436 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



another shape ; and I had to choose between republication by my American 

 friends or republication by your friends, with the implication that I was averse 

 to it. Though I should have preferred passivity, yet, under the circumstances 

 stated, I thought it best to assent to republication. One objection, however, 

 became manifest. While in my replies to you I had pointed out sundry of your 

 many misrepresentations, I passed over others one reason being that I could 

 not trespass too much on the space of the Nineteenth Century and the attention 

 of its readers. Now, however, when it was proposed that the statements con- 

 tained in your articles should be re-diffused, and take a permanent form instead 

 of a temporary form, I felt that I could not leave unnoticed these other misrep- 

 resentations. Appearing in a volume issued by my American publishers, and 

 edited by my American friend, the implication would have been that statements 

 made by you to which no objection was raised -were correct statements. If 

 words in quotation marks tacitly ascribed by you to me had not been disowned 

 by me (p. 112), it would, of course, have been assumed that I had used them, 

 and that I stood convicted of the absurdity which you allege on the assumption 

 that I had used them. If it had not been shown that an opinion you debit me 

 with (p. 129) is wholly at variance with opinions which I have expressed in 

 three different places, it would naturally have been concluded that I held the 

 opinion. Hence it was clear that unless I was to authorize the stereotyping of 

 these and other errors I must take measures to dissipate them. I therefore 

 pointed out to Professor Youmans the statements which required notice, indi- 

 cated the needful rectifications, and requested him to append these rectifications 

 in his own way. At the same time I forwarded him a copy of the letter which 

 you published in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying that ' if this reprint of the arti- 

 cles is published without this letter, he (you) will inevitably say that his final 

 reply has been omitted. It is needful, therefore, that it should be included.' 

 And along with your letter I sent indications of the points in it which should be 

 noticed. 



" Do you think I was not justified in this course ? Do you think I ought to 

 have withheld my consent to the republication by my friends, leaving your 

 friends to republish ? Do you think that, having assented to republication, I 

 ought to have let pass without correction your misstatements previously uncor- 

 rected ? If you think either of these things, I imagine that few will agree with 

 you. There is, however, an easy way of bringing the question to issue. All 

 the articles are copyright in England, and can not be republished here without 

 the consent of all concerned. I do not suppose that Mr. Knowles will raise any 

 difficulty; and if you agree to the re-issue of them here, I am quite willing that 

 they should be re-issued. If you think that anything said in refutation of your 

 statements should not have been said, we can easily include an appendix in 

 which you can point out this; and then, if you wish it, copies of the volume 

 can be sent round to the press. 



"Of course I preserve a copy of this letter with a view to possible future 



use. 



" Faithfully yours, " Herbert Spencer. 



" Frederic Harrison, Esq." 



I will add but two comments. Mr. Harrison had this letter before him when 

 ho wrote his statement. Does the reader find that his statement produced an 

 impression anything like that which my letter produces? The other comment 

 is this. Asking whether I have any share in the profits, Mr. Harrison not only 

 by this, but by his title, " A New Form of Literary Piracy," tacitly suggests that 



