Oh. XIII.] BEVIEWS AND OBITIOISMS, 1860. 233 



send it (and of this there can hardly be any question), and if 

 you think it full and ample enough, please alter the date to the 

 day on which you post it, and let that be soon. The case in 

 the Gardeners' Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. 

 Matthew's book, for the passages are therein scattered in three 

 places ; but it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that. 

 If you object to my letter, please return it; but I do not expect 

 that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run 

 your eye over it. My dear Hooker, it is a great thing for me 

 to have so good, true, and old a friend as you. I owe much 

 for science to my friends. 



... I have gone over [the Edinburgh'] review again, and 

 compared passages, and I am astonished at the misrepresenta- 

 tions. But I am glad I resolved not to answer. Perhaps it is 

 selfish, but to answer and think more on the subject is too un- 

 pleasant. I am so sorry that Huxley by my means has been 

 thus atrociously attacked. I do not suppose you much care 

 about the gratuitous attack on you. 



Lyell in his letter remarked that you seemed to him as if 

 you were overworked. Do, pray, be cautious, and remember 

 how many and many a man has done this — who thought it 

 absurd till too late. I have often thought the same. You 

 know that you were bad enough before your Indian journey. 



C. D. to 0. Lyell. Down, April [I860]. 



... I was particularly glad to hear what you thought 

 about not noticing [the Edinburgh] review. Hooker and 

 Huxley thought it a sort of duty to point out the alteration of 

 quoted citations, and there is truth in this remark ; but I so 

 hated the thought that I resolved not to do so. I shall come 

 up to London on Saturday the 14th, for Sir B. Brodie's party, 

 as I have an accumulation of things to do in London, and will 



remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the Saturday 

 Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, I860, was " scarcely fair in alluding to 

 Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published 

 the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine 

 years ago." It was not until later that he learned that Matthew had also 

 been forestalled. In October 1865, he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker : — " Talking 

 of the Origin, a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to 

 Dr. Wells' famous Essay on Dew, which was read in 1813 to the Koyal 

 Soc., but not [then] printed, in which he applies most distinctly the 

 principle of Natural Selection to the races of Man. So poor old Patrick 

 Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any longer to put 

 on his title-pages, ' Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection ' ! " 



