maintained that truth was no virtue in itself, but must be inculcated for expediency’s sake.  The opposite view found a champion in Professor Huxley, who described himself as] “almost a fanatic for the sanctity of truth.” [Lady —­ urged that truth was often a very selfish virtue, and that a man of noble and unselfish character might lie for the sake of a friend, to which some one replied that after a course of this unselfish lying the noble character was pretty sure to deteriorate, while the Professor laughingly suggested that the owner had a good chance of finding himself landed ultimately in Botany Bay.

The celebrated instance of John Inglesant’s perjury for the sake of Charles I. was then brought forward, and it was this which led Professor Huxley to say that in his judgment no one had the right passively to submit to a false accusation, and that] “moral suicide” [was as blameworthy as physical suicide.] “He may refuse to commit another, but he ought not to allow himself to be believed worse than he actually is.  It is a loss to the world of moral force, which cannot be afforded.”

[...Then as regards women’s powers.  The Professor said he did not believe in their ever succeeding in a competition with men.  Then he went on:—­] “I can’t help looking at women with something of the eye of a physiologist.  Twenty years ago I thought the womanhood of England was going to the dogs,” [but now, he said, he observed a wonderful change for the better.  We asked to what he attributed it.  Was it to lawn tennis and the greater variety of bodily exercises?] “Partly,” [he answered,] “but much more to their having more pursuits—­more to interest them and to occupy their thoughts and time.”

[The following letter bears upon the question of employing retired engineer officers in administrative posts in the Science and Art Department:—­]

The Rookery, Lynton, September 19, 1882.

My dear Donnelly,

Your letter seems to have arrived here the very day I left for Whitby, whither I had to betake myself to inspect a weir, so I did not get it until my return last night.

I am extremely sorry to hear of the possibility of Martin’s giving up his post.  He took so much interest in the work and was so very pleasant to deal with, that I do not think we shall easily find any one to replace him.

If you will find another R.E. at all like him, in Heaven’s name catch him and put him in, job or no job.

The objection to a small clerk is that we want somebody who knows how to deal with men, and especially young men on the one hand, and especially cantankerous (more or less) old scientific buffers on the other.

The objection to a man of science is that (1) we want a man of business and not a m.s., and (2) that no man scientifically worth having that I know of is likely to take such an office.

“As at present advised” I am all for an R.E., so I cannot have the pleasure even of trying to convert you.