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 contained 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 misrepresentations. 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, indicated 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 articles 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 uncorrected? 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
