To William Frederick Pollock¹

My dear Pollock

Huxley would have written you had it not been agreed upon between us that I should call upon you and make some arrangement regarding the publication of his article.² I did call last night, but learned that you were at St. Julian’s³

Your letter to him, which I have read, makes me feel more that ever how necessary it will be for us to cultivate a habit of mutual accommodation. I read his article before it was printed, and I thought it excellent. It seemed somewhat hard on Disraeli;⁴ but I thought the hardness, such as it was, merited. The gentlemen of whose works D. had spoken so flippantly were at least his equals in ability, and far more than his equals in philosophic insight and devotion to truth. I cannot help thinking that a man who goes out of his own line to treat grave questions and great reputations with ridicule merits rebuke. However, this is a point which but slightly affects the real merits of the article and I should be quite willing to go a good way to meet your wishes regarding it.

But the article in the main is, I think, excellent, and calculated to do our paper good. What the Reader has hitherto lacked is the evidence of any power in those who write for it, and I think we ought to be careful to preserve this great element among us; to secure the strength, as well as the grace, of humanity. So long as a contributor writes as a gentleman, I think the strong expression of strong conviction ought to be rather encouraged than repressed. Nothing breaks a man’s spirit more than finding its utterance hampered by too many conditions. Of course friendly suggestion, counsel, and admonition ought always to be current amongst us; but we must not exact too much of each other, but let each express himself as much as possible in that particular way in which he feels his strength to lie.

Tom Taylor’s article⁵ is extremely good; but its excellence to my mind mainly arises from its perfect straightforwardness. Plain speaking backed by knowledge; this is our greatest need. Your own article⁶ I thought full of interest. The treatment was unique, and the point chosen exactly calculated to bring out the merits of your author with reference to his compeers. I read it with extreme pleasure. But this power <1–2 words missing> need not interfere with my appreciation of Huxley’s noble truthfulness and strength, and I think his article, with such modification of detail as we might agree upon, ought to appear next Saturday. Doubtless through a mistake on his part, he thought it was needed for the last number, and I know he put himself to inconvenience to write it

Yours ever | J. T.

RI MS JT/2/13c/1272–3