408 Life and Letters of Francis Galton 



his propagandist Society might in the end prove useful ; only when I saw him 

 on Dec. 28-29 of this year was his judgment inclining him to resignation. 

 I refused, although begged, to turn it either way. Galton expressed to me his 

 grave doubts as to whether the Society was not doing more harm than good 

 and whether it was not desirable to resign his presidency. I turned the 

 conversation to other matters, believing that no attempt should be made by 

 the relatives and friends of men of genius to control their decisions even when 

 they are very old. You may aid them in their work, but must not attempt 

 to mould their opinions. Their opinions may seem to us everyday folk unwise, 

 but we have only first sight for the past, the present or the future — they 

 have second sight, the prescience which in itself constitutes genius. 



Professor Marshall, Sir Victor Horsley, Mr M. Crackanthorpe, Mr J. M. 

 Keynes and Dr Saleeby joined hands in an attack on the Eugenics Laboratory 

 memoirs. The latter in particular ventured in the British Journal of Inebriety 

 to hint that Galton himself was not in sympathy with the work of the 

 Laboratory. The latter wrote to me as follows : 



The Court, Grayshott, Haslemere. Oct. 27, 1910. 



My dear Karl Pearson, Saleeby is obnoxious to the cause. I send a copy of the enclosed 

 by this post to the British Journal of Inebriety and another to Saleeby with a few curt but 

 civil lines. I shall be rejoiced to hear from you. All goes well here. In great haste. 



Ever affectionately, Francis Galton. 



To the Editor of the British Journal of Inebriety. Remarks by Dr Saleeby. My attention 

 has been directed to an article by Dr Saleeby in the last number of your Journal, at your 

 request. I suppose that you will feel so far responsible for its contents as to print in your next 

 issue my disclaimer of a prominent part of it. 



The article implies that an antagonism exists between the views of the Eugenics Education 

 Society and those of the Directorship of the Eugenics Laboratory of the University of London. 

 That an antagonism exists between at least one member of the Society, namely Dr Saleeby, and 

 the Laboratory is absolutely shown in this article. But I have no reason to suppose that the 

 opinion of the Society at large, as held by its Council, is antagonistic *. If it were, I could not 

 occupy the post I now hold of its honorary presidency, because so far from depreciating the 

 work of the Laboratory, I hold it to be thoroughly scientific and most valuable, and I rejoice 

 that I was its founder. Francis Galton. 



It may not be . amiss to state here that all the memoirs issued by the 

 Laboratory were first read by Galton in proof and many as well in manuscript. 

 He had never made a condition that he should see them, he left us complete 

 freedom in every respect, but they were sent because even to the last his 

 suggestions and criticisms were invaluable. To The Times a few days later, 

 Nov. 3rd, Galton wrote thus : 



THE EUGENICS LABORATORY AND THE EUGENICS EDUCATION SOCIETY. 



Sir, It is frequently implied, especially by lecturers and writers of articles on alcoholism, 

 and the belief appears to be widely entertained, that the Eugenics Laboratory of the University 

 of London and the Eugenics Education Society are connected. Sometimes it seems to be 

 thought that the laboratory is partly under the control of the society, or, on the other hand, 

 that the two are more or less antagonistic. Permit me, as the founder of the one and the 



* Galton chose to overlook at the moment the action of the Chairman of its Council ! 



