This letter is so badly expressed that it is barely intelligible, but I am tired with proofs. P.S.--Mr. Warington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstract of the "Origin" before the Victoria Institute, and as this is a most orthodox body he has gained the name of the devil's advocate. The discussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very rich from the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the number I could lend it you. I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the table on the Duke, when you make him create the _Angræcum_ and moth by special creation. * * * * * _Hurstpierpoint. October 22, 1867._ Dear Darwin,--I am very glad you approve of my article on "Creation by Law" as a whole. The "machine metaphor" is not mine, but the _North British_ reviewer's. I merely accept it and show that it is on our side and not against us, but I do not think it at all a good metaphor to be used as an _argument_ either way. I did not half develop the argument on the limits of variation, being myself limited in space; but I feel satisfied that it is the true answer to the very common and very strong objection, that "variation has strict limits." The fallacy is the requiring variation in domesticity to go beyond the limits of the same variation under nature. It does do so sometimes, however, because the conditions of existence are so different. I do not think a case can be pointed out in which the limits of variation under domestication are not up to or beyond those already marked out in nature, only we generally get in the _species_ an amount of change which in nature occurs only in the whole range of the _genus_ or _family_. The many cases, however, in which variation has gone far beyond nature and has not yet stopped are ignored. For instance, no wild pomaceous fruit is, I believe, so large as our apples, and no doubt they could be got much larger if flavour, etc., were entirely neglected. I may perhaps push "protection" too far sometimes, for it is my hobby just now, but as the lion and the tiger are, I think, the only two non-arboreal cats, I think the tiger stripe agreeing so well with its usual habitat is at least a probable case. I am rewriting my article on Birds' Nests for the new _Natural History Review_. I cannot tell you about the first appearance of _tears_, but it is very early--the first week or two, I think. I can see the _Victoria Institute Magazine_ at the London Library. I shall read your book, _every word_. I hear from Sir C. Lyell that you come out with a grand new theory at the end, which even the _cautious_ (!) Huxley is afraid of! Sir C. said he could think of nothing else since he read it. I long to see it. My address is Hurstpierpoint during the winter, and, when in town, 76-1/2 Westbourne Grove.