by the feeblest individuals among them than by the most able-bodied savages. Unless a man
can work hard and regularly in England, he becomes an outcast. If he only works by fits and
starts he has not a chance of competition with steady workmen. An artizan who has variable
impulses, and wayward moods, is almost sure to end in intemperance and ruin. In short, men
who are born with wild and irregular dispositions, even though they contain much that is truly
noble, are alien to the spirit of a civilized country, and they and their breed are eliminated from
it by the law of selection. On the other hand, a wild, untameable restlessness is innate with
savages. I have collected numerous instances where children of a low race have been
separated at an early age from their parents, and reared as part of a settler's family, quite apart
from their own people. Yet, after years of civilized ways, in some fit of passion, or under [p. 326]
some craving, like that of a bird about to emigrate, they have abandoned their home, flung
away their dress, and sought their countrymen in the bush, among whom they have
subsequently been found living in contented barbarism, without a vestige of their gentle nurture.
This is eminently the case with the Australians, and I have heard of many others in South
Africa. There are also numerous instances in England where the restless nature of gipsy [sic]
half-blood asserts itself with irresistible force.
Another difference, which may either be due to natural selection or to original difference of
race, is the fact that savages seem incapable of progress after the first few years of their life.
The average children of all races are much on a par. Occasionally, those of the lower races are
more precocious than the Anglo-Saxons; as a brute beast of a few weeks old is certainly more
apt and forward than a child of the same age. But, as the years go by, the higher races
continue to progress, while the lower ones gradually stop. They remain children in mind, with
the passions of grown men. Eminent genius commonly asserts itself in tender years, but it
continues long to develop. The highest minds in the highest race seem to have been those who
had the longest boyhood. It is not those who were little men in early youth who have
succeeded. Here I may remark that, in the great mortality that besets the children of our poor,
those who are members of precocious families, and who are therefore able to help in earning
wages at a very early age, have a marked advantage over their competitors. They, on the
whole, live, and breed their like, while the others die. But, if this sort of precocity be
unfavourable to a race -- if it be generally followed by an early arrest of development, and by a
premature old age -- then modern industrial civilization, in encouraging precocious varieties of
men, deteriorates the breed.
Besides these three points of difference -- endurance of steady labour, tameness of disposition,
and prolonged development -- I know of none that very markedly distinguishes the nature of the
lower classes of civilized man from that of barbarians. In the excitement of a pillaged town the
English soldier is just as brutal as the savage. Gentle manners seem, under those
circumstances, to have been a mere gloss thrown by education over a barbarous nature. One
of the effects of civilization is to diminish the rigour of the application of the law of natural
selection, It preserves weakly lives, that would have perished in barbarous lands. The sickly
children of a wealthy family have a better chance of living and rearing offspring than the
stalwart children of a poor one. As with the body, so with the mind. Poverty is more adverse to
early marriages than is natural bad temper, or inferiority of intellect. In civilized society, money
interposes her ægis between the law of natural selection and very many of its rightful victims.
Scrofula and madness are naturalised among us by wealth; short-sightedness is becoming so.
There seems no limit to the morbific [sic] tendencies of body or mind that might accumulate in a
land where the law of primogeniture was general, and where riches were more esteemed than
personal qualities. Neither is there any known limit to the intellectual and moral grandeur of
nature that might be introduced into aristocratical families, if their representatives, who have
such rare privilege in winning wives that please them best, should invariably, generation after
generation, marry with a view of transmitting those noble qualities to their descendants. Inferior
blood in the representative of a family might be eliminated from it in a few generations. The
share that a man retains in the constitution of his remote descendants is inconceivably small.
The father transmits, on an average, one-half of his nature, the grandfather one-fourth, the
great-grandfather one-eighth; the share decreasing step by step, in a geometrical ration with
great rapidity. Thus the man who claims descent from a Norman baron, who accompanied
William the Conqueror twenty-six generations ago, has so minute a share of that baron's
influence in his [p. 327] constitution, that, if he weighs fourteen stone, the part of him which may