My dear Foster, We have been here for the last week, and are likely to be here for some time, as my wife, though mending, is getting on but slowly, and she will be as well out of London through beastly November. I shall be up on Thursday and return on Friday, but I do not want to be away longer, as it is lonesome for the wife. I quite agree to what you propose on Committee, so I need not be there. Very glad to hear that the Council "very much applauded what we had done," and hope we shall get the 500 pounds. I don't believe a word in increasing whale fishery, but scientifically, the Antarctic expedition would, or might be very interesting, and if the colonies will do their part, I think we ought to do ours. You won't want me at that Committee either. Hope to see you on Thursday. Ever yours, T.H. Huxley. Hideous pen! [But he did not come up that Thursday. His wife was for a time too ill to be left, and he winds up the letter of November 2 to Dr. Foster with the reflection:--] Man is born to trouble as the sparks, etc.--but when you have come to my time of life you will say as I do--Lucky it is no worse. November 6. I am very glad to hear that the 500 pounds is granted, and I will see to what is next to be done as soon as I can. Also I am very glad to find you don't want my valuable service on Council Royal Society. I repented me of my offer when I thought how little I might be able to attend. [One thing, however, afforded him great pleasure at this time. He writes on November 6 to his old friend, Sir J. Hooker:--] I write just to say what infinite satisfaction the award of the Copley Medal to you has given me. If you were not my dear old friend, it would rejoice me as a mere matter of justice--of which there is none too much in this "-- rum world," as Whitworth's friend called it. [To the reply that the award was not according to rule, inasmuch as it was the turn for the medal to be awarded in another branch of science, he rejoins:--] I had forgotten all about the business--but he had done nothing to deserve the Copley, and all I can say is that if the present award is contrary to law, the "law's a hass" as Mr. Bumble said. But I don't believe that it is. [He replies also on November 5 to a clerical correspondent who had written to him on the distinction between sheretz and rehmes, and accused him of "wilful blindness" in his theological controversy of 1886:--] Let me assure you that it is not my way to set my face against being convinced by evidence.