The question of John Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race, discussed in the following pages, is merely an incidental part of the subject of the Gipsies. What I have said there about the Rev. John Brown, of Bedford, makes it unnecessary for me to add much here, except to say that, as he has no standing in the discussion of the Gipsy question as applicable to Bunyan, he would not be listened to but for his being minister of Bunyan’s Church, and setting forth theories as to his nationality that meet the preconceived opinions and ardent wishes of others. His discovery of Bunyan’s descent is of great interest; but for it to be of any use, he should have taken it to such as were able to interpret it, instead of proclaiming that he had thereby done away with the idea of Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race, to the apparent welcome of those who will have it so. He had previously “done away with” the same idea by discovering that the name of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived in it! As the occupant of Bunyan’s pulpit, it was clearly his sacred duty to carefully scrutinize the information left by Bunyan as to “what he said he was and was not, and his calling and surroundings,” for these exclusively constitute the question at issue, and as carefully study everything bearing on the subject. Had he done so, he would have found that the family of the illustrious dreamer did not enter England from Normandy with William the Conqueror (whatever might have been the blood of William and Thomas Bonyon in 1542), or were native English vagabonds, as some have thought, but Gipsies whose blood was mixed; so that John Bunyan doubtless spoke the language of the race in great purity, and was capable, after a little effort, to have written it. In England to-day there are many such men as Bunyan, barring his piety and genius, following his original calling, that speak the Gipsy language with more or less purity, saying nothing of others in much higher positions in life. Of the former especially I have met and conversed in America with a number, who had no doubt of John Bunyan having been one of their race. Whatever the future may bring forth, I have no reason to change what I wrote in _Contributions to Natural History_, _etc._, in 1871, in regard to the only bar in the way of receiving Bunyan as a Gipsy being the prejudice of caste against the name:— “Even in the United States I find intelligent and liberal-minded Scotchmen, twenty years absent from their native country, saying, ‘I would _not like_ it to be said,’ and others, ‘I would _not have_ it said,’ that Bunyan was a Gipsy” (p. 158). This feeling cannot be changed in a day, however involuntary it frequently is, or however much it may be repudiated in public.