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.

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

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.

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.

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.

No summary available.

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."

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

No summary available.