A practical question of much importance (belonging, however, rather to sanitary than to medical science) is, how far confirmation or modification of hereditary proclivities may occur through the effect of the conditions of marriage upon offspring. Consanguineous marriages have been, time out of mind, held to be very objectionable. The question has been much discussed whether the ground of sanitary objection is properly against such marriages as per se injurious to offspring, or whether the bad effect consists merely in reduplicating and intensifying family constitutional taints. It would not be in place here to go into this controversy. My own conclusion is, that a natural law of sexual polarity or affinity exists, according to which, in all the higher organisms, reproduction is most normal and gives the best results when a considerable genetic difference (within the limits of species) exists between parents. While, however, this is probable, but difficult to demonstrate, it appears to be certain that when a father and mother both possess morbid constitutional predispositions (say, to phthisis, insanity, or gout), their children will be at least twice as likely to suffer from the same as if only one parent were so endowed. Whether or not, then, the marriage of two perfectly healthy first-cousins may be expected (as several statisticians aver to have been shown) to be attended by defects of health in their progeny, the union of such relations when their common progenitors were in marked degree consumptive, or scrofulous, or liable to insanity, epilepsy, etc., has attached to it so unfavorable a prognosis for offspring as to be rightly forbidden. Moreover, so few families possess an absolutely faultless health-record that the chances of increasing existing morbid traits by intermarriages are quite sufficient to justify the commonly held objection against them. We must allude very briefly to the influence of conditions affecting conception and gestation upon the health of offspring. Intemperance in parents has, in many instances, been known to promote convulsions, infantile or epileptic, and other cerebral or nervous disorders in children, besides a general feebleness of constitution. Even intoxication at the time of procreation has been asserted to mark a similar difference between one child and another of the same parents. All are familiar with the (no doubt often quite imaginary) accounts of the effect on infants in utero of powerful sensory or mental impressions upon the mother during gestation. Abortion has, unquestionably, been {132} often produced by violent nervous shocks. Without deciding the question whether "monsters" are ever developed in correspondence with particular experiences of the mother, we may hold it to be clear that all depressing and disturbing agencies may interfere with the process of nutrition of the foetus, and thus develop mental anomalies, and that constitutional impairments may thus be greatly promoted.