In 1872 Mr. Leland published his work on _The English Gipsies and their Language_, in which no reference was made to mine, [that is, my part of it]. {11b} In 1874 he wrote, for _Johnson’s Cyclopædia_, an article on the Gipsies, in which he made use of the History proper to illustrate the race in Scotland, and my addition (which made about half of the book) exclusively to illustrate it in America, and giving my words. It did not appear from this article that he had any personal knowledge of the subject, {11c} excepting that he said that he knew of one Gipsy who had travelled from Canada to Texas, as confirmatory of what I had written; and asserted that “there is probably _not one_ theatre or circus in England or America in which there are not one or more performers of more or less mixed Gipsy blood.” The only other remark he made of that nature was the following:—“The reader who will devote a very few weeks to either Dr. B. Smart’s _Vocabulary_, to G. Borrow’s _Romano Lavo Lil_, or G. C. Leland’s _English Gipsies_ (London, 1872), can speak the language better than most English or American Gipsies.” In other words, that any person with tact and a turn to pick up, remember and use Gipsy words could do just what he had done; and by going over the same ground produce, in a varied form as regards circumstances, scenes described by others. It is exceedingly probable that the work edited and published by me specially stimulated Mr. Leland to take up the subject so fully treated in it. In his book entitled _The Gipsies_ (New York, 1882), Mr. Leland complains of “a reviewer” saying of his _English Gipsies and their Language_ that it “had added nothing to our knowledge on the subject;” which was morally if not literally true, that on the language excepted, which was mainly an illustration and continuation of the collections of others, acquired with great labour. He has made several allusions to my work, without indicating it, such as frequently using the word “Gipsydom,” although that might have been done by any one; which could not have been said of “the old thing” (p. 274), which I used on several occasions to describe a settled Gipsy visiting a Gipsy tent, to view the style of life of his primitive ancestor. He has also made unfair allusion to the “mixed multitude” of the Exodus as being the origin of the Gipsies, (p. 89); and to the subject of the Scottish Tinklers or Gipsies, (p. 371). In _The Gipsies_ he says, “No one will accuse me of wide discussion or padding,” (p. 84). That is obvious to any one, for almost every chapter contains an intolerable amount of extraneous matter or padding, that has no reference to the title page or headings of the chapters. In some parts of the book there are several pages at a stretch—once as much as seven pages—of such extraneous matter; and it would be interesting to make an analysis of it, line by line, to ascertain the proportion of the two kinds of matter.