In regard to what might be called the “nationality” of John Bunyan I
said, in my letter of the 5th May, that “the question at issue is really
not one of evidence, but of an unfortunate feeling of caste that bars the
way against all investigation and proof.” I do not know what the
congregation of Bunyan’s Church at Bedford consists of, but I presume it
is composed of humble people, engaged in making a living and bringing up
their children becomingly, and indulging in the simple conventionalities
suitable to their positions in life. To ask them even to entertain the
question whether the great dreamer was of the Gipsy race would apparently
horrify them in their simplicity; and it might be useless to attempt to
explain matters so as to “convert” them to a belief in it. Proof is
perhaps not what such people want, nor would they all be likely to be
able to say what it should consist of, or to appreciate it if it was laid
before them. It is from no lack of charity or politeness on my part that
I say this, and that I would attach little weight to what they might say
were they to assert that it is only proof they require to satisfy them
that John Bunyan was of the Gipsy race; or that the fact of it has not
been proved. He was either of the Gipsy race, of mixed blood, or of the
ordinary English one. What proof is there that he was of the latter one?
If there is no proof of his having been of the ordinary English race, why
assert it, and deny that he was of the Gipsy one, and refuse to
investigate the meaning of what he said himself and people were and were
not, which, if language has any meaning, clearly showed that he was of
the Gipsy race? Why assume, without investigation, that he was not that,
but of the ordinary English race, even in the face of his calling having
been that of a tinker?
If the congregation of Bunyan’s chinch and the people living in the
neighbourhood of it have a difficulty in judging of evidence in a matter
like this, they can have none in explaining, in a general or more or less
crude way at least, their feelings of antipathy to the idea of the
illustrious pilgrim having been of the Gipsy race; and drawing the
logical conclusion that he was not likely to have said plainly that he
was one of it, in the face of the storm of indignation that seems to be
entertained to-day; an indignation which is so great that it has not yet
found expression.
If some highly educated men have missed the hinge on which the Gipsy
question turns—that the race perpetuates itself in a settled condition,
irrespective of character and other circumstances—and have had a
difficulty in realizing it in all its bearings, we can easily excuse the
congregation of Bunyan’s church for holding views similar to those of the
community at large, on a subject that is more or less complex in its
nature. But they can never expect to do justice to it unless they
approach it with every desire to do what is proper, and not with the
rooted aversion with which it has hitherto been regarded. What Bunyan
told us of himself and family he said was “well known to many”; and he
seems to have assumed that it was, or would have been, understood by the
world. I have even suggested that he had been more precise with some of
his friends, who might (as they very probably would) have suppressed what
he told them in regard to the nationality of himself and his “father’s
house.” If he had publicly said plainly that he was of the Gipsy race,
that would have been a _fact_, which required no _proof_. But there was
no necessity or occasion for him to have said what he did.
It appeals to every principle of fair play and abstract reason that a
race that has been in Great Britain for 375 years must be considered in
many respects British, whatever its origin, or whatever the habits of
some of it may be. It would be very wrong to show and perpetuate a
prejudice against the name, or blood as such, however little or however
much there may be of it in the person possessing and claiming it.
Everything else being equal, such a man, instead of having a prejudice
entertained for him, is entitled to a greater respect than should be
shown to another who labours under no such prejudice in regard to his
blood. Apply this principle to Bunyan and he will stand higher than he
has done. He was evidently a man that was “chosen of God” to shine
brilliantly among the children of a common parent; and it becomes all of
us to acknowledge him. It is to be hoped that the congregation of the
church of which he was the honoured pastor will approach this subject at
least with wariness, and not, against all evidence, reject him who was a
divine instrument for the benefit of humanity, in its highest
concernment; merely because he was a member of a particular “family in
the land,” which has never yet been acknowledged in any shape or form,
however numerous it is.