224 Life and Letters of Francis Galton 



is clear from this wording that Francis Galton was not wholly satisfied with 

 the term " qualities." When did he change it? In the Codicil, dated May 25, 

 1909, of his Will of October 20, 1908, and in the cancelled clause, Galton 

 defined the purpose of his foundation to be : 



" to pursue the study and further the knowledge of National Eugenics, that is of the agencies 

 under social control that may improve or impair the racial faculties of future generations 

 physically or mentally." 



He thus cast his vote for " mentally." And this was undoubtedly well, for 

 the term " mental " is wider than " moral," and the latter does not include 

 the former, while at least many will be content to consider morality a mental 

 characteristic. Galton was less fortunate, I think, in replacing " qualities" by 

 " faculties." There seem to me many characteristics or qualities of the mind 

 or body which it is desirable for the Eugenist to study, and which it is 

 difficult to force into the category of " faculties." Perhaps they may be 

 admitted to our studies as often associated with the faculties of mind or body 

 to which the definition appears to limit eugenic research. It is worth noting 

 that Galton's Memories citing the Committee's definition of Eugenics appeared 

 in October, 1908 — I got my copy on the 9th — and that on October 20th Galton 

 signed a will in which "qualities" is replaced by "faculties." It might be 

 thought that " faculties" was a word handed down from an earlier will, but 

 this is not so. It was in the autumn of 1906 that Galton first told me of his 

 plan to found a professorship of Eugenics in the University of London. I find 

 that his letters to me of November and December, 1906, deal largely with 

 the wording of the clauses in his Will as to his foundation for the study of 

 Eugenics ; they also deal with the proposed Weldon memorial and of his own 

 desire to free himself from the direction of the University Eugenics Record 

 Office, which was becoming too much for his strength. To these matters I shall 

 refer later, but I think the reader will pardon me for taking one letter here 

 out of its natural order in the history of Galton's plans for Eugenics ; it demon- 

 strates that even in his testamentary deposition of 1906 he fully accepted 

 the definition of 1904. The letter runs as follows: 



7, Windsor Terrace, The Hoe, Plymouth. Nov. 15, 1906. 



My dear Karl Pearson, Enclosed is Mr Hartog's reply (1695. 11) to my "semi-private" 

 letter. Please ultimately return it to me. It is quite satisfactory from my point of view, how 

 would it be from yours ? — Could you be persuaded to take control of the Eugenics Office as a 

 branch of the Biometric Laboratory, working it in your way on "secular" biometric problems 

 that have a distinct bearing on Eugenics 1 It cannot be under two heads or guidances so 

 I willingly resign mine, perhaps keeping a nominal connection with it as " consultative*." It 



the unfit. He did not allow that this latter principle was inculcated by the Jewish code. The 

 Jewish Chronicle in a leader on the interview endeavoured to magnify the eugenic influence 

 of the Mosaic code, in particular quoting the warning words spoken from Sinai about "visiting 

 the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations." But surely 

 these words had no relation to physically or mentally feeble parents refraining from parent- 

 hood, but were a threat of the law-giver to induce his race to be faithful to their tribal deity, 

 and prevent them worshipping (should their god fail them) at the altars of other gods ! It is 

 only in modern days that we have adopted them as appropriate to heredity in disease. 

 * Galton was a "consultative" editor of Eiometrika, see below, p. 245. 



