doubt that it is very frequently deleterious, and therefore a cause of elimination. The following facts and figures, which I extract, with the author's kind permission, from Dr. Ridge's valuable and suggestive work, Alcohol and Public Health,[1] which should be read by every one interested in the subject, places this beyond doubt. It should be stated, however, that Dr. Ridge, a distinguished advocate of total abstinence, is in no way identified with the opinions expressed by me; for them I alone am responsible.
"CHAPTER V.—alcohol, life and health. 59. The effects of alcohol on the longevity and health of the nation can be tested by the results of its use, comparing together abstainers and non-abstainers under as nearly as possible the same conditions.
"Perhaps the most telling comparison is that furnished by the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution, a life office which was founded in 1840 for abstainers only, but afterwards admitted non-abstainers into a separate section. The expected and actual claims in each section for the last twentyfive years have been published, as shown in the Table on the next page.
"60. This gives a mortality in the Temperance Section of 71·49 per cent., and in the General Section 96·66 per cent., a difference in favour of the former of 26·17 per cent. There were 1433 fewer deaths than expected in the former section, and 243 fewer in the latter, both being calculated by the same life tables. If the members of the General (non-abstaining) Section had lived on the average as long as the abstainers, there would have been only 5130 deaths instead of 7034, a saving of 1904 lives. Similarly, if the abstainers had used alcohol in the same way as the others, and had died at the same rate as they, the deaths would have been 4693 instead of 3423, a loss- ↑ Alcohol and Public Health, by J.J. Ridge, M.D., London. H.K. Lewis.
