DECEMBER 1839–MAY 1840
It was probably about this time (1839) that
“The Marqués de Santa Coloma met Borrow again at Seville. He had
great difficulty in finding him out; though he was aware of the
street in which he resided, no one knew him by name. At last, by
dint of inquiry and description, some one exclaimed, ‘Oh! you mean el
Brujo’ (the wizard), and he was directed to the house. He was
admitted with great caution, and conducted through a lot of passages
and stairs, till at last he was ushered into a handsomely furnished
apartment in the ‘_mirador_,’ where Borrow was living _with his wife
and daughter_. . . It is evident . . . that, to his Spanish friends
at least, he thus called Mrs Clarke and her daughter Henrietta his
wife and daughter: and the Marqués de Santa Coloma evidently believed
that the young lady was Borrow’s _own_ daughter, and not his
step-daughter merely (!). At the time the roads from Seville to
Madrid were very unsafe. Santa Coloma wished Borrow to join his
party, who were going well armed. Borrow said he would be safe with
his Gypsies. Both arrived without accident in Madrid; the Marqués’s
party first. Borrow, on his arrival, told Santa Coloma that his
Gypsy chief had led him by by-paths and mountains; that they had not
slept in a village, nor seen a town the whole way.” {316}
It must be confessed that Mr Webster was none too reliable a witness, and
it seems highly improbable that Borrow would wish to pass Mrs Clarke off
as his wife before their marriage. The fact of their occupying the same
house may have seemed to their Spanish friends compromising, as it
unquestionably was; but had he spoken of Mrs Clarke as his wife, it would
have left her not a vestige of reputation.
On arriving at Madrid Borrow found that Lord Clarendon’s successor, Mr
Arthur Aston, had not yet arrived, he therefore presented his complaint
to the _Chargé d’Affaires_, the Hon. G. S. S. Jerningham, who had
succeeded Mr Sothern as private secretary. Mr Sothern had not yet left
Madrid to take up his new post as First Secretary at Lisbon, and
therefore presented Borrow to Mr Jerningham, by whom he was received with
great kindness. He assured Mr Jerningham that for some time past he had
given up distributing the Scriptures in Spain, and he merely claimed the
privileges of a British subject and the protection of his Government.
The First Secretary took up the case immediately, forwarding Borrow’s
letter to Don Perez de Castro with a request for “proper steps to be
taken, should Mr Borrow’s complaint . . . be considered by His Excellency
as properly founded.” Borrow himself was doubtful as to whether he would
obtain justice, “for I have against me,” he wrote to Mr Brandram (24th
December), “the Canons of Seville; and all the arts of villany which they
are so accustomed to practise will of course be used against me for the
purpose of screening the ruffian who is their instrument. . . . I have
been, my dear Sir, fighting with wild beasts.”
The rather quaint reply to Borrow’s charges was not forthcoming until he
had left Spain and was living at Oulton. It runs: {317}
MADRID, 11_th_ _May_ 1840.
SIR,
Under date of 20th December last, Mr Perez de Castro informed Mr
Jerningham that in order to answer satisfactorily his note of 8th
December _re_ complaint made by Borrow, he required a faithful report
to be made. These have been stated by the Municipality of Seville to
the Civil Governor of that City, and are as follows:—
“When Borrow meant to undertake his journey to Cadiz towards the end
of last year, he applied to the section of public security for his
Passport, for which purpose he ought to deliver his paper of
residence which was given to him when he arrived at Seville. That
paper he had not presented in its proper time to the _Alcalde_ of his
district, on which account this person had not been acquainted as he
ought with his residence in the district, and as his Passport could
not be issued in consequence of this document not being in order,
Borrow addressed, through the medium of a Servant, to the house of
the said district _Alcalde_ that the defect might be remedied. That
functionary refused to do so, founded on the reasons already stated;
and for the purpose of overcoming his resistance he was offered a
gratification, the Servant with that intent presenting half a dollar.
The _Alcalde_, justly indignant, left his house to make the necessary
complaint respecting their indecorous action when he met Borrow, who,
surprised at the refusal of the _Alcalde_, expressed to him his
astonishment, addressing insulting expressions not only against his
person but against the authorities of Spain, who, he said, he was
sure were to be bought at a very small price—crying on after this,
Long live the Constitution, Death to the Religion, and Long live
England. These and other insults gave rise to the _Alcalde_
proceeding to his arrest and the assistance of the armed force of
Veterans, and not of the National Militia, as Borrow supposed, making
a detailed report to the Constitutional _Alcalde_, who forwarded it
original to the Captain General of the Province as Judge Protector of
Foreigners, leaving him under detention at his disposition. He did
the same with another report transmitted by the said functionary, in
which reference to a Lady who lived at the Gate of Xerez; he
denounced Borrow as a seducer of youth in matters of Religion by
facilitating to them the perusal of prohibited books, of which a
copy, that was in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Governor, was
likewise transmitted to the Captain General. These antecedents were
sufficient to have authorised a summary to have been formed against
Borrow, but the repeated supplications of the British Vice-Consul, Mr
Williams, who among other things stated that Borrow laboured under
fits of madness, had the effect of causing the above Constitutional
_Alcalde_ to forgive him the fault committed and recommend to the
Captain General that the matter should be dropped, which was acceded
to, and he was put at liberty. The above facts, official proofs of
which exist in the Captain General’s Office, clearly disprove the
statement of Borrow, who ungrateful for the generous hospitality
which he has received, and for the consideration displayed towards
him on account of his infirmity, and out of deference to the request
of the British Vice-Consul, makes an unfounded complaint against the
very authorities who have used attentions towards him which he is
certainly not deserving; it being worthy of remark, in order to prove
the bad faith of his procedure, that in his own _exposé_, although he
disfigures facts at pleasure, using a language little decorous, he
confesses part of his faults, such as the offering of money _to pay_,
as he says, ‘_the legal or extra-legal dues that might be exacted_,
and his having twice challenged the _Alcalde_.’
“I should consider myself wanting towards your enlightened sense of
justice if, after the reasons given, I stopped to prove the just and
prudent conduct of Seville authorities.
“Hope he will therefore be completely satisfied, especially after the
want of exactitude on Borrow’s part.
From
EVARISTO PEREZ DE CASTRO.”
To Mr Aston. {319}
And so the matter ended. The Spanish authorities knew that they no
longer had a Sir George Villiers to deal with, and had recourse to that
trump card of weak and vacillating diplomatists—delay. Whatever Borrow’s
offence, the method of his arrest and imprisonment was in itself
unlawful.
It was Borrow’s intention on his return to England to endeavour to obtain
an interview with some members of the House of Lords, in order to
acquaint them with the manner in which Protestants were persecuted in
Spain. They were debarred from the exercise of their religion from being
married by Protestant rites, and the common privileges of burial were
denied them. He was anxious for Protestant England, lest it should fall
a victim to Popery. This fear of Rome was a very real one to Borrow. He
marvelled at people’s blindness to the danger that was threatening them,
and he even went so far as to entreat his friends at Earl Street “to drop
all petty dissensions and to comport themselves like brothers” against
their common enemy the Pope.
Unfortunately Borrow had shown to a number of friends one of his letters
to Mr Brandram dealing with the Seville imprisonment, and had even
allowed several copies of it to be taken “in order that an incorrect
account of the affair might not get abroad.” The result was an article
in a London newspaper containing remarks to the disparagement of other
workers for the Gospel in Spain. Borrow disavowed all knowledge of these
observations.
“I am not ashamed of the Methodists of Cadiz,” he assures Mr
Brandram, “their conduct in many respects does them honor, nor do I
accuse any one of fanaticism amongst our dear and worthy friends; but
I cannot answer for the tittle-tattle of Madrid. Far be it from me
to reflect upon any one, I am but too well aware of my own
multitudinous imperfections and follies.” {320}
There is nothing more mysterious in Borrow’s life than his years of
friendship with Mrs Clarke. He was never a woman’s man, but Mary Clarke
seems to have awakened in him a very sincere regard. The ménage at
Seville was a curious one, and both Borrow and Mrs Clarke should have
seen that it was calculated to make people talk. There may have been a
tacit understanding between them. Everything connected with their
relations and courtship is very mysterious. Dr Knapp is scarcely just to
Borrow or gracious to the woman he married, when he implies that it was
merely a business arrangement on both sides. Mrs Clarke’s affairs
required a man’s hand to administer them, and Borrow was prepared to give
the man’s hand in exchange for an income. The engagement could scarcely
have taken place in the middle of November 1839, as Dr Knapp states, for
on the day of his arrest at Seville (24th Nov.) Borrow wrote:—
MY DEAR MRS CLARKE,—Do not be alarmed, but I am at present in the
prison, to which place the _Alcalde_ del Barrio conducted me when I
asked him to sign the Passport. If Phelipe is not already gone to
the Consul, let Henrietta go now and show him this letter. When I
asked the fellow his motives for not signing the Passport, he said if
I did not go away he would carry me to prison. I dared him to do so,
as I had done nothing; whereupon he led me here.—Yours truly,
GEORGE BORROW.
This is obviously not the letter of a man recently engaged to the woman
who is to become his wife. On the other hand, Borrow may have been
writing merely for the Consul’s eye.
On hearing the news of the engagement old Mrs Borrow wrote:—
“I am not surprised, my dear Mrs Clarke, at what you tell me, though
I knew nothing of it. It put me in mind of the Revd. Flethers; you
know they took time to consider. So far all is well. I shall now
resign him to your care, and may you love and cherish him as much as
I have done. I hope and trust that each will try to make the other
happy. You will always have my prayers and best wishes. Give my
kind love to dear George and tell him he is never out of my thoughts.
I have much to say, but I cannot write. I shall be glad to see you
all safe and well. Give my love to Henrietta; tell her _I_ can sing
‘Gaily the Troubadour’; I only want the ‘guitar.’ {321} God bless you
all.”
There is no doubt that a very strong friendship had existed between Mrs
Clarke and Borrow during the whole time that he had been associated with
the Bible Society. She it was who had been indirectly responsible for
his introduction to Earl Street. It is idle to speculate what it was
that led Mrs Clarke to select Seville as the place to which to fly from
her enemies. There is, however, a marked significance in old Mrs
Borrow’s words, “I am not surprised, my dear Mrs Clarke, at what you tell
me.” Whatever his mother may have seen, there appears to have been no
thought of marriage in Borrow’s mind when, on 29th September 1839, he
wrote to Mr Brandram telling him of his wish to visit “China or
particular parts of Africa.”
Borrow paid many tributes to his wife, not only in his letters, but in
print, every one of which she seems thoroughly to have merited. “Of my
wife,” he writes, {322} “I will merely say that she is a perfect paragon
of wives—can make puddings and sweets and treacle posset, and is the best
woman of business in East Anglia.” On another occasion he praises her
for more general qualities, when he compares her to the good wife of the
Triad, the perfect woman endowed with all the feminine virtues. His wife
and “old Hen.” (Henrietta) were his “two loved ones,” and he subsequently
shows in a score of ways how much they had become part of his life.
After his return to Seville, early in January, Borrow proceeded to get
his “papers into some order.” There seems no doubt that this meant
preparing _The Zincali_ for publication. In the excitement and
enthusiasm of authorship, and the pleasant company of Mrs and Miss
Clarke, he seems to have been divinely unconscious that he was under
orders to proceed home. Week after week passed without news of their
Agent in Spain reaching Earl Street, and the Officials and Committee of
the Bible Society became troubled to account for his non-appearance. The
last letter from him had been received on 13th January. Early in March
Mr Jackson wrote to Mr Brackenbury asking for news of him. A letter to
Mr Williams at Seville was enclosed, which Mr Brackenbury had
discretionary powers to withhold if he were able to supply the
information himself. Two letters that Borrow had addressed to the
Society it appears had gone astray, and as “one steamer . . . arrived
after another and yet no news from Mr Borrow,” some apprehension began to
manifest itself lest misfortune had befallen him. On the other hand,
Borrow had heard nothing from the Society for five months, the long
silence making him “very, very unhappy.”
In reply to Mr Brandram’s letter Borrow wrote:—
“I did not return to England immediately after my departure from
Madrid for several reasons. First, there was my affair with the
_Alcalde_ still pending; second, I wished to get my papers into some
order; third, I wished to effect a little more in the cause, though
not in the way of distribution, as I have no books: moreover the
house in which I resided was paid for and I was unwilling altogether
to lose the money; I likewise dreaded an English winter, for I have
lately been subjected to attacks, whether of gout or rheumatism I
know not, which I believe were brought on by sitting, standing and
sleeping in damp places during my wanderings in Spain. The _Alcalde_
has lately been turned out of his situation, but I believe more on
account of his being a Carlist than for his behaviour to me; that,
however, is of little consequence, as I have long forgotten the
affair.” {323a}
There was no longer any reason for delay; the English winter was over, he
had one book nearly ready for publication and two others in a state of
forwardness.
“I embark on the third of next month [April],” he continued, “and you
will probably see me by the 16th. I wish very much to spend the
remaining years of my life in the northern parts of China, as I think
I have a call for those regions, and shall endeavour by every
honourable means to effect my purpose.” {323b}
These words would seem to imply that his marriage with Mrs Clarke was by
no means decided upon at the date he wrote, although during the previous
month he had been in correspondence with Mr Brackenbury regarding
Protestants in Spain being debarred from marrying. It is inconceivable
that Mrs Clarke and her daughter contemplated living in the North of
China; and equally unlikely that Mrs Clarke would marry a potential
“absentee landlord,” or one who frankly confessed “I hope yet to die in
the cause of my Redeemer.”
Sidi Habismilk had at first presented a grave problem; but Mr
Brackenbury, who secured the passages on the steamer, arranged also for
the Arab to be slung aboard the Steam-Packet. On 3rd April the whole
party, including Hayim Ben Attar and Sidi Habismilk, boarded the _Royal
Adelaide_ bound for London.
Borrow never forgave Spain for its treatment of him, although some of the
happiest years of his life had been spent there. “The Spaniards are a
stupid, ungrateful set of ruffians,” he afterwards wrote, “and are
utterly incapable of appreciating generosity or forbearance.” He piled
up invective upon the unfortunate country. It was “the chosen land of
the two fiends—assassination and murder,” where avarice and envy were the
prevailing passions. It was the “country of error”; yet at the same time
“the land of extraordinary characters.” As he saw its shores sinking
beneath the horizon, he was mercifully denied the knowledge that never
again was he to be so happily occupied as during the five years he had
spent upon its soil distributing the Scriptures, and using a British
Minister as a two-edged sword.
The party arrived in London on 16th April and put up at the Spread Eagle
in Gracechurch Street. On 23rd April, at St Peter’s Church in Cornhill,
the wedding took place. There were present as witnesses only Henrietta
Clarke and John Pilgrim, the Norwich solicitor. In the Register the
names appear as:—
“George Henry Borrow—of full age—bachelor—gentleman—of the City of
Norwich—son of Thomas Borrow—Captain in the Army.
“Mary Clarke—of full age—widow—of Spread Eagle Inn, Gracechurch
Street—daughter of Edmund Skepper—Esquire.”
On 2nd May an announcement of the marriage appeared in _The Norfolk
Chronicle_. A few days later the party left for Oulton Cottage, and
Borrow became a landed proprietor on a small scale in his much-loved East
Anglia.
On 21st April Mr Brandram had written to Borrow the following letter:—
MY DEAR FRIEND,—Your later communications have been referred to our
Sub-Committee for General Purposes. After what you said yesterday in
the Committee, I am hardly aware that anything can arise out of them.
The door seems shut. The Sub-Committee meet on Friday. Will you
wish to make any communications to them as to any ulterior views that
may have occurred to yourself? I do not myself at present see any
sphere open to which your services in connection with our Society can
be transferred. . . . With best wishes—Believe me—Yours truly,
A. BRANDRAM.
On 24th April, the day after Borrow’s wedding, the Sub-Committee duly met
and
“Resolved that, upon mature consideration, it does not appear to this
Sub-Committee that there is, at present, any opening for employing Mr
Borrow beneficially as an Agent of the Society . . . and that it be
recommended to the General Committee that the salary of Mr Borrow be
paid up to the 10th June next.”
The Bible Society’s valediction, which appeared in the Thirty-Sixth
Annual Report, read:—
“G. Borrow, Esq., one of the gentlemen referred to in former Reports
as having so zealously exerted themselves on behalf of Spain, has
just returned home, hopeless of further attempts at present to
distribute the Scriptures in that country. Mr B. has succeeded, by
almost incredible pains, and at no small cost and hazard, in selling
during his last visit a few hundred copies of the Bible, and most
that remained of the edition of the New Testament printed in Madrid.”
Thus ended George Borrow’s activities on behalf of the British and
Foreign Bible Society, and incidentally the seven happiest and most
active years of his life. On the whole the association had been
honourable to all concerned. There had been moments of irritation and
mistakes on both sides. It would be foolish to accuse the Society of
deliberately planting obstacles in the path of its own agent; but the
unfortunate championing of Lieutenant Graydon was the result of a very
grave error of judgment. Borrow had no personal friends among the
Committee, to whom the impetuous zeal of Graydon was more picturesque
than the grave and deliberate caution of Borrow. The Officials and
Committee alike saw in Graydon the ideal Reformer, rushing precipitately
towards martyrdom, exposing Anti-Christ as he ran. Had Borrow been
content to allow others to plead his cause, the history of his relations
with the Bible Society would, in all probability, have been different.
He felt himself a grievously injured man, who had suffered from what he
considered to be the insane antics of another, and he was determined that
Earl Street should know it. On the other hand, Mr Brandram does not
appear to have understood Borrow. He made no attempt to humour him, to
praise him for what he had done and the way in which he had done it.
Praise was meat and drink to Borrow; it compensated him for what he had
endured and encouraged him to further effort. He hungered for it, and
when it did not come he grew discouraged and thought that those who
employed him were not conscious of what he was suffering. Hence the long
accounts of what he had undergone for the Gospel’s sake.
During his six years in Spain he had distributed nearly 5000 copies of
the New Testament and 500 Bibles, also some hundreds of the Basque and
Gypsy Gospel of St Luke. These figures seem insignificant beside those
of Lieut. Graydon, who, on one occasion, sold as many as 1082 volumes in
fourteen days, and in two years printed 13,000 Testaments and 3000
Bibles, distributing the larger part of them. During the year 1837 he
circulated altogether between five and six thousand books. But there was
no comparison between the work of the two men. Graydon had kept to the
towns and cities on the south coast; Borrow’s methods were different. He
circulated his books largely among villages and hamlets, where the
population was sparse and the opportunities of distribution small. He
had gone out into the highways, risking his life at every turn,
penetrating into bandit-infested provinces in the throes of civil war,
suffering incredible hardships and fatigues and, never sparing himself.
Both men were earnest and eager; but the Bible Society favoured the wrong
man—at least for its purposes. But for Lieut. Graydon, Borrow would in
all probability have gone to China, and what a book he would have
written, at least what letters, about the sealed East!
Borrow, however, had nothing to complain of. He had found occupation
when he badly needed it, which indirectly was to bring him fame. He had
been well paid for his services (during the seven years of his employment
he drew some £2300 in salary and expenses), his £200 a year and expenses
(in Spain) comparing very favourably with Mr Brandram’s £300 a year.
He was loyal to the Bible Society, both in word and thought. He
honourably kept to himself the story of the Graydon dispute. He spoke of
the Society with enthusiasm, exclaiming, “Oh! the blood glows in his
veins! oh! the marrow awakes in his old bones when he thinks of what he
accomplished in Spain in the cause of religion and civilisation with the
colours of that society in his hat.” {328a} In spite of the
misunderstandings and the rebukes he could write fourteen years later
that he “bade it adieu with feelings of love and admiration.” {328b} He
“had done with Spain for ever, after doing for her all that lay in the
power of a lone man, who had never in this world anything to depend upon,
but God and his own slight strength.” {328c} In the preface to _The
Bible in Spain_ he pays a handsome tribute to both Rule and Graydon, thus
showing that although he was a good hater, he could be magnanimous.
It has been stated that, during a portion of his association with the
Bible Society, Borrow acted as a foreign correspondent for _The Morning
Herald_. Dr Knapp has very satisfactorily disproved the statement, which
the Rev. Wentworth Webster received from the Marqués de Santa Coloma.
Either the Marqués or Mr Webster is responsible for the statement that
Borrow was wrecked, instead of nearly wrecked, off Cape Finisterre. As
the Marqués was a passenger on the boat, the mistake must be ascribed to
Mr Webster. The further statement that Borrow was imprisoned at Pamplona
by Quesada is scarcely more credible than that about the wreck. His
imprisonment could not very well have taken place, as stated, in 1837–9,
because General Quesada was killed in 1836. Mention is made of this
foreign correspondent rumour only because it has been printed and
reprinted. It may be that Borrow was imprisoned at Pamplona during the
“Veiled Period”; there is certainly one imprisonment (according to his
own statement) unaccounted for. It is curious how the fact first became
impressed upon the Marqués’ mind, unless he had heard it from Borrow. It
is quite likely that he confused the date.
It would be interesting to identify the two men whom Borrow describes in
_Lavengro_ as being at the offices of the Bible Society in Earl Street,
when he sought to exchange for a Bible the old Apple-woman’s copy of
_Moll Flanders_. “One was dressed in brown,” he writes, “and the other
was dressed in black; both were tall men—he who was dressed in brown was
thin, and had a particularly ill-natured countenance; the man dressed in
black was bulky, his features were noble, but they were those of a lion.”
{329a} Again, in _The Romany Rye_, he makes the man in black say with
reference to the Bible Society:—“There is one fellow amongst them for
whom we entertain a particular aversion: a big, burly parson, with the
face of a lion, the voice of a buffalo, and a fist like a sledge-hammer.”
{329b} Who these two worthies were it is impossible to say with any
degree of certainty. Caroline Fox describes Andrew Brandram no further
than that he “appeared before us once more with his shaggy eyebrows.”
{329c} Mr Brandram was not thin and his countenance was not ill-natured.