Con'e)*jnnuh-iice until Afjt/ionufi tie Candolle 



147 



(lilfcr(mt tinien are afTecUHl by a Heriotis statistical error. Ml< Hliould have reckoned pt^r million 

 of moil iilkjvo fifty iiiHUiml of tlui ]M>{)ulati(>n f,'<Mi(!rally. In a rapidly ii utry like 



England, tbn pri)|><irti(>n iif the youtlil'ul |)<i|iulation to thoNu of an ag<> hu! .!(• them 



to bocomo diHtin;{ui.sliod i« doublo what it m in Frano»\ whore population in , and an 



injuHtice may bit dono i>y thetu^ tablex to England in Honiuthin^' iiko that | n. They 



require entire reconstruction." (p. 347.) 



Ill this essay Galtoii discii8.ses the cjises of apparent inherit^uice of ac(juired 

 cliaracters, antl he gives expression to views which I doubt whetlier he held 

 at a hiter date. In the first ca.se he refers to De Candolle's instance of tame 

 birds on a de.solate ishiiid acquiring a fear of man, and tranxmittimj thnt fear 

 (IS an instinctive habit to their descendants. There is no evidence of a con- 

 genital transmission in such cases; the flock may acquire a habit which may 

 be handed down from living member to living memljer, or the tamer memljers 

 may be killed by their tameness, and so the species grow wilder. In the 

 same way traditional habit of mind or emigration can adequately explain 

 why "a population reared for many generations under a dogmatic creed" 

 becomes indisposed to look truth in the face, and is timid in intellectual 

 inquiry. We need not suppose the indisposition congenital, and if it be, 

 Galton has in h'\s Hereditary Genius already given a better explanation in the 

 extermination and expatriation of the freethinking and inquiring members. 

 We need not, as De Candolle and apparently Galton in this passfige do, 

 appeal to the inheritance of acquired characters, (p. 349.) 



From tlie timidity in intellectual inquiry which results from rearing in a 

 dogmatic creed, Galton turns to tiie relation between religion and science. 

 "Can then religion and science march in iiarmony?" heaaks; and his answer 

 is of the followuig kind : 



"The religious man and the scientific man have one great point in common, the devotion to 

 an idea as distinct from a pursuit of wealth or social advancement. It is true that their methods 

 are very different; the religious man is attached by his heart to his religion, and cannot endure 

 tt) hcjir its truth discussed, and he fears scientific discoveries, which might in .some slight way 

 discredit what he holds more important than all the rest. The scientific man seeks truth n'gard- 

 less of conse«iut'nces; he balances prol>abilities, and inclines tenijwrarily to that opinion which 

 has most probabilities in its favour, ready to abandon it the moment the balance shifts, and 

 the evidence in favour of a new hypothesis may prevail. These, indi«<l, are radical dilTerencea, 

 but the two characters have one powerful element in conmion. Neither the n>ligiou8 nor the 

 scientific man will consent to sacrifice his opinions to material gain, to political ends nor to 

 pleasure. Hotli agret? in the love of intellectual pui-suits, and in the practice of a simple, regular 

 and laljorious life, and Ixjth work in a disintercsttni way for the public good." (p. 349.) 



Assuredly for Galton the ideal wiis the real! On p. 351 Galton again 

 turns to this subject of aajuired habits l)eing transmitted heretlitarily. He 

 states that some ixcquired habits in dogs are certainly transmitted, but the 

 number he tells us is small and "we have no idea of the cause of their limita- 

 tion." Unfortunately he does not tell us what these habits are. It is not 

 to be wondeied at that Galton did not realise at Hrst the full bearing of 

 his theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm. Darwin like Ljimarck had 

 a Ijelief in the transmission of some acquired characters, and Galton's close 

 friend Herbert Spencer was a firm believer in the doctrine. Galton was at 

 this time only feeling his way towards the conclusions that flowed from his 



19—8 



