Karhj Aiithntpolofi'ical /frurtirrhfM 



93 



the son or brother is 8Ui)j)ose<l to reach an age of 50 l)efore he can be tested 

 for eniiiieiK'c. Now it ih ratlier difficuh to nrfej)t tlio si ' that the 



averageurt'springof a judge is two and of his father five'; noi .:... landing the 

 discredit (ialton casts elsewhere on the moral conduct of lawyers'. I believe 

 that owing to tli<> difficulty of gettiiig accurate information, although Galton 

 did not go beyond the ordinary sources — for example to herald's visiUitions, 

 etc. — it would have been best to take average values from jjedigrees of the 

 period. For example Galton gives 36 °/^ of eminent sons to the judges on 

 the basis of one son apiec«\ but 14 4 "/, on the biisis of U'5 sons would have 

 been equally eftective for his purpose, which wius to show that a judge being 

 one barrister in a hundred, or, since as he remarks hamsters are highly 

 selected, one man possibly in 4000, the chances are enormously against 

 judges having 144 /^ of legally eminent sons on the assumption of a pure 

 chance occurrence. 



Galton's chapter on the judges — his most complete and detailed section — 

 18 a very fine piece of work, and might l)e used an the starting-point for 

 still more complete pedigree work on the heredity of legal ability*. 



The next chapter deals with 'Statesmen,' and Galton admits the diffi- 

 culty of steering between first the acce|)tance of mere official position or 

 notoriety as equivalent to a more discriminative reputation, and secondly 

 a selection with an unconscious bias towards facts favourable to inheritance. 

 Thus lie writes: 



"It would not bo a judicious plan to take for our select list the nameM of privy counaellora, 

 or even of Cabinet ministers; for though some of them are illustriously gifted, and many are 

 eminently so, yet others btilong to a decidedly lower natural grade. For instance, it strmed in 

 late yejirs to have l)ecome a more incident to the position of a great tcrritt)rial duke to have a 

 seat in the Cabinet as a minister of the Crown. No doubt some few of the dukes are highly 

 gifted, but it may l)e affirmed, with e<(ual a.ssurance, that the abilities of the large majority are 

 very far indeed from justifying such an appointment," (p. 104.) 



Galton is indeed a democrat in his views on the nobility: 



" A man who has no able ance.«tor nearer in blood to him than a great-grandjwirent, is un- 

 appreciably better off' in the chance of being himself gifted with ability, than if he had l>een 

 taken out of tlie general mass of men. An old peerage is a valueless title to natural gifts, 

 except SI) far as it may have been furbishe<l up by a succession of wise intermarriag«!s. When, 

 however, as is often the case, the direct line has iR'como extinct and the title has passed to s 

 distant relative, who had not been reared in the family tnwlitions, the sentiment that is 

 attached to its possession is utterly unreasonable. I cannot think of any claim to r«'8p«>ct, put 

 forward in modern days, that is so entirely an imposture, a.s that made by a peer on the ground 

 of descent, who has neither been nol)ly educated, nor has any eminent kinsman, within three 

 degrees." (p. 87.) 



What would Galton have said had he wiitten fifty years later when 

 peerages appear to be given away, not for noble education, eminent kinsmen, 

 or distinguished public service, but apparently on the ground of men being 



' Of coui-se the judge may have no offspring and his father must have had <>««• at least 

 ' "Hereditary Talent and Character" (p. 164). "Great lawyers are especially to be blamed 



iathis [illicit intercourse followed by a corresponding amount of illegitimate issue], even more 



than poets, artists or great commanders." 



^ There is a considerable correspondence with E. B. Denison in the Galtoniana letters for 



1869 about the ability and fertility of judges and peers. 



