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 



