My dear Father,

I am very sorry to say that I do not like your form of denial, although I have tried my best to fall into y^r. views; & this has really vexed me more than the thing itself.¹ In the first place from not having the Contemp. by you, you did not see that the ‘oppressive laws’ referred to are not my proposed laws (wh. of course any one might call oppressive if they liked), but are the German Communist laws—there being not even distant allusion to my laws on either pp 424 or 5.² I cannot therefore repudiate the prostitution part without repudiating the oppressive laws—& if I do not repudiate the latter, I may be taken to admit that I do quote them approvingly, and as the whole hangs together in one paragraph, such admission would extend to the prostitution.³

2^ndly. and this I am very strong on, I mind the charge of theoret. justification of licentiousness & attack on marriage quite as much as the other, & sh^d. be very loath to omit the repudiation.⁴ It is as utterly false; the whole object of the article being to advocate greater strictness. I must then quote the whole passage from the quarterly.

I send a form of denial embracing these points, & which strikes me as more emphatic, and in which I have tried to adopt y^r. idea as much as I can.⁵

I have counted the words & it would occupy a page & 3 or 4 lines of the Qu^y. allowing for quotation being in smaller type.⁶

I think I shall be up to my usual mark today, tho’ I’m sure I’ve lost weight & don’t think I shall ever pick it up, unless D^r. C⁷ will allow me something fattening. I shall see him en route. From examining what I passed D^r. H.⁸ said he was sure there was no disease of bowels

Y^rs | G H Darwin