et par consequent les meillures, sont battues, mais battues dans les formes par L'armée Prussienne, inferieure disoit on, en nombre et en discipline, et composée de gens forcés, et qui n'attendoient que le moment pour désértér.

L'Electeur de Baviere ne veut nous vendre son secours qu'a un prix anquel il est impossible de L'achettér; et celuy de Saxe intimidé en dernier lieu, et toujours faux comme un vieux jetton, traine surement quelque chose avec la France. La Russie dit tout nét qu'elle ne veut pas agir directmt. ni indirectement contre le Roy de Prusse; mais a la verité moyennant des subsides enormes, nous offre des troupes pour la Flandre, ou pour le bas Rhin, qui pourroient peut étre y arrivér dans un an d'icy. Je ne dis rien de la Flandre, ou notre armée n'est precisement que ce qu'il faut pour étre un temoin peu accredité des conquêtes que La France jugera a propos d'y faire. Voicy au vray notre situation.

And so bad does Chesterfield hold that situation' to be, that he urges the advisability of coming to terms with Frederick on the basis of the Treaty of Breslau, which gave him Silesia.

Bref, je croy que la neutralité du Roy de Pruse a present, vaut bien la garantie des Puissances Maritimes pour le traitté de Breslau; et apres tout ce que nous avons faits pour la Reine d'Hongrie, il me semble que nous sommes en droit, de L'exiger d'elle, pour son salut aussi bien que pour la nôtre. Mais tout cecy entre nous.

Pour la paix, je la tiens absolument et egalement necessaire pour vous et pour nous. . . . Or je ne voy aucune maniere de portér la France a une paix raisonnable, qu'en lui montrant par cet accommodement avec la Prusse; une egalité ou même une superiorité de Forces.

It is interesting to compare with this letter another, and to all appearance an earlier one, in which Chesterfield says:

Nous sommes entréz dans une guerre, uniqement par des vuës particulieres, et sans que cet Equilibre de L'Europe dont on parle toujours tant, et qu'on connoit si peu, y aye euë la moindre part, et nous y sommes si bien, que franchement je ne voy ni les moyens de la continuér ni ceux d'en sortir. . . . Où sont les forces, les Alliéz, les sommes immenses d'argent, necessaires pour la faire avec apparences de succês? Croit on pouvoir retablir la Maison d'Autriche au point de servir de contre poix a celle de Bourbon? Croit on pouvoir luy procurér, au depens, et en depit de la France, les Equivalens qu'on luy a promis? Chimeres! La France n'en est pas encore la. D'un autre coté, comment en sortir? Trahira t'on les engagemens Sollemnels qu'on a pris avec la Reine d'Hongrie en L'abbandonnant pour une paix qui loin de la retablir, loin de luy procurér quelque dedomagement, ne fera que fixer son malheur, et le pouvoir de la France sur L'Europe? Il y auroit et du dangér, et du deshonneur. Voila pourtant ou nous en sommes nous autres. Vous vous étes laissez entrainér insensiblement, et vous voila a present dans la Galere aussi bien que nous, et peut étre même plus, graces a la mér qui nous environne, et qui n'a que la moitié de cette bonté pour vous. This letter is a very melancholy one, but it has rather a nice postscript.

On debite icy que le Roy de Prusse est devenu fou, et qu'il est enfermé. Il n'y aurait point de mal a cela; du moins cette puissance la ne seroit This refers to the battle of Hohenfriedberg, fought on June 5.

plus en question pendant quelque tems, et vous auriez les coudées plus libres. J'aime beaucoup mieux les fous qui sont enfermés, que ceux qui ne le sont point.

In this same letter, which is a very long one, dated from London, the 7th of May (but with no year), Chesterfield thanks Baron Torck for a letter, evidently the first after a long silence on both sides, for he says, after expressing his fear that he might have lost the Baron's friendship :

Mais a present que je voy que cette longue suspension de notre Commerce de lettres n'a pas donné d'atteinte a vos sentimens pour moy, comme surement elle n'a rien changée aux miens a votre egard; occupé uniquement du plaisir present, je bannis les regrets inutiles du passé. La paresse s'en est mêlée de part et d'autre, et a un certain age, la paresse a bien des charmes; du moins je sçay, qu'a present elle me tient lieu des plaisirs. Je m'y prête volontiers, et les objets auxquels j'etois autrefois si sensible ne me frappent plus assez vivement, pour me reveillér d'un assoupissement si commode. Je végéte, pour ainsi dire au lieu de vivre; je me proméne pour ma santé, je lis pour mon amusement, et je frequente les societez ou je peux étre le plus a mon aise, et ou mon esprit, aussi bien que mon corps, peut se reposér dans un bon fauteuil . . .

Vous ne m'avez rendu que justice, en vous persuadant de la part que je prenois a ce qui vous touchoit de si pres, que le doit faire Monsieur votre fils. Je suis ravi d'apprendre que jusqu'icy il repond a vos voeux; Mais oubliez, si vous le pouvez qu'il est unique, ou du moins elevez le comme s'il ne l'etoit point. Il a bien de quoi tenir, et a votre tendresse pres, je ne crains nullement pour luy. Mais je m'apperçois que je vous accable de mon cacquet, et qu'en me dedomageant de la sorte d'un long silence, je vous y replongeray. . .

...

As has been already noted, the last of these letters was written in 1747. Chesterfield died in 1773, Baron Torck in 1761. Whether there was any resumption of the Commerce' between the two men during those fourteen years, that is from 1747 to 1761, I do not know.

These letters, however, show Chesterfield in a very pleasant light as a friend.

K. M. LOUDON.

THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST

EUGENICS

MR. BALFOUR, as the principal guest at the inaugural banquet of the Eugenics International Congress, inverted the part of the prophet Balaam. Invited to bless, he remained to curse. It is true the cursing was of the mildest character, but the following sentence in his speech, if read apart from its context, involves a condemnation of the movement. "The idea,' said the speaker, that you can get a society of the most perfect kind by merely considering certain questions about the strain and ancestry, the health and the physical vigour of the various components of that society-that, I believe, is a most shallow view of a most difficult question.' Yet the same speaker, with that detachment of mind and leaning towards philosophic doubt which are amongst his most salient characteristics, had earlier in the same speech used language which his hearers not unnaturally interpreted in the very opposite sense. 'I am one of those,' said Mr. Balfour, who base their belief in the future progress of mankind in most departments upon the application of scientific method to practical life. . . I hope, and I believe, that among the new applications of science to practice it will be seen in the future that not the least important is that application which it is the business of this International Congress to further.'

Why this divided voice? Why this mingled blessing and banning of the new movement? Why are Eugenists told almost in the same voice that their aims are practical and salutary, yet shallow and chimerical? Why do so many men of the highest intellectual eminence, including not a few of the leaders of science-biological and medical-and of social reform, look upon the cause of Eugenics with ironical cynicism, patronising tolerance, or at best reluctant and tepid sympathy? It is the purpose of this article to investigate this ambiguous attitude, to explain it, and to suggest that it is not a satisfactory or final attitude which men fully informed upon all the facts and circumstances of the case can rightfully assume.

A movement of social reform may be condemned for any one of three reasons. First, its object may be either obviously wrong, or too perilous to social stability or national welfare to

justify us in contemplating it. For example, the equalisation of property and incomes. Secondly, the object may be good, but clearly unattainable in the present state of society. For example, the abolition of national armaments and the proclamation of a world peace. Thirdly, the object may be good, or at least defensible, but the means adopted for its attainment may be subversive of civilisation. For example, the destruction of property and assaults upon public men by promoters of the Woman's Suffrage movement.

Now, to which of these objections is the cause of Eugenics fairly exposed? Is it to its aim? That aim, to quote once more the well-known words of Galton, is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations.' Does anyone object to that? Does anyone allege either that these agencies are sufficiently known already, or incapable of fruitful study? But, it may be answered, the study of such agencies is all very well, but what about the action-the practical policy-to which such study must be supposed to conduct? To this it may be replied, on the one hand, that Eugenists have been hitherto very sparing in their recommendations of definite measures of reform-the better control of the feeble-minded, and the dissemination of Eugenist principles through the ordinary educational channels summing up their practical policy, at least in this country; and, on the other hand, that more knowledge of the laws of heredity and the conditions requisite for the production of a healthy race will of itself inevitably lead to an abatement of some of the existing evils.

But, perhaps, it is the second objection-viz., that its aim, however good, is really unattainable-which falls most heavily upon the Eugenist movement. Many think, quite honestly, that the promoters of the movement are a group of harmless enthusiasts or ill-balanced faddists who are pursuing ends obviously chimerical, if not also just a little impious. It is gravely suggested that we are not well advised in trying to play Providence' in so important a matter as the promotion of future racial welfare. The gardener who prevents weeds from seeding, or who grafts healthy stocks, plays Providence.' The breeder who, in pursuit of strength, beauty; speed, or even produce for our markets, selects certain strains and rejects others, 'plays Providence.' Our laws, which forbid marriage to persons under a certain age, 'play Providence '-play it, shall we say? in a very tentative, hesitating, and ineffectual fashion. The promotion of racial fitness for man, the elimination of degenerate elements, and the encouragement of good stocks-good not only physically but good intellectually, morally and spiritually-must

necessarily be a difficult task with slow-breeding man, a task of which the results cannot in the nature of things be soon apparent; yet few biologists will deny that the problem is not insoluble, but simply one requiring infinite patience, wide knowledge and research, and much time for its solution.

As to the third possible objection to the Eugenist movement -viz. that it is being promoted by illegitimate methods, I am not aware that anyone has suggested such an objection to the young, moderate, and eminently sane propaganda which has hitherto been carried on in this country.

After these preliminary observations, let us inquire more in detail into the objects of the Eugenist movement, and deal as thoroughly and as respectfully as may be possible with the critical or unfriendly, when not overtly hostile, attitude assumed towards it by men and women whose opinions are entitled to every consideration.

The Eugenist movement has a negative and a positive sidethe former, as the more obviously practicable, usually taking precedence. The negative side is to discourage the propagation of bad stocks. The positive side is to encourage the propagation of good stocks. Negative Eugenics, then, seeks to prevent, or limit, the propagation of deaf mutes, the feeble-minded, some forms of insanity, habitual criminals, and certain forms of heritable diseases, of which haemophilia is a good example. Cancer, epilepsy, dipsomania, and tuberculosis are conditions which also demand consideration. As to tuberculosis, modern pathology has no doubt taught us that, strictly speaking, the disease is not hereditary, but those who are disposed to question the influence of family tendency in tuberculosis should consult the researches of A. Riffel, who, by an exhaustive examination of family records, reaches the conclusion that phthisis and other tubercular affections arise chiefly, and almost exclusively, in certain families. What is inherited is, of course, susceptibility to infection, but from the Eugenist point of view this does not essentially differ from actual inheritance of the disease.

As to insanity, it has been said that no child is born insane,' and, if we define our terms strictly, this statement may be allowed to stand. But, again, from the Eugenist point

of view this is a distinction without a difference. The child is born feeble-minded, its brain tissue is poor in quality, it is incapable of responding successfully to the reactions of its environment, it succumbs early and easily to the stress and strain of life; if not an actual, it is a potential lunatic. It comes to the same thing in the end. Poverty of nervous tissuethe neuropathic constitution-takes on many forms, now