Feels their conflict lies in the field of philosophy rather than in that of physical science. Regrets that they differ so widely.

Has seen an article by Chauncey Wright ["Darwinism", North Am. Rev. 113 (1871): 63–103] and has heard it has been enlarged and reprinted [1871]. As CD has been distributing copies StGM wonders whether he might have one.

Sends a reprint of Chauncey Wright’s article ["Darwinism", North Am. Rev. 113 (1871): 63–103].

Thanks for Chauncey Wright’s article. Admits it is clever, but hardly expected CD to think it a serious defence of his position.

Sends his reply to Huxley’s criticisms [Contemp. Rev. 19 (1872): 168–97].

Feels that StGJM’s review of Descent [Q. Rev. 131 (1871): 47–90] greatly misrepresents CD’s opinions and conclusions. Feels their differences of opinion are so great that discussion of almost any subject would be a waste of both their time.

As a man of science, StGM has no choice but to pursue what he sees as the truth. Will happily admit he has misrepresented CD if CD will disclaim the position that StGM attacks.

Wishes their correspondence regarding their differences to be dropped, as CD feels that nothing he could say would have any influence on StGJM.

Agrees to close their correspondence. Defends his position against criticisms of Huxley and Chauncey Wright; assures CD of his continuing friendly feelings.

CD believes that StGJM has been unfair in his criticisms and has misrepresented him; he begs him not to write again. "Agassiz has uttered splendid sarcasms on me, but I still feel quite friendly towards him. M. Flourens cd. not find words to express his contempt of me: Pictet & Hopkins argued with great force against me: Fleeming Jenkin covered me with first-rate ridicule; & his crticisms were true & most useful: but none of their writings have mortified me as yours have done …" [See 8154.]

Is writing confidentially not to justify the passage referred to [see 9759], which he much regrets, but to state facts. He never intended any personal hostility to [George] Darwin and seeks advice about how to make reparation.

A severe letter of rebuke to Mivart for his attack on G. H. Darwin.

A confidential letter explaining in detail the extent to which he regrets his attack upon [George] Darwin’s article.

StGJM’s article in the Quarterly Review [137 (1874): 40–77] contains wholly false and malicious accusations against CD’s son George. Since StGJM has refused to make any sort of retraction, CD will not hold any future communication with him.