Thanks for copy of HS’s Principles of psychology [1855].

Thanks for HS’s Essays: [scientific, political, and speculative, vol. 1 (1858)]. Admires his general argument for the development theory.

CD is preparing an abstract on change of species. He treats subject as a naturalist, not from a general point of view. Otherwise he might have quoted HS’s argument to great advantage.

CD particularly liked articles on music and style. Expression is a favourite topic with CD. Agrees all expression is biological.

Has prepared a historical sketch [of writers on origin of species] for foreign editions of Origin. It includes HS. He was too ill to provide it for the 1st ed.

Sorry Murray has not sent HS his copy of Origin, as he was instructed.

Huxley will put CD and E. A. Darwin down for HS’s gigantic [publishing] programme. Suggests Dr Drysdale be approached about it.

HS put the case of selection strikingly and clearly in his article [Anonymous, "A theory of population, deduced from the general law of animal fertility", Westminster Rev. 57 (1852): 468–501]. Of CD’s numerous private critics only HS has rendered the philosophy fairly: his argument is an hypothesis that explains groups of facts.

Thanks for copy of HS’s First principles [? 2d ed. (1867)].

Comments on HS’s Principles of biology [1864, 1867].

Expresses his "unbounded admiration" for HS’s article on Martineau ["Mr Martineau on evolution", Contemp. Rev. 20 (1872): 141–54]

and his article on sociology [Contemp. Rev. 19 (1872): 701–18]. CD never believed in the reigning influence of great men on the world’s progress but could not have given his reasons. "Now every one with eyes to see and ears to hear . . . ought to bow their knee to you, as I for one do."

Thanks for copy of HS’s Descriptive sociology [1873].

Discusses adaptations in flowers and their heritability.

Mentions advertisements for HS’s book [? Study of sociology (1873)].

Thought HS would have profited by principle that a character appearing late in life is inherited at same age.

CD cannot remember whether he was on the committee of the Jamaica affair [for prosecution of Governor Eyre in 1866] but he subscribed £10.

It is curious and amusing how positivists hate all men of science, possibly because their prophet [Comte] made laughable and gigantic blunders in predicting the course of science.

Although he agrees with the object of HS’s league he will not join until he has seen how it works.

No summary available.

Sending JH his Essays [Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, 1857] and HS's 'Recent Astronomy and the Nebular Hypothesis,' the latter just published in the Westminster Review. Requests JH's comments on the latter publication.

No summary available.

[Responding to JH's 1859-1-16,] HS defends the nebular hypothesis, HS's theory of comets, and sets out HS's theory of sunspot formation, noting that John Tyndall supports it.

[Responding to JH's 1860}-1-12,] HS admits some of JH's objections to HS's views on distribution of cometary orbits, but attempts to salvage HS's cyclonic theory of sunspot formation.

Asks JH to become a subscriber to a work that HS is bringing out. Lists prominent persons who have already done so.

Thanks JH for agreeing [1860-3-17] to be a subscriber to HS's project and for JH's critique of HS's use of the term 'Absolute.' Admits that it has difficulties.

Recalls JH having written that an 'annulus of stars might be in equilibrium.' Asks where this claim appears in JH's writings.

Thanks JH for sending HS a copy of JH's dialogue ['On Atoms']. Comments on it.

Doubts the claim that Auguste Comte has significantly influenced English scientists. Asks whether JH believes Comte has influenced JH or others. Asks whether it is more difficult to calculate the moon's motion or the motion of a projectile through a resisting medium.