To T. L. Brunton 14 February 1882
Down | Beckenham— Kent—
Feb 14. 1882
Dear Dr. Lauder Brunton
I am very much obliged for your information in regard to the association, about which I feel a great interest.1 It seems to me highly desirable that the association should include as many medical and scientific men as possible throughout the whole country, who could illumine those capable of illumination on the necessity of physiological research; but that the Assocn. should be governed by a Council of powerful men not too many in number— Such a council as representing a large body of medical men would have more power in the eyes of vote=hunting politicians than a small body representing only themselves—
From what I see of country practitioners, I thinks that their annual subscription ought to be very small— But would it not be possible to add to the rules some such statement as the following one:— “That by a donation of £.... or of any larger sum from those who feel a deep interest in the progress of medical science, the donor shall become a life member”. I for one would gladly subscribe £50 or £100— If such a plan were approved by the leading medical men of London two or three thousand pounds might at once be collected; and if any such sum could be announced as already subscribed when the programme of the Assocn. is put forth, it wd have, as I believe, a considerable influence on the country, & would attract the attention of country practitioners. The Anti-corn Law League owed much of its enormous power to several wealthy men laying down £1000;2 for the subscription of a good sum of money is the best proof of earnest conviction— you asked for my opinion on the above points, and I have given it freely, though well aware that from living so retired a life my judgement cannot be worth much. Have you read Mr. Gurney’s article in the Fortnightly and Cornhill?3 They seem to me very clever though obscurely written; & I agree with almost everything that he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that no experiments shd be tried, unless some immediate good can be predicted, & this is a gigantic mistake contradicted by the whole history of science—
Believe me dear Dr. Brunton | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin
P.S. | That is a curious fact about babies; I remember hearing on good authority that very young babies when moved are apt to clutch hold of anything, & I thought of your explanation; but your case during sleep is a much more interesting one.4 Very many thanks for the book which I much wanted to see; it will be sent back to-day, as from you, to the Society.5
Footnotes
Bibliography
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
Gurney, Edmund. 1881. A chapter in the ethics of pain. Fortnightly Review 36: 778–96.
Gurney, Edmund. 1882a. An epilogue on vivisection. Cornhill Magazine 45: 191–9.
Paget, James, et al. 1881. Vivisection: its pains and uses. [Three essays.] Nineteenth Century 10: 920–48.
Pickering, Paul A. and Tyrrell, Alex. 2000. The people’s bread: a history of the Anti-Corn Law League. London and New York: Leicester University Press.
Summary
Agrees with TLB’s views regarding the constitution of the proposed Science Defence Association.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-13687
- From
- Charles Robert Darwin
- To
- Thomas Lauder Brunton, 1st baronet
- Sent from
- Down
- Source of text
- DAR 160: 353–353/1
- Physical description
- C 5pp
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 13687,” accessed on 26 September 2022, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13687.xml