Chapter XX

1836.

Curious case of a girl stolen by gipsies--Superstition _re_ light
at Christmas in the North of England--Designs for New Houses of
Parliament--King William III. statue blown up--Admission of
ladies to the House of Commons--Stuart impostors--An
inter-university boat race--How Cambridge came to have light blue
as a colour.

On January 15th, the Brighton bench heard the following extraordinary tale:--

"A little girl who stated her name to be Charlotte Savage, and
that she was thirteen years of age, was brought up by Mr.
Solomon, who stated that her story was so extraordinary that he
thought it his duty to let her state it to the bench.

"The child, in reply to the questions of the magistrate, stated
that her father's name was Robert Savage, that he was formerly a
soldier, but, on marrying her mother, turned Custom House
officer, and was now living at Bristol. Just before hay-making
time last year she and her brother Robert went to the theatre at
Bath; and, as they were returning home at night, her brother
being a little on before, she was taken up by some gipsies, who
gagged her, and put her into a cart. She had ever since been
travelling about with them, and knew the names of three, who were
called John, Richard, and William Lee. They got a living by
selling combs, and by stealing geese, turkeys, sheep, and
rabbits, which they killed and skinned, and the skins of the
sheep and rabbits they sold. Whenever they travelled through any
towns they put her at top of a cart, and when they encamped she
was always employed in washing linen or nursing the children; and
she could not escape, there being always a great boy and girl
with her.

"About three weeks ago they went through Brighton to Lewes. There
part of the gipsies took lodgings, and those she was with, having
to go into the town, left her in a lodging-house kept by a Mrs.
Tickner. There, to amuse herself, she began reading the Testament
with a little boy, which Mrs. Tickner observing, said she could
not have been brought up to the gipsy life, or she would not have
been able to read. She replied that she had not, and then told
Mrs. Tickner her story. Mrs. Tickner said she had once had a
little boy of her own stolen, and she knew the distraction the
loss of children caused parents to feel; and that, therefore, the
gipsies should give her up, or she would make them, and she would
keep her until she should hear from her parents. She then got a
letter written to them, and received an answer (stating her
mother was on her deathbed, and had been ill ever since her
disappearance), together with five shillings in a parcel. Mrs.
Tickner then hearing that there was a steam packet that sailed
from the chain pier at Brighton, let her come over to Brighton;
she accordingly arrived there, and went to the pier to inquire
about the packet, and was told that there was no steam packet
that went from Brighton to Bristol, but there was a coach which
did. She went to all the coach offices, and there learnt that the
Bristol coach had ceased running for the last fortnight; and,
upon asking for lodgings, was recommended to the Seven Stars.
There she found a person who knew the place near the Bell, where
she was taken up, and another who knew her mother and uncles. To
them she showed the letter, which she had since lost; and, upon
her making her story known, she was brought to the Town Hall, and
put into the prison. At the idea of having been put into prison
the child cried very much.

"Sir D. Scott asked what had become of the gipsies.

"The girl replied that she did not know, as they were travelling
about the country.

"Mr. Solomon said he had taken the girl to the
assistant-overseer, who took down the particulars in writing, but
said he did not believe her story.

"The girl said if they would take her to Mr. Burton, of the
theatre, he would know her again.

"Sir D. Scott: How do you know he is here?

"Girl: I read his name in the play-bill, and he used to write
letters to my mother, when his wife lodged with us. He was
property man at our theatre.

"Sir D. Scott: Property man! Why how came you to know there was
such a person in a theatre? How came you to know so much about a
theatre?

"The girl replied that her father and mother at one time lived in
front of Bath theatre. They used to go to the theatre sometimes,
by permission of Mrs. Macready; and she herself had been brought
up to it, when a little girl three years old. They lived in the
drawing-room and had the whole of the house.

"Sir D. Scott: If we let you go now, you will never get home with
five shillings, and, then, if we did, you are likely to be taken
by some gipsies again.

"Girl: I should like to be sent to Mr. Burton first, to see if he
would send me home; he knows all my relations, and I know him
well.

"Mr. Burton having been sent for, said he thought he could
remember her face, but it was two years since he had seen her. He
added he had no doubt of the truth of her story. The girl then
asked him if he would let her have money to take her home, or if
he would keep her until her friends could send for her. This Mr.
Burton said he could not afford to do.

"Mr. Solomon said the girl told him the gipsies had a young man
with them, chained down to one of their carts.

"Sir D. Scott: Chained down?

"The girl assured him that was the fact; and, from what she had
heard from Mrs. Tickner, and the description of him, she had no
doubt it was a son of the Rev. Mr. Jones.

"Sir D. Scott then ordered that the girl should be taken over to
Lewes, and confronted with Mrs. Tickner; and, if what the girl
stated turned out to be true, directed a letter to be sent to the
parents; the girl, meanwhile, being kept in the workhouse."

There was curious superstition in the North of England, which is practically done away with in these days of lucifer matches. In the old days of tinder boxes, if any one failed to get a light, it was of no use his going round to the neighbours to get one, for even his dearest friends would refuse him, it being considered _most unlucky_ to allow any light to leave the house between Christmas Eve and New Year's day, both inclusive. No reason has been found for this singular and somewhat churlish custom. An example is given in the _Leeds Times_, quoted in the _Times_ of January 20th.

"Had not the following anecdote been told us on the authority of
a gentleman of high respectability, we should have found some
difficulty in believing that so strange a superstition had still
influence on the minds of the inhabitants of the West Riding. On
the night of Christmas Day our informant was returning to Leeds
in a gig from a town a few miles off, and wished to light a
cigar. He stopped at a cottage by the wayside, and asked to be
allowed a light. 'No,' was the reply, 'thou'lt get no light here
to-night.' Somewhat surprised at this surly reply, he drove on
for a mile or two, and on arriving at a toll bar, again preferred
his request. 'No, sir,' said the gatekeeper, 'I shall let no
light go out of my house to-night.' As there was no mending the
matter, our friend proceeded to another toll-bar, and a third
time requested a light. He was very civilly told he should have a
light with pleasure, had it not been Christmas night; but, on
that night, to allow a light to be taken out of the house would
insure bad luck through the next year. Here, at length, the
mystery was solved. This silly superstition was the cause which
led to the refusals which so astonished the traveller."

On Thursday, March 24th, there was opened to public inspection at the National Gallery the designs for the new Houses of Parliament. Of these one critic wrote--

"Of these designs, some are good--indeed, we may say, very
good--many promising, and some so bad that it was ground of
wonder that room should be found for them. They certainly remind
us of Peter Pindar's description of matrimony, which the caustic
satirist describes--

'Like to Jeremiah's figs,
The good are very good, the bad not fit to give to pigs.'"

Of these designs four were chosen as the best, Barry's plans being most approved; and again on April 28th they were exhibited publicly at the National Gallery. Eventually Barry's plans were accepted, and to him we owe our beautiful "Palace of Westminster."

On April 8th, between midnight and one a.m., the statue of King William III. on College Green, Dublin, was blown up by gunpowder. The street for some time previously had been quiet, none but the ordinary passengers being apparent, when a watchman saw a lighted train burning upwards towards the figure; he endeavoured to drag it down with his pole, but did not succeed. A second watchman came up, and told him to come away, for there was powder in it. This latter man, who warned his companion, had previously seen an attempt made to blow up the statue, but it had failed; and, fearing the danger, gave the warning. Immediately after the watchmen withdrew, a tremendous explosion occurred, as loud as a piece of artillery. The noise was heard all over the neighbourhood. Most of the gas-lamps from the College to Trinity Street were blown out, and the figure, weighty as it was, being composed of nearly solid lead, and nine or ten feet high, was thrown several feet in the air, and fell on the southern side of the base.

It may be remembered that, in 1835, the Hon. C. Berkeley moved the admission of ladies to the gallery of the House of Commons. A select committee was appointed to consider the subject, and their report was presented and read on May 3rd. As the debate thereon was short, and somewhat amusing, I give some of the principal speeches _in extenso_.

"The Hon. C. Berkeley said that he now brought this question, for
the second time, under the consideration of the House, because he
was perfectly convinced that his motion would have been carried
last session, if many friends of the measure had not happened to
have been in the House at the time. (Laughter.) The Committee,
who had agreed to the report which had just been read, had been
fairly chosen, and they had considered how the object could be
attained at the least possible expense; and, for his own part, he
could not see why ladies should not be admitted, when they were
placed in such a situation that they could not interfere in the
debate. (Great laughter.) It had been said that the presence of
ladies during the debates would distract the attention of
honourable members, although he must confess that if the ladies
were in the House it would make no difference in his thoughts.
(Loud and continued laughter.) Perhaps some gentlemen, at least,
who were made of so much more inflammable materials (shouts of
laughter) might be so affected. The ladies were once admitted to
that gallery, and the debates were not prolonged then, though it
was now the fashion to say that the debates would be prolonged if
they were admitted, and that many persons who were not now in the
habit of speaking would be generally getting up to address the
House when the ladies were present; but, on the other hand, he
believed there were many who spoke much more for the papers than
the ears of their audience (great laughter), who would not speak
if the ladies were there to hear them. He would not detain the
House, but would conclude by moving that, 'It is the opinion of
this House that the Resolution of the Select Committee appointed
in 1835 to consider the means of admitting ladies to a portion of
the Strangers' Gallery, together with the plan of Sir R. Smirke,
should be adopted, and that means should be taken to carry it
into effect, with as little delay as possible.'

"Mr. Potter, amidst the loudest laughter, begged leave to second
the motion. He could not possibly conceive any good reason which
could be assigned against it. The plan had been tried in the old
House, in the Ventilator. (A laugh.) Surely the female sex were
as much interested in the proceedings of that House as the other,
and if any portion of them were disposed to hear the debates,
they ought not to refuse them. It was well known that the ladies
exercised an important influence in the State, and why should it
not be properly exercised? Why should the beneficial influence of
a virtuous and enlightened mother (a laugh) not be exerted over
her son who had a seat in Parliament? And if the wife of any hon.
member wished to hear the debates, why should she not have the
opportunity? They were admitted into the French Chamber at Paris,
and it was well known that the ladies had seats assigned to them.
He had seen them there pay as much attention to the debates as
any one else, and he had never witnessed the slightest appearance
of levity. (Loud laughter.) The ladies were also admitted to hear
the debates of Congress at Washington, and surely we ought not to
act in this exclusive and Oriental manner.

"Mr. Kearsley said that he did hope that every hon. member, who
was blessed with a bride or daughters, would give his negative to
this idle, this ridiculous proposition. (Loud laughter.)

"Mr. O'Connell remarked that in the Irish Parliament ladies were
admitted to hear the debates, and he was afraid the detail of the
cause of their being admitted would throw something like a
censure upon the members of the Irish Senate. However, he would
state that at that time hospitalities of a particular kind
prevailed in Ireland, and the consequence of these hospitalities
was that many members came drunk to the House. (Laughter.) The
remedy proposed was that ladies should be admitted. This was
tried, and from that moment not a single person was seen drunk.
He did not say there existed the same reasons for admitting the
ladies into this House (laughter), but at all events he thought
there existed no good reason why they should be excluded.

"Mr. Villiers said that he was neither blessed with daughters nor
a bride-elect (laughter), but still he thought no sufficient
grounds had been shown to justify this motion. He was, however,
glad to find that every class of persons in the community was
represented in this House. There were the friends of the people,
the friends of the Church, the farmers' friends, and, now, the
friends of the ladies. (Laughter.) He thought, however, the hon.
and gallant member for Cheltenham, by his motion, proposed an
organic change. (Renewed laughter.) But it seemed to him that no
excitement existed outside of the House on the subject; he was
not aware that any petitions had been presented with reference to
it. The hon. and gallant member had said that he did not see any
harm in the measure; but would the matter end here? Might not
hon. Members have some ulterior views? (Loud laughter.) The hon.
and gallant member proposed to admit the ladies into the gallery,
but were there not places under the gallery? Were there not the
lobby and the library, and might not some hon. member push the
measure further and give them admission there, much to the
inconvenience of the House? (Hear, hear.) But even if admitted to
the gallery only, in what way, he begged to inquire, were hon.
members to exercise their privilege? They could not admit as many
ladies as gentlemen--nay, even they could not accommodate as many
ladies as there were Irish members. Was the power of granting
admissions to be vested in the Minister for the Home Department;
and, if so, might not he be charged with undue influence in
admitting ladies of a certain description? (Loud laughter.) Might
not the champion of some old lady charge him with corrupt motives
in excluding her? In short, the more the subject was considered
the more difficult it seemed. (Renewed laughter.) He hoped, if
the hon. and gallant member for Cheltenham would, if he meant to
introduce a bill upon the subject, have it circulated in all the
populous towns of the country, so that during the autumn its
effects might be ascertained. (Great laughter.) At present hon.
members were unacquainted with the complicated details of the
measure; they did not know all the bearings of the proposition,
though it had been brought forward for two sessions running;
and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. and gallant member would
consent to postpone it. (General laughter.)

"The House divided. For the motion, 139; against, 40."

The _Times_ of May 9th, quoting the _Glasgow Chronicle_, has a paragraph headed

"ROYAL CHARLEY BACK AGAIN.

"We have received the following account of the departure from
Greenock of Charles Edward Stuart and his brother, John Sobieski
Stuart. They are said to be grandsons of Charles Edward Stuart,
the Pretender. Of course they must be illegitimate, as the
present King of Sardinia is heir to that prince:--

"'On Friday Charles Edward Stuart and his brother John, grandsons
to the Pretender, embarked on board the _Foyle_ for Londonderry.
The scions of the house of Stuart belong to Italy, and have been
on a tour to the north of Scotland, visiting the places named in
the romantic adventures of their ancestor, the young Ascarvius.
They are good-looking young men, and bear a strong resemblance to
the portraits of "Royal Charley." They speak the Italian, French,
English, Gaelic, and Irish languages, and are always attired in
the Highland costume of the house of Stuart, and accompanied by a
piper of the clan. They have never worn any other dress than the
kilt and its Highland appendages, and their seal is a crown. At
the time they embarked the piper played some of the principal
Jacobite airs, composed as laments at the misfortunes of the
Pretender. A number of Highlanders of the higher and middle
classes went on board to have a peep at the strangers, and
although they to a man were all of the High Tory caste, yet they
looked with veneration on the Stuarts. The visitors and
passengers assembled in the cabin seemed determined to honour the
memory of "Royal Charley" by quaffing bumpers of the best
"Glenlivet." One of the company was deputed to ask permission
(_sic_) of Charles Edward, who respectfully declined the honour
intended, and said it was not proper under present circumstances.
The brothers expressed their high gratification at the enthusiasm
of the Greenock Celtic Tories, and seemed much affected.'"

This precious pair of charlatans pretended that in 1773 a son was born of the marriage of Charles Edward with the Princess Louisa of Stolberg-Gedern; that the birth was kept secret, and the babe privately conveyed on board an English frigate and consigned to the care of a naval officer named Allen, who brought him up as his own son. This mysterious child, it was further said, when grown to manhood, married an English lady in 1790, and in the following year the "Chevalier Charles Edward" was born.

John Wilson Croker in vol. 81 of the _Quarterly Review_ (pp. 57-85), while reviewing _Vestiarum Scoticum_, by John Sobieski Stuart, and _Tales of the Century_, by John Sobieski and Charles Edward Stuart, ruthlessly demolishes this pedigree, pointing out that if the Pretender had had an heir, it was his interest to publish and not to conceal it; that in his will he only recognized one child, his natural daughter, the Countess of Albany; that his brother, Cardinal York, considered that he was King of England; and finally proved that these two adventurers were none other than John and Thomas Allen, the sons of Admiral Allen.

"John Sobieski" died in February, 1872, and there is a biographical notice of him in the _Times_ of February 17th, 1872, but more may be read about these brothers in the _Edinburgh Review_ of July, 1861, and the _St. James's Magazine_ of January, 1872.

The Oxford and Cambridge boat race, as we know it, did not commence until 1845,[19] but there were inter-university struggles before that date, as we see by the _Times_ of June 20th.

[Footnote 19: The first boat race between the two Universities was on June 10th, 1829, from Hambledon Lock to Henley. Oxford won by five or six lengths.]

"THE CUTTER MATCH BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND
CAMBRIDGE.

"The long-expected match between the gentlemen of the
Universities came off on Friday (June 17th). The sum to be rowed
for was £400, or, as others say, £1000. The weather was most
unpropitious, and those who ventured forth on Friday must have
possessed more than ordinary 'game.' Betting had been two and
three to one on the Oxonians, and there were plenty of takers. At
four o'clock the competitors were at their posts, and, the signal
having been given, they were off. The gentlemen of Cambridge took
the lead, but the Oxonians were right on them. Nothing could have
been finer than the exertions displayed by each party, but
Cambridge still maintained the lead, nor did they, throughout,
ever forfeit that advantage. Cambridge won by four lengths, and
did not exhibit any symptoms of distress."

The boats were eight-oared as now.

"The course was the then Champion Metropolitan Course, from
Westminster to Putney. It was in this race that Cambridge first
adopted light blue as their colour, and that apparently by
accident. They were on the point of pushing off from Searle's
yard at Westminster, when somebody remarked that the boat had no
colour in the bow. One person suggested one colour, and one
another. At the last moment, Mr. R. N. Philips, of Christ's, a
well-known oarsman in those days, ran over to a haberdasher's
close by, and asked for a piece of Eton blue ribbon or silk. This
was produced, and the crew adopted it _con amore_. Since those
days Cambridge has worn light blue; while Oxford, for the sake of
contrast, have rather deepened their shade of the same colour.
The jerseys of Cambridge were white, and those of Oxford blue and
white stripes." "Record of the University Boat Race, 1829-1883,"
by G. G. T. Treherne and J. H. D. Goldie, p. 12. London, 1884.