by Major Leonard Darwin, D.Sc.
Eugenics Review, Vol. XXII, No. 2.
1930 Jul; 22(2): 91–97
Henry Twitchin
Birth: 21 Feb 1867, Australia
Death: 19 Mar 1930 (aged 63), England
Burial: Golders Green Crematorium, Golders Green, London Borough of Barnet, Greater London, England
Up to this spring, a generous member of our Society had been in the habit of giving us £1,000 a year, a fact not widely known because, respecting his earnest desire that his name should not be disclosed, as little as possible was said about it. This reason for our silence, however, no longer exists; for our benefactor, Mr. Henry Twitchin, died on March 19th last, quite unexpectedly after an operation for appendicitis. By his will the Society becomes the residuary legatee of his estate, thus probably more than trebling the income to be received by us from this source. As he is likely for long, or for ever, to head the list of our benefactors, it is fitting that some account of the man himself should accompany this expression of deep gratitude for what he has done for eugenics.
Henry Twitchin was born on February 22st, 1867, at Shaw-cum-Donnington in Berkshire, his father and grandfather having been farmers in good circumstances, the latter indeed being described as 'gentleman' in the death certificate. There was in Berkshire a family of this name, which traced back to the middle of the seventeenth century, with arms on the tomb of one of them; and with this family our Twitchins were most probably connected, since the name of Andrew occurs in both pedigrees of this uncommon surname. Henry Twitchin's mother's name was Lovelock, her father being a maltster, this being the surname of yeoman families in Berkshire back to Elizabethan times; and the same is true of Northway, his paternal grandmother's name. We may, in a future issue, be able to give a pedigree of the Twitchin family for those interested in such matters. His immediate ancestry nearly all lived to advanced old age, and for the most part left no recorded signs of ill health. It is true that his father, another Henry, though living to the age of eighty-seven, retired from work when comparatively young, and was reported to have been always an invalid and very irritable, though with dignified, aristocratic manners when in a good temper. He was both a reader and an independent thinker, holding views considered very advanced in his days. Our Henry Twitchin also had an uncle who was deformed and not at all a desirable character. His mother was an amusing and courageous old lady of strong character; whilst his two sisters, who completed the family, and of whom he was very fond, both died young of consumption. Our benefactor himself suffered constantly from periods of depression, but must have been physically very strong. He left no near relatives. These details are here given with reference to his remarks, to be quoted later on, with regard to his own hereditary tendencies.
WEALTH FROM ANIMAL BREEDING
Henry Twitchin was educated at Newbury Grammar School, and then at Downton Agricultural College, where he did well, winning several prizes. His training on the land led him to think of emigrating, and the fact that his father was strict and unsympathetic confirmed his determination to leave England in spite of the opposition of all the family. Who supplied the funds is unknown, possibly a certain well-to-do relative with no children; but certain it is that he was able to sail for Western Australia before he was twenty-two years of age and to start sheep farming soon after his arrival. His stocks suffered heavily in some of the droughts; but, after visiting England to raise further funds, he sunk a large number of artesian wells on his property, which then began to prosper greatly. When in 1924 he sold his estates of Towera and Lyndon, comprising over a million acres of pastoral leases, it was described as the biggest sale of such property ever negotiated in Western Australia. In fact, after thirty-four years hard work he returned to England, having made a considerable fortune, but with his health seriously impaired.
In spite of his trying and constant occupations, Henry Twitchin evidently had time to think, and did think deeply on many problems, though with little assistance of any kind. Judging from certain notes found amongst papers, philosophy and religion occupied his thoughts a good deal at one time; though, as we shall see, it was to eugenics that his mind was most constantly directed. But to show that he looked to environment as well as to heredity it may be mentioned that by his will the British and the Western Australian societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals received legacies, whilst the following extract from these early rough notes may also be quoted with the same object. "I am quite aware that a vast proportion of human suffering is mainly due to preventable causes and in too many instances is perhaps a just penalty for their own delinquencies; but I have also seen in my own family connection an amount of suffering patiently endured, for which no cause could be assigned and by those who to our view were least deserving of it, that has made a deep impression on me." Amongst these papers was found the telegram, which he had kept for thirty-eight years, announcing the death of his sister; and we may guess that it was her he had in his mind when he wrote these words.
OUR USE OF THE MONEY
Turning to the advantages which will accrue to the Society under the terms of Mr. Twitchin's will, some paragraphs of which will be quoted later on, the Society is placed under no "legal obligations" as to the way in which his magnificent bequest is to be spent. Nevertheless, I wish to take this opportunity of appealing to our Councils in the future, when deciding on the uses to which this income shall be put, always at all events to take into consideration -- I say no more than that -- what were the wishes and views of our great benefactor. Though I make this appeal, it is, I am sure, unnecessary, because all members of our Society are sure always to regard the matter in this light. What is desirable is to ascertain what these wishes and views really were.
As to the general opinions held by Mr. Twitchin in regard to eugenics, and his reason for holding them, they may perhaps best be gathered from the following extracts from his private correspondence with me. In reading them it must, however, be remembered that the earliest letters were written from Towera, a remote pastoral station in Western Australia, that none of them were intended for publication, and that if he had had the least idea that they would ever appear in print, he would probably have expressed himself more guardedly. His first letter to me was dated April 4, 1922, and deals largely with questions of business. The passages which concern us here run as follows:
HIS INTEREST IN EUGENICS
"I first became interested in Eugenics about 25 years ago, when the idea of applying the principle we had for a long time made use of in improving our farm stock to the improvement of the human family occurred to me just as originally as it did to the Founder of our Society, or the Greeks of old, and no doubt to many others. This is not to be wondered at when it is known that I am descended from a long line of countrymen at home, some of whom helped to make our domestic animals what they are to-day, that I was live stock prizeman at the Downton Farming School in 1888, and since then have devoted my whole life to the breeding of live stock (over 40,000 last year), in which as you know, under the best practice, the principle of eugenics is the controlling factor.
"Although my occupation alone would naturally have led me to this conclusion, it was the fact that I was born of unsound parents and inherited their weaknesses and consequently have suffered thereby, that first forced this question upon me. Isolated as I was in what was then the Back Country here, I had no opportunity of discussing it with people who were likely to know what had already been done to make the idea of use to the world, although it was certainly explained to one or two of my more enlightened neighbours, and it was years afterwards that I met with a reference in some paper (The Times Weekly probably) to the work of the late Henry [Francis] Galton, and of the founding of the Eugenics Education Society.
"Applying the great principle, as I was constantly doing in my work, it was natural perhaps for me to see no difficulty in doing the same at once with men and women. And I was then advocating the immediate introduction of legislation in all civilised countries prohibiting the propagation of the unfit from any cause. But after reading some of the publications by the Society and other works on the subject, I realized that the great majority of the people were not ready for such a revolutionary change, and that the best course to bring about the desired improvement was to do as the Society was doing and educate, if possible, the masses to see the inestimable advantage of adopting the principle and gradually enforce control.
"Believing in practice as well as in principle, I never married, although better fitted to do so probably than fully one-half of those who do -- and being the last of my family I have no relatives having any claim on my property I, in 1912, made my Will -- after providing for certain legacies -- in favour of our Society, for the carrying on of the propaganda which I believe to be by far the most urgent and important work possible in human endeavour. . . .
HIS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS
As it is of some importance to show in what ways Mr. Twitchin was led to believe that his bequest would be spent, it may be as well here to quote part of my reply to the above letter. It was dated June 9th, 1922, and ran as follows:
"As to the methods of utilising any further funds coming under the influence or control of our Society, that is a point on which I could say a great deal, and is one on which you will probably wish to hear something. We now often miss an opportunity of getting a lecture delivered on eugenics because we cannot afford to give any remuneration to our lecturers. If we could pay even a moderate fee, we should soon get together a capable band of lecturers, and, being able to comply with any demand, the work in this direction would soon be largely increased. Our Review, as a method of propaganda, would be improved if we could afford to pay something to our contributors. Research in certain directions is at a standstill for want of funds. I have in my mind especially certain half-finished work in connection with the pedigrees of London pauper stock, which would be valuable from a scientific point of view, and most helpful to lecturers to illustrate existing evils due to heredity. Lastly, our staff is ill-paid and inadequate, which makes all progress difficult. This is perhaps sufficient to show how greatly the whole position might be strengthened were more funds available. There is no institution throughout the world known to me which is carrying on such an active eugenic propaganda as we should desire to initiate had we the means; and for any Society to set a proper example in this respect might produce beneficial results to posterity of incalculable magnitude."
It must be remembered that in 1922 we were not receiving £1,000 a year as a gift from Mr. Twitchin, as we did in many later years.
A few more extracts from Mr. Twitchin's letters will now be given:
Perth, W. Australia, Nov. 19th, 1923. -- "You gave me some account of your more recent endeavours in the great cause, more particularly in securing a share of the Rockefeller bequest for the closer study of heredity in England, which was an excellent idea. But I suppose the money would have to be devoted to the purpose specified and might not be used for general propaganda. I trust the special effort you were making to increase the membership of the Society was successful, as it is more important to have many people interested in our teaching than to have the money of the few....
The last sentence is interesting as coming from one who has bequeathed such a large sum for the furtherance of eugenics.
The next quotation is dated April 30th, 1926, by which time he had come to live at the Villa Eugene at Nice. (He told me laughingly that the name of his house, though appropriate, was not given to it by himself.)
"The cinema and broadcasting seem to me to be the best means of reaching the largest number of people, though articles in the popular press would be read by a good many."
BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION
Villa Eugene, Dec. 20th, 1926. -- "Progress in practical eugenics measures is still very slow, although it appears to be dawning on some public authorities that sterilization is the only means to help them out of their financial difficulties in the case of the feeble-minded. Perhaps after thinking about it for another ten years it will be adopted. This is thoroughly British. Of course, we cannot begin operating until the spirit moves a sufficient majority to vote for it. In the meantime, as the Government will not do anything to establish public clinics for teaching birth control methods, there is nothing, as I understand the law, to prevent private effort in this direction. There seems little doubt that the poor are quite ready to practise contraception if they are only taught how to do it; although I fear that only the best of the poor would trouble to learn. Those we really want to stop breeding are too careless and improvident. Some day perhaps they will be sterilized without their consent."
Villa Eugene, April 10th, 1927. -- "Referring to your long letter on the subject, you quote Pearson as saying that 'the effect of Birth Control up till now [the time he wrote] has been simply disastrous.' But at that time only the better classes practised it, and withholding the knowledge from the inferior classes will not stop the practice in the higher. It would in fact have a tendency to increase the latter, as the support of the unemployed falls on them and renders them less able to keep their own families. I quite agree with the principles laid down in the Society's outline of a Eugenic Policy under Conception Control [this has been somewhat modified since these words were written]. Paragraph 3 covers the whole question as far as Britain is concerned. The time has come when owing to economic changes -- loss of trade, etc. -- which are likely to be permanent, the children of so many people cannot be raised 'in accordance with a certain minimum (decent) standard of civilization.' Perhaps no one but those who have had the management of large stock farms fully realize the practical side of this question. We know the utter madness of going on breeding up when the Ranch is fully stocked and there is no, or insufficient, outlet for the surplus....If it is to do any good we must banish sentiment and act drastically. We must not consider the rights of individuals over-much -- a lunatic in my opinion has no rights -- when the vital interests of the State are at stake."
EUGENICS AND 'STOCKYARD METHODS'
Chambord, France, Aug. 26th, 1927. -- "I should not if I were you condemn 'stockyard methods,' so called, so severely. What are they but the practice of the very essence of eugenic principles -- the prevention of the breeding of the unfit and making it possible for only the best types to do so. It may be good policy for the present not to go too far, but if eugenic teaching is ever to do any practical good for the human family, stronger measures will have to be taken than any so far advocated."
Villa Eugene, Oct. 30th, 1928. -- "I have read your new book [What is Eugenics?] and agree with most of the arguments in it, but still think that in combating a great social evil we should not be over scrupulous as to the means by which we hope to bring about an improvement, and that as birth control in some form is the only practicable way to this end, it should be enforced by the authority of the nation regardless of the likes and dislikes of those who haven't the intelligence to know what is good for them or the contrary. Pro bono is still supposed to be a principle of democracies. Your smaller book is undoubtedly more suitable for the great majority of readers than the larger one and ... I should be glad to subscribe for say 1,000 copies to be sent to distributing centres in large towns, if you approve the proposal."
It gives me great pleasure to think that this plan was carried out, the copies being sent at his suggestion to public and other libraries at home and in the Dominions. Of course he may have been mistaken as to the value of that book; but we cannot be mistaken in believing that his object was to place a book capable of being widely understood where it would be widely accessible.
Villa Eugene, June 18th, 1929. -- "The other book you sent me, Posterity, is I think a most useful contribution to the subject, very clearly and concisely stated and going a little further than you do in suggesting immediate remedies. . . . The late Health Minister could only propose keeping mental deficients (300,000) in colonies and after some training letting them out under supervision as though they could then be prevented from propagating. Could anything be more childish? ... Progress is slow, but the only way is to keep pegging away like a patient fisherman hoping for a bite sooner or later. I think we must look for the greatest developments in the newer countries like America, where deep-rooted prejudice is not so strong as it is in our country; and yet it is here that eugenic reform is most needed to get rid of the great burden of the unemployed."
Geneva, July 21st, 1929. -- "I certainly agree with you that our Society should advocate all measures likely to improve the race rather than concentrate on one only."
TWENTY YEARS OF THOUGHT
Passing on to consider what were Mr. Twitchin's more definitely expressed wishes, several wills were made by him in which his intentions of benefiting eugenics were expressed, the first one being signed in 1912. At about that same time he wrote a letter, from which the following extracts are taken, to be held for safe keeping with that will by the Public Trustee:
"Lest it should be considered that in bequeathing the whole of the residue of my estate, as I have done, for the purposes of furthering the knowledge and, I trust, in time securing the adoption of the principles of eugenics both in England and throughout the world, I have acted hastily.... I am desirous of mentioning by letter to you that .... I have for nearly 20 years past taken the keenest interest in all aspects of eugenics and have read and thought much upon the subject and, in the result, I am thoroughly convinced that to the extent the knowledge of the science is brought home to the people and its principles acted on and enforced, enormous beneficial results must inevitably follow, and it is to aid and assist in this that I very thankfully devote the bulk of my property."
When all the available evidence has been considered, it will be agreed, I believe, that the word "furthering," which occurs at the beginning of this last extract, is used in much the same sense as the phrase about bringing "home to the people," which is used later on. In fact I submit that it was the wish for a wide dissemination of already accepted eugenic truths which mainly actuated the writer of this letter.
In this will of 1912, and also in one of 1919, both of which were cancelled, Mr. Twitchin gave power to the Public Trustee as sole executor to pass on any part of the residuary estate to the Eugenics Education Society or to any society having the same or similar objects [the italics are mine] or, if the Society was not carrying on its work efficiently, to form a trust the income from which should at all times "be employed in the furtherance of the knowledge and principles of the science of eugenics." Whatever may have been the exact meaning intended to be attached to these last quoted words, they are not repeated in the will of 1926, in which the Eugenics Education Society was made residuary legatee in an unqualified manner. In 1922 a codicil was signed making the President of our Society a co-executor with the Public Trustee, who was at the same time authorized to discuss the terms of the will with myself. In the will of 1926 I was personally appointed, together with Sir Ernest Allen, to be co-executors with the Public Trustee, the President of the Society to act in my place if I failed. Finally, Mr. Twitchin signed a codicil on the day of his death which added his French estate to the property passing to our Society. Thus we see in these 18 years, from 1912 to 1930, signs of a steady increase both in his wish that his property should be used in "furthering the objects of the Society" and in his trust in our efficiency. The production of such an effect on the mind of an impartial and intensely interested observer cannot, to say the least, be made the foundation for an argument in favour of any drastic change in our policy or in our objects.
PRACTICE OUR MAIN OBJECT
But what are our objects? Or rather, what had Mr. Twitchin been induced to believe them to be? In our Memorandum of Association they are set forth in the most authoritative manner under a number of headings, most of them dealing only with the business aspects of our proceedings. The first four of these headings, which alone concern us here, runs as follows:
"(1) The promotion of the science of eugenics; this science including the study of the laws of human life in so far as they concern human heredity and the conservation, evolution, and progress of the human race." These words were doubtless put in to permit any research being undertaken in connection with any eugenic question. But they cannot be quoted as giving any indication of Mr. Twitchin's views or wishes; for they were written after he signed his last will, and I have no reason to suppose that he ever saw them.
In the Memorandum then follow three other headings, which are both in substance and in words nearly identical with the statement of our objects which has appeared almost unchanged in every issue of our Review since its publication began. It was from that source that Mr. Twitchin most probably obtained his first information about us, and it is to these words in our Review that we ought to look if we wish to know what our benefactor had been led to regard as being our objects. They run as follows: -- "(1) Persistently to set forth the National importance of eugenics in order to modify public opinion and create a sense of responsibility in respect of bringing all matters pertaining to parenthood under the dominion of eugenic ideals. (2) To spread a knowledge of the laws of heredity so far as they are surely known and so far as that knowledge may effect the improvement of the race. (3) To further eugenic teaching at home, in the schools, and elsewhere."
We can here find no foundation for a belief that research was held by us to be one of our objects. Knowledge in so far as surely known is alluded to, but no mention is made of any increase in our knowledge. If we undertake research, which we are certainly at liberty to do, we must do so under the powers given us by our Memorandum of Association, which Mr. Twitchin probably never saw.
The words in the REVIEW concerning "all matters pertaining to parenthood" certainly indicate that we are very practical in many of our aims. That this is so is confirmed by the statement concerning the furtherance of teaching "at home, in the schools, and elsewhere." Home comes first, and does not this give the idea that our first object is to spread eugenic thought broadcast and as widely as possible? Schools come next and universities are not mentioned. May not Mr. Twitchin have been led to suppose that we regarded universities as centres from which eugenic light would automatically flow in all directions and not as dark places needing illumination by independent societies? To encourage the production, publication, and distribution of literature suitable both for schools and for the spread of eugenic thought in homes certainly comes within the declared scope of our work.
OUR LEGAL FREEDOM
The following are the operative words of Mr. Twitchin's will of 1926 as far as it affects the "Eugenics Education Society": "It is my desire that the aforesaid bequest should constitute a permanent fund and that the income derived therefrom should alone be used for furthering the objects of the Society, including the support of branches of the Society, but I expressly direct that such desire shall not impose a legal obligation on the Society or prevent the expenditure of capital if such expenditure is deemed expedient at any time." Our Society cannot now change its objects as set forth in the Memorandum of Association, whilst when these words were written they could be altered by a two-thirds majority at any annual or special meeting of the Society. Hence I submit that the words of the will may be fairly interpreted as expressing a hope, but not a command, that we shall as a general rule not part with the control over the income arising from this bequest, and that we shall expend it in what were then declared to be the objects of the Society.
What Mr. Twitchin evidently desired was that the income derived from the money which he had won by many years of hard work in a trying climate should be used for the promotion of effective measures of eugenic reform. He knew that our knowledge of the laws of heredity had been sufficient to enable us to maintain and improve the qualities of our cattle; and this led him to feel sure that it was also sufficient to justify practical steps being taken in order to improve the inborn qualities of our nation. The main difficulty which he foresaw was the persuasion of the public of the immense advantages thus to be obtained; and he held that, to overcome popular prejudices, a persistent propaganda should be maintained by persons who had given the subject adequate attention. The choice between many legitimate ways of spending our newly-acquired income will always be open to our Council; for Mr. Twitchin showed his confidence in our judgment by not tying our hands at all tightly. This trust in us, however, merely strengthens the obligation of honour to follow the path indicated by him so long as we agree that it leads to the end he had in view, namely the advancement of mankind in the future.