Eugenics as a Creed and the Last Decade of Galton' s Life 289 



42, Rutland Gate, S.VV. July 13, 1906. 



My dear Karl Pearson, I return the papers. They greatly interest me. I have put trifling 

 marks on pages 5, 6 of the proofs and on 61 of the MS. The only remarks I would make on 

 the MS. are that (1) perhaps the University of London part might be clearer, briefer and more 

 emphatic, and (2) that I think more might be made of the possibilities of an Evolution Cttee 

 than is alluded to on p. 64. For my own part, I thought at first, and this was my main motive in 

 joining it, that the numerous bodies engaged in horticulture and zoology might in one aspect of 

 their work, be co-ordinated by the Cttee and that research of a scientific kind might be intro- 

 duced into the proceedings of each of them. A Cttee would help to keep them up to the mark, 

 and prevent overlappings. But the desire for this seemed too faint to produce any such result. 



1 cannot recall the meeting mentioned at the Savile Club, and doubt in consequence whether 

 I was really present at it. I am almost sure that Michael Foster's asking me to take the chair- 

 manship was the first thing that I ever heard about the proposed Cttee. Dear ! dear ! what a list 

 of efforts are included in the life of an actively minded man like Weldon — successes and failures. 



I return the Vice-Chancellor's letter, which is excellent so far as it goes. 



Heron's admirable paper reached me after I last wrote. Is he the excellent man you spoke 

 to me about, who was not then quite ripe for the Eugenic Research Fellowship. He seems just 

 the man to hold such an appointment. 



We have just returned from a brief country visit. It is delightful to hear that you are so 

 pleasantly placed among old Quaker associations. They — the Quakers — were grandly (and 

 simply) stubborn. I think we shall go again to Ockharo for August but to another house — ■ 

 negotiations are pending. Affectionately yours, Francis Galton. 



Winsley Hill, Danby, Grosmont R.S.O., Yorks. July 14, 1906. 



My dear Francis Galton, Your letter and suggestions are very helpful. Your corrections 

 to the proof shall be made. The other points I will refer to one by one. 



University of Lmvlon. It is awfully difficult for me to give the full account of this. I had 

 got many men to join the Association, George Meredith, Hardy, Besant, etc., by a more or less 

 personal appeal stating that we wanted to found a university absolutely homogeneous with 

 a professor at the head of each department on the lines of a Scotch or German university. 

 Huxley was elected president after this scheme had been adopted and brought his enormous 

 force to work on a small executive committee of which I was secretary to carry out a plan of 

 his own in which we were to compromise with colleges, night schools and the existing university 

 to get & federal body. He arranged meetings with each of these institutions. The first with the 

 University of London was to come off in a few days. I protested that this was not the policy 

 on which the Association had been built up and that the executive committee could not go beyond 

 its instructions. Huxley with all the force of an old hand completely confused me — all I know 

 is that I resigned the secretaryship and that the members of the committee asserted that I had 

 promised not to take action against Huxley's scheme. Personally I don't think I made any 

 definite promise, but I know that Huxley saw danger to his project and engineered me into 

 a state of confusion. When I had time to think it over I saw that he had left me in an 

 absolutely false position. I must either be entirely untrue to the men of weight and name who 

 had joined the association on the basis of a genuine professorial university or break through 

 Huxley's entanglements*. This I did by an open letter to him, sent to the Times and to him at 

 the same time. I put myself right with the members of the Association but entirely in the wrong 

 with regard to Huxley. Ultimately the Association reversed the whole of Huxley's policy, but 

 these doings ( 1 ) had killed its effectiveness, (2) hurt Weldon fearfully and (3) made people believe 

 me impossible on committees. Huxley must be right and such a small person as myself must 

 be wrong. 



* In my opinion to-day Huxley by his action destroyed all the chance there then was of a 

 real university for London, and left us with the miserable pretence of a university that still 

 exists. The " Association for promoting a Professorial University in London " had practically 

 united all the teachers of weight in London and many other men of mark as well. It was 

 wholly impossible to carry through any pettifogging federal scheme without its sanction. 

 Huxley had no real academic ideals, and a suspicion of all universities controlled by the 

 professoriate. His error was to accept the presidency of an association whose programme was 

 entirely opposed to his own views. 



p g in 37 



