]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. 



