I have been closely connected with the Society from the time of Captain Allen Gardiner's death, and Mr. Darwin has often expressed to me his conviction that it was utterly useless to send Missionaries to such a set of savages as the Fuegians, probably the very lowest of the human race. Ihad always replied that I did not believe any human beings existed too low to comprehend the ****** message of the Gospel of Christ. After many years, I think about 1869 (It seems to have been in 1867.), but I cannot find the letter, he wrote to me that the recent accounts of the Mission proved to him that he had been wrong and I right in our estimates of the native character, and the possibility of doing them good through Missionaries; and he requested me to forward to the Society an enclosed cheque for 5 pounds, as a testimony of the interest he took in their good work. On June 6th, 1874, he wrote: 'I am very glad to hear so good an account of the Fuegians, and it is wonderful.' On June 10th, 1879: 'The progress of the Fuegians is wonderful, and had it not occurred would have been to me quite incredible.' On January 3rd, 1880: 'Your extracts' [from a journal] 'about the Fuegians are extremely curious, and have interested me much. I have often said that the progress of Japan was the greatest wonder in the world, but I declare that the progress of Fuegia is almost equally wonderful. On March 20th, 1881: 'The account of the Fuegians interested not only me, but all my family. It is truly wonderful what you have heard from Mr. Bridges about their honesty and their language. Icertainly should have predicted that not all the Missionaries in the world could have done what has been done.' On December 1st, 1881, sending me his annual subscription to the Orphanage at the Mission Station, he wrote:
'Judging from the "Missionary Journal", the Mission in Tierra del Fuego seems going on quite wonderfully well.'"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO JOHN LUBBOCK.
Down, July 17, 1870.
My dear Lubbock, As I hear that the Census will be brought before the House to-morrow, Iwrite to say how much I hope that you will express your opinion on the desirability of queries in relation to consanguineous marriages being inserted. As you are aware, I have made experiments on the subject during several years; AND IT IS MY CLEAR CONVICTION THAT THERE IS NOW AMPLEEVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GREAT PHYSIOLOGICAL LAW, RENDERING ANENQUIRY WITH REFERENCE TO MANKIND OF MUCH IMPORTANCE. IN ENGLAND AND MANYPARTS OF EUROPE THE MARRIAGES OF COUSINS ARE OBJECTED TO FROM THEIRSUPPOSED INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES; BUT THIS BELIEF RESTS ON NO DIRECTEVIDENCE. IT IS THEREFORE MANIFESTLY DESIRABLE THAT THE BELIEF SHOULDEITHER BE PROVED FALSE, OR SHOULD BE CONFIRMED, so that in this latter case the marriages of cousins might be discouraged. If the proper queries are inserted, the returns would show whether married cousins have in their households on the night of the census as many children as have parents of who are not related; and should the number prove fewer, we might safely infer either lessened fertility in the parents, or which is more probable, lessened vitality in the offspring.
It is, moreover, much to be wished that the truth of the often repeated assertion that consanguineous marriages lead to deafness, and dumbness, blindness, etc., should be ascertained; and all such assertions could be easily tested by the returns from a single census.
Believe me, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[When the Census Act was passing through the House of Commons, Sir John Lubbock and Dr. Playfair attempted to carry out this suggestion. The question came to a division, which was lost, but not by many votes.
The subject of cousin marriages was afterwards investigated by my brother.
("Marriages between First Cousins in England, and their Effects.' By George Darwin. 'Journal of the Statistical Society,' June, 1875.) The results of this laborious piece of work were negative; the author sums up in the sentence:--"My paper is far from giving any thing like a satisfactory solution of the question as to the effects of consanguineous marriages, but it does, Ithink, show that the assertion that this question has already been set at rest, cannot be substantiated."]
