Some trusting souls may find consolation in the disclaimer by ministers of any extreme designs. Upcn this point it is enough to cite the deliberate opinion of one of the most illustrious of Radicals, looking at the matter, of course, from his own point of view: 'We are quite accustomed to a minister continuing to profess unqualified hostility to an improvement, almost to the very day when his conscience or his interest induces him to take it up as a public measure and carry it.' The spirit of Radicalism informs a type of character which has its admirable side, but which cannot safely be left without a check. The existing unnatural distribution of political forces appears to leave practically uncontrolled in politics The restless will That hurries to and fro, Seeking for some great thing to do It is not without cause that statesmen like Lord Derby and Lord Sherbrooke, not to name mere Whigs and Tories, are apprehensive of the results of the gradual and subtle change which is being wrought in our polity by the substitution of new Radicalism for old Liberalism. There are others, even among Liberals whom it has not been the custom to call moderate, to whom the curious compound which is beginning to be accepted by the majority of politicians as Liberal doctrine must be strange and disquieting. There are still men, among the very ablest on the Liberal side of the House of Commons, who have not lost their belief in the healthy Liberalism of former days, to whom the incessant and unwholesome craving for organic legislation' is deeply repugnant, who continue to acknowledge that the essence of Parliamentary Government consists in freedom of discussion, that political and social activity is of little worth if it is purchased at a sacrifice of individuality, and who are not yet prepared, like some eminent persons on the Treasury Bench, to tickle the ears of the groundlings in Parliament with sneers at political economy. 6 Yet it is not only the historical continuity of British institutions that is assailed by modern Radicalism, but all the elements of which the Liberal party was proud a quarter of a century ago. The 'machine-man' of politics, imported from America and newly varnished at Birmingham, is allied with the Positivist doctrinaire, inheriting Comte's bitter dislike of Parliamentary Government, of social and political individualism, and of the economical doctrines identified with the labours of Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Mill. It is not difficult to trace these currents of interest and passion, mingled with the more familiar prejudices of political Nonconformity, in the Radical creed of the day. Whether these forces, which are, it must be acknowledged, powerful, are ultimately to triumph in England, rests with the leaders of the moderate Liberals as much as with any set of individuals. If they have not convinced themselves by this time that they cannot overrule the Radical policy in the Liberal party and the Liberal ministry, the conviction is sure to be borne in upon their minds at no very distant date, when, perhaps, it may be difficult to repair the ill consequences of present hesitation. Of course I speak only of those who are sincere in their repugnance to Radicalism; if there are others who are not sincere or are even indifferent, non ragionam di lor. The typical placeman or adventurer, whatever his station, will be able to solace himself in any event with the wisdom of Æsop's fox that lost his tail. But the majority of the Liberals who have not swallowed Radicalism in the lump would, I am sure, be deeply grieved if their sloth or weakness were to give occasion for an attack upon the institutions of the country and upon the accepted principles of English politics and social organisation with the whole force of the Liberal party. There is no prospect whatever of guarding against these mischiefs by the absorption of individual Liberals in the Conservative ranks. Comparatively few have the courage to face the odium of desertion from the party with which they have long acted. Moreover, moderate Liberals do not admit, as they would be in some measure forced to do by going over to the Conservative camp, that they have ceased to be Liberals because they cannot reconcile their old Liberalism with the new Radicalism. Conservatism, in a party sense, though not the mass of wickedness and folly which Mr. Bright represents it to be, is somewhat narrow and unyielding. It is not in itself attractive to Liberals, though some of them, on the compulsion of plain duty, may feel at length called upon to fight under the Conservative banner. It is also to be remembered that the secession of a number of Whig peers and commoners, even if they were followed by a large body of independent politicians, would not materially affect the distribution of power in the electorate. The reconstitution of the party of moderation must be accomplished, if it is to be achieved at all, by an alliance, not a secession. Is it impossible to form a new party on so broad a basis as to include all Liberals who do not accept Radicalism and all Conservatives who admit that it is practicable and desirable to administer existing institutions in a generous and reasonably progressive spirit? If, through hesitation on the side of the moderate Liberals, or through reluctance to make concessions on the part of the Conservatives, no arrangement of this nature should be found attainable, the triumph of Radicalism cannot be long delayed. Its results will be irreversible. The policy of reconstruction will be carried out with holdness and determination; English principles and English institutions will give place to imitations of American or Continental Radicalism. Nor will the Radical policy affect only abstract questions. It will, if successful, permanently alter the conditions of political life in these kingdoms. It will involve the degradation and extinction of the Whigs as a party, the humiliation and proscription of the moderate independent Liberals, and the reduction of the Conservative opposition to helpless inferiority in Parliament. Then, perhaps, when the mischief is done, noble lords and right honourable gentlemen will strive in a feeble and discredited manner to do what they have now the chance of doing honourably and hopefully. The task can only be performed by men of high rank and acknowledged influence; and if these are willing to 'drift' rather than to take trouble and face inconvenience in order to amend a dangerous defect in, our political condition, it can only be said with sorrow that they are unworthy to be called statesmen, and that the country which trusts in them is justly punished by the worst that can befall it. VOL. VIII.-No. 44. RR EDWARD D. J. WILSON. PETTY ROMANY. Ir is now just about a century since Heinrich Grellmann and J. C. Rüdiger, working independently of each other, were led, from a comparison of a large number of words common to the Hindustani tongue and the language of the gipsies of Europe, to infer the Indian origin of this widely-scattered people. So deeply rooted, however, was the notion-bound up in the name Egyptian or Gipsy-that they came from Egypt, that their most ingeniously worked-out explanation of their history and origin did not meet with general acceptance. Even intelligent writers within these forty years endeavour to urge that the problem of their origin still remains unsolved. is true that Grellmann's own list of words taken by itself is not strong enough to settle a point of so much historic interest, and he affords no proof for the satisfaction of his readers that anything like a thousand words of proved identity existed in the two languages under comparison. This explanation, though the best that has been advanced, while removing many difficulties, leaves others that have been seized upon by his opponents, but it is doubtful whether any one would now be found so hardy as to dispute an explanation that is supported by so great a mass of concurrent evidence. The first of the gipsy race to come to Europe were the Kunjuras (Conjurers or Jugglers), who arrived in the thirteenth century. Kanjar or Kunjura is the Hindustani name for a tribe in the Upper Provinces of Hindustan, whence Captain Richardson derived our name. They only came in small parties, and attracted little attention; but the great migration of the gipsy race began later.1 It is only necessary to premise that the Indian nation is divided into four grades, called by the Portuguese castes, the lowest of which is that of the Suders, also called Parias in Malabar, before proceeding to relate that in the years 1408 and 1409, Timur Beg ravaged India for the purpose of disseminating Mohammedanism. All who resisted were destroyed, and those who submitted were first made slaves, but afterwards butchered in cold blood, to the number, it is said, of 1 Bataillard states that from two charts discovered lately among the archives of the monastery of Tismana in Little Wallachia, it appears that they were in Wallachia in the middle of the fourteenth century, and were then, as till lately, in a state of slavery. (Paspati, p. 148.) 100,000 defenceless people. Every part of the north and east was beset by the conqueror, and it is therefore probable that the country near the mouth of the Indus below Multan, which is called the country of Zinganen, was the first asylum of the fugitives, who, Grellman thinks, were exclusively Suders. Here they would be safe till Timur's return from the victory of the Ganges, when they probably quitted the country, carrying the natives and the name Zinganen with them. Historically all is blank regarding them before the year 1414. Their Indian origin is inferred principally from their language, but there are not wanting materials for stopping part at least of the gap between 1409 and 1414. First, all English gipsies call their language the Romani; secondly, the gipsy numerals as far as six are Hindustani, but those for eight and nine are octo, ennea, and must have been picked up during a prolonged residence in a country where Greek was the spoken language. Now Romani, or Romania, lies north of the Danube, Wallachia taking up the principal and southern part, and Moldavia the northern. The Wallachian language is derived from the Latin, and that of Moldavia consists of Latin and Slavonic. It is supposed that the bulk of the inhabitants are descended from Roman colonists sent by Trajan; be that as it may, they call themselves to this day no other name than Romani, Rumani, or Romans. The name Wallachs belonged to some people in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, the Vlachi (Bλáxoi) of the Byzantine historians, who lived chiefly in the country round Mount Pindus. In the twelfth century part of the Vlachi, to escape the persecutions of the Emperor Manuel, left Thrace under two brothers, Asan and Peter, and settled north of the Danube. Now besides the Romany the English gipsies have a dialect which they call the Fly Language' or simply 'Fly.' This name is so strikingly like Vlach that I was led to suspect that they might be the same word, long before hearing from some gipsies that the same cant is also called the Flash. The name Vloch or Wloch is said to be Slavonic for Roman, and if so Wallach is equivalent to the native name Romani. Wallachian shows a considerable admixture of Greek and Slavonic; indeed, a writer in Blackwood remarks that Greek is more spoken in Wallachia than in Greece itself. It was during their residence here that they probably learned the Greek numbers, salovardo, a bridle' (Mod. Gr. salibári), drom, a road' (Gr. Spóμos), and others. Wallachia is the centre of a tract that is now famous for its gipsies, and has, from their first settlement there, been their great stronghold in Europe. In 1844 Turkey in Europe contained 214,000 gipsies, of which number Wallachia and Moldavia alone contained in 1826 more than 150,000. Of these all were slaves, in Wallachia till 1837, and in Moldavia till 1844. Now it is probable that it was here the gipsies picked up the name of 6 |