Students of money will find no parallel to this. Yet in the face of facts which ought to be common intellectual property amongst school-children, we find many writers, bishops, socialist economists, moralists, schoolboy Imperialists, and the rest, pointing merely to the quantitative question of population as if it were everything, though they must surely know that, if international competition were the highest state of mankind, and if the work of Kelvin and Lister had been sold at its real worth by us to the rest of the world, those two men alone, in their services to life, and in the power which they give us over life, would be equal in value to, shall we say, the lower four-fifths of the whole birth-rate during the last generation. All human history teaches, as all animal history teaches in lesser degree, that quality and individuality is everything, that quantity is nothing or far worse than nothing _except in so far as it is quantity of quality_: yet though this lesson is written upon every page of the past, the greater number of our publicists and our public advisers still implicitly deny it. As Mr. Crackanthorpe put it, speaking of the figures for 1907, it is not the defective numbers, but the numbers of defectives, that should give us concern. =Mass versus mind.=--John Ruskin called Darwin “a dim comet, wagging its tail of phosphorescent nothing against the steadfast stars”--a description as delightful as it is foolish. Yet the conception of eugenics, which is indeed a necessary deduction from Darwin's great discovery, finds abundant warrant and support in Ruskin's own wonderful writings, and here I quote, from _Time and Tide_, some sentences which still require to be read and remembered by the majority of our present advisers. He says:--