¹ Galton, F., Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development, London, 1883, pp. 24–25 (emphasis added).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² This literature is reviewed in Farrall, L. A., ‘The history of eugenics: a bibliographical review’, Annals of Science, (1979), 36, pp. 111–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Later articles and books are identified in note 9, below.

³ Kevles, D. J., In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, New York, 1985, pp. 101–7.Google Scholar

⁴ Barker, D., ‘How to curb the fertility of the unfit: the feeble-minded in Edwardian Britain’, Oxford Review of Education, (1983), 9, p. 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In a related finding, G. R. Searle has noted that few early twentieth-century British politicians grasped the importance of involving scientists in the process of government. Searle, G. R., The Quest for National Efficiency, Oxford, 1971, p. 84.Google Scholar

⁵ Farrall, L. A., The Origins and Growth of the English Eugenics Movement, 1865–1925, New York, 1985, pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

⁶ ‘The First International Eugenics Congress’, Nature, (1912), 89, p. 558Google Scholar; Lists of Consultative Committees and Delegates, in Eugenics Education Society, Problems in Eugenics: Papers Communicated to the First International Eugenics Congress, London, 1912, pp. xii–xiiiGoogle Scholar; and Kevles, , op. cit. (3), p. 63.Google Scholar

⁷ Darwin, L., ‘Presidential Address’Google Scholar, in Eugenics Education Society, op. cit. (6), pp. 3 and 6.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., p. 4.

⁹ The social aspect of this banquet was noted in ‘Eugenics Congress’, op. cit. (6), p. 86Google Scholar; and ‘The Eugenic Congress’, The Times, 25 07 1912, p. 7Google Scholar. For historical analysis of the scientific foundation and assumptions of the British eugenics movement, see Searle, G. R., ‘Eugenics and Class’, in Webster, C. (ed.), Biology, Medicine and Society, 1840–1940, Cambridge, 1981, p. 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barker, D., ‘The biology of stupidity: genetics, eugenics, and mental deficiency in the inter-war years’, British Journal for the History of Science, (1989), 22, pp. 348–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Farrall, , op. cit. (5), pp. 309–10Google Scholar; Freeden, M., ‘Eugenics and progressive thought: a study of ideological affinity’, Historical Journal, (1979), 22, pp. 653 and 658CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Freeden, M., The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform, Oxford, 1978, pp. 185 and 193Google Scholar; Jones, G., Social Hygiene in Twentieth Century Britain, London, 1986, pp. 30 and 52–5Google Scholar; Jones, K., A History of the Mental Health Service, London, 1972, p. 188Google Scholar; MacKenzie, D., ‘Eugenics in Britain’, Social Studies of Science, (1979), 6, p. 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Searle, G. R., Eugenics and Politics in Britain, 1900–1914, Leyden, 1976, pp. 11, 72 and 113–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simmons, H. G., ‘Explaining social policy: the English Mental Deficiency Act of 1913’, Journal of Social History, (1978), 11, pp. 393–400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Unsworth, C., The Politics of Public Health Legislation, Oxford, 1987, pp. 154–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ MacKenzie, D., ‘Karl Pearson and professional middle class’, Annals of Science, (1979), 36, p. 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other historical analysis of the class aspects of the British eugenics movement, see Farrall, , op. cit. (5), pp. 211–12Google Scholar; Jones, G., op. cit. (9), p. 221Google Scholar; and Searle, , Eugenics, op. cit. (9), p. 113.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kevles, , op. cit. (3), p. 64.Google Scholar

¹² Freeden, , ‘Eugenics’, op. cit. (9), p. 658.Google Scholar

¹³ Schenk, F. and Parkes, A. S., ‘The activities of the Eugenics Society’, Eugenics Review, (1968), 60, p. 144Google ScholarPubMed. Other historical accounts singling out the Mental Deficiency Bill as a principal piece of British eugenic lawmaking include Farrall, , op. cit. (5), p. 244Google Scholar; Kevles, , op. cit. (3), p. 99Google Scholar; and Searle, , Eugenics, op. cit. (9), p. 111.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Darwin, , op. cit. (7), p. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Schenk, and Parkes, , op. cit. (13), pp. 142–4Google Scholar. See also Kevles, , op. cit. (3), pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Barker, , op. cit. (4), pp. 201–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, Minutes of Evidence, 8 vols., London, 1908, i, p. v (lists Commissioners)Google Scholar; and Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, Report Volume, 8 vols., London, 1908, vii, pp. 3, 6, 185 and 191–8Google Scholar. See also Jones, K., op, cit. (9), pp. 176–91Google Scholar; Unsworth, , op. cit. (9), p. 157Google Scholar; and ‘Notes’, Nature, (1908), 78, p. 326.Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘Editorial notes’, Eugenics Review, (1910), 2, p. 2Google Scholar; ‘Legislation for the feeble-minded’, British Medical Journal, (1910), 2, p. 146Google Scholar (volumes renumbered annually); ‘Editorial notes’, Eugenics Review, (1910), 2, p. 164Google Scholar; Jones, K., op. cit. (9), pp. 194–8Google Scholar; Searle, , op. cit. (4), pp. 106–7Google Scholar; and Simmons, , op. cit. (9), pp. 396–7.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Saleeby, C. W., ‘The essential factor of progress’, Monthly Review, (1906), 23, pp. 47–8 and 53.Google Scholar

²⁰ Crackenthorpe, M., ‘Eugenics as a social force’, Nineteenth Century, (1908), 63, pp. 962–5 and 972Google Scholar. The campaign for ‘national efficiency’, which shaded into the British eugenics movement, and the role of The Nineteenth Century in that campaign are discussed in Searle, , op. cit. (4), pp. 54–106 and 148–9Google Scholar. That campaign was spurred by military losses early in the Boer War, which raised concern about leadership expertise and the ability of the British rank and file. Ibid., pp. 34–5.

²¹ Ellis, H., ‘Eugenics and St Valentine’, Nineteenth Century, (1906), 59, pp. 780 and 782.Google Scholar

²² Ellis, H., ‘Individualism and socialism’, Contemporary Review, (1912), 101, pp. 527–8.Google Scholar

²³ For background on Pinsent and her effectiveness, see, e.g., Jones, K., op. cit. (9), pp. 186–97Google Scholar; and Kevles, , op. cit. (3), p. 98.Google Scholar

²⁴ Pinsent, E. F., ‘Care and control of the feeble-minded’, Nineteenth Century, (1910), 68, pp. 53–5Google Scholar. The effectiveness of Pinsent's approach may have been due, at least in part, to its tendency to remove the issue from the increasing controversy over the role for experts in deciding political questions. This controversy is discussed in Searle, , op. cit. (4), pp. 80–3 and 101–5.Google Scholar

²⁵ Pinsent, E. F., ‘Social responsibility and heredity’, National Review, (1910), 56, pp. 508–11Google Scholar. Actually, at the time, British Mendelians and Biometricians tended to agree on a genetic theory of mental deficiency. Barker, , op. cit. (9), pp. 348–50.Google Scholar

²⁶ 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 245 (1913) (quote by Liberal MP Josiah Wedgwood) (‘Miss Pinsent’ was married to a leading Birmingham solicitor). For further discussion of these activities, see ‘The Feeble-Minded Control Bill’, Eugenics Review, (1912), 2, pp. 355Google Scholar; 45 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 782 (1912) (resolutions noted); Jones, K., op. cit. (9), pp. 199–202Google Scholar; and Searle, , Eugenics, op. cit. (9), p. 109.Google Scholar

²⁷ H. C. 11, 2 Geo. 5, sec. 8 (1912) (The printed bill bore the names of twelve sponsors, including six Liberal MPs, four Conservative-Unionists, and two Labourites, which was roughly proportional to the strength of these three factions in Parliament.) ‘The case of the feeble-minded’, Times, 18 05 1912, p. 7Google Scholar; ‘Protection of the feebleminded’, Manchester Guardian, 18 05 1912, p. 7Google Scholar; and ‘The Feeble-Minded Control Bill’, Eugenics Review, (1912), 4, pp. 108–9.Google Scholar

²⁸ H. C. 213, 2 & 3 Geo. 5, secs. 17–20 (1912); and 38 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.), 1460–66 (1912).

²⁹ 38 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 1444–47, (1912).

³⁰ 38 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 1454, 1465, and 1504 (1912). Charles Roberts also used the word ‘eugenics’ during parliamentary debate in a guarded statement that did not commit him to support or to oppose final passage of the bill, but he used the term in a disparaging way by saying, ‘I would ask people before they make up their minds on the latest novelty of the eugenics theory to be a little cautious.’ 38 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 1512, (1912).

³¹ 38 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 1470–74 (1912). While Wedgwood's remarks were aimed specifically at eugenic legislation, they reflected wider concerns within the radical wing of Liberalism that, allowing governmental decisions to be made by experts, undermined representative government, popular control and individual liberty. Searle, , op. cit. (4), pp. 101–5.Google Scholar

³² 38 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 1484, 1491, 1498, 1515, and 1519 (1912). See also ‘Yesterday's Parliament’, Manchester Guardian, 18 05 1912, p. 11Google Scholar. The alliance between Wedgwood and Banbury on this issue reflects the tendency of many older Conservatives to share the radical left's distrust of government by expert. Searle, , Eugenics, op. cit. (9), p. 101.Google Scholar

³³ 39 Parl, Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 627–29 and 644 (1912); and 41 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 703–04 and 721 (1912).

³⁴ E.g., 39 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 637 (1912); and 41 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 729 and 754 (1912).

³⁵ 41 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 740 and 749 (1912). See also ‘The Mental Deficiency Bill’, Times, 20 07 1912, p. 8Google Scholar; and ‘Science and liberty’, Manchester Guardian, 20 06 1912, p. 9.Google Scholar

³⁶ 39 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 636 (1912).

³⁷ 41 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 762 (1912); 44 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 849 (1912); 13 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 64–5 (1912); and ‘The way of the world’, World, (1912), 77, p. 819.Google Scholar

³⁸ Jackson, A., ‘Modern science and eternal truths’, National Review, (1912), 60, pp. 78 and 89.Google Scholar

³⁹ Mooney, A. P., ‘The care of the feeble-minded’, Month, (1912), 120, pp. 174 and 176Google Scholar. See also ‘Notes’, Tablet, (1912), 120, p. 404Google Scholar; ‘Ethics and eugenics’, Month, (1912), 120, pp. 91–2Google Scholar; and ‘Civil legislation and natural rights’, Month, (1912), 120, p. 542.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Jones, K., op. cit. (9), pp. 47–9.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Tredgold, A. F., ‘The study of eugenics’, Quarterly Review, (1912), 218, pp. 64 and 67.Google Scholar

⁴² Alec-Tweedie, E., ‘Eugenics’, Fortnightly Review, (1912), 97, pp. 855–6 and 858Google Scholar. Nazi Germany used eugenic laws to persecute racial minorities and social deviants as well as those with mental and physical defects. Kevles, , op. cit. (3), pp. 116–18Google Scholar. Mixed scientific and social justifications for the eugenic segregation of mental defectives also appeared in the Benthamite Westminster Review and the moderate reformist The Spectator. Harris, J., ‘Our defectives’, Westminster Review, (1912), 178, pp. 25–7Google Scholar; Ewart, C. T., ‘Religion and eugenics’, Westminster Review, (1912), 178, pp. 387–9Google Scholar; and ‘The feeble-minded’, Spectator, (1912), 108, pp. 827–28.Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Science’, Athenaeum, 1 06 1912, p. 625.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ ‘The Mental Deficiency Bill’, Manchester Guardian, 20 07 1912, p. 8Google Scholar; ‘Proposed legislation for the feebleminded’, Times, 20 05 1912, p. 9Google Scholar; and ‘A social misfortune’, Times, 21 11 1912, p. 7Google Scholar. For background on the treatment of eugenics by The Times, see Simmons, , op. cit. (9), p. 396.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘The crime of being inefficient’, Nation, (1912), 11, pp. 276–7Google Scholar; ‘The crime of being inefficient’, Nation, (1912), 11, pp. 390–2Google Scholar; and ‘The dangers of the Mental Deficiency Bill’, Nation, (1912), 12, pp. 168–9Google Scholar. For background on the position of The Nation regarding eugenics, see Jones, G., op. cit. (9), p. 34Google Scholar; and Freeden, , ‘Eugenics’, op. cit. (9), p. 658.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Wedgwood, J. C., ‘The dangers of the Mental Deficiency Bill’, Nation, (1912), 12, p. 215 (letter to editor).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Scott, L., ‘The Mental Deficiency Bill’, Nation, (1912), 12, p. 311 (letter to editor).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 221 and 237 (1913). Some supportive backbenchers did note the bill's scientific (but not expressly eugenic) foundations e.g., 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 816–17, 833 and 837–39 (1913).

⁴⁹ 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 228–29 (1913).

⁵⁰ 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 226, 244, and 251; and 56 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 91, and 161–62 (1913). The hold that this view of eugenics had on British popular opinion was indicated later in a 1934 private letter from EES General Secretary C. P. Blacker to MP A. W. H. James, in which Blacker warned James, ‘in the public mind, you are identified with this Society, which is still (unjustly) regarded as consisting of cranks who advocate the application of stock breeding methods to the human race’, C. P. B. to James, A. W. H., 24 01 1934Google Scholar, Eugenics Society Records, file C-191, (Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London) (by courtesy of the Wellcome Trustees).

⁵¹ 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 239 (1913); and 56 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 84 and 134 (1913). Two examples illustrate how government leaders dodged Wedgwood's fervid attempts to link the measure to eugenics. At one point, Wedgwood charged that the last phase in a standard commitment provision, which provided coverage for persons requiring control ‘for their own protection or for the protection of others’, opened the way for eugenic applications. The Home Secretary replied that, in context, this did not confer ‘powers of a Eugenic character’. At another point, Wedgwood objected to reserving four seats on a fifteen-member oversight commission for physicians, saying, ‘Eugenist doctrines are at present confined, more or less, to doctors and bishops, and I certainly do not want to see a close corporation formed in control of all the mentally defective persons of the country in the hand of this Eugenist Society.’ A government spokesman replied, ‘My hon. Friend has rather a prejudice against doctors…. My hon. Friend thinks that these doctors will be Eugenists. There is really no reason why he should come to that conclusion at all.’ 53 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th set.) 111 and 435–37 (1913).

⁵² ‘Second thoughts on mental deficiency’, Nation, (1913), 13, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁵³ ‘The feeble-minded and law’, Manchester Guardian, 29 07 1913, p. 6Google Scholar; and ‘Coercive philanthropy’, Manchester Guardian, 31 07 1913, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ‘Second thoughts’, op. cit. (52), p. 8Google Scholar. For Wedgwood's later views and continued opposition, see, e.g., 55 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 173–5 (1913); 62 Parl. Deb., H. C. (5th ser.) 1113 (1914); and Wedgwood, C. V., The Last of the Radicals: Josiah Wedgwood, M. P., London, 1951, pp. 94–6Google Scholar. Early in the debate, the socialist New Statesman gave its cautious editorial approval to the revised legislation, but warned against listening ‘too credulously to the guidance of the experts’. ‘The problem of mental deficiency’, New Statesman, (1913), 1, p. 135.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Eugenics Education Society, Sixth Annual Report, 1913–14, London, 1914, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Landgon-Down, R., ‘The Mental Deficiency Bill’, Eugenics Review, (1913), 5, p. 166.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Second thoughts’, op. cit. (52), p. 8.Google Scholar