408   Life and Letters of Francis Galton

his propagandist Society might in the end prove useful; only when I saw him on Dec. 28-29 of this year was his judgment inclining him to resignation. I refused, although begged, to turn it either way. Galton expressed to me his grave doubts as to whether the Society was not doing more harm than good and whether it was not desirable to resign his presidency. I turned the conversation to other matters, believing that no attempt should be made by the relatives and friends of men of genius to control their decisions even when they are very old. You may aid them in their work, but must not attempt to mould their opinions. Their opinions may seem to us everyday folk unwise, but we have only first sight for the past, the present or the future-they have second sight, the prescience which in itself constitutes genius.

Professor Marshall, Sir Victor Horsley, Mr M. Crackanthorpe, Mr J. M. Keynes and Dr Saleeby joined hands in an attack on the Eugenics Laboratory memoirs. The latter in particular ventured in the British Journal of Inebriety to hint that Galton himself was not in sympathy with the work of the Laboratory. The latter wrote to me as follows

THE COURT, GRAYSHOTT, HASLEMERE. Oct. 27, 1910.

MY DEAR KARL PEARSON, Saleeby is obnoxious to the cause. I send a copy of the enclosed by this post to the British Journal 'of Inebriety and another to Saleeby with a few curt but civil lines. I shall be rejoiced to hear from you. All goes well here. In great haste.

Ever affectionately, FRANCIS GALTON.

To the Editor of the British Journal of Inebriety. Remarks by Dr Saleeby. My attention has been directed to an article by Dr Saleeby in the last number of your Journal, at your request. I suppose that you will feel so far responsible for its contents as to print in your next issue my disclaimer of a prominent part of it.

The article implies that an antagonism exists between the views of the Eugenics Education Society and those of the Directorship of the Eugenics Laboratory of the University of London. That an antagonism exists between at least one member of. the Society, namely Dr Saleeby, and the Laboratory is absolutely shown in this article. But I have no reason to suppose that the opinion of the Society at large, as held by its Council, is antagonistic'. If it were, I could not occupy the post I now hold of its honorary presidency, because so far from depreciating thework of the Laboratory, I hold it to be thoroughly scientific and most valuable, and I rejoice that I was its founder. FRANCIS GALTON.

It may not be amiss to state here that all the memoirs issued by the Laboratory were first read by Galton in proof and many as well in manuscript. He had never made a condition that he should see them, he left us complete freedom in every respect, but they were sent because even to the last his suggestions and criticisms were invaluable. To The Times a few days later, Nov. 3rd, Galton wrote thus

THE EUGENICS LABORATORY AND THE EUGENICS EDUCATION SOCIETY.

SIR, It is frequently implied, especially by lecturers and writers of articles on alcoholism, and the belief appears to be widely entertained, that the Eugenics Laboratory of the University of London and the Eugenics Education Society are connected. Sometimes it seems to be thought that the laboratory is partly under the control of the society, or, on the other hand, that the two are more or less antagonistic. Permit me, as the founder of the one and the

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