The 30th of January 1735 was kept in memory by other means than ‘services’ before the Senate, and others in the parish churches. By a tradition which was founded in a lie, and which rooted itself and grew in the public mind by additional lying, there was a popular belief that a Calves’ Head Club, from the time of Cromwell, had a special meeting and dinner on every anniversary of the death of King Charles, to dishonour his memory. The calf’s head served at table was in derisive memory of the decollated head of that sovereign; and the ocean of liquor drunk was in joyous celebration of those who brought about the monarch’s death. The story was a pure invention, but the invention led to a sort of realisation of the story. Here and there, anti-Jacobites observed the 30th of January as a festival. ◆[Sidenote: _THE CALVES’ HEAD RIOT._]◆ Hearne mentions a dinner given on that day by a number of young men at All Soul’s College, Oxford. They had ordered a calf’s head to be served up, but the cook refused to supply it. He unwittingly, however, gave the guests an opportunity of declaring their approval of the sentence executed on Charles, by sending them a dish of woodcocks, and these the audacious Oxford Whigs solemnly decapitated. In the present year, 1735, occurred the famous Calves’ Head riot at and in front of a tavern in Suffolk Street. According to the record, some noblemen and gentlemen had the traditional dinner on the above day, when they exhibited to the mob, which had assembled in the street, a calf’s head in a napkin dipped in claret to represent blood, and the exhibitors, each with a claret-stained napkin――in his hand and a glass of strong liquor in the other, drank anti-Stuart toasts, and finally flung the head into a bonfire which they had commanded to be kindled in front of the house. The Jacobite mob broke into the house and would have made ‘martyrs’ of the revellers but for the timely arrival of the guards. Now, with regard to this incident, there are two opposite and contemporary witnesses, whose testimony nevertheless is not irreconcilable. The first is ‘a lady of strong political tendencies and too busy in matters of taste to be ignorant of party movements.’ She is so described by a correspondent of the ‘Times,’ who, under the signature ‘Antiquus,’ sent to that paper a few years ago the following copy of a letter, written by the lady, and forming one of a collection of old letters in the possession of ‘Antiquus, of Lincoln’s Inn’:―― [Sidenote: _THE ‘30TH OF JANUARY.’_]