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 Saturday, 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 Isuppose, 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". Ihave 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. IKNOW 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 anti-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' ("Achapter in the Ethics of Pain," 'Fortnightly Review,' 1881, volume xxx. 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 passages 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."]
