(_f_) Habitual criminals. Public opinion is beginning to regard with
favour the project of a prolonged segregation of habitual criminals, for
the purpose of restricting their opportunities for (1) continuing their
depredations, and (2) producing low class offspring. The enquiries
spoken of above (see _c_) will measure the importance of the latter
object.
(_g_) Feeble minded. Aid given to Institutions for the feeble minded are
open to the suspicions that they may eventually promote their marriage
and the production of offspring like themselves. Inquiries are needed to
test the truth of this suspicion.
(_h_) Grants towards higher education. Money spent in the higher
education of those who are intellectually unable to profit by it lessens
the sum available for those who can do so. It might be expected that aid
systematically given on a large scale to the more capable would have
considerable eugenic effect, but the subject is complex and needs
investigation.
(_i_) Indiscriminate charity, including out-door relief. There is good
reason to believe that the effects of indiscriminate charity are notably
non-eugenic. This topic affords a wide field for inquiry.
III. Other influences that further or restrain particular classes of
marriage.
The instances are numerous in recent times in which social influences
have restrained or furthered freedom of marriage. A judicious selection
of these would be useful, and might be undertaken as time admits. I have
myself just communicated to the Sociological Society a memoir entitled
“Restrictions in Marriage,” in which remarkable instances are given of
the dominant power of religion, law and custom. This will suggest the
sort of work now in view, where less powerful influences have produced
statistical effects of appreciable amount.