A REJOINDER 167 



in that mother who refuses to alter her child's 

 environment to defeat scarlet fever or concussion 

 of the brain." Were I a Carlyle what thundering 

 sentences I should write in reply to^ this. But I 

 cannot ; so I will simply assure my critic she is 

 quite mistaken. It would not be the purest destiny 

 but crassest folly for a mother to do anything of the 

 sort. What I said in effect was this : When we find 

 mothers so inherently defective and so devoid of 

 parental love and foresight that they cannot or will 

 not save their children from preventable misery and 

 injury, it is better such a mother should accept her 

 destiny than that we should help her to multiply 

 and propagate such a foolish and defective race. 

 It is better she should accept her natural destiny than 

 that capable and loving mothers should have the 

 destiny of the wicked artificially cast upon them 

 and their children by the act of sentimentalists. 

 If we spend a sovereign through the rates upon 

 the vicious mothers, inevitably we take it from the 

 pockets of the good and careful mothers. Sovereigns 

 are not made in heaven by metaphysicians and 

 showered upon the earth at the cry of the worthless ; 

 they are the product of the labours and capacities 

 of the biologically fit. 



Seeking for further illustrations that natural 

 events are not, according to the standard of Miss 

 Wodehouse, necessarily admirable events, she cites the 

 " mortal combats in animal societies between jealous 

 wooers." Well, are these not admirable ? I think 

 they are. So long as it is a fact of Nature that some 



