prejudice against it is gone, or ought to disappear; for then, as I have already said, the Gipsies become ordinary citizens of the Gipsy clan. It then follows, that in passing a fair judgment upon the Gipsy race, we ought to establish a principle of progression, and set our minds upon the best specimens of it, as well as the worst, and not judge of it solely from the poorest, the most ignorant, or the most barbarous part of it” (p. 479). Satisfied with, even proud of, their descent, the Gipsies hide it from the rest of the world, for reasons that are obvious, however much I have explained them on previous occasions. And thus, as I wrote in _Contributions to Natural History_, _etc._, “It unfortunately happens that, owing to the peculiarity of their origin, and the prejudice of the rest of the population, the race hide the fact of their being Gipsies from the rest of the world, as they acquire settled habits, or even leave the tent, so that they never get the credit of any good that may spring from them as a people” (158). And this may have been going on from the time of their arrival in England. With reference to this phenomenon, I wrote thus in the Disquisition on the Gipsies:— “Now, since John Bunyan has become so famous throughout the world, and so honoured by all sects and parties, what an inimitable instrument Providence has placed in our hands wherewith to raise up the name of Gipsy! Through him we can touch the heart of Christendom!” (p. 530). It would be a sad thing to have the century close without the Gipsy race being acknowledged by the rest of the world, in some form or other, or that that should be deemed unworthy of our boasted civilization! To get this subject completely before the British public would resemble the recovery of a lost art, or the discovery of a new one. People taking it up there would require to show a high degree of courage, candour, and courtesy, and all the better qualities of their nature. On the 8th September I wrote thus to the editor of the _Daily News_:—“I intend printing the articles sent you as the bulk of a pamphlet, . . . so that I am in hopes you will have previously printed them in the _Daily News_,” which he does not seem to have done. NEW YORK, 2d _October_, 1882. WAS JOHN BUNYAN A GIPSY? I. {9}