ment was made to Professor Liebig, or the translator ; but all 

 the evidence is wholly the other way. 



So much for the foundation of the assertion that Professor 

 Liebig " was paid " for his Report, and that it was " generously 

 given," by the British Association, "to the world." 



To return to the Abstract of Dr. Playfair. It was, no doubt, 

 prepared from the German original ; not from Dr. Gregory's 

 translation. Of this abstract, the editor of the Cambridge edi- 

 tion had been already informed by Dr. Gregory, in one of his 

 letters. The abstract was read on the 24th of June. Messrs. 

 Wiley and Putnam positively assert, that the book (that is, 

 Dr. Gregory's translation), was not, and could not be published, 

 until the 24th of June. This it is not necessary now to dispute ; 

 it may, however, be worth while to state, that a medical friend, 

 being in London, actually purchased a copy " at open sale " on 

 the 23d ! But, even admitting that what Messrs. Wiley and 

 Putnam say is correct, how could Dr. Playfair have found time 

 to read, much less to study, the book in its English dress, to 

 write his abstract and to read it on the very day of publication ? 

 He had obviously made use of the German original. Further- 

 more, on the 30th of June, Dr. Gregory writes : " The new 

 work has been received in Germany with enthusiasm." The 

 work, then, must have been published in Germany, before the 

 time, when only (according to Messrs. Wiley and Putnam), it 

 could have been published, not in London alone, but in the world, 

 namely, June 24th. But it seems it had been published on the 

 continent, had been read and admired, and sufficient time had 

 elapsed for Dr. Gregory to learn that it had created a sensation 

 in Germany. 



Messrs. Wiley and Putnam undertake to decide, that Professor 

 Liebig had " no power to authorize the republication of his work 

 any where." This they infer from their previous assertion, that 

 it had been " purchased from him by the Association." Having 

 shown, that there could have been no purchase, this inference 

 has no foundation. Besides, by a standing Rule of the Associ- 

 ation, even had the work been purchased by the Association, the 

 author might have retained his right of property in it, and his 



