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 



