i68 A STUDY IN HEREDITY 



poisoning them or permitting them to poison 

 themselves with alcohol ? Of course not.^ By 

 confining drunkards as the insane and lepers are 

 confined ? Drunkards are so many that the State 

 could not bear the cost. By forbidding drunkards 

 to marry ? It would be futile ; drunkenness 

 often develops after marriage. How then ? There 

 is only one way. By preventing drunkards from 

 reproducing their like — by forbidding the pro- 

 creation of children by them. If drunkards were 

 taken before magistrates, sitting in open or secret 

 session, as the accused preferred, and, on con- 

 viction, were warned that the procreation of 

 children would subject them to this or that penalty, 

 say a month's imprisonment, the birth-rate of 

 drunkards would certainly fall immensely. Of 

 course many would escape the meshes of the law. 

 But that is an argument against all laws. This 

 law would be more perfect in its operation than 



' I "uppose nothing I can say will prevent some critics from 

 declaring that I propose free drunkenness as a remedy for intemper- 

 ance. It must be admitted that the statement is rather easy to make, 

 and, when made, may be very effective with people who read the 

 review, but not the work reviewed. Professor Ray Lankester made 

 it in the Fortnightly (September 1896, p. 413). Professor Sims 

 Woodhead made it in the Lancet (July 2gth, p. 259). Both made it 

 when criticising publications in which, at great length, I advocated 

 Artificial Selection. Many other critics, writing in technical journals, 

 have made it. I traced the course of a pestilence, demonstrated the 

 futility of the ordinary methods of sanitation, and sought to provide a 

 remedy. I was promptly accused of advocating the spread of the 

 dise::se. 



