5 i8 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



sible to say with, reason; for it has sometimes happened that 

 opinions have "been quoted with approval as mine which I had 

 quite forgotten were mine. I therefore wrote, " My belief is that 

 I have not said this in any connection." That is, I am absolutely 

 unconscious of ever having written it, and do not believe I ever 

 did write it. I do not see what more was required. Mr. Green- 

 wood urges that I have not repudiated it even now. It never oc- 

 curred to me that, after what I said, this was needful. But, as he 

 thinks otherwise, I very willingly repudiate it, both for the past 

 and the present. 



Even did I wish to continue my discussion with Prof. Huxley, 

 it would be ended by his letter. From it I learn that the princi- 

 ples of physiology as at present known are of no use whatever 

 for guidance in practice ; and my argument, therefore, collapses. 



I am, etc., Herbert Spencer. 



Athenaeum Club, November 18th. 



PROF. HUXLEY'S THIRD LETTER. 



To the Editor of " The Times " : 



Sir : It seems to me to be a pity that the discussion which has 

 been carried on in your columns should come to an end before 

 Mr. Laidler's able letter of the 15th instant has been considered 

 on its merits. I conceive it to be a matter of vital importance to 

 the whole nation that the representatives of labor should be 

 under no misapprehension with respect to the grounds of any 

 action they may think fit to take. And as, all my life, I have 

 done my best to bring sound knowledge within reach of the work- 

 ing classes, I trust that they will do me the justice to believe that 

 I am actuated by no other motive now. 



Let me say, at the outset, that I have expressed no opinion, 

 and that I do not intend to express any opinion, as to whether 

 State ownership of land is desirable or not. If it can be proved 

 by arguments, having some foundation in practical experience, 

 that the abolition of several ownership in land and the substitu- 

 tion for it of State ownership is essential to the welfare of the 

 people, no one would feel more bound to give practical effect to 

 that demonstration than I. 



In Mr. Laidler's letter, however, such arguments are not em- 

 ployed. On the contrary, he adopts the method of Rousseau and 

 his followers, which, consists in making certain assumptions 

 about matters of ethics in the first place, and certain assumptions 

 about matters of history in the second place, and then drawing 

 the obvious conclusion that the assumed facts are in sad disaccord- 

 ance with the assumed ethical rules. It is a delightfully easy 

 method, and saves all the trouble of going deeply and thoroughly 



