In thus expressing myself, I should be sorry that my remarks should be construed as intended to cast any imputation upon those who have unfortunately an idiot in their family; the cause of the evil may be in some remote progenitor, for the transmission of the infirmity is not always direct, and the neurotic tendency may skip a generation, or be traced even further back.
Intemperance. One of the most fruitful causes of idiocy is the abuse—mark, I do not say the proper use—of alcoholic stimulants, which tends to bring families into a low and feeble condition, which thus becomes a prolific cause of idiocy in their children. From a report on idiocy, by Dr. Howe and other Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts to ascertain the causes of this calamity in that State, it is stated that "out of 359 idiots, the condition of whose progenitors was ascertained, 99 were the children of inveterate drunkards;" and the report goes on to say further, "that when the parents were not actually habitual drunkards, yet amongst the idiots of the lower class, not one quarter of the parents could be considered as temperate persons. From a table drawn up by the late Dr. Kerlin, an American physician, in which the causes of the infirmity are given in 100 cases of idiotic children, I observe that in 38 of the number, intemperance on the part of the parents is traced as an accessory, main, direct, or indirect cause.
At the annual meeting of the British Medical Association, held at Cambridge, Dr. Fletcher Beach read a paper on the Intemperance of Parents as a predisposing cause of idiocy in children. In 430 patients, he was enabled to trace a history of parental intemperance in 138 cases, or 31·6 per cent.; of this number, 72 were males and 66 females."[5]
Other observers lay less stress upon parental intemperance as a cause of idiocy. Dr. Wilbur found that out of 365 cases in the State of Illinois, only eight cases were assigned to the abuse of drink in the parents; and Dr. Shuttleworth could trace this cause in only 16·38 per cent. of the cases observed by himself and by Dr. Fletcher Beach;[6] the same writer, under the head of toxic idiocy, mentions the case of an idiot boy, who was said to have been brought up on porter instead of milk. It will therefore be seen that there exists a great difference of opinion about the influence of intemperance of the parent in the causation of idiocy; but although statistics may vary upon this point, there cannot be a doubt that the children of drunken parents inherit an unhealthy nervous system, which in many cases culminates in idiocy.
Idiocy is especially prevalent in Norway, and Ludwig Dahl, a Norwegian writer, says that to the abuse of brandy, especially in the fathers, but also in the mothers during pregnancy, may be assigned an important, perhaps the most important, influence in the production of the large number of idiots in that country.
In considering this question, we must bear in mind that intemperance is only a relative term; for in the early part of the century we read of our ancestors indulging in a bottle of port wine to each individual, without, it seems, incurring the charge of drunkenness. There cannot be a doubt, however, that the habitual use of alcohol, without being carried to the extent of actual intoxication, is calculated to cause a low and feeble condition of the body, and thus conduce to the production of idiocy in the offspring; for we may fairly assume that what too severely tries the nervous system in one generation will appear in their descendants.[7] Without, therefore, exaggerating the influence of alcohol on the genesis of idiocy, I think I shall not be deviating from the path of strict scientific accuracy, if I say that over indulgence in alcoholic beverages is calculated to produce a low state of vitality, and a degeneration of nerve tissue which may culminate in the development of idiocy in subsequent generations.[8]
Just now that the attention of the Legislature is being prominently called to the treatment of habitual drunkards, it cannot be too widely known that their innocent offspring are but too frequently the victims of the brutish excesses of their parents, who, a few years ago, were well described by the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, when receiving a deputation on the subject, as not quite criminals nor quite lunatics, although nearly approaching both classes in many cases. The above statistics fully corroborate the pertinency of Lord Cross's remarks.
I do not allude to these facts with the view of casting any reflection upon the poor, honest, and temperate East Anglian labourer, who may be afflicted with the calamity of having an idiot child; but I merely mention them in order that they may serve as an additional caution against habits of intemperance, and may strengthen the hands of that noble band of philanthropists who are endeavouring to check the torrent of this hideous vice so prevalent in the present day.
Consanguine Marriages. There is no point connected with the causation of idiocy that has given rise to so much controversy as the marriage of near relations; formerly one of the most popular notions was that consanguineous marriages were among the most common causes of idiocy, whereas the researches of later observers have tended to modify, to a considerable extent, this sweeping assertion.
Different observers have furnished different results, as to the proportion of idiots found to be the offspring of consanguine marriages; thus Dr. Grabham's statistics give the proportion as about 2 per cent., Dr. Langdon Down's rather more than 5 per cent., and Dr. Shuttleworth's less than 5 per cent. The statistics of the Eastern Counties' Asylum, kindly supplied to me by Mr. Turner, the Resident Superintendent, show that about 6·5 per cent. were the offspring of cousins.