If you put a physical, chemical, or biological bishop at the head of the teachers of those sciences in London, you will do your best to destroy that freedom. My bar to any catastrophe of that sort lies in Number 3. Let us take the case of Biology. I suppose there will be, at least, half a dozen Professoriates in different branches of this subject each Professor will be giving the same amount of time and energy to University work, and will deserve the same pay. Each, if he is worth his salt, will be a man holding his own views on general questions, and having as good a right as any other to be heard. Why is one to be given a higher rank and vastly greater practical influence than all the rest? Why should not each be a "University Professor" and have his turn on the Senate in influencing the general policy of the University? The nature of things drives men more and more into the position of specialists. Why should one specialist represent a whole branch of science better than another, in Council or in Administration? I am afraid we cannot build upon the analogy of Cambridge. In the first place, London is not Cambridge; and, in the second, Michael Fosters do not grow on every bush. The besetting sin of able men is impatience of contradiction and of criticism. Even those who do their best to resist the temptation, yield to it almost unconsciously and become the tools of toadies and flatterers. "Authorities," "disciples," and "schools" are the curse of science; and do more to interfere with the work of the scientific spirit than all its enemies. Thus you will understand why I have so strongly opposed "absorption." No one can feel more strongly than I the need of getting the present chaos into order and putting an end to the absurd waste of money and energy. But I believe that end may be attained by the method of unification which I have suggested; without bringing in its train the evils which will inevitably flow from "absorptive" regimentation. What I want to see is such an organisation of the means and appliances of University instruction in all its branches, as will conduce to the largest possible freedom of research, learning, and teaching. And if anybody will show me a better way to that end than through the measures I have suggested, I will gladly leave all and follow him. I am yours very faithfully, T.H. Huxley. P.S.--Will you be so kind as to let Professor Lankester see this letter, as I am writing to him and shirk the labour of going over the whole ground again. [His last public activity, indeed, was on behalf of University reform, when in January 1895 he represented not only the Association, but, in the enforced absence of Sir James Paget, the Senate of the University also, on a deputation to Lord Rosebery, then Prime Minister, to whom he wrote asking if he were willing to receive such a deputation.] Hodeslea, Eastbourne, December 4, 1894. Dear Lord Rosebery,