comfortably settled in your new house, and have more
leisure than you have had for some time. I have looked out in the papers
for any notice about the curatorship of the new Museum, but have seen
nothing. If anything is decided in your favour, I _beg_ you to inform
me.--My dear Wallace, very truly yours,

C. DARWIN.

How grandly the public has taken up Hooker's case.

* * * * *

_Down. August 3, [1872]._

My dear Wallace,--I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do it
badly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you of "blundering," I have thought
myself bound to send the enclosed letter[91] to _Nature_, that is, if
you in the least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not
_at all_ wish it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this
case please tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend
answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better than
I should. Also please tear it up if you don't like the letter.--My dear
Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

* * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 4, 1872._

Dear Darwin,--I have sent your letter to _Nature_, as I think it will
settle that question far better than anything I can say. Many thanks for
it. I have not seen Dr. Bree's letter yet, as I get _Nature_ here very
irregularly, but as I was very careful to mention none but _real errors_
in Dr. Bree's book, I do not imagine there will be any necessity for my
taking any notice of it. It was really entertaining to have such a book
to review, the errors and misconceptions were so inexplicable and the
self-sufficiency of the man so amazing. Yet there is some excellent
writing in the book, and to a half-informed person it has all the
appearance of being a most valuable and authoritative work.

I am now reviewing a much more important book and one that, if I mistake
not, will really compel you sooner or later to modify some of your
views, though it will not at all affect the main doctrine of Natural
Selection as applied to the higher animals. I allude, of course, to
Bastian's "Beginnings of Life," which you have no doubt got. It is hard
reading, but intensely interesting. I am a thorough convert to his main
results, and it seems to me that nothing more important has appeared
since your "Origin." It is a pity he is so awfully voluminous and
discursive. When you have thoroughly digested it I shall be glad to kn