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.

I really cannot hold myself to be responsible for the translators of
the Revised Version of the Old Testament. If I had given a translation
of the passage to which you refer on my own authority, any mistake
would be mine, and I should be bound to acknowledge it. As I did not, I
have nothing to admit. I have every respect for your and Mr. --'s
authority as Hebraists, but I have noticed that Hebrew scholars are apt
to hold very divergent views, and before admitting either your or Mr.
--'s interpretation, I should like to see the question fully discussed.

If, when the discussion is concluded, the balance of authority is
against the revised version, I will carefully consider how far the
needful alterations may affect the substance of the one passage in my
reply to Mr. Gladstone which is affected by it.

At present I am by no means clear that it will make much difference,