WCP2137

[1]

6 Magdalen Yard Road.

Dundee

Jan 6. [1]900

Mr Wallace

Dear Sir

I have now read the paper in "Human Selection" in the F. Review for Sept 90.[1 word illeg.] frightful

I would not have presumed to make remarks on it had I not been invited to do so.

Firstly: I am glad it can be so hopeful — reasonably hopeful, but sorry that <men-men?> competition & frightful over-crowding have no earlier remedy in view than can be expected from a general equalising[?] [2] of condition materially, & general uplifting of the mass intellectually & morally.

There are some points on which I would gladly make a remark, only I am afraid I will be wandering to [sic] the subject, or kindred subjects, instead of keeping to your paper.

As regards the essay:

Later marriage is clearly a check, & desirable for other reasons as well, but do you not think that, to recommend the paper to moral people, you might put in a line emphatic as to the objection. Ableness of impurity[?], which later [3] marriage is ^{by many} said to entail. A few words would do, condemning laxity both from the moral & physiological point of view. It is said Ireland is <more> [1 word illeg.] and more pure than France. I am afraid this subject needs inculcating, at least for men as much as ever.

In naming the points suitable in a husband, right living in [the] early part of life might be placed as one. Kipling, & many of the graver[?] novelists give the impression that the trend is now the wrong way. Men without a clean record are not objected to by parents if present circumstances are otherwise satisfactory (I assume here the young ladies are ignorant).

In regard to the disparity of numbers between Male & Female [4] at the marrying age, say 20 to 35, would you not include as an additional cause of the excess of women at home (for, I believe, in many of the colonies & India & Western States the proportion is very excessively the other way) the continual inflow of men. I have no statistics on the subject but believe the men, or promising men, are drained off in numbers far exceeding the women.

At Page 333 Line 13 are the words "As the pristine[?] checks x x x are supposed to be non-existent." I recognise this is right as it stands, but for a careless reader it might be more clearly put.

"War Pestilence & Famine" [5] are alleged by some to be now non-existent. To prevent that meaning being mis-read into this sentence, the words "in the present theory" & "by the present hypothesis" might be inserted as a safe-guard.

One more point, as a list[?] of Policy to avoid offence to opponents. Could not the words "of the Women" be omitted ^{from the concluding sentence} & the sentence left simply :We may safely leave the far greater & deeper problem of the improvement of the race to the cultivated minds & pure instincts of the Future." [?] [6]

Lastly. Could not the position that human beings become less prolific as they are more highly developed mentally, be illustrated from actual facts of the past [?] I have seen (1) list of great men who had few children (or none), also it is sat the (2) average number in a family is lower in the Eastern States of America than here (of this I an not sure). The theory that "intimidate & reproduction are antagonistic" is supported by many facts in the book on "Evolution of Sex" by Professors Geddes & Thomson, published by MacMillan. Possibly the essay by H.S. Spencer on Population may use the same facts. Geddes & Thomson are taken from (3) the Animal world. A few telling ones might be quoted. Scotch folks like Facts! [7] although said to be metaphysically inclined!

I have no more remarks to offer on the Paper, & hope I have not taken too great liberty with those I have made.

Some thoughts however I would gladly express.

I have had considerable experience among the lower working class in Dundee, as a Collector for the Dundee Social Union, which has now only one branch — Housing. For eight years I collected rents, & <pre> that in <four?> superintended the whole (80 houses then — house meaning 1 or 2 rooms, not a block). I found it very hopeless work. The workers (Jute & Linen) were well enough paid. Want arose from thriftlessness, early marriage (boys of sixteen marrying on 12/- a week) & drink, the last the most evident cause of the [1 word illeg.]. [8]

A bad feature locally is the greater abundance of work for women as compared with men. The great mass of mill & factory workers are women with here & there a man for heavy work & superintendence. [As a ] result the women are looked-to to keep the house very commonly after marriage & at least to be the more reliable contributor, as the man is not sure of employment.

Another disappointing result of plenty work & good wages is that the young people are too independent of parents, & early leave the home & go into lodgings — more or less objectionable, where they have freedom! It is a care of those who envisage [1 word illeg.] Lodging houses not to receive girls who have suitable homes.

These results of better material conditions are very discouraging. The same holds of the highly paid miners. [9] They have plenty means, they have a good deal of leisure but lead a low type of life. It is the Fife miners I know of.

Whether the care with which girls here can maintain themselves make them more wary in choosing husbands I do not know. One motive for hasty settlement is at least <amounting?>. One would hope that this independence of women educated or uneducated from the much wider field open to their energies is a present, an arrived influence for better choice of husbands. [10]

In regard to the elimination of the <worst?> by rejection of men & women physically or mentally deficient I am reminded of a remark in a paper in one of the half-crown monthlies a good while ago, namely that in no case should a former inmate of an asylum discharged "cured" be allowed to marry.

But desire[?] in marriage is hardly thought to have a moral[?] side at all. Taste & Convenience being suited[?] all is well. On this subject Education is nowhere!

Apologizing for the length to which my remarks have run

I remain Yours very truly

Ellen Monro Miller [signature]¹

P.S. It was not I who was at [1 word illeg.] it when you called but I heard you deliver a lecture in [1 word illeg.] on "Mimicry" & enjoyed it.