This Society has cause to congratulate itself on the zeal and energy
which has brought together so large a body of opinion. We have had
verbal contributions from four eminent specialists in anthropology: Dr.
Haddon, Dr. Mott, Mr. Crawley, and Dr. Westermarck, and numerous written
communications have been furnished by well known persons. At the time
that I am revising and extending these words no less than twenty-six
contributions to the discussion are in print. Want of space compels me
to confine my reply to those remarks that seem more especially to
require it, and to do so very briefly, for Eugenics is a wide study,
with an uncounted number of side issues into which those who discuss it
are tempted to stray. If, however, sure advance is to be made, these
issues must be thoroughly explored, one by one, and partial discussion
should as far as possible be avoided. To change the simile, we have to
deal with a formidable chain of strongholds, which must be severally
attacked in force, reduced, and disposed of, before we can proceed
freely.
In the first place, it is a satisfaction to find that no one impugns the
conclusion which my memoir was written to justify, that history tells
how restrictions in marriage, even of an excessive kind, have been
contentedly accepted very widely, under the guidance of what I called
“immaterial motives.” This is all I had in view when writing it.
_Certificates._—One of the comments on which I will remark is that
if certificates were now offered to those who passed certain
examinations into health, physique, moral and intellectual powers,
and hereditary gifts, great mistakes would be made by the
examiners. I fully agree that it is too early to devise a
satisfactory system of marks for giving what might be styled
“honour-certificates,” because we do not yet possess sufficient
data to go upon. On the other hand there are persons who are
exceptionally and unquestionably unfit to contribute offspring to
the nation, such as those mentioned in Dr. Mott’s bold proposals.
The best methods of dealing with these are now ripe for immediate
consideration.
_Breeding for points._—It is objected by many that there cannot be
unanimity on the “points” that it is most desirable to breed for.
I fully discussed this objection in my memoir read here last
spring, showing that some qualities such as health and vigour were
thought by all to be desirable, and the opposite undesirable, and
that this sufficed to give a first direction to our aims. It is a
safe starting point, though a great deal more has to be inquired
into as we proceed on our way. I think that some contributors to
this discussion have been needlessly alarmed. No question has been
raised by me of breeding men like animals for particular points,
to the disregard of all-round efficiency in physical, intellectual
(including moral), and hereditary qualifications. Moreover, as
statistics have shown, the best qualities are largely correlated.
The youths who became judges, bishops, statesmen, and leaders of
progress in England could have furnished formidable athletic teams
in their times. There is a tale, I know not how far founded on
fact, that Queen Elizabeth had an eye to the calves of the legs of
those she selected for bishops. There is something to be said in
favour of selecting men by their physical characteristics for
other than physical purposes. It would decidedly be safer to do so
than to trust to pure chance.
_The residue._—It is also objected that if the inferior moiety of
a race are left to intermarry, their produce will be increasingly
inferior. This is certainly an error. The law of “regression
towards mediocrity” insures that their offspring as a whole, will
be superior to themselves, and if as I sincerely hope, a freer
action will be hereafter allowed to selective agencies than
hitherto, the portion of the offspring so selected would be better
still. The influences that now _withstand_ the free action of
selective agencies are numerous, they include indiscriminate
charity.
_Passion of love._—The argument has been repeated that love is too
strong a passion to be restrained by such means as would be
tolerated at the present time. I regret that I did not express the
distinction that ought to have been made between its two stages,
that of slight inclination and that of falling thoroughly into
love, for it is the first of these rather than the second that I
hope the popular feeling of the future will successfully resist.
Every match-making mother appreciates the difference. If a girl is
taught to look upon a class of men as tabooed, whether owing to
rank, creed, connections, or other causes, she does not regard
them as possible husbands and turns her thoughts elsewhere. The
proverbial “Mrs. Grundy” has enormous influence in checking the
marriages she considers indiscreet.
_Eugenics as a factor in religion._—Remarks have been made
concerning eugenics as a religion; this will be the subject of the
brief memoir that follows these remarks.
It is much to be desired that competent persons would severally take up
one or other of the many topics mentioned in my second memoir, or others
of a similar kind, and work it thoroughly out as they would any ordinary
scientific problem; in this way solid progress would be made. I must be
allowed to re-emphasise my opinion that an immense amount of
investigation has to be accomplished before a definite system of
Eugenics can be safely framed.