C. P. BLACKER, M.A., M.D. Voluntary Sterilization: The Last Sixty Years

1. TIME FOR RE-ASSESSMENT 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE EUGENICS SOCIETY BETWEEN 1929 AND 1934 3. THE BROCK COMMITTEE (1934) 4. THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION (1934-1939) 5. CAUSES OF FAILURE 1. TIME FOR RE-ASSESSMENT advocated birth control. Among these Havelock IN A SHORT introductory article published Ellis was prominent. But public opinion was in the October 1961 number of this REvIEw, unreceptive, uninformed and hostile. On moral I drew attention to how ideas on the possi- grounds the reaction was not unlike that now bilities ofvoluntary sterilization have broadened. evoked by artificial insemination; and on ad- During the early years ofthe century the measure ministrative grounds it was argued that the was mainly discussed in terms of its usefulness effects of a workable scheme on the incidence of in checking what seemed to be an increase in the mental defect would be imperceptible. number of mental defectives. But the horizon The issue was taken up in 1929 by the Eugenics broadened. Possibilities were recognized of Society which advanced proposals which had not sterilztion being welcomed by wider circles, before been seriously formulated. These pro- for example by people who had recovered from posals had a mixed reception, but they attracted mental disorders, by those afflicted with physical attention and provoked discussion. In three infirmities deemed to be hereditary, and by years (1929-1932) public opinion was swung to mentally and physically normal people (so-called the extent that a concerted petition for an carriers) who were afraid oftransmitting to their official inquiry was submitted to the then Minis- children hereditary infirmities which afflicted ter of Health by three weighty organizations. their relatives but not themselves. This petition was sympathetically received and Since the end of the second world war, how- in June 1932 a Departmental Committee was ever, the qualitative criterion of morbid inheri- appointed. This Committee produced in 1934 a tance has been superseded. The quantitative report unanimously recommending that volun- possibilities of sterilization have been explored tary sterilization be legalized along the lines for controlling fertility in under-developed earlier advocated by the Eugenics Society. countries; and people have been voluntarily Suddenly the Society was heavily re-inforced. A sterilized in numbers which were unheard of Joint Committee was formed, and much effective during the inter-war years. A new assessment of propaganda was done. Up till 1936 the prospects the potential benefits of sterilization in western of legalization seemed good. But adverse factors countries is due. set in. Events in Germany generated a distaste I have been asked to summarize the develop- for sterilization; and political opposition from ments in Great Britain during the last sixty years. the left was re-inforced by the counter-propa- Briefly, these have been as follows: before 1914 ganda with which certain religious groups had the possible benefits of sterilization were recog- responded to the departmental committee's nized by a few far-seeing writers who also proposals. The movement for legalization lost 9 THE EUGENICS REVIEW, April 1962,54, 1. THE EUGENICS REVIEW impetus as the threat of war loomed larger. The cerned with mental defectt and insanity; the war in 1939 put an end to all articulate demand second with the prohibition of marriage of and, since 1945, there has been no revival of the certified mental defectives and insane persons demand. (unless these had been sterilized or, on other But since that year the issue has been raised in grounds, were known to be infertile); thethird a new form and in a big way outside Europe. with "pauperism and crime." Hence the story falls into two parts. The first During 1929 it occurred to certain members of covers the period 1929-1934 when the Society the Eugenics Society that an effective reply to was acting more or less alone; the second, critics who reproached us with being too much covering the period 1934-1939, followed the concerned with theory and too little with practice publication of the Departmental Committee's would be for the Society to take an initiative in report. starting a hospital, or endowing some beds in a hospital, wherein priority would be given to 2. ACTIVMTIES OF THE EUGENICS SOCIETY candidates for voluntary sterilization.+ BETWEEN 1929 AND 1934* This proposal was raised before the Council. Under the presidency of Major Leonard Dar- Dr. R. A. Gibbons, long an advocate ofvoluntary win (son of the illustrious Charles) the Society sterilization, quoting an opinion of Sir Travers had, in the nineteen-twenties, concerned itself Humphreys, contended that the legal position as with the possibilities of voluntary sterilization. to this measure was so uncertain that the project of endowing a bed would receive little support. A Draft Bill to Legalize Sterilization The argument carried weight with the Council In 1929 a draft Bill was drawn up which, as seen which favoured, as a preliminary, the establish- in to-day's retrospect, had an oblique preamble ment of the legality of voluntary sterilization. and peculiar objectives. The preamble was Sir Bernard Mallet, who had succeeded Major worded as follows: "An Act to prevent the Darwin as the Society's president, supported practice of sterilization when morally or socially this view. I well remember a meeting in Decem- objectionable, thus safe-guarding its use for the ber 1929, convened by Sir Bernard in the Society's rooms then located at 20 Grosvenor better preservation of the races." The draft Bill Gardens. At this meeting Sir Frederick Willis, was divided into three parts. The first was con- than whom few people were better qualified to express an opinion on the issue of legality, was * Sometime in the future it will be accepted as a self- evident proposition that death control must be balanced present by invitation. Sir Frederick fully con- by birth control (or, as some prefer to call it, control of firmed Dr. Gibbons's view. conception). The proposition will appear to be so self- evident that it will seem inconceivable that anyone could Early in 1930, a recommendation that the ever have disputed it. Births will soon be controlled by Eugenics Society should take an initiative in means of which to-day we know nothing. getting voluntary sterilization legalized was An interest will then arise in the early efforts to control the balance between births and deaths-in developments accordingly submitted to the Society's Council. of the idea that such control is necessary and of the methods of control earlier used. Among the latter is sterilization the history of which may, a hundred years t At fairly regular intervals the terminology of psychi- from now, become the theme of research theses and atry is purged, much as are the political leaders of certain monographs. countries. Current terms are outlawed and expressions, Hence the events described in this section may have sometimes unwieldly and circuitous but held to be free some historical interest. The Society has played a notable from pejorative innuendo, are substituted. In this article part in the story which may be worth putting on record. I will use the terminology current during the period under I write some thirty years after the events I describe. Most discussion. of the people whose names appear in the story are now Several of the persons mentioned below have since dead. But fortunately minute-books, annual reports and received titles. Their past and present designations will be many of the relevant documents survived the war. These given when they are first mentioned in the text. There- were tied up in large parcels which since 1939 have after they will be named as they were known at the time. reposed in a basement of the Society's headquarters. I For an account of the inner history of how this sub- have selected from and rearranged this material in ject came to be raised and adopted by the Society, see chronological order and have prepared an annotated THE EUGENICS REvmw, January 1930. 22, 4, 239-247. copy of this article giving references to the relevant The Sterilization Proposals: A History of their Develop- surviving documents. ment. I0 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS This recommendation was conveyed in a memor- namely mental defectives, mental convalescents andum signed by Dr. R. A. (now Sir Ronald) (a term proposed by Dr. R. Langdon-Down to Fisher, Professor J. S. (now Sir Julian) Huxley, denote persons who had recovered from any Dr. J. A. Ryle, Mr. E. J. Lidbetter and myself. form of mental disorder), and normal people The recommendation was unanimously approved who wished to "avoid the risk oftransmission to by the Council which then appointed the children or to remoter issue of a transmissible Society's COMMITTEE FOR LEGALISING EUGENIC defect seriously impairing physical or mental STERLISATION. This at once embarked on an health or efficiency." active career. It was largely because of my A second pamphlet produced by the Commit- participation in these preliminary activities that tee attracted attention. It was entitled The Law as I was appointed in 1931 as the Society's General to Sterilization and was written at the Commit- Secretary. tee's request by Mr. Cecil Binney who, at this The possibility of getting the legal issue settled time, was much in demand as a speaker on this by a test case was early explored by the Com- topic. His thesis was that the sterilization (albeit mittee. The matter was put to a solicitor who at his request) of a person deemed to be mentally submitted that the cost to the Society would be defective was unquestionably illegal; but the substantial and that the outcome would be un- position of other applicants turned essentially on certain. The judgement would be as non- what could be held to be a misdemeanour. Sir committal as possible. After a conference with William Russell had remarked: "The word mis- the solicitor, the project was abandoned. demeanour in its usual acceptation is applied to The Committee, of which Sir Bernard Mallet all those offences for which the law has not was chairman, expanded as its work progressed provided a particular name"; and "it seems to be and eventually included nearly thirty people.* an established rule that whatever openly out- rages decency, and is injurious to public morals, Eugenics Society's Pamphlets is a misdemeanour at common law." Later Sir Literature setting forth the Society's case was James Fitzjames Stephen, commenting on this prepared and distributed. We produced several passage, had remarked: "It is inevitable that pamphlets with covers of diverse colours. Our when men claim to exercise authority over their basic statement was set out in what we called our fellows, in broad general terms, and on grounds "buff pamphlet" entitled Eugenic Sterilization. which have never been clearly or systematically A substantial demand quickly arose for this expressed, there should be an extensive debate- publication of which, during 1930, some 10,000 able land in which it is hard to say what is legal copies were sent out, mostly to applicants. and what is not." The pamphlet contained a full Indeed, the demand was so great that, in 1931, a discussion of the possible relevance of the second edition was produced the expenses of Offences against the Person Act of 1861 which which were met by a donation from Lord this year (1962) is just over a hundred years old. Riddell. This second edition contained the text Indeed, it reached the statute book many years of a comprehensive Bill which dealt with the before anyone had thought of surgical steriliza- voluntary sterilization of three groups of people, tion and some thirty-six years before anyone was actually sterilized. * In May 1932 the committee consisted of the follow- ing persons: Sir Bernard Mallet (Chairman), Mrs. Mary The most disturbing criticism of the Com- Adams, Dr. K. B. Aikman, The Lady Askwith, Mr. mittee's policy was privately delivered by a keen Cecil Binney, Dr. C. P. Blacker (Hon. Secretary), Dr. supporter of the principle of voluntary steriliza- C. J. Bond, Professor A. M. (now Sir Alexander) Carr- Saunders, Lady Chambers, Major A. G. Church, Miss tion. Dr Havelock Ellis wrote in December 1930 E. Corry, Mr. D. Ward Cutler, Mr. W. L. (now Sir that, by raising doubts as to the legality of Leslie) Farrer, Dr. R. A. (now Sir Ronald) Fisher, Dr. were R. A. Gibbons, Hon. Mrs. U. Grant Duff, Mrs. C. B. S. voluntary sterilization, the Committee Hodson, Sir Thomas (later Lord) Horder, Mrs. Eva defeating their own ends. The nature of the Hubback, Mrs. R. Hussey, Professor J. S. (now Sir operation, especially ofvasectomy, was such that Julian) Huxley, Dr. R. Langdon-Down, Wing-Com- mander A. W. H. (now Sir Archibald) James, Mr. E. J. it was absurd to invoke the relevance of the Lidbetter, Miss Hilda Pocock and Dr. J. A. Ryle. Offences against the Person Act. The Commit- 11 THE EUGENICS REVIEW tee should ignore such archaic enactments and after a well-planned ascertainment conducted by should encourage surgeons to continue to Dr. E. 0. Lewis, had assessed the number of sterilize bona fide candidates who were compos mental defectives in England and Wales at about mentis; it should offer to support such surgeons 300,000, or 8 56 per thousand of the population financially if, after becoming members of the of the time. This was approximately twice the Eugenics Society, they were involved in legal rate (4-56 per thousand) given by a Commission difficulties. If, declared Dr. Ellis, it was a maim (the Royal Commission for the Care and Con- to be vasectomised, it might be held to be a trol of the Feeble-minded) which had reported maim to have one's hair cut, as happened to some twenty years earlier. The Wood Committee Samson; indeed the Society would be doing less drew attention to the high fertility of the "Social harm if it sponsored a Conumittee to legalize Problem Group" (a term invented by that Com- voluntary decapillation. mittee) and, after a full discussion of how far Subsequent events, such as the attitude taken the ascertained increase was apparent rather than up by medical defence organizations and the real, concluded that it was "hard to believe that experiences of Sweden before and after passing there had not been some increase of mental an enabling act, have not confirmed Dr. Have- deficiency during this period" (the last twenty lock Eflis's pungent criticisms (reinforced later years).* by Dr. Marie Stopes) which received careful The period (1929 onwards) was furthermore consideration by the Society's Committee and over-shadowed by the world depression when later by the Brock Committee. "prevention rather than cure" was a much- In 1931 the committee produced its "blue sounded theme, and when people were looking pamphlet" Better Unborn. This quoted about for ways of reducing public expenditure. The forty authenticated cases ofirresponsible parent- attitude of the Society was also influenced by the hood by individuals of "borderline" mentality; findings of Mr. E. J. Lidbetter's monumental and it brought out the deplorable and socially genealogical survey (supported financially by burdensome conditions of many of their chil- the Society) the chief findings of which were dren. The pamphlet also contained the draft published in 1933 though they had been made text of a restricted Bill "to enable mental defec- fairly widely known before.t This survey, like tives to undergo sterilizing operations or steri- the Booth Survey (Life and Labour of the People lizing treatment upon their own application or in London. 1891-1903, Macmillan. 18 volumes) that of their spouses or parents or guardians." has not received the attention it deserves. It (Major A. G. Church, M.P., had expressed awaits re-discovery by a later generation. willingness to introduce under the ten minutes Sterilization was widely opposed both on rule such a restricted Bill, covering only the moral and administrative grounds. The opposi- position in respect of mental defectives.) The tion on moral grounds was generally similar to pamphlet also contained expressions of approval the opposition to birth control. The hostility on of the draft Bill by some distinguished contem- administrative grounds was largely based on poraries among whom were Sir Charles Sherring- the manner in which sterilization had sometimes ton, Professor F. H. A Marshall, Professor been advocated as a money-saving alternative to William McDougall and Mr. H. G. Wells. segregation. (The mis-statement of the issue is reminiscent of the way in which, to-day, the The "Social Problem Group" world's population problem is sometimes de- On re-reading this and other literature of the scribed as soluble either by restricting the rate of period, I have been struck by how different from population growth or by increasing world now was the climate of opinion. The general resources.) Those responsible for administering theme of those days was "the sterilization of the the services for the mentally subnormal were unfit." The main candidates were high-grade nervous of the clamour for economy. Steriliza- mental defectives and borderline cases. The * Wood Report, Part Ill. p. 38. country had been shocked by the appearance ofa t Heredity and the Social Problem Group. Edward Report (of the Wood Committee) in 1930 which, Arnold. 1 2 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS tion, they reiterated, is no alternative to segrega- Committee-was that people who could afford tion. If there is such a thing as a professional to pay surgeons' fees could get themselves steri- standpoint, that of the medical staffs of mental lized. (Indeed, one doctor had written a book hospitals was then opposed. Opposition was suggesting that vasectomy-the operation by more or less orthodox. which males are sterilized-could produce re- The Committee put forward the argument that juvenating effects.) But the policies of hospitals sterilization should be regarded not as an alter- were largely shaped by governors and governing native but an auxiliary to segregation. The two committees which might include religious objec- should'be complementary. Certain passages in tors and who might also hold that the waiting the Wood Report about how the institution or lists of surgical departments were filled by people colony for mental defectives should be treated as whose needs were urgent. Hence the rich could a flowing stream rather than as a stagnant pool pay their way while the poor could not. In this were here relevant and were used by the Com- connection the Society made use ofthe following mittee. letter, which appeared in the Week-end Review of These pamphlets and other literature con- May 14th, 1932, and which was printed as a tained particulars of the Eugenics Society; new single-page leaflet: members were in this way enrolled. Sir,-I was born with a deformity of my hands The Committee's proposals, later endorsed by and feet, by which I have been much handicapped the Brock and now during my life. I was assured by a doctor on Committee commonplace, marrying that this deformity would not be trans- then had a novel emphasis; and some leading mitted to my children. I have had six children of doctors who had previously been opposed be- whom the last, born a year ago, has precisely came supporters of the Committee. Prominent the same affliction as myself. Having little con- among these was Dr. R. Langdon-Down. Sup- fidence in birth control methods. and not wishing any more children to be born handicapped like port was also given by certain organizations myself, I wrote to the Eugenics Society, asking if among which were the National Association for it could somehow get me sterilized. I could not the Feeble-Minded, the National Union of afford to pay any fee to a surgeon and could only Societies for Equal Citizenship, the Women's just raise money enough to pay my railway fare to Co-operative Guilds and the Con- any place where this operation could be done. Congress The Secretary of the Eugenics Society did all he servative Women's Reform Association. But at could to get me taken into a General Hospital, this time the Board of Control, though having where I could be operated upon, but no hospital stated in an Annual Report that "mentally would take me in because of the small legal risk deficient patients create centres of degeneracy which is thought to be involved when a sterilizing operation is performed. Eventually the Eugenics and disease which welfare work can never Society raised a small fund for me, and I was reach," was tacitly opposed. It held that the successfully operated upon as a paying patient in prohibition of marriage of mental defectives was a hospital. I should say that the operation was a more practicable innovation. painless and had not the slightest effect on my general health or married life; it has relieved both my wife and myself of a terrible anxiety. I would Parliament and Sterilization be grateful ifyou would publish this letter, because On July 21, 1931, Major A. G. Church, then I think your readers ought to know that the Labour Member for Central Wandsworth, intro- Eugenics Society in trying to get voluntary steri- lization legalized is only trying to make available duced under the ten minutes rule the Bill which for the poor what is now the privilege of the rich. had been published in our blue pamphlet. The Yours faithfully, Bill was vigorously opposed by another Labour "HEREDITARY DEFORMITY." member who said that it was permeated by anti- The Labour party's attitude was ambivalent. working class sentiments. The vote was 167 to 89 Some shared the standpoint of Major Church's against the Bill-a rather better result than Parliamentary opponent that the Committee's Major Church expected. But the first step was objectives were "anti-working class." Others taken. The subject was raised in Parliament. supported the argument of the last paragraph of An argument of which the Committee made the above-quoted letter. As time passed, the use-an argument later stressed by the Brock second view gained ground. By 1937, there had 1 3 ER-C THE EUGENICS REVIEW been formed an active NATIONAL WORKERS' impressed and even astonished, at the widespread COMMITTEE FOR THE LEGALIZING OF VOLUNTARY support that has been found to exist in the House of Commons, and in the country, in favour of STERILIZATION. The president was Mr. Ernest legalizing sterilization. Thurtle, M.P., the chairman Mrs. Harold Laski and the honorary secretary Dr. Caroline Maule. The following was the memorandum's But hopes were raised by Major Church's summary and conclusions: initiative. During the next year (1932) Wing- (1) The measures proposed are voluntary and permissive and are not compulsory. (The meaning Commander A. W. H. James, M.P., an active of the term "voluntary" as applied to a defective and fearless supporter of the Society's main is explained in the Memorandum on the Bill which activities, formed an all-party PARLIAMENTARY appears on p. 12.) STERILIZATION COMMITTEE consisting of the (2) Sterilization is proposed for mental defec- tives, for whom it is now illegal, as an adjunct, following ten members: The Duchess of Atholl, and not as an alternative to, segregation. Mr. Vyvyan Adams, Mr. C. T. Culverwell, Mr. (3) A large proportion of mental defectives Holford Knight, Mr. G. Lambert, Mr. W. (over 50 per cent according to most authorities) Mabane, Mr. G. Mander, Sir Basil Peto, Sir owe their condition to hereditary taints in their ancestry. Nairne Sanderson and himself as Secretary. In (4) Probably not more than 10-15 per cent ofall the preliminary stage of the formation of this defectives have parents one or both of whom are committee, the Society's comprehensive draft defective. This will be the measure of the possible Bill, covering the three categories of mental reduction which could be effected in one genera- defectives, mental convalescents and mentally tion by preventing all defectives from breeding. (5) But nevertheless all authorities agree that no normal "carriers," was considered at a joint defective, whatever the causation of his defective- meeting of the medical and scientific committees ness, should become a parent. It is terrible to ofthe House of Commons. The unanimous view think of a normal, sensitive child being brought emerged that there was not the slightest prospect up by a defective parent. (6) It has been authoritatively recommended of a Bill of such wide scope being passed; a that institutional accommodation be provided for better hearing, it was said, would be given to a one-third of the total estimated number of defec- Bill limited to mental defectives. Hence the tives in the country and that the remaining two- Parliamentary Committee adopted the restricted thirds live under guardianship or supervision in Bill which, in July 1931, Major Church had the general community. Sterilization is applicable to a proportion of these cases. introduced under the ten minutes rule. (7) The operation of sterilization involves The Parliamentary Commnittee produced a negligible risks to life and leaves the physical, sixteen-page leaflet entitled Memorandum upon a mental and sexual powers unchanged. Permissive Bill to legalise the Voluntary Steriliza- (8) Sterilization has been in effective operation in other countries and in one part of the British tion ofcertain Mental Defectives; and it included Empire. the text of the Sterilization Act of Alberta. To (9) Sterilization, properly safeguarded against this Canadian Act assent had been given on abuses, can therefore be employed as an economi- March 21st 1928; and under its provisions, by cal and humane extension of the principle of November 1932 when the Committee's memor- preventive medicine. andum was published, over a hundred persons But by the time the Parliamentary Commit- had been sterilized. The Parliamentary Com- tee's memorandum was published (November mittee took an optimistic view oftheir prospects. 1932), the Brock Committee (see below) had They concluded their memorandum with the been appointed (June 1932) and was beginning following words: its deliberations. The Parliamentary Committee decided not to press its case until after the Brock It is submitted that since sterilization is already a recognized practice upon grounds of physical Committee's report had been published. health, it is unwarranted that it should remain illegal upon grounds of mental health. The Parlia- A Conference on Sterilization mentary Conmnittee have reason to believe that an act legalizing voluntary and permissive steriliza- Another event which formed a landmark during tion would be made considerable use of by the these early years was a single-day conference public. The Parliamentary Committee have been convened on May 23rd 1932 by the Society's 14 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS Sterilization Committee at Caxton Hall, West- as a preventive measure having regard to its linster. During the morning and afternoon physical, psychological, and social effects and to the experience of legislation in other countries sessions, the different aspects of the Society's petting it; and to suggest what further in- proposals were explained and discussed. The quiries might usefully be undertaken in this chairmen and speakers included Sir Allan connection. Powell, Sir Thomas Horder, Dr. R. Langdon- Apart from its able chairman and Mr. Frank Down, Mr. Cecil Binney, Professor R. Ruggles- Chanter, its secretary, the Committee consisted Gates, Professor A. M. Carr-Saunders and of seven carefully selected persons.* others. The evening session took the form of a In the course of the second half of 1932 and of public meeting at which Lady Askwith took the 1933 the Committee held thirty-six meetings and chair and Lord Riddell was the first speaker. In took evidence from sixty witnesses thus amassing her introductory speech, Lady Askwith stressed a large volume of evidence. Among these wit- the humanitarian aspects of the Society's pro- nesses was the Eugenics Society which was repre- posals. These, if correctly understood, would sented by Dr. C. J. Bond, Dr. A. J. (now Sir appeal to all lovers of children and especially to Aubrey) Lewis, Dr. R. Langdon-Down, Dr. E. women. "It is noteworthy," she said, "that when Mapother and myself. The Society had been Major Church introduced his sterilization bill asked by the Committee to give evidence upon on July 21st 1931, not a single woman Member the investigations carried out abroad upon the of Parliament had voted against it." The Com- inheritance of mental deficiency. The memoran- mittee produced as its "grey pamphlet" (36 dum which embodies this evidence was printed pages) a report of this conference. as an appendix to my book, Voluntary Steriliza- Many meetings, some ofthem convened in the tion.t The Departmental Committee, moreover, private houses of members of the Committee, promoted a large-scale and original investigation were held during the period 1929-1932; and into the children of 3,733 mental defectives Mrs. Cora Hodson, Miss Hilda Pocock and I which was the most comprehensive of its kind defended the Society's position in numerous ever undertaken. Information was sought from debates. all the mental deficiency authorities in the country. Their responses were better than had 3. THE BROCK COMMIYTEE (1934) been expected and the report on this inquiry, in Doubtless as a result of the activities of Wing- the preparation of which Dr. R. A. Fisher Commander James's group in the House of played an important part, was published on pp. Commons and of the Eugenics Society's activi- 60-74 of the Committee's main document. This ties outside, a trio of important organizations- inquiry, which provided an important milestone, the County Councils Association, the Associa- has scarcely received the attention it deserves. tion of Municipal Corporations and the Mental In January 1934-just over two years after the Hospitals Association-decided to take a joint Committee had been appointed-the Brock initiative. They combined to submit, in February Report" (as it quickly came to be called) was 1932, to the then Minister of Health, Sir Hilton published. Briefly, it condemned compulsory Young (later Lord Kennett), a request that the sterilization but recommended that voluntary problems and possibilities of sterilization be sterilization should be legalized for the three investigated by an officially constituted body. categories of people who had been included in The minister complied. After four months' the Society's comprehensive Bill as set out in its deliberation he appointed, on June 9th 1932, a "buff pamphlet": namely mental defectives, strong Departmental Committee under the persons who have suffered from mental disorder, chairmanship of Mr. L. G. (later Sir Lawrence) and people believed to be carriers of (or likely Brock. The terms of reference of this committee were: * They were: Wilfred Trotter, R. A. Fisher, A. F. Tredgold, Miss Ruth Darwin, E. W. Adams, R. 1l, To examine and report on the information Crowley and E. 0. Lewis. already available regarding the hereditary trans- t 1934. Humphrey Milford. mission and other causes of mental disorder and I Report of the Departmental Committee on Sterilisa- deficiency; to consider the value of sterilization tion. 1934. Cmd. 4485. THE EUGENICS REVIEW to transmit) grave physical or mental disabilities. (11) Daughter; at school, but of very low men- These recommendations differed in only two tality. (12) Son; at school and of average intelligence. respects from those earlier put forward by the (13) Daughter; aged 9, has never been to school; Society. The Society had advocated that steri- M.D.; now in Institution. lization should be made possible for mental (14) Daughter; now aged 8; never been to school; defectives and mental convalescents who owed in M.D. Institution. (15) Son; aged 5, recently admitted to M.D. their abnormalities to morbid heredity; the Institution. Brock Committee more radically recommended (16) Daughter; aged 4. that it be made available for all mental defectives (17) Daughter; aged 1. and convalescents irrespective of heredity. Also It would be impossible (says the N.S.P.C.C. the proposed safeguards differed in that the Report) to exaggerate the tragic possibilities Brock Committee recommended that the sub- which are still likely in this family's history. The children now in Institutions are likely to go back ject's application, backed by two medical certifi- to their place of settlement on reaching the age of cates, be approved by the Minister of Health. sixteen years. Doubtless, all will have benefited The Society had not thought it necessary to call from their stay and training in the Institutions, for the authorization of the Minister of Health. but it is extremely doubtful whether they will make It was a source of satisfaction to the Society satisfactory citizens and more than likely that they that the Brock Committee included in the first will themselves produce deficient offspring. paragraph of their first chapter the following Miss Hilda Pocock, then a member of the acknowledgment: Society's staff, took a remarkable initiative. She obtained particulars of this family, travelled to To the Eugenics Society we are indebted for a summary of the chief researches which have been their home in Yorkshire, and persuaded all the made in foreign countries. Their memorandum, members who were locally accessible (at home which was clear and complete in its arrangement and in institutions) to consent to being filmed. and detached and critical in tone, has been of The family appears in a film later produced by great assistance to us. the Society. (We did what we could to help this I here mention parenthetically another feature family, co-operating for the purpose with the of the Brock Report of which the Society took N.S.P.C.C.). During the ensuing years, we paid advantage. The Report's Appendix II (pp. 80-91) quite a large annual premium to insure ourselves is a memorandum submitted by the National against the risks of actions for libel. But we Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children received nothing but goodwill from the family. (N.S.P.C.C.). The following particulars are Sir Lawrence Brock was naturally interested in included of a Yorkshire family: this film. He agreed that the main impression HULL AND EAST RIDING DISTRICT. made by the family as a whole, and by the old Case No. 794M. father (born in 1880) who, in response to a Father born 1880; mother born 1883. The paternal question, deplored the size and burdensomeness grandfather was feeble-minded; two great-uncles of his family, was one of pathos. were certified insane and a maternal uncle was epileptic. This woman has given birth to the 4. THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON VOLUNTARY following: STERILIZATION (1934-39) (1) Daughter; died ofconvulsions 1 in infancy These two The Brock Report had been expectantly awaited (2) Son; died ofconvulsions in in- illegitimate by many organizations which had postponed fancy decision until its publication. It was widely com- (3) Daughter; certified M.D.* In an Institution. mented on in (4) Son; certified as imbecile. Died at age of 11. the press which, as a whole, (5) Son; certified as M.D. In an Institution. received it with sympathy. It quickly brought (6) Daughter; certified as imbecile. about a veering and crystallization of informed (7) Daughter; died at 11 months. opinion. It facilitated the taking of decisions by (8) Son; certified as imbecile. those public and medical authorities (9) Daughter; in service. which, (10) Son; died in infancy. puzzled by the differences between experts, had earlier been hesitant and non-committal. Here * M.D. is an abbreviation for "mental defective". was the most authoritative communication on 16 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS sterilization that had appeared up till that time years (1934-1939) which followed its appoint- in any country. ment. The Committee was fortunate in securing Among the earlier-hesitant organizations had Lord Horder as its chairman and Sir Francis been the Central Association for Mental Wel- Acland, M.P. as its vice-chairman. It will be seen fare, led by Miss Evelyn Fox-a most dynamic that each of the four constituent organizations lady-and by Dr. A. F. Tredgold, one of the above-mentioned appointed three members; and leading authorities on mental deficiency in this there were seven additional members which in- country. In consultation with the Eugenics cluded the indefatigable Wing-Commander Society the Central Association took the initia- James. The Committee's first secretary, Mrs. M. tive in convening a JoINT COMMITTEE ON VOLUN- D. Silcock, who deftly guided the Committee TARY STEiLIZATION (J.C.V.S.) containing re- through its formative stages, was in February presentatives of itself, of our Society, of the 1935 replaced by Mr. J. Verney Quilliam. The Mental Hospitals Association and of the Nat- latter had earlier had wide experience of political ional Council for Mental Hygiene. The Royal work. College of Physicians, which, in October 1934, One of the Joint Committee's first activities had endorsed the recommendations of the Brock was to appoint a drafting committee under the Committee, appointed a representative to serve able chairmanship of Dr. A. F. Tredgold. This on the Joint Committee without powertocommit committee, after much discussion and consulta- the parent organization. Their representative tion, produced a draft of a Voluntary Steriliza- was Lord Dawson, the president of the College. tion Bill which embodied exactly and in detail Lord Dawson had long been an eloquent and the recommendations of the Brock Com- quite fearless supporter of both voluntary steri- mittee. lization and birth control. His attitude was Mr. Quilliam spent much time in travelling the noteworthily courageous in view of his connec- country and addressing meetings, so that it tions with the royal household. The Royal became necessary to appoint an assistant secre- Medico-Psychological Association likewise tary, Miss L. R. Gait, who dealt, in his absence, appointed a representative. On June 27th and with the massive office correspondence. The July 19th 1934, moreover, the County Councils Eugenics Society was the main financial sup- Association and the Association of Municipal porter of the Joint Committee. It placed at the Corporations respectively passed resolutions Joint Committee's disposal the rooms on the approving the recommendations of the Brock second floor of its house (those now occupied Committee; and later (November 21st 1934) by the International Planned Parenthood these two powerful associations vigorously sup- Federation), and all the Joint Committee's ported the Joint Committee whose speakers meetings were held in our library. The Society (Professor J. S. Huxley, Wing-Commander contributed 80 per cent of the Joint Committee's James and myself) had opened a discussion total income during the six years of its existence before a large audience which assembled for the (£3,140 out of £3,902). Public Health Congress at the Royal Agricul- A Handbook for Speakers was produced tural Hall, Islington. (It will be remembered that which Mr. Quilliam and others found useful in these two bodies, together with the Mental persuading numerous organizations to pass Hospitals Association, were the ones which, in supporting resolutions. The following is a list of February 1932, had petitioned the Minister of the Joint Committee's members as published in Health to appoint the Brock Committee.) 1937. It is followed by another list of the organ- Suddenly the Eugenics Society felt itselfwidely izations which had expressed support by the supported and fortified. The Society's Council same year: dissolved its own COMMITTEE FOR LEGALISING JOINT COMMITTEE ON VOLUNTARY VOLUNTARY STERILISATION which became STERILIZATION (1937) merged in the Joint Committee. LIST OF MEMBERS It would be tedious to describe in detail the Chairman: activities of the Joint Committee during the six The Lord Horder, K.C.V.O., M.D., F.R.C.P. I7 THE EUGENICS REVIEW Vice-Chairman: LIST OF AUTHORITIES, ASSOCIATIONS, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis D. Acland, Bt., M.P. ETC. which by March 1937 had passed resolu- tions in favour of giving legal effect to the recom- Central Association for Mental Welfare mendations ofthe Brock Departmental Report: Miss Evelyn Fox, C.B.E. A. F. Tredgold, Esq., M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.S. (Edin.) I Mrs. J. Cooke Hurle The County Councils' Association The Association of Municipal Corporations Eugenics Society The Royal College of Physicians C. P. Blacker, Esq., M.C., M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P. The Royal College of Surgeons Mrs. Rosamond Hussey The Royal Medico-Psychological Association R. Langdon-Down, Esq., M.B. The Association of County Medical Officers of Health Mental Hospitals Association The Society of Medical Officers of Health Alderman W. Locke The Standing Committee on Psychological Medi- Alderman J. C. Grime, M.B.E. cine of the Medical Women's Federation L. T. Feldon, Esq. The Central Association for Mental Welfare The Mental Hospitals' Association National Councilfor Mental Hygiene The National Council for Mental Hygiene R. D. Gillespie, Esq., M.D., F.R.C.P. The National Association for the Feeble-Minded Miss Doris Odlum, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. The Eugenics Society E. W. Neill Hobhouse, Esq., The Mental Hospitals Matrons' Association M.D., M.R.C.S., F.R.C.P. The Women Public Health Officers' Association The National Council of Women Additional Members The National Council for Equal Citizenship J. D. Magor Cardell, Esq., M.B., The National Women Citizens' Associations B.S., F.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. The Conservative Women's Reform Association Wing-Commander A. W. H. James, M.P. The Women's Co-operative Guild W. L. Platts, Esq. The National Conference of Labour Women Viscount Dawson of Penn, G.C.V.O., The Magistrates' Association K.C.B., K.C.M.G., M.D., P.R.C.P. The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Northern Major Richard Rigg, O.B.E., J.P. Ireland R. Worth, Esq., O.B.E., M.B. The Church of England Advisory Board for Moral Mrs. Patrick R. Green, J.P. Welfare Work Secretary: Mr. J. Verney Quilliam British Social Hygiene Council, Incorporated Asst. Secretary: Miss L. R. Gait Church of England Temperance Society Offices: 69 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.1 National Association of Women Pharmacists Hon. Auditor: D. Brummer, Esq. Federation of Working Girls' Clubs Bankers: Barclay's Bank, Ltd., 78 Victoria Street, S.W.1 II Organizations connected with the Welfare of the Blind The Prevention of Blindness Committee STANDING SUB-COMMITTEE The National Association of Blind Workers General Purposes Committee The Association of Workshops for the Blind Mrs. P. R. Green, J.P. (Chairman) The Rossendale SocietyiforVisiting and Instructing Dr. C. P. Blacker the Blind Mr. L. T. Feldon North Counties Association for the Blind Miss Evelyn Fox The Keighley & District Institution for the Blind Wing-Commander James The Rochdale & District Society for Visiting and Dr. R. Langdon-Down Instructing the Blind Dr. E. W. Neill Hobhouse The Royal Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Mrs. Rosamond Hussey Institution for the Blind Gloucester (City) Blind Association Drafting Committee Liverpool Workshops & Home Teaching Society Dr. A. F. Tredgold (Chairman) for the Out-Door Blind Dr. C. P. Blacker Lindsey Blind Society Miss Evelyn Fox Croydon Voluntary Association for the Blind Wing-Commander James The Warrington, Widnes & District Society for Dr. R. Langdon-Down the Blind Mr. W. L. Platts Barrow, Furness & Westmorland Society for the Mr. L. T. Feldon Blind I 8 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS Hull & East Riding Institute for the Blind The Churches and Sterilization Kent County Association for the Blind Gloucestershire County Association for the Blind An initiative was taken with the Churches. Mrs. County Borough of Darlington-Committee for Cora Hodson and Mrs. Rosamund Hussey, both Promoting the Welfare of Afflicted Persons active members of our Society, undertook, in Bournemouth Blind Aid Society December 1934, to establish liaison between the Coventry Society for the Blind Joint Committee and various religious East Suffolk County Association for the Blind bodies. Cambridgeshire Society for the Blind No less than twenty-eight bishops were inter- Bumley & District Society for the Blind viewed of whom eighteen were reported as The Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind favourably disposed, five as non-committal and The West Ham Association for the Blind five as definitely hostile. The Roman Catholic Wakefield District Institution for the Blind Hampshire Association for the Care of the Blind Church was actively opposed; and an organiza- County Borough of Bury Blind Persons Commit- tion, the League of National Life, supported by tee many Catholics, initiated counter-propaganda. Institution for the Blind of Dewsbury, Batley & I recall that at this time I engaged in several District debates against Dr. North Western Counties Association for the Blind Laetitia Fairfield, a most Warwickshire Association for the Blind (through able but invariably courteous controversialist. Warwickshire County Council) An idea of the interest taken by the Churches Eastern Counties Association for the Blind may be obtained from the following exchange of letters, which may have historical interest, III published by The Times on June 17th and 21st Summary of other Organizations 1935: College of Nursing (Branches) & SIR,-The Report of the Departmental Com- Nursing Associations .. 37 mittee on Voluntary Sterilization became known Insurance Committees .. .. 20 to the public in January of last year. Considerable Mental Welfare Associations 19 study has now been given to its contents by most City & County Councils .. 11 of the organizations interested in the nation's Women's Co-operative Guilds 80 health. A group of associations, representing local Various organizations, representing authorities and medical and other societies con- Politics, Health, Teachers, Unem- cerned with the mentally afflicted and child wel- ployed Associations, Friendly fare, have combined to prepare a Measure to give Societies, Women's Citizens Asso- effect to the recommendations of the Report and ciations and Women's Labour Or- have urged upon the Minister of Health its speedy ganizations...... 108 enactment. With the scientific and sociological aspects of Total Organizations .. . .. 335 such a measure we are not in this letter concerned. Important moral and religious issues are, however, March 10th, 1937 involved. Conceming these there is difference of opinion among the adherents of the various Two points are noteworthy about this tri- Christian communities. partite list in which, it will be noticed, the British The Church of England as a body has expressed no authoritative judgement on voluntary steriliza- Medical Association does not appear. The first tion. There is, no doubt, some divergence of point is the number of women's organizations. opinion on the subject among its Bishops, clergy Of the twenty-eight bodies named in the first and laity. The Church of England Advisory Board Group (among them the Mental Hospitals for Moral Welfare has, however, passed the Matrons' Association), nine are composed solely following resolution: That in the opinion of this Board there is no of women; and in the third group of 335 or- moral principle which would compel the Church ganizations, over half were likewise composed, to oppose legislation on the lines of the Brock eighty being women's co-operative guilds. The Report. That in view of the uncertainty of second noteworthy point is the particular interest results that would follow from such legislation shown by organizations connected with the the Church should not actively urge the intro- duction of such legislation. On the other hand, blind. Thirty-two such associations are named iflegislation is passed, the Church should accept in the second group as having passed supporting responsibility for the social care required. resolutions. Of the Free Churches' Assemblies none has as I9 THE EUGENICS REVIEW yet had the question before them. The Council of help in his regional work. For sixpence the the Baptist Union, however, have passed unani- members received a quarterly bulletin. Cards mously a resolution in favour of the proposed legislation, and those Free Church leaders who were also prepared for non-subscribing support- have expressed an opinion have without exception ers to sign. After fifteen months some 500 declared that they see no religious objection to the members ofthe League were enrolled. These and recommendations of the Report. other activities kept the office busy. It is generally known that Roman Catholics, though they are not opposed to voluntary steri- The Committee produced an abbreviated lization when it is undertaken for the benefit of an edition of the Brock Report consisting of the individual's own health, nor even in principle to its text of the Report (some sixty pages) minus the being inflicted as a penalty, are, since the issue of appendices (over seventy pages). Lord Horder the Papal Encyclical of 1930, bound to condemn wrote a short preface wherein he drew attention sterilization undertaken with a view to preventing propagation of unhealthy progeny. to a noteworthy feature of the report-the We believe that the safeguarding of liberty of complete unanimity with which the Depart- conscience is ofas great importance to the nation's mental Committee of nine had reached their welfare as any of the benefits which its supporters conclusions and formulated their recommenda- expect from the proposed legislation. We would therefore urge that in any Bill which may be pre- tions. This abbreviated and attractively produced sented to Parliament a clause be included securing edition, the production costs of which were met that in every application to the Minister of Health by Lord Riddell, was sold for sixpence. The full to permit an operation for sterilization a statement report as first printed is now difficult to obtain; should be included by one of those recommending abbreviated edition is still in stock. the operation that the person concerned, or his but this representative, has been afforded a real oppor- Mrs Hodson and I both wrote books. tunity ofseeking advice from a recognized minister ofthe religious body ofwhich he is a member upon Further Pressure for Legislation the moral and spiritual issues involved. It was the Joint Committee's object to have its Yours, etc. RICHARD SOUTHWARK draft Bill introduced in Parliament; and various MARTIN ROFFEN approaches were considered. The first initiative ALFRED E. GARVIE was taken immediately after the publication of J. SCOTT LIDGETT the Brock Report (in January 1934) but before A. HERBERT GRAY On F. W. NORWOOD the Joint Committee had become active. London, June 14, 1935 February 28th 1934, Mr. H. (now Sir Hugh) Molson, then M.P. for Doncaster, moved the To the Editor of The Times following resolution in the House of Commons: Sir,-I have read with interest the letter in The That the House considers that the facts set out in Times of June 17 signed by the Bishop of South- the Report of the Departmental Committee on wark and five other eminent divines. The signa- Sterilization indicate a state of affairs calling for tories urge that in any Bill which may be pre- action and respectfully requests His Majesty's sented to Parliament a clause should be inserted Government to give immediate consideration to to secure that the applicant for sterilization has the unanimous recommendations of the Commit- had an opportunity of seeking advice from a tee in favour of legislation permitting voluntary recognized minister of the religious body to in certain of cases. which he belongs. May I say that I am confident sterilization classes that the Joint Committee on Voluntary Steriliza- Mr. Molson made a restrained yet eloquent tion of which I am the chairman, recognizing as speech. I heard him make it and derived the im- it does that safeguarding the liberty of conscience is of vital importance to the success of a measure pression that it was sympathetically received- of this kind, will welcome the inclusion of such a more sympathetically than had been Major clause in the Bill which they hope to present to Church's speech in mid-1931. But in 1934 the Parliament in the near future? position had been much strengthened by the Yours faithfully, Brock Committee. Mr. Molson was supported HORDER London, June 19, 1935 by Wing-Commander James who was cut short by limitations oftime, so that no vote was taken. In March 1935, Mr. Quilliam started a Volun- It will be remembered that the Brock Com- tary Sterilization League; this he believed would mittee had been appointed in June 1932 by the 20 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS Minister ofHealth (Sir Hilton Young, as he then to take action. was), in response to a request conveyed to him A general election was then not far off (it was in February 1932 by the County Councils Asso- actually held in November 1935). Thinking ciation, the Association of Municipal Corpora- things over afterwards we felt that political con- tions and the Mental Hospitals Association. siderations might have influenced what the Mini- These three, having got what they had asked for, ster said about the need for assurance that the resolved that the matter should be followed up. conscience of any substantial section of the Sir Hilton Young was still Minister of Health, nation must not be offended. It was not the time and hopes were entertained by some. to incur the risk of losing the votes of religious With the assistance of the Joint Committee, minorities. the three organizations drew up a brief for pre- Though there was no gainsaying the logic of sentation to the Minister; and on May 23rd what the Minister had said-indeed some of us 1935-sixteen months after the publication of had accurately forecast what his reply would be the Brock Report-a deputation of fifteen -the outcome of this carefully prepared deputa- persons was received by him. The deputation tion was a disappointment. Nevertheless the consisted of five members of the County Coun- Joint Committee decided that it should maintain cils Association, three from the Association of its activities in the hope that, from some favour- Municipal Corporations, three from the Mental able quarter, a wind of change might set in. Hospitals Association and four (Lord Horder, Before the election in October 1935, no less Miss Evelyn Fox, Mrs. Silcock and myself) from than 544 parliamentary candidates were inter- the Joint Committee. The Minister received us viewed ofwhom 259 were returned. Ofthese 259, most courteously and listened attentively to 202 had expressed sympathy. speeches on behalf of the four organizations by On June 23rd 1936-eight months after the Mr. E. W. Cemlyn-Jones, Alderman Martin, election-an informal conference was convened Alderman Locke and Lord Horder. Afterwards in a committee room ofthe House of Commons. the Ministry issued a press notice summarizing In addition to Sir Francis Acland (chairman), the four speeches and the Minister's reply. The Wing-Commander James and two other Mem- Summary was worded as follows: bers of Parliament, there were present repre- The Minister of Health thanked the deputation for sentatives of the County Councils Association, so clearly expressing the case for voluntary sterili- the Association of Municipal Corporations, and zation and said he was bound to attach great weight to theunamity of view expressed on behalf the Joint Committee. At this conference it was of the bodies represented. The presence of the agreed that Wing-Commander James's all-party deputation itself indicated a substantial advance Parliamentary Committee of 1932 should be in public opinion and further progress would revived. Its task would be now easier. The Joint depend on the public being assured that the con- Committee would seek support from as many science of any substantial section of the nation would not be offended. The deputation would members of all parties as possible, and the new realize, however, that in the present congestion of Parliamentary Committee would watch for parliamentary business the introduction of legisla- favourable opportunities of further action. The tion would not, in any case, be practicable at County Councils Association and the Associa- present. tion of Municipal Corporations undertook to Sir Hilton Young, an ex-sailor of distinction approach those Members of Parliament who who had lost an arm in the battle of Zeebrugge, were also members of their respective associa- conveyed to us publicly (further emphasizing the tions. point to one or two of us privately) that three On March 16th 1937, thirty-five Members of years before he had been happy to appoint the Parliament were entertained at a dinner at the Brock Committee; that he was glad that its House of Commons by Sir Francis Acland, report had been unanimous and constructive; Wing-Commander James and Mr. Ernest and that personally he was in agreement with its Thurtle. Lord Horder, Dr. Tredgold and I recommendations. But he firmly told us that the addressed the gathering after the meal. A lively moment was not propitious for the Government discussion ensued in the course ofwhich we were 21 £t-D THE EUGENICS REVIEW searchingly questioned. We had the impression Report was published, the German National that several Members who had previously taken Socialist Government had introduced a sten- little interest became potential supporters. lization law, which included compulsory clauses. Wing-Commander James felt that his group had By 1938, rumours and reports were reaching this been strengthened. country ofhow things were shaping in Germany. The Joint Committee and Wing-Commander In questions and discussions at meetings these James's committee had their last Parliamentary developments were increasingly raised. We all innings on April 13th 1937, less than a month heard more of the argument about the thin end after the dinner. Success in a ballot enabled of the wedge. Wing-Commander James to introduce a motion Some impetus was thus lost. What virtually put on the civil estimates in supply; and arising from an end to the Joint Committee's public activi- the estimates of the Ministry of Health he made ties was the discovery that it had been over- his case. The discussion was by order and custom spending. Early in 1938 a crisis arose. The restricted. The Minister of Health-by this time Eugenics Society, which had contributed the Sir Hilton Young had been replaced by Sir greater part of the Joint Committee's funds, and Kingsley Wood-was no more encouraging than had placed at the Committee's disposal the his predecessor. He drew attention to the fact second floor of its house, was turning its atten- that the British Medical Association had not tion to other things. An increasing fraction of gone on record as supporting the Departmental my own time was taken up by the Population Committee's recommendations; but at the same Investigation Committee and by other activities time he urged that education and propaganda outside the Society. Our second floor was also should be sustained. needed for another purpose-the accommoda- After this second expression of Parliamentary tion of the Family Planning Association. aloofness, it was decided that a private member's At a meeting ofthe Joint Committee's General Bill, depending on the luck of the ballot, would Purposes Committee held on February 2nd it provide the best opening. The ballot was held in was recognized that drastic retrenchment was October 1937; but the luck did not come. necessary. Mr. Quilliam and Miss Gait left us. During the second half of 1937 Mr. Quilliam I became the Joint Committee's Honorary continued to tour the country. He also planned Secretary from the period February 2nd to to organize four large conferences in Man- October 1st 1938 when the appointment was re- chester, Newcastle, Birmingham and Leeds. newed for another year-October 2nd 1938 to Difficulties arose in the first two places and the October 1st 1939. But on September 1st 1939 I conferences did not materialize. In Birmingham, was called back into the army and by September however, a conference was held on November 12th I was in France. The Joint Committee 24th with Bishop Barnes (a big draw) in the broke up. chair; and in Leeds a conference was held on November 29th with Professor Maxwell Telling 5. CAUSES OF FAILURE in the chair. I addressed both conferences and, There were, I think, four. The Joint Committee with the assistance of Mr. Quilliam and my made a good start in 1934 and 1935. It ieceived chairmen, dealt to the best of my ability with its first check in May 1935 when the Minister of both friendly and hostile questions. Some of the Health, Sir HiltonYoung, politely but firmly con- latter had by this time to do with Nazi practices. veyed toastrong deputation that the Government Indeed, both inside and outside Parliament, would not take the desired initiative. Secondly, the tide was setting against us. During 1938 the events enacted in Germany, including the com- shadow of impending war was darkening the pulsory use of sterilization, were poisoning the political horizon. Immediate problems clamour- air and making more difficult a reasoned advo- ing for parliamentary time diverted interest cacy of voluntary sterilization. Thirdly, the from remoter issues of population and eu- Joint Committee, which for some twelve months genics. And another influence was making itself had been getting diminishing returns on its felt. About the time (early 1934) that the Brock activities (in the way offavouring resolutions and 22 VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION: THE LAST SIXTY YEARS promises of support), encountered financial September 1939 caused the Committee to dis- difficulties and was compelled drastically to cur- integrate. No serious attempt has since been tail its activities. Lastly the outbreak of war in made to revive it.

.23