for a long time; they have the point and brilliancy which are wanted to make leading articles readable and popular.  The articles on Mill’s Political Economy and on Mazzini are also first-rate.  He has introduced also the plan of having two, and now three, important articles in each number—­one political or social, one literary, and one scientific.  Under the old regime they never had an editor above mediocrity, except Masson (?  Musson); there was a want of unity among the proprietors as to the aims and objects of the journal; and there was a want of capital to secure the services of good writers.  This seems to me to be now all changed for the better, and I only hope the rumour of that bete noire, the Anthropological Society, having anything to do with it may not cause our best men of science to withdraw their support and contributions.

I have read Tylor, and am reading Lecky.  I found the former somewhat disconnected and unsatisfactory from the absence of any definite result or any decided opinion on most of the matters treated of.

Lecky I like much, though he is rather tedious and obscure at times.  Most of what he says has been said so much more forcibly by Buckle, whose work I have read for the second time with increased admiration, although with a clear view of some of his errors.  Nevertheless, his is I think unapproachably the grandest work of the present century, and the one most likely to liberalise opinion.  Lubbock’s book is very good, but his concluding chapter very weak.  Why are men of science so dreadfully afraid to say what they think and believe?

In reply to your kind inquiries about myself, I can only say that I am ashamed of my laziness.  I have done nothing lately but write a paper on Pigeons for the Ibis, and am drawing up a Catalogue of my Collection of Birds.

As to my “Travels,” I cannot bring myself to undertake them yet, and perhaps never shall, unless I should be fortunate enough to get a wife who would incite me thereto and assist me therein—­which is not likely.

I am glad to hear that the “Origin” is still working its revolutionary way on the Continent.  Will Mueller’s book on it be translated?

I am glad to hear you are a little better.  My poor friend Spruce is still worse than you are, and I fear now will not recover.  He wants to write a book if he gets well enough.—­With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.  January 22, 1866.

My dear Wallace,—­I thank you for your paper on Pigeons,[52] which interested me, as everything that you write does.  Who would ever have dreamed that monkeys influenced the distribution of pigeons and parrots!  But I have had a still higher satisfaction; for I finished yesterday your paper in the Linnean Transactions.[53] It is admirably done.  I cannot conceive that the most firm believer in Species could read it without being staggered.  Such papers will make many more converts among naturalists than long-winded books such as I shall write if I have strength.