eyes outweigh them.

We are, I fear, rather an ungracious lot, and the more there is to a man the more backbone he has the more strongly this particular characteristic of ungraciousness comes out. Then, too, we are bone-competitive and so are you. Two of that kidney never did agree too well.

All the same, Britain and America, beneath all difference and disgruntlement, do really want much the same thing for the world. Both want liberty and life by the light of individual self-respect rather than by rules framed and hanging. Both want humanity of conduct, fair play, and peace. And wanting these things, it will be a million pities if the little present rubs and ranklings of history and your resentment of our «side» (which is generally mere gaucherie) of our stolidity and cocksureness, and our dislike of your superior talkativeness and hustle and your cocksureness, are to stay the growth of that true and deep comradeship which ought to lie between our nations.

After all, nations are more than half made up of climate and geographical circumstances. What you are impatient of in us, what we are inclined to quiz in you, is little more than the result of our respective damp and drought and other conditions over which we have no control. If we persist in gazing at the shadows of our mutual discontents, what priceless substance we shall be missing! Failing a real understanding and friendship between us, the world will lose. a great equilibristic force and be ever on the brink of trouble. The health and happiness, not only of our two nations, but of all others, will depend more and more as years go by on the union of our ideals, our feelings, and our wills.

Back of all else is a certain majestic common sense in you Americans, and something not very dissimilar in ourselves. We may go

on saying in an airy way that we can't stand each other, but I trust and believe we shall find it ever harder to do without each other, ever easier to see that we are made for friendship in this imperfect world.

Though I am sure that any edginess between us is far more an affair of manner than of anything else, that is not to suggest that our mutual intolerance is a trivial matter. On the contrary, I rather think that manner is the most potent of all causes for dislike, and I heartily wish we English could improve ours, for I think we are most to blame. Nations so rarely have a chance to dive below manner, and find out what lies beneath. The French have dived since the war began, and have found out they can tolerate us a little. Perhaps that chance has now arisen for America and England, and we

are destined in the coming months to see each other as we really are the Lord preserve us from finding out that we are worse than we thought.

At all events, we both have a sense of humor. Let us seek in that the ointment for our sore places. There is no need to take the outward and visible sign of the Englishman too seriously. I was told in France of one of your pro-Ally compatriots who, watching some English officers coming down the steps of a certain famous building not long ago, exclaimed: «I can't (see) these fellows!» I feel I know exactly what he meant; but under all that he couldn't <<see>> there is a fundamental something that most of you Americans would put out a hand to.

I hope we may soon be in some tight places side by side; then we shall know, perhaps, that we might have smiled at each other's follies instead of being sore. Where two races have grit and humanity and humor they are brothers under the skin, and that this shall be made plain before the world is a year older I devoutly trust, and so, I hope and think, my dear Senator, do you.

At any rate, the ardent thoughts and good will of the Englishman who writes these words go out to you and to your great country at this hour, which for you all must be fraught with such tumultuous, strange feelings - fraught, too, with the future welfare of the whole world. May the stars be bright above America!

I am, my dear Senator, most cordially yours.

LONDON, April 14th, 1917.

JOHN GALSWORTHY.

6174

tal.

FRANCIS GALTON

(1822-1911)

HE modern doctrine of heredity regards man less as an individual than as a link in a series, involuntarily inheriting and transmitting a number of peculiarities, physical and menThe general acceptance of this doctrine would necessitate a modification of popular ethical conceptions, and consequently of social conditions. Except Darwin, probably no one has done so much to place the doctrine on a scientific basis as Francis Galton, who by his brilliant researches sought to establish the hereditary nature of psychical as well as physical qualities.

Galton first took up the subject of the transmissibility of intellectual gifts in his (Hereditary Genius) (1869). An examination of the relationships of the judges of England for a period of two hundred years, of the statesmen of the time of George III., of the premiers of the last one hundred years, and of a certain selection of divines and modern scholars, together with the kindred of the most illustrious commanders, men of letters and science, poets, painters, and musicians of all times and nations, resulted in his conclusion that man's mental abilities are derived by inheritance under exactly the same limitations as are the forms and features of the whole organic world. Galton argued that, as it is practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations, the State ought to encourage by dowries and other artificial means such marriages as make for the elevation of the race. \

Having set forth the hereditary nature of general intellectual ability, he attempts to discover what particular qualities commonly combine to form genius, and whether they also are transmissible. 'English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture' (1874) was a summary of the results obtained from inquiries addressed to the most eminent scientific men of England, respecting the circumstances of heredity and environment which might have been influential in directing them toward their careers. One hundred and eighty persons were questioned. From the replies it appeared that in the order of their prevalence, the chief qualities that commonly unite to form scientific genius are energy both of body and mind; good health; great independence of character; tenacity of purpose; practical business habits; and strong innate tastes for science generally, or for some branch of

it. The replies indicated the hereditary character of the qualities in question, showing incidentally that in the matter of heredity the influence of the father is greater than that of the mother. It would have been interesting to have had the results of similar inquiries in the case of other classes of eminent persons, statesmen, lawyers, poets, divines, etc. However, it is problematical whether other classes would have entered so heartily into the spirit of the inquiry, and given such full and frank replies.

Large variation in individuals from their parents is, he argues, not only not incompatible with the strict doctrine of heredity, but is a consequence of it wherever the breed is impure. Likewise, abnormal attributes of individual parents are less transmissible than the general characteristics of the family. Both these influences operate to deprive the science of heredity of the certainty of prediction in îndividual cases. The latter influence - i. e., the law of reversion-is made the subject of a separate inquiry in the volume entitled 'Natural Inheritance' (1889).

In 'Inquiries into the Human Faculty and its Development' (1883), he described a method of accurately measuring mental processes, such as sensation, volition, the formation of elementary judgments, and the estimation of numbers; suggested composite photography as a means of studying the physiognomy of criminal and other classes; treated the subject of heredity in crime; and discussed the mental process of visualizing.

'Finger Prints' (1892) is a study from the point of view of heredity of the patterns observed in the skin of finger-tips. These patterns are not only hereditary, but also furnish a certain means of identification an idea improved in Mark Twain's story of 'Pudd'n

head Wilson.'

Galton was himself an example of the heredity of genius, being a grandson of Erasmus Darwin, the author of Zoonomia, and a cousin of Charles Darwin. Born near Birmingham in 1822, he studied some time at Birmingham Hospital and at King's College, London, with the intention of entering the medical profession; but abandoned this design, and was graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1844. He soon after made two journeys of exploration in Africa, the latter of which is described in his 'Narrative of an Explorer in South Africa (1853). An indirect result of these journeys was 'The Art of Travel; or Shifts and Contrivances in Wild Countries' (1855).

'Meteorographica (1863) is noteworthy as the first attempt ever made to represent in charts on a large scale the progress of the weather, and on account of the theory of anti-cyclones which Galton advances in it.

Although strictly scientific in aim and method, Galton's writings, particularly those on heredity, appeal to all classes of readers

and possess a distinct literary value. His latest works were: <Noteworthy Families) (jointly with E. Schuster, 1906); (Memoirs of My Life) (1908); and (Essays in Eugenics) (1909). He was knighted in 1909, and died on January 18th, 1911.

E

THE COMPARATIVE WORTH OF DIFFERENT RACES

From Hereditary Genius >

VERY long-established race has necessarily its peculiar fitness for the conditions under which it has lived, owing to the sure operation of Darwin's law of natural selection. However, I am not much concerned for the present with the greater part of those aptitudes, but only with such as are available in some form or other of high civilization. We may reckon upon the advent of a time when civilization, which is now sparse and feeble and far more superficial than it is vaunted to be, shall overspread the globe. Ultimately it is sure to do so, because civilization is the necessary fruit of high intelligence when found in a social animal, and there is no plainer lesson to be read off the face of Nature than that the result of the operation of her laws is to evoke intelligence in connection with sociability. Intelligence is as much an advantage to an animal as physical strength or any other natural gift; and therefore, out of two varieties of any race of animal who are equally endowed in other respects, the most intelligent variety is sure to prevail in the battle of life. Similarly, among animals as intelligent as man, the most social race is sure to prevail, other qualities being equal.

Under even a very moderate form of material civilization, a vast number of aptitudes acquired through the "survivorship of the fittest" and the unsparing destruction of the unfit, for hundreds of generations, have become as obsolete as the old mailcoach habits and customs since the establishment of railroads, and there is not the slightest use in attempting to preserve them; they are hindrances, and not gains, to civilization. I shall refer to some of these a little further on, but I will first speak of the qualities needed in civilized society. They are, speaking gener ally, such as will enable a race to supply a large contingent to the various groups of eminent men of whom I have treated in my several chapters. Without going so far as to say that this very convenient test is perfectly fair, we are at all events justified in making considerable use of it, as I will do in the esti mates I am about to give.