priestcraft and heathen idolatry amongthem. But this circumstance greatly worries a respectableGipsy; he would much rather have it said that his ancestorshad some sort of religion, than that they none. It isgenerally understood that the Gipsies did not bring any particularreligion with them; still, the ceremony of sacrificinghorses at divorces, and, at one time, at marriages, has astrange and unaccountable significance.

Then, as regards the general ways of the Gipsies. If weconsider them as those of a people who have emerged, orare emerging, from a state of barbarism, how trifling, howvenial do they appear! Scotch people have suffered, intimes past, far more at the hands of each other, than everthey knowingly did at the hands of the Gipsies. What wasthe nature of that system of black-mail which was levied byHighland gentlemen upon Southerners? Was it anythingbut robbery? So common, so unavoidable was the paymentof black-mail, that the law had to wink at it, nay, regulateit. But after all, it was nothing but compounding for thatwhich would otherwise have been stolen. It gave peaceand security to the farmer, and a revenue to the Highlandgentleman, whom it placed in the position of a nominal protector,but actually prevented from being a robber, in law ormorals; for, let the payment of the black-mail but have beenrefused, and, perhaps the next day, the Southerner wouldhave been ruined; so that the Highland gentleman would[479]have obtained his rights, under any circumstances. ForHighland people, by a process of reasoning peculiar to apeople in a barbarous state, held, as we have seen, that theyhad a right to rob the Lowlanders, whenever it was in theirpower, and that two hundred years after the Gipsies enteredScotland.

Scottish Gipsies are British subjects, as much as eitherHighland or Lowland Scots; their being of foreign origindoes not alter the case; and they are entitled to have thatjustice meted out to them that has been accorded to the ordinarynatives. They are not a heaven-born race, but theycertainly found their way into the country, as if they haddropped into it out of the clouds. As a race, they have thatmuch mystery, originality, and antiquity about them, andthat inextinguishable sensation of being a branch of thesame tribe everywhere, that ought to cover a multitude offailings connected with their past history. Indeed, what wedo know of their earliest history is not nearly so barbarousas that of our own; for we must contemplate our own ancestors,at one time, as painted and skin-clad barbarians.What we do know, for certainty, of the earliest history ofthe Scottish Gipsies, is contained, more particularly, in theAct of 1540; and we would naturally say, that, for a peoplein a barbarous state, such is the dignity and majesty, withall the roguishness, displayed in the conduct of the Gipsiesof that period, one could hardly have a better, certainly nota more romantic, descent; provided the person whose descentit is is to be found amid the ranks of Scots, withtalents, a character, and a position equal to those of othersaround him. For this reason, it must be said of the race,that whenever it shakes itself clear of objectionable habits,and follows any kind of ordinary industry, the cause of everyprejudice against it is gone, or ought to disappear; for then,as I have already said, the Gipsies became ordinary citizens,of the Gipsy clan. It then follows, that in passing a fairjudgment upon the Gipsy race, we ought to establish a principleof progression, and set our minds upon the best specimensof it, as well as the worst, and not judge of it, solely,from the poorest, the most ignorant, or the most barbarouspart of it.[307]

[480]What shall we say further of the relative positions whichthe Jews and Gipsies occupy towards the rest of the world?In the first place, the Jews entered Europe a civilized, andthe Gipsies a barbarous, people; so that, in instituting anycomparison between them, we should select Gipsies occupyingpositions in life similar to those of the Jews. The settledScottish Gipsy, we find, appears to the eye of the world asa Scotchman, and nothing more. It is the weak positionwhich the Gipsy race occupies in the world, as it enters upona settled life, and engages in steady pursuits, that compels itto assume an incognito; for it has nothing to appeal to, asregards the past; no history, except it be acts of legislationpassed against the race. In looking into a Dictionary or aCyclopædia, the Gipsy finds his race described as vagabonds,always as vagabonds; and he may be said never to haveheard a good word spoken of it, during the whole of his life.Hence he and his descendants “keep as quiet as pussy,” andpass from the observation of the world. Besides this, thereis no prominent feature connected with his race, to bring itbefore the world, such as there is with the Jewish, viz., history,church, or literature. A history, the Gipsy, as we see,doubtless has; but anything connected with him, pertainingto the church or literature, he holds as a member of ordinarysociety. Still, it would not be incorrect to speak of Gipsyliterature, as the work of a Gipsy, acquired from the sourcescommon to other men; as we would say of the Jews, relativeto the literature which they produce under similar circumstances.[481]As to the Gipsy to whom I have alluded, it maybe said that it is none of our business whether he is a Gipsyor not; there is certainly no prejudice against him as anindividual, and there can be none as a Gipsy, except such aspeople may of their own accord conceive for him. Many ofthe Scottish Gipsies whom I have met with are civil enough,sensible enough, decent enough, and liberal and honourableenough in their conduct; decidedly well bred for their positionsin life, and rather foolish and reckless with theirmeans, than misers; and, generally speaking, what are called“good fellows.” It is no business of mine to ask them, howlong it is since their ancestors left the tent, or, indeed, ifthey even know when that occurred; and still less, if theyknow when any of them ever did anything that was contraryto law. Still, one feels a little irksome in such a Gipsy’scompany, until the Gipsy question has been fairly broughtbefore the world, and the point settled, that a Gipsy may bea gentleman, and that no disparagement is necessarily connectedwith the name, considered in itself. Such ScottishGipsies as I have mentioned are decidedly smart, and, Yankee-like,more adaptable in turning their hands to variousemployments, than the common natives; and are a fair creditto the country they come from, and absolutely a greater thanmany of the native Scotch that are to be met with in theNew World. Let the name of Gipsy be as much respected,in Scotland, as it is now despised, and the community wouldstare to see the civilized Gipsies make their appearance;they would come buzzing out, like bees, emerging even fromplaces where a person, not in the secret, never would havedreamt of.

If we consider, in a fair and philosophical manner, theorigin of these people, we will find many excuses for theposition which their ancestors have occupied. They were atribe of men wandering upon the face of the earth, overwhich they have spread, as one wave follows and urges onanother. Those that appeared in Europe seem to have beenimpelled, in their migration, by the same irresistible impulse;to say nothing of the circumstances connected withtheir coming in contact with the people whose territoriesthey had invaded. No one generation could be responsiblefor the position in which it found itself placed. In the caseof John Faw and his company, we find that, being on the[482]face of the earth, they had to go somewhere, and inventsome sort of excuse, to secure a toleration; and the worldwas bound to yield them a subsistence, of some kind, and insome way obtained. As a wandering, barbarous, tentedtribe, with habits peculiar to itself, and inseparable from itsvery nature, great allowance ought to be made for the timenecessary for its gradual absorption into settled society.That could only be the result of generations, even if the racehad not been treated so harshly as it has been, or had sucha prejudice displayed against it. The difficulties which aGipsy has to encounter in leaving the tent are great, for hehas been born in that state, and been reared in it. Toleave his tent forever, and settle in a town, is a greatertrial to the innate feelings of his nature, than would be thechange from highly polished metropolitan life to a stateof solitude, in a society away from everything that hadhitherto made existence bearable. But the Gipsy will veryreadily leave his tent, temporarily, to visit a town, if it is tomake money. It is astonishing how strong the circumstancesare which bind him to his tent; even his pride andprejudices in being a “wandering Egyptian,” will, if it ispossible to live by the tent, bind him to it. Then, there isthe prejudice of the world—the objection to receive him intoany community, and his children into any school—that commonlyprevails, and which compels him tosteal into settledlife. It has always been so with the Gipsy race. Gipsiesbrought up in the tent have the same difficulties to encounterin leaving it to-day, that others had centuries ago. But,notwithstanding all that, they are always keeping movingout of the tent, and becoming settled and civilized.

Tented Gipsies will naturally “take bits o’ things;” manyof them would think one simple if he thought they wouldnot do it; some of them would even be insulted if he saidthey did not do it. After they leave the tent, and commence“tramping,” they (I do not say all of them) will still“take bits o’ things.” From this stage of their history, theykeep gradually dropping into unexceptionable habits; andparticularly so if they receive education. But we can veryreadily believe that, independent of every circumstance, therewill be Gipsies who, in a great measure, always will berogues. The law of necessity exercises a great influenceover the destiny of the Gipsy race; their natural encrease[483]is such, that, as they progress and develop, they are alwayspushing others out of the sphere which those further advancedoccupy; so that it would not pay for all Gipsies tobe rogues. There is, therefore, no alternative left to theGipsy but to earn his bread like other men. If every Gipsyactually “helped himself” to whatever he stood in need of,it could hardly be said that the ordinary inhabitants wouldhave anything that they could really call their own. Notwithstandingthe manner how the Gipsies progress, or theorigin from which they spring, it is quite sufficient for me tohold the race in respect, when I find them personally worthyof it.

As a Scotchman, as a citizen of the world, whether shouldmy sympathies lay more with the Gipsies than with theJews? With the Gipsies, unquestionably. For, a race,emerging from a state of barbarism, and struggling upwardsto civilization, surrounded by so many difficulties, as is theGipsy, is entitled to a world of charity and encouragement.Of the Jews, who, though blessed with the most exaltedprivileges, yet allowed themselves to be reduced to theirpresent fallen and degraded estate, it may be said:“Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone.” TheGipsies are, and have always been, a rising people, althoughthe world may be said to have known little of them hitherto.The Gipsy, as he emerges from his wild state, makes ampleamends for his original offensiveness, by hiding everythingrelative to his being a Gipsy from his neighbours aroundhim. In approaching one of this class, we should be carefulnot to express that prejudice for him as a Gipsy, which wemight have for him as a man; for it is natural enough tofeel a dislike for many people whom we meet with, andwhich, if the people were Gipsies, we might insensibly allowto fall upon them, on account of tribe alone; so difficult isit to shake one’s self clear of the prejudice of caste towardsthe Gipsy name. The Gipsy has naturally a happy disposition,which circumstances cannot destroy, however muchthey may be calculated to sour it. In their original state,they are, what Grellmann says of them, “always merry andblithe;” not apt to be surly dogs, unless made such; andare capable of considerable attachment, when treated civillyand kindly, without any attempt being made to commiseratethem, and after an acquaintance has been fairly established[484]with them. But, what are properly called their affectionsmust, in the position which they occupy, always remain withtheir tribe. As for the other part of the race—those whosehabits are unexceptionable—it is for us to convince themthat no prejudice is entertained for them on account of theirbeing Gipsies; but that it would rather be pleasing and interestingfor us to know something of them as Gipsies, thatis, about their feelings as Gipsies, and hear them talk someof this language which they have, or are supposed to have.

But how different is the position which the Jews occupytowards the rest of the world! They are, certainly, quietand inoffensive enough as individuals, or as a community;whence, then, arises the dislike which most people have forthem? The Gipsies may be said to be, in a sense, strangersamongst us, because they have never been acknowledged byus; but the Jews are, to a certain extent, strangers underany circumstances, and, more or less, look to entering Palestineat some day, it may be this year, or the following. Ifa Christian asks: “Who are the Jews, and what do theyhere?” the reply is very plain: “They are rebels againstthe Majesty of Heaven, and outcasts from His presence.”They are certainly entitled to every privilege, social andpolitical, which other citizens enjoy; they have a perfectright to follow their own religion; but other people havean equal right to express their opinion in regard to it andthem.

The Jew is an enigma to the world, unless looked atthrough the light of the Old and New Testaments. Instudying the history of the Jews, we will find very littleabout them, as a nation, that is interesting, to the extent ofsecuring our affections, whatever may be said of some of themembers of it. What appears attractive, and, I may say,of personal importance, to the Christian, in their history, is,not what they have been or done, but what has been donefor them by God. “What more could I have done for myvine than I have done?” And “Which of the prophets havethey not persecuted?” “Wherefore, behold! I send untoyou prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of themye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourgein your synagogues, and persecute from city to city.” Andthus it always was. “Elias saith of them, Lord, they havekilled thy prophets, and digged down thine altars, and I am[485]left alone, and they seek my life.” Indeed, the whole historyof the Jews has given to infidels such occasion to railat revelation, as has caused no little annoyance to Christians.What concerns the Christian in the Jewish historyis more particularly that which refers to the ways of God,in preserving to Himself, in every generation, a seed whodid not bow the knee to Baal, till the appearance of Him inwhom all the nations of mankind were to be blessed. Beyondthis, we find that the Jews, as a nation, have been themost rebellious, stiff-necked, perverse, ungrateful, and factious,of any recorded in history. How different from whatmight have been expected of them! Viewing the historyof the Jews in this aspect, the mind even finds a relief inturning to profane history; but viewing their writings asthe records of the dispensations of God to mankind, andthey are worthy of universal reverence; although themost interesting part of them is, perhaps, that which reachesto the settlement of the race in Palestine. And to sum up,to complete, and crown the history of this singularly privilegedpeople, previous to the destruction of their city andtemple, and their dispersion among the nations, we find thatthe prophet whom Moses foretold them would be raised upto them, they wickedly crucified and slew; “delivering upand denying him in the presence of Pilate, when he wasdetermined to let him go. But they denied the Holy Oneand the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted untothem; and killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raisedfrom the dead.” And Pilate “washed his hands before themultitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this justperson: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, andsaid, His blood be on us and on our children.” And his bloodis on their children at the present day; for while he isacknowledged by three hundred millions of mankind astheir Lord and Master, the Jew teaches his children toregard him as an impostor, and spit at the very mention ofhis name. How great must be the infatuation of the poorJew, how dark the mind, how thick the veil that hangsover his heart, how terrible the curse that rests upon hishead! But the Jew is to be pitied, not distressed; heshould be personally treated, in ordinary life, as his conductmerits.

The manner in which the Jew treats the claims of Jesus[486]Christ disqualifies him for receiving the respect of theChristian. He knows well that Christianity is no productionof any Gentile, but an emanation from people of hisown nation. And so conceited is the Jew in this respect,that he will say: “Jesus Christ and his apostles were Jews:see what Jews have done!” He regards the existenceof his race as a miracle, yet looks with indifference uponthe history and results of Christianity. People have oftenwondered that Jews, as Jews, have written so little on theinspiration of the Old Testament; but what else could havebeen expected of them? How could they throw themselvesprominently forward, in urging the claims of Moses, whowas “faithful in all his house as a servant,” and totallyignore those of Christ, who was “a son over his ownhouse?” So far from even entertaining the claims of thelatter, the Jew proper has the most bitter hatred for thevery mention of his name; he would almost, if he dared,tear out part of his Scriptures, in which the Messiah isalluded to. Does he take the trouble to give the claims ofChristianity the slightest consideration? He will spit atit, but it is into his handkerchief; so much does he feel tiedup in the position which he occupies in the world. Hecannot say that he respects, or can respect, Christianity,whatever he may think of its morals; for, as a Jew, hemust, and does, regard it as an imposture, and blindly soregards it. But all Jews are not of this description; forthere are many of them who believe little in Moses or anyother, or give themselves the least trouble about such matters.

The position which Jews occupy among Christians isthat which they occupy among people of a different faith.They become obnoxious to people everywhere; for thatwhich is so foreign in its origin, so exclusive in its habitsand relations, and so conceited and antagonistic in itscreed, will always be so, go where it may. Besides, theywill not even eat what others have slain; and hold otherpeople as impure. The very conservative nature of theircreed is, to a certain extent, against them; were it aggressive,like the Christian’s, with a genius to embraceallwithin its fold, it would not stir up, or permanently retain,the same ill-will toward the people who profess it; forbeing of that nature which retires into the corner of selfish[487]exclusiveness, people will naturally take a greater objectionto them. Then, the keen, money-making, and accumulatinghabits of the Jews, make them appear selfish to those aroundthem; while the greediness, and utter want of principle,that characterize some of them, have given a bad reputationto the whole body, however unjustly it is applied to themas a race.

The circumstances attending the Jews’ entry into anycountry, to-day, are substantially what they were before theadvent of Christ; centuries before which era, they werescattered, in great numbers, over most part of the world;having synagogues, and visiting, or looking to, Jerusalem,as their home, as Catholics, in the matter of religion, havelooked to Rome. In going abroad, Jews would as littlecontemplate forsaking their own religion, and worshippingthe gods of the heathen, as do Christians, to-day, inOriental countries; for they were as thoroughly persuadedthat their religion was divine, and all others the inventionsof man, as are Christians of theirs. Then, it was a religionexclusively Jewish, that is, the people following it were,with rare exceptions, exclusively Jews by nation. Theill-will which all these circumstances, and the very appearanceof the people themselves, have raised against the Jews,and the persecutions, of various kinds, which have universallyfollowed, have widened the separation between themand other people, which the genius of their religion made soimperative, and their feelings of nationality—nay,family—soexclusive. Before the dispersion, Palestine was theirhome; after the dispersion, the position and circumstancesof those abroad at the time underwent no change; theywould merely contemplate their nation in a new aspect—thatof exiles, and consider themselves, for the time being,at home wherever they happened to be. Those that werescattered abroad, by the destruction of Jerusalem, would,in their persons, confirm the convictions of the others, andreconcile them to the idea that the Jewish nation, as such,was abroad on the face of the earth; and each generationof the race would entertain the same sentiments. After this,as before it, it can scarcely be said that the Jews have everbeen tolerated; if not actually persecuted, they have, atleast, always been disliked, or despised. The whole nationhaving been scattered abroad, with everything pertaining[488]to them as a nation, excepting the temple, the high-priesthood,and the sacrifices, with such an ancient history, andso unequivocally divine a religion, so distinct from, and obnoxiousto, those of other nations, it is no wonder that they,the common descendants of Abraham and Sarah, shouldhave ever since remained a distinct people in the world; asall the circumstances surrounding them have universallyremained the same till to-day.

A Jew of to-day has a much greater aversion to forsakethe Jewish community than any other man has to renouncehis country; and his associations of nationality are manifestedwherever a Jewish society is to be found, or whereverhe can meet with another Jew. This is the view which hetakes of his race, as something distinct from his religion;for he contemplates himself as being of that people—of thesame blood, features, and feelings, all children of Abrahamand Sarah—that are to be found everywhere; that part of itto which he has an aversion being only such as apostatizefrom his religion, and more particularly such as embracethe Christian faith. In speaking of Jews, we are too aptto confine our ideas exclusively to a creed, forgetting thatJews are a race; and that Christian Jews are Jews as wellas Jewish Jews. Were it possible to bring about a reformationamong the Jews, by which synagogues would embracethe Christian faith, we would see Jewish Christianchurches; the only difference being, that they would believein Him whom their fathers pierced, and lay aside only suchof the ceremonies of Moses as the Gospel had abrogated.If a movement of that kind were once fairly afoot, by whichwas presented to the Jew, his people as a community, howeversmall it might be, there would be a great chance ofhis becoming a Christian, in one sense or other: he couldthen assume the position of a protesting Jew, holding therest of his countrymen in error; and his own Christian-Jewishcommunity as representing his race, as it ought toexist.

At present, the few Christian Jews find no others of theirrace with whom to form associations as a community; sothat, to all intents and purposes, they feel as if they were asort of outcasts, despised and hated by those of their ownrace, and separated from the other inhabitants by a naturallaw, over which neither have any control, however much[489]they may associate with, and respect, each other. It requiresa very powerful moral influence to constrain a Jew inembracing the Christian faith—almost nothing short ofdivine grace; and sometimes a very powerful immoral onein professing it—that which peculiarly characterizes Jews—thelove of money. Were a community of Christian Jewsfirmly established, among whom were observed every tittleof the Jewish ceremonial, excepting such as the dispensationof Christ had positively abolished; or even observing mostof that, (circumcision, for example,) as merely characteristicof a people, without attaching to it the meaning of a servicerecommending themselves, in any way, to the mercy of God;and many Jews would doubtless join such a society. Theycould believe in Christ as their Messiah—as their prophet,priest, and king; receive baptism in His name; and dependon Him for a place of happiness in a future state of existence.To such, the injunction, as declared by St. Paul, is: “Ifthou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shaltbelieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from thedead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans x. 9.) And when theycontemplate death, they might lay their heads down inpeace, with the further assurance, as also declared by St.Paul: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again,even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring withhim.” (I Thess. iv. 14.) This is the kind of Messiah whichthe Jew should contemplate, and seek after. He will findhis conception and birth more particularly recorded in thetwo first, and his death, resurrection, and ascension, morefully detailed in the two last, chapters of the Gospel accordingto St. Luke. A person would naturally think that aJew would have the natural curiosity to read this wonderfulbook called the “New Testament;” since, at its very lowestestimate, it is, with the exception of the writings of St.Luke, altogether a production of people of his own nation.Among the Jews, there are not a few who believe in Christ,yet, more or less, appear at the synagogue. They have noobjections to become “spectacles to angels;” but they arenot willing to make themselves such to men, by placingthemselves in that isolated position which a public professionof Christianity would necessarily lead to. But, allthings considered, one is rather apt to fall into Utopianideas in speaking of the conversion of Jews, as a body, or[490]even as individuals, unless the grace of God, in an especialdegree, accompanies the means to that end.

It is no elevated regard for the laws of Moses, or anyexalted sense of the principles contained in the Old Testament,that leads a Jew to lend a deaf ear to the claims ofChristianity; for his respect for them has always been indifferent,even contemptible, enough. Indeed, the Talmud,which is the Jew’s gospel, may be characterized as being, ina very great part, a tissue of that which is silly and puerile,obscene and blasphemous. It is with the Jew now, as it wasat the advent of Christ. “They have paid tithe of mint,and anise, and cummin, and omitted the weightier mattersof the law—judgment, mercy, and faith.” “Laying asidethe commandment of God, they have held the tradition ofmen, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such-likethings;” “making the word of God of none effectthrough their traditions which they have delivered.” “Fullwell have they rejected the commandments of God, that theymight keep their own traditions.” “In vain do they worshipme, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”The main prop of a Jew for remaining a Jew, in regard toreligion, rests much more upon the wonderful phenomenaconnected with the history of his nation—its antiquity, itsassociations, its universality, and the length of time which ithas existed, since its dispersion, distinct from the rest of theworld, and so unique, (as he imagines,) that he at once concludesit must have the special approbation of God for theposition which it occupies; which is very true, although itproceeds from a different motive than that which the Jew sovainly imagines. The Jew imagines that God approves ofhis conduct, in his stubborn rebellion to the claims ofChristianity, because he finds his race existing so distinctfrom the rest of the world; whereas, if he studies his ownScriptures, he will see that the condition of his race is thepunishment due to its rebellion. Who knows but that themark which is to be found upon the Jew answers, in a sense,the purpose of that which every one found upon Cain? Didnot his ancestors call a solemn imprecation upon his head,when they compelled Pilate to crucify the “just person,”when he was determined to let him go; with no other excusethan, “His blood be on us, and on our children?” Willany genuine Jew repudiate the conduct of his ancestors, and[491]say that Christ was not an impostor, that he was not ablasphemer, and that, consequently, he did not deserve, bythe law of his nation, to be put to death?

The history of the Jews acts as a spell upon the unfortunateJew, and proves the greatest bar to his conversionto Christianity. He vainly imagines that his race standsout from among all the races of mankind, by a miracle,wrought for that purpose, and with the special approbationof God upon it, for adhering to its religion; and that, therefore,Christianity is a delusion. But we must break thisspell that enchants the Jew, and “provoke him to jealousyby them that are no people.” And who are this people?The Gipsies? Yes, the Gipsies! For they are numerous,though not as numerous, and ancient, though not as ancient, asthe Jews.[308]

As to the Gipsy population, scattered over the world, Ithink that the intelligent reader will agree with me, afterall that has been said, in estimating it as very large. Thereseems no reason for thinking that the Gipsies suffered sogreatly, by the laws passed against them, as people haveimagined; for the cunning of the Gipsy, and the wild, orpartly uncultivated, face of all the countries of Europewould afford him many facilities to evade the laws passedagainst him. We have already seen what continentalwriters have said of the race, relative to the laws passedagainst it: “But, instead of passing the boundaries, theyonly slunk into hiding places, and, shortly after, appeared inas great numbers as before.” And this seems to have beeninvariably the case over the whole of Europe. Mr. Borrow,as we have already seen, speaks of every Spanish monarch,on succeeding to the crown, passing laws against the Gipsies.If former laws were put in force, there would be no occasionfor making so many new ones; the very fact of so manylaws having been passed against the Gipsy race, in Spain, is[492]sufficient proof of each individual law never having beenput to much execution, but rather, as has already been said,(page 394,) of its having been customary for every king ofSpain to issue such against them. It does not appear thatany force was employed to hunt the Gipsies out of thecountry, but that matters were left to the ordinary localauthorities, whom the tribe would, in many instances, manageto render passive, or beyond whose jurisdiction they wouldremove for the time being. The laws passed against thenobility and commonalty of Spain, for protecting the Gipsies,(page 114,) is a very instructive commentary onthose for the extermination of the body itself. But the casemost in point is in the Scottish laws passed against theGipsies. Upon the passing of the Act of James VI., in1609, we find that the Gipsies “dispersed themselves incertain secret and obscure places of the country”; and that,when the storm was blown over, they “began to take newbreath and courage, and unite themselves in infamous companiesand societies, under commanders” (page 114). Theextreme bitterness displayed in Scots acts of parliamentagainst the best classes of the population, for protectingand entertaining the tribe, and, consequently, rendering theother acts nugatory, has a very important bearing upon thesubject. We find that the Gipsies wandered up and downFrance for a hundred years, unmolested; and that, sonumerous had they become, that, in 1545, the King ofFrance entertained the idea of embodying four thousandof them, to act as pioneers in taking Boulogne, then in possessionof England. The last notice which we have of theFrench Gipsies was that made by Grellmann, when he says:“In France, before the Revolution, there were but few, forthe obvious reason, that every Gipsy who could be apprehended,fell a sacrifice to the police.” Grellmann, however,had not studied the subject sufficiently deep to account forthe destiny of the race. If they were so very numerous inFrance, in 1545, the natural encrease, in whatever positionin life it might be, must have been very great during thefollowing 235 years. I have learned, from the best ofauthority, that there are many Gipsies in Flanders.[309] If the[493]Gipsies in England were estimated at above ten thousand,during the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, howmany may they not be now, including those of every kind ofmixture of blood, character, and position in life? If thereis one Gipsy in the British Isles, there cannot be less than aquarter of a million, and, possibly, as many as six hundredthousand; and, instead of there being sixty thousand inSpain, and constantlydecreasing, (disappearing is the rightword,) we may safely estimate them at three hundred thousand.The reader has already been informed of what becomesof all the Gipsies. As a case in point, I may ask,who would have imagined that there was such a thing inEdinburgh as a factory, filled, not merely with Gipsies, butwithIrish Gipsies? The owner of the establishment wasdoubtless a Gipsy; for how did so many Gipsies come towork in it, or how did he happen to know that his workmenwereall Gipsies, or that evenone of them was a Gipsy?

Even to take Grellmann’s estimate of the Gipsies in Europe,at from 700,000 to 800,000, and the race must be verynumerous to-day. Since his time, the Negroes in the UnitedStates have encreased from 500,000 to 4,000,000, and thismuch is certain, that Gipsies are, to say the least of it, asprolific as Negroes. The encrease in both includes muchwhite blood added to the respective bodies. Some of theGipsies have, doubtless, been hanged; but, on the otherhand, many of the Negroes have been worked to death.There is a great difference, however, between the wild, independentGipsy race and the Negroes in the New World.I should not suppose that the Gipsy race in Europe andAmerica can be less than 4,000,000. It embraces, for certainty,as in Scotland, men ranging in character and positionfrom a pillar of the Church down to a common tinker.[310]

Christians not only flatter but delude the Jew, when theysay that his race is “purity itself;” they greatly flatter and[494]delude him, when they say that the phenomenon of its existence,since the dispersion, is miraculous. There is nothingmiraculous about it. There is nothing miraculous about theperpetuation of Quakerdom; yet Quakerdom has existed fortwo centuries. Although Quakerdom is but an artificialthing, that proceeded out from among common English people,it has somewhat the appearance of being a distinct race,among those surrounding it. As such, it appears, at firstsight, to inexperienced youth, or people who have never seen,or perhaps heard, much of Quakers. But how much greateris the difference between Jews and Christians, than betweenQuakers and ordinary Englishmen, and Americans! Andhow much greater the certainty that Jews will keep themselvesdistinct from Christians, and all others in the world!It must be self-evident to the most unreflecting person, thatthe natural causes which keep Jews separated from otherpeople, during one generation, continue to keep them distinctduring every other generation. A miracle, indeed! Wemust look into the Old and New Testaments for miracles.A Jew will naturally delude himself about the existence ofhis race, since the dispersion, being a miracle; yet not believeupon a person, if he were even to rise from the dead!A little consideration of the philosophy of the Jewish questionwill teach us that, perhaps, the best way for Providenceto preserve the Jews, as they have existed since their dispersion,would have been merely to leave them alone—leavethem to their impenitence and unbelief—and take that muchcare of them that is taken of ravens.

The subject of the Gipsies is a mine which Christiansshould work, so as to countermine and explode the conceitof the Jew in the history of his people; for that, as I havealready said, is the greatest bar to his conversion to Christianity.Still, it is possible that some people may opposethe idea that the Gipsies are the “mixed multitude” of theExodus, from some such motive as that which induces othersnot merely to disbelieve, but revile, and even rave at someof the clear points of revelation.[311] What objection could[495]any one advance against the Gipsies being the people thatleft Egypt, in the train of the Jews? Not, certainly, an objectionas to race; for there must have been many captivepeople, or tribes, introduced into Egypt, from the manycountries surrounding it. Pharaoh was a czar in his day,transplanting people at his pleasure. Of one of his cities itwas said,

That the “mixed multitude” travelled into India, acquiredthe language of that part of Asia, and, perhaps, modified itsappearance there, and became the origin of the Gipsy race,we may very safely assume. This much is certain, that theyare not Sudras, but a very ancient tribe, distinct from everyother in the world. With the exception of the Jews, wehave no certainty of the origin of any people; in everyother case it is conjecture; even the Hungarians know nothingof their origin; and it is not wonderful that it shouldbe the same with the Gipsies. Everything harmonizes sobeautifully with the idea that the Gipsies are the “mixedmultitude” of the Exodus, that it may be admitted by theworld. Even in the matter of religion, we could imagine[496]Egyptian captives losing a knowledge of their religion, ashas happened with the Africans in the New World, and, nothaving had another taught them, leaving Egypt under Moses,without any religion at all.[312] After entering India, theywould, in all probability, become a wandering people, and,for a certainty, live aloof from all others.

While the history of the Jews, since the dispersion, greatlyillustrates that of the Gipsies, so does the history of the Gipsiesgreatly illustrate that of the Jews. They greatly resembleeach other. Jews shuffle, when they say that theonly difference between an Englishman and an English Jew,is in the matter of creed; for there is a great difference betweenthe two, whatever they may have in common, as menborn and reared on the same soil. The very appearance ofthe two is palpable proof that they are not of the same race.The Jew invariably, and unavoidably, holds his “nation” tomean the Jewish people, scattered over the world; and isreared in the idea that he is, not only in creed, but in blood,distinct from other men; and that, in blood and creed, heis not to amalgamate with them, let him live where he may.Indeed, what England is to an Englishman, this universallyscattered people is to the Jew; what the history of Englandis to an Englishman, the Bible is to the Jew; his nation beingnowhere in particular, but everywhere, while its ultimatedestiny he, more or less, believes to be Palestine. Now, anEnglishman has not only been born an Englishman, but hismind has been cast in a mould that makes him an Englishman;so that, to persecute him, on the ground of his beingan Englishman, is to persecute him for that which can neverbe changed. It is precisely so with the Jew. His creeddoes not amount to much, for it is only part of the historyof his race, or the law of his nation, traced to, and emanatingfrom, one God, and Him the true God, as distinguishedfrom the gods and lords many of other nations: such is thenature of the Jewish theocracy. To persecute a Gipsy, forbeing a Gipsy, would likewise be to persecute him for thatwhich he could not help; for to prevent a person being a[497]Gipsy, in the most important sense of the word, it would benecessary to take him, when an infant, and rear him entirelyapart from his own race, so that he should never hear the“wonderful story,” nor have his mind filled with the Gipsyelectric fluid. An English Gipsy went abroad, very young,as a soldier, and was many years from home, without havinghad a Gipsy companion, so that he had almost forgottenthat he was a Gipsy; but, on his returning home, other Gipsiesapplied their magnetic battery to him, and gipsyfiedhim over again. A town Gipsy will occasionally send achild to a Gipsy hedge-schoolmaster, for the purpose of beingextra gipsyfied.

The being a Gipsy, or a Jew, or a Gentile, consists in birthand rearing. The three may be born and brought up underone general roof, members of their respective nationalities,yet all good Christians. But the Jew, by becoming a Christian,necessarily cuts himself off from associations with therepresentative part of his nation; for Jews do not toleratethose who forsake the synagogue, and believe in Christ, asthe Messiah having come; however much they may respecttheir children, who, though born into the Christian Church,and believing in its doctrines, yet maintain the inherent affectionfor the associations connected with the race, andmore especially if they also occupy distinguished positionsin life. So intolerant, indeed, are Jews of each other, inthe matter of each choosing his own religion, extendingsometimes to assassination in some countries, and invariablyto the crudest persecutions in families, that they are hardlyjustified in asking, and scarcely merit, toleration for themselves,as a people, from the nations among whom they live.The present Disraeli doubtless holds himself to be a Jew,let his creed or Christianity be what it may; if he looks athimself in his mirror, he cannot deny it. We have an instancein the Cappadoce family becoming, and remaining forseveral generations, Christians, then returning to the synagogue,and, in another generation, joining the Christianchurch. The same vicissitude may attend future generationsof this family. There should be no great obstacle in theway of it being allowed to pass current in the world, likeany other fact, that a person can be a Jew and, at the sametime, a Christian; as we say that a man can be an Englishmanand a Christian, a McGregor and a Christian, a Gipsy[498]and a Christian, or a Jew and a Christian, even should henot know when his ancestors attended the synagogue.Christianity was not intended, nor is it capable, to destroythe nationality of Jews, as individuals, or as a nation, anymore than that of other people. We may even assume thata person, having a Jew for one parent, and a Christian foranother, and professing the Christian faith, and having theinfluences of the Jew exercised over him from his infancy,cannot fail, with his blood and, it may be, physiognomy, tohave feelings peculiar to the Jews; although he may believethem as blind, in the matter of religion, as do other Christians.But separate him, after the death of the Jewishparent, from all associations with Jews, and he may graduallylose those peculiarly Jewish feelings that are inseparablefrom a Jewish community, however small it may be. Thereare, then, no circumstances, out of and independent of himselfand the other members of his family, to constitute him aJew; and still less can it be so with his children, when theymarry with ordinary Christians, and never come in intimatecontact with Jews. The Jewish feeling may be ultimatelycrossed out in this way; I say ultimately, for it does nottake place in the first descent, (and that is as far as my personalknowledge goes,) even although the mother is an ordinaryChristian, and the children have been brought up exclusivelyto follow her religion.

Gipsydom, however, goes with the individual, and keepsitself alive in the family, and the private associations of life,let its creed be what it may; the original cast of mind,words, and signs, always remaining with itself. In this respect,the Gipsy differs from every other man. He cannotbut know who he is to start life with, nor can he forget it;he has those words and signs within himself which, as hemoves about in the world, he finds occasion to use. A Jewmay boast of the peculiar cast of countenance by which hisrace is generally characterized, and how his nation is kepttogether by a common blood, history, and creed. But thephenomenon connected with the history of the Gipsy race ismore wonderful than that which is connected with the Jewish;inasmuch as, let the blood of the Gipsy become as muchmixed as it may, it always preserves its Gipsy identity; althoughit may not have the least outward resemblance to anoriginal Gipsy. You cannot crush or cross out the Gipsy[499]race; so thoroughly subtle, so thoroughly adaptable, sothoroughly capable, is it to evade every weapon that can beforged against it. The Gipsy soul, in whatever condition itmay be found, or whatever may be the tabernacle which itmay inhabit, is as independent, now, of those laws whichregulate the disappearance of certain races among others,as when it existed in its wild state, roaming over the heath.The Gipsy race, in short, absorbs, but cannot be absorbed by,other races.

In my associations with Gipsies and Jews, I find that bothraces rest upon the same basis, viz.: a question of people.The response of the one, as to who he is, is that he is a Gipsy;and of the other, that he is a Jew. Each of them has apeculiarly original soul, that is perfectly different from eachother, and others around them; a soul that passes as naturallyand unavoidably into each succeeding generation ofthe respective races, as does the soul of the English or anyother race into each succeeding generation. For each considershis nation as abroad upon the face of the earth;which circumstance will preserve its existence amid all therevolutions to which ordinary nations are subject. As theynow exist within, and independent of, the nations amongwhom they live, so will they endure, if these nations wereto disappear under the subjection of other nations, or becomeincorporated with them under new names. Many of theGipsies and Jews might perish amid such convulsions, butthose that survived would constitute the stock of their respectivenations; while others might migrate from othercountries, and contribute to their numbers. In the case ofthe Gipsy nation, as it gets crossed with common blood, theissue shows the same result as does the shaking of the needleon the card—it always turns to the pole: that pole, amongthe Gipsies, being a sense of its blood, and a sympathy withthe same people in every part of the world. For this reason,the Gipsy race, like the Jewish, may, with regard to itsfuture, be said to be even eternal.

The Gipsy soul is fresh and original, not only from itsrecent appearance in Europe, without any traditional knowledgeof its existence anywhere else, but from having sprungfrom so singular an origin as a tent; so that the mysterythat attaches to it, from those causes, and the contemplationof the Gipsy, in his original state, to-day, present to the[500]Gipsy that fascination for his own history which the Jewfinds in the antiquity of his race, and the exalted privilegeswith which it was at one time visited. The civilized Gipsylooks upon his ancestors, as they appeared in Europe generally,and Scotland especially, as great men, as heroes whoscorned the company of anything below a gentleman. Andhe is not much out of the way; for John Faw, and TowlaBailyow, and the others mentioned in the act of 1540, wereunquestionably heroes of the first water. He pictures tohimself these men as so many swarthy, slashing heroes,dressed in scarlet and green, armed with pistols and broad-swords,mounted on blood-horses, with hawks and hounds intheir train. True to nature, every Gipsy is delighted withhis descent, no matter what other people, in their ignoranceof the subject, may think of it, or what their prejudices maybe in regard to it. One of the principal differences to bedrawn between the history of the Gipsies and that of theJews, is, as I have already stated, that the Jews left Palestinea civilized people, while the Gipsies entered Europe, inthe beginning of the fifteenth century, in a barbarous state.But the difference is only of a relative nature; for whenthe Gipsies emerge from their original condition, they occupyas good positions in the world as the Jews; while theyhave about them none of those outward peculiarities of theJews, that make them, in a manner, offensive to other people.In every sense but that of belonging to the Gipsy tribe,they are ordinary natives; for the circumstances that haveformed the characters of the ordinary natives have formedtheirs. Besides this, there is a degree of dignity about thegeneral bearing of such people, rough as it sometimes is,that plainly shows that they are no common fellows, at leastthat they do not hold themselves to be such. For it is to beremarked, that such people do not directly apply to themselvesthe prejudice which exists towards what the worldunderstands to be Gipsies; however much they may inferthat such would be directed against them, should the worlddiscover that they belonged to the tribe. In this respect,they differ from Jews, all of whom apply to themselves theprejudice of the rest of their species; which exercises sodepressing an influence upon the character of a people. Indeed,one will naturally look for certain general superiorpoints of character in a man who has fairly emerged from a[501]wild and barbarous state, which he will not be so apt to findin another who has fallen from a higher position in the scaleof nations, which the Jew has unquestionably done. A Jew,no matter what he thinks of the long-gone-by history of hisrace, looks upon it, now, as a fallen people; while the Gipsyhas that subdued but, at heart, consequential, extravaganceof ideas, springing from the wild independence and vanityof his ancestors, which frequently finds a vent in a lavishand foolish expenditure, so as not to be behind others in hisliberality. A very good idea of such a cast of charactermay be formed from that of the superior class of Gipsiesmentioned by our author, when the descendants of suchhave been brought up under more favourable circumstances,and enjoyed all the advantages of the ordinary natives ofthe country.

In considering the phenomenon of the existence of theJews since the dispersion, I am not inclined to place it onany other basis than I would that of the Gipsies; for, withboth, it is substantially a question of people. They are apeople, scattered over the world, like the Gipsies, and havea history—the Bible, which contains both their historyand their laws; and these two contain their religion. Itwould, perhaps, be more correct to say, that the religionof the Jews is to be found in the Talmud, and the otherhuman compositions, for which the race have such a superstitiousreverence; and even these are taken as interpretedby the Rabbis. A Jew has, properly speaking, little of acreed. He believes in the existence of God, and in Moses,his prophet, and observes certain parts of the ceremoniallaw, and some holidays, commemorative of events in thehistory of his people. He is a Jew, in the first place, as asimple matter of fact, and, as he grows up, he is made acquaintedwith the history of his race, to which he becomesstrongly attached. He then holds himself to be one of the“first-born of the Lord,” one of the “chosen of the Eternal,”one of the “Lord’s aristocracy;” expressions of amazingimport, in his worldly mind, that will lead him to almostdie for hisfaith; while hisreligion is of a very low naturalorder, “standing only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,and carnal ordinances,” suitable for a people in a stateof pupilage. The Jewish mind, in the matter of religion, is,in some respects, preëminently gross and material in its[502]nature; its idea of a Messiah rising no higher than a conquerorof its own race, who will bring the whole worldunder his sway, and parcel out, among his fellow-Jews, alion’s share of the spoils, consisting of such things as theinferior part of human nature so much craves for. And hisideas of how this Messiah is to be connected with the originaltribes, as mentioned in the prophecies, are childishand superstitious in the extreme. Writers do, therefore,greatly err, when they say, that it is only a thin partitionthat separates Judaism from Christianity. There is almostas great a difference between the two, as there is betweenthat which is material, and that which is spiritual. A Jewis so thoroughly bound, heart and soul, by the spell whichthe phenomena of his race exert upon him, that, humanlyspeaking, it is impossible to make anything of him in thematter of Christianity. And herein, in his own way of thinking,consists his peculiar glory. Such being the case withChristianity, it is not to be supposed that the Jew wouldforsake his own religion, and, of course, his own people, andbelieve in any religion having an origin in the spontaneousand gradual growth of superstition and imposture, modified,systematized, adorned, or expanded, by ambitious andsuperior minds, or almost wholly in the conceptions ofthese minds; having, for a foundation, an instinct—anintellectual and emotional want—as common to man, asinstinct is to the brute creation, for the ends which it hasto serve. We cannot separate the questions of race andbelief, when we consider the Jews as a people, however itmight be with individuals among them. It was as unreasonableto persecute a Jew, for not giving up his feelingsas a Jew, and his religion, for the superstitions and imposturesof Rome, as it was to persecute a Gipsy, for not givingup his feelings of nationality, and his language, as was speciallyattempted by Charles III., of Spain: for such are inherentin the respective races. The worst that can be saidof any Gipsy, in the matter of religion, is, when we meetwith one who admits that all that he really cares for is,“to get a good belly-full, and to feel comfortable o’ nights.”Here, we have an original soil to be cultivated; a soil thatcan be cultivated, if we only go the right way about doing it.Out of such a man, there is no other spirit to be cast, butthat of “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” before another[503]can take up its habitation in his mind. Bigoted as is theJew against even entertaining the claims of Christ, as theMessiah, he is very indifferent to the practice, or even theknowledge, of his own religion, where he is tolerated andwell-treated, as in the United States of America. Of thegrowing-up, or even the grown-up, Jews in that country,the ultra-Jewish organ, the “Jewish Messenger,” of NewYork, under date the 19th October, 1860, says that, “withthe exception of a very few, who are really taught their religion,the great majority, we regret to state, know no moreof their faith than the veriest heathen:” and, I might add,practise less of it; for, as a people, they pay very littleregard to it, in general, or to the Sabbath, in particular,but are characterized as worldly beyond measure; havingmore to answer for than the Gipsy, whose sole care is “agood meal, and a comfortable crib at night.”[313]

Amid all the obloquy and contempt cast upon his race,amid all the persecutions to which it has been exposed, theJew, with his inherent conceit in having Abraham for hisfather, falls back upon the history of his nation, with theutmost contempt for everything else that is human; forgettingthat there is such a thing as the “first being last.” Heboasts that his race, and his only, is eternal, and that allother men get everything fromhim! He vainly imaginesthat the Majesty of Heaven should have made his dispensationsto mankind conditional upon anything so unworthy ashis race has so frequently shown itself to be. If he has beenso favoured by God, what can he point to as the fruits of somuch loving-kindness shown him? What is his nationnow, however numerous it may be, but a ruin, and its members,but spectres that haunt it? And what has brought itto its present condition? “Its sins.” Doubtless, its sins;but what particular sins? And how are these sins to be[504]put away, seeing that the temple, the high-priesthood, andthe sacrifices no longer exist? Or what effort, by suchmeans as offer, has ever been made to mitigate the wrathof God, and prevail upon Him to restore the people to theirexalted privileges? Or what could they even proposedoing, to bring about that event? Questions like these involvethe Jewish mind in a labyrinth of difficulties, fromwhich it cannot extricate itself. The dispersion was notonly foretold, but the cause of it given. The Scripturesdeclare that the Messiah was to have appeared before thedestruction of the temple; and the time of his expected advent,according to Jewish traditions, coincided with thatevent. It is eighteen centuries since the destruction of thetemple, before which the Messiah was to have come; andthe Jew still “hopes against hope,” and, if it is left to himself,will do so till the day of judgment, for such a Messiah ashis earthly mind seems to be only capable of contemplating.Has he never read the New Testament, and reflected onthe sufferings of him who was meek and lowly, or on thoseof his disciples, inflicted by his ancestors, for generations,when he has come complaining of the sufferings to whichhis race has been exposed? He is entitled to sympathy,for all the cruelties with which his race has been visited;but he could ask it with infinitely greater grace, were he tooffer any for the sufferings of the early Christians and theirdivine master, or were he, even, to tolerate any of his racefollowing him to-day.

What has the Jew got to say to all this? He cannotnow say that his main comfort and support, in his unbelief,consists in his contemplating what he vainly calls a miracle,wrapt up in the history of his people, since the dispersion.That prop and comfort are gone. No, O Jew! the truemiracle, if miracle there is, is your impenitent unbelief.No one asks you to disbelieve in Moses, but, in addition tobelieving in Moses, to believe in him of whom Moses wrote.Do you really believe in Moses? You, doubtless, believeafter a sort; you believe in Moses, as any other person believesin the history of his own country and people; butyour belief in Moses goes little further. You glory in theantiquity of your race, and imagine that every other hasperished. No, O Jew! the “mixed multitude” which leftEgypt, under Moses, separated from him, and passed into[505]India, has come up, in these latter times, again to vex you.Even it is entering, it may be, pressing, into the Kingdomof God, and leaving you out of it. Yes! the people fromthe “hedges and by-ways” are submitting to the authorityof the true Messiah; while you, in your infatuated blindness,are denying him.

What may be termed the philosophy of the Gipsies, isvery simple in itself, when we have before us its main points,its principles, its bearings, its genius; and fully appreciatedthe circumstances with which the people are surrounded.The most remarkable thing about the subject is, that peoplenever should have dreamt of its nature, but, on the contrary,believed that “the Gipsies are gradually disappearing,and will soon become extinct.” The Gipsies have alwaysbeen disappearing, but where do they go to? Look atany tent of Gipsies, when the family are all together, andsee how prolific they are. What, then, becomes of this encrease?The present work answers the question. It is asubject, however, which I have found some difficulty in gettingpeople to understand. One cannot see how a personcan be a Gipsy, “because his father was a respectable man;”another, “because his father was an old soldier;” andanother cannot see “how it necessarily follows that a personis a Gipsy, for the reason that his parents were Gipsies.”The idea, as disconnected from the use of a tent, or followinga certain kind of life, may be said to be strange to theworld; and, on that account, is not very easily impressed onthe human mind. It would be singular, however, if a Scotchman,after all that has been said, should not be able tounderstand what is meant by the Scottish Gipsy tribe, orthat it should ever cease to be that tribe as it progresses inlife. In considering the subject, he need not cast about formuch to look at, for he should exercise his mind, rather thanhis eyes, when he approaches it. It is, principally, a mentalphenomenon, and should, therefore, be judged of by thefaculties of the mind: for a Gipsy may not differ a whitfrom an ordinary native, in external appearance or character,while, in his mind, he may be as thorough a Gipsy asone could well imagine.

In contemplating the subject of the Gipsies, we shouldhave a regard for the facts of the question, and not be ledby what we might, or might not, imagine of it; for the[506]latter course would be characteristic of people having themoral and intellectual traits of children. The race might,to a certain extent, be judged analogously, by what we knowof other races; but that which is pre-eminently necessary,is to judge of it by facts: for facts, in a matter like this,take precedence of everything. Even in regard to theGipsy language, broken as it is, people are very apt to saythat itcannot exist at the present day; yet the least reflectionwill convince us, that the language which the Gipsiesuse is the remains of that which they brought with theminto Europe, and not a make-up, to serve their purposes.The very genius peculiar to them, as an Oriental people,is a sufficient guarantee of this fact; and the more so fromtheir having been so thoroughly separated, by the prejudiceof caste, from others around them; which would so naturallylead them to use, and retain, their peculiar speech. Butthe use of the Gipsy language is not the only, not even theprincipal, means of maintaining a knowledge of being Gipsies;perhaps it is altogether unnecessary; for the mereconsciousness of the fact of being Gipsies, transmitted fromgeneration to generation, and made the basis of marriages,and the intimate associations of life, is, in itself, perfectlysufficient. The subject of two distinct races, existing uponthe same soil, is not very familiar to the mind of a Britishsubject. To acquire a knowledge of such a phenomenon,he should visit certain parts of Europe, or Asia, or Africa,or the New World. Since all (I may say all) Gipsies hidethe knowledge of their being Gipsies from the other inhabitants,as they leave the tent, it cannot be said that anyof them really deny themselves, even should they hide themselvesfrom those of their own race. The ultimate test of aperson being a Gipsy would be for another to catch the internalresponse of his mind to the question put to him as tothe fact; or observe the workings of his heart in his contemplationsof himself. It can hardly be said that anyGipsy denies, at heart, the fact of his being a Gipsy,(which, indeed, is a contradiction in terms,) let him disguiseit from others as much as he may. If I could find sucha man, he would be the only one of his race whom Iwould feel inclined to despise as such.

From all that has been said, the reader can have no difficultyin believing, with me, as a question beyond doubt, that[507]the immortal John Bunyan was a Gipsy of mixed blood.He was a tinker. And who were the tinkers? Were thereany itinerant tinkers in England, before the Gipsies settledthere? It is doubtful. In all likelihood, articles requiringto be tinkered were carried to the nearest smithy. TheGipsies are all tinkers, either literally, figuratively, or representatively.Ask any English Gipsy, of a certain class,what he can do, and, after enumerating several occupations,he will add: “I can tinker, of course,” although he mayknow little or nothing about it. Tinkering, or travelling-smithwork, is the Gipsy’s representative business, which hebrought with him into Europe. Even the intelligent andrespectable Scottish Gipsies speak of themselves as belongingto the “tinker tribe.” The Gipsies in England, as inScotland, divided the country among themselves, underrepresentative chiefs, and did not allow any other Gipsiesto enter upon their walks or beats. Considering that theGipsies in England were estimated at above ten thousandduring the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, wecan readily believe that they were much more numerousduring the time of Bunyan. Was there, therefore, a pot ora kettle, in the rural parts of England, to be mended, forwhich there was not a Gipsy ready to attend to it? If a Gipsywould not tolerate any of his own race entering upon hisdistrict, was he likely to allow any native? If there werenative tinkers in England before the Gipsies settled there,how soon would the latter, with their organization, driveevery one from the trade by sheer force! What thing morelike a Gipsy? Among the Scotch, we find, at a comparativelyrecent time, that the Gipsies actually murdered anative, for infringing upon what they considered one oftheir prerogatives—that of gathering rags through thecountry.

Lord Macaulay says, with reference to Bunyan: “Thetinkers then formed a hereditary caste, which was held inno high estimation. They were generally vagrants and pilferers,and were often confounded with the Gipsies, whom,in truth, they nearly resembled.” I would like to know onwhat authority his lordship makes such an assertion; whathe knows about the origin of this “hereditary tinker caste,”and if it still exists; and whether he holds to the purity-of-Gipsy-bloodidea, advanced by the Edinburgh Review and[508]Blackwood’s Magazine, but especially the former. Howwould he account for the existence of a hereditary caste ofany kind, in England, and that just one—the “tinker caste”?There was no calling at that time hereditary in England,that I know of; and yet Bunyan was born a tinker. InScotland, the collier and salter castes were hereditary, forthey were in a state of slavery to the owners of theseworks.[314] But who ever heard of any native occupation, sofree as tinkering, being hereditary in England, in the seventeenthcentury? Was not this “tinker caste,” at that time,exactly the same that it is now? If it was then hereditary,is it not so still? If not, by what means has it ceased tobe hereditary? The tinkers existed in England, at that time,exactly as they do now. And who are they now but mixedGipsies? It is questionable, very questionable indeed, if wewill find, in all England, a tinker who is not a Gipsy. Theclass will deny it; the purer and more original kind of Gipsieswill also deny it; still, they are Gipsies. They are allchabos,calos, orchals; but they will play upon the word Gipsyin its ideal, purity-of-blood sense, and deny that they areGipsies. We will find in Lavengro two such Gipsies—theFlaming Tinman, and Jack Slingsby; the first, a half-blood,(which did not necessarily imply that either parent waswhite;) and the other, apparently, a very much mixed Gipsy.The tinman termed Slingsby a “mumping villain.” Now,“mumper,” among the English Gipsies, is an expression fora Gipsy whose blood is very much mixed. When Mr. Borrowused the wordPetulengro,[315] Slingsby started, and exclaimed:“Young man, you know a thing or two.” I haveused the same word with English Gipsies, causing the samesurprise; on one occasion, I was told: “You must be aScotch Gipsy yourself.” “Well,” I replied, “I may be asgood a Gipsy as any of you, for anything you may know.”“That may be so,” was the answer I got. Then Slingsbywas very careful to mention to Lavengro that hiswife wasa white, or Christian, woman; a thing not necessarily truebecause he asserted it, but it implied thathe was different.These are but instances of, I might say, all the English tinkers.[509]Almost every old countrywoman about the ScottishBorder knows that the Scottish tinkers are Gipsies.[316]

[510]The prejudice against the name of Gipsy was apparentlyas great in Bunyan’s time as in our own; and there was,evidently, as great a timidity, on the part of mixed, fair-hairedGipsies, to own the blood then, as now; and greatdanger, for then it was hangable to be a Gipsy, by the lawof Queen Elizabeth, and “felony without benefit of clergy,”for “any person, being fourteen years, whether natural bornsubject or stranger, who had been seen in the fellowship ofsuch persons, or disguised like them, and remained with themone month, at once, or at several times.” When the nameof Gipsy, and every association connected with it, were soseverely proscribed by law, what other name would thetribe go under but that of tinkers—their own proper occupation?Those only would be called Gipsies whose appearanceindicated the pure, or nearly pure, Gipsy. Althoughthere was no necessity, under any circumstances, for Bunyanto say that he was a Gipsy, and still less in the face of thelaw proscribing, so absolutely, the race, and every one countenancingit, he evidently wished the fact to be understood,or, I should rather say, took it for granted, that part of thepublic knew of it, when he said: “For my descent, it was,as is well known to many, of a low and inconsiderable generation;my father’s house being of that rank that is meanestand most despised of all the families of the land.” Of whomdoes Bunyan speak here, if not of the Gipsies? He says, ofall the families of the land. And he adds: “After I hadbeen thus for some considerable time, another thought came[511]into my mind, and that was, whether we, (his family and relatives,)were of the Israelites or no? For, finding in theScriptures, that they were once the peculiar people of God,thought I, if I were one of this race, (how significant is theexpression!) my soul must needs be happy. Now, again, Ifound within me a great longing to be resolved about thisquestion, but could not tell how I should; at last, Iasked my father of it, who told me, No, we, (his father included,)were not.”[317] I have heard the same question putby Gipsy lads to their parent, (a very much mixed Gipsy,)and it was answered thus: “We must have been among theJews, for some of our ceremonies are like theirs.” The bestcommentary that can be passed on the above extractsfrom Bunyan’s autobiography, will be found in our author’saccount of his visit to the old Gipsy chief, whose acquaintancehe made at St. Boswell’s fair, and to which the readeris referred, (pages 309-318.) When did we ever hear of anordinary Englishman taking so much trouble to ascertainwhether he was aJew, or not? No Englishman, it may besafely asserted, ever does that, or has ever done it; and noone in England could have done it, during Bunyan’s time,but a Gipsy. Bunyan seems to have been more or less acquaintedwith the history of the Jews, and how they werescattered over the world, though not publicly known to bein England, from which country they had been for centuriesbanished. About the time in question, the re-admission ofthe Jews was much canvassed in ecclesiastical as well aspolitical circles, and ultimately carried, by the exertions ofManasseh Ben Israel, of Amsterdam. Under these circumstances,it was very natural for Bunyan to ask himself whetherhe belonged to the Jewish race, since he had evidentlynever seen a Jew; and that the more especially, as theScottish Gipsies have even believed themselves to be Ethiopians.Such a question is entertained, by the Gipsies, even[512]at the present day; for they naturally think of the Jews,and wonder whether, after all, their race may not, at sometime, have been connected with them. How trifling it is forany one to assert, that Bunyan—a common native of England—whilein a state of spiritual excitement, imagined that hewas a Jew, and that he should, at a mature age, have putanything so absurd in his autobiography, and in so grave amanner as he did!

Southey, in his life of Bunyan, writes: “Wherefore this(tinkering) should have been so mean and despised a calling,is not, however, apparent, when it was not followed as avagabond employment, but, as in this case, exercised by onewho had a settled habitation, and who, mean as his conditionwas, was nevertheless able to put his son to school, in anage when very few of the poor were taught to read andwrite.” The fact is, that Bunyan’s father had, apparently,a town beat, which would give him a settled residence, preventhim using a tent, and lead him to conform with theways of the ordinary inhabitants; but, doubtless, he had hispass from the chief of the Gipsies for the district. Thesame may be said of John Bunyan himself.

How little does a late writer in the Dublin UniversityMagazine know of the feelings of a mixed Gipsy, likeBunyan, when he says: “Did he belong to the Gipsies, wehave little doubt that he would have dwelt on it, with a sortof spiritual exultation; and that of his having been calledout of Egypt would have been to him one of the proofs ofDivine favour. We cannot imagine him suppressing thefact, or disguising it.” Where is the point in the reviewer’sremarks? His remarks have no point. How could the factof a man being a Gipsy be made the grounds of any kind ofspiritual exultation? And how could the fact of the tribeoriginating in Egypt be a proof of Divine favour towardsthe individual? What occasion had Bunyan to mention hewas a Gipsy? What purpose would it have served? Howwould it have advanced his mission as a minister? Consideringthe prejudice that has always existed against thatunfortunate word Gipsy, it would have created a sensationamong all parties, if Bunyan had said that he was a Gipsy.“What!” the people would have asked, “aGipsy turnedpriest? We’ll have the devil turning priest next!” Consideringthe many enemies which the tinker-bishop had to[513]contend with, some of whom even sought his life, he wouldhave given them a pretty occasion of revenging themselvesupon him, had he said he was a Gipsy. They would haveput the law in force, and stretched his neck for him.[318] Thesame writer goes on to say: “In one passage at least—andwe think there are more in Bunyan’s works—the Gipsiesare spoken of in such a way as would be most unlikely ifBunyan thought he belonged to that class of vagabonds.” Iam not aware as to what the reviewer alludes; but, shouldBunyan even have denounced the conduct of the Gipsies, inthe strongest terms imaginable, would that have been otherwisethan what he did with sinners generally? Should aclergyman denounce the ways and morals of every man ofhis parish, does that make him think less of being a nativeof the parish himself? Should a man even denounce hischildren as vagabonds, does that prevent him being theirfather? This writer illustrates what I have said of peoplegenerally—that they are almost incapable of forming anopinion on the Gipsy question, unaided by facts, and thebearings of facts, laid before them; so thoroughly is thephilosophy of race, as it progresses and develops, unknownto the public mind, and so absolute is the prejudice of casteagainst the Gipsy race.[319]

[514]I need hardly say anything further to show that Bunyanwas a Gipsy. The only circumstance that is wanting tocomplete the evidence, would be for him to have added to hisaccount of his descent: “In other words, I am a Gipsy.”But I have given reasons for such verbal admission being, ina measure, impossible. I do not ask for an argument infavour of Bunyan not being a Gipsy, but a common Englishman;for an argument of that kind, beyond such remarks asI have commented on, is impracticable; but what I ask for is,an exposition of the animus of the man who does not wishthat he should have been a Gipsy; assuming that a man canbe met with, who will so far forget what is due to the dignityof human nature, as to commit himself in any such way.That Bunyan was a Gipsy is beyond a doubt. That he is aGipsy, now, in Abraham’s bosom, the Christian may readilybelieve. To the genius of a Gipsy and the grace of Godcombined, the world is indebted for the noblest productionthat ever proceeded from an uninspired man. Impugn itwhoso list.

Of the Pilgrim’s Progress, Lord Macaulay, in his happymanner, writes: “For magnificence, for pathos, for vehementexhortation, for subtle disquisition, for every purposeof the poet, the orator, and the divine, this homely dialect—thedialect of plain working men—was perfectly sufficient.There is no book in our literature on which we would soreadily stake the fame of the old, unpolluted, English language,”as the Pilgrim’s Progress; “no book which shows,so well, how rich that language is in its own proper wealth,and how little it has been improved by all that it has borrowed.”“Though there were many clever men in England,during the latter half of the seventeenth century, there wereonly two great creative minds. One of these minds producedthe Paradise Lost; the other, the Pilgrim’s Progress”—thework of an English tinkering Gipsy.

It is very singular that religious writers should strive tomake out that Bunyan was not a Gipsy. If these writersreally have the glory of God at heart, they should ratherattempt to prove that he was a member of this race, whichhas been so much despised. For, thereby, the grace of Godwould surely be the more magnified. Have they neverheard that Jesus Christ came into the world to preach theGospel to the poor, to break the chains of the oppressed,[515]and raise up the bowed-down? Have they never heard thatthe poor publican who, standing afar off, would not so muchas lift up his eyes to heaven, but smote his breast, and exclaimed:“God be merciful to me, a sinner,” went downjustified rather than him who gave thanks for his not beinglike other men, or even as that publican? Have they neverheard that God hath chosen the foolish things of the worldto confound the wise; and the weak things of the world toconfound the things which are mighty; and things whichare despised, yea, and things which are not, to bring tonaught things that are: that no flesh should glory in hispresence? I shall wait, with considerable curiosity, to seewhether the next editor, or biographer, of this illustriousGipsy will take any notice of the present work; or whetherhe will dispose of it somewhat in this strain: “One ofBunyan’s modern reviewers, by a strange mistake, construeshis self-disparaging admissions to mean that he was the offspringof Gipsies!”

Sir Walter Scott admits that Bunyan was most probablya “Gipsy reclaimed;” and Mr. Offor, that “his father musthave been a Gipsy.”[320] But, with these exceptions, I knownot if any writer upon Bunyan has more than hinted atthe possibility of even a connexion between him and the Gipsies.It is very easy to account for all this, by the ignoranceof the world in regard to the Gipsy tribe, but, above all, bythe extreme prejudice of caste which is entertained againstit. Does caste exist nowhere but in India? Does an Englishmanfeel curious to know what caste can mean? In fewparts of the world does caste reign so supreme, as it does inGreat Britain, towards the Gipsy nation. What is it butthe prejudice of caste that has prevented the world fromacknowledging Bunyan to have been a Gipsy? The evidenceof the fact of his having been a Gipsy is positive enough.Will any one say that he does not believe that Bunyanmeant to convey to the world a knowledge of the fact of[516]his being a Gipsy? Or that he does not believe that thetinkers are Gipsies? Has any writer on Bunyan ever takenthe trouble to ascertain who the tinkers really are; andthat, in consequence of his investigations, he has come tothe conclusion that they arenot Gipsies? If no writer onthe subject of the illustrious dreamer has ever taken thattrouble, to what must we attribute the fact but the prejudiceof caste? It is caste, and nothing but caste. What is itbut the prejudice of caste that has led Lord Macaulay toinvent his story about the tinkers? For what he says of thetinkers is a pure invention, or, at best, a delusion, on his part.What is it but the prejudice of caste that has preventedothers from saying, plainly, that Bunyan was a Gipsy? Itwould be more manly if they were to leave Bunyan alone,than receive his works, and damn the man, that is, his blood.It places them on the level of boors, when they allow themselvesto be swayed by the prejudices that govern boors.When they speak of, or write about, Bunyan, let them exercisecommon honesty, and receive both the man and theman’s works: let them not be guilty of petit larceny, orrather, great robbery, in the matter.

Southey, in his life of Bunyan, writes: “John Bunyan hasfaithfully recorded his own spiritual history. Had hedreamed of being ‘forever known,’ and taking his placeamong those who may be called the immortals of the earth,he would probably have introduced more details of his temporalcircumstances, and the events of his life. But, gloriousdreamer as he was, this never entered into his imagination.[321]Less concerning him than might have been expectedhas been preserved by those of his own sect; and it is notlikely that anything more should be recovered from oblivion.”Remarks like these come with a singular grace froma man with so many prejudices as Southey. John Bunyan hastold us as much of his historyas he dared to do. It was asubject upon which, in some respects, he doubtless maintaineda great reserve; for it cannot be supposed that aman occupying so prominent and popular a position, as apreacher and writer, and of so singular an origin, should[517]have had no investigations made into his history, and thatof his family; if not by his friends, at least, by his enemies,who seemed to have been capable of doing anything to injureand discredit him. But, very probably, his being a tinkerwas, with friends and enemies, a circumstance so altogetherdiscreditable, as to render any investigation of the kind perfectlysuperfluous. In mentioning that much of himselfwhich he did, Bunyan doubtless imagined that the worldunderstood, or would have understood, what he meant, andwould, sooner or later, acknowledge the race to which hebelonged. And yet it has remained in this unacknowledgedstate for two centuries since his time. How unreasonableit is to imagine that Bunyan should have said, in as manywords, that he was a Gipsy, when the world generally is soapt to become fired with indignation, should wenow say thathe was one of the race. How applicable are the words ofhis wife, to Sir Matthew Hale, to the people of the presentday: “Because he is a tinker, and a poor man, he is despised,and cannot have justice.”

Had Southey exercised that common sense which is theinheritance of most of Englishmen, and divested himself ofthis prejudice of caste, which is likewise their inheritance, henever could have had any difficulty in forming a proper ideaof Bunyan, and everything concerning him. And the samemay be said of any person at the present day. John Bunyanwas simply a Gipsy of mixed blood, who must havespoken the Gipsy language in great purity; for, considering[518]the extent to which it is spoken in England, to-day, we canwell believe that it was very pure two centuries ago, andthat Bunyan might have written works even in that language.But such is the childish prejudice against the nameof Gipsy, such the silly incredulity towards the subject, that,in Great Britain, and, I am sorry to say, with some peoplein America, one has nearly as much difficulty in persuadingothers to believe in it, as St. Paul had in inducing theGreeks to believe in the resurrection of the dead. Whyseemeth it unto thee incredible that Bunyan was a Gipsy?or that Bunyan’s race should now be found in every town,in every village, and, perhaps, in every hamlet, in Scotland,and in every sphere of life?[322]

To a candid and unprejudiced person, it should afford arelief, in thinking of the immortal dreamer, that he shouldhave been a member of this singular race, emerging from astate of comparative barbarism, and struggling upwards,amid so many difficulties, rather than he should have beenof the very lowest of our own race; for in that case, there isan originality and dignity connected with him personally,that could not well attach to him, in the event of his havingbelonged to the dregs of the common natives. Beyond beinga Gipsy, it is impossible to say what his pedigree reallywas. His grandfather might have been an ordinary native,even of fair birth, who, in a thoughtless moment, mighthave “gone off with the Gipsies;” or his ancestor, on thenative side of the house, might have been one of the “manyEnglish loiterers” who joined the Gipsies on their arrivalin England, when they were “esteemed and held in greatadmiration;” or he might have been a kidnapped infant; orsuch a “foreign tinker” as is alluded to in the SpanishGipsy edicts, and in the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in whichmention is made of “strangers,” as distinguished from natural[519]born subjects, being with the Gipsies. The last is mostprobable, as the name,Bunyan, would seem to be of foreignorigin. It is, therefore, very likely, that there was not adrop of common English blood in Bunyan’s veins. JohnBunyan belongs to the world at large, and England is onlyentitled to the credit of the formation of his character. Beall that as it may, Bunyan’s father seems to have been a superior,and therefore important, man in the tribe, from thefeet, as Southey says, of his having “put his son to school inan age when very few of the poor were taught to read andwrite.”

The world never can do justice to Bunyan, unless it takeshim up as a Gipsy; nor can the Christian, unless he considershim as being a Gipsy, in Abraham’s bosom. Hisbiographers have not, even in one instance, done justice tohim; for, while it is altogether out of the question to callhim the “wicked tinker,” the “depraved Bunyan,” it is unreasonableto style him a “blackguard,” as Southey has done.He might have been a blackguard in that sense in which ayouth, in a village, is termed a “young blackguard,” forbeing the ringleader among the boys; or on account of hiswearing a ragged coat, and carrying a hairy wallet on hisshoulder, which, in a conventional sense, constitute anyman, in Great Britain, a blackguard. Bunyan’s sins wereconfined to swearing, cursing, blaspheming, and lying; andwere rather intensely manifested by the impetuosity of hischaracter, or vividly described by the sincerity of his piety,and the liveliness of his genius, than deeply rooted inhis nature; for he shook off the habit of swearing, (and,doubtless, that of lying,) on being severely reproved forit, by a loose and ungodly woman. Three of the kindredvices mentioned, (and, we might add the fourth, lying,) morefrequently proceed from the influence of bad example andhabit, than from anything inherently vicious, in a youthwith so many of the good points which characterized Bunyan.His youth was even marked by a tender conscience, and astrong moral feeling; for thus he speaks of himself in“Grace Abounding:” “But this I well remember, thatthough I could myself sin, with the greatest delight andease, and also take pleasure in the vileness of my companions,yet, even then, if I had, at any time, seen wickedthings in those who professed goodness, it would make my[520]spirit tremble. As, once above all the rest, when I wasin the height of vanity, yet hearing one swear thatwas reckoned for a religious man, it had so great astroke upon my spirit, that it made my heart ache.” Hewas the subject of these experiences before he was tenyears of age. It is unnecessary to speak of his dancing,ringing bells, and playing at tip-cat and hockey. Now, letus see what was Bunyan’smoral character. He was not adrunkard; and he says: “I know not whether there besuch a thing as a woman breathing, under the copes ofheaven, but by their apparel, their children, or by commonfame, except my wife.” And he continues: “Had not amiracle of precious grace prevented, I had laid myself openeven to the stroke of those laws which bring some to disgraceand open shame, before the face of the world.” Themeaning of this is, evidently, that he never stole anything;but that it was “by a miracle of precious grace” he was preventedfrom doing it. In what sense, then, was Bunyan ablackguard? There was never such occasion for him to sayof himself, what John Newton said of himself, as a criminalpassed him, on the way to the gallows: “There goes JohnBunyan, but for the grace of God.” But such was thedepth of Bunyan’s piety, that hardly any one thought andspoke more disparagingly of himself than he did; althoughhe would defend himself, with indignation, against unjustcharges brought against him; for, however peaceable andhumble he might be, he would turn most manfully upon hisenemies, when they baited or badgered him. “It began,therefore, to be rumoured, up and down among the people,that I was a witch, a Jesuit, a highwayman, and the like. . . . . Ialso call those fools and knaves that havethus made it anything of their business to affirm any ofthese things aforesaid of me, namely, that I have beennaught with other women, or the like. . . . My foeshave missed their mark in this their shooting at me. I amnot the man. I wish that they themselves be guiltless. Ifall the fornicators and adulterers in England were hangedup by the neck till they be dead, John Bunyan,the object oftheir envy, would be still alive and well.” The style of hislanguage even indicated the Gipsy; for English Gipsies, asMr. Borrow justly remarks, speak the English languagemuch better than the natives of the lower classes; for this[521]apparent reason, that they have not the dialect of any particularpart of England, which would be, were they alwaysto have resided in a particular place. It must have beenmore so before the middle of the seventeenth century, upwardsof a hundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies inEngland; for, in acquiring the English language, they wouldkeep clear of many of the rude dialects that so commonlyprevail in that country. But Bunyan’s language was, doubtless,drawn principally from the Scriptures.

The illustrious pilgrim had many indignities cast uponhim, by the lower and unthinking classes of the population,and by Quakers and strict Baptists. ‘Twas a man likeJohn Owen who knew how to appreciate and respect him;for, said he to Charles II.: “I would readily part with allmy learning, could I but preach like the tinker.” Andwhat was it that supported Bunyan, amid all the abuse andobloquy to which he was exposed, as he obeyed the callof God, and preached the gospel, in season and out of season,to every creature around him? When they sneered at hisorigin, and the occupation from which he had risen, hesaid: “Such insults I freely bind unto me, as an ornament,among the rest of my reproaches, till the Lord shall wipethem off at his coming.” And again: “The poor Christianhath something to answer them that reproach him for hisignoble pedigree, and shortness of the glory of the wisdomof this world. I fear God. This is the highest and mostnoble; he hath the honour, the life, and glory that is lasting.”[323]

In Great Britain, the off-scourings of the earth can saywho they are, and no prejudices are entertained against[522]them. Half-caste Hindoos, Malays, Hottentots, and Negroes,are “sent home,” to be educated, and made pets of, andhave the choice of white women given to them for wives;but the children of a Scottish Christian Gipsy gentleman,or of a Scottish Christian Gipsy gentlewoman, dare not saywho they are, were it almost to save their lives. Scottishpeople will wonder at what caste in India can mean, deploreits existence, and pray to God to remove it, that “thegospel may have free course and be glorified;” yet scowl—silentlyand sullenly scowl—at the bare mention of John Bunyanhaving been a Gipsy! Scottish religious journals will nottolerate the idea to appear in their columns! To such peopleI would say, Offer up no more prayers to Almighty God, toremove caste from India, until they themselves have removedfrom the land this prejudice of caste, that hangs like anincubus upon so many of their fellow-subjects at home. Itis quite time enough to carry such petitions to the Deity,when every Scottish Gipsy can make a return of himself inthe census, or proclaim himself a Gipsy at the cross, or fromthe house-top, if need be; or, at least, after steps have beentaken by the public to that end. But some of my countrymenmay say: “What are we to do, under the circumstances?”And I reply: “Endeavour to be yourselves, andjudge of this subject as it ought to be judged. You can, atleast, try to guard against your children acquiring yourown prejudices.” To the rising town generation, I wouldlook with more hope to see a better feeling entertained forthe name of Gipsy. But I look with more confidence tothe English than Scottish people; for this question of “folk”is very apt to rankle and fester in the Scottish mind. Iwish, then, that the British, and more especially theScottish, public should consider itself as cited before thebar of the world, and not only the bar of the world, butthe bar of posterity, to plead on the Gipsy question, that itmay be seen if this is the only instance in which justice isnot to be done to a part of the British population. Withthe evidence furnished in the present work, I submit thename of Bunyan, as a case in point, to test the principleat issue. Let British people beware how they approachthis subject, for there are great principles involved in it.The social emancipation of the Gipsies is a question whichBritish people have to consider for the future.

[523]The day is gone by when it cannot be said who JohnBunyan was. In Cowper’s time, hisname dare not be mentioned,“lest it should move a sneer.” Let us hope that weare living in happier times. Tinkering was Bunyan’soccupation;hisrace the Gipsy—a fact that cannot be questioned.His having been a Gipsy adds, by contrast, a lustre to hisname, and reflects an immortality upon his character; andhe stands out, from among all the men of the latter half ofthe seventeenth century, in all his solitary grandeur, a monumentof the grace of God, and a prodigy of genius. Letus, then, enroll John Bunyan as the first (that is known tothe world) of eminent Gipsies, the prince of allegorists, andone of the most remarkable of men and Christians. Whatothers of this race there may be who have distinguishedthemselves among mankind, are known to God and, it maybe, some of the Gipsies. The saintly Doctor to whom I havealluded was one of this singular people; and one beyondquestion, for his admission of the fact cannot be denied byany one. Any life of John Bunyan, or any edition of hisworks, that does not contain a record of the fact of hishaving been a Gipsy, lacks the most important feature connectedwith the man that makes everything relating to himpersonally interesting to mankind. It should even containa short dissertation on the Gipsies, and have, as a frontispiece,a Gipsy’s camp, with all its appurtenances. Thereader may believe that such a thing may be seen, and that,perhaps, not before long.

It strikes me as something very singular, that Mr. Borrow,“whose acquaintance with the Gipsy race, in general, datesfrom a very early period of his life;” who “has lived morewith Gipsies than Scotchmen;” and than whom “no oneever enjoyed better opportunities for a close scrutiny of theirways and habits,” should have told us so little about theGipsies. In all his writings on the Gipsies, he alludes totwo mixed Gipsies only—the Spanish half-pay captain, andthe English flaming tinman—in a way as if these were themerest of accidents, and meant nothing. He has told usnothing of the Gipsies but what was known before, withthe exception, as far as my memory serves me, of the customof the Spanish Gipsy, dressing her daughter in such a wayas to protect her virginity; the existence of the tribe, in acivilized state, in Moscow; and the habit of the members of[524]the race possessing two names; all of which are, doubtless,interesting pieces of information. The Spanish Gipsy marriageceremony was described, long before him, by Dr.Bright; and Twiss, as far back as 1723, bears testimony tothe virtue of Gipsy females, inasmuch as they were not tobe procured in any way. Twiss also bears very positivetestimony on a point to which Mr. Borrow has not alluded,viz.: the honesty of Spanish Gipsy innkeepers, in one respect,at least, that, although he frequently left his linen,spoons, &c., at their mercy, he never lost an article belongingto him. He alludes, in his travels, to the subject of theGipsies incidentally; and his testimony is, therefore, worthyof every credit, on the points on which he speaks. In Mr.Borrow’s writings upon the Gipsies, we find only sketchesof certain individuals of the race, whom he seems to havefallen in with, and not a proper account of the nation. Thesewritings have done more injury to the tribe than, perhaps,anything that ever appeared on the subject. I have metwith Gipsies—respectable young men—who complained bitterlyof Mr. Borrow’s account of their race; and they didthat with good reason; for his attempt at generalization onthe subject of the people, is as great a curiosity as ever I setmy eyes upon. How unsatisfactory are Mr. Borrow’s opinionson the Gipsy question, when he speaks of the “decadence”of the race, when it is only passing from its first stageof existence—the tent. This he does in his Appendix to theRomany Rye; and it is nearly all that can be drawn fromhis writings on the Gipsies, in regard to their future history.

I do not expect to meet among American people, generally,with the prejudice against the name of Gipsy that prevailsin Europe; for, in Europe, the prejudice is traditional—aquestion of the nursery—while, in America, it is derived,for the most part, from novels. American people will, ofcourse, form their own opinion upon the tented or any otherkind of Gipsies, as their behaviour warrants; but whatprejudice can they have for the Gipsy race as such? As arace, it is, physically, as fine a one as ever came out of Asia;although, at the present day, it is so much mixed with thewhite blood, as hardly to be observable in many, and absolutelynot so in others, who follow the ordinary vocations ofother men. What prejudice can Americans have against[525]Gipsy blood as such? What prejudice can they have to theMaryland farmers who have been settled, for at least two generations,near Annapolis, merely because they are Gipsies andspeak Gipsy? If there is any people in the world who mightbe expected to view the subject of the Gipsies dispassionately,it ought to be the people of America; for surely they haveprejudices enough in regard to race; prejudices, the objectof which is independent of character or condition—somethingthat stares them in the face, and cannot be got rid of.If they have the practical sagacity to perceive the bearingsof the Gipsy question, they should at once take it up, andtreat it in the manner which the age demands. They havecertainly an opportunity of stealing a march upon Englishpeople in this matter.

Part of what I have said in reference to Bunyan, I was desirousof having inserted in a respectable American religiousjournal, but I did not succeed in it. “It would take uptoo much room in the paper, and give rise to more discussionthan they could afford to print.”—“Perhaps you wouldnot wish it to be said that John Bunyan was a Gipsy?”—“Oh,not at all,” replied the editor, colouring up a little. I foundthat several of these papers devoted a pretty fair portionof their space to such articles as funny monkey stories, anddescriptions of rat-trap and cow-tail-holder patents; but foranything of so very little importance as that which referredto John Bunyan, they could afford no room whatever. Whocared to know who John Bunyan was? What purpose couldit serve? Who would be benefited by it? But funny monkeystories are pleasant reading; every housewife shouldknow how to keep down her rats; and every farmer shouldbe taught how to keep his cows’ tails from whisking theirmilk in his face, while it is being drawn into the pail. Notsucceeding with the religious papers, I found expression tomy sentiments in one of the “ungodly weeklies,” which devotetheir columns to rats, monkeys, and cows, and a littleto mankind; and there I found a feeling of sympathy forBunyan. Let it not be said, in after times, that the descendantsof the Puritans allowed themselves to be frightened bya scare-crow, or put to flight by the shake of a rag.

I am afraid that the native-born quarrelsomeness of dispositionabout “folk,” and things in general, which characterizesScottish people, will prove a bar to the Gipsies owning[526]themselves up in Scotland. Go into any Scottish villageyou like, and ascertain the feelings which the inhabitantsentertain for each other, and you will find that such a oneis a “poor grocer body;” that another belongs to a “shoemakerpack,” another to a “tailor pack,” another to a “cadgerpack,” another to a “collier pack,” and another to a “lowTinkler pack;” another to a “bad nest,” and another to a“very bad nest.” And it is pretty much the same with thebetter classes. Now, how could the Gipsy tribe live amidsuch elements, if it did not keep everything connected withitself hidden from all the other “packs” surrounding it?And is it consonant with reason to say, that a Scotchmanshould be rated as standing at the bottom of all the various“packs” and “nests,” simply because he has Gipsy bloodin his veins? Yet, I meet with Scotchmen in the NewWorld, who express such a feeling towards the Gipsies.This quarrelling about “folk” reigns supreme in Scotland;and, what is worse, it is brought with the people to America.It is inherent in them to be personal and intolerant,among themselves, and to talk of, and sneer at, each other,and “cast up things.” In that respect, a community ofScotch people presents a peculiarity of mental feeling thatis hardly to be found in one of any other people. Whenthey come together, in social intercourse, there is frequently,if not generally, a hearty, if not a boisterous, flow of feeling,and, if the bottle contributes to the entertainment, a foamupon the surface; but the under-tow and ground-swell arefrequently long in subsiding. Even in America, where theyare reputed to have the clanishness of Jews, we will findwithin their respective circles, more heart-burnings, jealousies,envyings, and quarrellings, (but little or no Irish fighting,for they are rather given to “taking care of theircharacters,”) than is to be found among almost any otherpeople. At the best, there may be said to be an armedtruce always to be found existing among them. Still, allthat is not known to people outside of these circles; forthose within them are animated by a common nationalsentiment, which leads them to conceal such feelings fromothers, so as to “uphold the credit of their country,” whereverthey go. It will be a difficult matter to get the Gipsiesheartily acknowledged among such elements as equals;for it makes many a native Scot wild, to tell him that there[527]are Scottish Gipsies as good, if not better, men than he is,or any kith or kin that belongs to him.

And yet, it is not the Scottish gentleman—the gentlemanby birth, rearing, education, mind, or manners—who will bebackward to assist in raising up, and dignifying, the name ofGipsy. No; it will be the low-minded and ignorant Scots;people who are always either fawning upon, or sneering at,those above them, or trampling, or attempting to trample,upon those below them. It is very apt to be that classwhich Lord Jeffrey describes as “having a double allowanceof selfishness, with a top-dressing of pedantry and conceit,”and some of the “but and ben” gentry, who will sneermost at the word Gipsy. It is the flunkey, who lives andbrings up his family upon the cast-off clothes and brokenvictuals of others, and out for whom such things would findtheir way to the rag-basket and the pigs; ‘tis he and hischildren who are too often the most difficult to please in thematter of descent, and the most likely to perpetuate theprejudice against the Gipsy tribe.

I have taken some trouble to ascertain the feelings ofScotchmen in America towards the Scottish Gipsies, such asthey are represented in these pages; and I find that, amongthe really educated and liberally brought up classes, thereare not to be discovered those prejudices against them, thatare expressed by the lower classes, and especially those fromcountry places. It is natural for the former kind of peopleto take the most liberal view of a question like the present;for they are, in a measure, satisfied with their position inlife; while, with the lower classes, it is a feeling of restlessdiscontentment that leads them to strive to get some oneunder them. No one would seem to like to be at the bottomof any society; and nowhere less so than in Scotland. Agood education and up-bringing, and a knowledge of theworld, likewise give a person a more liberal cast of mind,wherewith to form an opinion upon the subject of the Gipsies;and it is upon such that I would mainly rely in anattempt to raise up the name of Gipsy. Among the lowerclasses of my own countrymen, I find individuals all thatcould be desired in the matter of esteeming the Gipsies, accordingto the characters they bear, and the positions theyoccupy in life; but they are exceptions to the classes towhich they belong. Here is a specimen of the kind of Scot[528]the most difficult to break in to entertaining a proper feelingupon the subject of the Gipsies:

By birth, he is a child of that dependent class that gets adue share of the broken victuals and cast-off clothes of otherpeople. His parents are decent and honest enough people,but very conceited and self-sufficient. Any person in theshape of a mechanic, a labourer, or a peasant, appears asnobody to them; although, in independence, and even circumstances,they are not to be compared to many a peasant.The “oldest bairn” takes his departure for the New World,“with the firm determination to show to the world that he isa man,” and “teach the Yankees something.” The firstthing he does to “show the world that he is a man,” is tosneer, behave rudely, and attempt to pick quarrels with abetter class of his own countrymen, when he comes in contactwith them. Providence has not been over-indulgentwith him in the matters of perceptors or reflectors; for, whatlittle he knows, he has acquired in the manner that chickenspick up their food, when it is placed before them. But he hasbeen gifted with a wonderful amount of self-conceit, whichnothing can break down in him, however much it may beabashed for the moment. No one boasts more of his “family,”to those who do not know who his family are, althoughhis family were brought up in a cage, and so small a cage,that some of them must have roosted on the spars overheadat night. No one is more independent, none more patriotic;no one boasts more of Wallace and Bruce, Burns and Scott,and all the worthies; to him there is no place in the worldlike “auld Scotland yet;” no one glories more in “the noblequalities of the Scot;” and none’s face burns with more importancein upholding, unchallenged, what he claims to behis character; yet the individual is a compound of conceitand selfishness, meanness and sordidness, and is estimated,wherever he goes, as a “perfect sweep.” Although no oneis more given to toasting, “Brithers a’ the world o’er,” and,“A man’s a man for a’ that,” yet speak of the Gipsies to him,and he exclaims: “Thank God! there’s no a drap o’Gipsy blood in me; no one drap o’t!” Not only is he unableto comprehend the subject, but he is unwilling to hearthe word Gipsy mentioned. In short, he turns up his noseat the subject, and howls like a dog.[324]

[529]It is the better kind of Scottish people, in whatever sphereof life they are to be found, on whom the greatest relianceis to be placed in raising up and dignifying the word Gipsy.This peculiar family of mankind has been fully three centuriesand a half in the country, and it is high time that itshould be acknowledged, in some form or other; high time,certainly, that we should know something about it. To anintelligent people it must appear utterly ridiculous that aprejudice is to be entertained against any Scotchman, withoutknowing who that Scotchman is, merely on account ofhis blood. Nor will any intelligent Scotchman, after theappearance of this work, be apt to say that he does not understandthe subject of the Gipsies; or that they cease tobe Gipsies by leaving the tent, or by a change of characteror habits, or by their blood getting mixed. It will not dofor any one to snap at the heels of this question: he mustlook at it steadily, and approach it with a clear head, a firmhand, and a Christian heart, and remove this stigma that hasbeen allowed to attach to his country. No one in particularcan be blamed for the position which the Gipsies occupyin the country: let by-gones be by-gones; let us look to thefuture for that expression of opinion which the subject callsfor. This much I feel satisfied of, that if the Gipsy subjectis properly handled, it would result in the name becoming asmuch an object of respect and attachment in many of therace, as it is now considered a reproach in others. Thereis much that is interesting in the name, and nothing necessarilylow or vulgar associated with it; although there ismuch that is wild and barbarous connected with the descent,which is peculiar to the descent of all original tribes. It isunnecessary to say, that in a part of the race, we still findmuch that is wild, and barbarous, and roguish.

The latter part of the Gipsy nation, whether settled oritinerant, must be reached indirectly, for reasons which havealready been given; for it does not serve much purpose tointerfere too directly with them, as Gipsies. We shouldbring a reflective influence to bear upon them, by holdingup to their observation, some of their own race in respectablepositions in life, and respected by the world, as men,[530]though not known to be Gipsies. I could propose no betterplan to be adopted, with some of these people, than to givethem a copy of the present work, along with the Pilgrim’sProgress, containing a short account of the Gipsies, and aGipsy’s encampment for a frontispiece. The world maywell believe that the Gipsies would read both of them, andbe greatly benefited by the Pilgrim’s Progress; for, as arace, they are exceedingly vain about anything connectedwith themselves. Said I to some English Gipsies: “Youare the vainest people in the world; you think a vast dealof yourselves.” “There is good reason for that,” they replied;“if we do not think something of ourselves, thereare no others to do it for us.” Now since John Bunyan hasbecome so famous throughout the world, and so honoured byall sects and parties, what an inimitable instrument Providencehas placed in our hands wherewith to raise up thename of Gipsy! Through him we can touch the heart ofChristendom! I am well aware that the Church of Scotlandhas, or at least had, a mission among the itinerantScottish Gipsies. In addition to the means adopted by thismission, to improve these Gipsies, it would be well to takesuch steps as I have suggested, so as to raise up the name ofGipsy. For, in this way, the Gipsies, of all classes, wouldsee that they are not outcasts; but that the prejudices whichpeople entertain for them are applicable to their ways oflife, only, and not to their blood or descent, tribe or language.Their hearts would then become more easily touched, theiraffections more readily secured; and the attempt made toimprove them would have a much better chance of beingsuccessful. A little judgment is necessary in conducting anintercourse with the wild Gipsy, or, indeed, any kind ofGipsy; it is very advisable to speak well of “the blood,”and never to confound the race with the conduct of part ofit. There is hardly anything that can give a poor Gipsygreater pleasure than to tell him something about his people,and particularly should they be in a respectable position inlife, and be attached to their nation. It serves no greatpurpose to appear too serious with such a person, for thatsoon tires him. It is much better to keep him a little buoyantand cheerful, with anecdotes and stories, for that is hisnatural character; and to take advantage of occasional opportunities,to slip in advices that are to be of use to him.[531]What is called long-facedness is entirely thrown away upona Gipsy of this kind.

I am very much inclined to believe that a Gipsy, well upin the scale of Scottish society, experiences, in one respect,nearly the same feelings in coming in contact with a wildGipsy, that are peculiar to any other person. These are ofa very singular nature. At first, we feel as if we were goinginto the lair of a wild animal, or putting our finger intoa snake’s mouth; such is the result of the prejudice in whichwe have been reared from infancy; but these feelings becomegreatly modified as we get accustomed to the people.The world has never had the opportunity of fairly contemplatingany other kind of Gipsy; hence the extreme prejudiceagainst the name. But when we get accustomed tomeet with other kinds of Gipsies, and have associationswith them, the feeling of prejudice changes to that of decidedinterest and attachment. I have met with variousScottish Gipsies of the female sex, in America, and, amongothers, one who could sit any day for an ideal likeness of themother of Burns. She takes little of the Gipsy in her appearance.There is another, taking greatly after the Gipsy,born in Scotland, and reared in America; a very fine motherlyperson, indeed. I cannot, at the present stage of matters,mention the word Gipsy to her, but I know very wellthat she is a Gipsy. It takes some time for the feeling ofprejudice for the word Gipsy to wear off, when contemplatingeven a passable kind of Gipsy. That object would bemuch more easily attained, were the people to own “theblood,” unreservedly and cheerfully; for the very reserve,to a great extent, creates, at least keeps alive, the prejudice.But that cannot well take place till the word “Gipsy” bearsthe signification of gentleman, in some of the race, as it doesof vagabond, in others.

Some of my readers may still ask: “What is a Gipsy,after all that has been said upon the subject? Since it isnot necessarily a question of colour of face, or hair, or eyes,or of creed, or character, or of any outward thing by whicha human being can be distinguished; what is it that constitutesa Gipsy?” And I reply: “Let them read this workthrough, and thoroughly digest all its principles, and theycanfeel what a Gipsy is, should they stumble upon one, itmay be, in their own sphere of life, and hear him, or her,[532]admit the fact, and speak unreservedly of it. They will thenfeel their minds rubbing against the Gipsy mind, their spiritscommuning with the Gipsy spirit, and experience a peculiarmental galvanic shock, which they never felt before.”[325]It is impossible to say where the Gipsy soul may not existat the present day, for there is this peculiarity about thetribe, as I have said before, that it always remains Gipsy,cross it out to the last drop of the original blood; for wherethat drop goes, the Gipsy soul accompanies it.[326]

It is the Christian who should be the most ready to takeup and do justice to this subject; for he will find in it avery singular work of Providence—the most striking phenomenonin the history of man. In Europe, the race has existed,in an unacknowledged state, for a greater length oftime than the Jews dwelt in Egypt. And it is time that itshould be introduced to the family of mankind, in its aspectof historical development; embracing, as in Scotland, membersranging from what are popularly understood to be Gipsies,to those filling the first positions in Christian and social[533]society. After perusing the present work, the reader willnaturally pass on to reconsider the subject of the Jews; andhe will perceive that, instead of its being a miracle by whichthe Jews have existed since the dispersion, it would havebeen a miracle had they been lost among the families of mankind.It is quite sufficient for the Christian to know thatthe Jews now exist, and that they have fulfilled, and willyet fulfill, the prophecies that have been delivered in regardto them, without holding that any miracle has been wroughtfor that end. A Christian ought to be more considerate inhis estimate of what a miracle is: he ought to know that amiracle is something that is contrary to natural laws; andthat the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion, is inexact harmony with every natural law. He should not maintainthat it is a miracle, for nothing having the decentappearance of an argument can be advanced in supportof any such theory; and far less should he, with his eyesopen, do what the writer on the Christian Evidences, alludedto, (page 459,) did, with his shut—gamble awayboth law and gospel.[327] He might give his attention,however, to a prophecy of Moses, quoted by St. Paul, inRom. x. 19, from Deut. xxxii. 21, wherein it is said of theJews: “I will provoke you to jealousy by them that areno people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you;” andlend his assistance towards its fulfillment.[328] The subject[534]of the Gipsies is certainly calculated to do all that theprophet said would happen to the Jews; if Christians willonly do their duty to them, and, by playing them off againstthe Jews,provoke andanger Israel beyond measure. Thatthe Jews have existed, since the dispersion, by the Providenceof God, is what can be said of any other people, andmore especially of the Gipsies for the last four centuriesand a half in Europe. It is as natural for the Gipsies toexist in their scattered state, as for other nations by the lawsthat preserve their identity; and although their history maybe termed remarkable, it is in no sense of the word miraculous,notwithstanding the superstitious ideas held by manyof the Gipsies on that head, in common with the Jews regardingtheir history. A thousand years hence the Gipsieswill be found existing in the world; for, as a people, theycannot die out; and the very want of a religion peculiar tothemselves is one of the means that will contribute to thatend.[329] It is the Christian who should endeavour to havethe prejudice against the name of Gipsy removed, so thatevery one of the race should freely own his blood to theother, and make it the basis of a kindly feeling, and a bondof brotherhood, all around the world.

I may be allowed to say a word or two to the Gipsies,and more especially the Scottish Gipsies. I wish them tobelieve, (what they, indeed, believe already,) that their bloodand descent are good enough; and that Providence mayreasonably be assumed to look upon both with as much complacencyand satisfaction, as He does on any other blood anddescent. All that they have to do is to “behave themselves;”for, after all, it is behaviour that makes the man.By all means “stick to the ship,” but sail her as an honourablemerchantman. They need not be afraid at being discoveredto be Gipsies; they should feel as much assuredon the subject now, as before the publication of this work,and never entertain the least misgiving on that score. They[535]will have an occasion to cultivate a proper degree of confidencein respect to themselves, and be so prepared as neverto commit themselves, if they wish not to be known as Gipsies.I know there are few people who have nerve enoughso to deport themselves, as to prevent moral detection, whohave committed murder, when they are confronted with theobjects of it; but if the individuals are perfectly satisfiedof there being no evidence against them, they may confidentlyassume an appearance of innocence. It is so withthe Gipsies in settled life, as to their being Gipsies. Generallyspeaking, their blood is so much mixed as almost todefy detection; although, for the future, some of them willbe very apt to look at themselves in their mirrors, to seewhether there is much of the “black deil” in their faces.But it rests with themselves to escape detection, and particularlyso as regards the fair, brown, and red Gipsies.

I may also be allowed to say a word or two to the Church,and people generally. It says little for them, that, althoughtwo centuries have elapsed since Bunyan’s time, no one hasacknowledged him. It surely might have occurred to themto ask,1stly: What was that particular family, or tribe, ofwhich Bunyan said he was a member?2ndly: Who arethe tinkers?3dly: What was the meaning of Bunyan entertainingso much solicitude, and undergoing so muchtrouble, to ascertain whether he, (acommon Englishman,forsooth!) was a Jew, or not?4thly: Was John Bunyana Gipsy? Let my reader reply to these questions, like aman of honour. Aye or nay, was John Bunyan a Gipsy?“Hewas a Gipsy.”

In modern times people will preach the gospel “aroundabout Illyricum,” compass sea and land, and penetrateevery continent, to bring home Christian trophies; while inBunyan they have a trophy—a real case of “grace abounding;”and yet no one has acknowledged him, although hisfame will be as lasting as the pyramids. John Bunyan wasevidently a man who was raised up by God for some greatpurposes. One of these purposes he has served, and willyet serve; and it becomes us to enquire what further purposehe is destined to serve. It is showing a poor respectfor Bunyan’s memory, to deny him his nationality, to robhim of his birth-right, and attempt to make him out to havebeen that which he positively was not. To gratify their[536]own prejudices, people would degrade the illustrious dreamer,from being this great original, into being the off-scouringsof all England. People imagine that they would degradeBunyan by saying that he was a Gipsy. They degradethemselves who do not believe he was a Gipsy; they doublydegrade themselves who deny it. Jews may well tauntChristians in the matter of evidences, and that on a simplematter of fact, affecting no one’s interests, temporal or eternal,and as clear as the sun at mid-day; for by Bunyan’sown showing he was a Gipsy; but if any further evidencewas wanted, how easily could it not have been collected, anytime during the last two hundred years!

I have hitherto got the “cold shoulder” from the organsof most of the religious denominations on this subject: timewill show whether it is always to be so. The Church shouldknow what is its mission: it rests on evidence itself, and itshould be the first to follow out its own principles. Itshould fight its own battles, and give the enemy no occasionto speak reproachfully of it. In approaching this subject, itwould be well to do it cheerfully, and gracefully, and manfully,and not as if the person were dragged to it, with arope around his neck. No one need imagine that by keepingquiet, this matter will blow over. For the Gipsy racecannot die out; nor is this work likely to die out soon; forunless it is superseded by some other, it will come up centurieshence, to judge the present generation on the Gipsyquestion. May such as have written on the great dreamernever lift up their heads, may his works turn to hot coals intheir fingers, may their memories be outlawed, if they allowthis unchristian, this unmanly, this silly, this childish, prejudiceof caste to prevent them from doing justice to theirhero. Nor need any one utter a murmur at the prospect ofseeing the Pilgrim’s Progress prefaced by a dissertation onthe Gipsies, with a Gipsy’s camp for a frontispiece. Such a feelingmay be expressed by boors, snobs, and counterfeit religionists;but better things are to be expected from other people.

Let the reader now pause, and reflect upon the prejudiceof caste that exists against the name of Gipsy, and he willfully realize how it is that we should know so little aboutthe Gipsies, and why it is that the Gipsies, as they leavethe tent, should hide their nationality from the rest of theworld, and “stick to each other.”

[537]In bringing thisDisquisition on the Gipsies to a close, Imay be allowed to say a word or two to some of the critics.In the first place, I may venture to assert, that thesubject isworthy of a criticism the most disinterested and profound.I am well aware that the publication of the work places mein a position antagonistic alike to authors and critics whohave written on the subject, as well as to the prejudices ofmankind generally. If critics call in question any of thefacts contained in the production, they must give theirauthorities; if they controvert any of the principles, theymust give their reasons. It will not do to play the ostrichinstead of the critic. For as the ostrich is said to hide itshead in the sand, or in a bush, or, it may be, under its wing,and imagine that because it sees no one, so no one sees it;so there are people, sometimes to be met with, who will notonly imagine, but assert, that because they know nothing ofa thing, or because they do not understand it, therefore, thething itself does not exist. This was the way in whichBruce’s travels in Africa were received. But we are notliving in those times. Procedure such as that described, isplaying the ostrich, not the critic. I refer more particularly,however, to what is contained in thisDisquisition. Takingthe work all through, I think there are sufficient materialscontained in it, to enable the critics to settle the variousquestions among themselves.

To place myself in a position a little independent of publishers,(for I have had great difficulty in finding a publisher,)I had theIntroduction, (pages 55-67), printed, and circulatedamong some acquaintances in Canada, for subscribers.[330] Acopy of it fell into the hands of an intelligent Scottishnewspaper editor, in a small community, where every oneknows every other’s business nearly as well as his own, andwhere all about the Prospectus was explained to those towhom it was given. It seems to have frightened and enraged[538]the editor to such an extent, that I entertain littledoubt he did not sleep comfortably, for nights in succession,on finding that subject brought to light at his own door,which has been considered, by some, as well-nigh dead andburied long ago. He imagines the circulation of the Prospectusto be confined pretty much to his own neighbourhood;and so he must crush the horrible thing out. But what canhe say about it? How put it down? A capital idea occursto him; he will father it upon Barnum! Let the readerglance again at theIntroduction, and imagine how a Scotchman,well posted up on Scotch affairs, past and present,should credit Barnum with the production. He heads hiscriticism, “The science of humbug,” and, in some long andbitter paragraphs, pitches into what he calls American literaryquackery; the substance of which is, that the workrepresented by the Prospectus, is a rare tit-bit of genuine,Barnumized, American humbug!

He finds, however, that he has gone much too far in hisdescription of the Prospectus; so he comes tumbling downa long way from the high position which he took at the start,and continues: “Now, we do not, at present, venture theassertion that the forthcoming ‘Scottish Gipsies’ is a Yankeeget-up, a mere American humbug; but we say the Prospectussavours strongly of the Barnum school; and our reasonsfor so saying are the following:Firstly: It would be nothingless than a literary miracle, that a Scottish work of sufficientmerit to command the highest commendations of SirWalter Scott, and Blackwood’s Magazine, should be published,first of all in America, thirty years afterwards—published,by subscription, at one dollar, in a book of 400 pages.We assert, positively, that of such a work William Blackwood,alone, could have disposed of five thousand copies, atdouble the proposed price. [He is well acquainted with theprices of books in the two countries.]Secondly: There isno evidence to connect Sir Walter Scott’s note to QuentinDurward with Walter Simson, or any other particular individual;and the same may be said of thejingle of ProfessorWilson, and the other allusions in Blackwood’s Magazine.Thirdly: There is neither danger nor difficulty in writinganything you please, and telling the public it is an extractof a private letter you had from some particular man ofeminence, thirty years ago, provided your eminent friend[539]has been many years in his grave. Such a fraud is not easilydetected. AndFourthly: The reason assigned for publishingthe ‘Scottish Gipsies’ . . . . . is totally upset bythe simple fact, thatthere are no such people in existence, inso far as Scotland is concerned. [What an audacity he displayshere! What a liberty he takes with the Scotch settlersin his neighbourhood! He is evidently afraid that hehas gone too far; so he qualifies what he has said, by adding:]There are, it is true, a few families of itinerant tinkers,orTinklers, according to our peculiar vernacular, whostroll the country, and subsist by making horn-spoons andsauce-pans, which they barter with the rural peasantry, forpotatoes and other eatables. They are generally wild, reckless,and dishonest, and are a terror to children and oldwomen. In nineteen cases out of twenty, they are nativesof Ireland; and were any person idle enough to trace theirgenealogy, he would discover that their ancestors, not morethan three generations back, were honest brogue-makers,pig-drovers, or, it may be, members of some more elevatedoccupation. [He has been ‘idle enough’ to give us a veryodd account of the descent, in two senses of the word, ofthe Irish tinkering Gipsies now in Scotland.] The writerof these remarks is well acquainted with almost the wholeLowlands, and a portion of the West Highlands. He hasbeen familiar with the shires of Fife and Linlithgow, withAnnandale, the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, and the otherfabulously reputed haunts of the Gipsies [he seems tohave done a littletramping in his time]; and he never sawtwenty ScottishTinklers in his whole life, norone single individualcorresponding to the description we have receivedof the Gipsies. [He has told us who theIrish Tinklers inScotland were originally, but does not venture to say anythingof theScottish ones. He will not admit that thereis aGipsy in Scotland, or ever has been; and virtuallydenies that there are Gipsies in England; for he continues:]The nearest approach to the character is the hawkers fromthe Staffordshire potteries, who are found living in tents bythe way-side, throughout the North Riding of Yorkshire, andthe five northern counties of England. These are a kind ofsavages, who live in families, strolling the country, in largecaravans, consisting frequently of half a dozen canvas-coveredwagons and twice that number of horses. . . . . .[540]These characters often cross the Border, at Langholm andGretna Green, and infest Annandale, Roxburghshire, Dumfries-shire,and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright. [He willnot allude to thetented Gipsies in England.]

“These two classes of foreign vagrants [why does he callthemforeign vagrants? why not sayGipsies?] which wemention, are to be found, occasionally, in certain localities ofScotland, [still nothing said of theScottish Tinklers,] andare to be found as a dreaded, dangerous nuisance. But theidea of a race of Scottish Tinklers, or Scottish Gipsies, existingas a distinct and separate people, possessing a native,independent language, and peculiar habits, rites, and ceremonies,and bearing, in many features of their barbarous customs,and outcast destiny, a resemblance to the vagabondJews; such an idea, we say, has as little foundation in fact,as has Swift’s story of the Lilliputians, or the romance ofGuy Mannering itself! [It is astonishing what he wouldnot attempt to palm upon the public. Still, he is evidentlyafraid that the subject will, somehow or other, bite him; and,after all that he has said, he concludes:] Still, we do not,at present, assert that the Prospectus we have received isanother ‘cute move of American humbug; but we do say,if there is a James Simson in existence, who possesses sucha manuscript, and such commendations of it as are set forthin this Prospectus, he has already erred sufficiently far to ensurehis identification with Yankee quackery. He has beenBarnumized into an egregious blunder.” [He is bound todiscredit the whole affair, under any circumstances, even atthe expense of the plainest consistency.]

Well might a brother editor reply to the foregoing, thus:“The bile of our excellent friend has just been agitated aftera pestilent fashion. . . . . . The announcement [ofthe intended publication] hath all the ungenial effects uponour gossip that the exhibition of a pair of scarlet decenciesproduces upon a cranky bull. . . . . . Now, just listento us quietly for a little. More than two years ago, themanuscript of the above-mentioned treatise on the Scoto-Egyptianscame under our ken. We perused the affair withspecial appetite, and were decidedly of opinion that its publicationwould be a grateful and important boon to the republicof letters. Mr. Simson is neither a myth nor a discipleof Barnum.” Upon the back of this, the first editor[541]writes: “We are pleased to be informed that the work is abona fide production, and that Mr. Simson is no Yankeefiction. [As if he did not know that from the first.] Andalbeit he, [the other editor,] furnisheth neither facts norarguments to satisfy us that our notions of the Gipsies ofScotland are heretical, we willingly accept his recommendthat the ‘Scottish Gipsies’ will be, at least, an entertainingbook, and reserve all further remarks till we see it.”[!]

The foregoing is a very curious criticism; and although Icould say a great deal more about it, I refrain from doing so.

[258] This Spanish Gipsy is reported by Mr. Borrow to have said: “She, however,remembered her blood, and hated my father, and taught me to hatehim likewise. When a boy, I used to stroll about the plain, that I mightnot see my father; and my father would follow me, and beg me to lookupon him, and would ask me what I wanted; and I would reply, ‘Father,the only thing I want is to see you dead!’”

This is certainly an extreme instance of the result of the prejudice againstthe Gipsy race; and no opinion can be formed upon it, without knowingsome of the circumstances connected with the feelings of the father, or hisrelations, toward the mother and the Gipsy race generally. This Gipsywoman seems to have been well brought up by her protector and husband;for shetaught her child Gipsy from a MS., and procured a teacher toinstruct him in Latin. There are many reflections to be drawn from thecircumstances connected with this Spanish Gipsy family, but they do notseem to have occurred to Mr. Borrow.

[259] It is claimed, by some Scottish Gipsies, that there are full-blood Gipsiesat Yetholm, but I do not believe it. This, I may venture to say, that therecan be no certainty, but, on the contrary, great doubt, on the subject. But,after all, what is a pure Gipsy? Was the race pure when it entered Scotland,or even Europe? The idea is perfectly arbitrary.

[260] It would be interesting to know where these writers got such ideas aboutthe purity of the Gipsy blood. It certainly was not from Mr. Borrow’saccount of the Gipsies in Spain, whatever they may have inferred fromthat work.

[261] An instance of this kind of shuffling is given by Mr. Borrow, in thetenth chapter of the “Romany Rye,” in the person of Ursula, a full ornearly full-blood Gipsy. She confines the crossing of the blood to such instancesas when a Gipsy dies and leaves his children to be provided for by“gorgios, trampers, and basket-makers, who live in caravans;” but shesays, “I hate to talk of the matter.” When Mr. Borrow asked her, if aGipsy woman, unless compelled by hard necessity, would have anything todo with agorgio, she replied, “We are not over-fond ofgorgios, and wehate basket-makers and folks that live in caravans.” Here she makes avery important distinction betweengorgios, (native English,) andbasket-makersand folks that live in caravans, (mixed Gipsies.) She does not denythat a Gipsy woman will intermarry with a native under certain circumstances.A pretty-pure Gipsy, when angry, will very readily call a mixedGipsy agorgio, or, indeed, by any other name.

[262] Grellmann evidently alludes to Gipsies of mixed blood, when he writesin the following manner: “Experience shows that the dark colour of theGipsies, which is continued from generation to generation, is more the effectof education and manner of life than descent. Among those who professmusic in Hungary, or serve in the imperial army, where they have learnedto pay more attention to order and cleanliness, there are many to be foundwhose extraction is not at all discernible in their colour.” For my part, Icannot say that such language is applicable to full-blood Gipsies. Still, thechange from tented to settled and tidy Gipsydom is apt to show its effectsin modifying the complexion of such Gipsies, and to a much greater degreein their descendants.

[263] Mr. Offor, editor of a late edition of Bunyan’s works, writes, in “Notesand Queries,” thus: “I have avoided much intercourse with this class, fearingthe fate of Mr. Hoyland, who, being a Quaker, was shot by one ofCupid’s darts from a black-eyed Gipsy girl; andJ. S. may do well to be cautious.”Mr. Offor is not far wrong. A Gipsy girl can sometimes fascinatea “white fellow,” as a snake can a bird—make him flutter, and particularlyso, should the “little Gipsy” be met with in some such dress as black silksand a white polka. This much can be said of Gipsy women, which cannotbe said of all women, that they know their places, and are not apt tousurpthe rights of therajahs; they will even “work the nails off their fingers”to make them feel comfortable.

I should conclude, from what Mr. Offor says, that the Quaker marriedthe Gipsy girl. If children were born of the union, they will be Gipsy-Quakers,or Quaker-Gipsies, whichever expression we choose to adopt.

[264] I have picked up quite a number of Scottish Gipsies of respectablecharacter, from their having gone in their youth, to look at the “old thing.”It is the most natural thing in the world for them to do. What is it tolook back to the time of James V., in 1540, when John Faw was lord-paramountover the Gipsies in Scotland? Imagine, then, the natural curiosityof a young Gipsy, brought up in a town, to look at something like the originalcondition of his ancestors. Such a Gipsy will leave Edinburgh, forexample, and travel over the south of Scotland, “casting his sign,” as hepasses through the villages, in every one of which he will find Gipsies.Some of these villages are almost entirely occupied by Gipsies. JamesHogg is reported, in Blackwood’s Magazine, to say, that Lochmaben is“stocked” with them.

[265] Among the English Gipsies, fair-haired ones are looked upon by thepurer sort, or even by those taking after the Gipsy, as “small potatoes.”The consequence is they have to make up for their want of blood, by smartness,knowledge of the language, or something that will go to balance thedeficiency of blood. They generally lay claim to theintellect, while theyyield theblood to the others. A full or nearly full-blood young English Gipsylooks upon herself with all the pride of a little duchess, while in the companyof young male mixed Gipsies. A mixed Gipsy may reasonably beassumed to be more intelligent than one of the old stock, were it only forthis reason, that the mixture softens down the natural conceit and bigotryof the Gipsy; while, as regards his personal appearance, it puts him in amore improvable position. Still, a full-blood Gipsy looks up to a mixedGipsy, if he is anything of a superior man, and freely acknowledges theblood. Indeed, the two kinds will readily marry, if circumstances bringthem together. To a couple of such Gipsies I said: “What difference doesit make, if the personhas the blood, and has his heart in the right place?”“That’s the idea; that’s exactly the idea,” they both replied.

[266] To thoroughly understand how a Gipsy, with fair hair and blue eyes,can be as much a Gipsy as one with black, may be termed “passing thepons assinorum of the Gipsy question.” Once over the bridge, and thereare no difficulties to be encountered on the journey, unless it be to understandthat a Gipsy can be a Gipsy without living in a tent or being a rogue.

[267] There is a considerable resemblance between Gipsyism, in its harmlessaspect, and Freemasonry; with this difference, that the former is a general,while the latter is a special, society; that is to say, the Gipsies have thelanguage, or some of the words, and the signs, peculiar to the whole race,which each individual or class will use for different purposes. The racedoes not necessarily, and does not in fact, have intercourse with everyother member of it; in that respect, they resemble any ordinary communityof men. Masonry, as my reader may be aware, is a society of whatmay be termed “a mixed multitude of good fellows, who are all pledged tobefriend and help each other.” The radical elements of Masonry may betermed a “rope of sand,” which the vows of the Order work into the mostclosely and strongly formed coil of any to be found in the world. But itis altogether of an artificial nature; while Gipsyism is natural—somethingthat, when separated from objectionable habits, one might almost call divine;for it is founded upon a question of race—a question of blood. The cementof a creed is weak, in comparison with that which binds the Gipsies together;for a people, like an individual, may have one creed to-day, and anotherto-morrow; it may be continually travelling round the circle of every formof faith; but blood, under certain circumstances, is absolute and immutable.

There are many Gipsies Freemasons; indeed, they are the very peopleto push their way into a Mason’s lodge; for they have secrets of their own,and are naturally anxious to pry into those of others, by which they maybe benefited. I was told of a Gipsy who died lately, the Master of a Masons’Lodge. A friend, a Mason, told me, the other day, of his having entered ahouse in Yetholm, where were five Gipsies, all of whom responded to hisMasonic signs. Masons should therefore interest themselves in, and befriend,the Gipsies.

[268] The principle, or rather fact, here involved, simple as it is in itself, isevidently very difficult of comprehension by the native Scottish mind.Any person understands perfectly well how a Highlander, at the presentday, is still a Highlander, notwithstanding the great change that has comeover the character of his race. But our Scottishliterati seem to have beenaltogether at sea, in comprehending the same principle as applicable to theGipsies. They might naturally have asked themselves, whetherGipsiescould have procreatedJews; and, if not Jews, how they could have procreatedgorgios, (as English Gipsies term natives.) A writer in Blackwood’sMagazine says, in reference to Billy Marshall, a Gipsy chief, to whomallusion has already been made: “Who were his descendants I cannottell; I am sure he could not do it himself, if he were living. It is knownthat they were prodigiously numerous; I dare say numberless.” And yetthis writer gravely says that “therace is in some risk of becoming extinct(!)”Another writer in Blackwood says: “Their numbers may perhapshave since been diminished, in particular States, bythe progress ofcivilization(!)” We would naturally pronounce any person crazy whowould maintain that there were no Highlanders in Scotland, owing to theirhaving “changed their habits.” We could, with as much reason, say thesame of those who will maintain this opinion in regard to the Gipsies.There has been a great deal of what is called genius expended upon theGipsies, but wonderfully little common sense.

As the Jews, during their pilgrimage in the Wilderness, were protectedfrom their enemies by a cloud, so have the Gipsies, in their encrease anddevelopment, been shielded from theirs, by a mist of ignorance, which, itwould seem, requires no little trouble to dispel.

[269] In Olmstead’s “Journey in the Seaboard Slave States” it is stated, thatin Alexandria, Louisiana, when under the Spanish rule, there were “Frenchand Spanish,Egyptians and Indians, Mulattoes and Negroes.” This authorreports a conversation which he had with a planter, by which it appearsthat these Egyptians came from “some of the Northern Islands;” that theyspoke a language among themselves, but could talk French and Spanishtoo; that they were black, but not very black, and as good citizens as any,and passed for white folk. The planter believed they married mostly withmulattoes, and that a good many of the mulattoes had Egyptian blood inthem too. He believed these Egyptians had disappeared since the Statebecame part of the Union. Mr. Olmstead remarks: “The Egyptians wereprobably Spanish Gipsies, though I have never heard of any of them beingin America in any other way.”

[270] Mr. Borrow surely cannot mean that a Gipsy ceases to be a Gipsy,when he settles down, and “turns over a new leaf;” and that this “changeof habits” changes his descent, blood, appearance, language and nationality!What, then, does he mean, when he says that the Spanish Gipsies have decreasedby “a partial change of habits?”

And does an infusion of Spanish blood, implied in a “freer intercoursewith the Spanish population,” lead to the Gipsy element being wiped out;or does it lead to the Spanish feeling being lost in Gipsydom? Which isthe element to be operated upon—the Spanish or the Gipsy? Which is theleaven? The Spanish element is thepassive, the Gipsy theactive. As aquestion of philosophy, the most simple of comprehension, and, above all,as a matter of fact, the foreign element introduced,in detail, into thebodyof Gipsydom, goes with that body, and, in feeling, becomes incorporatedwith it, although, in physical appearance, it changes the Gipsy race, sothat it becomes “confounded with the residue of the population,” but remainsGipsy, as before. A Spanish Gipsy is a Spaniard as he stands, andit would be hard to say what we should ask him to do, to become more aSpaniard than he is already.

[271] Mr. Borrow mentions, in the twenty-second chapter of the “Bible inSpain,” having met several cavalry soldiers from Granada, Gipsiesincog.who were surprised at being discovered to be Gipsies. They had been impressed,but carried on a trade in horses, in league with the captain of theircompany. They said: “We have been to the wars, but not to fight; we leftthat to the Busné. We have kept together, and like true Caloré, have stoodback to back. We have made money in the wars.”

[272] It would seem that the law in Spain, in regard to the Gipsies, standspretty much where it did—that is, the people are, in a sense, tolerated, butthat the use of their language is prohibited, as may be gathered from anincident mentioned in the ninth chapter of the “Bible in Spain,” by Mr.Borrow.

[273] Paget says these tinkers leave their women and children at home whenon their travels. That is not customary with the tribe, although it maybe their habit in the Austrian dominions.

[274] “I was one of these verminous ones, one of these great sin-breeders;I infected all the youth of the town where I was born with all manner ofyouthful vanities. The neighbours counted me so; my practice proved meso: wherefore Christ Jesus took me first, and taking me first, the contagionwas much allayed all the town over.”—Bunyan.

[275] “Grand was the repose of his lofty brow, dark eye, and aspect of softand melancholy meaning. It was a face from which every evil and earthlypassion seemed purged. A deep gravity lay upon his countenance, whichhad the solemnity, without the sternness, of one of our old reformers. Youcould almost fancy a halo completing its apostolic character.”

[276] Burns alludes to this family, thus: “Passed through the most gloriouscorn country I ever saw, till I reached Dunbar, a neat little town. Dinewith Provost Fall, an eminent merchant, and most respectable character,but indescribable, as he exhibits no marked traits. Mrs. Fall, a genius inpainting; fully more clever in the fine arts and sciences than my friendLady Wauchope, without her consummate assurance of her own abilities.”—Lifeof Burns, by Robert Chambers.

The crest of the Falls, of Dunbar, wasthree boars’ heads, couped; that ofBaillie, of Lamington, isone boar’s head, couped. In the Statistical Accountof Scotland, (1835,) appears the following notice of this family: “A family,of the name of Fall, established themselves at Dunbar, and became, duringthe last century, the most extensive merchants in Scotland. They werelong the chief magistrates of the burgh, and preferred the public good totheir own profit. They have left no one to bear their name,not even astone to tell where they lie; but they will long be remembered for their enterpriseand public spirit.” There is apparently a reason for “not even astone being left to tell where they lie;” for in Hoyland’s “Survey of theGipsies” appeared the account of Baillie Smith, in which it is said: “Thedescendants of Faa now take the name of Fall, from the Messrs. Fall, ofDunbar, who, they pride themselves in saying,are of the same stock andlineage;” which seems to have frightened their connexions at being knownto be Gipsies.

Let all that has been said of the Falls be considered as their monumentand epitaph; so that their memories may be preserved as long as thiswork exists.

It would be interesting to know who the Captain Fall was, who visitedDunbar, with an American ship-of-war, during the time of Paul Jones. Hemight have been a descendant of a Gipsy, sent to the plantations, in theolden times. There are, as I have said before, a great many scions of GipsyFaas, under one name or other, scattered over the world.

[277]Whipping the cat: Tailoring from house to house. Thecat iswhippedby females, as well as males, in America, in some parts of which the expressionis current.

[278] Of the Gipsies at Moscow, the following is the substance of what Mr.Borrow says: “Those who have been accustomed to consider the Gipsy asa wandering outcast . . . . . . will be surprised to learn that,amongst the Gipsies of Moscow, there are not a few who inhabit statelyhouses, go abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind the higher order ofRussians neither in appearance nor mental acquirements. . . . . Thesums obtained by the Gipsy females, by the exercise of their art (singingin the choirs of Moscow,) enable them to support their relatives in affluenceand luxury. Some are married to Russians; and no one who hasvisited Russia can but be aware that a lovely and accomplished countess,of the noble and numerous family of Tolstoy is, by birth, a Zigana, and wasoriginally one of the principal attractions of a Romany choir at Moscow.”

This short notice appears unsatisfactory, considering, as Mr. Borrowsays, that one of his principal motives for visiting Moscow was to holdcommunication with the Gipsies. It might have occurred to him to enquirewhat relation the children of such marriages would bear to Gipsydomgenerally; that is, would they be initiated in the mysteries, and taught thelanguage, and hold themselves to be Gipsies? It is evident, however, thatthe Gipsy-drilling process is going on among the Russian nobility.

[279] On his return with his gallant prey, he passed a very large hay-stack.It occurred to the provident laird that this would be extremely convenientto fodder his new stock of cattle; but, as no means of transporting it wereobvious, he was fain to take leave of it, with the apostrophe, now becomeproverbial, “By my saul, had ye but four feet, ye should not stand lang there.”In short, as Froissart says of a similar class of feudal robbers. “Nothingcame amiss to them that was nottoo heavy ortoo hot.” Sir Walter Scottspeaks, in the most jocular manner, of an ancestress who had acurioushand at pickling the beef which her husband stole; and that there was not astain upon his escutcheon, barring Border theft and high treason.—Lockhart’sLife of Sir Walter Scott.

We should never forget that a “hawk’s a hawk,” whether it is a falconor a mosquito hawk, which is the smallest of all hawks.

[280] Sir Walter Scott makes Fitz-James, in the “Lady of the Lake,” say toRoderick Dhu:

“But then, thy chieftain’s robber life!—
Winning mean prey by causeless strife,
Wrenching from ruined Lowland swain
His herds and harvests reared in vain—
Methinks a soul like thine should scorn
The spoils from such foul foray borne.

The Gael beheld him, grim the while,
And answered with disdainful smile,—
•••••••
‘Where live the mountain chiefs, who hold
That plundering Lowland field and fold
Is aught but retribution true?
Seek other cause ‘gainst Roderick Dhu!’”

[281] Seepage 202.

[282] In expatiating on the subject of the Gipsy race always being the Gipsyrace, I have had it remarked to me: “Suppose Gipsies should not mentionto their children the fact of their being Gipsies.” In that case, I replied,the children, especially if, for the most part, of white blood, would simplynot be Gipsies; they would, of course, have some of “the blood,” but theywould not be Gipsies if they had no knowledge of the fact. But to supposethat Gipsies should not learn that they are Gipsies, on account oftheir parents not telling them of it, is to presume that they had no otherrelatives. Their being Gipsies is constantly talked of among themselves;so that, if Gipsy children should not hear their “wonderful story” fromtheir parents, they would readily enough hear it from their other relatives.This is assuming, however, that the Gipsy mind can act otherwise than theGipsy mind; which it cannot.

It sometimes happens, as the Gipsies separate into classes, like all otherraces or communities of men, that a great deal of jealousy is stirred up inthe minds of the poorer members of the tribe, on account of their beingshunned by the wealthier kind. They are then apt to say that the exclusivemembers haveleft the tribe; which, with them, is an undefined andconfused idea, at the best, principally on account of their limited powers ofreflection, and the subject never being alluded to by the others. Thisjealousy sometimes leads them to dog these straggling sheep, so that, as faras lies in their power, they will not allow them to leave, as they imagine,the Gipsy fold. [Seesecond note at page 532.]

[283] I very abruptly addressed a French Gipsy, in the streets of New York,thus: “Vous êtes unRomany chiel.” “Oui, monsieur,” was the replywhich he, as abruptly, gave me. But, ever afterwards, he got cross, whenI alluded to the subject. On one occasion, I gave him the sign, which herepeated, while he asked, with much tartness of manner, “What is that—whatdoes it mean?” This was a roguish Gipsy, and was afterwards lodgedin jail.

On one occasion, I met with a German cutler, in a place of business, inNew York. I felt sure he was a Gipsy, although the world would not havetaken him for one. Catching his eye, I commenced to look around the room,from those present to himself, as if there was to be something confidentialbetween us, and then whispered to him, “Callo chabo,” (Gipsy, or black fellow;)and the effect was instantaneous. I afterwards visited his family, ona Sabbath evening, and took tea with them. They were from Wurtemberg,and appeared very decent people. The mother, a tall, swarthy, fine lookingintelligent young woman, said grace, which was repeated by the children,whom I found learning their Sabbath-school lessons. The familyregularly attend church. A fair-haired German called, and went to churchwith the Gipsy himself. What with the appearance of everything aboutthe house, and the fine, clean, and neatly-dressed family of children, I feltvery much pleased with my visit.

French and German Gipsies are very shy, owing to the severity of thelaws against their race.

[284] Fletcher, of Saltoun, speaks of there being constantly a hundred thousandpeople in Scotland, leading the life (as Sir Walter Scott describes it,)of “Gipsies, Jockies, or Cairds.” Between the time alluded to and the dateof John Faw’s league with James V., a period of 140 years had elapsed;and 174 years from the date of arrival of the race in the country: so that,from the natural encrease of the body, and the large amount of white bloodintroduced into it, the greater part, if not the whole, of the people mentioned,were doubtless Gipsies. But these Gipsies, according to Sir Walter’sopinion, “died out by a change of habits.” How strange it is thatthe very first class Scottish minds should have so little understood thephilosophy of origin, blood, and descent, and especially as they applied tothe Gipsies! For Sir Walter says: “The progress of time, and encreaseboth of the means of life and the power of the laws, gradually reducedthis dreadful evil within more narrow bounds. . . . . Their numbers areso greatly diminished, that, instead of one hundred thousand, as calculatedby Fletcher, it would now, perhaps, be impossible to collect above five hundredthroughout all Scotland(!)” It is perfectly evident that Sir WalterScott, in common with many others, never realized the idea, in all its bearings,of what a Gipsy was; or he never could have imagined that those,only, were of the Gipsy race, who followed the tent.

It is very doubtful if Anthonius Gawino, and his tribe, departed withtheir letter of introduction from James IV. to his uncle, the king of Denmark,in 1506. Having secured the favour of the king of Scots, by thisrecommendatory notice, he was more apt, by delaying his departure, to securehis position in the country. The circumstances attending the leaguewith his successor, John Faw, show that the tribe had been long in thecountry; doubtless from as far back as 1506. From 1506 till 1579, withthe exception of about one year, during the reign of James V., the tribe, asI have already said, (page 109,) must have encreased prodigiously. Thepersecutions against the body extended over the reign of James VI., andpart of that of Charles I.; for, according to Baron Hume, such was theterror which the executions inspired in the tribe, that, “for the space of morethan 50 years from that time, (1624,) there is no trial of an Egyptian;”although our author shows that an execution of a band of them took placein 1636. But “towards the end of that century,” continues Baron Hume,“the nuisance seems to have again become troublesome;” in other words,that from the reign of Charles I. to the accession of William and Mary,the time to which Fletcher’s remark applies, the attention of all being takenup with the troubles of the times, the Gipsies had things pretty much theirown way; but when peace was restored, they would be called to strictaccount.

For all these reasons, it may be said that the 100,000 people spoken ofwere doubtless Gipsies of various mixtures of blood; so that, at the presentday, there ought to be a very large number of the tribe in Scotland. Iadmit that many of the Scottish Gipsies have been hanged, and many banishedto the Plantations; but these would be in a small ratio to their number,and a still smaller to the natural encrease of the body. Suppose thatsuch and such Gipsies were either hanged or banished; so young did theyall marry, that, when they were hanged or banished, they might leave behindthem families ranging from five to ten children. We may say, of theScottish Gipsies generally, in days that are past, what a writer in Blackwood’sMagazine, already alluded to, said of Billy Marshall: “Their descendantswere prodigiously numerous; I dare say, numberless.” Manyof the Scottish Gipsies have migrated to England, as well as elsewhere.In Liverpool, there are many of them, following various mechanical occupations.

[285]Peter Funks & Co.: Mock auctioneers of mock jewelry, &c., &c.

[286] If the real characters of those “lady fortune-tellers,” who flourish somuch in the large cities, and publicly profess to reveal all matters in “loveand law, health and wealth, losses and crosses,” were to be ascertained,many of them would, in all probability, be found to belong to a superiorclass of Gipsies. And this may much more be said of the more humbleones, who trust to the gossipping of a class—and that a respectable class offemales, for the advertising of their calling. For a certainty, those areGipsies who stroll about, telling fortunes for dimes, clothes, or old bottles.The advertising members form a very small part of the fraternity. Theextent to which such business is patronized, by Americans, of both sexes,and of almost all positions in society is such, that it is doubtful if theEnglish reader would credit it, if it were put on record.

[287] When travelling on the stage, towards Lake Huron, in Canada, I wassurprised at finding a Gipsy tent on the road-side, with a man sitting infront of it, engaged in the mysteries of the tinker. I met a camp of Gipsieson a vacant space, beside a clump of trees, in Hamilton, at the head ofLake Ontario, but I deferred visiting them till the following morning.When I returned to the spot, I found that the birds had flown. Feelingdisappointed, I began to question a man who kept a toll-bar, immediatelyopposite to where their tents had been, as to their peculiarities generally;when he said: “They seemed droll kind o’ folk—quite like ourselves—noway foreign; yet I could not understand a word they were saying amongthemselves.” Shortly after this, a company of them entered a shop, in thesame town, to buy tin, when I happened to be in it. I accosted one of themothers of the company, in an abrupt but bland tone. “You’re a’ Nawkens(Gipsies) I see.”—“Ou ay, we’re Nawkens,” was her immediate reply,accompanied by a smile on her weather-beaten countenance. “You’ll ayespeak the language?” I continued. “We’ll ne’er forget that,” she again replied.This seemed to be a company of Gipsies from the Scottish Border;for the woman spoke about the broadest Scotch I ever heard. They dressedwell, and bore a good reputation in the neighbourhood.

[288] Mixed Gipsies tell no lies, when they say that they are not Gipsies;for, physiologically speaking, they are not Gipsies, but only partly Gipsies,as regards blood. In every other way they are Gipsies, that is,chabos,calos, orchals.

[289] The people above-mentioned are doubtless Gipsies. According to Grellmann,the race is even to be found in the centre of Africa. Mollien, in histravels to the sources of the Senegal and Gambia, in 1818, says: “Scatteredamong the Joloffs, we find a people not unlike our Gipsies, and knownby the name of Laaubés. Leading a roving life, and without fixed habitation,their only employment is the manufacture of wooden vessels, mortars,and bedsteads. They choose a well-wooded spot, fell some trees, form hutswith the branches, and work up the trunks. For this privilege, they mustpay a sort of tax to the prince in whose states they thus settle. In general,they are both ugly and slovenly.

“The women, notwithstanding their almost frightful faces, are coveredwith amber and coral beads, presents heaped on them by the Joloffs, froma notion that the favours, alone, of these women will be followed by those offortune. Ugly or handsome, all the young Laaubé females are in requestamong the Negroes.

“The Laaubés have nothing of their own but their money, their tools,and their asses; the only animals on which they travel. In the woods,they make fires with the dung of the flocks. Ranged round the fires, themen and women pass their leisure time in smoking. The Laaubés have notthose characteristic features and high stature which mark the Joloffs, andthey seem to form a distinct race. They are exempted from all militaryservice. Each family has its chief, but, over all, there is a superior chief,who commands a whole tribe or nation. He collects the tribute, and communicateswith such delegates of the king as receive the imposts: thisserves to protect them from all vexation. The Laaubés are idolaters, speakthe Poula language, and pretend to tell fortunes.”

[290] Bell, in an account of his journey to Pekin, [1721.] says that upwardsof sixty Gipsies had arrived at Tobolsky, on their way to China, but werestopped by the Vice-Governor, for want of passports. They had roamed,during the summer season, from Poland, in small parties, subsisting byselling trinkets, and telling fortunes.

[291] Mr. Borrow says, with reference to the Spanish Gipsy language: “Itsgrammatical peculiarities have disappeared, the entire language havingbeen modified and subjected to the rules of Spanish grammar, with whichit now coincides in syntax, in the conjugation of verbs, and in the declensionof its nouns.” We might have naturally expected that of the Gipsy language,in the course of four hundred years, from the people speaking it beingso much scattered over the country, and coming so much in contactwith the ordinary natives. But something different might be looked for,where the Gipsies have not been persecuted, but allowed to live togetherin a body, as in Hungary. Of the Hungarian Gipsy language, Mr. Borrowsays, that in no part of the world is the Gipsy language better preservedthan in Hungary; and that the roving bands of Gipsies from that country,who visit France and Italy, speak the pure Gipsy, with all its grammaticalpeculiarities. He estimates that the Spanish Gipsy language may consistof four or five thousand words; a sufficient number, one might suppose, toserve the purpose of everyday life. A late writer in the Dublin UniversityMagazine estimates that five thousand words would serve the same purposein the English language. Four thousand words is a very large language forthe Gipsies of Spain to possess, in addition to the ordinary one of the country.

[292] I cannot agree with Mr. Borrow, when he says, that the Gipsies“travelled three thousand miles into Europe,with hatred in their heartstowards the people among whom they settled.” In none of the earliest lawspassed against them, is anything said of their being other than thieves,cheats, &c., &c. They seem to have been too politic to commit murder;moreover, it appears to have been foreign to their disposition to do aughtbut obtain a living in the most cunning manner they could. There is nonecessary connection between purloining one’s property and hating one’sperson. As long as the Gipsies were not hardly dealt with, they could,naturally, have no actual hatred towards their fellow-creatures. Mr. Borrowattributes none of the spite and hatred of the race towards the communityto the severity of the persecutions to which it was exposed, or tothat hard feeling with which society has regarded it. These, and the exampleof the Spaniards, doubtless led the Gitanos to shed the blood of theordinary natives.

[293] I accidentally got into conversation with an Irishman, in the city ofNew York, about secret societies, when he mentioned that he was a memberof a great many such, indeed, “all of them,” as he expressed it. I saidthere was one society of which he was not a member, when he began toenumerate them, and at last came to the Zincali. “What,” said I, “are you amember of this society?” “Yes,” said he; “the Zincali, or Gipsy.” He then toldme that there are many members of this society in the city of New York;not all members of it, under that name, but of its outposts, if I may so expressit. The principal or arch-Gipsy for the city, he said, was a merchant,in —— street, who had in his possession a printed vocabulary, ordictionary, of the language, which was open only to the most thoroughlyinitiated. In the course of our conversation, it fell out that the nativeAmerican Gipsy referred to atpage 420 was one of the thoroughly initiated;which circumstance explained a question he had put to me, and which Ievaded, by saying that I was not in the habit of telling tales out of school.

In Spain, as we have seen, a Gipsy taught her language to her son froma MS. I doubt not there are MS. if not printed, vocabularies of the Gipsylanguage among the tribe in Scotland, as well as in other countries.

[294] Among the various means by which the name of Gipsy can be raisedup, it may be mentioned, that beginning the word with a capital is one ofno little importance. The almost invariable custom with writers, in thatrespect, has been as if they were describing rats and mice, instead of a raceof men.

[295] This sensation, in the minds of the Gipsies, of the perpetuity of theirrace, creates, in a great measure, its immortality. Paradoxical as it mayappear, the way to preserve the existence of a people is to scatter it, provided,however, that it is a race thoroughly distinct from others, to commencewith. When, by the force of circumstances, it has fairly settleddown into the idea that it is a people, those living in one country becomeconscious of its existence in others; and hence arises the principal cause ofthe perpetuity of its existence as a scattered people.

[296] The fact of these Indians, and the aboriginal races found in the countriescolonised by Europeans, disappearing so rapidly, prevents our regardingthem with any great degree of interest. This circumstance detractsfrom that idea of dignity which the perpetuity and civilization of their racewould inspire in the minds of others.

[297] A writer in the Penny Cyclopædia illustrates this absurd idea, in veryplain terms, when he says: “In England, the Gipsies have much diminished,of late years, in consequence of the enclosure of lands, and the lawsagainst vagrants.” Sir Walter Scott’s idea of the Gipsies has been followedin a pictorial history of Scotland, lately issued from the Scottishpress.

[298] The following singular remarks appeared in a very late number ofChambers’ Journal, on the subject of the Gipsies of the Danube: “As thewild cat, the otter, and the wolf, generally disappear before the advance ofcivilization, the wild races of mankind are, in like manner and degree, graduallycoming to an end, and from the same causes(!) The waste lands getenclosed, the woods are cut down, the police becomes yearly more efficient,and the Pariahs vanish with their means of subsistence. [Where do theygo to?] In England, there are, at most, 1,500 Gipsies(!) Before the endof the present century, they will probably be extinct over Western Europe(!)”

It is perfectly evident that the world, outside of Gipsydom, has to beinitiated in the subject of the Gipsies, as in the first principles of a science,or as a child is instructed in its alphabet. And yet, the above-mentionedwriter takes upon himself to chide Mr. Borrow, in the matter of the Gipsies.

[299] I leave out of view various scattered nations in Asia.

[300] It is interesting to hear the Gipsies speak of their race “taking of”this or the other race. Said an English Gipsy, to me, with reference to someGipsies of whom we were speaking: “They take of the Arabians.”

[301] There is scarce a part of the habitable world where they are not to befound; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths of Brazil and the ridgesof the Himalayan hills; and their language is heard at Moscow and Madrid,in the streets of London and Stamboul. They are found in all parts ofRussia, with the exception of the Government of St. Petersburg, from whichthey have been banished. In most of the provincial towns, they are to befound in a state of half civilization, supporting themselves by trafficking inhorses, or by curing the disorders incidental to those animals. But the vastmajority reject this manner of life, and traverse the country in bands, likethe ancient Hamaxobioi; the immense grassy plains of Russia affordingpasturage for their herds of cattle, on which, and the produce of the chase,they chiefly depend for subsistence.—Borrow.

[302] Considering what is popularly understood to be the natural dispositionand capacity of the Gipsies, we would readily conclude that to turn innkeeperswould be the most unlikely of all their employments; yet that isvery common. Mahommed said, “If the mountain will not come to us, wewill go to the mountain.” The Gipsies say, “If we do not go to the people,the people must come to us;” and so they open their houses of entertainment.

[303] The following is a description of a superior Spanish Gipsy, in 1584, asquoted by Mr. Borrow, from the memoirs of a Spaniard, who had seenhim: “At this time, they had a count, a fellow who spoke the Castilianidiom with as much purity as if he had been a native of Toledo. He wasacquainted with all the ports of Spain, and all the difficult and brokenground of the provinces. He knew the exact strength of every city, andwho were the principal people in each, and the exact amount of theirproperty; there was nothing relative to the state, however secret, that hewas not acquainted with; nor did he make a mystery of his knowledge, butpublicly boasted of it.”

[304] I should suppose that this was Captain Gordon who behaved himselflike a prince, at the North Queensferry.Seepage 172.

[305] The only part of the religion of the Jews having an origin prior to theestablishment of the Mosaic law was circumcision, which was termed thecovenant made by God with Abraham and his seed. (Gen. xvii. 10-14.)The abolition of idols, and the worship of God alone, are presumed, althoughnot expressed. The Jews lapsed into gross idolatry while in Egypt, butwere not likely to neglect circumcision, as that was necessary to maintaina physical uniformity among the race, but did not enter into the wants,and hopes, and fears, inherent in the human breast, and stimulated by thedaily exhibition of the phenomena of its existence. The second table ofthe moral law was, of course, written upon the hearts of the Jews, in commonwith those of the Gentiles. (Rom. ii. 14, 15.)

[306] It is an unnecessary stretch upon the belief in the Scriptures, to askconsent to the abstract proposition that the Jews, while in Egypt, encreasedfrom seventy souls to “about six hundred thousand on foot that were men,besides children,” at the time of the Exodus. Following a pastoral life, ina healthy and fertile country, and inspired with the prophecy delivered toAbraham, as to his numberless descendants, the whole bent of the mind ofthe Jews was to multiply their numbers; and polygamy and concubinagebeing characteristic of the people, there is no reason to doubt that theJews encreased to the number stated. The original emigrants, doubtless,took with them large establishments of bondmen and bondwomen, andpurchased others while in Egypt; and these being circumcised, accordingto the covenant made with Abraham, would sooner or later become, onthat account alone, part of the nation; and much more so by such amalgamationas is set forth by Rachel and Leah giving their maids to Jacobto have children by them. Abraham was, at best, the representative headof the Jewish nation, composed, as that was originally, of elements drawnfrom the idolatrous tribes surrounding him and his descendants.

[307] Tacitus gives the following glowing account of the destruction of theDruids, in the island of Anglesey: “On the opposite shore stood the Britons,closely embodied, and prepared for action. Women were seen rushingthrough the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funereal; their hairloose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearanceresembling the frantic rage of the Furies. The Druids were rangedin order, with hands uplifted, invoking the gods, and pouring forth horribleimprecations. The novelty of the sight struck the Romans with awe andterror. They stood in stupid amazement, as if their limbs were benumbed,riveted to one spot, a mark for the enemy. The exhortation of the generaldiffused new vigour through the ranks, and the men, by mutual reproaches,inflamed each other to deeds of valour. They felt the disgrace of yieldingto a troop of women, and a band of fanatic priests; they advanced theirstandards, and rushed on to the attack with impetuous fury. The Britonsperished in the flames which they themselves had kindled. The islandfell, and a garrison was established to retain it in subjection.The religiousgroves, dedicated to superstition and barbarous rites, were levelled to the ground.In those recesses, the natives imbrued their altars with the blood of their prisoners,and, in the entrails of men, explored the will of the gods.“—Murphy’sTranslation.

[308] It would almost seem that the Gipsies are the people mentioned in Deut.xxxii. 21, and Rom. x. 19, where it is said: “I will provoke you, (theJews,) to jealousy, by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation Iwill anger you.” For the history of the Gipsy nation thoroughly burlesquesthat of the Jews. But the Jews will be very apt to ignore the existenceof the present work, should the rest of the world allow them to doit. Yet, excepting the Gipsies themselves, none are so capable of understandingthis subject as the Jews, there being so much in it that is applicableto themselves.

[309] This information I obtained from some English Gipsies. Thereafter,the title of the following work came under my notice: “Historical ResearchesRespecting the Sojourn of the Heathens, or Egyptians, in theNorthern Netherlands. By J. Dirks. Edited by the Provincial UtrechtSociety of Arts and Sciences. Utrecht: 1850. pp. viii. and 160.”

Indeed, the Gipsies are scattered all over Europe, and are to be found inthe condition described in the present work.

[310] There are, probably, 12,000,000 of Jews in the world. I have seenthem estimated at from ten to twelve millions. It is impossible to obtainanything like a correct number of the Jews, in almostany country, leavingout of view the immense numbers scattered over the world, and living evenin parts unexplored by Europeans.

[311] It is astonishing how superficially some passages of Scripture are interpreted.There is, for instance, the conduct of Gamaliel, before the Jewishcouncil. (Acts v. 17-40.) The advice given by him, as a Pharisee, wasnothing but a piece of specious party clap-trap, to discomfit a Sadducee.St. Paul, who was brought up at the feet of this Pharisee, and, doubtless,well versed in the factious tactics of his party, gives a beautiful commentaryon the action of his old master, when, on being brought before the sametribunal, and perceiving that his enemies embraced both parties, he setthem by the ears, by proclaiming himself a Pharisee, and raising the question,(the “hope and resurrection of the dead,”) on which they so bitterlydisagreed. (Acts xxiii. 6-10.) There was much adroitness displayed bythe Apostle, in so turning the wrath of his enemies against themselves, afterhaving inadvertently reviled the high priest, in their presence, and withinone of the holy places, in such language as the following: “God shall smitethee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandestme to be smitten, contrary to the law.” As it was, he was onlysaved from being “pulled in pieces” by his blood-thirsty persecutors—theone sect attacking, and the other defending him—by a company of Romansoldiers, dispatched to take him by force from among them. Nothing couldbe more specious than Gamaliel’s reasoning, for it could apply to almostanything, and was well suited to the feelings of a divided and excited assembly;or have less foundation, according to his theory, for the very stepswhich he advised the people against adopting, for the suppression of Christians,were used to destroy the false Messiahs to whom he referred. Andyet people quote this recorded clap-trap of an old Pharisee, as an inspiration,for the guidance of private Christians, and Christian magistrates!

[312] Tacitus makes Caius Cassius, in the time of Nero, say: “At present,we have in our service whole nations of slaves, the scum of mankind, collectedfrom all quarters of the globe; a race of men who bring with themforeign rites, and the religion of their country,or, probably, no religion atall.”—Murphy’s Translation.

[313] The following extract from “Leaves from the Diary of a Jewish Minister,”published in the above-mentioned journal, on the 4th April, 1862,may not be uninteresting to the Christian reader:

“In our day, the conscience of Israel is seldom troubled; it is of so elastica character, that, like gutta percha, it stretches and is compressed, accordingto the desire of its owner. We seldom hear of a troubled conscience. . . . . Notthat we would assert that our people are without a conscience;we merely state that we seldom hear of its troubles. It is morethan probable, that when the latent feeling is aroused on matters of religion,and for a moment they have an idea that ‘their soul is not well,’ they takea homœopathic dose of spiritual medicine, and then feel quite convalescent.”

[314] Seepages 111 and121.

[315]Petul, according to Mr. Borrow, means a horse-shoe; andPetulengro,a lord of the horse-shoe. It is evidently a very high catch-word amongthe English Gipsies.

[316] Various of the characters mentioned in Mr. Borrow’s “Lavengro,”and “Romany Rye,” are, beyond doubt, Gipsies. Old Fulcher is termed,in a derisive manner, by Ursula, “agorgio and basket-maker.” She is oneof the Hernes; a family whichgorgio and basket-maker Gipsies describeas “an ignorant, conceited set, who think nothing of other Gipsies, owingto the quality and quantity of their own blood.” This is the manner inwhich the more original and pure and the other kind of English Gipsiesfrequently talk of each other. The latter will deny that they are Gipsies,at least hide it from the world; and, like the same kind of Scottish Gipsies,speak of the others, exclusively, as Gipsies. I am acquainted with a fair-hairedEnglish Gipsy, whose wife, now dead, was a half-breed. “But Iam not a Gipsy,” said he to me, very abruptly, before I had said anythingthat could have induced him to think that I took him for one. He spokeGipsy, like the others. I soon caught him tripping; for, in speaking ofthe size of Gipsy families, he slipped his foot, and said: “For example,there is our family; there were (so many) of us.” There is another Gipsy,a neighbour, who passes his wife off to the public as an Irish woman, whileshe is a fair-haired Irish Gipsy. Both, in short, played upon the wordGipsy; for, as regards fullness of blood, they really were not Gipsies.

The dialogue between the Romany Rye and the Horncastle jockey clearlyshows the Gipsy in the latter, when his attention is directed to the figureof the Hungarian. The Romany Rye makes indirect reference to the Gipsies,and the jockey abruptly asks: “Who be they? Come, don’t beashamed. I have occasionally kept queerish company myself.” “Romanychals! Whew! I begin to smell a rat.” The remainder of the dialogue,and thespree which follows, are perfectly Gipsy throughout, on the part ofthe jockey; but, like so many of his race, he is evidently ashamed to ownhimself up to be “one of them.” He says, in a way as if he were astranger to the language: “And what a singular language they have got!”“Do you know anything of it?” said the Romany Rye. “Only a very fewwords; they were always chary in teaching me any.” He said he wasbrought up with thegorgio and basket-maker Fulcher, who followed thecaravan. He is described as dressed in a coat of green, (a favourite Gipsycolour,) and as having curly brown or black hair; and he says of MaryFulcher, whom he married: “She had a fair complexion, and nice red hair,both of which I liked, being a bit of a black myself.” How much this is inkeeping with the Gipsies, who so frequently speak of each other, in ajocular way, as “brown and black rascals!”

I likewise claim Isopel Berners, in Lavengro, to be athumping Gipsylass, who travelled the country with her donkey-cart, taking her own part,andwapping this one, andwapping that one. It signifies not what her appearancewas. I have frequently taken tea, at her house, with a young,blue-eyed, English Gipsy widow, perfectly English in her appearance, whospoke Gipsy freely enough. It did not signify what Isopel said of herself,or her relations. How did she come to speak Gipsy? Do Gipsiesteachtheir language tostrangers, and, more especially, to strange women? Assuredlynot. Suppose that Isopel was not a Gipsy, but had married aGipsy, then I could understand how she might have known Gipsy, and yetnot have been a Gipsy, except by initiation. But it is utterly improbablethat she, a strange woman, should have been taught a word of it.

In England are to be found Gipsies of many occupations; horse-dealers,livery stable-keepers, public-house keepers, sometimes grocers and linen-drapers;indeed, almost every occupation from these downwards. I canreadily enough believe an English Gipsy, when he tells me, that he knowsof an English squire a Gipsy. To have an English squire a Gipsy, mighthave come about even in this way: Imagine a rollicking or eccentric Englishsquire taking up with, and marrying, say, a pretty mixed Gipsy bar orlady’s maid, and the children would be brought up Gipsies, for certainty.

There are two Gipsies, of the name of B——, farmers upon the estateof Lord Lister, near Massingham, in the county of Norfolk. They are describedas good-sized, handsome men, and swarthy, with long black hair,combed over their shoulders. They dress in the old Gipsy stylish fashion,with a green cut-away, or Newmarket, coat, yellow leather breeches, buttonedto the knee, and top boots, with a Gipsy hat, ruffled breast, andturned-down collar. They occupy the position of any natives in society;attend church, take an interest in parish matters, dine with his lordship’sother tenants, and compete for prizes at the agricultural shows. They areproud of being Gipsies. I have also been told that there are Gipsies in thecounty of Kent, who have hop farms and dairies.

[317] Bunyan adds: “But, notwithstanding the meanness and inconsiderablenessof my parents, it pleased God to put it into their hearts to put me toschool, to learn me both to read and write; the which I also attained, accordingto the rate of other poor men’s children.”

He does not say, “According to the rate of poor men’s children,” but of“other poor men’s children:” a form of expression always used by the Gipsieswhen speaking of themselves, as distinguished from others. The languageused by Bunyan, in speaking of his family, was in harmony withthat of the population at large; but he, doubtless, had the feelings peculiarto all the tribe, with reference to their origin and race.

[318] Justice Keeling threatened Bunyan with this fate, even for preaching;for said he: “If you do not submit to go to hear divine service, and leaveyour preaching, you must be banished the realm: And if, after such a dayas shall be appointed you to be gone, you shall be found in this realm, orbe found to come over again, without special license from the king, youmust stretch by the neck for it. I tell you plainly.”

Sir Matthew Hale tells us that, on one occasion, at the Suffolk assizes, noless than thirteen Gipsies were executed, under the old Gipsy statutes, afew years before the Restoration.

[319] Perhaps the following passage is the one alluded to by this writer: “Ioften, when these temptations had been with force upon me, did comparemyself to the case of such a child, whom some Gipsy hath by force tookup in her arms, and is carrying from friend and country.”Grace abounding.The use of a simile like this confirms the fact that Bunyan belongedto the tribe, rather than that he did not; unless we can imagine that Gipsies,when candid, do not what every other race has done—admit the peculiaritiesof theirs, while in a previous and barbarous state of existence. Hisadmission confirms a fact generally believed, but sometimes denied, as inthe case of the writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, mentioned atpage 375.

Bunyan, doubtless, “dwelt on it with a sort of spiritual exultation,” thathe should have been “called”—not “out of Egypt,” but—“out of thetribe,” when, possibly, no others of it, to his knowledge, had been so privileged;but it was, certainly, “most unlikely” he would say that “hebelonged to that class of vagabonds.”

[320] It is interesting to notice what these two writers say. If Bunyan’sfather was a Gipsy, we may reasonably assume that his mother was onelikewise; and, consequently, that Bunyan was one himself, or as Sir WalterScott expresses it—a “Gipsy reclaimed.” A Gipsy being a question ofrace, and not a matter of habits, it should be received as one of the simplestof elementary truths, that once a Gipsy, always a Gipsy. We naturallyask, Why has not the fact of Bunyan having been a Gipsy stood on record,for the last two centuries? and, echo answers, Why?

[321] Although Bunyan probably never anticipated being held in high estimationby what are termed the “great ones” of the earth, yet what Southeyhas said cannot be predicated of him, if we consider the singularity of hisorigin and history, and the popularity which he enjoyed, as author of thePilgrim’s Progress; a work affecting the mind of man in every age of theworld. Of this work Bunyan writes:

“My Pilgrim’s book has travelled sea and land,
Yet could I never come to understand
That it was slighted, or turned out of door,
By any kingdom, were they rich or poor.
In France and Flanders, where men kill each other,
My Pilgrim is esteemed a friend, a brother.
In Holland, too, ‘tis said, as I am told,
My Pilgrim is, with some, worth more than gold.
Highlanders and Wild Irish can agree
My Pilgrim should familiar with them be.
‘Tis in New England under such advance,
Receives there so much loving countenance,
As to be trimmed, new clothed, and decked with gems,
That it may show its features, and its limbs.
Yet more, so public doth my Pilgrim walk,
That of him thousands daily sing and talk.”

[322] Bunsen writes: “Sound judgment is displayed rather in an aptnessfor believing what is historical, than in a readiness at denying it. . . . . .Shallow minds have a decided propensity to fall into the latter error. Incapabilityof believing on evidence is the last form of the intellectual imbecilityof an enervated age.”

A writer who contributes frequently to “Notes and Queries,” after statingthat he has read the works of Grellmann and Hoyland on the Gipsies,adds: “My conclusion is that the tribes have no more right to nationality,race, blood, or language, than the London thieves have—with their slang,some words of which may have their origin in the Hebrew, from theirdealings with the lowest order of Jews.”

[323] That the rabble, or “fellows of the baser sort,” should have peltedBunyan with all sorts of offensive articles, when he commenced to preachthe gospel, is what could naturally have been expected; but it soundsstrange to read what he has put on record of the abuse heaped upon him,by people professing to be the servants of Him “in whom there is neitherJew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.” See with what Christianhumility he alludes to such treatment, as contrasted with the manly indignationwhich he displayed in repelling slanders. He speaks of “the Lordwiping off such insults at his coming;” when his enemies, with the utmostfamiliarity and assurance, may approach the judgment-seat, and demandtheir crowns. “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and inthy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderfulworks?” And it may be answered unto them: “I never knew you; departfrom me, ye that work iniquity.”

[324] It is interesting to compare this feeling with that of the lowest orderof Spaniards, as described by Mr. Borrow. “The outcast of the prison andthepresidio, who calls himself Spaniard, would feel insulted by being termedGitano, and would thank God that he is not.”Page 386.

[325] Let us suppose that a person, who has read all the works that havehitherto appeared on the Gipsies, and noticed the utter absence, in them,of everything of the nature of a philosophy of the subject, thoroughlymasters all that is set forth in the present work. The knowledge which hethen possesses puts him in such a position, that he approximates to beingone of the tribe, himself; that is, if all that is contained therein be knownto him and the tribe, only, it would enable him to pass current, in certaincircles of Gipsydom, as one of themselves.

[326] There is a point which I have not explained so fully as I might havedone, and it is this: “Is any of the bloodever lost? that is, does itevercease to be Gipsy, in knowledge and feeling?” That is a question not easilyanswered in the affirmative, were it only for this reason: how can it everbe ascertained that the knowledge and feeling of being Gipsies becomelost? Let us suppose that a couple of Gipsies leave England, and settle inAmerica, and that they never come in contact with any of their race, andthat their children never learn anything of the matter from any quarter.(Page 413.) In such an extreme, I may say, such an unnatural, case,the children would not be Gipsies, but, if born in America, ordinary Americans.The only way in which the Gipsy blood—that is, the Gipsy feeling—canpossibly be lost, is by a Gipsy, (a man especially,) marrying an ordinarynative, (page 381,) and the children never learning of the circumstance.But, as I have said before, how is that ever to be ascertained?The question might be settled in this way: Let the relatives of the Gipsyinterrogate the issue, and if it answers,truly, that it knows nothing of theGipsy connexion, and never has its curiosity in the matter excited, it holds,beyond dispute, that “the blood” has been lost to the tribe. For any lossthe tribe may sustain, in that way, it gains, in an ample degree, by drawingupon the blood of the native race, and transmuting it into that of itsown fraternity.

[327] It was the nature of man, in ancient times, as it is with the heathento-day, toworship what could not be understood; while modern civilizationseems to attribute such phenomena tomiracles. It is even presumptuousto have recourse to such an alternative, for the enquirer may be deficientin the intellect necessary to prosecute such investigations, or he maynot be in possession of sufficient data. If the European will, for example,ask himself, 1stly: what is the idea which he has of a Gipsy? 2ndly:what are the feelings which he entertains for him personally? And 3dly:what must be the response of the Gipsy to the sentiments of the other?he cannot avoid coming to the conclusion, that the race should “marryamong themselves,” and that, “let them be in whatever situation of lifethey may, they all” should “stick to each other.” (Page 369.)

[328] Viewing the Gipsies as they are described in this work, and contrastingtheir history with that of the nations of the world in general, and the Jewsin particular, and considering that they have no religion peculiar to themselves,yet are scattered among, and worked into, all nations, but not acknowledgedby, or even known to, others, we may, with the utmostpropriety, call them, in the language of the prophet, “no people,” and a “foolishnation;” yet by no means a nation of fools, but rather more rogues thanfools. Of all the ways in which the Gipsies have hoaxed other people, themanner in which they have managed to throw around themselves a senseof their non-existence to the minds of others, is the most remarkable.

[329] The prejudice of their fellow-creatures is a sufficiently potent cause,in itself, to preserve the identity of the Gipsy tribe in the world. It hasmade it to resemble an essence, hermetically sealed. Keep it in that position,and it retains its inherent qualities undiminished; but uncork thevessel containing it, and it might (I do not say itwould) evaporate amongthe surrounding elements.

[330] The MS. of this work has undergone many vicissitudes. Among others,it may be mentioned that, in the state in which it was left by the author,it was twice lost, and once stolen; on which last occasion it was recovered,at an expense of one shilling! Then the original copy, in its present form,was stolen, and never recovered. In both instances did that happen undercircumstances that such a fate was most unlikely to befall it. Then a copyof it was sent to Scotland, and never acknowledged, although I am in hopesit is now on its return, after a lapse of nearly three years; in whichcase, I will be more fortunate than the author, who gave the MS. to anindividual and never got, and never could get, it back.

INDEX.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES: WITH SPECIMENS OF THE GIPSY LANGUAGE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions willbe renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyrightlaw means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the UnitedStates without permission and without paying copyrightroyalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use partof this license, apply to copying and distributing ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by followingthe terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for useof the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything forcopies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is veryeasy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creationof derivative works, reports, performances and research. ProjectGutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you maydo practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protectedby U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademarklicense, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the freedistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the FullProject Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online atwww.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree toand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by allthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return ordestroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in yourpossession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to aProject Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be boundby the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the personor entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only beused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people whoagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a fewthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic workseven without complying with the full terms of this agreement. Seeparagraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of thisagreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“theFoundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collectionof Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individualworks in the collection are in the public domain in the UnitedStates. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in theUnited States and you are located in the United States, we do notclaim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long asall references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hopethat you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promotingfree access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping theProject Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easilycomply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in thesame format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License whenyou share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also governwhat you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries arein a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of thisagreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or anyother Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes norepresentations concerning the copyright status of any work in anycountry other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or otherimmediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appearprominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any workon which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which thephrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work isderived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does notcontain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of thecopyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone inthe United States without paying any fees or charges. If you areredistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must complyeither with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 orobtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is postedwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distributionmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and anyadditional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional termswill be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all worksposted with the permission of the copyright holder found at thebeginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of thiswork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute thiselectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, withoutprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 withactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the ProjectGutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, includingany word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide accessto or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a formatother than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the officialversion posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expenseto the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a meansof obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “PlainVanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include thefull Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ worksunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providingaccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic worksprovided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms thanare set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writingfrom the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager ofthe Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as setforth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerableeffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofreadworks not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the ProjectGutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, maycontain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurateor corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or otherintellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk orother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage orcannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Rightof Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the ProjectGutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim allliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legalfees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICTLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSEPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THETRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BELIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE ORINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCHDAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover adefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you canreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending awritten explanation to the person you received the work from. If youreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the mediumwith your written explanation. The person or entity that provided youwith the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy inlieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the personor entity providing it to you may choose to give you a secondopportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. Ifthe second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writingwithout further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forthin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NOOTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain impliedwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types ofdamages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreementviolates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, theagreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer orlimitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity orunenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void theremaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, thetrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyoneproviding copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works inaccordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with theproduction, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any ofthe following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of thisor any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, oradditions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) anyDefect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution ofelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety ofcomputers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. Itexists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donationsfrom people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with theassistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’sgoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection willremain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secureand permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and futuregenerations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, seeSections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of thestate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the InternalRevenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identificationnumber is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted byU.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and upto date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s websiteand official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project GutenbergLiterary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespreadpublic support and donations to carry out its mission ofincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can befreely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widestarray of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exemptstatus with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulatingcharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the UnitedStates. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes aconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep upwith these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locationswhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SENDDONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular statevisitwww.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where wehave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibitionagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states whoapproach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot makeany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received fromoutside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donationmethods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of otherways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. Todonate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the ProjectGutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could befreely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced anddistributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network ofvolunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printededitions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright inthe U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do notnecessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paperedition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG searchfacility:www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how tosubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

SCOTTISH GIPSY.	JOHN LOBBS’ HINDOSTANEE.	ENGLISH.
Baurie, great, grand, rich.	Bura,	Grand, good, great, rich.
Been, great, grand, rich.	Beenie,	Grand, good, great, rich.
Callo,	Kala,	Black.
Lon,	Loon,	Salt.
Gourie, a man.	Gowra,	White man.
Gaugie, a man.	Gaugie, orFraugie,	Rich man.
Mort, a wife.	Murgia,	Dead wife.
Chavo,	Chokna,	A boy, a son.
Praw,	Praw,	Son.
Prawl,	Prawl,	Daughter.
Nais-gaugie, grandfather.	Nais gaugie,	Old man.
Nais-mort, grandmother.	Nais mort,	Old woman.
Riah,	Riah,	A chief, a gentleman.
Rajah, a chief, governor,	Rajah,	A chief, a lord.
Raunie, lady, wife of a gentleman.	Raunie,	The wife of a prince.
Been riah,	Beenie riah,	The king.
Been raunie,	Beenie raunie,	The queen.
Been gourie,	Beenie gourie,	A gentleman.
Bauree rajah,[332]	Bura rajah,	The king.
Baurie raunie,	Bura raunie,	The queen.
Baurie forest,	Bura frost,bura malook,	Great town.
Baurie paunie,	Bura paunie,	The sea, the great water.
Lon paunie,	Loon paunie,	Salt water, the ocean.
Grye,	Ghora,	Horse.
Prancie, a horse.	Prawncie,	A gentleman’s carriage.
Gournie,	Goroo,	A cow.
Backra,	Buckra,	A sheep.
Sherro,	Sir,	Head.
Yak,	Aukh,	Eye.
Yaka,	Aukha,	Eyes.
Nak,	Nak,	Nose.
Mooie,	Mooih,	Mouth.
Chee,	Jeebh,	The tongue.
Chee chee,	Choopra,	Hold your tongue.
Femmel, hand.	Fingal,	Ends of the fingers.
Vast,	Wast,	The hand.
Peerie,	Peir,	The foot.
Gave,	Gaw,	Village.
Kair,	Gur,	A house.
Wautheriz,	Waudrie,	A bed.
Outhrie, a window.	Outrie,Durvaja,	A door.
Eegees, bed clothes.	Eegees,	Bed curtains.
Shuch-hamie,	Shuamie,	A waistcoat.
Jair-dah,	Jairda,	Woman’s apron.
Gawd,	Dowglaw,	A man’s shirt.
Teeyakas,	Teeyaka,	Shoes.
Scaf, a hat.	Scaf, a small piece of cloth tied around the head, like a fillet.
Skews,	Skows,	Platters, jugs.
Chowrie,	Choree,	Knife.
Harro,	Dhoro,	Sword.
Sauster, iron.	Sauspoon,	Iron pot-lid, iron.
Mass,	Mass,	Flesh.
Thood,	Doodh,	Milk.
Chizcazin, cheese.	Chizcaizim,	Cheese-knife.
Blaw, meal.	Blaw,	Indian corn.
Flatrin,	Flatrin,	Fish of any kind.
Shaucha, broth	Shoorwa,	Soup.
Molzie,[333]	Mool,	Wine.
Romanie, whiskey.	Rominie,	Spirits, liquor.
Mumlie, a candle.	Membootie,	Candles.
Fluffan,	Floofan,	Smoking tobacco.
Yak,	Ag,	Fire.
Paunie,	Paunie,	Water.
Casties,	Cashtes,	Fruit trees.
Bar,	Dunbar,	A stone.
Sonnakie,	Sona,	Gold.
Roug,	Roopa,	Silver.
Chinda, silver.	Chindee,	Silver, tin.
Geeve,	Guing,	Wheat.
Mang,	Chan,Jung,	The moon.
Bumie,	Boomie,	To drink.
Mar,	Marna,	To strike.
Rauge,	Rawd,	Mad.
Choar,	Chorna,	To steal.
Chor,	Chor,	Thief.
Humff,	Huff,	Give me.
Moolie, death, to die, dead.	Moola,	Dead.
Quad,	Quid,	Prison.
Staurdie, prison.	Staurdee,	A prison, to confine, hold.
Jaw vree,	Jowa,	Go away.
Auvie,	Aow,	Coming, come here.
Davies,	Din,	Day.
Rat,	Raut,	Night.
Pagrin,	Pawgrin,	To break.
Davies-pagrin,	Dawis-pawgrin,	Day-break, the morning.
Klistie, a soldier.	Kleestie,	Black soldier, Sepoy.
Nash, deserter.	Natch,	To run away.
Loudnie,	Loonie,	A bad woman.[219]

SCOTTISH GIPSY.	YETHOLM GIPSY.	ENGLISH.
Gaugie,	Gadgé,	Man.
Managie,	Manishee,	Woman.
Mort,		Wife.
Chavo, (chauvies, children,)[335]	Shavies, children,	Son.
Praw,	Gouré a boy,	Son.
Prawl,	Racklé, a girl,	Daughter.
Riah,	Rai, a gentleman,	A chief.
Rajah,		Governor.
Baurie,	Baré,	Good.
Sherro,	Shero,	Head.
Yak,	Yack,	Eye.
Yaka,		Eyes.
Nak,	Nak,	Nose.
Mooie,	Moi,	Mouth.
Vast,	Vastie,	Hand.
Grye,	Grāī,	Horse.
Bashanie,	Basné,	Cock.
Caunie,	Kanné,	Hen.
Drom,	Drone,	Road.
Gave,	Gaave,	Village.
Graunagie,		Barn.
Graunzie,	Gransé,	Barn.
Kair,	Keir,	House.
Outhrie,		Window.
Yag,	Yag,	Fire.
Thood,	Thud,	Milk.
Mass,	Mass,	Flesh.
Peerie, (orblawkie,)	Blakie,	Pot.
Paunie,	Pawné,	Water.
Paurie,		Water.
Molzie,	Mul,	Wine.
Roy,	Roy,	Spoon.
Nab,		Horn.
Chorie,		Knife.
Chowrie,	Chouré,	Knife.
Shuha,	Shohé,	Coat.
Scaf, (orgogle,)	Gogel,	Hat.
Harro,		Sword.
Beerie,		Ship.
Bumie,	Peevan, drinking,	To drink.
Choar,		To steal.
Chor,	Tschor,	Thief.
Staurdie,	Stardé, a jail,	Prison.
Moolie,	Moulian, dying,	Death.
Moolie,	Moulé, to kill,	I’ll kill you.
Bing,	Bing,	The devil.

SCOTTISH GIPSY.	SANSCRIT.	ENGLISH.
Yag,	Agnish,	Fire.
Paurie,	Varni,	Water.
Casties,	Cashth,	Wood.
Duff,	Dhupah,	Smoke.
Sneepa,	Sweta,	White.
Callo,	Cala,	Black.
Sherro,	Sira,	The head.
Rajah,	Rajah,	Lord.
Vast,	Hastah,	The hand.
Praw,	Putra,	Son.
Gave, orGan,	Gramam,	A village.
Mar,	Mar,	To strike.
Loudnie,	Lodha, loved,	A whore.

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofA History of the Gipsies: with Specimens of the Gipsy Language

A
HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES:
WITH
Specimens of the Gipsy Language.

CONTENTS.[1]

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

CONTINENTAL GIPSIES.

CHAPTER II.

ENGLISH GIPSIES.

“Crime in Families. William Winters’ Family.

CHAPTER III.

SCOTTISH GIPSIES, DOWN TO THE YEAR 1715.

CHAPTER IV.

LINLITHGOWSHIRE GIPSIES.[86]

CHAPTER V.

FIFE AND STIRLINGSHIRE GIPSIES.

CHAPTER VI.

TWEED-DALE AND CLYDESDALE GIPSIES.

CHAPTER VII.

BORDER GIPSIES.

JOHNNY FAA, THE GIPSY LADDIE.

“A LAMENT FOR WILL FAA,
“The Deceased King of Little Egypt.

CHAPTER VIII.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE CEREMONIES.

[169]A GIPSY MULTIPLICATION TABLE.

CHAPTER IX.

LANGUAGE.

HUGHIE THE GRÆME.

CHAPTER X.

PRESENT CONDITION AND NUMBER OF THE GIPSIES IN SCOTLAND.

A DISQUISITION ON THE PAST, PRESENT, ANDFUTURE OF GIPSYDOM.

INDEX.

Transcriber's Notes:

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PAGE
EDITOR’S PREFACE		5
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION		27
INTRODUCTION		55
CHAPTER.
I.	CONTINENTAL GIPSIES	69
II.	ENGLISH GIPSIES	90
III.	SCOTTISH GIPSIES, DOWN TO THE YEAR 1715	98
IV.	LINLITHGOWSHIRE GIPSIES	123
V.	FIFE AND STIRLINGSHIRE GIPSIES	140
VI.	TWEED-DALE AND CLYDESDALE GIPSIES	185
VII.	BORDER GIPSIES	236
VIII.	MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE CEREMONIES	257
IX.	LANGUAGE	281
X.	PRESENT CONDITION AND NUMBER OF THE GIPSIES IN SCOTLAND	341
DISQUISITION ON THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF GIPSYDOM		371
INDEX		543

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofA History of the Gipsies: with Specimens of the Gipsy Language

AHISTORY OF THE GIPSIES:WITHSpecimens of the Gipsy Language.

CONTENTS.[1]

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

CONTINENTAL GIPSIES.

CHAPTER II.

ENGLISH GIPSIES.

“Crime in Families. William Winters’ Family.

CHAPTER III.

SCOTTISH GIPSIES, DOWN TO THE YEAR 1715.

CHAPTER IV.

LINLITHGOWSHIRE GIPSIES.[86]

CHAPTER V.

FIFE AND STIRLINGSHIRE GIPSIES.

CHAPTER VI.

TWEED-DALE AND CLYDESDALE GIPSIES.

CHAPTER VII.

BORDER GIPSIES.

JOHNNY FAA, THE GIPSY LADDIE.

“A LAMENT FOR WILL FAA,“The Deceased King of Little Egypt.

CHAPTER VIII.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE CEREMONIES.

[169]A GIPSY MULTIPLICATION TABLE.

CHAPTER IX.

LANGUAGE.

HUGHIE THE GRÆME.

CHAPTER X.

PRESENT CONDITION AND NUMBER OF THE GIPSIES IN SCOTLAND.

A DISQUISITION ON THE PAST, PRESENT, ANDFUTURE OF GIPSYDOM.

INDEX.

Transcriber's Notes:

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

A
HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES:
WITH
Specimens of the Gipsy Language.

“A LAMENT FOR WILL FAA,
“The Deceased King of Little Egypt.