them from understanding."

But the compromise was not permanently satisfactory. In 1893-94 the
clerical party on the School Board "denounced" the treaty agreed to
in 1871, and up till then undisputed, in the expectation of securing
a new one more favourable to themselves; and the _Times_, hurrying to
their support, did not hesitate to declare in a leading article that
"the persons who framed the rule" respecting religious instruction
intended to include definite teaching of such theological dogmas as
the Incarnation.

In a letter to the _Times_ Huxley replied (April 29, 1893):--

I cannot say what may have been in the minds of the framers
of the rule; but, assuredly, if I had dreamed that any such
interpretation could fairly be put upon it, I should have
opposed the arrangement to the best of my ability.

In fact, a year before the rule was framed I wrote an
article in the _Contemporary Review_, entitled "The School
Boards--what they can do and what they may do," in which
I argued that the terms of the Education Act excluded such
teaching as it is now proposed to include.

And this contention he supported by the quotation from Mr. W.E.
Forster, given above.

Further, in October, 1894, he replied as follows to a correspondent
who had asked him whether flat adhesion to the compromise had not
made nonsense of a certain Bible lesson, which was the subject of much