[In fact, a lady who was preparing to subscribe 1000 pounds to “General” Booth’s “Darkest England” scheme, begged Huxley first to give her his opinion of the scheme and the likelihood of its being properly carried out.  A careful examination of “Darkest England” and other authorities on the subject, convinced him that it was most unwise to create an organisation whose absolute obedience to an irresponsible leader might some day become a serious danger to the State; that the reforms proposed were already being undertaken by other bodies, which would be crippled if this scheme were floated; and that the financial arrangements of the Army were not such as provide guarantees for the proper administration of the funds subscribed:—­]

And if the thing goes on much longer, if Booth establishes his Bank, you will have a crash some of these fine days, comparable only to Law’s Mississippi business, but unfortunately ruining only the poor.

[On the same day he writes to his eldest son:—­]

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, December 8, 1890.

Attacking the Salvation Army may look like the advance of a forlorn hope, but this old dog has never yet let go after fixing his teeth into anything or anybody, and he is not going to begin now.  And it is only a question of holding on.  Look at Plumptre’s letter exposing the Bank swindle.

The “Times”, too, is behaving like a brick.  This world is not a very lovely place, but down at the bottom, as old Carlyle preached, veracity does really lie, and will show itself if people won’t be impatient.

[No sooner had he begun to express these opinions in the columns of the “Times” than additional information of all kinds poured in upon him, especially from within the Army, much of it private for fear of injury to the writers if it were discovered that they had written to expose abuses; indeed in one case the writer had thought better of even appending his signature to his letter, and had cut off his name from the foot of it, alleging that correspondence was not inviolable.  So far were these persons from feeling hostility to the organisation to which they belonged, that one at least hailed the Professor as the divinely-appointed redeemer of the Army, whose criticism was to bring it back to its pristine purity.

To his elder son:—­]

Hodeslea, Eastbourne, January 8, 1891.

Dear Lens,

It is very jolly to think of J. and you paying us a visit.  It is proper, also, the eldest son should hansel the house.

Is the Mr. Sidgwick who took up the cudgels for me so gallantly in the “St. James’” one of your Sidgwicks?  If so, I wish you would thank him on my account. (The letter was capital.) [Mr. William C. Sidgwick had written (January 4) an indignant letter to protest against the heading of an article in the “Speaker”, Professor Huxley as Titus Oates.”  “To this monster of iniquity the “Speaker” compares an honourable English gentleman, because he has ventured