Eugenics as a Creed and the Last Decade of Galton' s Life 349 



as a whole, his tastes must be impersonal and his conclusions appear to a great degree heartless, 

 deserving the ill title of ' dismal ' with which Carlyle labelled Political Economy. If, on the 

 other hand, he attends only to certain individuals in whom he happens to take an interest, he 

 becomes guided by favouritism, oblivious alike of the rights of others and of the well-being of 

 future generations. Statesmanship is concerned with the nation ; Charity with the individual ; 

 Eugenics is concerned with and cares for both. 



"A considerable part of the huge stream of British charity furthers, by indirect and un- 

 suspected ways, the production and support of the Unfit. No one can doubt the desirability of 

 money and moral support, now often bestowed on harmful forms of charity, being directed to 

 the opposite result, namely, to the production and well-being of the Fit. For the purpose of 

 illustration we may divide newly married couples into three classes according to the probable 

 civic worth of their offspring. Amongst such offspring there would be a small class of 'de- 

 sirables,' a large class of ' passables,' and a small class of ' undesirables.' It would surely be 

 advantageous to the country if social and moral support, as well as timely material help, were 

 extended to the desirables, and not monopolised, as it is now apt to be, by the undesirables. 



"Families which are likely to produce valuable citizens deserve at the very least the care that 

 a gardener takes of plants of promise. They should be helped when help is needed to procure 

 a larger measure of sanitation, of food, and of all else that falls under the comprehensive title 

 of 'Nurture' than would otherwise have been within their power. I do not, of course, propose 

 to neglect the sick, the feeble, or the unfortunate. I would do all that available means permit 

 for their comfort and happiness, but I would exact an equivalent for the charitable assistance 

 they receive, namely, that by means of isolation, or some other less drastic yet adequate measure, 

 a stop should be put to the production of families of children likely to include degenerates." 



Galton then referred to the newly founded Eugenics Education Society 

 and the previously founded Eugenics Laboratory, and concluded as follows : 



" I will only add to this brief address that my purpose will have been fulfilled if I have 

 succeeded in impressing on you the idea that Eugenics has a far more than Utopian interest ; 

 that it is a living and growing science, with high and practical aims. I would ask you to make 

 the Society known to your friends, and to persuade them as best you can to help on its good work." 



It was a thoroughly good paper for a man in his 87th year, and ex- 

 presses in a marvellously brief space the creed of Eugenics. It is perfectly 

 true that a democracy cannot endure unless it be composed of capable 

 citizens, but did Galton fully appreciate what follows, when, as is the usual 

 case, a democracy starts with a majority of incapable citizens ? A government 

 which drew a line between capable and incapable would rapidly perish ; for 

 the incapables care nothing for the future of the race or nation, but seek from 

 their necessarily subservient governments panem et circenses — more time to 

 pillion-ride, more leisure for cigarettes, chocolates and cinemas — at the cost of 

 the capable. Eugenics — however sturdily we preach its creed, and we have 

 no preacher to-day like Galton — must be unsuccessful if we start with such 

 a democracy. We might as successfully ask the weeds in a garden to make 

 way of their own accord for the flowering plants whose development they 

 choke. Let my readers think what a gardener could achieve, if his tenure of 

 office depended on the consent of the weeds ! 



I will now reproduce some of the letters of the autumn of 1908. 



42, Rutland Gate, S.W. Oct. 13, 1908. 



My dear Karl Pearson, I see no reason against the Eugenics Laboratory publications 

 including similarly solid work to its own, especially of a statistical kind which cannot easily find 

 a home elsewhere. On the contrary it seems to me advisable. For a more popular kind the 

 Eugenics Education Society might afford a home. As to F.'s work I gather that it is hardly up 



