Dear Sir.

Your letter seems to me very interesting and clearly expressed; and I hope that you are in the right.¹ Your second law appears to be largely acted on in all civilised countries, and I just alluded to it in my remarks to the effect (as far as I remember) that the evil which would follow by checking benevolence and sympathy in not fostering the weak and diseased would be greater than by allowing them to survive and then to procreate.²

With regard to your third law, I do not know whether you have read an article (I forget when published) by F. Galton in which he proposes certificates of health &c for marriage and that the best should be matched.³ I have lately been led to reflect a little (for now that I am growing old my work has become [nothing] special) on the artificial checks but doubt greatly, whether such would be advantageous to the world at large at present, however it may be in the distant future.⁴ Suppose that such checks had been in action during the last 2 or 3 centuries, or even for a shorter time in Britain, what a difference it would have made in the world, when we consider America, Australia New Zealand and S. Africa! No words can exaggerate the importance in my opinion of our colonization for the future history of the world.

If it were universally known that the birth of children could be prevented, and this were not thought immoral by married persons would there not be great danger of extreme profligacy amongst unmarried women, and might we not become like the “arreoi” societies in the Pacific.—⁵ In the course of a century, France will tell us the result in many ways and we can already see that the French nation does not spread or increase much.

I am glad that you intend to continue your investigations, and I hope ultimately may publish on the subject.—

I beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin

This note is badly expressed and written, but I have not time or strength to rewrite it.—

G.A. Gaskell Esq^re.