In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this burying action, and devised a number of different ways of checking his estimates as to the amount of work done. He also added a ma.s.s of observations on the natural history and intelligence of worms, a part of the work which added greatly to its popularity.
In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his garden the remains of a building of Roman-British times, and thus gave my father the opportunity of seeing for himself the effects produced by earthworms on the old concrete floors, walls, &c. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer:--
"I cannot remember a more delightful week than the last. I know very well that E. will not believe me, but the worms were by no means the sole charm."
In the autumn of 1880, when the _Power of Movement in Plants_ was nearly finished, he began once more on the subject. He wrote to Professor Carus (September 21):--
"In the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a very little book, and have done nearly half of it. Its t.i.tle will be (as at present designed), _The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms_.[259] As far as I can judge, it will be a curious little book."
The ma.n.u.script was sent to the printers in April 1881, and when the proof-sheets were coming in he wrote to Professor Carus: "The subject has been to me a hobby-horse, and I have perhaps treated it in foolish detail."
It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold at once. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, "I am glad that you approve of the _Worms_.
When in old days I used to tell you whatever I was doing, if you were at all interested, I always felt as most men do when their work is finally published."
To Mr. Mellard Reade he wrote (November 8): "It has been a complete surprise to me how many persons have cared for the subject." And to Mr.
Dyer (in November): "My book has been received with almost laughable enthusiasm, and 3500 copies have been sold!!!" Again to his friend Mr.
Anthony Rich, he wrote on February 4, 1882, "I have been plagued with an endless stream of letters on the subject; most of them very foolish and enthusiastic; but some containing good facts which I have used in correcting yesterday the _Sixth Thousand_." The popularity of the book may be roughly estimated by the fact that, in the three years following its publication, 8500 copies were sold--a sale relatively greater than that of the _Origin of Species_.
It is not difficult to account for its success with the non-scientific public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so easily understood, drawn from the study of creatures so familiar, and treated with unabated vigour and freshness, may well have attracted many readers. A reviewer remarks: "In the eyes of most men ... the earthworm is a mere blind, dumbsenseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid. Mr. Darwin under-takes to rehabilitate his character, and the earthworm steps forth at once as an intelligent and beneficent personage, a worker of vast geological changes, a planer down of mountain sides ... a friend of man ... and an ally of the Society for the preservation of ancient monuments." The _St.
James"s Gazette_, of October 17th, 1881, pointed out that the teaching of the c.u.mulative importance of the infinitely little is the point of contact between this book and the author"s previous work.
One more book remains to be noticed, the _Life of Erasmus Darwin_.
In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause, on the scientific work of Erasmus Darwin, appeared in the evolutionary journal, _Kosmos_. The number of _Kosmos_ in question was a "Gratulationsheft,"[260] or special congratulatory issue in honour of my father"s birthday, so that Dr.
Krause"s essay, glorifying the older evolutionist, was quite in its place. He wrote to Dr. Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour paid to Erasmus, and asking his permission to publish an English translation of the Essay.
His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather"s life was "to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward." This appears from a letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin Reginald Darwin, in which he asks for any doc.u.ments and letters which might throw light on the character of Erasmus. This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my father"s hands a quant.i.ty of valuable material, including a curious folio common-place book, of which he wrote: "I have been deeply interested by the great book, ... reading and looking at it is like having communion with the dead ... [it] has taught me a good deal about the occupations and tastes of our grandfather."
Dr. Krause"s contribution formed the second part of the _Life of Erasmus Darwin_, my father supplying a "preliminary notice." This expression on the t.i.tle-page is somewhat misleading; my father"s contribution is more than half the book, and should have been described as a biography. Work of this kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr. Thiselton Dyer, June 18th: "G.o.d only knows what I shall make of his life, it is such a new kind of work to me." The strong interest he felt about his forbears helped to give zest to the work, which became a decided enjoyment to him. With the general public the book was not markedly successful, but many of his friends recognised its merits. Sir J. D.
Hooker was one of these, and to him my father wrote, "Your praise of the Life of Dr. D. has pleased me exceedingly, for I despised my work, and thought myself a perfect fool to have undertaken such a job."
To Mr. Galton, too, he wrote, November 14:--
"I am extremely glad that you approve of the little _Life_ of our grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever undertook it, as the work was quite beyond my tether."
THE VIVISECTION QUESTION.
Something has already been said of my father"s strong feeling with regard to suffering[261] both in man and beast. It was indeed one of the strongest feelings in his nature, and was exemplified in matters small and great, in his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing dogs, or his horror at the sufferings of slaves.
The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to ride; the little boy was frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms.
One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that his humanity to animals was well known in his own neighbourhood. A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told the cabman to go faster. "Why," said the man, "if I had whipped the horse _this_ much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would have got out of the carriage and abused me well."
With respect to the special point under consideration,--the sufferings of animals subjected to experiment,--nothing could show a stronger feeling than the following words from a letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871):--
"You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere d.a.m.nable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night."
The Anti-Vivisection agitation, to which the following letters refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as may be seen, _e.g._ by the index to _Nature_ for that year, in which the word "Vivisection"
suddenly comes into prominence. But before that date the subject had received the earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool Meeting of the British a.s.sociation in 1870, a Committee was appointed, whose report defined the circ.u.mstances and conditions under which, in the opinion of the signatories, experiments on living animals were justifiable. In the spring of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill into the Upper House to regulate the course of physiological research.
Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its provisions was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole, and Ashley. It was, however, withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. The Commissioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W. E. Forster, Sir J. B.
Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, and Mr. R. H. Hutton: they commenced their inquiry in July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the following year.
In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon"s Bill, ent.i.tled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals," was introduced. The framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As a correspondent writes in _Nature_ (1876, p. 248), "the evidence on the strength of which legislation was recommended went beyond the facts, the Report went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the Report; and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond the Recommendations; but rather to have contradicted them."
The legislation which my father worked for, was practically what was introduced as Dr. Lyon Playfair"s Bill.
The following letter appeared in the Times, April 18th, 1881:--
_C. D. to Frithiof Holmgren._[262] Down, April 14, 1881.
DEAR SIR,--In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was a.s.serted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill pa.s.sed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their researches--a Bill very different from the Act which has since been pa.s.sed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who r.e.t.a.r.ds the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind.
Any one who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a century ago must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and medical pract.i.tioners who have studied the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance at Pasteur"s results in modifying the germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it happens, animals will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the ingrat.i.tude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to a.s.sure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the n.o.ble science of physiology.
Dear Sir, yours faithfully.
In the _Times_ of the following day appeared a letter headed "Mr. Darwin and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power Cobbe. To this my father replied in the _Times_ of April 22, 1881. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes:--
"As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the _Times_ on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists."
_C. D. to the Editor of the "Times."_
SIR,--I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in the _Times_ of the 19th inst.; but as she a.s.serts that I have "misinformed" my correspondent in Sweden in saying that "the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false," I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the report of the Commission.
(1.) The sentence--"It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists," which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, "can necessarily concern English physiologists alone and not foreigners," is immediately followed by the words "We have seen that it was so in Magendie." Magendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some half century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals.
(2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general sentiment of humanity" prevailing in this country, say (p. 10):--
"This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as it has been laid before us."
Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10):--
"The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be very different indeed from that of foreign physiologists; and while giving it as the opinion of the society that experiments are performed which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists have used anaesthetics where they think they can do so with safety to the experiment."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant.
April 21.
During the later years of my father"s life there was a growing tendency in the public to do him honour.[263] The honours which he valued most highly were those which united the sympathy of friends with a mark of recognition of his scientific colleagues. Of this type was the article "Charles Darwin," published in _Nature_, June 4, 1874, and written by Asa Gray. This admirable estimate of my father"s work in science is given in the form of a comparison and contrast between Robert Brown and Charles Darwin.
To Gray he wrote:--
"I wrote yesterday and cannot remember exactly what I said, and now cannot be easy without again telling you how profoundly I have been gratified. Every one, I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked in vain, and when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know that I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are occasionally.