·Price Two Shillings and Sixpence net

·OCCASIONAL PAPERS ON EUGENICS
NUMBER ONE
EUGENICS IN
RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
THE GALTON LECTURE, 1945
Delvered on February roth, 1945
at Manson House, London
BY
C. P. BLACKER
M.A., M.D.
Secretary, Eugenics Society
SECOND EDITION
SETH
SOHAN LAL DUGAR
DONATION
The Eugenics Society
and
CASSELL AND COMPANY LTD,
LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, SYDNEY
WELLINGTON
1950

·OCCASIONAL PAPERS ON EUGENICS
1. EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
By C. P. Blacker, 1945
2. INTELLIGENCE AND FERTILITY
By Sir Cyril Burt, 1946
3. THE TRIND OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
By Sir Godfrey Thomson, 1947
4. PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO TIE
BIOGRAPHY or GENIUS
By Lewis Terman, 1947
5. POPULATION TRENDS AND TIIC world's
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
By G. C. L. Bertram, 1949
6. PROBLEM TAMILIES IN BRISTOL
By R. C. Wofinden, 1950
First Publisled 1945 03 'Eugenics in Prospect and Retrospect
Second Lyon 1950

·FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION This lecture was delivered three months before the war in Europe ended. Peace was then in sight and the moment opportune for taking stock Five years later the retrospect of eugenics is unchanged: but its prospects are now better than then. The National Health Service Act became law in 1976; and in 1919 the Royal Commussion on Population presented its report. Recommendations have been made such should give rise to important developments in our family and health services. The revision mainly consists of added footnotes. C, P, B, March 1950

·OCCASIONAL PAPERS ON EUGENICS
1. EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
By C. P. Blacker, 1945
2.
INTELLIGENCE AND FERTILITY
By Sir Cyril Burt, 1946
3. NE TREND or NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
By Sic Godfrey Thomson, 1947
4. PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE
BIOGRAPHY OF GENIUS
By Lewis Termull, 1947
5. POPULATION TRENDS AND TIL world's
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
By G. C. L. Bertran, 1949
6. PROBLEM FAMILIES IN DRISTOL
By R.C. Wofinden, 1950
BLA'50
First Published 1945 as 'Eugenios in Prospect aid Retrospect
Sccond Edition 1950

·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT IT 15 an honour to be allowed to put before the Society a retrospect of eugenics and to give an account of what I see as its prospects. The occasion is perhaps a fitting one, because the war has perforce discuss how the eugenics movement had its origins in the evolution theory founded by Charles Darwin and elaborated by Herbert Spencer. In the second part, I shall describe how, in the effort to digest the implications for the human race of this upheaval of thought, various antinomies or antitheses of view were disclosed. I shall discuss four of these contrasting standpoints. In my third part, I shall very briefly review the history of the Eugenics Society since present position and of the prospects which confront us in the future. ..…... …. , rang and grie uus olussions, and I shall certainly fail to give fair credit to many persons to whom it is due. There are probably several people here this evening who know the early history of the Society and of the eugenics movement better than I do, and these will be especially aware of the shortcomings of my account. I. ORIGINS OF EUGENICS IN THE EVOLUTION THEORY The word Eugenics tras first used by Sir Francis Galton in 1883. Galton has been described as the father of latter-day eugenics and is the central figure of the retrospect which I shall attempt to give you. Galton was a half first-cousin of Charles Darwin, the author of The Origin of Species, and was profoundly influenced by this book. Indeed, the word eugenics and the system of thought which it denotes 5

·No text on this page.

·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT It is an honour to be allowed to put before the Socicty a retrospect of cugenics and to give an account of what I see as its prospects. The occasion is perhaps 3 fitting one, because the war has perforce been a period of reduced activity, and we are now, we hope, approaching the end of it in this continent. It is 3 time for taking stock and for thinking out future plans. My lecture will be divided into four parts. In the first, I shall discuss how the eugenics movement had its origins in the evolution theory founded by Charles Darwin and elaborated by Herbert Spencer. In the second part, I shall describe how, in the effort to digest the implications for the human race of this upheaval of thought, various antinomies or antitheses of view were disclosed. I shall discuss four of these contrasting standpoints. In my third part, I shall very briefly review the history of the Eugenics Society since its foundation in 1907, paying special attention its early years and to its recent history during the fourteen years that I have been its secretary. In my fourth and last part, I shall try to take stock of our present position and of the prospects which confront us in the future. The material to be covered is therefore enormous. Indeed, the range is so wide that it cannot be dealt with otherwise than cursorily and inadequately in an hour's lecture. I shall be guilty of many gnerous omissions, and I shal) certainly fail to give fair credit to many persons to whom it is due. There are probably several people here this evening who know the early history of the Society and of the eugenics movement better than I do, and these will be especially aware of the shortcomings of my account. 1. ORIGINS OF EUGENICS IN THE EVOLUTION THEORY The word Eugenics was first used by Sir Francis Galton in 1883. Galton has been described as the father of latter-day eugenics and is the central figure of the retrospect which I shall attempt to give you. Galton was a half first-cousin of Charles Darvin, the author of The Origin of Species, and as profoundly influenced by this book. Indeed, the word eugenics and the system of thought which it denotes $ ·6 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT would probably not have come into existence but for the influence upon Galton's mind of the evolution theory. This statement does not imply that before Dansin's time men were not conscious of the importance of hercdity. Animal and plant breeders of the past probably had much the same general outlook as they have now, and in the affairs of man the circumstances of ancestry and of kinship played a greater part than they do today. Gencalogies figure prominently in the bible and two were provided for the founder of Christianity; they are an essential feature of the traditions of the heroic age depicted by Homer no less than of the Icelandic and Scandinavian sagas; the pride of the Scottish clans and the sense of kinship carried by Scottish names were largely derived from the deeds and feuds of ancestors; and in mediaeval England the ties of blood were more recognized than in the urbanized civilization of today. The evolution theory gave a new significance to the familiar principles of heredity and variation. Animal and plant species were now seen in a new perspective. They had not been immutably fixed but had evolved in accordance with certain dimly apprehended laws. It is today surprising that these laws were not immediately seen to have a bearing on man. I shall here quote from Galton's Memories of Aly Life both to show how greatly he was influenced by the argument of the Origin of Species and to illustrate hour, in the years immediately following its publication in 1859, people hesitated to apply its lesson to man: The publication of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally, Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science. I doubt, however, whether any instance has occurred in which the perversity of the educated classes in misunderstanding what they attempted to discuss tras more painfully conspicuous. The meaning of the simple phrase "Natural Selection" was distorted in curiously ingenious ways, and Darwinism 12s attached, both in the press and pulpit, by persons who were manifestly ignorant of what they talked about. This is a striking instance of the obstructions through which new ideas have to force their way Plain facts are apprchended in a moment, but the introduction of a new idea is quite another matter, for it requires an alteration in the attitude and balance of the mind which may be a very repugnant and even painful process. On my part, however, I felt little difficulty in connection with the Origin of Species, but deroured its contents and assimilated then as fast as they were ·EUCENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT deroured, a fact which perhaps may be ascribed to an hereditary bene of mind that both its illustrious author and myself hale inherited from our common grandfather, De Erasmus Darvin. So much for the influence of the Origin of Species on Galton. I now quote further to illustrate the second point made above, namely that the lesson of the Origin of Species was hesitatingly applied to man; A hich topic The current views on heredity were at that titne so vague and contradictory that it is difficult ta tummariethom ha'A. C.- aut' by logians made a sharp distinction between the body and the mind of man on purely dogmatic grounds. A few passages may undoubtedly be found in the works of eminent authors that are exceptions to this broad generalization, for the subject of human heredity had never been squarely faced, and opinions were lax and contradictory. It seems hardly credible now that even the word heredity was then considered fanciful and unusual. I was chaffed by a cultured friend for adopting it from the French. (Mly italics.) I have quoted the words in which Galton acknowledged his obligation to the author of the Origin of Species, Rut the debt was by no means one-sided. Galton's Hereditary Genius tres published ten years after the Origin, in 1869. Darwin's response to Galton's book was recorded in a letter, thus: My dear Galton - 1 have only read about 50 pages of your book, but I myst erhale myself, else something will go strong with my inside. I do not think I eser in all my life read anything more interesting and origical and how well and clearly you put every pointt George [later Professor Sir George Danxin) who has finished the book, and who expressed himself in just the same terms, tells me that the cather chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some sime to get to these lanter chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a constrt of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools mere did not differ much in intellet - still think this is an emi on producing what la tool fons.1.1.

·8 EUGCNICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT It is, I think, remarkable that Darwin records himself as having been an opponent of the view that men differed much in intellect, and it scems probable that the rcading of Hereditary Genius helped him to apply his theory to man. For this linc of thought resulted in a book which excited almost as much interest and controversy as the Origin of Species. I refer to The Descent of Alan, the first cdition of which appeared in February 1871. The book contains many references to Galton's writings. Indeed, Galton's name, unmcntioned in the Origin of Species, is, in The Descent of Man, quoted in connection with the following subjects: hereditary genius; gregariousness and independence in animals; the struggle betwcen the social and personal impulses; the effects of natural selection on civilized nations, the sterility of only daughters; the fertility of people of genius; the early marriage of the poor; the ancient Grecks; the middle ages; the progress of the United States; and the notions of beauty of South African natives. 11. FOUR ANTITIESES I have spoken at some length about the interplay between the minds of Galton and Darwin, because the exchange of ideas between these two men seems to me to call for more notice than anything else in a retrospect of eugenics. The word eugenics was first used by Galton twelve years after the publication of The Descent of Man. The controversies which have taken place about cugcnics form but a small part of the wider and more bitter controversies which maged over the evolution theory. Eugenics had its origin in a revolution in men's minds which forced upon thinking people a revaluation of thcir most fundamental ideas about humanity. Controversies can contre upon facts or their interpretation, or upon ylics. It is, I think, true to say that opposing vicus on cugenics Save been determined more ly differences over values than over facts. To the law's which had governed the cvolution of plants and the lower animais, man was seen to constitute no exception. The human species was no more cast in an unchanging pattern than any other animal species. But unlike other specics, man could consciously influence the course of his development. New vistas were disclosed. There being no fixity in human civilizations, human races or cven in the human species, change was inescapable. And the change might as easily be for the worse as for the better. Man was hencc cnjoined to take stock of himself, to examinc the factors which could lead 10 worse and better things, and to devisc for himself a plan. But what plant Ilow should the lessons of biology be applicd?

·1 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 9 What was to be the programme of practical eugenics? Vany answers were possible, depending on the religious and political outlook and eren upon the temperament of the "planner". Evolutionary progress, it seemed, had been achieved by a ruthless and unrelenting struggle for existence in thich the treakest trent to the wall. Darwin in the Origin of Species, and in his Animals and Plants under Domestication, published eight years later, had paid much attention to the process of artificial selection thereby our domesticated animals and plants have been produced from untamed ancestors. How far, if at all, should the principles followed so successfully by the brecder be applied to min? Certain antitheses or dualities of standpoint came to be revealed among those who had assimilated Darwin's reasoning, and who were consctious of the eugenic and dysgenic possibilities confronting the human race. These dichotomies played an important part in the controversies which figure in our retrospect of eugenics, and in what follors I propose briefly to review four of them. . - #1 1. The authoritarian and the hberal ciet The first of these issues, and perhaps the most fundamental, is that between nhat we call today the authoritarian and the liberal outlook. Indeert thaimn. of ideal Idealin of artifi --PLUH will we example of the breeder of domesticated animals conduces to an authoritarian habit of mind. The breeder is a dictator. He decides what matings are best for his purpose and put3 them into effect. It was easy to contend that, in assuming the guidance of his future evolution, man showd take a leaf out of the stockbreeder's book. On these premises, the institution of monagamous marriage was attached. The Superman, or the nearest approach to him that we could find, skould enjoy the advantages of polygamy and should reproduce himself more widely than was possible within the narrow framework of Christan marriage. Results less far-[cachang could be attained as a second best by controlling monogamous marriages and their resulung procreation A story used to be current that a lady once suggested to Bernard Sharthatt ·8 CUCENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT It is, I think, remarkable that Darwin rccords huimself as having been an opponent of the view that men differed much in intellect, and it seems probable that the reading of Hereditary Genius helped him to apply his theory to man. For this line of thought resulted in a book which excited almost as much interest and controversy as the Origin of Species. I refer to The Descent of Alan, the first cdition of which appeared in February 1871. The book contains many references to Galton's writings. Indeed, Galton's name, unmentioned in the Origin of Species, is, in The Descent of Man, quoted in connection with the following subjects: hereditary genius; gregariousness and independence in animals; the struggle between the social and personal impulses; the effects of natural selection on civilized nations, the sterility of only daughters; the fertility of people of genius; the early marriage of the poor; the ancient Greeks; the middle ages; the progress of the United States; and the notions of beauty of South African natives. 11. FOUR ANTITIESES I have spoken at some length about the interplay between the minds of Galton and Darwis, because the cxchange of ideas between these two men seems to me to call for more notice than anything else in a retrospect of eugenics. The word eugenics was first used by Galton tucive years after the publication of The Descent of Man. The controversics which have taken place about eugenics form but a small part of the wider and more bitter controversies which raged over the evolution theory. Eugenics had its origin in a revolution in men's minds which forced upon thinking people a revaluation of their most fundamental ideas about humanity. Controversies can ccntrc upon facts or their interpretation, or upon values. It is, I think, Irue to say that opposing vicus on eugenies have been determined morc by differences over values than oyer facts. To the lass which had governed the coolution of plants and thic lower animals, man was seen to constitute no exception. The human species was no more cast in an unchanging pattern than any other animal specics. But unlike other species, man could consciousis influence the course of his development. New vistas were disclosed. There being n10 fixity in human civilizations, human races or even in the human species, change was inescapablc. And the change might as easily be for the worsc as for the better. Man was hence enjoined to take stock of humself, to examine the factors vluch could lead to worse and better things, and to devise for himself a plan. But what pian? Ilow should the lessons of biology be applied?

·11 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT summit of the mountain. The stroke of the sword is supposed to express the victory of wil, of youth, of insurgent and free life, over the fixity of age, the inhibitions of authority, the anachronism of outtrom lass and traditions. The validity of Shan's interpretation is open to discussion: but there can be little doubt that his account is significant and important. Frana Wagner and the Saga of the Ring, we pass to Nietzsche. Nietzsche, during the early part of his life, was a resercnt admires and a close friend of Wagner. But later he passionately renounced him. This alienation has been fully documented, and had complex causes. Nietzsche tas born in 18H and died in 1900; he was thus an interested spectator of the controversies about evolution, as to which he held viens which differed from Danvin's and sull more from Herbert Spencer's. Though Nietzsche's work attracted little attention during his lifetime, it exerted an immense influence after his death Nintrerhanalar, . In one respect, Nietzsche was a good prophet. The democratization of Europe, he said, encouraged the slave mentality, and the prospects for the Superman were poor except for one possibility. Ilc foresaw in the twentieth century an era of great wars and revolutions, In these events, to quote Dr Oscar Levy, he welcomed a means for the masculinization of the world, the rearing of a higher type of man, and the creation of a new ruler caste. So far, Nictzsche has not been far wtong about the disturbances of the twentieth - TL 1. 1 of C race To the mth its tut liie licakest went to the 12}}, came as less of a shock than to the Englishman. The disturbances caused to Christian doctrine and tradition - de inst reflects his reactions to the evolution theory That- 15 ·10 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT This talk about cugenically regulated marriages naturally provoked violent reactions among defenders of human liberty, and there is little doubt that it did much harm to the cause of eugenics in this country. It was opposed by people whose social values can be broadly described as liberal. To these, the idea of an organized, centralized and compulsory system of eugenics was abhorrent, although some of them admitted its show of logic. From the first, the liberal eugenist relied on the instrument of cducation. Better teaching of evolutionary biology would demonstrate the plastic and changeable character of human beings and disclose the possibilities both of improvement and degeneration; better education in citizenship and in the racial no less than the individual responsibilities of parenthood would result in a differential fertility that was biologically favourable. The antithesis betwee the authoritarian and the liberal standpoints in this matter has more than an academic interest; for it eentually came to play a dominating part is world politics. The authori. tarian position was adopted in Germany where it became identificd with those doctrines of race which, perhaps more than any other, provide the philosophical basis of National Socialism, and justify the aggressive policies which have twice disrupted the world. Eugenics and racialism in Germany Let us briefly consider the development of eugenics in Germany, which differs in important respects from its history in this country, In the saga of Siegfried and the Ring, the Germans have a national myth basically resembling our allegory of St. George. Both Siegfried and St. George slew dragons. But the Siegfried mytli has played an incomparably more important role in shaping national consciousness, and has had the advantage of having been put to supreme music by Wagner. It thus came to provide for some Germans 2 religion alternative to Christianity. It will be recalled that General Ludendorf wished to replace Christianity by the cult of Wotan and Valhalla. The Niebelungen saga has been memorably interpreted by Mr. Bernard Shaw in his book The Perfect Il’agnerite. Briefly, the figure of Siegfried is held to incamate, in the person of the Superman, the Bergsonian élan tilal, and the myth to symbolize the process by which human needs, or the developmental impulse of life, bursts the restraining fetters of human laws and institutions. The crucial moment of the operatic drama is the mecting of Siegfried and lotan at the foot of a mountain Votan, carrying a spar on the haft of which are engraved the articles of the law, bars the way to Sicgfried, who is armed with the sord Norhung or "necded". Siegfried raises his sword, breaks the spear in two, and passes unopposed to the ·13 EUGEXICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 2. The classified reissus the classless society A second antithesis which has figured prominently in the literature relates to the extent that a person's social status reflects his cugenic value to the community. Divergent views have been held on this topic. Those who hold that class and eugenic wlue are connected point out that intelligence, energy, resourcefulness, industriousness, enterprise, powers of leadership all eugenically valuable qualities Icad to social promotion and to a rise in wages, salaries or profits. Petty officers are, in general, a selection of the best ratings, non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, and (in this war) officers are drawn from the best men in the ranks; foremen in factories from the good and not the bid workers. Jobs which invoke responsibilities call for higher qualities than those that don't; and they are better paid. Fience a community like ours, wherein men holding the better paid jobs have fewer children than those in the worse paid, has a differential fertility which is dysgenic. A community which taxes the thrifty and successful in order to sustain the feckless and improvident reinforces the dysgenic trend. Certain writers on eugenics have put this argument in ways that have given offence. They have seemed to speak disparagingly and contemptuously of the poor. They have made use of words like riff raff, scum and dregs. They have, it has been alleged, given a false interpretation to the precept: Unto him sho bath shall be given, from him who hath not shall be taken away, Counter- - Jury. There are too many parasites, idlers and snobs who are artificially sustained in privileged positions by such social lifebelts as the wealth and prestige of their relatives and by class loyalties. The man who starts from the bottom has to contend against social and economic obstacles which are difficult to surmount. Many of the physical and mensal differano classpenre enpr.11 .. vluci to evaluate the role of tule versus nurture, we must first make the sunure uniformi. .

·CUGINICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being. My second quotation gives his views about the Superman: Every manifestation of human culture, cycry product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our cyes today, is almost exclusively the product of thc Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifics the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; thercfore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term Man. Kic is the Prometheus of masskind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flasked forth, always kindling ancı that fire which, in the forma of knowledge, illumined the dark night dy drawing aside the vcil of mystery and thus showing man how to risc and become master over all the other beings on the carth Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend upon the carth, within a few thousand years lauman culture will vanish and the world will become a desert. Mly third quotation bca's most closely on the antithesis now being discussed between the liberal and the authoritarian outlook on cugenics. Spcaking of the purity of the German race, Hitler says: In this matter, the State must assert itself as the trustoc of a millonnual futurc, in facc of which the egoistic desires of the individual count for nothing and will have to give way before the ruling of the State In order to fulfil this duty in a practical manner, the State will rare 10 avail ifscil of modern medical discoveries. It must proclaim is unfit for procrcation all those who are inflicted with some visible licreditary discasc or are the carriers of it, and practical measures must be Adopted to have such people rendered stcrile. Ilitler goes on to describe what should be done to promote child. bcating among normal and fertile women. Atein Kampf, from which I have quoted, was written some tsenty years ago when Hitler, an impotent and lonely man, was imprisoned in a fortress, low, ten years later, he faithfully implemented fus seemingly Utopian programme, is now part of history, I hope I may be forgiven for elaborating at such tength the antithesis bctween the liberal and the authoritarian outlook on cugenics. I have done so partly because cugenics, theoretically interpreted in terms of racialism and practically applicd by authontarian or fascist methods, has resealed itself as perhaps the most repcllent and dan. gerous manifestation of German National Socialism; and partly be cause the antithesis las affected cugenic thought in this country and has influenced the policy of the Eugcnics Socícty.

·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 15 the improvement of the environment should be the concern of eugenists. 3. Study tersus practice A third antithesis is between the acadesnically-minded or studious man and the practical man of action. The former is conscious of how imprecise is our knowledge of the heredity of such common and desirable things as good health, intelligence, and a happy disposition. He is also conscious of the imperfections of statistical records, especially those relating to differential fertility. Such a man contends that diagnosis should precede treatment, and pleads for well-planned and generously-subsidized research; he is cautious or even hesitant about practical policy until more is known. This is substantially the view taken up by Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders in his valuable book on Eugenics in the Home University Library. The opposite view was taken by Professor Sir Chules Darwin in his Galton lecture of 1939, when he pointed out that reverend confidence in the certitudes of science is not the outlook of the scientist himself. We should be willing to act on probabilities and to take chances. Thus was also the view of Major I conard Darvin to whom this society is in greater debt than to any other man. Other writers have expressed thus standpoint in vigorous language. These people arc convinced that a process of racial degeneration is taking place more quickly than is generally recognized and the food that to In its statement of Aims and Objects, the Cugenics Society distinguishes between the study and the practice of eugenics, and discusses both aspects of the subject under these keadings. 4. Negatre and positire eugenics Inced not remind this audience that negative eugenics is concerned with restricting the fertility of people who are unfit for parenthood; positive eugenics with encouraging fertility among those deemed fit for it. We have here another antithesia wherein policies can diverge. Up till about 1936, people in this country were much under the influence of Neo-Nalthusian ideas. It is on lieved that in L. ing room 1 aspect of palicy, B SISUlleu, several books were -- ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Socially, our goal should be to equalize conditions, not to intensify differences. The Eugenics Society has contained exponents of both these views as to the eugenic signiñcance of class. They often differ on certain questions of practical policy. Of these questions, family allouances is the most important. Those who believe that the effects of inborn qualities cannot be assessed until cnvironmental conditions 3re equalized tend to favour family allossances. Those who belicic that social position roughly reflects cugenic value oppose mulcting the thrifty to subsidize further the already erccssive fertility of the shiftless and subnormal. These controversies are mainly focussed on flat-rate schemes of allowances. There is much less disagreement about graded schemes whcrein the allowances are proportional to income, and wherein the subsidies are raised from, and redistributed among, the classes concerned. The divergent standpoints allopted about the cugenic significance of class status often reflected political differences. The advocate of equalizing opportunities so as to minimize the influence of nurture or environment as a cause of difference was frequently a socialist; not infrequently he would plead for the abolition of property as did Mr. Bernard Shaw in his preface to Afan and Superman. On the other hand, the person who regarded social status as the best available index of eugenic worth usually called lumself an individualist. Ilhatever his political affiliation he was not a socialist, Here we may also consider the sterile controversy about the relative importance of heredity and environment. The subject used to be vigorously debated with unsatisfactory results. Some people hate deterministic prejudices in favour of heredity such as thosc of Calvinists who believe in predestination, others havc cgalitarian prejudices in favour of cnvironment, such as those who bclicie that all men are innatcly free, equal and fraternal. The truth is that the two factors of hercdity and environment cannot casily be measured against each other. Leonardo, Shakespeare and Newton would have been lowgrade mental defectives if, when infants, they lied bech entirely deprived of iodine. If a chuld's environment is bad cnough, it will dic cven if it has the best heredity. Professor Lancelot llogbon lus, in my opinion, contributed usefully to this subject in huis book Nature and Nurture. Iut the issuc has a practical bearing on policy. Eugenists often declare themselves to be primarily concerned with man's inbom qualities; the improy cment of the environment is other people's concern. When an application is made to the Eugenics Sociсty to support financially a given research project, the question often arises: "Is it eugenic?" I shall return later to the subject of how far ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 19 the improsement of the environment should be the concern of cugenists. 3. Study tersus practice A third antithesis is between the academically-minded or studious man and the practical man of action. The former is conscious of how imprecise is our knowledge of the heredity of such common and desirable things as good fealth, intelligence, and a happy disposition. He is also conscious of the imperfections of statistical records, especially those relating to differential fertility. Such a man contends that diagnosis should precede treatment, and pleads for well-planned and generously-subsidized research; he is cautious or cien hesitant about practical policy until more is known. This is substantially the view taken up by Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders in his valuable book os Eugenics in the Ilome University Library. The opposite view was taken by Professor Sir Charles Darwin in his Galton lecture of 1939, when he pointed out that reverend confidence in the certitudes of science is not the outlook of the scientist himself. We should be willing to act on probabilities and to tale chances. This was also the view of Major Lconard Darwin to whom This society is in greater debt than to any other man. Orher writers have expressed this standpoins in vigorous language. These people are convinced that a process of racial degeneration is taking place more quickly than is generally recognized and they feel that for eugenists to sit back in inaction awaiting the results of rescarch or the consummation of an eyalıtarian society is to fiddle while Rome burns, In its statement of Aims and Objects, the Lugenics Sociсty dis tinguishes between the study and the practice of eugenics, and discusses both aspects of the subject under these headings. 4. Negalite and positive eugenics I need not remind this audience that negative eugenics is concerned with restricting the fertility of people who are unfit for parenthood, positive eugenics with encouraging fertility among those deemed fit for it. We hate here another antithesis si herein policies can diverge. Up till about 1936, people in this country were much under the influence of Neo-Malthusian ideas. It was sometimes beliesed that, in a hundred years, there tould, in this island, be standing room only. Such an atmosphere farours the negative or restrictive aspect of eugenics, which comes to be emphasized in statements of policy. But about the year I have mentioned, several books were ·14 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Socially, our goal should be to cqualize conditions, not to intensify differences. The Eugenics Society has contained exponents of both these views as to the cugenic significance of class. They often diffcr on certain questions of practical policy. Of these questions, family allok. ances is the most important. Those who believe that the effects of inborn qualities cannot be assessed until environmental conditions are equalized tend to favour family allowances. Those who belicvc that social position roughly reflects cugenic value oppase mulcting the thrifty to subsidize further the already excessivc fertility of the shiftless and subnormal. These controversies are mainly focused on flat-rate schemes of allowances. There is much less disagreement about graded schemes wherein the allowances are proportional to income, and wherсin the subsidies are raised from, and redistributed among, the classes concerned. The divergent standpoints adopted about the cugenic significance of class status often reflected political differences. The advocate of equalizing opportunities so as to minimize the influence of nurture or environment as a cause of difference was frequently 1 socialist; not infrequently he would plead for the abolition of property 3s did Mr. Bernard Shaw in lus preface to Man and Supermon. On the other hand, the person who regarded social status as the best synilable index of eugenic worth usually called lumself an individualist. Whatever hus political affiliation he was not a socialist, Here we may also consider the sterile controversy about the relative importance of hercdity and environment. The subject used to be vigorously debated with unsatisfactory results. Some people hase deterministic prejudices in favour of heredity such as those of Calvinists who believe in predestination; others have egalitarian prcjudices in favour of environment, such as those who believe that all men are innately free, equal and fraternal. The truth is that the two factors of hercdity and environment cannot easily be measured against cach other. Leonardo, Shakespeare and Nen con would leave been lowgrade mental defectives if, when infants, they had been entirely deprived of sodine. If a child's environment is bad cnough, it will die cven if it has the best heredity l'rofessor Lancclot Ilogben has, in my opinion, contributed usefully to this subject in lus book Naturr and Nurture. But the issue has a practical bearing on policy. Eugcrists often declare themselves to be primarily concerned with man's inborn qualities; the improvement of the environment is other people's concern. When an application is made to the Eugenics Society to support financially a given research project, the question often arises: "Is it cugenic?" I shall return fater to the subject of how far ·17 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT duced by syphilis and tuberculosis. These agencies produced what here called blastophthoric effects from 8) aards, a bud, and flopi, corruption or mischief. The germ plasm was thought to beinjured by ?,,nifanc. 10 be one of the main tasks ot eugenics. klere we have an issue which could be settled by facts; and I think it is true to say that it was so settled. But the controucrsy was horly debated both in the pages of the Eugenics Rerico and in the proceedings of the Council. Major Darsın once remarked to me that at one period he had difficulty in resisting a demand that the Society's energies and financial resources should be wholly directed into the channels of temperance reform and 3 campaign against yenercal diseases! G. Chesterton on eugenics Beforc concluding thus review of past issues, I should like to say Something about the most scathing attack on cugenics that I know of, namely Mr. G. K. Chesterton's Eugenics and Other Erils, first published in 1932. Mr. Chesterton was, of course, a Roman Catholic; and in him there burned a passionate, an almost fanatical belief in human liberty. Ilis religious and libertarian convictions provide an undercurrent of intense scriousness to his polemical writings, a seriousness which can easily be missed in the exuberant displays of alliteration, paradox and sophisticated simplifications which mark his style. Valuing highly the essential rusticities of hifc, Chesterton deplored the growth of urbanization and hated the degradation which was coupled svith the de clopment of industrialism. The amassing of wealth in the hands of the few, he felt, was accompanied by abuses inficted on the many which had stunted their bodies, stuitified their minds and starved their souls The eugenist, according to Mr Chesterton, was typically the man who, having perpetrated or condoned these outrages, refused to undo the evil he had brought about, but turned on the victims of his exploitation and condemned them as an inferior breed. These sub-human beings he then incarcerated for life in institutions, sterilized, or prevented from martylag. What to Chesterton was especzally striking about the eugenist was the meanness of his motile: There is one strong, startling and outstanding thing about Eugenia, and that is its meanness. Wealth, and the social science sugported by seith, has tried an inhuman expcruncit The experiment had entirely failed They sought to make health accumulate and they made men decay. Thes, instead of conſessing the error, and trying to restore the 1 ·16 CUGFNICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT published describing the significance and implications of reproduction rates, and there was a remarkably sudden swing orer of opinion and sentiment. According to a forccast based upon trends which were then recent, this island, far from providing standing room only in a hundred years, would then contain a population scarcely larger than that of grcater London today. Attention was then naturally transferred from ncgative to positive cugenics. From the start, the idea of negative cugenics scemed to appeal to people of a certain temperament and outlook; that of positive cugenics to people otherwise constituted. And in the Society's carly days it was found more difficult to define the eugenically desirable than the undesirable parent. Remarks such as the following were frequently made: "Though we may find it difficult to describe the type we want to brced from, we can at least recognize the people from whom we don't want to breed." This contrast in standpoints was largely reflected in opposito attitudes towards birth control. To some writers, the practice ap. peared as the source of all evils: birth control was lxcing used and abused by the very people who should have large families, and had become the main cause of racial decay. This point was vigorously put by Dr. A. P. Reddard; and birth control luas been condemned by many Churchmen, who regarded the practice as intrinsically sinful. Such arguments were met by those who contended that checks on human fertility had been in operation since time smmemorial, and that birth control was a better check than abortion, infanticido, cpidemics, famines and wass. Admittedly it could be abused; but it could also be constructively uscd. Anyhow, it had come to stay. Its advantages should be made available to everyone irrespective of class and income, but its dissemination should be coupled with education as to its proper use. Birth control did not mean suppression of births. People who talked about traffic control did not want to abolish traffic {coin our streets. Blastophthoria I have considered four pairs of contrasting viens ułuch, I believe, have been produced more by differences in the spirere of values than of facts, though facts have been adduced by both sides. But before leaving this subject of opposing standpoints, I shall mention onc mosc issue which seems dead now, though it was lively cough at the time. I refer to the controversies about the process of blastoplithoriz. It used to be believed that the human germ plasm could be damaged by certain poisons in the blood stream. Of these so-callců racial poisons those most discussed were alcohol, lead, and the toxins pro- ·17 EDCENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT duced by syphilis and tuberculosis. These agencies produced what were called blastophthoric effects--from Baotós, a bud, and coopé, corruption or mischief. The germ plasm as thought to be injured by these toxins in such a way as to produce transmissible effects influencing posterity. The elimination of these poisons was held by some to be one of the main tasks of eugenics. llere we have an issue which could be settled by facts, and I think it is true to say that it was so settled. But the controversy was hotly debated both in the pages of the Eugenics Reciet and in the proceedings of the Council. Major Darwin once remarked to me that at one period he had difficulty in resisting a demand that the Society's energies and financial resources should be wholly directed into the channels of temperance reform and a campaign against venereal diseases! G. K. Chesterton on eugenics 5 SO of published in 1922. Mr. Chesterton was, of course, a Roman Catholic; 2nd in him there burned a passionate, an almost fanatical belief in human liberty. His religious and libertarian convictions provide an undercurrent of intense seriousness to his polemical writings, a seriousness which can easily be missed in the exuberant displays of alliteration, paradox and sophisticated simplifications which mark his style. Valuing highly the essemial nusticities of life, Chesterton deplored the growth of wbanization and hated the degradation which was coupled with the dara, r 0 V .. wel voules, stultitied their minds and starsed their souls The eugenist, according to Mr. Chesterton, was typically the man who, having perpetrated or condoned these outrages, refused to undo the end he had brought about, but turned on the victims of his exploitation and condemned them as an inferior breed. These sub-human beings he then incarcerated for life in institutions, sterilized, or prevented from matrying. What to Chesterton was especially strikog about the eugerist was the meanness of hus motive: There is one strong, starting and outstanding thing about Eugenics, and that is its meinness. Wealth, and thc social science supported by trcalth, bas tried an inhuman experiment. The experiment had entirely falled. They sought to make wealth accumulate and they made men deczy. Then, instead of confessing the error, aod trying to restore the ·16 EUGINICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT published describing the significance and implications of reproduction rates, and there was a scmarkably sudden suing over of opinion and sentiment. According to a forccast based upon trends which 11 crc then recent, this island, far from providing standing room only in 1 hundred ycars, would then contain a population scarccly larger than that of greater London today. Attention was then naturally transferred from negative to positive eugenics. From the start, the idea of negative cugenics seemed to appeal to people of a certain temperament and outlook; that of positive cugenics to people othersvise constituted. And in the Society's early days it was found more difficult to dcfine the cugcnically desirable than the undesirable parcnt. Remarks such as the following were frequently made: "Though we may find it difficult to describe the type we want to breed from, we can at Icast recognize the people from whom we don't want to breed." This contrast in standpoints was largely reflected in opposite attitudes towards birth control. To some writers, the practicc appeared as the source of all evils: birth control was being used and abused by the very poople who should have large families, and liad become the main cause of racial decay. This point was vigorously put by Dr. A. P. Beddard; and birth control has been condemned by many Churchmen, who regarded the practice as intrinsically sinful. Such arguments were met by those who contended that checks on human fertility had been in operation since lumt immemorial, and that birth control was a better check than abortion, infanticidio, epidemics, famines and wars Admittedly it could be abused; but it could also be constructively used. Anyhow, it fuad come to stay. Its advantages should ma available to cseryonc irrespecuve of class and income, but its dissemination should be coupled with education as to its proper usc. Birth control did not mcan suppression of births. People who talked about traffic control did not want to abolish traffic from our streets. Blastophthoria I have considered four pairs of contrasting vicus vlrich, I believe, have been produced more by differences in the sphere of valucs than of facts, though facts have been adduced by both sides. But before leaving thus subject of opposing standpoints, I shall mention one more issue which seems dead now, though it was lucly enough at the time. I refer to the controversies about the process of blastophthoria. It uscd to be bcliencd that the human germ plasm could be damaged by certain poisons in the blood sircam. Of these so-called racial poisons those most discussed were alcohol, lead, and the touns pro- ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 19 Leonard Oisia. It was the creed of Nietzsche, the doctrine of the superior sace, the practice of the authoritarian state. What would hc hase said if in 1922 he had foreseen the Utopia of Mein Kampf translated into the realities we have witnessed! Eloquent though he W38, words would, I believe, have failed him. The history of the last twenty years compels us to respect Chesterton's polemic. III. TIIE HISTORY OF THE EUGENICS SOCIETY I have now considered as fully as time allows the ferment of ideas caused by the evolution theory and the issues which confronted eugenists during the first quarter of this century. I shall now say something about the history of the Eugenics Saciccy. The differences in standpoint which I have described presented serious difficulties to those responsible for guiding our policy. The Society, it should be remembered, was open for anyone interested in eugenics to join. The columns of the Eugenics Retieto provided a free forum for discussion and controversy. It was inevitable that extreme viens should be put forward by enthusiasts; it was also inevitable that the extreme view, the sensational statement, the shocking proposal, should attract most notice in the Press, and many of the wilder statements erere made by people who were not members of the Society. It was therefore not surprising that eugenists came to be regarded as ecccatrics or even as dangerous revolutionaries. In tracing the history of the Society since the year 1907, when the first provisional counal meeting was held on November 25th. I have made use of three sources of information: past numbers of the Eugenics Reciezs, of kuch the first appeared in April 1909; the minutes of Council and committee meetings, and the various books, papers and painphlets written at different periods by members and nonmembers of the Society and nose collected in our library. The yalır. and diversity of the Society o who made by Wow ..und file literature. To do justice to all this material would require a book in itself. my cursory survey is sadly inadequate. In what follows, I shall arbitranly limit my scope by commenting only on that seem to be prevailing opinions at different times, and on other features shach, for one reason or another, are interest- 18g in retrospect. I became secretary of the society in the year 1931. As to what happened suce that date, I have forst-hand knowledge.

·18 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT wcalth, or attempting to repair the decay, they arc trying to cover their first cruel experiment with a more crucl erpcriment. They put a poisonous plaster on a poisoned wound. Vilcst of all, they actually quote the bewildcrment produced among the poor by their first blunder as a reason for allowing them to blunder again. They are preparcu 10 arrest all the opponents of their system as mad because the system was maddening. But over onc issue, Mr. Chesterton's fears have been justificd by recent history. With whom, Mr. Chesterton asked, did England go to war in 19147 She went to war with that icry band of scicntific culture from which the very idcal of the Superman had come ... She gave battle to the birthplace of ninc-tenths of the professors who were the prophets of the new hope of humanity. ... There was a province of Europe which had carricd ncarer to perfection than any other the type of order and foresight that are the subjcct of this book. It had long been the model state of all those more rational moralists who saw in science thc orucrcu salvation of socicty. It was admittedly alıcad of all other States in social reform, All the systematic social reforms uerc professedly and proudly borrowed from it. Therefore when this province of Prussia found it convenient to cxtend its imperial system to the neighbouring and neutral state of Belgium, all these scientific enthusiasts had a privilege not always granted to more theorists. ... They had the gratification of seeing thcir grcat Utopia at work, on a grand scale and very close at hand. They had not to wait, like other revolutionary idcalists, for the slow approach of something ncarer to their drcams; nor to leave it merely as it promise to pasterity. They had not to wait for it as for a distant thing like the vision of a future state; but in the flesh they had seen their paradise. And they were very silent for five years. The thing died at last, and the stench of it stank to the sky. It might bc thought that so terrible 3 savour would never altogether leave the memories of mon; but men's memorics are unstable things. It may be that gradually these dazed dupes will gather again together and attempt again to believe these dreams and disbelieve their eyes. ... They have seen their paragons of science and organizatson playing their part on land and sca, showing their love of learning at Lourain and their love of humanity at Lille. For a time at least they have bclicved the testimony of their senses. And if they do not believe it now, seither hould they believe though one rose from the dead, though all the milions who died to destroy Prussianism stood up and tcstified against it. These are the concluding words of Chesterton's book. Like all cffective controversialists, he sair and believed the worst is the people he attacked. The eugenics he scathed was not that of Galion or of ·21 . EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT The impartial reader of the above-mentioned records would, I think, be impressed with the restraint and balance maintained by the Society in such troubled waters. Therc were not only conflicts of standpoint on both theory and practice, there were also such clashes of personality as are inevitable when strong vies's are held by vigorous and outspoken people. Early Propaganda and Studies The two most important medical supporters of eugenics in those days were probably Dr. C. W. Saleeby and Ds. A. F. Tredgold. Dr. Saleeby wis the author of several books on cugenics such as Parenthood and Race Culture (1909), The Progress of Eugenics (1914), The Eugenic Prospect (1921). He was an able writer and, I have been told (for I never heard him), an cloquent speaker. He was by temperament a propagandist rather than an insestigator, and hc espoused many causes. Much wrote vas pitched on a high note of moral aspiration, and he resorted much to quotations from poctry; he could denominre with vinnrane and winte. Piuuably the best-known propagandist of eugenics. Another prominent figure, though not a member of our Society, was Professor Karl Pearson, the first director of the Eugenics Laboratory at University College, which was founded by Sir Francis Galton. The influence of Professor Pearson and of his distinguished successor Professor R A. Fisher upon the development of eugenic thought have been very great. I spoke easlier of the distinction between the study and the practice of eugenics. The Eugenics Laboratory was concerned with study rather than practice and it was on the occasion of its foundation that was formulated the well-known definition of eugerks as "the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the rical qualities of future generations either physically or mentally". This defiastion is, in my opinion, better suited to the needs of the Eugenics Laboratory than of our Society; for it definies eugenics as a study. Nothing is said in the dcfinstion about eugenics being a practice. Por our purposes, I prefer a description of eugenics whuch Galton gave in another context, as "the science shich deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualues of the race; also with those that develop them to the utinost advantage". This formula takes into account bosh study and practice. But to return to Karl Pearson. If it is true that Dr. Saleeby w28 3 propagandist rather than an insestigator, it is also true that Pearson ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Beginnings of the Eugevics Society From the start, Sir Francis Galton was the Society's Ilonorary President. Its first President was Sir James Crichton-Brown, and its second, from 1999 to 1911, Mr. Montague Crackanthorpe, K.C., who, under the title "The Eugenic Field", wrote the first article in the first issue of the Review. The article begins with a general retrospect of cugenics from the much-quoted Thcognis and Plato to Galton, who is described as the founder of "atter-day cugenics". Next, the subject of heredity is considered under the decadings of alcoholism, feeble-mindedness, tuberculosis and syphilismo classia fication which today strikes us as peculiar. Then follows a discussion of positive eugenics, where it is submitted that the fit, the right people to be born, are those "who give most promise of civic north". The concluding section headed "The tree of knowledge" deplores the difficulty of getting published in England translations of the works of Forci and Bloch on sexual questions, urges thc spreading, of knowledge about the laws of life, and rebuts the charge that the methods of cugcnics arc materialistic. What struck me about the carly activities of the Society and issues of the Rezia were the following: The earnest moral tone of the writers. There was much discussion about the ethics of the eugenic ideal-mits compatibility with the Christian ethic and the ethic of humanitarianism Thuis in a lecture given at a members' meeting in May 1908 on "Mental Integrity and How to Attain It", there seemed to be more concern about getting the principles of cugenics accepted, especially its moral principles, than about how those principles should be applied in practice. Another feature is the attention paid to iferbert Spencer and especially to lus essay on cducation and lus "faw" that there existed a biological antithesis between what he called individuation and reproduction. His dictum was much quoted that "You cannot get golden conduct out of leaden instincts". Also apparent is the vitality shown by the Society in these carly years. These qualities were largely a reflection of the personality of the society's capable and enthusiastic secretary, Mrs. Gotto, who is probably better known to you as Mirs. Neville Rolfe. She surrounded herself with a band of heen helpers who seemed, in those days, to have more lcisure than their successors today One of the many culties that noi confront the secretary of a voluntary socicty is that all the people whose lielp is most valuable are busy and liave little time. One can't help looking back on those leisured days with feclings of envy ·23 EUGEXICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT to call a Social Problem Group. This group was essentially the same as that which had, for the preceding twenty years, been the subject of Mr. E. J. Lidbetter's rescarches. The Wood Committee had been concerned with mental deficiency—its incidence and the measures adopted for its social control. They had come to the con. clusion that there were good reasons for thinking that there had been an actual increase in mental deficiency in the course of the preceding twenty years; they drew attention to how the bulk of mental defectives came from the Social Problem Group; and they recommended that Colonies and Institutions for mental defectives should be regarded father as flowing streams than as stagnant pools; that is to say as places where defectives could be trained and "socialized" with a view to establıshúng them in the general community rather than as lifelong homes Their recommendations provided a good case for the itse of voluntary sterilization as a measure auxiliary to segregation. The Council appointed a committee to devise a practical policy for voluntary cugenic sterilization. In various pamphlets and other publications, the committee put its casc. Indeed, the committee defined its position in the most succinct of ways-namely in two draft Bills such as might be presented to Parliament. After two years of active public discussion and debate, the subject was referred to a Departmental Committee (the Brock Committee) which, in January 1934, produced a report containing proposals which hardly differed from those of the Society. The Brock Conimittee's recommendations have not yet been implemented by Parliament. Another subject which is comprised within the wide field of medicine is birth control The Council took the view that existing methods were largely impracticable by the very people who, on eugenic grounds, should use them most, and that there was a need for simpler and more fool-proof methods. It encouraged and subsidized research on this subject which resulted in the discovery by Dr. S. R. Baker of chemical substances with much higher spermicidal powers than any previously known. The Council approved a suggestion put to it by Dr. J. A. Ryle, non professor of Social Medicine at Oxford, that it should produce 3 book which would help doctors in the difficult task of appropriately advising patients who consulted them on whether, in view of the in. cidence in their families of hereditary abnormalities, they should have chuldren There resulted in 1934 a symposium under the title The Chances of Morbid Inheritance, published by Messrs. H. K. Lewis, which has apparently been of help to some doctors. In the past, many people had advocated the compulsory institution of health examinations and certificates before marriage. In 1934, ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 15:38 an investigator rather than a propagandist. Much of his energy was devoted to the contention that the unbiassed investigation of human problems by statistical methods should precede the release of propaganda, the formulation of social policies and the preparation of political programmes. Some of the conclusions senched by Pearson and his collaborators were unpopular, notably those bearing on the cffects of alcoholism on posterity; and Pearson was involved in some bitter controversies. But his service to the cause of cugenics was immcnsc. His industry and that of lus co-workers was remarkable; many of their publications, especially those embodied in the Annals of Eugenics and The Treasury of Human Inlıcritance, are classical studies of enduring value. In 1911, the presidency of our Society was assumed by Leonard Darvin, son of the illustrious Charles, who became, so to speak, the embodiment and authoritative mouthpiece of eugenics in this country. No voluntary society could have had a wiser, a gentler and yet a firmer guide; and few presidents can have better cared the unqualified affection and undivided esteem of a Council wherein there were serious divergencies of opinion is to both theory and policy. The outstanding event of the Socicly's early years was the convening and the organization of the first International Eugenics Congress which was held in London during the ycar 1912. The resounding success of this event was a tribute to the energy and organizing ability of Mirs. Neville Rolfe An imposing list of Vicc. Presidents of the Congress was prepared, which included the name of thc Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill, and numerous papers were read by members of a learned and polyglot assembly. Activities since 1929 Time compels me to jump to the year 1929 when Major Darwin resigned the Presidency in favour of Sir Bernard Nallett. Shortly afterwards there occurred an event which is desired and prayed for by all voluntary societies: we serc left a large legacy such semoved all financial worries and made us, by the standards of voluntary sociсtics, rich I became the secretary of the Society in 1931. The presidency was assumed in 1933 by Sir Ilumphrcy Rolleston and in 1935 by Lord Horder, who gave unstintingly of his valuable time and to whom we are most deeply indebted. The Council decided to 3v3:} themselves of the fact that I am a doctor to develop certain activities which might be described as simultancously medical and practical. The Report of the Wood Committee, publsshed in 1929, had drawn? vivid attention to the aggregate of people which they were the first ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT to all a Social Problem Group. This group was essentially the same as that which had, for the preceding twenty years, been the subject of Mfr. E. J. Lidbetter's rescarches. The Wood Committee had been concerned with mental deficiency-its incidence and the measures adopted for its social control. They had come to the conclusion that there were good seasons for thinking that there had been Colonies and institutions for mental defectives should be regarded father as flowing streams than as stagnant pools; that is to say as places where defectives could be trained and "socialized" with a view to establishing there in the general community rather than as life long homes. Their recommendations provided a good case for the use of voluntary sterilation 2$ 3 measur auxiliary to segregation. The Council appointed a committee to devise a practical policy for oluntary eugenic stenlization. In various pamphlets and other publications, the committee put its case. Indeed, the committee defined its position in the most succinct of ways-namely in two draft Bills puts using proposals which hardly differed from those of the Society. The Brock Committee's recommendations have not yet been implemented by Parliament. Another subject which is comprised withun thc wide field of medicine is birth control. The Councl took the view that existing methods were largely impracticable by the very people who, on eugenic grounds, should use them most, and that there was a need for simpler and more fool-proof methods It encouraged and subsidized research on this subject which resulted in the discovery by Dr. J. R. Baker of chemical substances with much higher spermiadał poners than any previously Lnonti The Council approved a suggestion put to it by Dr. J. A. Ryle, nos professor of Social Medicine at Oxford, that it should produce a hook which sould belp doctors in the difficult task of appropriately advising patients who consulted them on whether, in view of the incidence in their families of hereditary abnormalities, they should have children. There resulted in 1934 a symposium under the title The Chances of Morbid Inheritance, published by Messrs. H. K. Leurs, which has apparently been of help to some doctors. In the past, many people had advocated the compulsory institu. tion of bealth esaminations and ceruficates before marriage. In 1934 ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT the Council gave consideration to this matter and decided against both the principles of compulsory examination and voluntary ccrtification. But it held that everyone should be cncouraged to sock medical examination before marriage, without the cxamining doctor being asked to produce a certificate or a signcd dcciaration as to the applicant's fitness or unfitness. But such examinations, to be effective, involve many delicate and difficult questions, such as of past venereal diseases or exposure thereto, of terminated pregnancies, and of anxictics and misgivings about sexual matters. There were good reasons for thinking that many doctors were in doubt as to how to proceed in conducting these examinations. The Council therefore appointed a committee to go into the problem. There resulted the Society's Pre-marital Ilealth Schedule, for which there has been a fair demand from the medical profession. Indeed, the British Micdical Association Ins latterly becn in the habit of rcferring to the Sociсty doctors who have applied to the Association for information on this subjcct. The Council decided to pursue the investigation of the Social Problem Group. It subsidised thc publication of the first volume of Mr. Lidbetrer's researches on the incidence of paupcrism and dependency, and it sponsored the preparation of a symposium by authorities on different aspects of the Group The volume was published by the Oxford University Press in 1937, and contained articles by persons with first-hand crperience of the following subjects: mental retardation and deficiency, mental disorders, epilepsy, incbricty, prostitution, crime and recidivism, and pauperism. The Society 1135 also undertaken to advise people who want guidance on genetic problems rclating to marriage and parenthood. But this service is perforce restricted to members of the Sociсty. An essential pre-requisite of giving such guidance is the preparation of a detailed account of the applicant's famsly pedigrcc. In order to facilitate this often difficult task, there was prepared a schedule entitled How to Prepare a Famly Pedigrer, auch we call our grey schedule. This document sales much ame One can send it to people who ask for adrice, saying in effect: "Do what tlus schedule tells you, and send it back to me when completed Then come to scc me with your husband, wife or betrothed as the case may be." This scheduic is now in continuous use. The Council also took the initiative in preparing a family-record book wherein information can be entered from gcncration to generation about the members of a family It is distressing to think how, after the death of any person of middle or old age, ilicre disappears for cyer information about carlier generations which is of much ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 23 interest to descendants. Masses of old letters and other documents are burned Records, diaries, manuscripts and other biographical materials which a famuly historian would later give much to see, go up the chimney in smoke. The result is that most people know litúc about their ascendants. The family record book which the Society has prepared—re call it our Green-backed schedule-if kept up to date from generation to generation, will provide a record similar to, but much more detailed than, the traditional family bible. These recent activities on the part of the Council have been ably supported by two very capable editors of our quarterly Rcricw, Mr. Eldon Moore, editor from 1928 till 1933, and his successor Dr. Maurice Newfield, who is still our editor today.* Population Investigation Committee I come nor to one of the most noteworthy decisions of the Council of the Society-the formation of the Population Investigation Committee. But this important step calls for some explanation, I have donhall- Sociсty ha to be regai sponsible peupdyumuusts. The hostility to eugenics seems to have come and gone in waves. In the early 'thurties there was such a wave of antagonism. The attack was then ably led by Professor Lancelot Hogben who took strong exception to the argument that social status was an index of eugenic value. I recall attending with Sir Bernard Mallett the inaugural address Professor Blogben Hulivread - 1. - v tugeants-biting, amusing and very pleasing to his audience. The attack has been renewed on many occasions since. It is my arms been useful to the he has made it : eugenics. Profess notably Professo soruwe, vy several economists, and by some scientists in other fields. This reaction against eugenics 23 more apparent to me than to others, because she metings I was asked to stars wasion of the rising generation kluch regarded eugenics as an expression of political reaction, as • Dr. Newfield died in August 1949.

·26 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT class-prejudice camouflaged as scicncc. The position was further aggravated by deselopments in Germany, vherc compulsory sterilization had been legalized and where the doctrines of "race-hygiene" were taking practical shape. Round about this time, there occurred the swing-over from * Nco-Malthusian to a pro-natalist standpoint which I have already mentioned. An acr-population scare, someone remarked, luad giren place to a depopulation scare. There was un increasing interest in the science of demography about which few picoplc up till then had heard. Galton had written in a prefatory clapter of Flereditary Genius: "It is earnestly to be hoped that inquiries will increasingly be directed into historical facts with the vicw of estimating the possible effects of reasonable political action in the future." Past demograplic trends, and especially differential trends which arc themseles part of history, provide, as Karl Pearson has vigorously argued, the standards by which wc judge the reasonableness of political actions. The implications of the decline in our national fertility were clearly described in the Galton Iccture for 1935 by Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders to whom our Society, in recognition of a vast indebtedness, has recently awarded its first Galton Aledal. Sir Alexander, in his lecture, recommended that the Council should call together a representatire committee to investigate the causes of the demographic trends which he had outlined in his lecture. The Council acted on his advice, and the result was the Population Investigation Committee. The committee 110$ concerned with inqury and not polscy; with diagnosis and not treatment Whule there might be differences of opinion about policy, tlrere could be none about the necd for inquiry: Important organizations--the Medical Research Council, the British Medical Association, the Royal Economic Sociсty, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaccologists, and others appointed reprcsentatives. The Committee unanimously clected Sir Alexander Carr- Saunders its Chairman and was e\ceptionally fortunate in sccuring as its research secretary Mr. (now Professor) David Glass, today one of the leading demographers of this country The committee had an active and successful career before the war which there is Nosy not time to recapitulate. Propaganda I should like to say a word about the Society's attitude to propaganda. To this, in its early days, it devoted much of its time and energy. Tlus tradition was carried on after the last sar by Mrs. Cora Hodson, onc of the most loyal and lurd-working scrvants the Society has ever had, and by Nliss Hilda Pocock, an indefatigable lecturer, ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT who organized a valuable exhibit and prepared a film about heredity Therein Dr. Julian Huxley gave generous help. Lately, however, we have done much less propaganda. One reason for this is that there Hale come into existence in recent years numerous active organizations concerned with problems of the family, such as the British Hygiene Council, the Family Planning Association, the Marriage Sidanna fantando Charman) and Mr. Clinton Chance (its Treasurer), has taken the vien that if ke can put forward a reasonable and convincing case that considerations of quality should be taken into account in devising a population policy, and if we can formulate sensible suggestions 28 ta kax, in practice, this can be done, many of these cognate organizations will do our propaganda for us. This campaign need not be specially conducted in the name of eugenics or of the socicty. Our primary object is not the glorification of the Society, nor even the glonfication of the word eugenics; it is to get sound cugenic principles recognized, accepted and acted upon. The Council's present policy about propaganda is to establish close and friendly relations with the many cognate organizations concerned with demography and the family; to help them with advice if this is necdel and perhaps with financial support; to form with them, as occasion demands, joint committees, and not to seck either credit or advertisement. It was in this spirit that a joint Population Policies Committee was formed before the war betss een the Society and PEP.. The actrities both of the Population Investigation Committee and of the Population Policies Committee were necessarily suspended dunng the first part of the war. But at the beginning of 1943 both were rensed. I had an experience before the 3r which was instructive to me. The Population Investigation Committee was consulted by the Registrar-General about the Population Statistics Bill. Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders, Professor Glass and I held three conferences with the Registrar-General and tuo of lus colleagues in the course of which our standpoint was courteously and sympathetically considered. The result was almost entirely satisfactory to us. To have attained this end by propaganda throughout the high- 33's of the country would have cost us tens of thononnta af to have attemnt. lovely, in 1948, 2 zalume entitled Population l'oncy in Great Britain, ·CUGINICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT as considerabic expenditure. As it was, xc got almost all we wanted for the cost of our 'bus fares to Somerset llousc. If a voluntary organization has a good case, puts it in the right way, and collects the right people to speak for it, it can, if the times and fates are auspicious, achieve much without propaganda and publicity. IV. EUGENICS TODAY AND TOMORROW Flitherto, I have been considering cugenics and the activities of our society in retrospect. I now turn to the present time and to the prospects for the future. And I will say at once that at no time in our thirty-cight years' history have these prospects socmed morc favourable. There are three main rcasons for holding this vicw, wluch I will consider scrally. The first two arc of domestic, the third of general interest. 1. Basic eugenic policy The first relates to our own basic policy and programme; and here I must make a short recapitulation, A difficulty which has from the first presented itself to cugenists has been the definition of the particle "cu" in the word cugcnics. Who are the people whom we regard as cugenically desirable? Who arc thc fit? Wat sort of people should uc, as cugenists, cncourage to have large families? This inatter seems scarcely to have received the attention it de serves Galton remarked of this issue: "A considerablc list of qualities can be casily compiled that nearly crcryone would take into account when picking out the best specimens of lus class. It would include licalth, energy, manliness and courteous dispositson." Several pcoplc have quoted ancient Greek precedent "Nonc buc thc brave descric the fair." Courage and beauty are the most desirable qualitics. Dr. Saleby refers to "mens saria in corpore sang" and asks us to think terms of worthiness and unworthuness rather than of fitness and unfitness. Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders points out that standards of value rather than of fact are in question and assumes that "a declinc in physique or 3 decline in intelligence is undesirable". Leonard Darwin writes: "{Vc should not attempt to lay down a single standard of excellence with the object of encouraging or discouraging parenthood in all who fall below that standard Ile gocs on to say that the pay a man receives provides an index of the value of the work he docs, and thercfore of lus value to the community. The fifteenth chapter of his book, The Nerd for Eugenic Reform, ends with these words:

·EUCENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 29 "Ve may conclude, therefore, that provided there are no signs of serious defects, patent or latent, and that wages are not being badly spent, all those individuals who are now earning a good wage ought to be classed amongst those whose fertility could with advantage be kept at a fairly high lesel, whilst an opposite conclusion must be arrived at in the case of the ill-paid " The same conclusion was reached by Professor Sir Charles Darwin in his Calton lccturc of 1939. Standards of eugenic calue This matter has recently received some consideration from the Council and the following is an outline of the standpoint now taken. There are five standards of cugenic value as to the merits of which nearly everyone will agsce. They are: (1) Sound physical health and good physique. (2) Intelligence. (3) Social usefulness: the individual should be a valuable and cooperative member of his community with moral qualsties which make him a good citizen. (4) The individual should be free from genetic caints, ie. unlikely to carry or transmit familial diseases and defects. (s) It is desirable that he should be a member of a big, united and well-adjusted family and that he should be fond of children. Let us briefly consider these five qualities. There can be little disagreement about the first two. A community of sound and robust persons is preferable to one of physical weaklings, and intelligent people are preferable to morons. But the first tiro qualities do not necessarily connote the third-social usefulness. A man may be a fine physical specimen and intelligent; yet he may also be an idler, a parasite or a criminal. The first three qualities do not connote she fourth-facedom from genetic taints. A sroman physically and mentally above the average, who plays a useful part in her community, can also be a carrier of haemophilia; or she may have near relatives suffering from hereditary physical or mental illnesses of sheh she may be a probable camer. So may a man Without thn eri phuinny tum ** Bumbers are successful in life without the asset of inherited mealth, for such wealth as is inherited 15 much dvided. They make good in a varicty of callings, and often ·30 EUGENICS IN RETNOSPECT AND PROSPECT spread themselves throughout the world. They take a pride in their name and in their "clan", and they periodically have large reunions where people belonging to thrce or four generations assemble. This faith and belief in one's stock has important psychological corollaries, It connotes biological vitality, 2 philosophical optimism, a positivo attitude to life. Other qualities could be added to these five and, as Galton rcmarked, each of us could compile his own list which would reficct his private system of values. But it is in terms of these five that we now mainly understand the meaning of the particle "eu". Of these five qualities, the second, intelligence, is the only one which is quantitatively measurable. The other four can be assessed in a rough and ready way for certain specific purposes. Thus, physical fitness can be appraised for life insurance or for military service. But there is no scale such as is provided by the intelligence quotient by which they can be measured. There is, therefore, no single biological index or standard of cugcnic fitness or worthiness. But is there a simple social index of the joint occurrence of cugenically desirable traits which could be made the basis of an acceptable social policy? The Council thinks there is, and has recorded the face in its last revision of its Aims and Objects which was circulated in draft to all Fellows and Members of the Society.* The five qualities above cnumerated have, as their confluct and resultant expression, the couple who, in a community achich provides good prospects for the future welfare of children, schich encourages family life and inculcates a sense of its responsibilities, produce, by mtention and design, a family large enough for replacement and provide for tl a happy and healthy home. Let us consider what is implied in this achievement. To plan the births of a sell-spaced famıly demands intelligence, foresight and restraint To produce deliberately a family large enough for, or in excess of, replacement imphes a love of children, a sense of duty towards the community and a belief that it is worth prescry. ing; it connotes further a desire to perpetuate family traditions, and an optimistic or positive attitude towards life. To provide a good home calls for the power to make a success of marriage and of life outside the home. All these are desirable qualities, and the emphasis is on the moni ones. But the choice, here freely exercised, of producing a large farnıly should be made in the full light of all medical and genetic factors. When these factors are seriously adscrse, children will not be uunted by morally responsible parents; and the birth of * A new statement was produced in 1950.

·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 31 children should be discouraged by precept and public opinion (but not by compulsion) when the desired qualities are seriously lacking. Public opinion and negatite eugenics We can easily underestimate the powerful influence of public opinion as an instrument of negative eugenics. To illustrate what I mean, I will give a striking example. In 1937, the Brock Committee on sterilization, to which I have referred, quoted in its report the most shocking fasily history that I Inas: Mall-on. Stichtern children. (1) Daughter: died of convulsions in infancy. These two (2) Son: died of convulsions in infancy. Sillegitimate. (3) Daughter, certified Mentally Deficient. In an Institution. (1) Son certified as imbecile. Died at age of 11. ( Son certified ze Monell ro'- 193 Daughter: in service. (10) Son: died in infancy. (tr) Daughter at school, but of very low mentality. (12) Son at school and of average intelligence. (13) Daughter: aged nine, has never been to school, Mentally Deficient; now in Institution. (14) Daughter now aged eight; never been to school; in Institution. (15) Son: aged five, recently admitted to Institution, (16) Daughter: aged lour. (17) Daughter aged one. The Report adds It would be impossible to exaggerate the tragic possibilities n kick are still hely in this family's history. The children now in Institutions are likely to go back to their place of settlement on reaching the age of 16 years Doubtless, all still have benefited from their stay and training in the lastitutions, but it is extremely doubtful ryhether they will make satisfactory citizens and more than likely that they will themsclves produce deficent offspring. This family is semarkable because of the sonninen bettypen Samal sirats ... uulcl-qualities such as insanity, 1 11 ·30 EVCENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT spread themselves throughout the world. They take a pride in their name and in their "clan", and they periodically have large reunions where people belonging to thrce or four generations assemble. This faith and belief in one's stock has important psychological corollaries. It consotes biological vitality, a pluilosophical optimism, a positive attitude to life. Other qualities could be added to these five and, as Galton remarked, each of us could compile his own list which would reflect his private system of values. But it is in terms of these five that 11c now mainly understand the meaning of the particle "cu". Of these five qualities, the second, intelligence, is the only onc which is quantitatively measurable. The other four can be assessed in a rough and ready way for certain specific purposes. Thus, physical fitness can be appraised for life insurance or for military scrvice. But there is no scale such as is provided by the intelligence quoticnt by which they can be measured. There is, therefore, no single biological index or standard of cugenic fitness or worthiness. But is there a simple social index of the joint occurrence of cugenically desirable traits which could be made the basis of an acceptable social policy? The Council thinks there is, and has recorded the fact in its last revision of its Aims and Objects wluch was circulated in draft to all Fellows and Members of the Society.* The five qualities above enumerated have, as their conflucnt and resultant expression, the couple who, in a community echich provides good prospects for the future reelfare of children, echich encourages family life and inculcates a sense of its responsibilities, produce, by intention and design, a family large enough for replacement and provide for it a happy and healthy home. Let us consider what is implied in this achievement. 'To plan the births of a well-spaced family demands intelligence, foresight and restraint To produce deliberately a famuly large enough for, or in excess of, replacement implies a love of children, a sense of duty towards the community and a belief that it is worth presers. ing; i connotes further a desire to perpetuate family traditions, and an optimistic or positive attitude towards life. To provide a good fiome calls for the power to make a success of marnage and of life outside the home All these are desirable qualities, and the emphasis is on the moral ones. But the choice, here frecly excrcised, of producing a large family should be made in the full light of all medical and genetic factors. When these factors are seriously aducrse, children will not be wanted by morally responsible parents; and the birth of • A new statement iras produced in 1950.

·EUCEXICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 33 vironment n herein parenthood is attended by serious economic handicaps, wherein the prospects for children are bad, and wherein birth conuol is nidely practised, it is next to impossible to effect replace mentin eugenically desirable ways. Because the potential parent loves and values children, he will shrink from bringing them into a world which holds for them poor promise. Flis phuloprogenitive instincts turn in upon themselves and are stifled. Lord Beveridge's five "grants"--Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, Idleness and Want--sterilize parenthood in those elements of the population which are cugenically valuable and promote it among its least desirable elements. This is a point which I wish Lord Beveridge had brought out more clearly in his Galton lecture in 1943 Where these five evils prevail, the improrident and feckless contribute freely to the riext generation; those who cannot use the prevailing birth-control methods beget large famílies; and sexual, dissociated from parental, instincts determine the couse of reproduction. A voluntary system of eugenics cannot work successfully under conditions of Art am --- ill-bey instinc prosid The eugenist is thus profoundly concerned with the nature of the environment. Class differences A second feature of the approach is that it avoids the thorny question of social class. There are eugenically valuable people in all social dasses, though it is possible that they may be proportionately morc Numerous in some classes and occupations than others. The policy here envisaged operates without reference to class The unskilled labourer and his wife who have by design three or four children, providing them with a healthy and happy home and, against handipus, susing them to maturity, are performing a service with which this country could ill afford to dispense. We have all known and admired such men and women Birth control and safe period A third feature is the solution of the problem of birth control. Narried couples sho have their children deliberately and by design, must, if they do not practise sexual absunence, have knowledge of birth control. I would like, at thus point, to say something about the attitude taken by Roman Catholics to eugenics. I speak here with respect and with caution, because I do not want to misrepresent their position. I do not believe that the Church has any serious -- ·32 EUGENICS IN RITROSPECT AND PROSPECT cpilepsy, drunkenness, prostitution and crime. The community is incompletely aware of the presence in its midst of these social problem familics. Their existence is repressed from our consciousness like the Freudian complex. At intervals, houever, the limelight of publicity is switched on to them, as in the recent report on eracuation entitled Our Torcus.* We are just now in the middle of one of these spisnis of publicity, the Press being full of accounts of the ill-treatment of children. I have carlicr mentioned the valuable work done by Mies Hilde Pocock in preparing a film on heredity. When we came to plan this enterprisc, it occurred to us that the film would gain much in interest if it could show human rather than animal and plant material. We cast about for a family showing a scally bad Incredity, and our minds alighted on the one I have quoted. You will appreciate the delicacy of inducing a family to consent to being photographed as an example for public exhibition of what a family ought not to bc. But these Kifficulties were skilfully surmounted by Miss Pocock, and this family appears in our film. The point, however, is this. Both parents, who had suffered much from their enormous and unwanted fertility, were aware of the burden they had placed upon the community, and declared that they were willing that thc film should be taken and exhibited if it would help other people to asoid the miscrics of which they had been the unwilling cause. In fiis spoken commentary on the film, Dr. Julian Iluxley pays a tribute to this family for the generous spirit they thus showed. An enlightenci public opinion, brought to bed on these two people after the birth of the first three or four chuldren, might have saved them as well as the community from the disasters which ensued. Let us not then neglect the importance of public opinion as an instrument of negative cugenics. It is among thc chicf tasks of this Sociсty to mould this public opinion and to shape a medical scrvicc which will provide the necessary guidanc on gunctic questions. influence of cutironment I now return to the Council's description of the type it wishes to sce perpetuatcd. I don't want to cxaggerate, but the position now adopted scems to me a valuablc one sluch resohes some of the difficulties which presentcd themselves in the past. Let us consider a few of its implications. In the first place, st brings out the importance of the environment in a properly considered cugenic policy. In an unfar ourable en 1943: Oxford University Press, ·35 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT sented the position of Catholics in this matter, I can only express my regret; but I cannot help thinking that we may be within sight of scientific discoveries which will go far to reconcile religious differences about the means by which eugenic ends can be attained. Fostering of parental instincts There is an argument against the view that replacement could be eugenically secured through planned and wanted pregnancies. It can be alleged that parental instincts, when dissociated from their sexual precursors, are too weak to effect replacement. Throughout nature, at might be urged, sexual impulses determine the activities connected mith parenthood. Parental instincts appear at the appropriate time as part of a biological sequence. They are not continually present, and of themselves would not provide a sufficient stimulus to reproduction. These critics may be right: the matter is as yet unproved. But again we can point to how reproductive behaviour generally is subject to the influence of suggestion. As Mr. Bernard Shaw pithily remarks in one of his maxims for revolutionists (Alan and Superman, 1903); Acquired notions of propriety are stronger than natural instincts. It is easier to recruit for monasteries and convents than to induce an Arab woman to uncover her mouth in public, or a British oficer to walk through Bond Street in a golfing cap in an afternoon in May. If society were organized so that the economic handicaps of parenthood were removed and the economic position of the parent and the non-parent equalized, who can predict what yould be the result of a thoroughgoing propaganda in favour of larger families-- 2 campaign supported by all the political parties, by a unanimous Press, by the Churches speaking wszth one voice and perhaps also by members of the Royal Family: Human reproductive behaviou can be capricious and unpredictable. Despite the absence of large numbess of men from home, fertility has gone up during this was not arly in England, where women can avoid conscription by motherhood, but in the United States and other countries where there is DO conscripuon for women, Trends in this war have been quite different from trends in the last; and I, for one, do not yet know the explanation No one can yet confidently say that our population could not replace itself by planned and voluntary parenthood of the Decessary material conditions and moral atmosphere were created, Before leaving this topic, I would add that the position taken up by the Council about the eugenic salue of planned as against haphazard fertulity is s0s, in essence, nes, though the application is new. The central theme has been expressed by many writers. As early as ·LUCENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT opposition to the theory of cugenics which holds that future generations will be affected qualitatively by the type of people who harc children in this, I believe that the Catholic Church would prefer to see replacement cffected by planned and wanted children thun by children conceived haphazard and without reference to the conditions into which they are born. It is the means which eugenists harc proposed which excitc opposition. Sterilization, cven when strictly voluntary, is opposed; so are "appliance" mcthods of birth control. But the Church admits the utilization of the "infertile period", and there is some doubt if this is recognized as a form of birth control. The question is essentially a verbal one. The phrase "birth control" is somewhat repugnant to Catholics to whom it essentially connotes appliance methods. My present point is that the utilization of the infertile period is permissible for Catholics, and many books have been written by Catholic authors giving practical instructions and calendars for calculating when the infertile period occurs. There can be little doubt that there is a sequence of days of variable length in every woman's cycle wherein conception is next to impossible. But the infertile period is difficult to determine with accuracy because of the varying lengths of different cycles, and particularly of their follicular phases. If a simple and practical test were devised to show when ovulation had taken place, the infertile period could be determined with almost complete certainty; and the instructions and calendars could then be consigned to the wastepaper basket. Now the occurrence of ovulation among most mammals including the primates is signalized by the clear external changes which chamcterize oestrus; and there are accompanying changes in the female animal's instincts and behaviour which conduce to mating. It is, I think, a remarkable and biologically surprising fact that thercare no corresponding changes, physical or psychological, in the human female. It is surely within the bounds of possibility that physiologists and biochemists between them will discover a simple test which will inform us of the occurrence of an event which, in other mammals, is so patently advertised and which is of such immense biological importance. The work on pregnandiol which is now being vigorously pursued may contribute to the discovery of such a simple test. *The reason why I have raised this delicate subject is that if such a simple test were discorcred, it would enormously simplify the task of determining the infertile period, and would therefore provide Catholics with a much surer method of regulating pregnancies than is now availablc. Indeed, the method would be as ngar ideal as possible, and would be practicable by all who had the restraint nccessary to avoid the days which were known to be fertile. If I have misreprc- ·EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 35 Tinnare my . about the means by which eugenic ends can be attained. Fostering of parental instincts There is an argument against the view that replacement could be eugenically secured through planned and wanted pregnancies. It can be alleged that parental instincts, when dissociated from their sexual precursors, are too weak to effect replacement. Throughout nature, it might be urged, sexual impulses determine the activities connected with parenthood. Parental instincts appear at the appropriate timo as part of a biological sequence. They are not continually present, and of themselves would not provide a sufficient stimulus to reproduction. These critics may be right the matter is as yet unproved. But agun ne can point to how reproductive behaviour generally is subject to the influence of suggestion. As Mr. Bernard Shaw pithily remarks in one of his maxims for resolutionists (Man and Superman, 1903): Acquired notions of propriety are stronger than natural instincts. It is easier to recruit for monasteries and convents than to induce an Arab soman to uncover her mouth in public, or a British Officer to walk through Bond Street in a golfing cap in an afternoon in May. If society were organized so that the economic handicaps of parenthood were removed and the economic position of the parent and the non-parent equalized, who can predict what would be the result of a thoroughgoing propaganda in favour of larger families campaign supported by all the political parties, by a unanimous Press, by the Churches speaking tith one voice and perhaps also by members of the Royal Family? Human reproductive behaviour can be capricious and unpredictable. Despite the absence of large numbers of men from home, fertility has gone up during this war not anly in England, where women can avoid conscription by motherhood, but in the United States and other countries where there is no conscription for women. Trends in this was have been quite different from trends in the last; and I, for one, do not yet know the explanation. No one can get confidenuy say that our population could not replace itself by planned and voluntary parenthood if the necessary material conditions and moral atmosphere were created. Before leaving this topic, I would add that the position taken up by the Counal about the cugenic value of planned as against hapo hazırd fertility is not, in essence, new, though the application is new. The central theme has been expressed by many writers. As early as ·36 EUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 1903, Bemard Shaw proposed as the goal of the revolutionary "the replacement of the old unintelligent, inevitable, almost unconscious fertility by an intelligently controlled conscious fertility, and the climination of the sere voluptuary from the evolutionary process”. Shaw, Galton, and Salecby expressed similar ideas; and if I understand it rightly, this has been the standpoint which Dr. Marie Stopes has eloquently and consistently put forward in her pamphlets and books. Such novelty as the idea may now have, springs from our greater awareness of the distinction between the planned and the haphazard pregnancy. This awareness, in its turn, is the result of a more open and objective consideration of matters which were previously regarded as indecent or taboo. For such a change of attitude in this country, we are probably more indebted to Mr, Hlavclock Ellis and to Dr. Stopes than to any other two people. Aluch has been written, at all times, about the blessings brought by "quiverfuls" of children. What is new in the Council's recent statement is the idea of eugenic selection by means of a favourable environment and of voluntary parenthood. The general idea has been clearly put by Nir. Frederick Osborn, the Honorary Secretary of the American Eugenics Society, in his valuable and recent book, Preface to Eugenies.* I discussed this matter at some length with Air. Osborn at a Population Conference held in Paris in 1937, and it was a pleasure to discover on what parallel lines the American and British Societics were thinking and working. 2. Eugenics and demography The second of the threc features which make the prospects for the Eugenics Society favourable at the present time can be briefly dealt with. It has been possible, through the generosity of Mr. Laurence Cadbury, to rc-establish thc Population Investigation Committec on the same flourishing basis as existed before the war. Dr. David Glass is now back with an enhanced reputation as whole-timc research secretary, and 13 as busy 35 he was before the war. The Population Investigation Committee is accommodated rent-free in the Society's premises, and it is hoped in future to devote a fixed amount of space in each issue of the Eugenics Reviczo to the publicztion of new demographic material supplied by Dr. Glass and by other members of the Investigation Committee. The activities of 1940. Ilarper and Brothers, New York. | Later note. The Committee is now (1990) integrated with the London School conomics. It produces sts @quarterly journal Population Studies (C.U.P.).

·PUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 37 our Society can thus be linked with the tridening interest in demography which is now being crinced on all sides. Indeed, demography which deals with quantitatire, and eugenics which is concerned with qualitative, considerations are essentially complementary, 3. Royal Commission on Population I now turn to the third feature of the present period, which is of general and not merely domestic interest, and which makes the prospect good. I refer to the Royal Commission on Population. The appointment of the Royal Commission was preceded by much discussion and controversy. It is a fact that the project did not at first commend itself to the Population Investigation Committee. Indeed, a letter was published in The Times in July 1943, from Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders, in his capacity of Chairman of the committee, painting out that the appointment of a Royal Commission would come better at a later date, when further essential information about fertility trends had been yielded by the Population Statis. ties Act. But his letter did not alter the course of events, and in December 1943 the constitution of the Royal Commission and of its three expert committees tas announced. It was an agreeable surprise for us to see how well represented were the Eugenics Society and the Population Inv's expert mittee sources nosos que llegieLung the qualitative aspects of its subject. Our Council has submitted a memorandum to the Rayal Commission which contains some of the points which I have put before you this evening. If these arguments are well-grounded and of this the Royal Commission are better judges than we are, being impartial and having heard all other aspects of the case-they will, I have no doubt, be given due weight.* CONCLUSION I have now finished my lecture. I have given a retrospect of eugenics, wherein its origins are traced to the Darsvinian theory; I have described the difficulties and conflicts which arose from the attempts to apply this theory to the betterment of man; I have briefly recapitulated the history of the Society up to date; and I have frien reasons for thinking that the prospects before us are better than they have ever been before. . Later nate. The report of the Royal Comunission was published in jude 1919.

·30. IUGENICS IN RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 1903, Bernard Shaw proposed as the goal of the revolutionary "the replacement of the old unintelligent, inevitable, almost unconscious fertility by an intelligently controlled conscious fertility, and the climination of the mere voluptuary from the cvolutionary grocess". Shaw, Galton, and Salecby expressed similar idcas; and if I understand it rightly, this has been the standpoint which Dr. Alaric Stopes has cloquently and consistently put forward in her pamphlets and books. Such novelty as the idea may now have, springs from our greater awareness of the distinction between the planned and flic haphazard pregnancy. This awareness, in its turn, is the result of a more open and objective consideration of matters which were previously regarded as indecent or taboo. For such a change of attitude in this country, we are probably morc indebted to Mr. Ilavclock Ellis and to Dr. Stopes than to any other two people. Much las been written, at all times, about the blessings brought by "quiverfuls" of children. What is now in the Council's recent statement is the idea of eugenic selection by means of a favourable environment and of voluntary parenthood. The general sdea has been clearly put by Mr. Frederick Osbom, the Ilonorary Socretary of the American Eugenics Society, in his valuable and recent book, Preface to Eugenics. ** I discussed this matter at some length with Mr. Osborn at a Population Conference held in Paris in 1937, and it was a pleasure to discover on what parallel lines the American and British Socicties were thinking and working, 2. Eugenics and demography The second of the three fcatures which make the prospects for the Eugenics Society favourable at the present time can be brichly dealt with. It has been possible, through the generosity of Air. Laurence Cadbury, to re-establish the Population Investigation Committee on the same flourishing basis as existed before the war. Dr. David Glass is now back with an enhanced reputation as whole-iime rescarch sccretary, and is as busy as he was before the war. The Population Investigation Committee is accommodated rent-free in the Society's premises, and it is hoped in future to devote a fixed amount of space in each issue of the Eugenics Revieto to tlic publication of new demographic material supplied by Dr. Glass and by other meinbers of the Investigation Committee. The activities of 1940. Iarper and Brothers, New York. Later hole. The Committee is nou (1950) integrated with the London School of Economics. It produccs its own quarterly journal Population Studies (C.U.P.).