1895 THE 'FOUNDATIONS OF BELIEF' 355 



brilliant piece of work from a literary point of view ; 

 but as a helpful contribution to tbe great controversy, 

 the most disappointing he had ever read. I said, " There 

 has been no adverse criticism of it yet." He answered 

 with emphasis, " No ! but there soon will be." " From 

 you ? " I asked. " I let out no secrets," was the reply. 



He then talked with great admiration and affection 

 of Mr. Balfour's brother, Francis. His early death, and 

 W. K. Clifford's (Huxley said), had been the greatest loss 

 to science — not only in England, but in the world — in 

 our time. " Half a dozen of us old fogies could have 

 been better spared." He remembered Frank Balfour as 

 a boy at [Harrow] and saw his unusual talent there. 

 " Then my friend, Michael Foster, took him up at 

 Cambridge, and found out that he had real genius for 

 biology. I used to say there was science in the blood, 

 but this new book of his brother's," he added, smiling, 

 " shows I was -wrong." 



Apropos to his remark about the Comtists, one of the 

 company pointed out that in later life Comte recognised 

 a science of " the individual," equivalent to what Huxley 

 meant by psychology. " That," he replied, " was due 

 to the influence of Clotilde de Vaux. You see," he 

 added, with a kind of Sir Charles Grandison bow to my 

 wife, " what power your sex may have." As Huxley was 

 going out of the house, I said to him that Father A B. 

 (the priest who had been present) had not expected to 

 find himself in his company. " No ! I trust he had 

 plenty of holy water with him," was the reply. 



. . . After he had gone, we were all agreed as to the 

 extraordinary vigour and brilliancy he had shown. Some 

 one said, " He is like a man who is what the Scotch 

 call ' fey.' " We laughed at the idea, but we naturally 

 recalled the remark later on. 



The story of how the article was written is told 

 in the following letters. It was suggested by Mr. 



