APPENDIX.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF BOAT RACING AT THE UNIVERSITIES.[23]
[23] Reprinted from Land and Water of December 17, 1881.
The history of early college boat racing is not strictly that of the University boat race itself, but it is closely wound up with it, and it was, moreover, the origin of that aquatic rivalry between the two Universities which led to the first match of 1829.
Oxford had inaugurated eight-oared rowing; that introduced inter-college bumping races. Cambridge followed suit and established similar races, and hence arose the constant study of aquatics which produced the first match. For these reasons, we think that the history here given will be read with interest by all University oarsmen, the more so because it, to the best of our knowledge, has never before appeared in print. No official record of their early races has been preserved; the oldest boating record in Oxford is the Brasenose Club Book, dating 1837. That of the O.U.B.C. commences with its establishment, 1839. The ‘Charts’ of the boat races from 1837, published by Messrs. Spiers & Sons, and which were not invented till after the year 1850, obtain the retrospective racing, prior to the time when they first appeared, from the MS. records of the B.N.C. book, the contents of which were communicated to the publishers by the late Rev. T. Codrington. But prior to 1837 all is blank. For the lost history here unearthed we are indebted to the reminiscences and diaries of oarsmen of those days still in the land of the living.
Oxford started college boat racing before Cambridge. It does not seem quite clear as to when bumping races actually commenced. Two or three colleges had boat clubs and manned eight oars, and at first it seems to have been the practice for out-college men to join the club and crew of colleges to which they did not belong.
The eight oars seem to have been in the habit of going down to Sandford or Nuneham to dine, and of rowing home in company. From Iffley to Oxford they were inclined to race to see who could be home first. They could not race abreast, so they rowed in Indian file, and those behind jealously tried to overtake the leaders. Hence began the idea of starting in a fixed order out of Iffley Lock, of racing in procession, and of an overtaken boat giving place to its victor on the next night of procession.
In 1822, at all events, there were bumping races. Christ Church seems to have been head. There was a disputed bump between B.N.C. and Jesus, and some violence seems to have occurred, B.N.C. trying to haul down the Jesus flag, and the Jesus men defending their colours. The dispute was finally closed by Post of B.N.C. saying, ‘These cries of “Jesus” and “B.N.C.” remind me of the old saying:—
Different people are of different opinions;
Some like leeks, some like onions.’
(The oars of Jesus were decorated with leeks.) The quarrel was made up, and the crews went together to Nuneham in their racing boats. Unfortunately Musgrave, one of the party, fell overboard and was drowned during the festivities. In 1823 there were no eight-oared races, the sad accident of the year before having cast a gloom over the pursuit. But several boats were manned. Christ Church refused to put on a boat in consequence of Stephen Davis, the boat-builder, rowing in the B.N.C. eight, and Isaac King (who eventually took Davis’s business) in the Jesus boat. Some strong feeling was displayed on this point. When the B.N.C. boat came up the river, the Christ Church men used to run alongside of it for many nights shouting, ‘No hired watermen.’ After this year no watermen rowed in the college crews. Exeter had a boat afloat that year, built by Hall of Oxford. She was called the ‘Buccleuch’ in honour Of the Duke of that ilk.
Among the Exeter men was one Moresby, who was a relative of a naval captain of that name, and through his advice Exeter ordered an eight-oar of Little, of Plymouth. She was finished in time to be put on in 1824, and became famous as the ‘Exeter white boat.’ Stephen Davis was sent with a carriage constructed for the purpose, to meet the boat at Portsmouth, whither she was brought by sea. As this boat was built of deal, a raft was provided to receive her—the first use of a raft for this purpose at Oxford. The oars sent with the boat were such as are used at sea, and made of ash. They were discarded in favour of ordinary oars, such as those already in use for fresh-water rowing. She was found to be too high out of the water, so Isaac King cut her down one streak. The boat, as depicted in Turner’s water-colour drawing of her, was taken when she was afloat and unmanned; her crew were painted in her afterwards; consequently she rides too high out of the water. The boats on the river in 1824 were, at the beginning of the season, Christ Church 1, B.N.C. 2, Exeter 3. Exeter bumped B.N.C. under the willows on the first night; the next night of racing Christ Church took off, and Exeter became head by the other’s default. The races were renewed another day, and B.N.C. bumped Christ Church. This was the last year in which the boats started out for Iffley Lock. The racing has hitherto been conducted on this principle; the start between the boats were just so much as the dexterity of the stroke could obtain. He, the stroke, stood on the bow thwart, and ran down the row of thwarts; pushing the boat along with his shoulder against the lock gates, he reached his own thwart, by which time the impetus had shot the boat clear of the lock, he dropped on to his own seat, and began to row. The oarsmen had their oars ‘tossed’ meantime. The boat next in order then followed the same process, and so on. The boats lay in échelon while waiting for the start. Bulteel, who was stroke of B.N.C. in the disputed race of 1822 (above mentioned), and who afterwards was elected Fellow of Exeter in 1823, was especially skilful at this. The Exeter crew of 1824 were: Wareing, Dick, Parr, Dowglass, J. C. Clutterbuck, Cole, R. Pocklington (father of D. Pocklington, stroke of Oxford in 1864), Bulteel (stroke), S. Pocklington (cox.) The Rev. J. C. Clutterbuck, now rector of Long Wittenham, near Abingdon, is well known as a conservator of the Thames, to whom the Universities and rowing men are much indebted for the clauses in the Conservancy Acts which give that body powers to clear the river for boat racing. The names of the other two crews of 1824 have not come fully to posterity, but among B.N.C. are Meredith, North and Karle (stroke); and in the Christ Church crew were Hussey, Baring and Smyth (stroke).
In 1825 the boats started in line along the bank, each having its umpire to regulate the distance between it and its neighbours (one length). The boats at starting were Exeter, Christ Church Worcester, Balliol (in this order). Exeter had discarded their old love, and had got a ‘black boat,’ larger than the old ‘white boat,’ but not so fast, according to later experiments. However, they elected to row in her at first, and Christ Church bumped them, also Worcester on a subsequent night. Later on Exeter rebumped Worcester, and at the close of the racing the order was: Christ Church, Exeter, Worcester, Balliol. Smyth was again stroke of Christ Church, and R. Pocklington stroke of Exeter, in which Messrs. Clutterbuck, Parr, Dowglass, Cole, and Wareing rowed again, with Messrs. Harndon and Day as recruits.
The term ‘Torpid’ seems to have arisen about this date, and to have been applied to the ‘second’ boats of colleges, such as Christ Church, who launched a second boat in 1826. Later on the ‘Torpids’ took to racing among themselves as a separate class, and under distinct qualifications.
In 1826 the following rules were drawn up for the boat-racing, and we give them verbatim:—
Rule 186.—Resolved (1) That racing do commence on Monday, May 1.
(2) That the days for racing be Monday and Friday in each week, and that if any boat does not come out on those days its flag do go to the bottom.
(3) That no out-college crews be allowed to row in any boat, except in cases of illness or other unavoidable absence, and then that the cause of such absence be signified to the strokes of the other boats.
(4) That the boats below the one that bumps stop racing, and those above continue it.
(5) That there be a distance of fifty feet between each boat at starting.
(6) That the boats start by pistol shot.
(7) That umpires be appointed by each college to see each boat in its proper position before starting, and to decide any accidental dispute.
| H. Saunders, Ch. Ch. | Henry Towers, Ch. Ch. |
| H. Moresby, Ex. Coll. | T. North, B. N. Coll. |
| E. A. Hughes, Jes. Coll. | H. Roberts, Ball. Coll. |
Of the details of the racing, all that we can gather is that Christ Church finished head.
In 1827 rules were again drawn up and signed at a meeting of strokes; the new code being much the same as its predecessor, but with one or two small alterations. There was no U.B.C. in existence, and therefore no fixed code, but only such as was agreed on from year to year.
Rules for Boat-Racing, 1827.
(1) That the racing do begin on May 29.
(2) That the days of racing be Tuesday and Friday in each week, and that if any boat does not come out on those days its flag do go to the bottom.
(3) That no out-college man be allowed to row in any boat.
(4) That no boat be allowed to race with less than eight oars.
(5) That the boats below the one that bumps stop racing, those above continue it.
(6) That there be a distance of fifty feet between each boat at starting.
(7) That the boats start by pistol shot.
(8) That umpires be appointed by each college to see each boat in its proper place at starting, and to settle any accidental dispute.
The rules of the racing signed by:—
| C.H. Page, Ch. Ch. | F. C. Chaytor |
| R. T. Congreve, B.N.C. | Geo. D. Hill, Trin. Coll. |
| A. C. Budge, Ex. Coll. | David Reid |
| R. Pennefather, Ball. Coll. | T. Fox |
During these races Christ Church lost their pride of place. Balliol seems to have first displaced them, and they in turn fell victims to B.N.C. who remained head. The exact details of the racing and full list of boats in this are unfortunately wanting.
The racing of 1828 began as usual. No MS. copy of the rules has come to our hands for this year, but they are believed to be a reproduction of those of 1827.
The racing resulted thus:—
June 1.—Order of starting B.N.C., Balliol, University, Christ Church, Trinity, Oriel.
B.N.C. and Balliol remained in statu quo; Christ Church claimed a bump against University which the latter disputed. Oriel bumped Trinity. The disputed race between University and Christ Church was renewed on June 3, and the Christ Church men put wet paint on their bows so as to make sure of leaving their mark if they should touch their opponents. They effected their bump. The other boats do not seem to have raced on June 3.
The next race was on June 4 between B.N.C., Balliol, Christ Church, University, Trinity, and Oriel. Balliol bumped B.N.C., and the other boats therefore ceased rowing according to the rules.
The third race was on June 7. Balliol, B.N.C., Christ Church, University, Trinity, and Oriel, started in this order: Balliol kept ahead; Christ Church bumped B.N.C., and the two between them had therefore to cease rowing; Trinity then took off. On June 10 the races were renewed, but no bump was effected by any boat.
On June 13 there was another race, and Christ Church displaced Balliol and went head.
The races concluded on June 16, when Christ Church retained the headship, and B.N.C. rebumped Balliol.
The Christ Church crew of 1828 were:—(bow) Goodenough; 2, Gwilt; 3, Lloyd; 4, Moore; 5, Hamilton; 6, Mayne; 7, Bates; (stroke) Staniforth. Hamilton became Bishop of Salisbury.
In 1829, in consequence of the first match of its kind being then arranged with Cambridge, and the date being fixed for March 10, there were no bumping races. Christ Church were accredited as head of the river, from their having held that position from the preceding year; and they were saluted as such. A scratch race, however, was improvised on Commemoration afternoon, between the boats, apparently manned by mixed crews of all colleges. It seems to have been a bumping and not a level race, for the record of the race is ‘no bump.’
In 1830 the races were renewed, and the following colleges put on eights:—Christ Church, B.N.C., Balliol, University, St. John’s, in the order named.
The racing began on June 8, and Balliol bumped B.N.C.
On June 11, another race, and no bump by any boat.
On June 15, St. John’s bumped University, the others above them retaining their places and rowing to the end, as the bump was astern of them.
On June 18 another race, but no bump.
On June 20 another race, and no bump.
We hope at a later period to supply the hiatus in history between this last mentioned year and 1837, in which year the written records of the B.N.C. book commenced, and for which charts of the races are published. Meanwhile we shall thankfully receive any information on this subject from the heroes of those days who may now be alive and hearty.
![[Largescalemap(150 kB).]](#8489340734968924315_large356.png.id-4454452271645369289.wrap-0.html.html){kind=link}
London: Longmans & Co.
E. Weller
HENLEY, PAST AND FUTURE.[24]
[24] From the Field, July 5, 1886.
The inauguration of a new era in the history of Henley Regatta naturally tends to make the mind wander into vistas of the past, perhaps even more than into speculations of the future. There are oarsmen living who can recollect when Henley Regatta did not even exist, and yet we are within an appreciable distance (three years) of the ‘jubilee’ of the gathering. There are sundry old Blues of the 1829 match still hale and hearty, and the regatta was not founded until ten years after that date. Apropos of that 1829 match, we have never seen it officially recorded that in the race Cambridge steered up the Bucks and Oxford in the Berks channel of the river, where the island divides it. Yet we have heard the Rev. T. Staniforth, the Oxford stroke, relate the fact. For some strange reason, the general opinion of habitués of the river prior to that match was that the Bucks channel gave the better course. The boughs of the island trees obstructed the Berks channel more than now, and this may explain the delusion. However, the Oxonians doubted the soundness of local opinion, and tested in practice the advantages of the two channels by timing themselves through each. They naturally found the inside course the shorter cut. In the race they adopted it, while Cambridge, so we hear, took the outside channel; and the previous lead of Oxford was more than trebled by the time that the boats came again into the main river.
Times and ideas of rowing have changed much since the first regatta at Henley opened and closed with contests for the Grand Challenge Cup, the only prize at its foundation. The ‘Town’ Cup seems to have been the next addition, under the name of the ‘District Challenge’ Cup, in 1840; but it does not figure again until 1842, and in 1843 takes the name of the Town Cup. There were first class fours ‘for medals’ in 1841, but the Stewards’ Cup was not founded till the following year. The ‘Diamonds’ appeared in 1844. ‘Pairs’ came into existence in 1845, styled ‘silver wherries,’ and the then winners, Arnold and Mann, of Caius, have ever been handed down by tradition as something much above the average. The prize became ‘silver goblets’ in 1850, and the first winners of them were Justice Sir Joseph Chitty and Dr. Hornby, provost of Eton. The Ladies’ Plate was called the ‘New’ Cup when it appeared in 1845. At that time it was open to the world, like the Grand. Clubs from the Thames won it on sundry occasions. In 1857 it was restricted to schools and colleges as now, copying the ‘Visitors’ Cup’ for fours, founded upon parallel principles in 1847. The Wyfold Cup dates from 1847, though it does not figure in the local official calendar of the regatta as a four-oar prize until 1856. In the latter year it became a four-oar prize, open to all, and the Argonauts won it and the ‘Stewards,’ with the same crew. Later on it obtained its present qualification. As to the forgotten functions of the ‘Wyfold’ between 1847 and 1856, we venture to record them. The cup originally was held by the winner of the trial heats for the Grand. If the best challenger won the Grand also, or if the ‘holders’ did not compete, then the same crew would take both Grand and Wyfold for the season; but the Grand holders were ineligible to row for the Wyfold. This latter anomaly in time induced the executive to obtain leave from the donor to alter the destination of the cup and to devote it to fours. Local races flourished in the forties and fifties. Besides the Town Cup, there were local sculls, sometimes for a ‘silver wherry,’ and sometimes for a presentation cup. Local pairs existed from 1858 to 1861 inclusive. The Thames Cup began life in 1868 as a sort of junior race, but later on obtained its present qualification. There was a presentation prize for fours without coxswains in 1869, but the Stewards’ Cup was not opened for fours of the modern style till 1873; and the Visitors’ and Wyfold were similarly emancipated a year later. The advent and disappearance of the Public Schools’ Cup need no comment.
We well recollect the sensation produced by the first keelless eight, that of Chester, in 1856. The club came like a meteor, and won both Grand and Ladies’ (the latter being an open race for the last time in that year). The art of ‘watermanship’ had not then reached its present pitch. The Chester men could not sit their boat in the least; they flopped their blades along the water on the recovery in a manner which few junior crews at minor regattas would now be guilty of; but they rowed well away from their opponents, who were only college crews. In that year, in consequence of the Chester ship being some dozen feet shorter than the iron keeled craft of Exeter and Lady Margaret, a question arose as to how the boats should be adjudicated past the post. The boats started by sterns, therefore Chester would be giving several feet start if adjudged at the finish by bows. So the stewards ordered the races to be decided by sterns past the post. This edict remained in force, but unknown to the majority of competitors, till after 1864. In that year the winner of the Diamonds reached the post several lengths before his opponent, but stopped opposite to it in a stiff head wind. The loser came up behind him leisurely, chatted, and shoved the winner past the post by rowlocks locking. Presently it transpired that the official fiat was ‘won by a foot,’ and that the judge did not consider the race over until the winner’s stern was clear of the line! This discovery caused some inquiry, and the half-forgotten edict of 1857 was thus repealed; and races have since then been adjudged again by bows. Among other reminiscences, we can recall the old starting ‘rypecks,’ with bungs and cords attached; these bungs had to be held by competitors till the signal to start; the ropes often fouled rudder lines, and were awkward to deal with. In 1862 the system of starting with sterns held from moored punts, now in vogue, was first adopted.
Such are some of the recollections which evolve themselves at this date, when we are on the eve of a new era and a new course. The old ‘time’ records, which have been gradually improving and which, to our knowledge, are recorded in the most random manner in the local calendar, will now have to stand or fall by themselves. A new course, with less slack water in it, will hardly bear close comparison with an old one as to time. The old soreness of fluky winds, and ‘might have beens,’ laid to the discredit of much-abused Poplar Point, must now find no longer scope. Luck in station there still will be, inevitably, when wind blows off shore; but there now will be no bays to coast, and no Berks corner to cut. The glories of Henley bridge have been on the wane for some years past; we can remember when enterprising rustics ranked their muck carts speculatively along the north side of the bridge; but fashion and the innovation of large moored craft have lost the bridge much of its old popularity. Besides, the newly planted aspens along the towpath, which were given to replace the old time-honoured ‘poplars,’ shut off the view of the reach from the bridge. It is no longer possible, telescopically, to time opponents in practice from the Lion and Angel window, as of old. It is not so much as twenty years ago that steamers were unknown on the reach. The ‘Ariel’ (the late Mr. Blyth’s) was the first of her kind built by Mr. Thornycroft. Till then, row-boats had the reach to themselves. We are old enough to recall the Red Lion flourishing as a coaching inn; then came its breakdown, when ‘rail’ broke the ‘road,’ and it shut up, until Mrs. Williams, the veteran landlady, who erst welcomed, and is still welcomed by, so many retired generations of oarsmen, migrated from the Catherine Wheel in 1858, and re-opened the Lion once more.
The strength of amateur talent is treble what it was twenty-five years ago. After the pristine Leander retired from action, and the St. George’s shut up, and the Old Thames Club dispersed, the Universities had Henley almost to themselves as to eights and fours until Chester woke them up in eights in 1856, and the Argonauts four a year or two before produced the nucleus of the talent which in 1857 burst upon the world under the new flag of the L.R.C. They were joined by Kingston in a four in 1859. In 1861 Kingston had their first eight. Thames, in like manner, began modestly with a four, which in due time developed winning Grand eights. We have already spoken of the march of watermanship. A quarter of a century ago the idea of amateurs sitting a keelless eight or four, without rolling rowlocks under, until they had first practised for days or weeks in a steady craft, would have been derided. In these days three or four scratch eights can be manned any day at Putney, capable of sitting a racing ship, and of trying starts with trained University crews. We are not laudatores temporis acti as to oarsmanship; sliding seats spoilt form and style at first until they were better understood; but, in our opinion, there are now (cæteris paribus as to slides versus fixed seats) many more high-class oarsmen than were to be found thirty, or even twenty, years ago. There are more men rowing, and more science, and better coaching than of old. ‘Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona;’ but we believe that there are on the average some five Agamemnons now afloat for every two in the fifties and early years of the sixties. Nor do we wonder at it with four or five times as many men on the muster rolls of rowing clubs of the present day. As to boat-building, we think that the ‘lines’ of racing eights have fallen off. We can recall no such capacity for travelling between the strokes as in Mat Taylor’s best craft, e.g. the Chester boat and the old ‘Eton’ ship; both of which did duty and beat all comers for many years. While looking back with interest, we look forward with hope, and believe that the new Henley will maintain, and perhaps improve, its modern enhanced and extended standard of oarsmanship, and that the new course, when fairly tried, will encourage, rather than discourage, competition that looks for fair field and no favour.
![[Largescalemap(197 kB).]](#8489340734968924315_large362.png.id-5259857283882606137.wrap-0.html.html){kind=link}
London: Longmans & Co.
E. Weller
THAMES PRESERVATION ACT.
In 1884 a Committee of the House of Commons sat to inquire into the best method of preserving public rights and those of riparians on the Thames. The latter had developed so much pleasure traffic during the last quarter of a century that some ‘highway’ legislation on the subject became imperative. An Act for regulating steam-launch traffic on the Thames had been passed in 1883. The report of the Committee produced the following Act, which should be read by all who intend to navigate the Thames for pleasure.
Draft by-laws, to carry out the provisions of this Act in detail, have twice been propounded by the Thames Conservancy during 1886, and a third code was drafted early in 1887, but the first two editions provoked so much hostile criticism that the Conservancy withdrew them; and, up to the date of going to press, the third edition of proposed by-laws, which still seems too objectionable in many details, has not received the sanction of the Board of Trade, which is necessary before the code can become law.