Reference has been made to the fact that the honorary degree of D.C.L. was conferred this May upon Huxley by the University of Oxford.  The Universities of the sister kingdoms had been the first thus to recognise his work; and after Aberdeen and Dublin, Cambridge, where natural science had earlier established a firm foothold, showed the way to Oxford.  Indeed, it was not until his regular scientific career was at an end, that the University of Oxford opened its portals to him.  So, as he wrote to Professor Bartholomew Price on May 20, in answer to the invitation,] “It will be a sort of apotheosis coincident with my official death, which is imminent.  In fact, I am dead already, only the Treasury Charon has not yet settled the conditions upon which I am to be ferried over to the other side.”

[Before leaving the subject of his connection with the Royal Society, it may be worth while to give a last example of the straightforward way in which he dealt with a delicate point whether to vote or not to vote for his friend Sir Andrew Clark, who had been proposed for election to the Society.  It occurred just after his return from abroad; he explains his action to Sir Joseph Hooker, who had urged caution on hearing a partial account of the proceedings.]

South Kensington, April 25, 1885.

My dear Hooker,

I don’t see very well how I could have been more cautious than I have been.  I knew nothing of Clark’s candidature until I saw his name in the list; and if he or his proposer had consulted me, I should have advised delay, because I knew very well there would be a great push made for —­ this year.

Being there, however, it seemed to me only just to say that which is certainly true, namely, that Clark has just the same claim as half a dozen doctors who have been admitted without question, e.g.  Gull, Jenner, Risdon Bennett, on the sole ground of standing in the profession.  And I think that so long as that claim is admitted, it will be unjust not to admit Clark.

So I said what you heard; but I was so careful not to press unduly upon the Council, that I warned them of the possible prejudice arising from my own personal obligations to Clark’s skill, and I went so far as not to put his name in the first list myself, a step which I now regret.

If this is not caution enough, I should like to know what is?  As Clive said when he came back from India, “By God, sir, I am astonished at my own moderation!”

If it is not right to make a man a fellow because he holds a first-class place as a practitioner of medicine as the Royal Society has done since I have known it, let us abolish the practice.  But then let us also in justice refuse to recognise the half-and-half claims, those of the people who are third-rate as practitioners, and hang on to the skirts of science without doing anything in it.

Several of your and my younger scientific friends are bent on bringing in their chum —­, and Clark’s candidature is very inconvenient to them.  Hence I suspect some of the “outspoken aversion” and criticism of Clark’s claims you have heard.