S( IENi E-GOSSIP. 







to ;ill 

 ili.it u.i i .rlil ol 



lolitics, ■ rid ' 



hi- 1 1 : >• lli: jecl uninteresting which 



n II ■!■ n ..I 



i have thought, and no 



thought, when some political 



: w hen I luxle) found or 



thai lie would lii-' 



.1 politii balei 



if Ik- li othing else, Although a lifelong 



If, ] nol pretend > i li 



regret thai Huxley had not been stolen from science 

 ; bul I have often felt 

 th.it it Huxlej were in the House ol Commons he 

 would ' da tin isl formidable anl tgonisl to 



inistry with whom Ik- had felt bound t 

 I li, power nl phrase-makit 

 telling as that of Disraeli ; and he had 

 not merely .1 power el phrase-making, bul a p > i 

 ii i ng the central weakness "I an 



vhich would have been ol 

 during a great struggle in ihe 

 mmons. It may seem a strange thing to 

 i think of '1 



I luxle) i Of i arse, we 



.ill kni mII go down into fame as a greal 



illustrs lestions, and this surely would 



be fame enough for even the mosl ambitious. Bul 

 : .'.! Huxlej t .'annul help thin] 



i man) fields, as a man whose mind 

 thought. Huxley 

 came readily down into the arena of public contro- 

 niliai and formidable figure 

 there. Wherever there was strife there was 

 I [uxley. 

 ■■ Huxley was in point ol facl as well as a scientific 

 ■ literary man and a writer. What he wrote 

 I be worth reading for it> style and its expressi in 

 alone were it of no scientific authority; whereas we 

 all know perfectly well that scientific men generally 

 are read only for the sake of what they teach, anil not 

 il ill i. ii their manner of teaching it — rather, indeed, 

 in despite of their manner of teaching it. Huxley 

 fascinating writer, and had a happy way of 

 ig continually into the service of strictly 

 scientific expositions illustrations caught from litera- 

 ture and art— even from popular and light literature. 

 He seemed to understand clearly that you can never 

 make scientific doctrines really popular while you are 

 content with the ear of strictly scientific men, and 

 therefore cultivated sedulously and successfully the 

 literary art of expression. A London friend of mine, 

 who has had long experience in the editing of high- 

 ii .h als, is in the habil of affirming humor- 

 ously that the teachers of the public are divided into 

 two cki-ses: those who know something and cannot 

 write, and those who know nothing and can write. 

 literary man, especially every editor, will 

 cordially agree with me that at the heart of this 

 humorous extravagance is a solid kernel of truth. 

 Now, scientific men very often belong to the class ,.f 



i 

 . i . l 



Huxley with the hand ..! the gift ol 



is denied. lie wo a vivid, forcible, 

 His styli .'■■ a lectun 



which, for me at least, I rm. It was, 



indeed, devoid of any rhetot hut il 



had .ill the eloque ' iioli ol 



d thoughl with 

 luminous diction. There was nol much of the 

 certainly, m j only tin- frequent 



dramatic vi\ id ■ ted the 



existence in him ol any ol the higher imaginative 

 qualities. 1 think there was something like a gleam 

 ol the poetic in the half-melancholy, half-humorous 

 introduction ol Balzac's famous ' Peau d I 

 into the Protoplasm lecture. 



"But Huxley as a rule trod only tin- timi earth, 

 and deliberately, perha] i illy, rejected 



attempts and aspirings . . loud.. Hi 



was in this way far more rigidly practical than that 

 of Richard Owen. lie was never eloquent in the 

 sense in which Humboldt, for example. « 

 eloquent. Being a politician, I may In- exci 

 borrowing an illustration from the : 

 saying that Huxley's eloquence was like that 61 

 Cobden : it was eloquence only because it 



and tersely truthful. The whole tone of his 

 mind, the whole tendency of his philosophy, may 



i ived to have this character of quiet, 

 and practical truthfulness. \, .,., lei alt. i 

 could lie more earnest, more patient, more dis- 

 interested. 'Dry ligl , I lis it light 

 uncoloured by prejudii med 1>> illusion, 



■I te-il by interposing was all that 



Huxley desired to have. He put no bounds to the 

 range of human inquiry." 



Hairy-armed Hat. — The " Irish Naturalist" for 



August contains an article by Dr. \. II. Alcock, on 

 '• Irish Hats." in which he describes a specimen 

 hairy-armed hat, while in a state of captivity. This 

 appears to he the first lime the habits of the species 

 have been observed in confinement since 1858, when 

 Mr. Darragh had one that lived eight days. Dr. 

 v -was a female, given to him on tin 13th ol 

 February last, and he says : "for nearly a month it 

 remained in a typical state ol hibernation; hut on 

 March nth it woke up and ate raw meal dipped in 

 milk, not appearing in the least degree wild or shy. 

 A few days of cold weather sent it hack to sleep, then 

 ppeared, very lively, and with a great appeiile. 

 Il always slept during the day. waking up about 

 0.30 p.m., when it was taken out. of its cage and 

 placed on the table. Here it ale raw meat in truly 

 us quantities, and exercised itself, scurrying 

 round the table, never attempting lo fly. though 

 occasionally falling off on to the floor. It learned lo 

 come to .1 pair of scissors, the clinking together of the 

 blades serving as a ' dinner bell/ and would always 

 walk towards one's hands, which it climbed over and 

 finally crouched down in. apparently enjoying the 

 warmth." Unfortunately on April 6th, it was 

 accidentally crushed while careering round the floor, 

 after having become a favourite with all wh 

 made its acquaintance. 





