DISCUSSION WITH M. PASTEUR 165, 

that the opportunity should be given to M. Pasteur 
and myself of repeating (without variation) the 
actual experiments upon which we based our re- 
spective opinions; that I should then return to 
London, and after the Commission had expressed 
its opinion to M. Pasteur and to myself as to any 
variation in the experimental conditions which they 
might desire to institute, that I should return to Paris 
to witness and to perform such modified experiments. 
The names of MM. Fremy, Trécul, Robin, and 
Wurtz had been mentioned by me as persons one 
or other of whom I should like to be placed on the 
Commission in succession to M. Boussingault. But, 
at the meeting of the Academy that afternoon, it 
was announced that M. van Tieghem had been 
nominated to succeed M. Boussingault. This 
gentleman being a former pupil and present 
colleague of M. Pasteur, the Commission was still 
left without a single member who could be con- 
sidered as representing my views, or even as 
holding a neutral position between me and M. 
Pasteur. 
The next day I received a note from M. van 
Tieghem informing me that ‘the Commission of 
the Academy would meet to-morrow, Wednesday, 
at 8 a.m., in the laboratory of M. Pasteur,” and 
asking me to be present in order to commence with 
the experiments under discussion. 
I made all the necessary arrangements that after- 
noon in M. Pasteur’s laboratory for the performance 
of my experiments, and the next morning at eight 
o'clock M. Pasteur and I were at the appointed 
