November 6.

I am very glad to hear that the 500 pounds is granted, and I will see to what is next to be done as soon as I can.  Also I am very glad to find you don’t want my valuable service on Council Royal Society.  I repented me of my offer when I thought how little I might be able to attend.

[One thing, however, afforded him great pleasure at this time.  He writes on November 6 to his old friend, Sir J. Hooker:—­]

I write just to say what infinite satisfaction the award of the Copley Medal to you has given me.  If you were not my dear old friend, it would rejoice me as a mere matter of justice—­of which there is none too much in this “—­ rum world,” as Whitworth’s friend called it.

[To the reply that the award was not according to rule, inasmuch as it was the turn for the medal to be awarded in another branch of science, he rejoins:—­]

I had forgotten all about the business—­but he had done nothing to deserve the Copley, and all I can say is that if the present award is contrary to law, the “law’s a hass” as Mr. Bumble said.  But I don’t believe that it is.

[He replies also on November 5 to a clerical correspondent who had written to him on the distinction between sheretz and rehmes, and accused him of “wilful blindness” in his theological controversy of 1886:—­]

Let me assure you that it is not my way to set my face against being convinced by evidence.

I really cannot hold myself to be responsible for the translators of the Revised Version of the Old Testament.  If I had given a translation of the passage to which you refer on my own authority, any mistake would be mine, and I should be bound to acknowledge it.  As I did not, I have nothing to admit.  I have every respect for your and Mr. —­’s authority as Hebraists, but I have noticed that Hebrew scholars are apt to hold very divergent views, and before admitting either your or Mr. —­’s interpretation, I should like to see the question fully discussed.

If, when the discussion is concluded, the balance of authority is against the revised version, I will carefully consider how far the needful alterations may affect the substance of the one passage in my reply to Mr. Gladstone which is affected by it.

At present I am by no means clear that it will make much difference, and in no case will the main lines of my argument as to the antagonism between modern science and the Pentateuch be affected.  The statements I have made are public property.  If you think they are in any way erroneous I must ask you to take upon yourself the same amount of responsibility as I have done, and submit your objections to the same ordeal.

There is nothing like this test for reducing things to their true proportions, and if you try it, you will probably discover, not without some discomfort, that you really had no reason to ascribe wilful blindness to those who do not agree with you.