number of children born in a mentally degenerate family was 7.3; and this fact has since been corroborated by other enquirers. I have recently attempted to ascertain whether the same holds good in the case of people who are not of ascertainable insane stock, but who are thriftless, lazy and generally lacking in any desire to make headway. The actual number of families I have hitherto succeeded in investigating is small, but I found that in the case of forty-three couples of the working class who may best be described as incompetent and parasitic, there were 322 children now living, or an average of 7·4 per family; whilst in the case of ninety-one thrifty and competent working-class families there were 342 children now living, or an average of 3.7 per family. It will be seen that these results are strikingly similar to those obtained in the case of the insane.

There is no need to labour this question any further. Sufficient has been said to show that the decline in the birth-rate is not uniform throughout the community, but that it is practically confined to the best elements; and that the worst elements, the insane, the feeble-minded, the diseased, the pauper, the thriftless, and in fact the whole parasitic class of the nation, are continuing to propagate with unabated and unrestricted vigour. Nor does this statement cover the full extent of the evil. If these degenerates mated solely amongst themselves, it is probable that, even in spite of the fostering care of modern conditions, the morbidity would ultimately accumulate to such an extent as to work out its own destruction by causing the sterility and extinction of its victims. The danger lies in the fact that these degenerates frequently mate with the healthy members of the community, and thereby constantly drag fresh blood into the vortex of disease and lower the aggregate vigour of the nation. I believe it is this fact which is responsible for no little of the increased loss of vitality and proneness to physical and mental breakdown which is apparent at the present day.

Whatever may be the nature and ultimate cause of these regressive germinal variations, it is probable that they have occurred from the most remote period, not only in man, but in many other forms of life; it is also highly probable that they will continue to occur. But

in lower life-forms the process of natural selection has inevitably prevented their perpetuation. It is only the biologically fit that have survived to propagate their kind; and hence a progressive evolution has been the result. There can be little doubt that natural selection operated also in the case of primitive man; at a comparatively early period, indeed, its action was probably assisted by man himself, and there are many barbarous tribes living to-day who systematically destroy all delicate and deformed offspring. Moreover, this practice was not confined to savage mankind; as is well known, it was decreed by the laws of ancient Greece and Rome. But with the development of altruism a great change took place, resulting in the survival and propagation of large numbers of delicate, diseased and degenerate individuals who, in former times, would certainly have perished. When Nature sought to purify the race and further its evolutionary progress through the medium of disease, man, with all the power of modern science, waged war against Nature and neutralised these efforts.

There can be no doubt that, although recent advances in medical science, social reform and philanthropy, have benefited the biologically fit, they have had a far greater effect in making easier the conditions of existence of the biologically unfit. In fact, the whole tendency of modern sentiment and present-day civilisation is not so much to aid the fit as to favour the survival and propagation of the unfit. I do not suggest for a moment that we should revert to the methods of Nature or primitive man. Altruism is a quality which marks a higher evolution of the race; and it is not for its abolition but for its further extension to posterity, to the well-being of future humanity, that I would plead. The future happiness and progress of man requires that the race should be healthy and vigorous; and this can only be secured by taking such steps as will prevent the propagation of the degenerate. I would lay it down as a fundamental principle that, as soon as the development of civilisation and humanitarian sentiment reaches a stage at which it causes the survival of the unfit, then the highest interests of the race, the most perfect altruism, demand that measures should be adopted which will prevent these unfit from propagating their kind.

The

It is this which is the object of Eugenics-the furtherance of the progress and happiness of the race by encouraging the breeding of the biologically fit and discouraging or preventing that of the unfit. Eugenist has no quarrel with those who seek to improve the environment of the community; on the contrary, he believes that such improvement may serve to thwart the initiation of degeneracy in the future; but with regard to existing degeneracy, the causal effect of the environment-if it had any effect at all-is a matter of past history, and no possible betterment of the surroundings can now serve to eradicate it. This can only be done by adopting the principle of selective breeding, a method which has been applied with conspicuous success to the domesticated animals, to plants and vegetables, for generations. There is therefore nothing new in the principle of Eugenics; it has been applied successfully for ages to other forms of life. There is nothing new in its application to man; it is simply the science of modern preventive medicine carried to its logical conclusion.

It is apparent that Eugenics has two aspects, which have been called 'restrictive,' or the prevention of the propagation of the unfit, and constructive,' or the encouragement of the propagation of the fit. In the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to define all the types in which the condition is clearly the result of germinal impairment and therefore transmissible, and which thus come within the category of the unfit. With regard to some, however, there is no doubt; and it is quite clear that idiots, imbeciles, and the feeble-minded, together with many insane, epileptics, chronic paupers, habitual criminals and inebriates, should be debarred from reproduction. Two methods have been suggested, namely, sterilisation and segregation. It is impossible here to discuss the arguments which have been advanced for and against each of these proposals; but it may be remarked that, even if the present repugnance to the idea of sterilisation were overcome and adequate safeguards against its improper use ensured, the method is one which would only be applicable in those cases where there is no danger to the State from the liberty of the individual, but only from his or her reproduction. This is not the case with a large proportion of the classes I have mentioned. They

present either such extreme incapacity, or such marked anti-social propensities, that permanent supervision is needed; sterilisation alone will not meet their case, and the best remedy is by segregation in suitable colonies or institutions. It is my opinion that one of the most pressing problems of the day is that of the care and control of the mentally defective, for this class impedes social reform and national progress at every turn. At the present time there are three Bills before Parliament dealing with this question, and there is no doubt that the country is at last fully alive to its importance and anxious for a solution. It is earnestly to be hoped that the Government will realise its responsibility and pass a measure which will ensure adequate provision for this class without further delay.

Before any attempt can be made in the direction of Constructive Eugenics, it is necessary that we should understand the causes which are responsible for the marked decline in the birth-rate of the industrious, capable and fit members of the nation. I believe they resolve themselves into two groups. On the one hand, the standard of present comfort has been greatly raised; and this, together with some amount of selfishness and a considerable lack of appreciation of the disastrous consequences to the general community, has caused a very prevalent voluntary restriction of offspring; for that the diminished propagation is mainly voluntary is a fact which cannot be denied. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the cost of clothing, educating, and giving a suitable start in life to a large family nowadays imposes a financial strain upon many members of the working and professional classes which they are unable to meet. The burden of the unfit, in the shape of increased rates and taxes, is beginning to press heavily upon their shoulders; and they, too, have recourse to voluntary restriction. I have spoken on this subject to many professional men, to officers and non-commissioned officers in the services, to tradesmen, to hard-working artisans, in short to many of those who are generally looked upon as the backbone of the country; and the invariable reply is that they do not have more children because, with the desire to give them a good start in life, they cannot afford to have more.

The first group of causes must be met by the education

of public opinion; and there is great need that the facts I have quoted, and the danger of the fit being swamped by the unfit, should be brought home to the nation. The second group requires something more; and the suggestion made by Galton many years ago is well worthy of serious consideration. It is to the effect that in competitive examinations for appointments, regard should be had to the family history of the candidate as well as his personal attainments. As Galton very truly pointed out (Enquiries into Human Faculty,' p. 212),

'competitive examinations give undue prominence to youths whose receptive faculties are quick, and whose intellects are precocious. They give no indication of the directions in which the health, character and intellect of the youth will change through the development, in their due course, of ancestral tendencies that are latent in youth, but will manifest themselves in after life. . . . Much of the needed guidance may be derived from his family history.'

It cannot be doubted that, were this suggestion adopted, it would lead to far greater attention being paid to the importance of marriage with a sound, healthy stock, and so tend to improve the vigour and capacity of the nation. The same principle might with great advantage be extended to all applicants for responsible appointments as well as to University scholarships and bursaries. With regard to the remission of taxation, the most pressing requirement is that the shoulders of the fit should be lightened of the ever-increasing burden of the unfit which they are now called upon to bear; and it is certain that attention to Restrictive Eugenics would not fail to exercise a great influence in a positive and constructive direction. Were it necessary to give some more definite encouragement to the propagation of the eugenically fit, the matter is one which should not be beyond the ingenuity of a statesmanlike Chancellor of the Exchequer.

But, while it is clear that, even in the present state of knowledge, much may be done through the application of eugenical principles to improve the vigour and efficiency of the nation, nevertheless, no application of these principles to the country as a whole can take place until more is known about the racial effect of many hereditary conditions and about the inheritance of the mass of the Vol. 217.-No. 432.

F