The Billy and Charley Story - Page 2

 

Fig. 2: a more ambitious forgery, which may have been copied from a genuine medieval ampulla. (Courtesy Cuming Museum)

Not surprisingly, the appearance of so many artefacts of a type hitherto unknown aroused suspicion. Henry Syer Cuming of Southwark, secretary to the British Archaeological Association, and Thomas Bateman, the Peak District archaeologist, were dubious of the examples they saw, and corresponded on exposing the fraud. Their scepticism was shared by the keepers at the British Museum5. In March 1858 The Gentleman's Magazine compared the objects to children's toys and dismissed them as "almost worthless"6.

By the end of March Henry Syer Cuming had discovered how the objects were being made. "The game is now almost up, and it is high time it should be" he wrote7. On 28th April he lectured on the finds to the British Archaeological Association. He said that 12,000 has appeared. This was an exaggeration, but does suggest the speed with which they had circulated and the interest they had attracted. He pointed out the anachronisms in their designs, described the crude way in which they had been manufactured, and concluded by condemning

5. Southwark Local Studies Library, Ms. 4565; T.B.A.C., 15th Feb. & 2nd April 1858.
6. March 1858 234.
7. T.B.A.C. 29th March 1858.
8. June 1858 649-50.
9. 8th May 1858 595.
10. August 1858 98.
11.T.B.A.C. 4th Aug. 1858.
12. Proc Soc Ant Lond I ser 4 (1858) 209; Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1 (1858) 312.

them as a "Gross attempt at deception" and regretting that there were no legal methods of punishing the forgers.

The lecture was not published in the Journal of the Association, but it was reported in The Gentleman's Magazine8 and Athenaeum9. Sales declined rapidly, and George Eastwood wrote to The Gentleman's Magazine assuring the readers of the authenticity of his stock"10.

Meanwhile the eminent archaeologist Charles Roach Smith inspected the finds. By 1858 he had retired from public life, but his reputation was still very high. He was not sure what the objects were, but he felt that they belonged to the 16th century, partly on the logic that no forger would create anything so preposterous. If they were forgeries, he wrote, they would be "The most extraordinary insults that ever were offered to the judgments of collectors this century"11. The Reverend Thomas Hugo, vicar of St. Botolph's Bishopsgate, also took an interest in the finds, believing them to be varieties of pilgrims' signs12.

But the debate moved away from academic speculation when George Eastwood sued the publishers of Athenaeum for libel. He claimed that they had published an article which accused him of selling forgeries, for although he was not named, he

Fig. 3: another ambitious forgery - a small shrine. Courtesy Curving Museum