HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 341 
“October 18, 1876, Committee of Victoria Street Society placed on minutes a 
letter of Miss Cobbe intimating that she could only retain office of honorary sec- 
retary should the committee see fit to adopt the principle of total abolition, or 
at least a more uncompromising hostility to vivisection.” 
Dedicated to this objective, she supported a bill introduced by Lord Truro in 
the House of Lords, July 1879 ; and another in the House of Commons in 1881 
by J. F. B. Firth, Esq., providing that: “It shall not be lawful to subject any live 
anmal to vivisection ; that is to say, to perform on any live animal, any experi- 
ment for any medical, physiological, or other scientific purpose * * * providing 
penalties of imprisonment not to exceed 3 months.” Miss Cobbe continued her 
antivivisectionist campaign until her death. 
THE BOLE OF DARWIN AND HUXLEY 
The claim is made by the Animal Welfare Institute that Darwin and Huxley 
played a prominent role in the passage of the British law. What are the facts ? 
Darwin is quoted as having written Ray Lankester (May 22, 1871), that vivi- 
section was a subject that made him sick with horror, and that he felt compelled 
to publish a rebuttal of the antivivisectionists’ sweeping allegations. Note that 
that was in 1871 when the antivivisectionists’ allegations were directed against 
scientists on the Continent teaching practices at the veterinary school near 
Paris, accounts of which he had read in the press — not allegations concerning 
British investigator. Note also that his publication was a rebuttal. By 1875, 
the antivivisection campaign had shifted to England and was reaching such 
magnitude as to pose a threat to British scientists. What then did Darwin 
actually do? 
Based on a press release from the Animal Welfare Institute, we find the fol- 
lowing statement in the public press : 
The Washington Post, June 6, 1960 : 
“Nearly a century ago, in response to a petition to the Government by Charles 
Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Edward Jenner, and some other distinguished scien- 
tists, Great Britain adopted legislation designed to prevent the infliction of 
needless suffering upon animals used in laboratories for research purposes.” 
This statement is absolutely false. Darwin and Huxley and Burton Sander- 
son considered preparing a petition, but, according to Darwin’s own statement, 
it was never presented to the Government. 
There is a recorded version of this contemplated “petition,” as follows: 
British Medical Journal, April 24, 1875 : “The Athaeneum states what has 
long been known in the profession that, in the event of any proposal for legis- 
lation with regard to vivisection brought forward, Mr. Darwin, Professor Huxley, 
Dr. Sanderson, and other biologists of distinction intend to petition Parliament 
on the subject. While they are anxious that any useless cruelty should be pre- 
vented, they are extremely desirous that no obstacle should be placed by the 
action of the legislature on research, and that these views be embodied in the 
petition.” 
Darwin and Huxley, instead, collaborated in preparing a bill which was intro- 
duced in the House of Commons by Lyon Playfair on May 12, 1875, 1 week after 
the introduction of Lord Hennicker’s bill in the House of Lords. 
What restrictions did Darwin and Huxley propose to place upon British 
scientists? The answer is to be found in the comments made on the bill by Mr. 
Holt, the editor of the Spectator. 
Spectator, May 15, 1875 : “On Wednesday last, Dr. Lyon Playfair laid on the 
table of the House of Commons a bill for the restriction of vivisection (drawn 
up by physiologists) is the best answer possible to the ignorant attack made in 
a daily contemporary on Thursday on Lord Hennicker’s bill introduced in the 
House of Lords.” “Dr. Playfair’s bill leaves all experiments conducted under 
anesthetics as utterly without restriction as they now are; indeed it attempts 
no sort of limitation on them.” “Dr. Playfair allows any man who pleases to 
try any experiment he pleases, on animal life, without let or hindrance so long 
as he gives the poor creature on which he experiments, or professes to give them, 
anesthetics.” “Though it denounces as illegal the infliction of pain for the 
purpose of science by anyone, except under the strictest conditions of responsi- 
bility, it not only takes no pains to prevent the breach of the law, but gives no 
power to investigate breaches of the law.” 
Darwin’s position at the time is best stated in a letter dated April 14, 1881, 
written to Professor Holmgren, of Upsala, from which I quote: “Several years 
ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was 
