Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, called a “labourer” in a legal document or record, and his wife a “brewer and baker,” appear to have kept a little wayside public-house, which would be frequented by the Gipsies, especially when they were “esteemed and held in great admiration.” And here it is likely that the _native English_ Bunyans were changed into _English Gipsy_ Bunyans by the male heir of Thomas marrying a Gipsy, whose son or grandson was Thomas, the “pettie chapman”; and whose son Thomas, the “braseyer,” was the father of John. All these would doubtless marry early, but perhaps not so early as John, who married before he was nineteen, so far as is known. In my communication of the 6th September, I think I said enough on the question of proof as to Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race. Even with the limited knowledge about the race generally, and especially about the mixture of its blood, before I published a history of the Gipsies, Sir Walter Scott (an excellent judge), with reference to the rank of his father’s house, and not being Jews, but tinkers, said that Bunyan was “most probably a Gipsy reclaimed.” Mr. Offor, an editor of Bunyan’s works, said that “his father must have been a Gipsy.” Mr. Leland’s investigation and decision is that he “was a Gipsy,” even apparently on the sole ground of his having been a tinker. In regard to myself, Mr. Brown says that I have “really nothing to go upon but Bunyan’s own words, in which he says that his father’s house was ‘of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families of [in] the land,’ which might simply mean that his father was a poor man in a village”(!) According to Mr. Brown, Bunyan’s admission, or rather _reminder_, had no bearing on his nationality, while others think it conclusive, apart from his having been a tinker. But Mr. Brown did not give _all_ of Bunyan’s language, for he left out the most important part of it, which was that of his _descent_, which was _well known to many_ to have been of a _low and inconsiderable generation_, which had no reference to his “father being a poor man in a village.” He also omitted Bunyan’s question as to his “father’s house” being or not being Jews, using the word _we_ in both instances; a discussion that could not have taken place between a father and a son of any of the _ordinary race_ of Englishmen. In this way Mr. Brown gets rid of the proof that proceeded from Bunyan himself, by simply brushing it aside. When I saw him in New York, I alluded to _all_ of Bunyan’s admissions, when he replied, “Oh, that can be easily explained.” {15a} And when I said that “one cannot say in England that Bunyan was a Gipsy, for society would not allow it,” he made no reply, so far as I noticed, but appeared to wince at the remark. I had some hesitation in giving Mr. Brown an interview, for I was satisfied that he did not wish to have the truth about Bunyan admitted; but I concluded that, having