I wish you would start that business of giving a competent young botanist with good legs 100 pounds to go and study distribution in the Engadine—­from the Maloja as centre—­in a circle of a radius of eight or ten miles.  The distribution of the four principal conifers, Arolla pine, larch, mountain pine and spruce, is most curious, the why and wherefore nowise apparent.

I am very sorry I cannot be at x on Thursday, but they won’t let me be out at night at present.

Ever yours,

T.H.  Huxley.

4 Marlborough Place, October 28, 1888.

My dear Foster,

No fear of my trying to stop in London.  Hames won’t have it.  He came and overhauled me the other day.  As I expected, the original mischief is just as it was.  One does not get rid either of dilatation or its results at my time of life.  The only thing is to keep the pipes clear by good conditions of existence.

After endless discussion we have settled on Brighton for November and December.  It is a hateful place to my mind, but there is more chance of sunshine there (at this time) than anywhere else.  We shall come up for a week or two on this side of Christmas, and then get away somewhere else out of the way of the east winds of February and March.

I do not think that the Hazlemere country would do for us, nor indeed any country place so long as we cannot regularly set up house.

Heaven knows I don’t want to bother about anything at present.  But I should like to convince —­ that he does not yet understand the elements of his subject.  What a copious ink-spilling cuttlefish of a writer he is!

Ever yours,

T.H.  Huxley.

4 Marlborough Place, London, N.W., November 2, 1888.

My dear Skelton,

Best thanks for the second volume of “Maitland of Lethington.”  I have been in the Engadine for the last four months, trying to repair the crazy old “house I live in,” and meeting with more success than I hoped for when I left home.

Your volume turned up amidst a mountain of accumulated books, papers, and letters, and I can only hope it has not been too long without acknowledgment.

I have been much interested in your argument about the “Casket letters.”  The comparison of Crawford’s deposition with the Queen’s letter leaves no sort of doubt that the writer of one had the other before him; and under the circumstances I do not see how it can be doubted that the Queen’s letter is forged.

But though thus wholly agreeing with you in substance, I cannot help thinking that your language on page 341 may be seriously pecked at.

My experience of reporters leads me to think that there would be no discrepancy at all comparable to that between the two accounts, and I speak from the woeful memories of the many Royal Commissions I have wearied over.  The accuracy of a good modern reporter is really wonderful.

And I do not think that “the two documents were drawn by the same hand.”  I should say that the writer of the letter had Crawford’s deposition before him, and made what he considered improvements here and there.