My dear Sir,

I am much obliged by your kind reply of the 23^rd. inst. received to day.¹ I can but express regret that you will not permit publication,—for, your Letter in “The Times” must, of course, seriously wound the Cause for which I and others have made no trifling sacrifices. The injury done to our Cause by that Letter is the greater as the person who has attempted to answer you in “The Times” was mentally unfit to argue the question.² “The Times”,—a partisan in this controversy,—is, cunningly, ready to give notoriety to a Woman as the professed exponent of the Anti-Vivisectionists on a great Ethical and Scientific Question;—and doubtless anticipated the crushing retort you gave and which her statement laid her so palpably open to.³

I can well believe what you tell me as to the Letters sent,—by what the Bishop of Peterborough denominated his “hysterical correspondents”.⁴ Their private “controversial amenities” however, do not damage the Physiologists,—but public exhibitions in the Press certainly help those Gentlemen and injure the Cause of Animals.

Believe me | yours very sincerely | George R. Jesse. | Hon^y. Secty. &c.

Charles Darwin, Esqe. | &c., &c., &c.