Please see [Transcriber’s Notes] at the end of this text.

The Badminton Library

OF

SPORTS AND PASTIMES

EDITED BY

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT, K.G.

ASSISTED BY ALFRED E. T. WATSON

BOATING

PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON

GENERAL VIEW OF HENLEY REGATTA (Frontispiece)

BOATING

BY

W. B. WOODGATE

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE REV. EDMOND WARRE, D.D.
AND
A CHAPTER ON ROWING AT ETON
BY R. HARVEY MASON

WITH NUMEROUS ENGRAVINGS AFTER FRANK DADD
AND FROM PHOTOGRAPHS

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1888

All rights reserved

DEDICATION
TO
H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES.

Badminton: March, 1887.

Having received permission to dedicate these volumes, the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes, to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, I do so feeling that I am dedicating them to one of the best and keenest sportsmen of our time. I can say, from personal observation, that there is no man who can extricate himself from a bustling and pushing crowd of horsemen, when a fox breaks covert, more dexterously and quickly than His Royal Highness; and that when hounds run hard over a big country, no man can take a line of his own and live with them better. Also, when the wind has been blowing hard, often have I seen His Royal Highness knocking over driven grouse and partridges and high-rocketing pheasants in first-rate workmanlike style. He is held to be a good yachtsman, and as Commodore of the Royal Yacht Squadron is looked up to by those who love that pleasant and exhilarating pastime. His encouragement of racing is well known, and his attendance at the University, Public School, and other important Matches testifies to his being, like most English gentlemen, fond of all manly sports. I consider it a great privilege to be allowed to dedicate these volumes to so eminent a sportsman as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and I do so with sincere feelings of respect and esteem and loyal devotion.

BEAUFORT.

PREFACE.

A few lines only are necessary to explain the object with which these volumes are put forth. There is no modern encyclopædia to which the inexperienced man, who seeks guidance in the practice of the various British Sports and Pastimes, can turn for information. Some books there are on Hunting, some on Racing, some on Lawn Tennis, some on Fishing, and so on; but one Library, or succession of volumes, which treats of the Sports and Pastimes indulged in by Englishmen—and women—is wanting. The Badminton Library is offered to supply the want. Of the imperfections which must be found in the execution of such a design we are conscious. Experts often differ. But this we may say, that those who are seeking for knowledge on any of the subjects dealt with will find the results of many years’ experience written by men who are in every case adepts at the Sport or Pastime of which they write. It is to point the way to success to those who are ignorant of the sciences they aspire to master, and who have no friend to help or coach them, that these volumes are written.

To those who have worked hard to place simply and clearly before the reader that which he will find within, the best thanks of the Editor are due. That it has been no slight labour to supervise all that has been written he must acknowledge; but it has been a labour of love, and very much lightened by the courtesy of the Publisher, by the unflinching, indefatigable assistance of the Sub-Editor, and by the intelligent and able arrangement of each subject by the various writers, who are so thoroughly masters of the subjects of which they treat. The reward we all hope to reap is that our work may prove useful to this and future generations.

THE EDITOR.

The author desires to record his thanks and indebtedness to the following gentlemen, for much kind co-operation and assistance, and for leave to reproduce passages from their valuable works upon aquatics:—Geo. G. T. Treherne, Esq., author of ‘Record of the University Boat Race’; E. D. Brickwood, Esq. (‘Argonaut’), author of ‘Boat Racing’; L. P. Brickwood, Esq., Editor of the ‘Racing Almanack’; the Proprietors of the ‘Field’; the Proprietors of ‘Land and Water,’ and Mr. R. G. Gridley for kindly assisting with the Map of the Cambridge Course.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

(Engraved by W. J. Palmer, J. D. Cooper, and G. Pearson, after drawings by F. Dadd and photographs by G. Mitchell, Hills & Saunders, and Marsh Bros.)

FULL-PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS.

WOODCUTS IN TEXT.

MAPS

SHOWING

CONTENTS.

Erratum.

Page 119, line 19, for Bodleian read Radleian.

Introduction

As parts of human life and practice the out-of-door games and amusements with which Englishmen are familiar have had a long course of development, and each has its own history. To trace this development and history in any particular case is not always an easy task. Most of the writers who deal with these subjects treat the ‘Origines’ in a summary fashion. Not a few ignore them altogether. The Topsy theory, ‘’spects it growed,’ is sufficient.

And yet if it be possible to deal more philosophically with a subject of the kind, the attempt ought not necessarily to be devoid of interest. It involves a retrospect of human life and human ingenuity. It will trace development in man’s ways and means, marking points which in some regions and with some races have determined the limit of their progress, and in others have served as stepping-stones to further invention. It will present facts which will not only not be disdained by the true student of men and manners, but will serve to broider the fringes of serious history, and will give additional light and colour to the record of the character and the habits of men. For indeed the sports and pastimes of a people are no insignificant product of its national spirit, and react to no small degree upon national character. They have not unfrequently had their share in grave events, and the famous and oft-quoted saying of the Duke of Wellington respecting the playing fields at Eton (se non è vero, è ben trovato) contains a truth, applicable in a wider sense to national struggles and to victories other than Waterloo.

Pastimes and amusements generally may be divided into two main classes: (1) those that have been invented simply as a means of recreation, such as cricket, tennis, racquets, etc.; and (2) those that have their origin in the primary needs of mankind. The latter have in many cases, as civilisation has advanced, and the particular needs have been supplied in other ways, survived as pastimes by reason of the natural pleasure and the excitement and the emulation which accompanied them. Of this latter class, those that have appropriated the name of ‘sport’ par excellence, such as hunting, shooting, fishing, etc., hold the field, so to speak, in antiquity, as compared with other pastimes, having their origin in the initial necessities and natural instincts of man, which compelled him to fight with and to destroy some wild beasts, that he might not himself be eaten, and to catch or kill others that he might have them to eat.

The spirit of emulation and the pride of skill, and the desire of obtaining healthy exercise for its own sake, have been among the principal causes which have converted into sports and pastimes man’s means and methods of locomotion. Almost every class of movement which can be pressed into that form of competition which is called a race, or in which a definite comparison of skill is possible, has been enlisted in the host of amusements with which civilisation consoles its children for the loss of the wild delights of the untutored savage.

Among these perhaps the most important and the most conspicuous is Rowing, which as a serious business has played no inconsiderable part in great events of human history, and as a pastime is inferior to none of the class to which it belongs. Its votaries will not hesitate to claim for it even the chief place, by reason of the pleasure and emulation to which it so readily ministers, as a healthful exercise, and as a means of competitive effort requiring both skill and endurance.

But the oar, before it ministered to recreation, had a long history of labour in the service of man, which is not yet ended, and itself was not shaped but by evolution from earlier types, of which the paddle and ultimately the human hand and arm are the original beginnings.

Will it be wearisome to speculate on these beginnings, and to try to cast back in thought and research for the first origins of the noble pastime which forms the subject of the present volume? Fortunately, in savage life still extant on the habitable globe we have the survival of many, if not of all, the earliest types of locomotion. Man in his natural condition has to follow nature, and by following to subdue her in his struggle for existence. Climate and race differentiate his action in this respect, and results, under parallel circumstances, similar, though different in detail, attend his efforts in different parts of the world.

A land animal, he is from the first brought face to face with water, deep water of lakes, and of rivers, and of the sea, and in all these he finds bounds to his desires, as well as things to be desired; opposite shores to which he wishes to cross, fish and vegetable growth which he wants for food. Horace tells us that ‘oak and triple brass he had around his breast who first to the fierce sea committed his frail raft,’ but the first man who committed himself to deep water, and essayed the oarage of his arms and legs, must have been free from such incumbrances, and yet have had a stout heart within him. And simultaneously with, or even prior to such adventure, must have been others of a similar character aided by a piece of wood, or a bundle of rushes, or an inflated skin, the elementary boat, the very embryo of navigation. Such beginnings are still in evidence on the western coast of Australia, where savages may be seen sitting astride on a piece of light wood and so venturing forth upon the waters of the sea. Homer, who in the Odyssey delights in making the man of many counsels and many devices, with all his wealth of what was then modern experience, find himself reduced to the shifts and expedients of a man thrown, like the savage, upon his own solitary resources, pictures to us Ulysses seated astride upon the mast of his shipwrecked vessel and paddling with both hands, thus reverting in his distress, as no doubt others have done since, to the very earliest method of navigation, now only practised for choice by savages, whose progress in navigation, as in other things, has been checked at this early stage, and who remain the nearest visible types of primitive man.

But some savages, other than they, did make progress in the matter of locomotion by water, and the next step was the raft, of which the earliest type known is the sanpan, three pieces of buoyant wood tied together. On this construction, which supplied the earliest generic names both in the east and in the west (sanpan, σχεδίη, ratis), a man would stand and paddle and move along upon the water, and assert his power of hand and eye with the weapons with which native ingenuity had already supplied him.

In warm climates, where swimming had become a necessity, and the very children from their earliest years had been habituated to the water, the familiarity that breeds contempt of the very danger which at a previous stage acted as a deterrent, would soon encourage attempts to improve, and enlarge, and increase the speed of the rude vessel in common use. These attempts would naturally follow the line of providing the means for conveying in safety other things besides the living freight of the human person. There would also arise the very natural desire to keep things dry, which would spoil if wetted. Hence the enlargement of the raft, and then the protection afforded by platforms raised upon its central surface, or by planks laid edgewise so as to make a defence, a breastwork against the wave.

And no doubt by this time the use of the sail for propulsion had become familiar, and man had already prayed his god for ‘the breeze that cometh aft, sail-filler, good companion.’ But interesting as it would be to trace the effect of the sail upon the construction of vessels and their development, we must leave that pleasant task to those who, in the present series, will treat of the yacht and its prototypes (άκατοι).

The earliest method of propulsion was with the human hands. In the picture of Ulysses seated on the mast and keel of his shipwrecked vessel, which he had lashed together with the broken backstay made of bullhide, paddling with his hands on either side, Homer, as we have seen, has presented us with the hero of the highest civilisation known to him reduced to the straits of the merest savage; and he has again enforced this idea in his picture of the same hero of many wiles and many counsels devising for himself the means of escape from the island of Calypso, and, not without divine suggestions, constructing for himself, like an ancient Robinson Crusoe, a primitive raft, with certain improvements and additions; a broad raft be it remembered, and not a boat. A boat would mar the conception which presents to us the civilised man driven back to the straits of barbarism by the unique circumstances in which he is placed.

This is the point which ingenious commentators, who have given elaborate designs and figures of Ulysses’ boat and written pages upon its construction, seem to have missed. The poet has added colour to his picture by bringing the new and the old together. And of a truth new and old exist together and continue throughout the ages of man in marvellous juxtaposition. The fast screw liner off the Australian coast may pass the naked savage oaring himself with swarthy palms upon his buoyant log, and almost every stage of modern invention in ship-building and ship propulsion has had alongside it the three-timbered sanpan, and the original types of raft that float in the Malay Archipelago.

But we must follow the development of our special pastime through its embryonic stage to a moment when, all unknown and unseen in the womb of time, like the sudden changes which differentiate the gradual ascents from a lower to a higher being, unseen, unknown, and unwritten in history, that great event occurred, the birth of the first ‘dug-out’ canoe. Unnoticed perhaps at the time, the importance of the event was recognised by the poet in after ages as a real forward step in the onward progress of the arts.[1] ‘Rivers then first the hollowed alders felt.’

[1] Virg. Georg. i. 136: ‘Tunc alnos primum fluvii sensere cavatas.’

To some primitive man or men in advance of their fellow men, the idea of flotation, as apart from the mere buoyancy of the material, had occurred, and suggested the hollowing out of the log. Wherever and whenever this was first effected, it was a great event in the world’s progress. A simple thought had wedded fact destined to be fruitful to all future ages. O prototype of the longboat—of the frail eights which freighted with contending crews speed yearly over Father Thames amidst the cheers and applause of thousands! Where wast thou launched? What dusky arms propelled thee? What wild songs of exultation heralded thy first successful venture? Once achieved, what present benefits, what future triumphs didst thou not ensure to man? In the power of carrying something, or anything beside the living freight, dry and secure, and in the increased facility of movement and of turning, must have been manifest from the first the advantage of the canoe over the raft, where the lapping of the water and the wash of the wave, in spite of all contrivances, could scarce be kept out. How soon must efforts have been made to increase this advantage to obtain greater carrying power and greater speed! The application of the sail was made possible by the ingenious adaptation of the outrigger, a trunk of light wood laid parallel to the side of the dug-out at some feet distance, and attached to it by transverse bars. The oldest type and the type with this improvement still survive, and the ingenious models of such craft which were exhibited at the Fisheries Exhibition in London a few years ago will have been noticed by many of our readers. Twin vessels like the ‘Castalia,’ and, if we are to believe the learned Graser, the great Tesseraconteres of Ptolemy, had their primitive germ, so to speak, in this early stroke of genius. It may appear strange to some boating men who are accustomed to hear a good deal about outriggers, that this outrigger of which we have been speaking has nothing to do with the outrigger with which they are familiar. It never apparently passed into the Western Seas. The Mediterranean knows it not. The Andaman Islands and the Seychelles are its westernmost limits.

But if the invention of the dug-out canoe was a step onward in the general progress of the arts, being the appreciation and application of a principle in nature, a still greater triumph was achieved, and the particular art still more decidedly advanced, by him who first constructed the canoe properly so called. Herein was the real prototype of the species boat. A skin of bark, duly cut and shaped so as to taper towards the ends and be wide amidships, was attached to a longitudinal framework or gunwale all along its upper edges, and this itself was kept apart and in shape by three or more transverse pieces stretching from side to side, while a series of curved laths of soft wood, the extreme ends of which also fastened to the gunwale, served to keep the vessel itself in shape and to protect the bark skin from the tread of men and from the immediate incidence of any weight to be carried. ‘Ce n’est que le premier pas qui coûte.’ The idea once conceived, whether in one place or in many, and at whatever time or times, could not be lost and must soon have been fruitful in development. Of this class by far the most common is the birch-bark canoe, which, though found also in Australia, is properly regarded as having its home upon the American continent. If not the original of the type, yet it deserves particular attention owing to the peculiarity of the material of the skin, which combines lightness and toughness and pliability. A truly ingenious and original idea to flay a birch tree and make a boat of its skin! In the framework of the canoe we have the embryo ribs and inwale of the future boat, and the three cross-ties may be regarded as the ancestors of thwarts to be born in time to come. As yet no keel. But that was soon to be. Go north, and trees become scarcer and dwindle in size. The birch is no longer of sufficient girth to serve the ingenious savage in the construction of a canoe. But the inventive genius of man was not to be denied. Skins of beasts, or woven material made waterproof, stretched upon a frame would serve for the same purpose as bark. But a stronger framework was necessary for a material thinner and more pliable than bark. And accordingly in all this class (except the coracle) we find stronger and more numerous timbers, including a longitudinal piece from stem to stern, and uprights at each end acting as stempost and sternpost respectively. The rude canvas-covered vessels of Tory Island, off the west coast of Ireland, still preserve one development of this type, close at home to us; while the cayaks of the Esquimaux and the larger fishing canoes of the Alaskans and the Greenlanders exhibit the skin-clad variety in many forms. In one of the models exhibited at the Fisheries Exhibition the framework showed in great perfection the ingenuity of the savage, to whom wood was a very scarce and precious article, short pieces being made to serve fitted together and fastened with thongs of hide, the whole being covered with a stout walrus skin. Even outriggers (as understood by the English oarsman) made of double loops of hide just long enough to cross each other and enclose the loom of the oar, were attached to the inner side of the gunwale.

Not only bark and skin and canvas-covered canoes exist and seem to have existed from an unknown antiquity, but a similar cause to that of which we were just speaking, viz. a scarcity of wood or of suitable wood, led to the construction of canoes of wood made of short pieces stitched together, and approaching more nearly to the type of vessel which may be called a boat. To these belong the canoes of Easter Island made of drift wood, and of many other islands in the Pacific, which are truly canoes and propelled by paddles, and the same peculiarity of build extends to the Madras surf boats, which are more truly boats. Many of these are tied together through holes drilled or burnt through a ledge left on the inner side of the plank or log, a peculiarity noticeable as appearing even in the early vessels of the Northern Seas. The stitched boat has not a nail Or a peg in her whole composition, but the structure, though liable to leak, is admirably suited for heavy seas and surf-beaten coasts, and owing to its pliability will stand shocks which would shatter a stiffer and tighter build. This being so, it is not surprising that vessels larger than canoes or boats were constructed (some authorities say even as large as 200 tons burden) upon this principle, which is certainly one of very great antiquity.

There is also a curious analogy in the progress of construction of these sea-going craft with the natural order in the construction of fishes, that is to say, if the ganoids are to be considered antecedent to the vertebrates among the latter. For in the case of the stitched vessels the hull is the first thing in time and construction, the ribs and framework being, so to speak, an afterthought, and attached to the interior when the hull has been completed, whereas the later and modern practice is to set up the ribs and framework of the vessel first and to attach the exterior planking afterwards. But the invention of trenails and dowels must have preceded the later practice, and have led the way to the building of such boats as those described by Herodotus (ii. 96), the ancestors of the Nile ‘nuggur’ of modern times. Ulysses, as a shipwright well skilled in his craft, uses axe and adze and auger, and with the latter makes holes in the timbers he has squared and planed, and with trenails and dowels ties them together. The wooden fastenings, be it remarked, are in size and diameter severally adapted, the first to resist the horizontal, the second to resist the vertical strain to which the raft would be exposed upon the waves. All this, we may observe, points to a stage anterior to that in which the use of metal nails and ties in ship- and boat-building had been introduced. Trenails and dowels are however still in use, and have a natural advantage over iron in the construction of wooden vessels, owing to the absence of corrosion, which in early times must have caused difficulties as to its employment for boat-building. Copper, on the other hand, though free from this objection, would be less available by reason of expense and the great demand for it for other purposes.

And now we have reached a point where we enter upon the borders of history. No doubt, if we knew more about the venerable antiquity of China, we might be able to add interesting facts, showing the development from the earliest sanpan to the great river boats, and the growth of that curious art which produced the Chinese junk, a vessel undoubtedly of a very antique type. But this knowledge is not ours at present, and so we must turn to the equally venerable civilisation of Egypt for information upon the subject. In Egypt fortunately the tomb paintings have preserved to us a wealth of illustration of boats and ships, some of which, if we may trust the learned, take us back to dates as early as 3000 b.c. In turning over the interesting plates of such works as Lepsius’s ‘Denkmäler,’ or Duemichen’s ‘Fleet of an Egyptian Queen,’ we are struck by the reflection that, if at that early date boats, and ships, and oars, and steering paddles, and masts, and sailing gear had all been brought to such a stage of perfection, we must allow many centuries antecedent for the elaboration of such designs, and for the evolution of the savage man’s primary conception of canoe and paddle.

FLEET OF EGYPTIAN QUEEN.

However this may be, the lovers of our pastime, if they will consult the pages of the works above mentioned, will find rowing already well established as an employment, if not as an amusement, in the hoar antiquity of Egypt. Not only the Nile water, whether the sacred stream was within his banks or spread by inundation over the plain within his reach, was alive with boats, busy with the transport of produce of all sorts, or serving the purposes of the fowler and the fisherman, but the Red Sea and the Mediterranean coasts were witnesses of the might and power of Pharaoh, as shown by his fleets of great vessels fully manned, ready with oar and sail to perform his behests, ready to visit the land of Orient, and bring back thence the spices and perfumes that the Egyptians loved, together with apes and sandal wood, or else to do battle with the fierce Pelesta and Teucrians and Daunians who swarmed in their piratical craft upon the midland sea, entering the Nile mouths, and raiding upon the fat and peaceable plains of the Delta.

The Egyptian boats present several noticeable features. Built evidently with considerable camber, they rise high from the water both at stem and stern, the ends finished off into a point or else curved upwards and ornamented with mystic figure-heads representing one or other of the numerous gods. The steering is conducted by two or more paddles fastened to the sides of the boat in the larger class, and sometimes having the loom of the paddle lengthened and attached to an upright post to which it is loosely bound. A tiller is inserted in the handle, and to this a steering cord fastened, by which the helmsman can turn the blade of the paddle at will. The paddles vary but little in shape. They are mostly pointed, and have but a moderate breadth of blade. In some of the paintings they are being used as paddles proper, in others as oars against a curved projection from the vessel’s side serving as a thowl. But whether this is solid or whether it is a thong, like the Greek τροπωτήρ, against which the oarsman is rowing, it is not easy to say.

The larger vessels depicted with oars have in some cases as many as twenty-five shown on one side. In others the number is less. But it is quite possible that the artist did not care to portray more than would be sufficient to indicate conventionally the size of the vessel. In some of the vessels there are apertures like oar-ports, though no oars are shown in them, which raise a presumption that the invention of the bireme, the origin of which is uncertain, may with some probability be attributed to the Egyptians. The larger vessels are all fitted with sailing gear, and the rowing is evidently subsidiary to the sail as a means of locomotion. The wall paintings of Egypt give us ample details of Egyptian ships and boats extending over a period, as we are told, of twenty centuries and more. In them we have a glimpse of the maritime enterprise, in which the oar must have taken a principal part, of the races which inhabited the seaboard of the Mediterranean in which piracy had its home from very early times. Teucrians, Dardanians, Pelesta (? Pelasgians), Daunians, Tyrrhenians, Oscans, all seem to have been sea-going peoples, and at intervals to have provoked by their marauding the wrath of Pharaoh and to have felt his avenging hand.

But of all the seafaring races that made their homes and highways upon the waters of the great inland sea, the most famous of early times were the Phœnicians. According to some accounts connected with Capthor (Copts), and according to others emigrants from the coast of the Persian Gulf, their genius for maritime enterprise asserted itself very early, so that already before Homer’s time they were masters of the commerce of the Mediterranean, and had rowed their dark keels beyond the mystic pillars that guarded the opening of the ocean stream.

And yet, though the facts are certain, we know but little of these famous mariners, of their vessels and their gear. The only representation of their vessels is from the walls of the palaces of their Assyrian conquerors, an inland people, not likely to detect or appreciate any technical want of fidelity in the likeness presented. And, accordingly, the pictures are conventional, telling us but little of that which we should like to know about their build, and oars, and oar ports, &c. The date, moreover, is not in all probability earlier than 900 b.c.

Such being the case, we are driven for information to the more ample store of Greek literature, and to Greek vases for the earliest representations of the Greek vessel.

Homer abounds in sea pictures. He has a wealth of descriptive words, touches of light and colour which bring the sea and its waves and the vessel and its details with vivid and picturesque effect before us. His ships are black and have their bows painted with vermilion, or red of some other tone; they are sharp and swift, and bows and stern curve upwards like the horns of oxen. And withal they are rounded on both sides, and well timbered and hollowed out, and roomy, having by the gift of the poet a facile combination of all the opposite qualities, so desirable and so difficult in practice to unite. As yet there is no spur or ram, but round the solid stempost shrieks the wave, as the vessel is urged onward either by the mighty hands of heroes, or the god-sent breeze that follows aft. Nor is the vessel decked, except for a short space at bow and stern, where it had raised platforms. On the quarterdeck, so to speak, of the stern sat the great chiefs, whose warriors plied the oar, and there they laid their spears ready for use. There also was the standing place of the steersman who wielded the long paddle which served to guide the vessel. The thwarts which tied the vessel’s sides together (yokes or keys as they are called) served as benches for the oarsmen; those amidships had the heaviest and longest oars, so that they were places of honour reserved for the heaviest and strongest men, e.g. for Hercules and Ancæus in the Argo. Whether the ‘sevenfoot,’ to which Ajax retreats from the stern deck, when defending the Greek ships against the Trojans and hard pressed by them, be bench or stretcher, it gives us an idea of the breadth of the Homeric vessel at or near the place of the stroke oar. Long low galleys they must have been, with a middle plank running fore and aft, interrupted by the ‘tabernacle,’ in which the mast when hoisted was secured, having fore and back stays. The warriors were oarsmen, the oarsmen warriors. The smallest complement, as Thucydides observes, was fifty, the largest one hundred and twenty.

It is doubtful how far the Alexandrine poets can be relied upon as giving accurate information respecting details of ancient use. Yet we have many lifelike pictures and a great profusion of details, drawn no doubt from the ample stores of antiquarian knowledge which these laborious men of letters had at their service in the great Alexandrine library, and these go to fill up that which is lacking in the Homeric picture. And so when Apollonius the Rhodian paints for us such scenes as those of the building of the Argo, the launching, the detail of the crew, and the starting of the vessel, we cannot help feeling that they are described con amore, not of the sea, or of ships, or of rowing, but of the literary beauty of similar descriptions by earlier poets. In a word, they are at second hand. But better this than none at all.

ANCIENT BOAT DEPICTED ON VASE.

The ‘bireme,’ or two-banked vessel, does not appear in Homer. But, as we have seen, it was probably in existence before Homer’s time. If of Egyptian parentage, it was adapted for use on the Mediterranean waters by the shipwrights of Sidon or Tyre. It is a curious reflection that this remarkable evolution of banked vessels should, so far as we can judge, have occupied about two thousand years; the curve, if we may use the expression, of development rising to the highest point in the useless Tesseraconteres of Ptolemy, and after Actium declining to the dromons and biremes of the Byzantine Emperor Leo, and finally subsiding into the monocrota or one-banked vessels, the galleys of mediæval times.

The problem which taxed the ingenuity of those early shipwrights was briefly this, how to get greater means of propulsion by increasing the number of oars, without such increase in the length of the ship as would, by increased weight, neutralise the advantage and still further diminish that facility in turning which was of the greatest moment to the ancient war-vessel. Galleys with fifty oars on either side had already been constructed,[2] and all the speed that a hundred pairs of hands could give had been obtained, when the invention of the bireme exhibited the means of nearly doubling the power without much increasing the weight to be moved, since but little additional height or breadth was required.

[2] Perhaps even with a hundred, if έκατόζυγος is to be taken literally.

The normal adjustment of the horizontal space between the oarsmen was then, as it is now, regulated by that canon of the ancient philosopher, ‘Man is the measure of all things.’ Twice the man’s cubit gives room for his legs when in a sitting posture. Hence the two-cubit standard (σχ̅ημα ’διπηχαϊκόν) which is referred to by Vitruvius as the basis of proportion in other constructions besides ships and boats. Given this as the interscalmium (space between the thowls) or distance between points at which the oars in the same tier were rowed, it is clear that the rowing space of a vessel’s side would be, for a penteconter, or twenty-five a side, seventy-five feet, and for a hecatonter, if there ever was such a thing, 150 feet. To this must be added the parts outside the oarage space (παρεξειρεσία), for the bows ten feet, and something more, say twelve feet, for the stern. So that a penteconter would be a long low galley of about ninety-seven feet in length. The new invention nearly doubled the number of oars without increasing the length of the oarage space.

It was found that by making apertures in the vessel’s sides at about three feet from the water and dividing the space between the (zyga) thwarts, room could be made for a second row of men with shorter oars, but still handy and able to add to the propulsion of the vessel. For these seats were found in the hold (thalamus), and hence while the upper tier of the bireme took their name from the zyga, benches or thwarts, and were called ‘Zygites,’ the men of the lower tier were called ‘Thalamites.’ These names were continued when the invention of the ‘thranos,’ or upper seat, had added a third or upper tier with longer oars to the system, and so introduced the trireme. If the number of the zygites in the penteconter was twenty-five a side, and the first bireme was a converted vessel of that class, the number of thalamites, owing to the contraction of the bow and the stern, would necessarily be two or three a side less. Thus we may consider a converted penteconter to have been capable of carrying a rowing crew of between 90 and 100 men. Similarly a triaconter would have been capable of adding nearly twenty pairs of arms to her propelling power. When, in consequence of the new invention, vessels were expressly built as triremes, we may imagine that for convenience’ sake the benches or zyga would be a little raised, so as to give more room for the raised seat of the thalamites that was fastened on to the floor of the vessel.

The narrowness of the vessels affected the disposition of the rowers in the Greek galleys in a peculiar way. It is evident from the testimony of the ancients that they adhered strictly to the principle of ‘one man to each oar.’ The arrangement seen in mediæval galleys was absolutely unknown to them, and would not have suited them. It belongs to a different epoch and a different order of things, when the invention of the ‘apostis’ had made the use of large sweeps rowed by two or three men possible, and a vessel with sets of three rowing upon the same horizontal plane might be called a trireme, though utterly unlike the ancient vessel of that name.

In the ancient vessel the tiers of oarsmen must have sat in nearly the same vertical plane, obliquely arranged, one behind and below the other. Thus in the bireme the zygite, as he sat on his bench, had behind him and below him his thalamite whose head was about 18 inches behind the zygite thwart and a little above it. Moreover, as his seat was now a little raised, the zygite required an appui for his feet, which was formed for him on the bench on which the thalamite next below and in front of him was sitting; on either side of him his feet found a resting-place. As the zygite fell back during the stroke and straightened his knees, there was plenty of room for the thalamite below to throw his weight also on to his oar. There seems to have been but little forward motion of the body. The arms were stretched out smartly for the recovery, as we learn from Charon’s instructions to Dionysus in the ‘Frogs’ of Aristophanes, and then a driving smiting stroke was given (cf. the words έλαύνειν, παίειν, άναρρίπτειν ̔άλα πηδῷ) and the brine tossed up by the blade.

When once the principle had been established, by which additional power could be gained without increasing the length of the vessel, and had been tested by practical experience, its development was sure to follow. What century witnessed the birth of the trireme is not certain, but probably by 800 b.c. the earliest vessels of this description had been launched. The quick-witted sharp-eyed Greek was not slow to copy, and by the beginning of the next century the busy shipwrights of Corinth were building the new craft for Samians as well as for themselves.

It is, however, in the Attic trireme such as composed the fleets of Phormio and Conon that historical interest has centred, and though quinqueremes were commonly in use in the second and third centuries, b.c., and even still larger rates of war vessels constructed till they were inhabilis prope magnitudinis, unwieldy leviathans, such as the sixteen-banked flagship of Demetrius Poliorcetes, yet the interest in the trireme has never failed, and the splendour of its achievements has insured to it an attention on the part of the learned which no other class of vessel has been able to attract to itself. The problem of construction of the trireme, and of the method of its propulsion, has exercised the ingenuity of scholars ever since the revival of letters. It has a literature of its own, and it may fairly be said that if the enigma has not been solved, it is not for want of industry or acumen.

One point we may as well make clear at once, viz., that whatever was the vessel the ancients invariably went upon the principle, One man, one oar. Volumes have been wasted in attempts to prove that the arrangement of the ancient galleys with respect to propulsion were identical with, or very similar to, those of the mediæval galleys of Genoa or Venice. But the mediæval galleys were essentially monocrota, or one-banked vessels, though they may have been double-banked or treble-banked in the sense that two or three men were employed upon one oar.

BAS-RELIEF OF ANCIENT GREEK ROWING BOAT.

Another distinction that it is necessary to note with reference to the ancient galleys is that they were called Aphract or Kataphract according as the upper tier of rowers was unprotected and exposed to view, or fenced in by a bulwark stout enough to protect them from the enemy’s missiles. The system of side planking is observable as already adopted in some of the Egyptian vessels, though of the Greeks the Thasians are credited with the invention.

In the year 1834, during the process of excavating some ground for new public buildings in the Piræus near Athens, some engraved stone slabs were found built up in a low wall which had been uncovered. These were happily preserved and deciphered, and were found to be records of the dockyard authorities of the Athenian admiralty in the second and third centuries before Christ. Many interesting details were thus brought to light which were set in order by the illustrious scholar Boeckh in his volume entitled ‘Urkunden über das Seewesen des attischen Staates.’ His pupil Dr. Graser has carried on his researches by the examination of innumerable coins, vases, etc., and has rescued the subject from much of the obscurity which enveloped it. The following description of the trireme, based upon his labours, is quoted, by permission, from the new edition of the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ vol. xxi. pp. 806, 807.

In describing the trireme it will be convenient to deal first with the disposition of the rowers and subsequently with the construction of the vessel itself. The object of arranging the oars in banks was to economise horizontal space and to obtain an increase in the number of oars without having to lengthen the vessel. We know from Vitruvius that the ‘interscalmium,’ or space horizontally measured from oar to oar, was two cubits. This is exactly borne out by the proportions of an Attic aphract trireme, as shown on a fragment of a bas-relief found in the Acropolis. The rowers in all classes of banked vessels sat in the same vertical plane, the seats ascending in a line obliquely towards the stern of the vessel. Thus in a trireme the thranite, or oarsman of the highest bank, was nearest the stern of the set of three to which he belonged. Next behind him and somewhat below him sat his zygite, or oarsman of the second bank; and next below and behind the zygite sat the thalamite, or oarsman of the lowest bank. The vertical distance between these seats was 2 feet, the horizontal distance about 1 foot. The horizontal distance, it is well to repeat, between each seat in the same bank was 3 feet (the seat itself about 9 inches broad). Each man had a resting-place for his feet, somewhat wide apart, fixed to the bench of the man on the row next below and in front of him. In rowing, the upper hand, as is shown in most of the representations which remain, was held with the palm turned inwards towards the body. This is accounted for by the angle at which the oar was worked. The lowest rank used the shortest oars, and the difference of the length of the oars on board was caused by the curvature of the ship’s side. Thus, looked at from within, the rowers amidship seemed to be using the longest oars, but outside the vessel, as we are expressly told, all the oar-blades of the same bank took the water in the same longitudinal line. The lowest or thalamite oar-ports were 3 feet, the zygite 4¹⁄₄ feet, the thranite 5¹⁄₂ feet above the water. Each oar-port was protected by an ascoma or leather bag, which fitted over the oar, closing the aperture against the wash of the sea without impeding the action of the oar. The oar was tied by a thong, against which it was probably rowed, which itself was attached to a thowl (σκαλμός). The port-hole was probably oval in shape (the Egyptian and Assyrian pictures show an oblong). We know that it was large enough for a man’s head to be thrust through it.

ANCIENT GALLEY FIGHT, FROM POMPEII.

The benches on which the rowers sat ran from the vessel’s side to timbers which, inclined at an angle of about 64° towards the ship’s stern, reached from the lower to the upper deck. These timbers were, according to Graser, called the diaphragmata. In the trireme each diaphragma supported three, in the quinquereme five, in the octireme eight, and in the famous tesseraconteres forty seats of rowers, who all belonged to the same ‘complexus,’ though each to a different bank. In effect, when once the principle of construction had been established in the trireme, the increase to larger rates was effected, so far as the motive power was concerned, by lengthening the diaphragmata upwards, while the increase in the length of the vessel gave a greater number of rowers to each bank. The upper tiers of oarsmen exceeded in number those below, as the contraction of the sides of the vessel left less available space towards the bows.

Of the length of the oars in the trireme we have an indication in the fact that the length of supernumerary oars (πηρινἐῳ) rowed from the gangway above the thranites, and therefore probably slightly exceeding the thranitic oars in length, is given in the Attic tables as 14 feet 3 inches. The thranites were probably about 14 feet. The zygite, in proportion to the measurement, must have been 10¹⁄₂, the thalamite 7¹⁄₂ feet long. Comparing modern oars with these, we find that the longest oars used in the British navy are 18 feet. The University race is rowed with oars 12 feet 9 inches. The proportion of the loom inboard was about one third, but the oars of the rowers amidship must have been somewhat longer inboard. The size of the loom inboard preserved the necessary equilibrium. The long oars of the larger rates were weighted inboard with lead. Thus the topmost oars of the tesseraconteres, of which the length was 53 feet, were exactly balanced at the rowlock.

The Attic trireme was built light for speed and for ramming purposes. Her dimensions, so far as we can gather them from the scattered notices of antiquity, were probably approximately as follows:—length of rowing space (ἔγκωπον), 93 feet; bows, 11 feet; stern, 14 feet; total, 118 feet; add 10 feet for the beak. The breadth at the water-line is calculated at 14 feet, and above at the broadest part 18 feet, exclusive of the gangways; the space between the diaphragmata mentioned above was 7 feet. The deck was 11 feet above the water-line, and the draught about 8 to 9 feet. All the Attic triremes appear to have been built upon the same model, and their gear was interchangeable. The Athenians had a peculiar system of girding the ships with long cables (ὑποζώματα), each trireme having two or more, which, passing through eyeholes in front of the stem-post, ran all round the vessel lengthwise immediately under the waling-pieces. They were fastened at the stern and tightened up with levers. These cables, by shrinking as soon as they were wet, tightened the whole fabric of the vessel, and in action, in all probability, relieved the hull from part of the shock of ramming, the strain of which would be sustained by the waling-pieces convergent in the beaks. These rope-girdles are not to be confused with the process of undergirding or frapping, such as is narrated of the vessel in which St. Paul was being carried to Italy. The trireme appears to have had three masts. The mainmast carried square sails, probably two in number. The foremast and the mizen carried lateen sails. In action the Greeks did not use sails, and everything that could be lowered was stowed below. The mainmasts and larger sails were often left ashore if a conflict was expected.

The crew of the Attic trireme consisted of from 200 to 225 men in all. Of these 174 were rowers—54 on the lower bank (thalamites), 58 on the middle bank (zygites), and 62 on the upper bank (thranites),—the upper oars being more numerous because of the contraction of the space available for the lower tiers near the bow and stern. Besides the rowers were about 10 marines (ἐπιβάται) and 20 seamen. The officers were the trierarch and next to him the helmsman (κυβερνήτης), who was the navigating officer of the trireme. Each tier of rowers had its captain (στοιχαρχός). There were also the captain of the forecastle (πρωρηύς), the ‘keleustes’ who gave the time to the rowers, and the ship’s piper (τριηραυλής). The rowers descended into the seven-foot space between the diaphragmata and took their places in regular order, beginning with the thalamites. The economy of space was such that, as Cicero remarks, there was not room for one man more.

Such, we may believe, was the trireme of the palmy days of Athens. Built for speed, it was necessarily light and handy, and easily turned, so that the formidable beak could be plunged into the enemy’s side, the moment a chance was given. But it required sea room for its manœuvres, and in a narrow strait or land-locked harbour, such as that of Syracuse, was no match for the solid balks of timber with which Corinthian and Syracusan shipwrights strengthened the bows of their vessels. Against these the pride of Athens was hurled in vain, only to find itself broken up and rendered unseaworthy by the crash of its own ram.

With the defeat of Athens comes in the fashion of larger vessels with more banks of oars, quadriremes, quinqueremes, and so on up to sixteen banks, when the increase of the motive power had been more than overtaken by the increase in bulk and weight. The principles of construction in these larger vessels seem to have been the same as in the trireme. The space for each man was probably somewhat less, and the handles of the upper tiers of oars were weighted with lead, so as to give a balance at the thowl between the parts outboard and inboard.

A question difficult to solve has often been raised respecting the pace at which these ancient galleys could be propelled. If five-man power could be taken as equivalent to one-horse power, then for the propulsion of the trireme there would have been available about thirty-five horse power, but that would hardly give a very high rate of speed.

There is a passage in Xenophon[3] in which he speaks of a distance of about 150 nautical miles, from Byzantium to Heraclea, as possible for a trireme in a day, but a long day’s work. Assuming eighteen hours’ work out of the twenty-four, a speed of something over eight knots per hour would be required for this, which may perhaps seem excessive. Still we may believe that by a crew when fresh a pace not less than this could be achieved.

[3] Anab. vi. 42.

The Romans, though it may be inferred from treaties with Carthage and with Tarentum that they had some kind of fleet in the time even of the kings, yet did not apply themselves readily to maritime pursuits, and made no serious effort to become masters of the Mediterranean till the first Punic War. We hear then of their copying a quinquereme which had fallen into their hands by accident. A fleet was constructed in sixty days from the time that the trees were first cut down, and meantime crews were practised diligently in rowing on dry land in a framework of timber which represented the interior of the vessels that were building. This first essay at extemporising a fleet does not seem to have been very successful. But nothing daunted they persevered, and the second venture under the Admiral Duillius took with it to sea a new invention called the ‘corvus,’ a sort of boarding bridge by which, when it once fell on the enemy’s vessel, the Roman infantry soon found its way on to his deck, and made short work with the swarthy African crew. This revolutionised the maritime struggle, and gave unexpectedly the naval superiority to Rome. The large vessels of war (alta navium propugnacula) continued to be built until the time of Actium, when the light Liburnian galleys, which were biremes, were found to be more than a match for the leviathans, whose doom from that moment was sealed.

From that time, with the exception of the accounts of naumachiæ, there is very little of interest about galleys to be gathered. The coins and the paintings of Pompeii show us craft degenerating in type. The column of Trajan exhibits biremes as still in vogue. Later on there is a light thrown upon the subject by the Tactica of the Byzantine Emperor Leo about 800 a.d., who gives directions as to the building and composition of his fleet, which is to consist of biremes, or dromones as he calls them, and light galleys with one bank of oars.

From these latter eventually sprang the mediæval galley, which however differed from the ancient galley in the arrangement of its oars by the use of the ‘apostis,’ a projecting framework which took the place of the ancient ‘parodus,’ and upon which the thowls were placed, against which the long sweeps could be plied by two or three men attached to each. For full and accurate descriptions of these mediæval vessels the reader who has any curiosity on the subject should consult the ample works of M. Jal. His Archéologie Navale and Glossaire Nautique contain the fullest information as regards the build, and fittings, and crews of the mediæval galley. The sorrows and sufferings of ‘la Chiourme’ were enough to give rowing a bad name, as an employment too cruel even for slaves and fit to be reserved for criminals of the worst description.

It is in England, and in the hands of English free men and boys, that the oar has maintained an honourable name, as the instrument of a pastime healthy and vigorous, with a record not inglorious of struggles in which the strength and skill of the nation’s youth have contended for the pride of place and the joy of victory.

CHAPTER II.

THE RISE OF MODERN OARSMANSHIP.

HENLEY COURSE (BETWEEN RACES).

GENERAL.

Written records of rowing performances in the last century are but scarce. In 1715 Mr. Doggett, comedian, founded a race which has survived to the present day—to wit, ‘Doggett’s coat and badge’ (of freedom of the river). ‘Watermen’ have to serve as ‘apprentices’ for seven years, during which time they may not ply for hire on their own account, but only on behalf of their masters. When they have served their time they can become ‘free’ of the river, on payment of certain fees to the Corporation.

In order to encourage good oarsmanship, prizes which paid the fees for freedom, and bestowed a ‘coat and badge’ of merit, have often been given by patrons of aquatics. Doggett’s prize is the oldest of its class, and of all established races. The contest used to be from London Bridge to Chelsea against the ebb—a severe test of stamina; and formerly six only of the many applicants for competition were allowed to row, being selected by lot. The race is now reformed. It is managed by the Fishmongers’ Company. The course is changed, so far that it is now rowed on the flood. This makes it fairer; on the ebb, it is hard to pass a leader who hugs the shore in the slack tide. ‘Trial heats’ are now rowed, to weed off competitors till the old standard number of six only are left in. Authentic records of the race exist since 1791.

Mr. Brickwood, who has taken much pains to look up old accounts, informs us in his ‘Boat Racing’ that the Westminster ‘water ledger,’ dating June 1813, is the earliest authentic record of Thames aquatics of this century. We venture to give the result of Mr. Brickwood’s researches in his own words:—

This book commences in the year 1813 with a single list of the six-oared boat ‘Fly,’ viz., Messrs. H. Parry, E. O. Cleaver, E. Parry, W. Markham, W. F. de Ros, G. Randolph. The ‘Fly’ continued to be the only boat of this school down to 1816 inclusive, in which latter year it ‘beat the Temple six-oared boat (Mr. Church stroke), in a race from Johnson’s dock to Westminster Bridge, by half a boat; the latter men having been beat before;’ to which is added a note that the Temple boat ‘requested the K. S. to row this short distance, having been completely beat by them in a longer row the same evening.’ In 1817 there was a six-oar built for Westminster, called the ‘Defiance,’ and ‘sheepskin seats were introduced.’ In 1818, the ‘Westminster were challenged by the Etonians,’ and a six-oared crew was in course of preparation for the race, but the contest was prohibited. In 1819 an eight-oar called the ‘Victory’ was launched, but the six-oar ‘Defiance’ appears to have been the representative crew of the school, for there is a note that in the spring of 1821 ‘the boat improved considerably and beat the “Eagle” in a short pull from Battersea to Putney Bridge.’ In 1823 a new six-oared cutter was built, and the name of ‘Queen Bess’ given in honour of the illustrious foundress. In 1823 this boat was started from the Horseferry at half past five in the morning, and reached Chertsey bridge by three o’clock. On their way back they dined at Walton, and again reached the Horseferry by a quarter before nine. The crew of the eight-oar ‘Victory’ in the same year ‘distinguished themselves in the Temple race and several others.’ A new eight called the ‘Challenge’ was launched in 1824, and the record says this boat did beat every boat that it came alongside of, as also did the ‘Victory.’ And again in April 13, 1825, this boat (‘Challenge’) started from the Horseferry at four minutes past three in the morning, reached Sunbury to breakfast at half past seven, and having taken luncheon at the London Stairs, just above Staines, went through Windsor bridge by two o’clock in the afternoon. After having seen Eton, the crew returned to Staines to dinner, and ultimately arrived at the Horseferry, having performed this distance in twenty-one hours. The locks detained them full three hours, and, including all stoppages, they were detained seven hours. A waterman of the name of Ellis steered the boat in this excursion, and both steered and conducted himself remarkably well.

Such are some of the early Westminster School annals, as collated by Mr. Brickwood. One cannot help feeling that if these long journeys were samples of the school aquatics, it is not to be wondered that parents and guardians of old days imbibed prejudices against rowing, and considered it injurious both to health and to study.

In the following decade there seem to have been plenty of aquatics current. The ‘Bell’s Life’ files of those days teem with aquatic notes. One day we read (dated May 26, 1834) a self-exculpatory letter from Dr. Williamson, head-master of Westminster School, explaining why he did not approve of his scholars rowing a match against Eton, and complaining of the ‘intemperance and excesses which such matches lead to.’

On July 3, says ‘Bell’ of July 6 in that year, a match was rowed between a randan (Campbell, Moulton, and Godfrey) and a four-oar (Harris, Eld, Butcher, and Dodd, Cole cox.)—from Putney to Westminster. The randan were favourites, and led; but Moulton fainted, and the four won. The race was for a purse of 70l.—50l. for winners and 20l. for losers. In the same paper, Williams challenges Campbell to a match—apparently for the incipient title of Champion of the Thames. Williams wishes Campbell to stake 40l. to 30l., because he is six years the younger. Compare the modesty of these stakes with those for which modern champion, and some less important matches, are rowed!

METHOD OF STARTING THE COLLEGE EIGHTS PRIOR TO 1825—OXFORD

‘Lyons House’ seems to have been a sort of resort for amateurs. Cole, who steered the waterman’s four ([supra]) v. the randan, is described as the waterman of those rooms.

On July 8, same year, a Mr. Kemp, of the 3rd Dragoon Guards, matches himself for a large stake to ‘row his own boat’ from Hampton Court to Westminster and back in nine hours. Time is favourite, but Mr. Kemp wins by 27 minutes, having met the tide for several miles of his voyage. Such are a few samples of the current style of aquatic sports between 1830 and 1840.

The ‘Wingfield Sculls’ were founded in 1830, given by the donor, whose name they bear, to be held as a challenge prize by the best sculler of the day from Westminster to Putney, against all comers, on the ‘4th of August for ever’—so a silver plate in the lid of the old box which holds the silver sculls bears testimony. Since its foundation the prize has been more than once placed on a different footing. Parliaments of old champions and competitors for the prize have been summoned, and the original donor gave assent to the changes of course and régime. Lists of winners and competitors from year to year, with notes as to the course rowed, will be found in ‘[Tables]’ later on. The race has from its earliest years been described by amateurs as equivalent of ‘amateur championship.’ A panoply of silver plates has grown up in and around the box which holds the trophy, and on these plates is recorded the name of each winner from year to year. About a quarter of a century ago a ‘champion badge’ was instituted. It consists of a small edition of the Diamond Sculls (Henley) challenge prize; as to shape, it is a pair of silver sculls crossed with an enamel wreath and mounted on a ribbon like a ‘decoration’ or ‘order.’ There is a ‘clasp’ for the year of winning. A second win only adds a fresh clasp with date, but no second badge. The secretary of the ‘order’ is Mr. E. D. Brickwood, himself winner of the title in 1861.

UNIVERSITY TRAINING.

Eight-oars had been manned at Eton before they found their way to Oxford. At Cambridge they appeared still later. At both Universities a plurality of eight-oars clubs had existed for some seasons before the first University match—1829.

In 1881, at the time when the ‘Jubilee’ dinner of University boat-racing was held, the writer took the opportunity of the presence in London of the Rev. T. Staniforth, the stroke of the first winning University eight, to inquire from him his recollections of college boat-racing in his undergraduate days.

Fortunately for posterity, Mr. Staniforth had kept a diary during his Oxford career, and it had noted many a fact connected with aquatics. He kindly undertook to bring to London at his next visit his diaries of Oxford days. He met the writer, searched his diaries, and out of them recorded history which was taken down from his lips, and reduced to the following article, which appeared in ‘Land and Water’ of December 17, 1881.[4] It is now reproduced verbatim, by leave. The writer regrets to say that, from various causes, he has been unable to pursue his researches beyond the dates when Mr. Staniforth’s diaries cease to record Oxford aquatics.

[4] See [Appendix].

There must be many an old oarsman still alive who can recall historical facts between 1830 and 1836, and it is hoped that such memories may be reduced to writing for the benefit of posterity, and for the honour of the oarsmen of those years, before tempus edax rerum makes it too late.

The writer considers that he will do better thus to reproduce verbatim his own former contribution to ‘Land and Water’ than to paraphrase it. The more so because much of the text of it is actually the ἔπεα πτερόεντα of the old Oxford stroke, taken down as uttered from his lips to the writer, and read over again to him for emendation or other alteration, before the interview in question was concluded. It may be added that Mr. Staniforth kindly showed to the writer the actual text of the diaries referred to, from which he refreshed his memory and recorded the appended history.

As to the intermediate history between 1830 and 1837, in which year the Brasenose boating record opens (two seasons before an O.U.B.C. was founded), Christ Church started head in 1837; therefore, apparently, they finished head in 1836.

OXFORD BOAT IN 1829.

Mr. Brickwood, in his book on ‘Boat Racing,’ has collected some history of these years, but unfortunately he does not record the source, so that what might be a tree of knowledge for inquirers to pluck more from seems to be sealed against our curiosity. We have, however, to thank him for the following information, which we reproduce (page 157 of ‘Boat Racing’):—

1833.—Queen’s College is chronicled as head of the river at Oxford this being the only record between 1825 and 1834. Christ Church, it is true, was said to have kept that position for many years, but the precise number is not given. However, there seems no doubt that Christ Church was head in 1834, 1835, and 1836, after which the official record commences.

Mr. Brickwood, moreover, seems to have gleaned from some independent source sundry valuable details of early Oxford races. He tells us that ‘the first known races were those of the college eights in 1815, when Brasenose was the head boat, and their chief and perhaps their only opponent was Jesus.’ He speaks of four-oared races in the next ensuing years, and of a match between Mr. de Ros’ four and a pair manned by a B.N.C. man and a waterman—won by the pair. Then comes some information as to the years 1822, 1824, and 1825, which exactly tallies with Mr. Staniforth’s journals, save that Mr. Brickwood ascribes the discontinuance of the races in 1823 directly to the recorded quarrel between B.N.C. and Jesus; whereas Mr. Staniforth attributes it to the untimely death of Musgrave ([supra]).

The first University race took place in 1829, over the course from Hambledon Lock to Henley. Mr. Staniforth states that till the Oxford went to practise over the course, no one thought of steering an eight through the Berks channel, past ‘regatta’ island. However, the Oxonians ‘timed’ the two straits, and decided to select the Berks one, if they got the chance. They took that channel in the race and won easily. A foul occurred in the first essay at starting, and the boats were restarted. This pair of pioneer University crews produced men of more than usual celebrity in after life: two embryo bishops, three deans, one prebendary, and divers others hereafter

In hamlet and hall
As well known to all
As the vane of the old church spire.

The full list of the crews engaged in this and in all other contests in which Universities were represented, will be found in ‘[Tables]’ towards the end of this volume. At this time there was no O.U.B.C., nor did such an organisation exist until 1839, when a ‘meeting of strokes’ of the various colleges was convened, and a generally representative club was founded. At Cambridge a U.B.C. had existed since 1827. In that year the system of college eights seems to have been instituted, according to the testimony of Dr. Merivale, still Dean of Ely, and a member of the C.U.B.C. crew of 1829. Trinity were head of the river on that occasion, and there seems to have been also a Westminster club, of an independent nature in Trinity. The records of college racing at Cambridge seem to be unbroken since their institution; whereas those of Oxford were for many years unofficial and without central organisation, and consequently without official record, until 1839. The Brasenose Club record dates from 1837.

BUMPING RACES (OLD STYLE).

The next occasion in which a University eight figured was in a match which somehow seems to have slipped out of public memory, though it occurred several years later than the first match between the Universities. The writer was talking to old George West, the well-known Oxford waterman, in 1882, at the L.R.C. boat-house, while waiting for the practice of the U.B.C. crews of that year. Casually old George remarked, ‘I steered a University eight once, sir.’ The writer looked incredulous. ‘Yes, against Leander—Leander won,’ quoth George. The writer had known West since his school days, and had heard him recapitulate his aquatic memories times out of mind, but never till that hour had he heard any allusion to this Leander match. Only the year before, the ‘Jubilee’ dinner of old Blues had taken place, and all who had ever been known to have represented their University in a match or regatta were asked to join in the celebration. At that date not one of the executive had any inkling of this match, although one of the Oxford crew, the present Bishop of Norwich, could certainly have been found at an hour’s notice. Letters from old oarsmen, who had not actually rowed for the flag (often because there was no match during their career), used to pour in while the jubilee feast was in preparation, asking for admittance to it. None of this Oxford crew seem to have put in any claim. A slight, though an unintentional one, was thus perpetrated upon all of them, whether alive or dead, by the omission to record them as old Blues on that occasion. When the writer compiled the history of ‘Old Blues and their Battles,’ which Mr. G. T. Treherne incorporated in his book of ‘Record of the University Boat Race,’ and which was published soon after the jubilee, neither of these gentlemen was aware of this race. No speaker at the banquet seemed to remember or allude to it. Yet, on referring to old files of ‘Bell’s Life,’ record of this match is to be found. Since it was recorded in that journal, it seems to have been unnoticed in any print till now. Better late than never; the performers in it are now officially brought to light, and their names will be found in the [tables] of University oarsmen and their opponents, later on.

This match was for 200l. a side. Leander would row on no other terms, and insisted on having their own waterman to steer them, as they did in their later matches against Cambridge. This was the only Oxford University eight ever steered by a professional. Only one of the 1829 crew seems to have remained to do duty in this race. The Pelham referred to is now Bishop of Norwich. He used, before this, to row in the Christ Church eight behind Staniforth. The Waterford is the former marquis of that ilk, who lost his life later on through a fall when hunting. En passant, it may be mentioned that Bishop Selwyn (of C.U.B.C. crew 1829) and Pelham of Oxford 1834, each begat sons who rowed for their respective Universities: Selwyn, junr. 1864 and 1866; Pelham, junr. 1877 and 1878. The latter oarsman unfortunately lost his life in the Alps very shortly afterwards. J. R. Selwyn has succeeded his late father as a colonial bishop. Inasmuch as we here record, for the first time for two generations, a lost chapter of University Boat Racing, we think it will be of interest to append the account given, in ‘Bell’s Life’ of that day, of this forgotten match.

Eight-Oared Match—London and the Oxford Amateurs for £200.[5]

[5] Bell’s Life, Sunday, June 26, 1831.

This interesting match was decided on Saturday week at Henley Reach. The Trinity boat, built by Archer of Lambeth, proved successful on a former occasion when opposed to the Oxonians, was, we understand, again selected by them in the first instance, but they ultimately decided on rowing in a boat built by Searle, which they considered had been unjustly denounced ‘a rank bad un,’ simply on the score of the Cambridge gentlemen and the Westminster Scholars having lost their matches in her—the former against Oxford, and the latter against the Etonians.

The gentlemen of Oxford selected a large but peculiarly light eight belonging to Mr. Davis of Oxford. On Friday the London gentlemen left town for Henley, and took up their quarters at the Red Lion. Noulton of Lambeth was selected to steer them. Although Oxford were favourites on the match being first concocted, it was with difficulty that a bet could be made on the Londoners on the last two days, and then only at 6 to 4 against Oxford.

At about 6.30 the contending parties arrived in their cutters near the lock, to row from thence against the stream to Henley Bridge, which is reckoned two and a quarter miles.

The names of the respective parties and their stations in the cutters were as follows:

London—Bishop (stroke), Captain Shaw, J. Bayford, Lewis, Cannon, Weedon, Revell, Hornemann.

Oxford—Copplestone (stroke), Lloyd, Barnes, Pelham, Peard, Marsh, Marquis of Waterford, Carter. The latter was steered, we believe, by a boy belonging to the lock.

Mr. Hume and Mr. Bayford were appointed umpires on part of the London gentlemen, and Mr. Lloyd and another gentleman on the side of Oxford.

The Oxford gentlemen won the toss and took the inside station. The umpires having a second time asked if all was ready, receiving an answer in the affirmative, gave the signal. In less than a dozen seconds the London gentlemen almost astounded their opponents by going about a boat’s length in advance, so rapid were their strokes when compared with those of Oxford. The Oxford gentlemen soon recovered. Before half the distance had been rowed London were two lengths in advance. The Oxonians, finding they were losing ground, made a desperate effort and succeeded in coming within a painter’s length. On nearing the goal the exertions of each party were increasing. One London gentleman (Captain Shaw) seemed so much exhausted, that it was feared he would not hold out the remaining distance. Noulton, seeing this and fearing the consequence, observing the Oxford gentlemen fast approaching them, said that ‘if the Londoners did not give it her it would be all up with them.’ They did give it her, and the consequence was they became victorious by about two boats’ lengths. The distance was rowed in 11¹⁄₄ minutes.

The exertions at the conclusion of the contest became lamentably apparent. Captain Shaw nearly fainted and had to be carried ashore; Mr. Bayford was obliged to retire to bed instantly; so was also one of the Oxford gentlemen. The others were more or less exhausted.

The London gentlemen rowed to town on Tuesday, and were greeted on their way with cheering and cannon. On arriving at Searle’s a feu-de-joie was fired.

Note.—Of the various performers in this Oxford crew, the following notices of the after career of some may be of interest. Messrs. Copplestone and Pelham rose to adorn the episcopate. Mr. Peard became known to fame as ‘Garibaldi’s Englishman,’ and played an important part in the cause of the liberation of Italy.

There had been a second University match in 1836, this time from Westminster to Putney (see [Tables]). No official record exists of this. It is said that ‘light blue’ was on this occasion first adopted by Cambridge. Certainly in 1829 the Cantab crew wore pink, while Oxford sported blue. The late Mr. R. M. Phillips, of Christ’s, used to tell the writer that he it was who fortuitously founded light blue on this occasion. He was on the raft at Searle’s when the Cantab crew were preparing to start (either for the race or for a day’s practice) the race so far as recollection of Mr. Phillips’ narrative serves the writer. One of the crew said, ‘We have no colours.’ Mr. Phillips ran off to buy some ribbon in Stangate. An old Etonian accompanied him, and suggested ‘Eton ribbon for luck.’ It was bought, it came in first, and was adhered to in later years by Cambridge.

A COLLEGE PAIR.

In 1837 the head college crews of the two Universities rowed a match at Henley. The Brasenose book says, Christ Church were head, but took off because their Dean objected to their rowing at Henley; the effect of their ‘taking off’ was to leave Queen’s College, on whom the representation of the college crews would devolve, with the titular headship.

The B.N.C. book says, the Queen’s crew went, ‘as was usual,’ to row the head boat of Cambridge, and beat them easily. The latter statement is correct. Mr. Brickwood in his treatise demurs to the accuracy of the B.N.C. allegation that such matches were ‘usual,’ and research qualifies his scepticism. The B.N.C. hon. sec. of that day seems to have been drawing somewhat upon his imagination. He had probably heard of these various Leander and other matches at Henley in other years; hence his inference.

1837.

Henley. College match.

The names of the Queen’s and St. John’s crews are here given, instead of recording them in the lists of University oars, for this was not strictly a University race, though in those days it had almost as much prestige as one.

In 1839 the third University match was rowed, and Henley Regatta was founded. At the Universities, about this date, various prizes were established, all of which gave a stimulus to oarsmanship.

Pair-oar races were established at Oxford in 1839. They were rowed with coxswains until 1847. At Cambridge similar pairs were founded in 1844, and were rowed from the first without coxswains. The obsolete rudder of the Oxford pairs is now held by the coxswain of the head eight. The Colquhoun Sculls had been founded at Cambridge in 1837. ‘University Sculls’ were instituted at Oxford in 1841. Four-oar races, each crew to be from one college, were founded at Oxford in 1840, and at Cambridge in 1849. Thus, by the latter year, each U.B.C. had its set of contests for all classes of craft—eights, fours, pairs, and sculls. Lists of the winners of these various honours from year to year will be found [elsewhere] in this volume.

TOWING GUARD BOATS UP HENLEY REACH.

Aquatics may be said to have reached full swing with the completion of these institutions at the Universities. Matches between the Universities were propounded annually by one or other club from 1839, but time and place could not always be agreed upon, nor could ‘dons’ be always persuaded to allow men to row in such races. There was many a hitch in old days, from one cause or another. Since 1850 the U.B.C.’s have annually met each other in some shape or other at Henley, or in a match; since, and including, 1856 matches over the Putney course have been annual. Since 1859 neither University has put on at any regatta.

Various causes tended to stimulate rowing, e.g. regattas and also professional racing, which is dealt with separately under the head of ‘[Professionals].’ A perusal of the [tables of records] of Henley and other regattas will also show how competitions gradually increased in number, and also in the fields which they produced.

REGATTAS.

The institution of Henley Regatta in 1839 was the outcome of the various eight-oared matches which have been rowed on that part of the river during the ten years preceding. The regatta began with one prize only, the Grand Challenge Cup, a trophy which is unique for classical design, and which is to this day the ‘blue ribbon’ for amateur clubs. The gradual growth of Henley may be traced by perusal of a leading article contributed by the writer of this chapter to the ‘Field,’ in the July of 1886, on the eve of the greatest change which the regatta has undergone, that of alteration of the course. The article is now reproduced,[6] through the courtesy of the proprietors of that journal.

[6] See [Appendix].

The new course, as compared with the old one, will best be understood by reference to the map of the reach, which appears elsewhere. The change has had only two trials, those of 1886 and 1887, but it may be said that so far rowing clubs which frequent Henley are unanimous in approving of the alteration; and so are all retired oarsmen, whose personal experience of the regatta was under the old régime.

STARTING THE EIGHTS—OLD COURSE, HENLEY.

The old course was very one-sided. In the middle third of a mile—on a stormy day—with a stiff wind from W. or S.W., the shelter of the Bucks bushes—especially before house-boats and steam launches multiplied and monopolised the frontage of the Bucks and Oxon shores—used to reverse entirely the advantage otherwise pertaining to the Berks stations. On such a day the Berks station placed most boats hopelessly out of the race, unless they could keep within a length of the Bucks boat till the ‘point’ was reached—in which case the poplar corner made a pretty counterpoise to the advantage of Bucks shelter, and caused some interesting finishes. Under the new régime not more than two boats can row in one heat; and as the course is now staked out, and neither competitor can hug the bank, the difference between windward and leeward stations, even when hereafter a gale shall blow, will no longer be so glaring as of old.

PAIR-OAR.

The Universities no longer compete at Henley. In these days of keelless boats more practice is needed, in order to do justice to the craft, than when heavier and steadier craft were used. It is found to be impossible to collect all the eight best men of either U.B.C. twice in one year. Examination and other causes reduce the ranks more or less; and, as the annual Putney match between the Universities is considered by them to be of more importance than any other contest, they devote their best energies to that, and leave minor sections of either U.B.C. to fight Henley battles. It is found that a good college eight, or a club crew of which some one college forms a nucleus, can be got together better, in the limited time available for practice for the regatta, than eight better men who probably cannot find time to practise all together for more than a week, and who will further, for the same reason, be short of condition.

Till 1856, it was the custom for the U.B.C.’s, if they could not agree as to time and place for a match, to assent to meet each other in the Grand Challenge; and such meetings ranked practically as University matches. Records of these rencontres of the U.B.C.’s will be found in [tables] at the end of this volume, together with a history of Henley past and future.

The ‘Seven-oar episode’ of 1843 was not a University match or meeting. The O.U.B.C. were entered at Henley; Cambridge were represented by the ‘Cambridge Rooms;’ but the C.U.B.C. was not officially represented by that crew. Just before the final heat, the Oxford stroke fainted, and the Cambridge reasonably objected to the introduction of a substitute. The Oxonians then decided to row with seven oars. They had a wind abeam, favouring the side which was manned by only three oars. They eventually won by a length, or thereabouts.

In 1843 the Thames Regatta was started, and greatly supplemented the attractions of Henley. The mistake of this regatta was the rule which made challenge prizes the permanent property of any crew which could win them thrice in succession. By this means the Gold Cup for eights, the pièce de résistance of the regatta, passed in 1848 to the possession of the ‘Thames’ Club. The regatta lingered on one year longer, shorn of its chief glory, and then died out.

Records of the winners of the chief prizes at it, amateurs as well as professionals, will be found in ‘[Tables].’

In 1854 a new Thames regatta, called the ‘National,’ was founded. It was supported by the ‘Thames Subscription Club,’ and died with that club in 1866. In the last year of its existence it introduced amateur prizes as well as the usual bonuses for professionals. In 1866 a very important regatta was founded—the Metropolitan. Its founders expected it to eclipse Henley, by dint of offers of more valuable prizes, but it never took the fancy of the University element, and for want of the wider-spread competition which strong entries from the U.B.C.’s would have produced, it never attained the prestige of Henley. Still the honours of winning eights, fours, pairs, or sculls at it rank, in amateur estimation, second only to Henley. Barnes Regatta is of very old standing. The tideway is always a drawback to scenery, but Barnes always used to produce good audiences and good competitors. Its chief patrons were tideway clubs and the Kingston Rowing Club.

GONDOLA.

Walton-on-Thames flourished in the ‘sixties.’ It has now died out. It was as a picnic second only to Henley. The course was rather one-sided, and hardly long enough to test stamina.

Molesey Regatta, of less than ten years’ growth, now holds much the same station in aquatics that Walton-on-Thames once claimed. It draws its sinews of war from much the same up-river locality that used to feed Walton.

Kingston-on-Thames has a longer history than any regatta except Henley. Its fortunes hang on the Kingston Rowing Club, but it is well patronised by tideway clubs.

Regattas have for a season or two been known at Staines and Chertsey, but they depended on some one or two local men of energy, and, when this support failed, they died out.

Reading has a good reach, and has of late come to the fore with a good meeting and a handsome challenge cup.

To return to watermen’s regattas. The late Mr. J. G. Chambers, and a strong gathering of amateur allies of his, revived a second series of Thames regattas in 1868; these meetings were confined to watermen and other professionals, whose doings are scheduled in ‘[Tables]’ hereafter. How the second series of Thames National regattas followed the fate of series No. 1, and of the ‘Royal Thames Regatta’ before that, will be found in the chapter on [professional rowing]. The so-called ‘International’ Regatta lived but two years, and fell through so soon as its mercenary promoters came to the conclusion that they could not see their way to harvest filthy lucre out of it.

There used to be a well-attended regatta at Talkintarn, in the Lake district. It died out from causes similar to those which led to the collapse of the ‘Royal’ Thames regattas, i.e. the dedication of its prizes to those who could win them a certain number of times consecutively. The Messrs. Brickwood thus became the absolute owners of the chief prize for pairs, and a Tyne crew became the proprietors of the four-oar prize.

The Tyne, the Wear, Chester, Bedford, Tewkesbury, Worcester, Bridgnorth, Bath, and other provincial towns produce regattas, but none of them succeed in drawing many of the leading Thames clubs, and without these no regatta ever establishes even second-class prestige.

The rules of Henley Regatta are here appended. They serve to inform intending competitors of the code under which they will have to enter and to row, and they may also offer valuable hints to other regatta executives, present and future.

HENLEY ROYAL REGATTA.

Established 1839.

CONSTITUTION.

On May 16, 1885, at a meeting of the stewards, the following resolutions were agreed to:—

1. That the stewards of Henley Regatta shall constitute a council for the general control of the affairs of the regatta.

2. That the stewards shall elect a president, who shall, if present, take the chair at the general meetings.

3. That the chairman shall have a casting vote.

4. That not less than five shall form a quorum at the general meetings.

5. That two ordinary general meetings shall be held in each year, one in the month of May and another in the month of November.

6. That other general meetings shall be summoned by the secretary, when ordered by the president, or at the request of any two stewards, in writing, provided that not less than fourteen days’ notice shall be given of any such meeting.

7. That the stewards shall elect annually, at the meeting in November, from their own body, a committee of management.

8. That the number of the committee shall not exceed twelve, of whom not less than three shall form a quorum.

9. That the committee shall elect one of their own body to act as chairman.

10. That the committee be empowered to manage and exercise control over all matters connected with the regatta, excepting such as shall involve the alteration of any of the published rules of the regatta.

11. That the committee shall present a report, together with a statement of accounts, to the stewards, annually, at the November meeting in each year.

12. That meetings of the committee shall be summoned by the secretary when ordered by the chairman, or at the request of any two members of the committee, in writing, providing that not less than one week’s notice be given of any such meeting.

13. That the committee shall have power to make and publish by-laws respecting any matter connected with the management of the regatta, not already determined in the published rules.

14. That no alteration shall be made in any of the foregoing resolutions, or in any of the published rules of the regatta, except at a general meeting specially convened for that purpose, of which fourteen days’ notice shall be given, such notice to state the alterations proposed, and unless the alteration be carried by a majority of two-thirds at a meeting of not less than nine stewards.

QUALIFICATION RULES.

The Grand Challenge Cup,

FOR EIGHT-OARS.

Any crew of amateurs who are members of any University or Public School, or who are officers of her Majesty’s army or navy, or any amateur club established at least one year previous to the day of entry, shall be qualified to contend for this prize.

The Stewards’ Challenge Cup,

FOR FOUR-OARS.

The same as for the Grand Challenge Cup.

The Ladies’ Challenge Plate,

FOR EIGHT-OARS.

Any crew of amateurs who are members of any of the boat clubs of colleges, or non-collegiate boat clubs of the Universities, or boat clubs of any of the Public Schools, in the United Kingdom only, shall be qualified to contend for this prize; but no member of any college or non-collegiate crew shall be allowed to row for it who has exceeded four years from the date of his first commencing residence at the University; and each member of a Public School crew shall, at the time of entering, be bonâ fide a member ‘in statu pupillari’ of such school.

The Visitors’ Challenge Cup,

FOR FOUR-OARS.

The same as for the Ladies’ Challenge Plate.

The Thames Challenge Cup,

FOR EIGHT-OARS.

The qualification for this cup shall be the same as for the Grand Challenge Cup; but no one (coxswains excepted) may enter for this cup who has ever rowed in a winning crew for the Grand Challenge Cup or Stewards’ Challenge Cup; and no one (substitutes as per Rule 7 excepted) may enter, and no one shall row, for this cup and for the Grand Challenge Cup or Stewards’ Challenge Cup at the same regatta.

The Wyfold Challenge Cup,

FOR FOUR-OARS.

The qualification for this cup shall be the same as for the Stewards’ Challenge Cup; but no one shall enter for this cup who has ever rowed in a winning crew for the Stewards’ Challenge Cup; and no one (substitutes as per Rule 11 excepted) may enter, and no one shall row, for this cup and for the Stewards’ Challenge Cup at the same regatta.

The Silver Goblets,

FOR PAIR-OARS.

Open to all amateurs duly entered for the same according to the rules following.

The Diamond Challenge Sculls,

FOR SCULLS.

Open to all amateurs duly entered for the same according to the rules following.

GENERAL RULES.

Definition.—1. No person shall be considered an amateur oarsman, sculler, or coxswain—

(a) Who has ever taken part in any open competition for a stake, money, or entrance fee;

(b) Who has ever knowingly competed with or against a professional for any prize;

(c) Who has ever taught, pursued, or assisted in the practice of athletic exercises of any kind for profit;

(d) Who has ever been employed in or about boats, or in manual labour for money or wages;

(e) Who is or has been by trade or employment, for wages, a mechanic, artisan, or labourer, or engaged in any menial duty.

Eligibility.—2. No one shall be eligible to row or steer for a club unless he has been a member of that club for at least two months preceding the regatta, but this rule shall not apply to colleges, schools, or crews composed of officers of her Majesty’s army or navy.

Entries.—3. The entry of any amateur club, crew, or sculler, in the United Kingdom, must be made ten clear days before the regatta, and the names of the captain or secretary of each club or crew must accompany the entry. A copy of the list of entries shall be forwarded by the secretary of the regatta to the captain or secretary of each club or crew duly entered.

4. The entry of any crew or sculler, out of the United Kingdom, must be made on or before March 31, and any such entry must be accompanied by a declaration, made before a notary public, with regard to the profession of each person so entering, to the effect that he has never taken part in any open competition for a stake, money, or entrance fee; has never knowingly competed with nor against a professional for any prize; has never taught, pursued, or assisted in the practice of athletic exercises of any kind for profit; has never been employed in or about boats, or in manual labour for money or wages; is not, and never has been, by trade or employment, for wages, a mechanic, artisan, or labourer, or engaged in any menial duty; and in cases of the entry of a crew, that each member thereof is a member of a club duly established at least one year previous to the day of entry; and such declaration must be certified by the British Consul, or the Mayor, or the chief authority of the locality.

5. No assumed name shall be given to the secretary, unless accompanied by the real name of the competitor.

6. No one shall enter twice for the same race.