But what I wish more particularly to allude to is Mr. Leland’s discovery that the Gipsies are a tribe from India that are known there under the name of “Syrians,” and therefore not originally natives of India; which latter conclusion, however, he does not admit, but accounts for the phenomenon in this way:—“I offer as an hypothesis that bands of Gipsies who roamed from India to Syria have, after returning, been called Trablûs or Syrians, just as I have known Germans after returning from the fatherland to America to be called Americans” (p. 338). That is, a family or company of Indian nomads returning from a visit to Syria would afterwards be called, and cause the whole of the race who never left India to be called, Syrians for ever! Again he says:—“It will probably be found that they are Hindoos who have roamed from India to Syria and back again, here and there, until they are regarded as foreigners in both countries” (!). The allusion to Germans in illustration is not merely inapplicable, but unintelligible. Of the “Syrians” in India Mr. Leland writes:—“Whether they have or had any connection with the migration to the West we cannot establish” (p. 339). For this reason he should not have identified them with the Gipsies out of India. “Their language and their name would seem to indicate it; but then it must be borne in mind that the word _rom_, like _dom_, is one of wide dissemination, _dum_ being a Syrian Gipsy word for the race” (p. 339); and “among the Copts . . . the word for man is _romi_” (p. 20). {12} “Among the hundred and fifty wandering tribes of India and Persia . . . it is of course difficult to identify the exact origin of the European Gipsy” (p. 18). For that reason he should not have written so positively that he had “definitely determined the existence in India of a peculiar tribe of Gipsies who are _par eminence_ the Romanys of the East, and whose language is there what it is in England, the same in vocabulary and the chief slang of the roads. This I claim as a discovery, having learned it from a Hindoo who had been himself a Gipsy in his native land” (Pref. iv.). He describes them as “thieves, fortune-tellers and vagrants” (p. 339), yet his informant, John Nano, said he was, or had been, one of them; which would imply that there were different kinds of “Syrians,” inasmuch as he was found to be a maker of curry powder in London, and the husband of an English woman, a Mahometan by religion, and sufficiently educated to have written an autobiography, which had unfortunately been burnt. According to John’s account, these “Syrians” were “full blood Hindoos, and not Syrians,” and he “was very sure that his Gipsies were Indians.” The term “full-blood Hindoos” who are “thieves, fortune-tellers and vagrants,” and strollers out of and back to India, requires explanation. John’s information as to these people being called by the other natives of India “Syrians” may be very reliable; but that