fell into trouble? [!] Quite recently also it has been discovered that between October, 1581, and January, 1645, the less than sixteen times in the register of the parish church at Wootton, a village three or four miles from Elstow. There can be little doubt that these different modes of spelling are simply variations of the same name, and their long existence in the county effectually disposes of the supposition that the Bunyans were Gipsies." name of Bunnion or Bunion occurs no From the above-mentioned notices of the Gipsies, as well as others scattered of late through Notes and Queries, it does not appear that the writers have made any real inquiries in regard to the subject, but merely to have set out with preconceived ideas, popular impressions, or suppositions and theories, and made their remarks dovetail into them. Now, what is wanted is a carefully considered investigation, starting from certain facts connected with the Gipsies, as they exist, such to his more prosperous relative when he | unravel it to the satisfaction of themselves and others. Such people I would refer to Simson's History of the Gipsies, edited by myself, and published by Sampson Low & Co., in 1865; a work of 575 pp., containing a minute index of all the information to be found in it. In the ordinary course of things, what is contained in this work would be commented on, admitted or rejected, so far as current ideas are concerned, and taken as the basis of future investigations. But the writers alluded to have apparently either never seen or heard of the book, and are therefore not read up" on the subject they discuss; or they purposely ignore it, and so raise the question whether they are merely treating the subject to make a paragraph or maintain a theory. And that applies more particularly to the fact of Bynnion, Bunnyon, Bonyon, Bunnion or Bunion being a name not uncommon, in the seventeenth century, in Bedfordshire. Hence the two writers specially alluded to conclude in triumph, and perhaps with a flourish of trumpets, that John Bunyan could not possibly have been a Gipsy, for the reason that others of the British race were of the same name! and, as a corollary, that no one bearing a British name can, under any circumstances, be a Gipsy! The two gentlemen mentioned seem to know very little, if anything, of the subject, and should have exhausted every source of information, and looked at every side of the question, before so dogmatically asserting that they "do away with the supposition of those who think that John Bunyan may have had Gipsy blood in his veins;" that "the idea of Bunyan being of Gipsy race, is totally discountenanced," and that the long existence of the name in the county, "effectually disposes of the supposition that the Bunyans were Gipsies." as: "Ist. What constitutes a Gipsy in a settled or unsettled state? 2d. What should we ask a Gipsy to do to 'cease to be a Gipsy,' and become more a native of the country of his birth than he is already? 3d. In what relation does the race stand to others around it, with reference to intermarriage and the destiny of the mixed progeny, and that of the tribe generally? An investigation of this kind would involve a search for so many facts, however difficult of being found; and should be conducted as....a fact is proved in a court of justice; difficulties, suppositions or theories, [or analogies] not being allowed to form part of the testimony.”—Contributions, p. 134. Many who take an interest in this subject, and are doubtless desirous of getting to the bottom of it, and learning most of the facts of it, may not have the time or opportunities to investigate it; or they may not have the talents suitable for the business, or may find it difficult to get hold of the thread of it, so as to The question is, When, and for very fully reviewed-all parties in- The discovery of Bunyan (with a 66 Very likely there was not a drop of common English blood in Bunyan's veins. John Bunyan belongs to the world at large, and England is only entitled to the credit of the formation of his character."— Contributions, p. 159. what purpose, and under what cir- | "Tall of stature, strong-boned, with sparkling eyes, wearing his hair on the upper lip after the old British fashion, his hair reddish, but in his latter days sprinkled with grey; his nose well cut, his mouth not too large, his forehead something high, and his habit always plain and modest." To the History of the Gipsies, and to the forthcoming Contributions in both of which Mr. Borrow is even In "For my descent, it was, as is well known to many, of a low and inconsiderable generation, my father's house being of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families of the land.” At this time it was death by law for being a Gipsy, and "felony without benefit of clergy" for associating with them, and odious to the rest of the population. Besides telling us that his descent was "well known to many," he added :— "Another thought came into my mind, and that was, whether we [his family and relations] were of the Israelites or no; for finding in the Scriptures that they were once the peculiar people of God, thought I, if I were one of this race [how significant is the expression !] my soul must needs be happy. Now, again, I found within me a great longing to be resolved about this question, At but could not tell how I should. last I asked my father of it, who told me, No, we [his father included] were not." Language like this is pregnant with meaning when used by a man who "Was simply a Gipsy of mixed blood, who must have spoken the Gipsy language in great purity; for considering the extent to which it is spoken in England to-day, we can well believe that it was very pure two centuries ago, and that Bunyan might have written works even in that language."-Contributions, p. 159.—" It would be interesting to have an argument in favour of the common native hypothesis. In the face of what Bunyan said of himself, it is very unreasonable to hold that he was not a Gipsy, but a common native, when the assumption is all the other way. Let neither, however, be assumed, but let an argument in favour of both be placed alongside of the other to see how the case would look."-76., p. 160. In the forthcoming Contributions an effort is made to have the subject of the Gipsies placed on a right foundation, and the race, in its various mixtures of blood and positions in life, openly acknowledged by the world; John Bunyan taking his place "as the first (that is known to the world) of eminent Gipsies, the prince of allegorists, and one of the most remarkable of men and Christians. ' The remarks I have made about two writers in particular are not altogether inapplicable to Mr. A. Fergusson, United Service Club, Edinburgh, who wrote thus, in Notes and Queries, on 19th December, 1874, on Gipsy Christian names and tombs": 66 "The ideas of most people, however, on the subject, derived chiefly from sensational novels and the mystified tales of George Borrow, are, I imagine, still rather hazy." However, I give him, as follows, in answer to his inquiry, copies of inscriptions on two Gipsy tombstones, in the cemetery of Grove Church, in North Bergen township, on the edge of Union Hill, in New Jersey, opposite to New York :— a weeping willow, partly covering a Neat upright marble tablet, with monument, carved on the surface :IN MEMORY OF NAOMI DAVIS, WHO DIED MARCH 4, 1855, AGED 22 YEARS. Farewell father, mother, husband and son, Don't weep for me although I am gone; Don't weep for me, nor neither cry, I trust to meet my God on high. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh Blessed be the name of the Lord.” away, On a smaller upright marble monument, within the enclosure, formed by a chain and marble supports, a little out of order, there is the following, to the memory of her sister : VASHTI, WIFE OF T. WORTON, DIED Nov. 26, 1851, Æ. 26 YR. This family and some of their connections I was well acquainted with. I found them of various mixtures of blood; some with the Gipsy features and colour strongly marked, and others bearing no resemblance to the tribe. They all spoke the language. One of the sons-in-law was a half-caste Scotch Hindoo from Bombay. They did not have much education, but were naturally intelligent, and smart and 'cute.* In addition to the investigations. made in church registers, I would suggest that the records of the different criminal courts in Bedfordshire, (if they still exist) should be examined, to find if people of the name of Bunyan (and how designated) are found to have been on trial, and for what offences. *This was an English Gipsy family. II.—MR. FRANK BUCKLAND AND WHITE OF SEL ON BORNE.* N looking over Mr. Buckland's so many intelligent people maintain edition of White's Natural it as a fact personally known to History of Selborne, I find some themselves. The course adopted strange remarks made by him on by him was not for want of informathe question alluded to by White, tion, for (not to speak of many whether vipers, on the approach of others) he had a number of articles danger, swallow their young. White from myself in Land and Water, himself was the very embodiment and others, in his possession for of dignity and simplicity, candour several months, which did not apand courtesy, and was open to con- pear in that journal, but which were viction on every question relating again laid before him in a work to natural history, let the informa- published last year under the title tion come from whatever direction of Contributions to Natural History, it might. Thus he said:and Papers on other Subjects. In that work I said, in regard to snakes swallowing their young, that Monographers, come from whence they may, have, I think, fair pretence to challenge some regard and approbation from the lovers of natural history." "Men that undertake only one district are much more likely to advance natural knowledge than those that grasp at more than they can possibly be acquainted with.' "Candour forbids me to say absolutely that any fact is false because I have never been witness to such a fact." SO Mr. Buckland, when discussing the question, should have presented in a condensed form the pro and con of it, and given his own conclusion, that the reader could have formed an estimate of his judgment and of the subject generally. In place of that, he has not, even in the most distant manner, alluded to the affirmative side of the question, nor suggested how the idea could have arisen, or how it happens that *This and the following article were of fered, unsuccessfully, to some English publications. I give them in the original form, that they may carry more weight, or be more interesting, than if they had been specially got up for the use they are now put to, although they will present the appearance of a repetition of some of the ideas and facts given. "I consider the testimony so complete that nothing could be added to it, although it would be very interesting to have a careful examination of the anatomy of the snake to ascertain the physical peculiarities connected with the phenomenon described (p. 3). "As in mathematics we require to know some things to demonstrate others; so in snakes swallowing their young it is not necessary for a man of science or common sense, if he will but exercise it, to see it done in order to believe it; but when ocular testimony is added, it sets the question at rest beyond all doubt. The next thing to be considered is the anatomy of the snake immediately after the birth of her progeny; but that could not be so easily ascertained as that she swallows them (p. 38). "I am not aware of the throat of a snake having been examined to whether it could allow an instant passage for her young. If a throat were examined, it should be that of a snake that was alleged or supposed to have swallowed her progeny "It will be difficult to find this passage (p. 26). unless when it is in use, for it will be come so contracted at other times as to escape any observation that is not very minutely made (p. 36). That evidence I have not seen impeached by any one. Part of it consisted of a paper read by Professor G. Brown Goode, of the University of Middletown, Connecticut, before the Science Convention at Portland, in the State of Maine, in 1873, which furnished evidence from nearly a hundred people from many parts of the United States; several gentlemen present testifying of their own knowledge to the fact of snakes swallowing their young, particularly Professor Sydney J. Smith, of the Sheffield Scientific School, Yale College, who "added to the testimony of the paper his personal evidence, that he had seen 'with his own eyes' young snakes entering and issuing from the mouth of an older one.' Mr. Buckland brings forward no evidence whatever in support of himself and his friends as "antiswallowers." What he says amounts virtually to this, that what he and they do not know, or do not understand, has no existence in fact! The twelve verses of the song, to the tune of Lord Lovel, composed by Mr. Henry Lee, in connection with himself and Mr. Higford Burr, in attempted derision of "swallowers," has no bearing on the question at issue. He, indeed, advances Mr. Davy, the bird-catcher and dealer, who and whose employès never saw a viper swallow her young, and therefore pronounce the idea a story of Old Mother Hubbard! He also quotes Mr. Holland, the keeper of the snakes at the Zoological Gardens, who never saw it done in his collection of snakes; from which Mr. Buckland infers that the idea is a romance. attach no weight to what Mr. Davy says; but Mr. Holland is entitled to a particular notice. I would ask him if he knows for certainty how vipers are born. If he finds that the mother passes the young in the shape of an egg or ball, about the size of a blackbird's egg, when they immediately disengage themselves 66 I from the covering after it has touched the ground, how can he find a viper full of young, upwards of seven inches long, and so active as to instantly fight or run, unless they afterwards entered her by the mouth? Like Mr. Davy, the birdman, he will doubtless scratch his head and cry, "Old Mother Hubbard!" Most likely both gentlemen's knowledge is limited to their own observations, and, like such people generally, they are poor judges of what has been observed by others under different circumstances. Thus Mr. Holland concludes that vipers do not, and therefore cannot, swallow their young while in a state of nature, because they do not do it while in captivity -a most illogical conclusion. vipers have either been born in captivity, or become reconciled to it through time, so that their house, cage, or den is the only place of safety they know of. And for what purpose would a viper swallow her young under these circumstances? It could not be to carry them anywhere, or shield them from the weather, or protect them against danger that was avoidable; the last being the reason always given by people who have seen the phenomenon. This I explained in Land and Water, when I also met the objection of the viper-catchers. His It would be interesting to be told by Mr. Buckland how viviparous snakes are actually born. He cuts open a viper, and finds inside a string or necklace of eggs about an inch in length. Further on in the season he cuts open another viper, and finds the same number (as it may be) of young, upwards of seven inches long, complete and active snakes, lying all sorts of ways, with no remains of the eggs. He says that these have not yet been born; whereas, in fact, they had previously been born in the way described, and had returned to the same chamber by the mouth. An assumption |