Science

HQ

750

. Al

La5

3

Science HQ 750 . Al LSS 3

Pearson, Karl, 1857-1936.

An attempt to correct some
of the misstatements made
by Sir Victor Horsley . . .

^ DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON

iluestions of the T)ay and of the Fray

No. Ill

An attempt to correct some of the mis-
statements made by Sir Victor Florsley,
F.R.S., F.R.C.S.. and Mary D. Sturge, M.D.,
in their Criticisms of the Galton Laboratory
Memoir: *A First Study of the Influence
of Parental Alcoholism, &c/

BY

KARL PEARSON, F.R.S.

LONDON

DULAU & CO,, Ltd., 37 SOHO SQUARE, W.

191 1

Price One Shilling net

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

DULAU & CO., Ltd., '>,^ SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.

EUGENICS LABORATORY LECTURE SERIES.

I. The Scope and Importance to the State of the Science of

National Eugenics. By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued.
Price IS. net.

II. The Groundwork of Eugenics, hy Karl Pearson, F.R.S.
Issued. Price u. neL

III. The Relative Strength of Nurture and Nature. By Ethel M.

Elderton. Issued, Price is. net.

IV. On the Marriage of First Cousins. By Ethel M. Elderton.

\Nearly ready.

V. The Problem of Practical Eugenics. By Karl Pearson, F.R.S.
Issued. Price is. net.

.VI. Nature and Nurture, the Problem of the Futui'e. By Karl
Pearson, F.R.S. Issued, Price \s. net.

VII. The Academic Aspect of the Science of National Eugenics.
By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued. Price is. net.

QUESTIONS OF THE DAY AND OF THE FRAY.

I. The Influence of Parental Alcoholism on the Physique and
Ability of the Offspring. A Reply to the Cambridge
Economists. By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued. Price
IS, net.

II. Mental Defect, Mal-Nutrition, and the Teacher's Appreciation

of Intelli.2[ence. A Reply to Criticisms of the Memoir on
'The Influence of Defective Physique and Unfavourable
Home Environment on the Intelligence of School Children \
By David Heron, D.Sc. Issued. Price is. net.

III. An attempt to correct some of the misstatements made by
Sir Victor Horslev, F.R.S., F.R.C.S., and Mary D. Sturge,
M.D., in their Criticisms of the Gallon Laboratory Memoir ;
' A First Study of the Influence of Parental Alcoholism, &c.
By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued. Price is. net.

Issued by the Cambridge University Press : —

Biometrika. A Journal for the Statistical Study of Biological Problems.
Founded by W. F. R. Weldon, Francis Galton, and Karl
Pearson. Edited by Karl Pearson. Volumes I, II, III, IV,
V, VI, and VII complete. Volume VIII, Part I, at press.
Subscription price, 301. f%et per volume.

An attempt to correct some of the mis-
statements made by Sir Victor Horsley,
F,R.S., F.R.C.S., and Mary D. Sturge, M.D,
in their Criticisms of the Galton Laboratory
Memoir : * A First Study of the Influence
of Parental Alcoholism, &c/

BY

KARL PEARSON, F.R.S.

LONDON

DULAU & CO., Ltd., 37 SOHO SQUARE, W.

1911

28£^G4

The Francis Galton Eugenics Laboratory

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, GOWER STREET, W.C.

This Laboratory was founded by Sir Francis Galton, and is
under the supervision of Professor Karl Pearson, F.R.S.

Galton Research Fellow : David Heron, M.A., D.Sc. Galton
Research Scholar : Ethel M. Elderton. Computer : Amy Barrington.
Assistant for Pedigree Drafting : Kathleen T. Ryley. Hon. Sec. :
H. Gertrude Jones.

National Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control, that
may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either
physically or mejitally.

It is the intention of the Founder, that the Laboratory shall serve
(i) as a storehouse of statistical material bearing on the mental and
physical conditions in man, and the relation of these conditions to
inheritance and environment; (ii) as a centre for the publication
or other form of distribution of information concerning National
Eugenics ; (iii) as a school for training and assisting research-workers
in the special problems of Eugenics.

Short courses are provided for those who are engaged in social,
medical, or anthropometric work.

V\

^ay.^.

An Attempt to correct some of the Mis-state-
ments made by Sir Victor Horsley, P.RS.,
F.R.C.S,, and Mary D. Sttirge, M.D,, in
their Criticisms of the Galton Laboratory
Memoir : 'A First Study of the hifluence
of Parental A Icoholisjn, &c'

Dove si grida, non evera scientia. — Leonardo da Vinci.

It is not possible to correct the whole of the mis-
statements and misunderstandings with regard to the
Galton Laboratory memoir exhibited in the recent papers
by Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge ; my time is much
better occupied. It must suffice here — and even this will
take considerable space — to illustrate the nature of these
authors' criticisms and the character of the phrases and
assertions which they confidently attribute to the Galton
Laboratory staff. In order to do this effectively it is need-
ful to place before the reader again the exact scope of the
Galton Laboratory memoir, and indicate the perversions of
that scope and of our very words that Sir Victor and
Dr. Sturge have not once, but many times repeated. The
scope of that memoir was distinctly stated in the paper itself,
namely to ascertain within the limits of our data, whether the
alcoholism of the parents had a marked influence on the
mentality and physique of the offspring as children. Now
there are two points here to be considered : (i) the definition
used by us of alcoholism, and (ii) the limitation of the inquiry
to the effect on the offspring as children. Sir Victor Horsley
and Dr. Sturge tells us that the correct title of our memoir
ought to have been * Children of School Age '. We did

A 2

4 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

not write for people who only read the wrappers of papers.
On the very first page of our memoir occur the following
words :

' The child may be physically and mentally fit, and yet
when adult may exhibit alcoholic tendencies. This is the
direct heredity of alcoholism. It is a subject not touched
on in this paper. ... It may be demonstrable to the hilt,
and possibly justify the seclusion of the alcoholic ; it does
not occupy us in this present study ; we are concerned only
with the offspring of the alcoholic as children ' ^ (p. i).

In the ' conclusions ' the words * child ' and * children '
are used repeatedly, and facing the conclusions are tables
giving the ages of the children considered ; references to the
ages of the children occur frequently in the text, and on p. 6
the average ages of the sons of drinking and non-drinking
parents are actually stated as 9-8 and 9-4 years respectively.
Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge tell us under a heading
Unscientific Use of Terms^ that a second instance of this is
our misuse of the term ' offspring '. They further go on to
say that we ought at least to trace the effect of alcohol
beyond the age of 14, and that Dr. Maurice Craig has
pointed out that the next two decades following the four-
teenth year are those during which symptoms of degeneracy
usually appear.^ Why we ought to have done what we
initially excluded from the exact ' universe of discussion ' is
not obvious ; and the only misuse of terms that we can
discover is the attempt of our critics to foist into a word,
the use of which is expressly defined on our first page,
a meaning which we had excluded from it.

The next point is our definition of * sober * and 'alcoholic '.

^ Italics in the original.

2 If Dr. Craig's view be correct, why have Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge quoted
with approval Dr. Nichol's observations on school children of like age to oursl
See their Alcohol and the Human Body, 1907, p. 325.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 5

The meanings which we gave to these words are stated
on p. 3 of our paper :

* By the term alcoholism in this paper is not necessarily-
meant the " chronic alcoholism " of medical literature. We
believe that many, possibly the majority, of our drinking
class would be found to suffer more or less from chronic
alcoholism ; they at any rate in the opinion of trained
social workers — assisted by the judgement of police and
employers — are drinking more than is good for them or
their homes. On the other hand by ** sober " is not meant
total abstinence, but cases in which the use of alcohol is so
moderate, if it exists, that it does not appear to interfere
with the health^ of the individual or the welfare of the
home.'

Now it is perfectly open to Dr. Sturge and Sir Victor
Horsley to say that they do not agree with this definition of
drinking arid sober, but they have no right to say that we
are misusing a term, the use of which we have at the outset
defined. And we venture to think that most practical men
will be willing to accept such definitions as we have given.
The evil of alcohol drinking is either graded or it is not.
If you assume it to be graded, then there is no doubt into
which of our two classes the bulk of those parents must
fall whose alcoholism is asserted by Sir Victor Horsley to
affect markedly the physique and intelligence of the
children, and the effect ought to be visible in the statistics.
If you do not accept the graded effect of alcohol then you
are driven to the view that whether one glass of beer a day
be drunk, or the parent be daily in a state of drunkenness,
the influence on the offspring remains the same. In the

* Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge confidently assert {B. M. J., January 4,
191 1, p. 73) that we know nothing about whether the health was or was not
interfered with by the alcohol, yet the authors of the Report directly tell us
that they have put under the heading of ' drunken ' families all those who in
a less or greater degree suffered in health, diet, and morals from the presence
of drinking habits.

6 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

Edinburgh Report in every case where drinking was found in
connexion with either parent it was stated, and this state-
ment depended upon a very ample inquiry from poHce, em-
ployers, schoolmasters, missions, district visitors, &c., who
would certainly know whether drink was interfering with the
welfare of the individual or of the home. Now Sir Victor
Horsley and Dr. Sturge say that this is the first and worst
instance of our use of scientific terms. They further hint that
we have gravely deceived the public into the belief that our
Memoir is a scientific presentation of the subject. I submit
that the only grave deception of the public that can arise is
to assert that we have used words and reached conclusions
of a wholly different sense from those we have ourselves
adopted and clearly stated. Illustrations of such assertions
I will now provide. On p. 72 of their criticisms they
assert that in our opinion :

* Alcoholism causes no appreciable detriment to the
drunkard or his children.'

I think we may fairly ask who is deceiving the public
when such a statement is thrust into our mouths. No
such statement has ever been made by either Miss Elder-
ton or myself. We object to the manner in which Sir
Victor Horsley and Mr. Keynes use the words ' drunkard '
and ' drunken ', because they do not fully represent the
alcohol using class as defined by us. Any one reading the
above statement of Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge
would suppose that we had asserted that the home en-
vironment of drinking parents was no detriment to the
children. Yet what again did we actually write :

' Alcohol may thirdly be the source of evil to the
children, not because of physical changes wrought in the
parents, but because of economic and moral changes pro-
duced in the home environment. Mental and moral

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 7

degradation of the parents, distress and poverty in the
home may, and probably do, follow in the train of intem-
perance. Money spent excessively on drink means less
money spent on the necessities of life ; it leads to neglect
of the children, to unhappy homes, and to undesirable
environment. In any consideration of the results of alco-
holism these very obvious facts arrest our attention, and
we are inclined to lose sight of the really fundamental
question : What is the quantitative measure of these en-
vironmental influences on the physical and mental characters
of the offspring ? ' (Memoir^ p. 2).

Again : ^

* These results are certainly startling and rather upset
one's preconceived ideas, but it is, perhaps, a consolation
that to the obvious and visible miseries of the children
arising from drink, lowered intelligence and physique are
not added.' (Ethel M. Elderton. The Relative Strength
of Nurture a7id Nature. Lecture, Series III, p. 26.)

The question before us was not whether there was greater
misery to the child, but whether there was either a toxic or
an environmental influence of the alcohol of the parent
upon the mentality or physique of the offspring. Now first
we actually did find a greater death-rate among the children
of the alcoholic parents. If our two groups represented
simply a ' confusion of statistics ' as Sir Victor Horsley and
Dr. Sturge assert, why should this greater death-rate be
quite sensible when we use throughout exactly the same
process of differentiating the alcoholic and non-alcoholic
groups ? The death-rate of children of sober parents is from
25 to 28 per cent.; that of children of drinking parents is
from '^'>^ to '>fi per cent., giving a ratio of from 3/4 to 7/9.

1 With this passage undoubtedly before them, for they quote the word
'startling' from it (^. M. J., 191 1, p. 77), Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge do not
hesitate to state that we have asserted that alcoholism ' causes no appreciable
detriment to the drunkard or to his children'. How is it possible to deal
with critics who at every fourth or fifth line of their paper deliberately put
into our mouths statements we have not made?

8 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

This applies to both the Manchester and Edinburgh data
alike. Roughly this ratio may be taken as 4/5, or an excess
of 1/5 in the deaths of children of drinking father or mother
has to be accounted for. Now how did we write about
this excess? Quite undogmatically and as follows (p. 27) :

' Some of this excess of child deaths is certainly due to
accident, to overlaying, to burns, and to other causes
arising from carelessness, but we should be inclined to
attribute it, at least in part, to the same causes, probably
to want of home care, to food defects, perhaps to other
factors possibly toxic, which show themselves in slightly
less height and weight among the children of the drinking
mothers when these children reach a school age.'

When we remember that there is a fairly high correlation
between the use of a ' dummy teat ' or ' baby pacifier ' and
infantile mortality, the reader will understand what we
mean by the carelessness or uncleanliness that leads to the
death of a child.

Our final conclusion on this subject was (p. 31):

* There is a higher death-rate among the offspring of
alcoholic than among the offspring of sober parents. This
appears to be more marked in the case of the mother than
the father, and since it is sensibly higher in the case of the
mother who has drinking bouts than of the mother who
habitually drinks, it would appear to be due very consider-
ably to accidents and gross carelessness, and possibly in
a minor degree to toxic effect on the offspring.'

Why did we not attribute it to toxic effect, or only to
that source in a minor degree ? Because our statistics
showed no such differentiation in general health between
the children of the two classes, and because the effect in-
creased with the 'bouting'. Notwithstanding that we
directly appealed to carelessness and neglect in the home
environment as a source of the higher death-rate, what
statement do Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge put into our

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 9

mouths ? Brazenly they write that we assert that ' alcohol-
ism causes no appreciable detriment to the drunkard or his
children' {B.M. y., p. 72).

Sir Victor Horsley, in his speech at the Temperance
Medical Breakfast in July, 1910, used the following words :

' In spite of their general conclusion that probably the
children of alcoholic parentage were just as well as the
children of the moderate drinkers, they notwithstanding
came to the conclusion that these equally healthy children
died at a much earlier age than those of the abstainers.
Now I cannot understand how one particularly healthy
child can expire sooner than another' (A^. T. g., p. 143-4)-

We endeavoured in the first edition of our first Memoir
to enlighten such ignorance by using the word surviving.
But we still appear to have failed to reach Sir Victor's
understanding. Let us suppose, merely as illustration, that
the children of both the sober and drinking groups to have
initially equal average health. The environment of the off-
spring of drinking parents will be harder. More children
will be, and actually are killed off, and these children will,
on the whole, be the weakest third of the child population.
A lesser destruction, also of the weaker element, takes
place among the sober ; accordingly among the survivors
of school age it would be quite possible for the children of
the drinkers to show a higher standard of health than the
children of the sober. It is a question of whether selection
or hard environment produces the greater influence on the
health. We worded our conclusion on this point as follows:

' The source of this relation [fewer delicate children among
those of alcoholic parentage] may be sought in two direc-
tions ; the physically strongest in the community have
probably the greatest capacity and taste for alcohol.
Further, the higher death-rate of the children of alcoholic
parents probably leaves the fitter to survive ' (p. 31).

To assert, as Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge do, that ' children

lo A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

who are healthier ought not to die more ' is pure dogma
until we have considered whether the two sets of children
have been submitted to the same degree of stress in the
environment. We actually used the greater degree of stress
in the environment to account for the higher death-rate
accompanied by equal, if not greater health among the
surviving children of the alcoholic.

Now Sir Victor Horsley and Miss Sturge {B.M.J., p. 76)
write as follows :

' In their rcp7'inted'^ memoir they take up this [V. H.'s]
objection . . . and say that there is no a priori basis for
saying that healthier '^surviving'' children ought not to die
more than less healthy children. To support this they have
inserted the word '' sitrvivijig'' . . . '

Now what can any reader derive from such a sentence?
Only that the word 'surviving' was inserted by us after
reading Sir Victor's criticisms ! Yet here are the actual
words of the first edition of our paper :

' Further the higher death-rate of the children of alcoholic
parents probably leaves the fitter to survive' (p. 31).

The text of the memoir has not been altered ; the only
addition is a footnote to the word ' survive ', saying that we
see no reason why a higher death-rate among children of
the alcoholic parents is incompatible with better health in
their surviving children. Naturally we could only measure
the health in the surviving children of school age, and it is
these survivors who are of the first importance from the
eugenic standpoint. There was no insertion whatever in
our second edition of the survival notion ; it was clearly
stated for all to read in the first edition.

Now the fact I want to emphasize is this : that Sir Victor

1 Italics are mine.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM ii

Horsley and Dr. Sturge — who in their book have pledged
themselves to the great influence of the toxic effect of
parental alcoholism on the offspring — have directly twisted
our statements in a way which could only be of service to
their views if they were appealing to an audience who had
not read, or will not read our Memoir. We clearly and
directly attributed the higher death-rate of the children of
the alcoholic parents to a differential home environment — to
greater carelessness and accident in the drinking families.
Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge, notwithstanding this, thrust upon
us the statement that ' alcoholism causes no appreciable
detriment to the drunkard or to his children '. That is to
say, they make a statement, which, if they had read our
Memoir, they could only make to mislead those who had
not read it, namely, that we asserted that the differential
environment was no detriment to the children. If on the
average the man who uses alcohol is physically stronger
than the teetotaler, it is quite possible for his children to be
healthier and yet have a higher death-rate, and Sir Victor's
statement at the Medical Temperance Breakfast on this
point was not a serious treatment of the subject.

Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge, without proper quo-
tations from our actual remarks as to defective home
environment and the gross carelessness which may be
associated with it, says that our suggestion that the greater
number of deaths of the children of alcoholic parents arises
only in a minor degree from toxic effect is erroneous,
because the accident rate among young children is not
sufficient to account for it. It will be noted that our critics
again modify our conclusions and restricts to accidents, pre-
sumably followed by fiscal inquiry (there are no inquests in
Scotland), the general statements we have made as to
accidents, gross carelessness, &c... or the general defects of

]2 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

home environment. Now let us take out of our Table LVI
the deaths of children whose mothers drink or bout.
These deaths amount to 529. As we have seen they are
about one-fifth more numerous than the deaths among the
children of sober parents. Hence we have to account for
106 extra deaths among the children of alcoholic mothers.
Now the deaths are those of all children of alcoholic
mothers, the average age of the children at school being
between nine and ten. In some of these families were
babies just born, in others adult children^ the death-rate
covers the ivhole family, of which the average child at school
is nine to ten ; in other words, the average family will include
children at least from four to fifteen years. It seems
accordingly reasonable to suppose that the death-rate of
our group of alcoholic mothers contributes an extra 7 to 10
deaths per annum due to our 200 alcoholic mothers. That
this 7 to 10 deaths is an impossible number to attribute
to the differential home conditions we do not believe,
and the fact that according to Sir Victor only 17 deaths
per annum due to accidents and gross carelessness come
to the knowledge of the police in Edinburgh is, in my
opinion, not in the least to the point. The mother who
retires to the public-house leaving a bacilli-loaded dummy
teat in the mouth of her child, or exposes it to the cold
and rain by taking it with her, may, owing to her care-
lessness,^ destroy a healthy child, but it will not be the
subject of police inquiry, any more than are the many
accidents the mortal result of which does not arise for
months or even years later. But I wish to emphasize the
fact that 7 to 10 deaths per annum are what we have

^ In the ' Introductory Note ' of the Report, the authors speak of the lurid
light the police were in certain cases able to throw on the lives the children led
owing to the criminal carelessness of their parents.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 13

to distribute between accidents, carelessness, neglect, and
toxic effect due to the alcoholism of our 200 alcoholic
mothers. Sir Victor Horsley claims the bulk of them for
toxic effect. I wonder how many workers among the poor
would agree with him! But Sir Victor Horsley and
Dr. Sturge appear to have made a gross blunder in citing
police returns as to the deaths of infants — ^possibly because
they are not acquainted with the Scottish system. They
deliberately asserted that the number of accidental deaths
of children below fourteen years occurring in Edinburgh
during the last seventeen years was 17 per year, and of
these only 5 to 6 deaths per year occurred from suffocation,
burns, and scalds, causes which might probably be the direct
result of domestic carelessness. They give no annual data
with exact causes in each case, but appealed to figures —
not public property — said to be prepared by Deputy Chief
Constable J. Chisholm and Detective-Sergeant McCondach
(B.M.J.^ Jan. 14, 191 1, p. 76). It was perfectly open
to them to have used the published figures of the
Registrar-General for Scotland. Now from 1 890-9 inclusive
the total deaths in Edinburgh among children under
ten years of age from ' accident and negligence ' were 574
in number or 57-4 per year ; those from suffocation alone
are 316 or 31-6 per year. For the remaining nine years,
1900-8, the total deaths from like causes were ^'>^i or 59-1
per year, with 255 from suffocation, or 28-3 per year.
The total nineteen years, which cover the period of the
Edinburgh Report much more accurately than Sir Victor's
spurious data do, show deaths of children from accident
and negligence under ten (not under fourteen years as Sir
Victor takes them) amounting to 58 per year, of which 30 per
year fall to suffocation alone. These are to be put against
the 17 per year, with 5 to 6 from suffocation, burns, and

14 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

scalds, which Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge assert to be all
that Edinburgh produces. The Registrar-General's returns
are precise, exactly where Sir Victor's and Dr. Sturge's
are vague and misleading. Further, these critics actually
state when driven into a corner that * it would make
no difference whether the parental alcoholism killed the
children by negligent accidents or by toxic consequences '
{B.M.y., Feb. II, 1911, p. 336). Considering that they
cited their wholly erroneous statistics to demonstrate that
my explanation that the higher death-rate was due to
negligence and not to toxic effect, their appreciation of
logic must be of a curious character.

Here are Sir Victor Horsley's statement and the actual
facts side by side : —

Deaths from accident and negligence per year : Sir Victor
Horslcy and Miss Stiirge : 5 to 6 from suffocation, burns,
and scalds. Registrar-General: 22-5 from overlaying alone,
11-5 from burns and scalds alone; total 34, against Sir
Victor's \5 or 6 '.

Such is the accuracy of these critics who prattle about
others ' imagining and publishing statistical data where
none exist in reality ' !

They even assert that the large majority of their 17 cases
per year ' were cases of children run over by tramcars and
lorries in the streets',^ and suggest that these vehicular
accidents were not those of ' helpless ages, i. e. below six
years', children needing supervision. Well, the Registrar-
General tells us that in the nineteen years (i 890-1908) only
5 deaths per annum were caused by vehicles and horses,
i. e. only about one seventh of those caused by overlaying,
burns, and scalds. Vehicular accidents are not in a ' large
majority' at all, and of such accidents 60 to 70% happen

^ Zi'w^j, January 19, p. 12.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 15

to children under six years of age, and 30 to 40% to
children from six to ten ! What criticism can be made of
persons who simply issue dogmatic statements having no
basis in fact at all, except to say that they place themselves
wholly outside the court of science ?

Why indeed children killed by tramcars and lorries should
not be included, even if their numbers were greater than
they are, it must baffle any one but a Sir Victor Horsley to
determine. Cases of children under five running about the
streets without proper control are as much instances of
parental carelessness as burns or scalds, and we show in our
memoir that the children of drinking parents spend much
more of their time than those of the sober in the streets.

As I have indicated above, for a death which is really
due to carelessness to be returned as an accident, it must
take place soon after the accident, and when the signs of it
are recognizable, or the accident must occur in a public
place. It is clear that returns made to the Registrar-
General do not all come to the notice of the police, or at
any rate Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge had not accu-
rate information from their police informants. Why they
choose to use unpublished private data, and to ignore the
usual official sources of information, which curiously enough
give the number of accidental deaths inconveniently large
for their argument, is a question for them to answer. Their
verbal quibbles in the B.M. J, of Feb. 11, 191 1, form no
reply acceptable to any one in the least conversant with
statistics.

I now turn to the subject which Sir Victor Horsley and
Dr. Sturge assert to be

' the chief generalization raised by Miss Elderton and
Professor Pearson, namely, that the effect of his alcoholism
on the male parent himself is for biological and social
statistics a negligible quantity, since their calculations

i6 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

showed them that his " physique "," intelligence ", ''wage-
earning capacity", and "efficiency", are at least equal to
that of a sober parent ' {B. M. jf., p. 77).

This statement is an entire perversion of the whole wage
question as discussed by us. It is an example, very apt, of
what, citing from Herbert Spencer, Dr. Hyslop in his address
to the Society for the Study of Inebriety the other night
termed the child making a hopeless tangle of a skein of silk.
The unwary reader will hardly realize that this question of
wages occupied just thirty-three lines on p. 4, and three
lines on p. 31, of the original memoir of forty-six pages ! It
was no 'chief generalization ' at all, but was used merely as a
supplementary investigation to settle a doubt which arose
early in our minds. When we were at an early stage of our
work, we confidently expected to be able to demonstrate
a sensible influence of parental alcoholism on the mentality
and physique of the offspring.^ But we determined to guard
against possible sources of error arising from a differentiation
of our two classes of parents ab initio, i. e. before the outset
of the drinking. If any critic could show that the alcohol
using section of our inquiry belonged to a feebler stock ab
initio, i. e. before they took to alcohol, then the inferior
health of their offspring might not be due to their parents'
alcohol, but to their parents' stock. To discover whether
the parent originally belonged to an inferior stock was the
fundamental purpose of our wage inquiry. Any one \yho
will read p. 4 of our original memoir must perceive how this
point, not a study of the economic value of the alcoholic,
was the source of our inquiry. The following words will
explain the whole position :

^ See p. 31 of our Memoir. It was the absence of this sensible influence
which led Miss Elderton in her lecture to use the word 'startling,', which
appears to amuse Dr. Sturge and Sir Victor Horsley !

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 17

* It might even be argued that if drinking parents were
physically and mentally fitter than sober parents, the
equality in the physique and mentality of children of both
types of parents was due to the alcohol pulling down to
the average a child who should have been above the aver-
age. The point may seem at first sight an unnecessary one
to raise, but therein lies really a vital question to the student
of modern statistical methods : what are the correlations of
physique and intelligence with drinking habit? . . . The
only light that can be thrown on this matter from our
present data is an indirect one. The wages of the father
are to some extent a measure of the general status as to
physique and intelligence of the parent. A man who is
physically and mentally unfit will hardly receive high wages,
whether he be drunk or sober. Clearly the general tendency
to drink must^ when it reaches a certain intensity, tend to
lower a mans wages} We should therefore expect to find
the wages of the drinking man somewhat less than those of
the sober man. . . . We think it may be safely affirmed that
if the alcoholic parent were markedly inferior in physique
or intelligence, his average wages would be markedly less
than those of the sober parent.'

Now I think any fair-minded reader of our Memoir will
see exactly what we were aiming at: i.e. to ascertain whether,
apart from his alcoholism, the alcoholic parent was initially
of as good stock both as to physique and ability as the
sober parent, whether he belonged in fact to the same class in
the community. Now our words accurately indicated what
we were seeking — and it is a point that our critics appear
to have failed entirely to realize — we wanted some proof that
the germ-plasm of the drinking section was from the stand-
point of mentality and physique neither superior nor inferior
to that of the sober. Professor Marshall argued that our
drinking section was superior to the sober section, they
belonged to better stock, who, owing to alcohol, had sunk

1 Notwithstanding these words Sir Victor asserts that it needed Prof.
Marshall's polemic to convince me that the drinker would have lower wages
(^.^/.y., Feb. II, 191 1, p. 335).

B

i8 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

to 'low grade' jobs, and because they were of superior
stock they had children physically and mentally as fit as
the sober stock. We wonder what place this leaves for
Sir Victor Horsley's marked toxic influence ! Yet Sir Victor
Horsley cites Professor Marshall with approval, in all proba-
bility merely because the latter has criticized our Memoir.
To refute Professor Marshall's position it was needful to
show that the drinkers did not follow ' low grade ' jobs.
Accordingly, a list was formed of all the trades, and it
was at once obvious that the sober and the drinking sec-
tions were scattered through all trades alike, and that
the latter were not concentrated on ' low grade ' jobs.^
Of this list of trades I shall have something to say shortly.
The question then arose as to some rough classification
of these trades, and the only method of classifying them
according to the ability and physique needed for their
pursuit seemed to be that of classifying them according to
the current wages of the trade in the district. In doing
this it was not material to determine whether the drinking
workman was in receipt of the full time wages of the trade.
The question was : Had he selected a trade which required
ability and physique ? The trades followed by the drinking
section, as judged by the wage standard, were found to be
on the whole those requiring the greater intelligence and
strength — they were not ^ low grade jobs '. When the
drinking workman chose his trade — in the great bulk of
cases before the question of alcohol had become crucial — he
chose the higher class of employment. The reader who
will carefully study our attitude in this matter will see how
absurd it has been for Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge
to quote the trade wages as cited by us from a table of
them given in the Edinburgh Report^ as if they were and

1 Questions of the Day and the Fray, No. I, p. lo. Dulau & Co.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 19

we had used them as a measure of the wages of either
sober or drinker. They were solely the current wages of
the trade by which the trade itself was roughly graduated
as a ' high ' or ' low-grade job '}

Now consider the following paragraph penned by Sir
Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge :

*It will be seen from the comments we have extracted
from the Edinburgh schedules that Professor Pearson has
bestowed a wage of 25.$'. 6d, per week on fourteen indi-
viduals concerning whose real wages either nothing is
known, or that, whatever they may earn when they were
at work, those industrious occasions were so rare (and
sometimes rendered so impossible by the man being in
prison) that no average weekly wage could be accurately
ascertained. Nevertheless the exigencies of Professor
Pearson's argument are great and he accords to each of
these individuals 25^. 6d. per week ' {B. M. J.^ p. 79).

Or, again, speaking of a father in an asylum, Sir Victor
Horsley says that he is

* represented by Professor Pearson in his table to be
earning i^s, 6d. a week ' {B, M. y., p. 74).

Illustrations of this sort of argument abound in Sir Victor
Horsley and Dr. Sturge's paper. They are wholly and
entirely false charges. The average trade wages were used
to graduate trades, the average wages obtained by drinking
and sober parents were ascertained directly from the whole
hulk of wages given in the Report, and not as Sir Victor
and Dr. Sturge insinuate from the average trade wages.
Now let us see exactly what our Memoir states as to
wages (p. 4) :

' Parents were divided into three classes : (i) both parents
drink, (2) one parent drinks and (3) neither drink. The

^ Had we classified trades as 'high' or 'low' according to their general
mortality rates, we should probably have been told that we had asserted that
all individuals, temperate or intemperate, died at these rates !

B 2

20 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

mean wage of the father when both parents dririk is
24s. Sd. ; when one parent drinks, 25^. 6</., and when
neither parent drinks, 2^s. ^d. Or, grouping in another
way, when either or both drink, 25^., and when neither
drink, 25^. ^d!

What conclusions did we draw from these results ? Not
the * chief generalization ' asserted by Sir Victor Horsley
and Dr. Sturge, that the wage-earning capacity and efficiency
of the drinker are at least equal to the sober, but that the
wages of the alcoholic are ' wholly inconsistent with a
marked mental or physical inferiority in the alcoholic
parent' (p. 31).

In other words our object was, not to show the efficiency
of a workman in a state of alcohol (* clearly ', we had said,
' the general tendency of drink must when it reaches
a certain intensity be to lower a man's wages ') but to show
that the drinking workman was not ab initio and apart from
his alcohol inferior physically or mentally to the sober.
Now this is the very point which Sir Victor Horsley and
Dr. Sturge will themselves have to demonstrate before they
can deduce any result from statistics of sobriety and in-
temperance. Until you have demonstrated general equality
of the germ-plasms of the two stocks as far as physique
and mentality go, it is impossible to assert that a differentia-
tion of the offspring is due to alcohol. That they have
not recognized the importance of this point is a measure of
their fitness to deal with such complex statistical problems.
Now Miss Elderton has been good enough to go through
the whole of the wages in the Report again. She has
divided the workmen into five classes : (i) Those in regular
employment, (ii) Those in irregular employment but whose
average wage was not given ; in this class were included
those who were stated to have been out of work or idle,
or for whom ' wages when working ' were given, (iii) Casual

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 21

employment ; this class contains those who follow trades
with seasonal employment as well as the jobbing workers,
(iv) Average wage class, those with irregular employment
whose average wages are stated, (v) Those with no oc-
cupation or employment, being idle, ill, in prison, or
incapable of work.

Now the results are embraced in the table below. Per-
sonal judgement will of course arise in classification, but this
new table has been formed in perfect independence of the
former table, and the general results are in close agreement.

Class.

Sober.

Drinking.

Number.

Average Wage.

Number,

Average Wage.

(i) Regular . .
(ii) Irregular . .
(iii) Casual . . .
(iv) Average . .

167

33
34

27-u.

27-IJ.

227J.

26-If.

163
29

79
46

26-li-.

27.OJ.
24.0^-.
23.6J.

General mean

251

26s. zd.

317

25^. 4^.

(v) No work , ,

20

0

35

0

Now this table shows several points : {a) that when in
regular employment the drinker is worth is, a week less
than the sober. This is exactly what we stated in our
Memoir ; [b) that in casual or irregular labour he gets paid
the same or slightly more ; but {c) that on the whole he
is more frequently out of employment, as evidenced by
the average wages when given. The general mean of all the
wages is i^. id. less for the drinking section than for the
sober. Now these wage data will be found more fully dis-
cussed in a paper just published in the Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society^ but they seem to us to demonstrate
that our original point was correct, namely, that the wages
do not indicate that the drinking workman belongs to an

* VoL xxiv, p. 221,

23 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

inferior stock either mentally or physically; he is a man
who independent of alcohol either does or could earn wages
equal to those of the sober man. This was the inference we
drew from the data in our original memoir, and not the
* economic equality' of the two classes of labour. It is
always possible to tangle the 'skein of silk' by picking
out isolated sentences or words and wilfully overlooking
the context.^ Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge assert that the
chief statistical generalization of the paper was the state-
ment ' that the wage-earning capacity and efficiency of the
drunkard is at least equal to, possibly a little above, that
of the sober workman ' {B. M. y., p. 70). When it is
pointed out that so far from being our ' chief generaliza-
tion ', we have made no such statement at all, they reply
by quoting our words : ' On the whole it seems reasonable
to assume that the drinking parents are in physique and
mentality the equal on an average of the sober, or little
above their standard ' (p. 5 of Memoir, cited by Sir Victor
Horsley and Dr. Sturge in their letter to the Times,
Jan. 19, 1 911). but they do not say that the reason for
this statement lies in the fact which we have stated in the
lines above it, that the wage-earning power and efficiency

^ Thus in B.M.J., p. 77, Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge deliberately
quote what they say are contradictory results as to wages, although the exact
meaning is given on page 4 of our paper — 25^. as the wage of a drinking tnariy
26s. as the wage of a sober man, 25J. 6d. as the wage where one parent drinks,
2 5 J. 5^. where neither parent drinks. The former refers to the wage looked
at from the standpoint of the man, the latter as the wage from the standpoint
of the child, i. e. the conditions as to wage from the standpoint of each child
according as both, one, or neither of its parents drank was recorded. The
exact meaning of the wages cited in the text of the Supplement is stated in
a footnote and agrees absolutely with the Memoir. Verbally the wording
in the text was careless, but what shall be said of critics who disingenuously
put on one side an explanatory footnote, which states exactly what the 25J. dd.
and 255. id. were, i. e. the mean wages when one parent drank, and the mean
wage when neither drank. They were the wages reached by a classificiation
of the parents of each child.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 23

was less, namely, about is. a week, and that this difference
did not seem to us to mark a widely inferior physique or
intelligence in the drinking section, but to connote the
employer's dislike for the inconveniences of inebriety.
That view was supported because we knew that when
employed in irregular work or casual and seasonal trades
the drinker got rather higher wages than the sober. Our
point was not, and never has been, that a heavy drinker
does not weaken his physique or mentality,^ but that our
drinking individuals were not initially and apart from
their alcohol of inferior physique and mentality. I believe
that Sir Victor Horsley and Mr. Keynes are labouring this
point of wages, because they have accepted, without full
knowledge of modern theories of heredity, the view that
somatic variations produced by habit or environment are
at once influential in changing the character of the germ-
plasm.

I now turn to the tables which Sir Victor Horsley and
Dr. Sturge have extracted from the Edinburgh records, and
contrasted with what they assert are our results. First
let us take Teetotalers. Our critics give a table of nineteen
teetotallers and their wives, and proceed to suggest that
these nineteen persons have been used by us without any
consideration at all. The exact number of teetotalers used
by us is fourteen fathers and thirteen mothers. This is
given in the Memoir^ but Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge at once
attribute to us five teetotal fathers whom we have not
called teetotal but alcoholic ! Further, the Edinburgh
records are very full as to the past history of drink when-
ever there has been one, and absence of this history may
be taken as a sign that the family has been a steady and
sober one. Further, when no statement as to drink is

1 We have made no investigation of this point.

24

A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

made the Secretary informed us, before starting the work,
that we might consider the parents as sober, or that the
Committee's inquiries, in most cases from police, missions
and employers, had produced no evidence of drink.

The following is Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge*s
List of Teetotal Fathers : —

Index
No.

57
93

io8
141

M7

244

Habits of VVife.
Horsley & Sturge.

No evidence.

Teetotaler.

Probably a teetotaler.

Teetotaler.
No evidence.*

Dead nine years.

No evidence.

No evidence.*

My remarks^ with extracts from the Edin-
burgh Report.

Included by us among the drinking fathers,
because he had been ' a drunken wreck till two
years ago '. Not included in table of families,
because the wife is dead and there is no mention
of her habits.

All the family are Good Templars ; no history
of drinking. Included by us in the group
' neither parent drinks '.

Why * probably ' ? The report says, * Decent,
spotless clean house and family ; teetotal and
well-doing. Included in ' neither parent drinks'.
No history of drink. Included in ' neither
parent drinks '.

No history of drink, and therefore wife was
sober, the husband was a strict teetotaler for
the last twelve years of his life. The account
does 7iot state that he drank before this, only
that he became a strict teetotaler. *In our
opinion ', write Sir V. H. and Dr. S., ' the
father's parentage of these children was not,
strictly speaking, a teetotal one, but an alco-
holic one, in diminishing ratio'. The first
child of whom we have details is 'dull', and
Sir Victor Horsley tells us that it * was born
immediately after the father's teetotalism com-
menced, and the three others followed within
five years'. The child was born 2^ years
after the father became a strict teetotaler :
there is no evidence that he drank before that,
and the youngest child 7, not 5, years after
the strict teetotalism commenced.
Included as a drinker because he drank hard
till his wife's death. Not included in any
group of both parents, because his wife was
dead and no details as to her habits given.
IncoiTect statement made by Sir Victor and
Dr. S. : Father still drunken although he has
taken the pledge. Therefore not included in
our table of teetotalers.

No history of drink. Wife sober. Erroneous
statement of Sir V. H. and Dr. S.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 25

Habits of Wife.
Horsley & Sturge.

Teetotaler.

Drinks.

Drinks, but not seen
to be drunk.

Teetotaler.
Teetotaler.
Teetotaler.

Drank at least during
child-bearing period.

Suspected of drinkin*
No evidence.

No evidence ; * home
miserable.

My remarks, with extracts from the Edin-
burgh Report.

Teetotaler.

No history of drink. * Father most excellent,
trustworthy and first-rate '. * Very nice, v^ell-
doing teetotal people '. Included in ' neither
parent drinks '.

Father teetotal ; no past history of drink.
Mother drinks a little. Case went of course
into * Mother only alcoholic '.
This is a good illustration of Sir V. H.'s
method. The statement is, « A nice family,
the man teetotal and steady at his work, the
wife not teetotal, but never seen the worse for
drink' — *the home is a comfortable one '. No
man would have an objection to being de-
scribed as * not teetotal, but never seen the
worse for drink'. He would properly bring
an action for libel if described as ' drinks, but
not seen to be drunk '.

No history of drink. * A model family'. En-
tered by us as * neither drink '.
No history of drink. < Strict teetotalers'. En-
tered as * neither drink '.
No history of drink. 'Strict teetotalers'.

* Drinks an enormous amount of tea and looks
like it '. Entered as ' neither drink '.

No history of drink in case of father. Wife began
to make free with drink at one time, but took
pledge and is all right. ' Nice family ' ; * Good
workman ; rent always paid up to date '. En-
tered under * Mother only drinks ' by us,
although this is scarcely justified. Sir V. H.'s
statement that she ' drank at least during child-
bearing period' is still more unjustifiable.
No history of drink in case of father. En-
tered by us under ' Mother only drinks '.

* A total abstainer and man of splendid charac-
ter'. Entered as father does not drink, but
not in the double parent tables, as there is
no statement as to mother's (earlier wife's)
habits.

This man should not have been entered as
a teetotaler by Sir V. H. and Dr. S. He has
a past history of drinking. His wife has no
such history and may therefore be treated as
sober. She is a slattern.

No past history of drink. ' Respectable, sober
people ' ; * total abstainers '.

* In cases marked with an asterisk in this table Sir Victor Horsley and
Dr. Sturge have made a mis-statement in saying there is ' no evidence ' as to
habits of wife.

26 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

Now it will be found that this table just gives the
fourteen fathers we have reckoned as teetotal, and we find
nothing whatever to withdraw from our classifications. But
the table illustrates Sir Victor Horsley's methods most
accurately ! Thus he writes : —

* No. 200 figures as a teetotaler, but he only " recently "
signed the pledge after a '' reckless " life. His youngest
child was 6 J years old, however.'

The suggestion made is that we have included the case
as that of a teetotaler, and Dr. Sturge and Sir Victor pro-
ceed, *As Professor Bateson truly observes of Professor
Pearson's work, it is very obvious that " his methods dis-
pensing with individual analysis of the material are useless*'.'

Sir Victor says that No. 2co only recently signed the
pledge ; the Ediiibtirgh Report^ p. lo, gives him as still
drunken, a point which Sir Victor overlooked with his
individual analysis, but which led us to classify him still
among the drinkers.

No. 147 is another illustration of Sir Victor's method. The
case is one included by us among the drinkers. He holds
the case up as an example of what absurd classification we
have made of the teetotalers, and adds as comment : —

'No doubt Miss Elderton and Professor Pearson have
saved themselves much time and trouble, but only at the
expense of their own scientific reputation and that of the
Galton Laboratory of Eugenics.'

He then tells his readers that

' We shall presently see further inaccuracies and errors,
for which these authors are responsible, owing to their
omission of necessary statistical precautions in examining
the data they selected and their method of creating such
statistics where real data did not exist.'

He thus directly charges us with forgery on the basis of
inaccuracy and errors which he has himself insinuated are

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 27

in our investigations, but which have no existence in our
classification. There is only one word by which this process
can be described, but it is better left unsaid.

Let us now fix Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge down
to another of their characteristic statements :

*To return now to other kinds of porters — namely,
porters, coal porters, and street porters — we have put them
together in one table as below. Of porters thus grouped
we find only thirteen in the Edinburgh statistics, and no
other porters are mentioned therein. Professor Pearson,
however, says there are seventeen. He, therefore, has
invented for this trade four imaginary individuals, although
asserting throughout that he is quoting the Edinburgh
figures. The Edinburgh Committee verified the wage rate,
showed that for eleven individuals this could be done,
and the average weekly wage came out at 20s. 6d. Of
course Professor Pearson, to construct his wage (and
sobriety) table for the Times and his Supplemental Memoir,
gives this average weekly wage of 20s. bd. to all his seven-
teen porters, the thirteen real ones, and the four imaginary
ones, in spite of the Edinburgh data. Turning now to
the sobriety question, Professor Pearson makes out of his
seventeen porters, nine were sober and eight w^ere drinkers,
each of whom gets according to him 10s. 6d. Thus for
this relatively low wage he naturally obtains by this
''expert" method a practical equality between the wage-
earning of the drunken and of the "sober" porter
respectively' [B.M, J., Jan. 14, 191 1, p. 81).

The above is a typically Horsleyan sample of contro-
versial writing ! No statement as to the wage-earning of
sober and drunken porters has ever been made by me.
No average was struck for such porters by ' expert ' or
any other methods. In my letter in the Times and in the
Stipplemental Memoir a list of trades was given, and to
grade these trades as high or low a list of the wages paid
in Edinburgh for these trades was attached to them, taken
from the Edinburgh Committee's Report. No statement

a8 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

was made that each of the seventeen porters got 2os. 6d.y
but the statement was made that porters followed a trade
the grade of which was 20s. 6d. as compared, for example,
against masons with a 345-. i^. trade. It was perfectly
clearly stated that the wages given were average trade
wages and used to grade the trade and not the man. The
object was, of course, to ascertain whether the sober and the
drinking workmen followed the same trades, or the latter
had, as Professor Marshall asserted, sunk to * low class jobs '.

But there are still more typical examples of Sir Victor's
accuracy in the paragraph cited. He finds that I have
seventeen porters, and in his own superficial examination
of the Report he only discovers thirteen. He then at once
starts with accusing me of creating imaginary porters.
This is markedly characteristic ; instead of inquiring what
has been done before he makes a gross blunder and an
absolutely unjustifiable assertion, he rushes into print with
his ' imaginary porters '. Now the rule of our Laboratory,
and I believe of most trained statisticians, when dealing
with trades and classifying for small numbers is to adopt
the Registrar-General's scheme — in this case identical
with that of the Registrar-General for Scotland. The
Registrar-General's group contains Messenger^ Porter, &c,
{not Railway) and he uses this in his table for the
Effects of Alcoholic Excess} Are then the 'four imaginary
individuals invented for this trade' the messengers cus-
tomarily included by statisticians with porters? Not at
all, only two of them have this origin, namely :

No. 341. Messenger, in regular employ, wage 21^. and
excellent character for steadiness and trustworthiness.

^ Supplement to the Fifty -Sixth Annual Report, Part I, 1908, p. cix, and
also Instructions to the Clerks employed in Classifying the Occupations and
Ages of the People. England.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 29

No. 410. Messenger, wage 30J. No history of drink ;
gambles, said to have acquired his property thus ; wife and
he said to have been before the court for shebeening and
gambling.

The other two ' imaginary porters ' exist in the record
all right, only Sir Victor has taken no trouble to examine
the record accurately ! His careless examination not
providing them, he accuses me of inventing them ! They
are

No. 217. Fish porter. Wages i8j., in regular employ.
Fits of drinking.

No. 170. Porter. Wages 22s., in regular employ. No
sign of poverty here ; house tolerably clean and comfort-
able. Appear to be fairly temperate.

Sir Victor Horsley's own list describes thirteen porters,
six sober and seven drinking ; adding the above four cases
we have nine sober and eight drinking, numbers absolutely
identical with those of the statement originally made by
me.^

^ It would only weary the reader and serve no useful purpose to go through
trade by trade and show that Sir Victor Horsley's criticisms are precisely of
the character of the above. Thus, he says, that I have made 'twelve coopers,
of whom eight are " sober" and four drunken, and that all these twelve earn
2^s. 6d. a week, whereas the actual schedules of the Report give, as we show
in the above table, only eight coopers of whom seven are "sober" and one
drinks '. Of course, I have made no such assertion that each of my twelve
coopers earned 28^. (id.\ it is a perfectly gratuitous misstatement on the
part of Sir Victor. What I have done was to state that coopers rank as
a 28^. dd. trade. As for the four 'imaginary' coopers with which Sir Victor
credits me, they arise from including, as the nearest allied trade, four isolated
individuals engaged in cooper's work, in wood-cutting, splitting, and turning
(No. 295, regular 30J., seems steady ; No. 516, regular 20^., drinks ; No. 649,
29J-.-37J., drinks, out of work ; No. 714, regular 255., very drunken). These
give precisely the eight sober and four drunken of our table. The mean wage
value of these four men — apart from drink — is 27^. 6df., and they belong to
the Group B of my classification of trades, e.g. wages between 25J. and 30i-.,
and this is where I placed them in my letter to the Times, where the only
question was what class of trade did they follow. In the* quite different problem

30 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

A few further illustrations of Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge's
perfectly random misstatements may be extracted from their
letter of Feb. ii, 1911 to the ^5. J/, y.i Take the following
sentence :

' If your readers have the curiosity to turn to this [the
paper in the Royal Statistical Society s Jo7ir7ial\ they will
find a most extraordinary compendium of estimates as to
how much the drinker and the sober man respectively
earned, but not from beginning to end does he mention the
original estimate published in the first memoir. This we
may suppose, therefore, will also be buried, like various
other inconvenient conclusions to which we have drawn
attention ' (p. 2i'^^\

The ' compendium of estimates ' is identical with that
given above. That Sir Victor thinks it 'extraordinary'
probably arises from his total ignorance of the methods
of statistics — it is probably the only form in which statistics
of wages in a population of any kind can be presented.
So far from the original estimate being 'buried', the table
practically confirms the original estimate and accords
closely with that estimate, which indeed was formed
essentially in the same way, with a little less rigid definition
of categories, and so a possibility of more personal equation.
The result shows that the possibility was not an actuality.

of individual wages, three of them have been classed as regular according to
the record, and the fourth in the group of no work of our Table, p. 21 of this
paper. Notwithstanding this, here as elsewhere, Sir Victor Horsley makes
the deliberate misstatement that I have asserted that * all these twelve earn
28i-. dd. a week '. Absolutely the same type of misstatement occurs in his
remarks as to masons (our classification including bricklayers — a small body
in Scotland having no separate union, and combined with masons by the
Registrar-General), as to painters, &c. It is purely idle, however, to waste
type in going through each such case in detail.

^ The Editor of that Journal thought any reply on my part to the nineteen
columns of Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge unnecessary, and I only succeeded under
considerable difficulties in getting my letter of Feb. 4 inserted. A brief reply
of a few lines to the above letter was acknowledged by the Editor but not
inserted. Comment is needless.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 31

But the remarkable point is that the following words occur
in my letter to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society
immediately after the * compendium of estimates ' :

' This is the basis of the statement made in the Memoir
that the I J. difference shown in the wage results might
reasonably be supposed to indicate an employer's preference
for sobriety, and did not mark an inferior physique or
mentality in the alcoholic section.'

To this are appended the words :

' The values given above agree substantially with the
values 165. and 25^. given for the sober and drinker on p. 4
of our original memoir, which Mr. Keynes misquotes in the
paragraph I have cited above. The 25^. (^d. and i^s. ^d,
are the wages when one or other parent drinks and when
neither drink, and apply to families with both parents
alive' (p. 228).

Now Sir Victor states that *not from beginning to end
does he [K. P.] mention the original estimate published in
the first memoir ' which Sir Victor states that he supposes
will now ' be buried '. We have here another essentially
striking instance of Sir Victor's method of controversy.
He writes for an audience which he apparently assumes
have not seen and will not see my paper, and he then
deliberately states that a result which really confirms the
first statement as to the wages of the sober and the alcoholic,
makes no reference to that statement 'from beginning to
end ', and he further suggests that that statement, like other
' inconvenient conclusions ', is ' buried '. The main point of
interest is, of course, that this very 'inconvenient conclusion',
so far from being buried, was substantiated by a fuller
inquiry, and the inquiry definitely stated that it was so
on the very page Sir Victor professed to cite !

I said in my'letter to the B, M, J., Feb. 4, 191 1, p. 280,
that the meaning of the word parent seemed to be quite

32 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

overlooked by Sir Victor. To this Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge

reply :

' We are not afraid of your readers thinking that we do
not understand the meaning of the word parent, but we
would point out that even a divagation of this sort is of no
use to Professor Pearson, because the original estimate of
Miss Elderton and himself which is now relegated by him
to the dark ages, referred to " fathers only " ' {B, M. jf.,
Feb. II, 1 91 1, p. ^^^).

Now here, again, is one of those extraordinary misstate-
ments on the part of our critics, which might lead us to
credit them with an intellectual confusion amounting to un-
scientific obsession ! Here are the exact words of our
' original estimate ' (p. 4) :

' Parents were divided into three classes : (i) both parents
drink, (2) one parent drinks, and (3) neither parent drinks.*

That is to say, not each family but each child was
entered on the table into one or other of these three classes,
and against the child was put its father's wages ; but to
continue :

* The mean wage of the father when both parents drink
was 14s, Sd. ; when one parent drinks 25^. 6d. and when
neither parent drinks 25^. ^d. Or, grouping in another way,
when either or both drink 25^'., and when neither drink
25J. 5^. If we consider the father alone, for it is not
possible to apply the wages test to determine the drinking
mother's status in comparison with other mothers, we find
that the wages of a drinking man are on the average 25^.,
and a non-drinking man 26s.*

Now, in the first place, I observe, that the estimate in
our original memoir does not concern * fathers only ' as
Sir Victor asserts, and that the contrast is actually drawn
in the original memoir between ' parent ' and ' father '.
Here in the first memoir we have the basis of the ' divaga-
tion ' which Sir Victor still fails to grasp, because he has

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 33

not seen what is meant in the above paragraph by * parent '
and what by ' father '.

In the first investigation eac/i child of whom we had
records was taken — there might be two or three from the
same family — and the question asked, is the home a drinking
home or not ? It was then found that where both parents
drunk the wage was least, and that when neither parent
drunk the wage was a penny less than the case where either
parent, father or mother, drunk. The object here was to
ascertain whether these stocks in which either parent
drunk were from the measure of the father's wage a priori
of lower type. This was clearly not the case. In the
second investigation the individual workers were taken and
their wages led us to the conclusion that a sober man was
worth IS. a week more that the drinker. There is, as far
as I can see, no confusion or difficulty about these results at
all. The one applies to drinking in the home by mother or
father and allows for the differential fertility of the sober and
the drinking ; the second is a result applying only to male
workers, and is not affected by the number of their offspring
or the question of whether their wives drink or not. Which
of these two estimates ought to be used depends on the
subject under discussion ; when dealing with the influence
of parental alcoholism on the child, and ranking the
mentality and physique of the stock from which it springs,
the first seems to me the more important measure.

One more illustration of Sir Victor's misstatements from
the letter of Feb. 11 {B. M, y., 1911, p. 335) may be taken.
Referring to my table of classification of trades, he writes :

' Professor Pearson actually says in his letter on
February 4th that his table "has nothing to do with
sobriety or intemperance". If this were true we are to
suppose that the headings S. and D. have not got the

c

34 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

meaning which Professor Pearson in his memoir and in the
Times said they had.'

Now here are the exact words of my letter of February 4
(^.j?/. 7., 191 1, p. 279):

' The origin of this wage value of the trade is perfectly
well known to Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge; we
stated it ourselves. It is " the average of the recorded wages
of individuals following that trade", and has nothing to do
with sobriety or intemperance ; it is a trade scale, and not
a sobriety scale.'

Here is the sentence: 'this wage value of the trade . . •
has nothing to do with sobriety or intemperance.' Sir Victor
deliberately — there is no other word for it — cuts out the
noun * wage value of the trade ' and replaces it by ' table ',
and then proceeds to assert that it is needful to suppose
that my headings S. and D. do not refer to * sober ' and
* drinking ' ! After this peculiarly surgical operation I think
I can afford to leave Sir Victor to the judgement of the
future, and to the applause of that audience — somewhat
remote from the field of science — for which he seems to
crave. Where there is noise and clatter there is no real
science in the making.^

1 I do not intend to carry this controversy further, but hope to issue shortly
other Memoirs dealing with alcoholism. I may, however, state here that
I wholly disagree with Mr. Keynes's naive attempt, although a party to
a controversy, to act as judge and sum it up {Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, vol. Ixxiv, p. 339). No doubt Dr. Saleeby's melodramatic visit to
the North Canongate School in Edinburgh (^B, M. J., Feb. 11, 191 1, p. 332)
will be given by medical readers of the B. M. Journal just the weight they
are accustomed to give to his judgements on medical and other topics. As
a layman, I always find the fertility of his imagination and the picturesque
flow of his language most impressive ; yet they invariably seem to lack the
convincing factor which arises from intimate study of any single subject. Of
Sir Victor Horsley's attempt to discredit our Manchester Data by stating that
in his opinion the material is * quite useless for the purpose to which they
were put', little need be said; no one who has studied the manner in which
Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge deal with statistical material in their

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM ^s

But in now bringing to an end, so far as I am concerned,
the present controversy I should like to say a word or two
on the bearing of alcohol and the temperance movement on
national welfare. The first memoir on alcoholism by Miss
Elderton and myself was written wholly without bias and
without knowing until the final numerical reductions were

Alcohol and the Human Body will give their judgement as to the value of
statistical material a moment's consideration (see our Second Study of the
Influence of Parental Alcoholism on the Physique and Ability of the Offspring.
Dulau & Co., 1910). What the late Dr. Ashby actually thought of the value
of the case-papers prepared under his supervision is known to, but can now
hardly be proven by even his intimate friends; but Dr. Ashby was aware
that the schedules were being copied by Miss Dendy with a view to my
inquiry as to the possible sources of mental defect; and, when Miss Dendy
nearly gave up in despair the heavy labour of copying these case-papers,
it was he who persuaded her to persevere in her laborious task. Nobody
has asserted that 'he made himself responsible for their full accuracy'.
Does Sir Victor Horsley make himself responsible for the full accuracy of the
data collected by laymen which with no warning of the use of ' vague and
unscientific terms ' he cites from MacNichoU or Laitinen ? I have in my
possession hundreds of family histories, collected not by surgeons but by
medical men of every degree of distinction. In nearly all cases they have cited
the ' vague and unscientific terms ' used by the laymen from whom they
obtained their data. But the fact that they have done so does not invalidate
their material where used for scientific statistical purposes. It would be better
if the ailments of every member of a family, be they tuberculosis, epilepsy,
or alcoholism, could be diagnosed by one and the same medical man, but we
all know this to be in practice impossible — the medical man himself has to get
the family history in the bulk of cases through one or two living lay members
of the family. And after all in our present state of knowledge are medicine
and surgery such certain sciences that even professional diagnoses are not
liable to err? I know of a family in which for three generations its hereditary
weakness was recognized in ' vague and unscientific terms ' as something liable
to go wrong in the gall-bladder ; one most distinguished medical man diagnosed
a swelling in one member as cancer of the stomach, and persisted in it to
the death certificate, although all trace of the growth suddenly disappeared
a month before death ; a not less distinguished surgeon operated on a second
member for appendicitis — I believe he had difficulty in finding any appendix
at all to remove — and the patient was passing gall-stones before she was
up from bed after the operation. Neither of these gentlemen troubled them-
selves to inquire into the family history ; they were quite certain, and would
scorn, like Sir Victor, those ' vague and unscientific ' appreciations of the
layman, to which wiser and more prudent men give due — but not undue —
weight.

C 2

^6 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

made what was going to be the outcome. We had failed to
find a marked influence of other environmental factors on
the health and mental powers of the child, but we confidently
expected to find it in the alcoholism of the parent. Why ?
Because we had been so repeatedly told it existed by
authorities we credited with a scientific training and a
scientific instinct. We did not find it, but we found instead
a perfectly appalling mass of fanaticism. We have aroused
this fanaticism in a remarkable manner to every degree of
invective, misstatement and extravagance of rhetoric. We
discovered that not only a large part of the lay press, but of
the medical press is not open to anything but a one-sided
discussion on these matters — it is already in the hands of
so-called temperance reformers. Then we studied those
authorities whom we had assumed had given energy and time
to a scientific investigation of alcohol, and we found that the
whole ' scientific ' basis of the movement was worthless. The
men who were demonstrating the evil to the offspring of
alcohol-using parents were doing so in nine cases out of ten
by statistics, which they had no more notion how to handle
properly than boys in an elementary school. Whether we
were right or whether we were wrong was relatively of little
importance, compared with the national danger of a move-
ment which has become immensely influential in press and
on platform by claiming a scientific basis which it does not
possess. The movement is by no means unlike the English
Puritan movement of the seventeenth century. The country
was then politically and religiously unsound and the Puritan
fanatic saw only one way to mend it. Extreme fanaticism
led, as it always does, to reaction, and we had all the evils
of the last two Stuarts. Only after years of extremes of
both types did moderation in politics and religion get a
chance. The bulk of the educated and thinking population

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM o^^

of this country has not troubled itself about the temperance
movement ; it has become sober — not on account of any-
teaching — but owing first to a change of customs, secondly
and chiefly to a change of occupations which has involved
a corresponding change of tastes. Nine men out of ten of
the middle classes in this country, if asked why they had
given up the considerable consumption of alcohol of their
fathers, to say nothing of the excessive use of alcohol of
their grandfathers, would reply, and in most cases quite
truly, that they found no pleasure in the habit. The
change of taste — probably associated with a difference of
foods and occupations — has been far more influential in
producing sobriety in the middle and professional classes
than any active propagandism. The result has been that
the temperance movement has grown up largely outside
the influence of the educated, critical, and scientific factors
in our national life ; its propagandism is in great part based
on statements which, whether true or false, have never been
properly tested from the standpoint of science. The
educated, thinking man wants to know the truth about
vaccination, inoculation, vivisection, and alcohol ; he is ready
to act on knowledge, but he is met at every turn by
rhetoric, invective, and fanaticism, till he thoroughly dis-
trusts ' anti's ' of all types. This is a national disaster, for
there may be some truth behind any of these causes, and,
if there be not, there is possibility of much harm.

I am not one of those who think there is no alcohol
problem in this country. Had I thought so, I should not
have devoted any of the limited energies and the slender
funds of the laboratory under my control to the investigation
of this subject.^

^ I think also that it had the general approval of the founder of that
laboratory. Sir Francis Gallon told me some months before his death that

38 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

The general conclusions we have so far reached — and
none of the criticism poured out on us in the least weakens
my confidence in their general truth — are :

(i) That if the population be divided into the sober and
the drinking sections, there is no marked influence on the
physique and mentality of the offspring produced by the
alcoholism of the parents. The toxic action asserted to
exist by Dr. Saleeby, Sir Victor Horsley, and Dr. MacNichoU
has been grossly exaggerated for the purpose of propagandist
effect.

(2) The association of alcoholism with tuberculosis,
epilepsy, insanity, mental defect, deformity, dwarfism, &c.,
in soifte stocks cannot for a moment be denied. The as-
sumption, however, that every association is causation is
the rock upon which most of the pseudo-scientific work of
temperance fanatics has been shipwrecked.^ A careful
statistical examination has shown us that in cases of
extreme alcoholism the insanity or mental defect as a rule
antedates the alcoholism. Since writing the Second Study

he had written a letter on the subject to the Journal of the Society for the
Study of Inebriety. It does not appear, however, to have been yet published
by the Editor of that journal.

1 If ridicule could kill want of logic, this desirable end would be achieved
by such a letter as that of Dr. Charles Mercier in the B. M. y., Jan. 21, 191 1,
p. 165. I venture to quote some sentences from it : —

* My suggestion, that the diminished use of alcohol is responsible for the
increase of appendicitis, was made, in common with my other suggestions, as
an application of the great principle of causation— /i?^/ hoc, ergo propter hoc — ■
discovered by those Iceen observers of nature, the schoolmen of the Middle
Ages, and adopted with such striking results by medical practitioners in
assigning the causes of disease. . . . Teetotalers have taught us to appreciate
the lethal powers of alcohol, and to recognize how those who use beer and
wine, like those who use fusees :

All grow by slow degrees,

Brainless as chimpanzees,
Meagre as lizards ;

Go mad, and beat their wives;

Plunge, after shocking lives,

Razors and carving-knives
Into their gizzards.'

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 39

of the Influence 0/ Parental Alcoholism on the Physique and
Ability of the Offsprings two things have occurred to
strengthen our position in this matter. The first is that
we have been able to obtain a copy of the original of
Demme's investigations cited by Horsley, Hodge, Basil
Price, and Kirby, without giving any reference to the original.
This shows at once that Demme selected his children of
drunkards, not by selecting drinking families, but by
selecting children who came to the Jennersches Kinder-
spital on account of mental defect^ wanting or imperfect
development of speech, or imbecility or idiocy, and that when
he found families in which such child-defect occurred he
then inquired as to the alcoholism of their ancestry. Further,
in a very large number of such cases, on his own showing,
the child itself was, owing to the too early consumption
of much alcohol, reduced to a condition approaching or
actually epileptic. Demme's book, Ueber den Einfluss des
Alkohols auf den Organisvms des Kindes (Enke, Stuttgart,
1891), is written in a perfectly moderate and reasonable
spirit. He draws the conclusion that alcoholic drinks
should not form part of the daily nourishment of young
children ; he looks upon alcohol in the case of children as
a useful drug to be administered under medical advice,
and on quite a different footing to its use by adults.^
I may take occasion to return to Demme's statistics in
another place, but it is quite clear that those who have
taken them out of their context, without stating the nature
of Demme's selection, nor the lesson he himself has drawn

^ 'So wohlthuend, anregend, belebend derAlkoholgenuss namentlich als Wein
Oder Bier fiir ditn fertigen Organismus, fiir den Erwachsenen, bei anstrengender
geistiger und korperlicher Arbeit, erscheint, als so nnzu'eckmdssig und nachtheilig
muss er im Sinne eines gewohnlichen Genussmittels fiir den imferligen kind-
lichen Orgatiisrmis bezeichnet werden.' S. 67. Tlie italics are Demme's.

40 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE

from them have committed from the standpoint of science
a very grave offence, however much it may have profited
their own propagandism.

The second thing to which I have to refer is the appear-
ance, since the publication of our memoir, of Dr. Wilhelm
Stocker's book, Kliiiischer Beitrag ztir Fi-age der Alkohol-
psychose7i (Fischer, Jena, 1910). The experience of this
book essentially coincides with that of the material col-
lected by the Eugenics Laboratory : The abuse of alcohol
is not the cause of mental defect and insanity, it is to be
considered itself as the outcome of a diseased mental
condition. Dr. Stocker writes as follows:

' In der Mehrzahl meiner Falle handelt es sich jedoch
nicht nur um einfach psychisch minderwertige Personlich-
keiten, sondern um Kranke, bei denen sich eine bestimmte,
naher zu diagnostizierende Grundkrankheit nachweisen liess.
Also der chronische Alkoholismus hier zunachst als Symp-
tom einer bestimmten geistigen Erkrankung aufzufassen ist.
Und in diesem Nachvveis erblicke ich das wesentliche Er-
gebnis meiner Arbeit' (S. 293).

He goes steadily through his eighty-nine individual cases
of extreme alcoholism,' inquiring into the previous history
of the individual, and the history of his family. He finds
as foundations for chronic alcoholism (i) Epilepsy (34),
(ii) Melancholic mania (27), (iii) Dementia pi^aecox (14),
(iv) Other Psychoses and Psychopathies (9), and a re-
mainder of five unclear cases. In other words, in more
than 38 % of cases he gives epilepsy as a source of the
chronic alcoholism. Stocker gives strong reasons for the
antecedence of the psychical defect, and he throws out
the hint that in many cases where the drinking of a

1 His definition of alcoholic excess (S. lo) coincides almost with that used
by us, and it is a pleasure to find that from the medical side our definition
can be also considered a valid and practical one.

MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 41

patient's parents has been given as the hereditary moment
in cases of epilepsy and melancholic mania, we are really
concerned^ with parents affected in the same manner, and
only alcoholic in a secondary degree. In the absence of
these special psychical conditions — in the case of chronic
alcoholists, whose fundamental disorder is pure 'chronic
mania' — Stocker finds that, in general, long years of
marked drinking, including spirit drinking, do not in the
least affect their mental capacity, power of work and
energy ; there is no question of imbecility.

* Im Gegentheil, bei dieser Art von chronischen Saufern
ist man oft erstaunt liber die erhebliche korperliche und
geistige Riistigkeit in hohem Alter ' (S. 295).

Much the same view has been expressed by Chroters,
who holds that the abuse of alcohol is a sign of degeneracy.
Not opportunity to drink, not moral influences are the
causative motives in alcoholism ; the ground must have
been prepared by the presence of degenerative factors.

It will, I think, be clear to my readers that it is not the
statisticians of the Eugenics Laboratory alone whom Sir
Victor Horsley — in the first place a surgeon — has to meet.
There is a growing and really scientific medical school of
alienists, whom he may much more usefully spend his time
in opposing ; and the only way in which he will be able
to do this is to place observation against observation, and
show in statistically significant numbers that sound stocks
which take to drinking de novo will de novo produce
defective children.

For the Eugenist the question is a vital one ; he belongs
to a body growing in numbers and weight in the state.
Is he, admitting as he must do that alcoholism is a great
national problem, to talk vaguely of alcohol as a racial
poison and throw his influence into the existing temperance

42 A REPLY TO CRITICISMS

movement? Or, shall he on the other hand attempt to
study it for himself, with no initial bias? Here in a nut-
shell is the fundamental division between the two attitudes :

(i) All use of alcohol will lead pro tanto to defective
children. Its abuse is due to opportunity and to defect of
moral influence.

(ii) The abuse of alcohol is one of the stigmata ot
degeneracy. It is not the cause of degeneracy but its
product. As the production of degeneracy — whether in
the form of mental defect, epilepsy or insanity — is checked,
to that extent the abuse of alcohol will be checked.

The acceptance of one attitude involves the demand for
the cessation of all import, manufacture or sale of alcoholic
drinks. The acceptance of the other demands the cessation
of parentage on the part of the epileptic, the insane and the
mentally defective.

It is for the Eugenist to consider the evidence for either
policy, uninfluenced by rhetoric and by invective, and then
to act in accordance with his decision. The two policies are
not in my opinion compatible, for the evidence upon which
(ii) is based shows that the practical sequence to the
acceptance of (i), i. e. absolute prohibition, would not pro-
duce any permanent racial effect.

THE TREASURY OF HUMAN INHERITANCE

ISSUED BY

THE FRANCIS GALTON LABORATORY FOR
NATIONAL EUGENICS

The Francis Gallon Laboratory is issuing in parts, at short intervals,
a collection of published and unpublished family pedigrees, illustrating
the inheritance in man of mental and physical characters, of disease
and of abnormality.

Students of heredity find great difficulty in obtaining easy access to
material bearing on human inheritance. The published material is
voluminous, scattered over a wide and often very inaccessible journalistic
area. The already collected although unpublished material is probably
as copious, but no central organ for its rapid publication in a standard-
ized form exists at present. The Eugenics Laboratory alone possesses
several hundred pedigrees of family characteristics and diseases which
it is desirable to make readily accessible. Many medical men possess
similar material, and there is a growing desire among genealogists to
pay more attention to family characters and supplement the merely
nominal pedigrees current in the past.

For a publication of this kind to be successful at the present time,
it should be entirely free from controversial matter. The Treasury
of Human Inheritance will therefore contain no reference to theoretical
opinions. It will give in a standardized form the pedigree of each
stock. This will be accompanied by a few pages of text describing
the individual members of the stock, giving references to authorities,
and, if the material has been published, to the locus of original publica-
tion. When necessary the characteristic will be illustrated by photo-
graphy or radiography. In this way it is hoped in the course of a few
years to place a large mass of material in the hands of the student of
human heredity. It will not cut him off from, but directly guide him
to original and fuller sources of information. Further, the Treasury
will provide students of eugenics and of sociology, medical men, and
others, with an organ where their investigations will find ready publica-
tion, and where as time goes on a higher and more complete standard
of family history than has hitherto been usual can be maintained.
It is proposed to issue the Treasury of Human Inheritance in quarto
parts at about quarterly intervals. Each part will contain about six
to ten plates of pedigrees and of such other illustrations as may be
needful.

The following parts have already been issued : —

Parts I and II (double part) contain pedigrees of Diabetes In-
sipidus, Split-Foot, Polydactylism, Brachydactylism, Tuberculosis,
Deaf-Mutism, and Legal Ability. Price 145. net.

Part III contains pedigrees of Angioneurotic Oedema, Hermaphro-
ditism, Deaf-Mutism, Insanity, and Commercial Ability. Price 65. net.

Part IV contains pedigrees of Hare-Lip, Cleft Palate, Deaf-Mutism,
and Congenital Cataract. Price los. 7iet.

Parts V and VI (double part) contain pedigrees of Haemophilia. Price
15^. net.

Parts VII and VIII containing pedigrees of Dwarfism are at press.

The subscription to each set of four parts will in future be 245., and
all communications with regard to pedigree contributions should be
sent to : The Editors, Treasury of Human Inheritance^ Eugenics
Laboratory, University College, London, W.C. Subscriptions should
be made payable to Miss H. Gertrude Jones, at the above address.

Single parts may be purchased from Messrs. Dulau & Co., Ltd.,
37 Soho Square, London, W., either directly or through any bookseller.

OXFORD : HORACE HART
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

Biometric Laboratory

DRAPERS* COMPANY RESEARCH MEMOIRS

Biometric Series.
I. Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. — XIII.
On the Theory of Contingency and its Relation to Associa-
tion and Normal Correlation. By Karl Pearson, F.R.S.
Issued, Price 4^". net.
II. Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. — XIV.
On the Theory of Skew Correlation and Non-linear Re-
.gression. By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued. Price 5^. nei.

HI. Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. — XV.
On the Mathematical Theory of Random Migration. By
Karl Pearson, F.R.S., with the .assistance of John Blakeman,
M.Sc. Issued. Price 5^. net.

[ V' . Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. — XVI.
On Further Methods of Measuring Correlation. By Karl
Pearson, F.R.S. Issued. Price 4s. net,

V. Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. — XVII.
On Homotyposis in the Animal Kingdom. By Ernest
Warren, D.Sc, Alice Lee, D.Sc, Edna Lea-Smith, Marion
Radford, and Karl Pearson, F.R.S. [Shortly.

VI. Albinism in Man. By Karl Pearson, E. Nettleship, and
C. H. Usher. Text, Part I. Atlas, Part I. Issued, Price
3 5 J. net.

Studies in National Deterioration.
\, On the Relation of Fertility in Man to Social Status, and on the
changes in this Relation that have taken place in the last
50 years. By David Heron, M.A., D.Sc. Issued. Price 3^. nei.

II. A First Study of the Statistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis
(Inheritance). By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued, Price 3^". net.

[II. A Second Study of the Statistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis,
Marital Infection. By Ernest G. Pope, revised by Karl
Pearson, F.R.S. With an Appendix on Assortative Mating
by Ethel M. Elderton. Issued, Price 3J. net.

IV. The Health of the School-Child in relation to its Mental
Characters. By Karl Pearson, F.R.S. [i^ortly,

V. On the Inheritance of the Diatheses of Phthisis and Insanity.

A Statistical Study based upon the Family History of 1,500
Criminals. By Charles Goring, M.D., B.Sc. Issued,
Price 3^. net,

VI. A Third Study of the Statistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The

Mortality of the Tuberculous and Sanatorium Treatment.,
By W. Palin Elderton, F.I.A., and S. J. Perry, A.I.A.
Issued. Price 3J. net.
The above may be obtained from Dulau & Co., 37 Soko Square, London, JV.

Eugenics Xabotator^ publications

DULAU & CO., Ltd., 37 SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.

MEMOIR SERIES.
I. The Inheritance of Ability. By Edgar Schuster, M.A., D.Sc,

First Galton Research Fellow, and Ethel M. Elderton,

Galton Scholar. Issued, Price 4J. net.
11. A First Study of the Statistics of Insanity and the Inheritance

of the Insane Diathesis. By DAvib Heron, M.A., D.Sc,

Second Galton Research Fellow. Issued. Price 3^. tut.

III. The Promise of Youth and the Performance of Manhood. By

Edgar"Schuster, M. A., D.Sc, First Galton Research Fellow.
Issued. Price 2^. 6d. net.

IV. On the Measure of the Resemblance of First Cousins. By

Ethel M. Elderton, Galton Research Scholar, assisted by
Karl Pearson, F.R.S. Issued, Price ^s. 6d. net,
V. A First Study of the Inheritance of Vision and of the Relative
Influence of Heredity and Environment on Sight. By Amy
Barrington, Galton Laboratory, and Karl Pearson, F.R.S.
Issued. Price 4J. net.

VI. Treasury of Human Inheritance (Pedigree of physical,
psychical, and pathological Characters in Man). Parts I and
II (double part). (Diabetes insipidus, Split-Foot, Polydac-
tylism, Brachydactylism, Tuberculosis, Deaf-Mutism, and
Legal Ability.) Issued by the Galton Laboratory. Price 14J.
Subscriptions to each set of four parts, 20s. net.

VII. The Influence of Parental Occupation and Home Conditions
on the Physique of the Offspring. By Ethel M. Elderton,
Galton Research Scholar. Shortly.
VIII. The Influence of Unfavourable Home Environment and
Defective Physique on the Intelligence of School Children.
By David Heron, M.A., D.Sc, Second Gallon Research
Fellow. Issued. Price 4s. net.
IX. The Treasury of Hiiman Inheritance (Pedigrees of physical,
psychical, and pathological Characters in Man). Part III.
(Angioneurotic Oedema, Hermaphroditism, Deaf-Mutism,
Insanity, Commercial Ability.) Issued. Price 6s. net.
X. The Influence of Parental Alcoholism on the Physique and
Intelligence of the Offspring. By Ethel M. Elderton,
assisted by Karl Pearson. Issued. Price 4^. net.
XI. The Treasury of Human Inheritance (Pedigrees of physical,
psychical,, and pathological Characters in Man). Part IV.
(Cleft Palate, Hare-Lip, Deaf-Mutism, and Congenital
Cataract.) Issued, Price ioj. net. v

XII. The Treasury of Human Inheritance (Pedigrees of physical,
psychical, and pathological Characters in Man). Parts V
and VL (Haemophilia.) Issued, Price 15^. net.

XITI. A Second Study of the Influence of Parental Alcoholism on the
Physique and Intelligence of the Offspring. By K'arl Pear-
son, F.R.S., and Ethkl M. Elderton. Issued Pi ice 4s. pet.

XIV. A Preliminary Study of Extreme Alcoholism in Adults. By
Amy Barrington and Karl Pearson, F.R.S., assisted by
David Heron, M.A., D.Sc ' Issued. Price 4J. net.

V3>|o^

Date Due

GE LIBRARY

•21 9712

B5 3

-1936.

: some
"3 made
yy ...

Library Bureau Cat. No. 1137