doubtless agree is the absurdity of Lord
Salisbury's representation of the process of Natural Selection based
upon the improbability of two varying individuals meeting. His
nonsensical representation of the theory ought to be exposed, for it
will mislead very many people. I see it is adopted by the _Pall Mall_. I
have been myself strongly prompted to take the matter up, but it is
evidently your business to do that. Pray write a letter to the _Times_
explaining that selection or survival of the fittest does not
necessarily take place in the way he describes. You might set out by
remarking that whereas he begins by comparing himself to a volunteer
colonel reviewing a regiment of regulars, he very quickly changes his
attitude and becomes a colonel of regulars reviewing volunteers and
making fun of their bunglings. He deserves a-severe castigation. There
are other points on which his views should be rectified, but this is the
essential point.

It behoves you of all men to take up the gauntlet he has thrown
down.--Very truly yours,

HERBERT SPENCER.

* * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE

_Queen's Hotel, Cliftonville, Margate, Aug. 19, 1894._

Dear Mr. Wallace,--I cannot at all agree with you respecting the
relative importance of the work you are doing and that which I wanted
you to do. Various articles in the papers show that Lord Salisbury's
argument is received with triumph, and, unless it is disposed of, it
will lead to a public reaction against the doctrine of evolution at
large, a far more serious evil than any error which you propose to
rectify among biologists. Everybody will look to you for a reply, and if
you make no reply it will be understood that Lord Salisbury's objection
is valid. As to the non-publication of your letter in the _Times_, that
is absurd, considering that your name and that of Darwin are constantly
coupled together.--Truly yours,

HERBERT SPENCER.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 8, 1894._

My dear Poulton,--I was glad to see your exposure of another American
Neo-Lamarckian in _Nature_.[24] It is astonishing how utterly illogical
they all are! I was much pleased with your point of the adaptations
supposed to be produced by the inorganic environment when they are
related to the organic. It is I think new and very forcible. For nearly
a month I have been wading through Bateson's book,[2