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

Advises GHD to get an eminent counsel. If counsel’s opinion is that the reviewer [Mivart, in "Primitive man", Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 40–77] has falsified GHD’s statements, GHD should send the opinion to the Quarterly Review and demand publication, and if refused publish elsewhere. Then CD must decide whether to cut John Murray [publisher of Q. Rev.] which will put CD in a nice perplexity [over his rights to the stereotyped editions of past works].

Summary

Hasty note to express his most decided opinion that letter [to Q. Rev.] should not give a sketch of GHD’s essay – only an explicit denial "& do not allude to me".

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

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

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

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

Sends a draft of his letter to the editor of the Quarterly Review [137 (1874): 587–9], answering Mivart’s charges. Encloses draft of CD’s letter to John Murray, urging publication of GHD’s defence, with George’s amendments.

Summary

After taking advice he has decided to write an explicit denial and short account of his essay and send it to the Quarterly Review.

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.

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

Intends to keep working on [Descent, 2d ed.] proofs despite his illness.