Horton Family collection, 1912, 1919, 1924, n.d.

Dr. William Hamilton Merritt, Jr. was born in 1865 and died in 1924. He was the son of Jedidiah Prendergast Merritt and Emily Prescott, grandson of William Hamilton Merritt. In 1892 he was married to Maud Claudman Hudson of Memphis, Tennessee and had a daughter and a son. During World War I he commanded the 14th battery at Flanders and after becoming ill served as part of the 9th Canadian Field Ambulance, 3rd Canadian Division, serving at a military hospital in Orpington, Kent, England and in 1917 at a military hospital in France. Dr. Merritt served as alderman and mayor for the city of St. Catharines, Ont. He was also a vice-president of the Imperial Bank of Canada, and served on the board of the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge. A memorial service was held in St. Thomas Church, St. Catharines, Ont. on April 24, 1924.

Two Black Gentlemen Photographed by John Cooper, London/St. Thomas, Ont. [n.d.]

An undated cabinet card of two Black men photographed by John Cooper, who operated as a photographer in London, Ont. and St. Thomas, Ont. from 1857 - 1890. The reverse of the photograph features the photographer's stamp in coloured ink. This photograph was in the possession of Iris Sloman Bell, of St. Catharines. The Sloman - Bell family have relatives who include former Black slaves from the United States. John Cooper is listed as a photographer and daguerrean artist in 1857 - 1890 in London, Ont. and in 1874 in St. Thomas, Ont. Source: Phillips, Glen C. The Ontario photographers list (1851-1900). Sarnia: Iron Gate Publishing Co., 1990. "Cabinet card photographs were first introduced in 1866. They were initially employed for landscapes rather than portraitures. Cabinet cards replaced Carte de visite photographs as the popular mode of photography. Cabinet cards became the standard for photographic portraits in 1870. Cabinet cards experienced their peak in popularity in the 1880's. Cabinet cards were still being produced in the United States until the early 1900's and continued to be produced in Europe even longer. The best way to describe a cabinet card is that it is a thin photograph that is mounted on a card that measures 4 1/4″ by 6 1/2″. Cabinet cards frequently have artistic logos and information on the bottom or the reverse of the card which advertised the photographer or the photography studio's services." Source: http://cabinetcardgallery.wordpress.com/category/cabinet-card-history/

History of the De Graffenried family from 1191 A. D. to 1925,

Mode of access: Internet.

The family memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley, M. D., and the antiquarian and other correspondence of William Stukeley, Roger & Samuel Gale, etc.

Portrait engraved from painting by Sir G. Kneller.

Posthumous works of the Rev. Henry B. Bascom /

Each volume has also separate title-page.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that children's decisions to smoke are influenced by family and friends. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members to strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We also searched unpublished material, and the reference lists of key articles. We performed both free-text Internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and we hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We also consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was performed in July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and family members to deter the use of tobacco. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed them for methodological quality. The studies were too limited in number and quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs of family interventions to prevent smoking. We identified five RCTs in Category 1 (minimal risk of bias on all counts); nine in Category 2 (a risk of bias in one or more areas); and five in Category 3 (risks of bias in design and execution such that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the study).Considering the fourteen Category 1 and 2 studies together: (1) four of the nine that tested a family intervention against a control group had significant positive effects, but one showed significant negative effects; (2) one of the five RCTs that tested a family intervention against a school intervention had significant positive effects; (3) none of the six that compared the incremental effects of a family plus a school programme to a school programme alone had significant positive effects; (4) the one RCT that tested a family tobacco intervention against a family non-tobacco safety intervention showed no effects; and (5) the one trial that used general risk reduction interventions found the group which received the parent and teen interventions had less smoking than the one that received only the teen intervention (there was no tobacco intervention but tobacco outcomes were measured). For the included trials the amount of implementer training and the fidelity of implementation are related to positive outcomes, but the number of sessions is not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some well-executed RCTs show family interventions may prevent adolescent smoking, but RCTs which were less well executed had mostly neutral or negative results. There is thus a need for well-designed and executed RCTs in this area.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members by identifying and assessing RCT's that provide training, skills and support to family members to prevent smoking initiation. Hypothesis: This is an exploratory review, and only one hypothesis based on the literature review will be tested: "Interventions to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members are more effective in preventing children starting smoking than no intervention."

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents: Evidence and implications for public health

- P -General population, nonsmoking children (aged 5 to 12) and adolescents (aged 13 to 18) with their parents - I -Interventions with children and family members intended to deter tobacco use. Any components to change parenting behaviour, parental or sibling smoking behaviour, or family communication and interaction. - C -Usual practice, or a program of no family intervention - O -Smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline.