/*f<i/r/tolo(j{rfil /mrsfujatiouM 265 



Galton notes what enormous influence the men of former generations 

 have exercised unconsciously over the human st<x;k of to-day. How difli-r- 

 ently world-history would have di'velopt'd luid our forefathers left the 

 'ahori^ines' of America, South Africa and Australia to the fn-c occupation 

 of their lands. 



"Till- powi-r in niaii of vai-yiiij; tlii> fiiluii' huiimii xtiick xcsts ii urciit \i-s\ in tlio 



Imnds of ('acli fi-csli ^cnoration, wliicli liii-s not yi-t Ix-f-n reco;>niH<-<l at its juhI i -i-, nor 



ili'lilM'rat«>ly oinpioytHJ. It is fiNili.sli to fold th«) hands and to say that nothing can bt- dono, 



ina.sniucli as Mocial forctis and uclf-inttin-sK ju-f hm slrmi'^ t<« t>i' ri'^isiiil Tlnv i d imi lie 



rosi.st«d; they can bo guidoti." (p. 317.) 



In the folIowin<f section, ternu'd I'oinilntiou, (Jaltou lel'tTs to tlie in- 

 creased danjfcr of over-population owing to improved sanitation, le.sser 

 mortality and the filling-up of the spare places of the world. He expresses, 

 as Darwin did (see our p. Ill), strong di.sapproval of Malthus' prudential 

 check cLS prejudicial to the hetter elements of the race who alone would be 

 prudent and .self-denying, while the thriftle.ss and improvident would crowd 

 the vacant .space left by the prudent'. The 'misery-check' — as Malthus called 

 all influences other than the prudential, such as deaths through lack of food 

 and shelter, overcrowding, war, etc. — does not seem to Galton to cover all 

 the cau.ses which make one race decay in the presence of a second. He 

 thinks that an inferior race becomes listless and apathetic in the presence of 

 a superior one, and loses its virility. He believes that such apathy is less 

 a 'misery' than the prudential restraint where there is a keen desire for 

 marriage (p. 320). 



Galton then turns to his own direct proposals for racial betterment. He 

 refers first to Dr J. Mathews Duncan's data for fertility and he luses these as if 

 (i) they repre.sented the survivors at adult ages of those born, (ii) they 

 applied equally to all classes of intelligence and physique; he does not discuss 

 the differential infantile death-rate, nor the differential fertility rate of his 

 selected and rejected classes, nor the important question of the relative number 

 o^ survivors of early and of late marriages. He takes two groups, one of 100 

 mothei-s who marry at 20, and another of 100 mothers who marry at 29, and 

 considers their families would be 82 and 5'4 respectively. He then sjiys 

 that they would contribute to the next 200 in the ratio of 115 to 85. It 

 seems to me that the ratio should be 121 to 79. He makes the length of a 

 generation on the average 3 TS years, but takes 20 as being 4*5 years earlier and 



mcltiufj! pot of races, and it is safe to siiy that not a single race is 'aboriginal ' in Afrira to day. 

 Till' Bushman and th« Hottentot would have greater 'rights' than tlie negro to largi- partn 

 of Africa, but their clivini might bo worsted by the Rhodesian Man. He having no lineal 

 de.sceiidants, would compel us in justice possibly to ascend to a prot-siniioliunian, whence 

 descending to the rightful heirs, we might find the chimpanzees ivs the true aborigines I 



' While criticising Malthus' main conclusion Galton pays hira a high compliment: "I must 

 take this opportunity of paying my humble tribute of admiration to his great and original 

 work, which seems to me like the rise of a morning star before a day of frt3e social investigation. 

 Tliere is nothing whatever in his book which would hv, in the least offensive to this generation, 

 but he wrote in advance of his time and consequently mused virulent attacks, notably froui his 

 fellow clergymen, whose doctrinaire notions ujwn the paternal dispensation of the world were 

 rudely shocked." (pp. 318-19.) 



p o It 34 



