With regard to the pedigree of John Bunyan, the most probable one seems to be the following:—William Bonyon and his wife were apparently ordinary English people, which would make Thomas of the same race. {19} His wife—the “lawless brewer and baker”—was either of the native race or of a superior class of mixed Gipsies, perhaps of the second generation born in England. If she was the former, the male heir of Thomas married a Gipsy while he kept his little wayside public-house, leading to their issue being turned into the Gipsy current in society. Thus the little property of “Bunyan’s End” (at least the cottage) would remain in the family, leading to a will being made to bequeath it from generation to generation. “Petty chapmen and tinkers” (using brazier instead of tinker) are the happiest words that could be used to describe many Gipsies of mixed blood in England to-day. A remark in the _Graphic_ for the 26th August, in adopting Mr. Brown’s _theory_ that _all_ that sprung from Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, were _ordinary natives_ of England, makes it very plain what is the motive for not having it said that Bunyan was of the Gipsy race, viz.: to show that his were “positively respectable” people, and not “tinkering Gipsies.” Petty chapmen and tinkers, if of the native race, would be “positively respectable,” but not if they had had a “dash” of Gipsy blood in their veins (which _might_ have improved them,) and held by the Gipsy connexion, if for no other reason than that the white blood would have disowned them if they had known of its existence. In this way they would be cut off from the native race, or would mix with it no further than was unavoidable; living thus as Gipsies _incog._, or as outcasts, for that is the right word to use till the Gipsy blood becomes acknowledged by the rest of the world. The _Graphic_ “let the cat out of the bag,” and somewhat illustrated what I meant when I spoke of the “ferocious prejudice of caste against the name of Gipsy.” I refer to the Disquisition on the Gipsies and my subsequent writings on John Bunyan and the Gipsies, and add a few extracts from the Disquisition; all of which should have been studied by Mr. Brown before “putting his foot into” the subject in the way he has done, for that is of too sacred a nature to be treated factiously or capriciously.