Summary

Approves of GHD’s letter [to Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 587–9] and his present plan, which removes all CD’s objections. Will make his own letter to Murray less imperious. "It will be a dreadful evil to me, if … we come to a quarrel."

Summary

Urges CD not to break with Murray even if he does not force the editor [of Q. Rev.] to insert GHD’s letter [in response to Mivart’s attack]. Murray may have a rule not to meddle with editor.

Summary

Advice to GHD on whether to accept invitation to lecture at the Royal Institution.

Murray has sent the Quarterly Review issue. CD has told Murray that he is convinced Mivart is the author and what he thinks of him.

Summary

CD has forwarded proofs of Descent [2d edition]. Urges GHD not to work on them if his poor health makes them too tiring.

Thanks GHD about Spalding [i.e., for responding to Spalding’s request, see 9472].

Summary

Has no objection to sending GHD’s letter as it is. The only accusation it seems necessary to rebut is about licentiousness. Regrets this is not made more prominent.

Gives some suggestions for GHD’s reply to Mivart’s attack.

Summary

GHD explains conduction, radiation, and convection.

His paper on political economy for Royal Institution lecture has reached 60 pages. Plans to send it to Contemporary Review.

Summary

Comments on GHD’s paper ["Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects", Fortn. Rev. n.s. 18 (1875): 22–41]. Hopes it will be published and read at the Statistical Society.

Summary

Writes about instructions to compositor and return of proofs [of Descent]. Requests return of 2d volume of Descent, to which he may want to refer.

Summary

GHD’s corrections seem very good. Murray hopes there will be few corrections in Descent. CD assured him no changes have been made merely for improving style.

Wants very much to hear about "the terrible cousin affair".

Summary

Returns historical sketch [of GHD’s "cousin paper"?] with comments. "For Heavens sake put a sentence in some conspicuous place that your results seem to indicate that consanguineous marriage, as far as insanity is concerned, cannot be injurious in any very high degree."

Summary

Regrets he cannot follow the line of denial CD suggests. Explains why he must defend himself against charge that he approves of oppressive laws.

Summary

At the suggestion of Crichton-Browne CD writes on behalf of his son George, who is making a study of marriages between first cousins and of their offspring to determine the proportion of the latter who may be among the insane, deaf and dumb, idiotic, blind etc. Is GES willing to ask his patients [at the Royal Albert Asylum] for the information relevant to this study?

Summary

Is sorry to hear the news about the cousin question – a real misfortune.

Congratulates GHD on being nearly finished with work on Descent.

Summary

Thanks GHD for clear lecture on heat.

Will keep paper on proportion of sexes, in case GHD wants it again.

Wants him to translate some pages of Swedish or Norwegian sent by A. W. Malm, "a good man".

Glad to see the statistical paper ["Theory of exchange value", Fortn. Rev. n.s. 17 (1875): 243–53].

Summary

Likes GHD’s article ["Professor Whitney on the origin of language", Contemp. Rev. (1874): 894]. "You have defended me nobly."

Summary

Gratified that a man of JD’s experience agrees with him.

Would enjoy seeing him at Down but it could only be for a half-hour’s talk at most, because of his health.

Summary

Mainly family news.

Eager to read GHD’s political economy MS "though Heaven knows whether I shall understand it".

Summary

Asks JM, as a favour, to use his influence with the Editor of Quarterly Review to print George Darwin’s answer to the charge made by the author of "Primitive man" [St George Mivart] that GD approved "of the encouragement of vice to check population".

Summary

His view of Huxley’s cutting Mivart without explanation. States his own intentions. Mivart’s apology in October Quarterly Review is abominable.

Has heard of a Drosophyllum in Edinburgh. Is it too late?

Summary

GHD’s article will not do. It is too long and the denial seems weak and confused; also, it ought to be in the form of a letter to the editor. Encloses draft of the sort of letter of denial he thinks GHD should write.