1875-1876.
[In the year 1875 the bitter agitation directed against experimental
physiology came to a head. It had existed in England for several
years. In 1870, when President of the British Association, Huxley had
been violently attacked for speaking in defence of Brown Sequard, the
French physiologist. The name of vivisection, indifferently applied to
all experiments on animals, whether carried out by the use of the
knife or not, had, as Dr. (afterwards Sir) William Smith put it, the
opposite effect on many minds to that of the "blessed word
Mesopotamia." Misrepresentation was rife even among the most estimable
and well-meaning of the opponents of vivisection, because they fancied
they saw traces of the practice everywhere, all the more, perhaps, for
not having sufficient technical knowledge for proper discrimination.
One of the most flagrant instances of this kind of thing was a letter
in the "Record" charging Huxley with advocating vivisections before
children, if not by them. Passages from the Introduction to his
"Elementary Physiology," urging that beginners should be shown the
structures under discussion, examples for which could easily be
provided from the domestic animals, were put side by side with later
passages in the book, such, for instance, as statements of fact as to
the behaviour of severed nerves under irritation. A sinister inference
was drawn from this combination, and published as fact without further
verification. Of this he remarks emphatically in his address on
"Elementary Instruction in Physiology," 1877 ("Collected Essays" 3
300):]
It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to give a formal contradiction to
the silly fiction, which is assiduously circulated by the fanatics who
not only ought to know, but do know, that their assertions are untrue,
that I have advocated the introduction of that experimental discipline
which is absolutely indispensable to the professed physiologist, into
elementary teaching.
[Moreover, during the debates on the Vivisection Bill in 1876, the
late Lord Shaftesbury made use of this story. Huxley was extremely
indignant, and wrote home:--]
Did you see Lord Shaftesbury's speech in Tuesday's "Times?" I saw it
by chance, and have written a sharp letter to the "Times." [(Being in
Edinburgh, he had been reading the Scotch papers, and] "the reports of
the Scotch papers as to what takes place in Parliament are meagre.")
[This letter appeared on May 26, when he wrote again:--]
You will have had my note, and know all about Lord Shaftesbury and his
lies by this time. Surely you could not imagine on any authority that
I was such an idiot as to recommend boys and girls to perform
experiments which are difficult to skilled anatomists, to say nothing
of other reasons.
LETTER TO THE "TIMES."
In your account of the late debate in the House of Lords on the
Vivisection Bill, Lord Shaftesbury is reported to have said that in my
"Lessons in Elementary Physiology," it is strongly insisted that such
experiments as those subjoined shall not merely be studied in the
manual, but actually repeated, either by the boys and girls themselves
or else by the teachers in their presence, as plainly appears from the
preface to the second edition.
I beg leave to give the most emphatic and unqualified contradiction to
this assertion, for which there is not a shadow of justification
either in the preface to the second edition of my "Lessons" or in
anything I have ever said or written elsewhere. The most important
paragraph of the preface which is the subject of Lord Shaftesbury's
misquotation and misrepresentation stands as follows:--
"For the purpose of acquiring a practical, though elementary,
acquaintance with physiological anatomy and histology, the organs and
tissues of the commonest domestic animals afford ample materials. The
principal points in the structure and mechanism of the heart, the
lungs, the kidneys, or the eye of man may be perfectly illustrated by
the corresponding parts of a sheep; while the phenomena of the
circulation, and many of the most important properties of living
tissues are better shown by the common frog than by any of the higher
animals."
If Lord Shaftesbury had the slightest theoretical or practical
acquaintance with the subject about which he is so anxious to
legislate, he would know that physiological anatomy is not exactly the
same thing as experimental physiology; and he would be aware that the
recommendations of the paragraph I have quoted might be fully carried
into effect without the performance of even a solitary "vivisection."
The assertion that I have ever suggested or desired the introduction
of vivisection into the teaching of elementary physiology in schools
is, I repeat, contrary to fact.
[On the next day (May 27) appeared a reply from Lord Shaftesbury, in
which his entire good faith is equally conspicuous with his
misapprehension of the subject.
LORD SHAFTESBURY'S REPLY.
The letter from Professor Huxley in the "Times" of this morning
demands an immediate reply.
The object that I supposed the learned professor had in view was
gathered from the prefaces to the several editions of his work on
"Elementary Physiology."
The preface to the first edition states that "the following lessons in
elementary physiology are, primarily, intended to serve the purpose of
a text-book for teachers and learners in boys' and girls' schools."
It was published, therefore, as a manual for the young, as well as the
old.
Now, any reader of the preface to the first edition would have come to
the conclusion that teachers and learners could acquire something
solid, and worth having, from the text-book before them. But the
preface to the second edition nearly destroys that expectation. Here
is the passage:--"It will be well for those who attempt to study
elementary physiology to bear in mind the important truth that the
knowledge of science which is attainable by mere reading, though
infinitely better than ignorance, is knowledge of a very different
kind from that which arises from direct contact with fact."
"Direct contact with fact!" What can that mean (so, at least, very
many ask) but a declaration, on high authority, to teachers and
learners that vivisection alone can give them any real and effective
instruction?
But the subsequent passage is still stronger, for it states "that the
worth of the pursuit of science, as an intellectual discipline, is
almost lost by those who only seek it in books."
Is not language like this calculated to touch the zeal and vanity of
teachers and learners at the very quick, and urge them to improve
their minds and stand well in the eyes of the profession and the
public by positive progress in experimental physiology? Ordinary
readers, most people would think, could come to no other conclusion.
But a disclaimer from Professor Huxley is enough; I am sorry to have
misunderstood him; and I must ask his pardon. I sincerely rejoice to
have received such an assurance that his great name shall never be
used for such a project as that which excited our fears.
On this he wrote:--]
You will have seen Lord Shaftesbury's reply to my letter. I thought it
frank and straightforward, and I have written a private letter to the
old boy of a placable and proper character. ["Huxley, the Professor,
has written me a very civil, nay kind, letter. I replied in the same
spirit." (Lord Shaftesbury, "Life and Work" 3 373 June 3, 1876.)
In 1874 he had also had a small passage of arms with the late Mr. W.E.
Forster, then Vice-President of the Council, upon the same subject.
Mr. Forster was about to leave office, and when he gave his official
authorisation for summer courses of lectures at South Kensington on
Biology, Chemistry, Geology, etc., he did so with the special proviso
that there be no vivisection experiments in any of the courses, and
further, appended a Memorandum, explaining the reasons on which he
acted.
Now, although Huxley was mentioned by name as having taken care to
avoid inflicting pain in certain previous experiments which had come
to Mr. Forster's knowledge, the memorandum evoked from him a strong
protest to the Lord President, to whom, as Mr. Forster expressly
intimated, an appeal might properly be made.
To begin with, the memorandum contained a mistake in fact, referring
to his regular course at South Kensington experiments which had taken
place two years before at one of the Courses to Teachers. This course
was non-official; Huxley's position in it was simply that of a private
person to whom the Department offered a contract, subject to official
control and criticism, so far as touched that course, and entirely
apart from his regular position at the School of Mines. The
experiments of 1872 were performed, as he had reason to believe, with
the full sanction of the Department. If the Board chose to go back
upon what had happened two years before, he was of course subject to
their criticism, but then he ought in justice to be allowed to explain
in what these experiments really consisted. What they were appears
from a note to Sir J. Donnelly:--]
My dear Donnelly,
It will be the best course, perhaps, if I set down in writing what I
have to say respecting the vivisections for physiological purposes
which have been performed here, and concerning which you made me a
communication from the Vice-President of the Council this morning.
I have always felt it my duty to defend those physiologists who, like
Brown Sequard, by making experiments on living animals, have added
immensely not only to scientific physiology, but to the means of
alleviating human suffering, against the often ignorant and sometimes
malicious clamour which has been raised against them.
But personally, indeed I may say constitutionally, the performance of
experiments upon living and conscious animals is extremely
disagreeable to me, and I have never followed any line of
investigation in which such experiments are required.
When the course of instruction in Physiology here was commenced, the
question of giving experimental demonstrations became a matter of
anxious consideration with me. It was clear that, without such
demonstrations, the subject could not be properly taught. It was no
less clear from what had happened to me when, as President of the
British Association, I had defended Brown Sequard, that I might expect
to meet with every description of abuse and misrepresentation if such
demonstrations were given.
It did not appear to me, however, that the latter consideration ought
to weigh with me, and I took such a course as I believe is defensible
against everything but misrepresentation.
I gave strict instructions to the Demonstrators who assisted me that
no such experiments were to be performed, unless the animal were
previously rendered insensible to pain either by destruction of the
brain or by the administration of anaesthetics, and I have every
reason to believe that my instructions were carried out. I do not see
what I can do beyond this, or how I can give Mr. Forster any better
guarantee than is given in my assurance that my dislike to the
infliction of pain both as a matter of principle and of feeling is
quite as strong as his own can be.
If Mr. Forster is not satisfied with this assurance, and with its
practical result that our experiments are made only on non-sentient
animals, then I am afraid that my position as teacher of Physiology
must come to an end.
If I am to act in that capacity I cannot consent to be prohibited from
showing the circulation in a frog's foot because the frog is made
slightly uncomfortable by being tied up for that purpose; nor from
showing the fundamental properties of nerves, because extirpating the
brain of the same animal inflicts one-thousandth part of the prolonged
suffering which it undergoes when it makes its natural exit from the
world by being slowly forced down the throat of a duck, and crushed
and asphyxiated in that creature's stomach.
I shall be very glad to wait upon Mr. Forster if he desires to see me.
Of course I am most anxious to meet his views as far as I can,
consistently with my position as a person bound to teach properly any
subject in which he undertakes to give instruction. But I am quite
clear as to the amount of freedom of action which it is necessary I
should retain, and if you will kindly communicate the contents of this
letter to the Vice-President of the Council, he will be able to judge
for himself how far his sense of what is right will leave me that
freedom, or render it necessary for me to withdraw from what I should
regard as a false position.
[But there was a further and more vital question. He had already
declared through Major (now Sir John) Donnelly, that he would only
undertake a course which involved no vivisection. Further to require
an official assurance that he would not do that which he had
explicitly affirmed he did not intend to do, affected him personally,
and he therefore declined the proposal made to him to give the course
in question.
It followed from the fact that experiments on animals formed no part
of his official course, and from his refusal under the circumstances
to undertake the non-official course, that his opinions and present
practises in regard to the question of vivisection did not come under
their Lordships' jurisdiction, and he protested against the
introduction of his name, and of the approbation or disapprobation of
his views, into an official document relating to a matter with which
he had nothing to do.
In an intermediate paragraph of the same document, he could not resist
asking for an official definition of vivisection as forbidden, in its
relation to the experiments he had made to the class of teachers.]
I should have to ask whether it means that the teacher who has
undertaken to perform no "vivisection experiments" is thereby debarred
from inflicting pain, however slight, in order to observe the action
of living matter; for it might be said to be unworthy quibbling, if,
having accepted the conditions of the minute, he thought himself at
liberty to inflict any amount of pain, so long as he did not actually
cut.
But if such is the meaning officially attached to the word
"vivisection," the teacher would be debarred from showing the
circulation in a frog's foot or in a tadpole's tail; he must not show
an animalcule, uncomfortably fixed under the microscope, nor prick his
own finger for the sake of obtaining a drop of living blood. The
living particles which float in that liquid undoubtedly feel as much
(or as little) as a frog under the influence of anaesthetics, or
deprived of its brain, does; and the teacher who shows his pupils the
wonderful phenomena exhibited by dying blood, might be charged with
gloating over the agonies of the colourless corpuscles, with quite as
much justice as I have been charged with inciting boys and girls to
cruelty by describing the results of physiological experiments, which
they are as likely to attempt as they are to determine the longitude
of their schoolroom.
However, I will not trouble your Lordship with any further indication
of the difficulties which, as I imagine, will attend the attempt to
carry the Minute into operation, if instruction is to be given in
Physiology, or even in general Biology.
[The upshot of the matter was that the Minute was altered so as to
refer solely to future courses, and on February 20 he wrote to Mr.
Forster:--]
I cannot allow you to leave office without troubling you with the
expression of my thanks for the very great kindness and consideration
which I have received from you on all occasions, and particularly in
regard to the question of vivisection, on which I ventured to some
extent, though I think not very widely or really, to differ from you.
The modification which you were good enough to make in your minute
removed all my objections to undertaking the Summer Course.
And I am sure that if that course had happened to be a physiological
one I could do all I want to do in the way of experiment, without
infringing the spirit of your minute, though I confess that the letter
of it would cause me more perplexity.
[As to his general attitude to the subject, it must be noted, as said
above in the letter to Sir J. Donnelly, that he never followed any
line of research involving experiments on living and conscious
animals. Though, as will be seen from various letters, he considered
such experiments justifiable, his personal feelings prevented him from
performing them himself. Like Charles Darwin, he was very fond of
animals, and our pets in London found in him an indulgent master.
But if he did not care to undertake such experiments personally, he
held it false sentiment to blame others who did disagreeable work for
the good of humanity, and false logic to allow pain to be inflicted in
the cause of sport while forbidding it for the cause of science. (See
his address on "Instruction in Elementary Physiology" "Collected
Essays" 3 300 seq.) Indeed, he declared that he trusted to the
fox-hunting instincts of the House of Commons rather than to any real
interest in science in that body, for a moderate treatment of the
question of vivisection.
The subject is again dealt with in "The Progress of Science," 1887
("Collected Essays" 1 122 seq.) from which I may quote two
sentences:--]
The history of all branches of science proves that they must attain a
considerable stage of development before they yield practical
"fruits"; and this is eminently true of physiology.
Unless the fanaticism of philozoic sentiment overpowers the voice of
humanity, and the love of dogs and cats supersedes that of one's
neighbour, the progress of experimental physiology and pathology will,
indubitably, in course of time, place medicine and hygiene upon a
rational basis.
[The dangers of prohibition by law are discussed in a letter to Sir W.
Harcourt:--]
You wish me to say what, in my opinion, would be the effect of the
total suppression of experiments on living animals on the progress of
physiological science in this country.
I have no hesitation in replying that it would almost entirely arrest
that progress. Indeed, it is obvious that such an effect must follow
the measure, for a man can no more develop a true conception of living
action out of his inner consciousness than he can that of a camel.
Observation and experiment alone can give us a real foundation for any
kind of Natural Knowledge, and any one who is acquainted with the
history of science is aware that not a single one of all the great
truths of modern physiology has been established otherwise than by
experiment on living things.
Happily the abolition of physiological experiment in this country,
should such a fatal legislative mistake ever be made, will be
powerless to arrest the progress of science elsewhere. But we shall
import our physiology as we do our hock and our claret from Germany
and France; those of our young physiologists and pathologists who can
afford to travel will carry on their researches in Paris and in
Berlin, where they will be under no restraint whatever, or it may be
that the foreign laboratories will carry out the investigations
devised here by the few persons who have the courage, in spite of all
obstacles, to attempt to save British science from extinction.
I doubt if such a result will contribute to the diminution of animal
suffering. I am sure that it will do as much harm as anything can do
to the English school of Physiology, Pathology, and Pharmacology, and
therefore to the progress of rational medicine.
[Another letter on the subject may be given, which was written to a
student at a theological college, in reply to a request for his
opinion on vivisection, which was to be discussed at the college
debating society.]
Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, September 29, 1890.
Dear Sir,
I am of the opinion that the practice of performing experiments on
living animals is not only reconcilable with true humanity, but under
certain circumstances is imperatively demanded by it.
Experiments on living animals are of two kinds. First, those which are
made upon animals which, although living, are incapable of sensation,
in consequence of the destruction or the paralysis of the sentient
machinery.
I am not aware that the propriety of performing experiments of this
kind is seriously questioned, except in so far as they may involve
some antecedent or subsequent suffering. Of course those who deny that
under any circumstances it can be right to inflict suffering on other
sentient beings for our own good, must object to even this much of
what they call cruelty. And when they prove their sincerity by leaving
off animal food; by objecting to drive castrated horses, or indeed to
employ animal labour at all; and by refusing to destroy rats, mice,
fleas, bugs and other sentient vermin, they may expect sensible people
to listen to them, and sincere people to think them other than
sentimental hypocrites.
As to experiments of the second kind, which do not admit of the
paralysis of the sentient mechanism, and the performance of which
involves severe prolonged suffering to the more sensitive among the
higher animals, I should be sorry to make any sweeping assertion. I am
aware of a strong personal dislike to them, which tends to warp my
judgment, and I am prepared to make any allowance for those who,
carried away by still more intense dislike, would utterly prohibit
these experiments.
But it has been my duty to give prolonged and careful attention to
this subject, and putting natural sympathy aside, to try and get at
the rights and wrongs of the business from a higher point of view,
namely, that of humanity, which is often very different from that of
emotional sentiment.
I ask myself--suppose you knew that by inflicting prolonged pain on
100 rabbits you could discover a way to the extirpation of leprosy, or
consumption, or locomotor ataxy, or of suicidal melancholia among
human beings, dare you refuse to inflict that pain? Now I am quite
unable to say that I dare. That sort of daring would seem to me to be
extreme moral cowardice, to involve gross inconsistency.
For the advantage and protection of society, we all agree to inflict
pain upon man--pain of the most prolonged and acute character--in our
prisons, and on our battlefields. If England were invaded, we should
have no hesitation about inflicting the maximum of suffering upon our
invaders for no other object than our own good.
But if the good of society and of a nation is a sufficient plea for
inflicting pain on men, I think it may suffice us for experimenting on
rabbits or dogs.
At the same time, I think that a heavy moral responsibility rests on
those who perform experiments of the second kind.
The wanton infliction of pain on man or beast is a crime; pity is that
so many of those who (as I think rightly) hold this view, seem to
forget that the criminality lies in the wantonness and not in the act
of inflicting pain per se.
I am, sir, yours faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[So far back as 1870 a committee had been appointed by the British
Association, and reported upon the conditions under which they
considered experiments on living animals justifiable. In the early
spring of 1875 a bill to regulate physiological research was
introduced into the Upper House by Lord Hartismere, but not proceeded
with. When legislation seemed imminent Huxley, in concert with other
men of science, interested himself in drawing up a petition to
Parliament to direct opinion on the subject and provide a fair basis
for future legislation, which indeed took shape immediately after in a
bill introduced by Dr. Lyon Playfair (afterwards Lord Playfair),
Messrs. Walpole and Ashley. This bill, though more just to science,
did not satisfy many scientific men, and was withdrawn upon the
appointment of a Royal Commission.
The following letters to Mr. Darwin bear on this period:--]
4 Marlborough Place, January 22, 1875.
My dear Darwin,
I quite agree with your letter about vivisection as a matter of right
and justice in the first place, and secondly as the best method of
taking the wind out of the enemy's sails. I will communicate with
Burdon Sanderson and see what can be done.
My reliance as against -- and her fanatical following is not in the
wisdom and justice of the House of Commons, but in the large number of
fox-hunters therein. If physiological experimentation is put down by
law, hunting, fishing, and shooting, against which a much better case
can be made out, will soon follow.
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
South Kensington, April 21, 1875.
My dear Darwin,
The day before yesterday I met Playfair at the club, and he told me
that he had heard from Miss Elliott that _I_ was getting up what she
called a "Vivisector's Bill," and that Lord Cardwell was very anxious
to talk with some of us about the matter.
So you see that there is no secret about our proceedings. I gave him a
general idea of what was doing, and he quite confirmed what Lubbock
said about the impossibility of any action being taken in Parliament
this session.
Playfair said he should like very much to know what we proposed doing,
and I should think it would be a good thing to take him into
consultation.
On my return I found that Pfluger had sent me his memoir with a note
such as he had sent to you.
I read it last night, and I am inclined to think that it is a very
important piece of work.
He shows that frogs absolutely deprived of oxygen give off carbonic
acid for twenty-five hours, and gives very strong reasons for
believing that the evolution of carbonic acid by living matter in
general is the result of a process of internal rearrangement of the
molecules of the living matter, and not of direct oxidation.
His speculations about the origin of living matter are the best I have
seen yet, so far as I understand them. But he plunges into the depths
of the higher chemistry in which I am by no means at home. Only this I
can see, that the paper is worth careful study.
Ever yours faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
31 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh, May 19, 1875.
My dear Darwin,
Playfair has sent a copy of his bill to me, and I am sorry to find
that its present wording is such as to render it very unacceptable to
all teachers of physiology. In discussing the draught with Litchfield
I recollect that I insisted strongly on the necessity of allowing
demonstrations to students, but I agreed that it would be sufficient
to permit such demonstrations only as could be performed under
anaesthetics.
The second clause of the bill, however, by the words "for the purpose
of new scientific discovery and for no other purpose," absolutely
prohibits any kind of demonstration. It would debar me from showing
the circulation in the web of a frog's foot or from exhibiting the
pulsations of the heart in a decapitated frog.
And by its secondary effect it would prohibit discovery. Who is to be
able to make discoveries unless he knows of his own knowledge what has
been already made out? It might as well be ruled that a chemical
student should begin with organic analysis.
Surely Burdon Sanderson did not see the draft of the bill as it now
stands. The Professors here are up in arms about it, and as the papers
have associated my name with the bill I shall have to repudiate it
publicly unless something can be done. But what in the world is to be
done? I have not written to Playfair yet, and shall wait to hear from
you before I do. I have an excellent class here, 340 odd, and like the
work. Best regards to Mrs. Darwin.
Ever yours faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
31 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh, June 5, 1875.
My dear Darwin,
I see I have forgotten to return Playfair's letter, which I enclose.
He sent me a copy of his last letter to you, but it did not reach me
till some days after my return from London. In the meanwhile I saw him
and Lord Cardwell at the House of Commons on Friday (last week).
Playfair seems rather disgusted at our pronunciamento against the
bill, and he declares that both Sanderson and Sharpey assented to it.
What they were dreaming about I cannot imagine. To say that no man
shall experiment except for purpose of original discovery is about as
reasonable as to ordain that no man shall swim unless he means to go
from Dover to Calais.
However the Commission is to be issued, and it is everything to gain
time and let the present madness subside a little. I vowed I would
never be a member of another Commission if I could help it, but I
suppose I shall have to serve on this.
I am very busy with my lectures, and am nearly half through. I shall
not be sorry when they are over, as I have been grinding away now
since last October.
With kindest regards to Mrs. Darwin, ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[He was duly asked to serve on the Commission. Though his lectures in
Edinburgh prevented him from attending till the end of July no
difficulty was made over this, as the first meetings of the
Commission, which began on June 30, were to be devoted to taking the
less controversial evidence. In accepting his nomination he wrote to
Mr. Cross (afterwards Lord Cross), at that time Home Secretary:--]
If I can be of any service I shall be very glad to act on the
Commission, sympathising as I do on the one hand with those who abhor
cruelty to animals, and, on the other, with those who abhor the still
greater cruelty to man which is involved in any attempt to arrest the
progress of physiology and of rational medicine.
[The other members of the Commission were Lords Cardwell and
Winmarleigh, Mr. W.E. Forster, Sir J.B. Karslake, Professor Erichssen,
and Mr. R.H. Hutton.
The evidence given before the Commission bore out the view that
English physiologists inflicted no more pain upon animals than could
be avoided; but one witness, not an Englishman, and not having at that
time a perfect command of the English language, made statements which
appeared to the Commission at least to indicate that the witness was
indifferent to animal suffering. Of this incident Huxley writes to Mr.
Darwin at the same time as he forwarded a formal invitation for him to
appear as a witness before the Commission:--]
4 Marlborough Place, October 30, 1875.
My dear Darwin,
The inclosed tells its own story. I have done my best to prevent your
being bothered, but for various reasons which will occur to you I did
not like to appear too obstructive, and I was asked to write to you.
The strong feeling of my colleagues (and my own I must say also) is
that we ought to have your opinions in our minutes. At the same time
there is a no less strong desire to trouble you as little as possible,
and under no circumstances to cause you any risk of injury to health.
What with occupation of time, worry and vexation, this horrid
Commission is playing the deuce with me. I have felt it my duty to act
as counsel for Science, and was well satisfied with the way things
were going. But on Thursday when I was absent at the Council of the
Royal Society -- was examined, and if what I hear is a correct account
of the evidence he gave I may as well throw up my brief.
I am told that he openly professed the most entire indifference to
animal suffering, and said he only gave anaesthetics to keep animals
quiet!
I declare to you I did not believe the man lived who was such an
unmitigated cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles,
and I would willingly agree to any law which would send him to the
treadmill.
The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Forster is profound,
and I am powerless (even if I had the desire which I have not) to
combat it. He has done more mischief than all the fanatics put
together.
I am utterly disgusted with the whole business.
Ever yours,
T.H. Huxley.
Of course keep the little article on Species. It is in some American
Encyclopaedia published by Appleton. And best thanks for your book. I
shall study it some day, and value it as I do every line you have
written. Don't mention what I have told you outside the circle of
discreet Darwindom.
4 Marlborough Place, November 2, 1875.
My dear Darwin,
Our secretary has telegraphed to you to Down, and written to Queen
Anne Street.
But to make sure, I send this note to say that we expect you at 13
Delahay Street [Where the Commission was sitting.] at 2 o'clock
to-morrow. And that I have looked out the highest chair that was to be
got for you. [Mr. Darwin was long in the leg. When he came to our
house the biggest hassock was always placed in an arm-chair to give it
the requisite height for him.]
Ever yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
[The Commission reported early in 1876, and a few months after Lord
Carnarvon introduced a bill intituled "An Act to amend the law
relating to Cruelty to Animals." It was a more drastic measure than
was demanded. As a writer in "Nature" (1876 page 248) puts it: "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."
As to the working of the law, Huxley referred to it the following year
in the address, already cited, on "Elementary Instruction in
Physiology" ("Collected Essays" 3 310).]
But while I should object to any experimentation which can justly be
called painful, and while as a member of a late Royal Commission I did
my best to prevent the infliction of needless pain for any purpose, I
think it is my duty to take this opportunity of expressing my regret
at a condition of the law which permits a boy to troll for pike or set
lines with live frog bait for idle amusement, and at the same time
lays the teacher of that boy open to the penalty of fine and
imprisonment if he uses the same animal for the purpose of exhibiting
one of the most beautiful and instructive of physiological
spectacles--the circulation in the web of the foot. No one could
undertake to affirm that a frog is not inconvenienced by being wrapped
up in a wet rag and having his toes tied out, and it cannot be denied
that inconvenience is a sort of pain. But you must not inflict the
least pain on a vertebrated animal for scientific purposes (though you
may do a good deal in that way for gain or for sport) without due
licence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, granted
under the authority of the Vivisection Act.
So it comes about that, in this year of grace 1877, two persons may be
charged with cruelty to animals. One has impaled a frog, and suffered
the creature to writhe about in that condition for hours; the other
has pained the animal no more than one of us would be pained by tying
strings round his fingers and keeping him in the position of a
hydropathic patient. The first offender says, "I did it because I find
fishing very amusing," and the magistrate bids him depart in
peace--nay, probably wishes him good sport. The second pleads, "I
wanted to impress a scientific truth with a distinctness attainable in
no other way on the minds of my scholars," and the magistrate fines
him five pounds.
I cannot but think that this is an anomalous and not wholly creditable
state of things.