Although what is contained in the following pages should explain itself, a few prefatory remarks may not be out of place. In the Scottish Churches and the Gipsies I said that, “in regard to the belief about the destiny of the Gipsies,” “almost all have joined in it, as something established”—that “the Gipsies ‘cease to be Gipsies’ by conforming, in a great measure, with the dress and habits of others, and keeping silence as to their being members of the race;” and that “in bringing forward this subject for discussion and action I thus find the way barred in every direction.” Although I have said that the belief about the disappearance, or rather the extinction, of the race has been tacitly if not formally maintained by almost everyone, “no one seems inclined to give a reason for this belief in regard to the destiny of the Gipsies, nor an intelligible definition of the word Gipsy.”

This is the position in which the Gipsy problem stands to-day. The latest work on the subject which I have seen is that of The Gipsies (New York, 1882), by Mr. Leland, so fully reviewed in the following pages. He leaves the question, in its most important meaning, just where he found it; and confesses that it has “puzzled and muddled” him. In 1874 I wrote in Contributions to Natural History, etc., as follows:—

“What becomes of the Gipsies is a question that cannot be settled by reference to any of Mr. Borrow’s writings, although these contain a few incidental remarks that throw some light on it when information of a positive and circumstantial nature is added” (p. 120).

In offering to a London journal the double-article on Mr. Leland on the Gipsies I said, on the 30th May, 1882:—

“I admit that it is a very difficult and delicate matter for a journal to ‘go back on’ a position once taken up on any question; but I think that if you admit the intended article the point will be gained, without any responsibility on the part of the journal or editor;” and that the insertion of it would put the journal “in its proper position before the world, without recanting anything.” I further wrote that “Purely literary journals must necessarily labour under great disadvantages when called on to notice a book on a very special subject, unless they can find a writer who can do it for them.”

If all that has been written on the Gipsies “ceasing to be Gipsies,” under any circumstances, “be allowed to go uncontradicted, it will become rooted in the public mind, and gather credit as time goes by, making it daily more difficult to set it aside, and allow truth to take its place”—as I wrote in reply to two fulsome eulogies on Charles Waterton.

There are various phenomena connected with the subject of the Gipsies; not the least striking one being the popular impression about the extinction of the race by its changing its habits, which has been arrived at without investigation and evidence, and against all analogy and the “nature of things.” So fully has this idea taken possession of the public mind that a hearing on the true position of the question can scarcely be had. One purpose this has served, that it has saved the public almost every serious thought or care in regard to its duty towards the race, and relieved it of every ultimate responsibility connected with it. But that is not a becoming position for any people to occupy—that of getting rid of its obligations by ignoring them. In 1871 I wrote thus:—

“The subject of the Gipsies, so far as it is understood . . . presents little interest to the world if it means only a certain style of life that may cease at any moment; in which case it would be deserving of little notice.”

But all of the aspects connected with the popular idea of a Gipsy are of interest and importance when they represent the primitive condition of a people who sooner or later pass into a more or less settled condition, and look back to the style of life of their ancestors. In this respect the Gipsies differ from most of the wild races, inasmuch as they become perpetuated, especially in English-speaking countries, by those of more or less mixed blood. In regard to that I wrote thus in the Disquisition on the Gipsies:—

“The fact of these Indians, and the aboriginal races found in the countries colonized by Europeans, disappearing so rapidly, prevents our regarding them with any great degree of interest. This circumstance detracts from that idea of dignity which the perpetuity and civilization of their race would inspire in the minds of others” (p. 446).

If the “ordinary inhabitant” considers for a moment what his feelings are for everything Gipsy, so far as he understands it, he will realize in some degree the responding feelings of the Gipsies, whatever their positions in life. These create two currents in society—the native and the Gipsy; so that the Gipsy element by marrying with the Gipsy element, or in the same way drawing in and assimilating the native blood with it, keeps the Gipsy current in full flow, and distinct from the other. The Gipsy element, mixed as it is in regard to blood, never having been acknowledged, necessarily exists incognito, and in an outcast condition, however painful it is to use such an expression towards people that have lived so long in the British Isles, and are frequently of unquestionable standing in society; with nothing, in many instances, to distinguish them outwardly from the rest of the population, but possessing signs and words, and a cast of mind peculiar to themselves, that is, a sense of tribe and a soul of nationality, which remain with their descendants.This subject is not conventional, but will doubtless sooner or later become such, as there are things conventional to-day that were not such lately. In that respect the discussion or even the sentiments of a prominent person or journal can make a thing conventional; such is the nature of a highly complex society anywhere. With reference to this matter I wrote to the journal alluded to in the following terms:—

“Surely the strange and unfortunate Gipsy race and its various off-shoots have not sinned beyond the forgiveness of the rest of their fellow-creatures, so that what represents a relatively-large body of British subjects cannot be acknowledged even by name; leaving to others to look upon or associate with them as each member of the native race may see fit.”

One would naturally think that the inhabitants of Great Britain would at least take some little interest in what might be called their “coloured population;” and hold in respect some of its members who could doubtless tell us much that is interesting on the subject of the Gipsies, so that that should not be a reproach to them which would be a credit to others. To do so, and have the people, in some form or other, acknowledged, is due to the spirits of research and philanthropy that characterize this age. I admit that there are many difficulties attending a movement of this kind. These I have explained fully on previous occasions, and I need not repeat them here.

In regard to John Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race, I find that I stated the question in Notes and Queries on the 12th December, 1857; so that it has stood over, like a “case in Chancery” under the old system, for a quarter of a century, unattended to!

This little publication is intended in the first place for the British Press, although I cannot be expected to send every journal a copy of it. Each publication in its sphere has an influence, which should be exercised in the way indicated; for here there is no opening for the display of those passions that too frequently enter into discussions generally. For myself personally (the last to be considered), although it is thirty-one years since I left Great Britain, I should still have some rights there; and especially among high-toned people, who should remember that one of the ends for which they were created was to see justice done to an absent person.

New York, July 1, 1882.