sent him some pamphlets, it would have been rude to refuse him one. {15b} It lasted only about five minutes, at the entrance of a banking-house in Broadway, and ended with some remarks about his having found the wills of the Bunyans; not one word of which was to the point in question. His only motive for an interview seemed to be to gratify his curiosity and behold the person who would dare to “cast a stigma on Bunyan’s memory.” Now he says that there is _no_ “ferocious prejudice of caste against the name of Gipsy,” and that “none of Bunyan’s admirers would object to his being shown to be a Gipsy, if only sufficient proof were adduced”; while he has ignored everything that bears upon the subject, even what came out of Bunyan’s mouth. {16a} In place of being influenced by evidence, he put forth the fanciful idea that he could not have been a Gipsy because the name of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived there. And now he maintains that Bunyan could not have been a Gipsy, because he owed his descent “on the native side of the house” to Thomas Bonyon, a labourer or publican or both, born about 1502, without regard to the “marriages and movements” of perhaps five or six generations till the birth of the immortal dreamer, who was baptized on the 30th November, 1628. But for the limited space at my disposal I would put a long string of questions to Mr. Brown, and suggest a course of action for him to undo the injury he has done to Bunyan and the Gipsy race generally, particularly owing to his remarks about the illustrious pilgrim having been credited and circulated by the press in Great Britain, which complicates the question in all its bearings. {16b} We have heard much of the _American_ John Brown in connexion with the emancipation of the Negroes in the United States, while the _English_ John Brown seems to be doing his best, directly or indirectly, to rivet the fetters of a social despotism on a large body of his fellow-creatures in the British Islands. I have said above that Thomas Bonyon and his wife, living in 1542, were _apparently_ of the native English race, and made my remarks to correspond with that idea. But there was more than a _possibility_ of them having been part of the original Gipsy stock, of mixed blood, that arrived in Great Britain before 1506, and, like their race generally, assumed the surname of a “good family in the land,” as I will illustrate at some length in my next communication, which will make its appearance in due time. IV. {17}