"I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected honour of being elected one of the Honorary Members. This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high degree."
The following letter appeared in the "Times", April 18th, 1881:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO FRITHIOF HOLMGREN. (Professor of Physiology at Upsala.) 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 so 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, CHARLES DARWIN.
[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.]
CHARLES DARWIN 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 (page 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 (page 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, CHARLES DARWIN.
April 21.
[In the "Times" of Sat.u.r.day, April 23, 1881, appeared a letter from Miss Cobbe in reply:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 25, 1881.
My dear Romanes,
I was very glad to read your last note with much news interesting to me. But I write now to say how I, and indeed all of us in the house have admired your letter in the "Times". (April 25, 1881.--Mr. Romanes defended Dr. Sanderson against the accusations made by Miss Cobbe.) It was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad about Burton Sanderson, of whom I have been for several years a great admirer. I was also especially glad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered with several letters, but none abusive. Under a SELFISH point of view I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I was at first inclined to think that I had done mischief by stirring up the mud. Now I feel sure that I have done good. Mr. Jesse has written to me very politely, he says his Society has had nothing to do with placards and diagrams against physiology, and I suppose, therefore, that these all originate with Miss Cobbe... Mr. Jesse complains bitterly that the "Times" will "burke" all his letters to this newspaper, nor am I surprised, judging from the laughable tirades advertised in "Nature".
Ever yours, very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
[The next letter refers to a projected conjoint article on vivisection, to which Mr. Romanes wished my father to contribute:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, September 2, 1881.
My dear Romanes,
Your letter has perplexed me beyond all measure. I fully recognise the duty of every one whose opinion is worth anything, expressing his opinion publicly on vivisection; and this made me send my letter to the "Times". I have been thinking at intervals all morning what I could say, and it is the simple truth that I have nothing worth saying. You and men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and who can express them easily, cannot understand the state of mental paralysis in which I find myself.
What is most wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what physiology has already done for man, and even still more strongly what there is every reason to believe it will hereafter do. Now I am absolutely incapable of doing this, or of discussing the other points suggested by you.
If you wish for my name (and I should be glad that it should appear with that of others in the same cause), could you not quote some sentence from my letter in the "Times" which I enclose, but please return it. If you thought fit you might say you quoted it with my approval, and that after still further reflection I still abide most strongly in my expressed conviction.
For Heaven"s sake, do think of this. I do not grudge the labour and thought; but I could write nothing worth any one reading.
Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint article a "symposium"
strictly a "drinking party." This seems to me very bad taste, and I do hope every one of you will avoid any semblance of a joke on the subject.
I KNOW that words, like a joke, on this subject have quite disgusted some persons not at all inimical to physiology. One person lamented to me that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable Address at the Medical Congress (by far the best thing which I have read), spoke of the fantastic SENSUALITY ("Transactions of the International Medical Congress," 1881, volume iv. page 413. The expression "lackadaisical"
(not fantastic), and "feeble sensuality," are used with regard to the feelings of the ant-vivisectionists.) (or some such term) of the many mistaken, but honest men and women who are half mad on the subject...
[To Dr. Lauder Brunton my father wrote in February 1882:--
"Have you read Mr. [Edmund] Gurney"s articles in the "Fortnightly" ("A chapter in the Ethics of Pain," "Fortnightly Review," 1881, volume x.x.x.
page 778.) and "Cornhill?" ("An Epilogue on Vivisection," "Cornhill Magazine," 1882, volume xlv. page 191.) They seem to me very clever, though obscurely written, and I agree with almost everything he says, except with some pa.s.sages which appear to imply that no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science."]
CHAPTER 2.IX. -- MISCELLANEA (continued)
A REVIVAL OF GEOLOGICAL WORK--THE BOOK ON EARTHWORMS--LIFE OF ERASMUS DARWIN--MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS.
1876-1882.
[We have now to consider the work (other than botanical) which occupied the concluding six years of my father"s life. A letter to his old friend Rev. L. Blomefield (Jenyns), written in March, 1877, shows what was my father"s estimate of his own powers of work at this time:--
"My dear Jenyns (I see I have forgotten your proper names).--Your extremely kind letter has given me warm pleasure. As one gets old, one"s thoughts turn back to the past rather than to the future, and I often think of the pleasant, and to me valuable, hours which I spent with you on the borders of the Fens.
"You ask about my future work; I doubt whether I shall be able to do much more that is new, and I always keep before my mind the example of poor old --, who in his old age had a cacoethes for writing. But I cannot endure doing nothing, so I suppose that I shall go on as long as I can without obviously making a fool of myself. I have a great ma.s.s of matter with respect to variation under nature; but so much has been published since the appearance of the "Origin of Species," that I very much doubt whether I retain power of mind and strength to reduce the ma.s.s into a digested whole. I have sometimes thought that I would try, but dread the attempt..."
His prophecy proved to be a true one with regard to any continuation of any general work in the direction of Evolution, but his estimate of powers which could afterwards prove capable of grappling with the "Power of Movement in Plants," and with the work on "Earthworms," was certainly a low one.
The year 1876, with which the present chapter begins, brought with it a revival of geological work. He had been astonished, as I hear from Professor Judd, and as appears in his letters, to learn that his books on "Volcanic Islands," 1844, and on "South America," 1846, were still consulted by geologists, and it was a surprise to him that new editions should be required. Both these works were originally published by Messrs. Smith and Elder, and the new edition of 1876 was also brought out by them. This appeared in one volume with the t.i.tle "Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, and Parts of South America visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. "Beagle"." He has explained in the preface his reasons for leaving untouched the text of the original editions: "They relate to parts of the world which have been so rarely visited by men of science, that I am not aware that much could be corrected or added from observations subsequently made. Owing to the great progress which Geology has made within recent times, my views on some few points may be somewhat antiquated; but I have thought it best to leave them as they originally appeared."