only implied that I should take them up with deliberate caution.

There was no release because of risk or difficulty.

The question of whether I should commitmyself to some open project

in this direction was going on in mymind concurrently with my

speculations about a change of party, like bass and treble in a

complex piece of music. The two drew to a conclusion together. I

would not only go over to Imperialism, but I would attempt to

biologise Imperialism.

Ithought at first that I was undertaking a monstrous uphill task.

But as I came to look into the possibilities of the matter, a strong

persuasiongrew up in mymind that this panicfear of legislative

proposals affecting the family basis was excessive, that things were

much riper for development in this direction than old-experienced

people out oftouch with the younger generation imagined, that to

phrase the thing in a parliamentary fashion, "something might be

done in the constituencies" with the Endowment of Motherhood

forthwith, provided only that it was made perfectly clear that

anything a sane person could possibly intend by "morality" was left

untouched by these proposals.

I went to work very carefully. I got Roper of the DAILY TELEPHONE

and Burkett of the DIAL to try over a silly-season discussion of

StateHelp for Mothers, and I put a series of articles on eugenics,

upon the fall in the birth-rate, and similar topics in the BLUE

WEEKLY, leading up to a tentative and generalised advocacy of the

public endowment of the nation's children. I was more and more

struck by theacceptance won by a sober and restrained presentation

of this suggestion.

And then, in the fourth year of the BLUE WEEKLY'S career, came the

<<BackPagesTo menuForward>>