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.
I said in my communication of the 8th that there was more than a possibility of Thomas Bonyon and his wife, in 1542, having been of the original stock of Gipsies, of mixed blood, that assumed the surname of a “good family in the land.” As illustrative of this question, we have a writ of the Scots’ parliament, of the 8th April, 1554, pardoning thirteen Gipsies for the slaughter of Ninian Small, their names being the following:—“Andro Faw, captain of the Egyptians, George Faw, Robert Faw, and Anthony Faw, his sons, Johnne Faw, Andrew George Nichoah, George Sebastiane Colyne, George Colyne, Julie Colyne, Johnne Colyne, James Haw, _Johnne Browne_, and _George Browne_, Egyptians.” There being thus Gipsies of the name of _Brown_ (and, oddly enough, one called _John Brown_), in Scotland before 1554, we should have no difficulty in believing that there were, or might have been, some in England of the name of _Bonyon_ in 1542. The only native name assumed by the tribe in Scotland before 1540, when they were noticed officially, was Bailyow, or Baillie. And how did we have Gipsies in Scotland of the name of _Brown_ (apparently the only native name, except Baillie), in a public document before 1554? Between 1506 and 1579 was the “golden age” of the Gipsies in Scotland, excepting (nominally, at least) the year 1541–2, for, on the 6th June, 1541, they were ordered to leave the realm within thirty days, on pain of death, owing to an attack made by them on James V. while roaming over the country in disguise. “But the king, whom, according to tradition, they had personally so deeply offended, dying in the following year (1542), a new reign brought new prospects to the denounced wanderers” (His., p. 107). There is a tradition that the Gipsies were in Scotland before 1460, for McLellan of Bombie happening to kill a chief of some “Saracens or Gipsies from Ireland,” was reinstated in the Barony of Bombie, and took for his crest a Moor’s head, and “Think on” for his motto. And it is a tradition amongst all the Scottish Gipsies that their ancestors came by way of Ireland into Scotland. How, then, were there Gipsies described, in a writ of the Scots’ parliament, by the names of John and George Brown in 1554? In no other apparent way, during their “golden age,” than that a native or natives of that name had married into the tribe, and that the two Browns, perhaps brothers, mentioned were the issue, and grown-up men at that; so that the marriage could not have taken place later than 1533, and probably considerably earlier. There was little chance of a Scotch lawyer describing these two Browns as “Egyptians” unless they had been the children of a native father, or had previously assumed the surname of Brown; the first being the most probable. { 18}