My dear George

I have no objection to send your letter as it is.² There is in fact only one accusation which it seems to me necessary for you to rebut. ie about licentiousness. “He elsewhere.—”³ The sentence about nameless crimes is directed against the school to which you belong & is only an insinuation against you.⁴ Your approval of oppressive laws is quite insignificant.— I have carefully read the Contemporary.— William, I, & you all understood oppressive laws differently.—⁵

I was partly led to think that the extract for the Q. had better commence at “He elsewhere”, because we here think you cut a poor figure on the insanity question—when given so baldly as you do.—⁶ The only point in your present letter which I regret much is your not making the sole direct attack on you, ie about licentiousness much more prominent than any other point.—⁷ The readers of the Q. will only just glance at your letter & certainly will not turn back to the old Q. & still less to your articles; & this makes me wish to see it as short as possible. But your letter is now very short & forcible, tho’ not so short as I sh^d like to see it.

Yours affectionately | C. Darwin

As soon as I receive a fair copy signed & dated I will forward it to Murray.—⁸

P.S. How w^d it be in your allusion to the article in the Q. to say something like this—?

“an article evidently from the pen of a well-known zoologist, who is not a philologist,”

I sh^d like still better, but it w^d not perhaps be fit,— “an article evidently from the pen of a well-known zoologist, who is not a philologist & who in his openly published works admits the principle of evolution, but covertly attacks with bitterness those who uphold the same principle

I think that “who is not a philogist” makes your contrast stronger, & I sh^d like M. to see that we know who is author.⁹