ORIGIN AND PRACTICE OF BIRTH CONTROL IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
_In the countries covered by this chapter Birth Control has been
recognised as a legitimate science; leagues advocating the prevention of
conception have been formed; and the leading authorities have approved
the practice as being the foundation of a better social structure._
_THE CONTROL OF BIRTHS. MARY ALDEN HOPKINS. Harper’s Weekly, April
10th, 1915._
The European laws on this subject are in striking contrast to ours. They
treat contraception and abortion as two separate matters. The laws
against abortion are strict. The laws concerning contraception are
directed against distasteful advertising but not against private advice
or public propaganda. In England the applicant must state in writing
over his or her signature that he or she is married or about to be
married. In Holland formulas and methods may be supplied privately, but
must not be publicly advertised. In Germany there is no law on the
matter, but sentiment is strongly opposed to advertising. In Switzerland
it is forbidden to advertise or circularize. In Norway and Sweden
advertising is not expected. Italy and France have no law on the
subject. In Russia advertising in the newspapers is common. Everywhere
in Europe contraceptives are for sale at pharmacies.
The Birth Control Movement is antagonistic to the general practice of
abortion. The Hungarian senate, a few years ago, declared that the
limitation of families by prevention of conception was absolutely
necessary in order to check the wide-spread evil of attempted abortion.
Our present laws confuse the issue by classing—in a shockingly ignorant
fashion,—contraception, abortion, and pornography, in the same category.
The group is treated in the New York State Penal Code under the
astonishing title of “Indecent Articles.” The eye of the law
distinguishes no difference between the books of August Forel, a
scientist revered in laboratories all over the world, and the obscene
penny postcard sold by some slinking vendor.
_THE MALTHUSIAN LEAGUE OF ENGLAND. The Origin and History of Birth
Control in Great Britain. Reprinted from The Malthusian, April,
1880._
Little improvement can be expected in morality until the production of
large families is regarded in the same light as drunkenness, or any
other physical excess.—John Stuart Mill, 1872.
In obedience to the request of the Nestor of political economists of
Europe, the distinguished editor of the _Journal des Economistes_ of
Paris, M. Joseph Garnier, we give a short account of the reasons which
led to the foundation of the Malthusian League, the latest product of
the nineteenth century’s ideas in the direction of social progress. It
gives us unfeigned pleasure to be the means of making the most thorough
of all French writers on the doctrines of our English latter-day
economists acquainted with the position which the great population
question has recently assumed in this country. It is not, we believe,
too much to allege that the most advanced thinkers of this country are
at this moment well aware of the existence of the new-Malthusian remedy
for the evils of society. How this has come to pass we proceed at once
to show.
It was not long after the publication of Mr. Malthus’ work that some
thoughtful men began to notice that in modern France the late marriage
customs of most European states were replaced to a certain extent by
prudence after marriage. Mr. Francis Place was one of the first to write
a work on population, in which he recommended the physical checks so
commonly made use of by the French parents for adoption in England. He
is said to have remonstrated with Mr. Malthus about an expression in the
first edition of his essay, in which he spoke of such checks under the
head of _Vice_, and the tradition is that Malthus left out the
expression in his subsequent edition: and, as he himself had two
children, Mr. Porter (of Nottingham) believes that Mr. Malthus was, like
Mr. Mill (the father of John Stuart Mill), himself a believer in the
_conjugal prudence_ practised by the better class of peasantry and
townspeople. Mr. Place is also said to have converted Mr. Robert Owen,
the socialist to his opinion, and it is believed that Mr. Owen owed the
success of his colony of New Lanark to a knowledge of this point, which
he communicated to his workmen. Mr. Robert Dale Owen, a son of Robert
Owen, emigrated in his youth to the United States of America, and became
before his death, in 1877, one of the foremost citizens of the western
republic. That gentleman, having doubtless heard the question discussed
by his father, Mr. Francis Place, and other friends in London, was
induced in 1830 to publish a now well-known treatise on the population
question, entitled _Moral Physiology_, a work written with the most
philanthropic design and couched in the most careful language consistent
with clearness and the attainment of its end, in which he gave a
description of the above-mentioned physical checks. This work was,
however, written subsequently to the publication of Mr. Richard
Carlile’s tract, entitled _Every Woman’s Book_, which was a most
outspoken work, written by one of those fearless thinkers who have done
so much to complete the reformation in England and secure freedom of
speech and of the press for this country. Had it not been for him and
his co-workers, England might at this day have been in as backward a
condition as modern Spain. Dr. Charles Knowlton, an able physician of
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., was the next person who wrote upon this
question in his now famous little pamphlet, the _Fruits of Philosophy_,
wherein there was contained a good deal of popular information on
physiology, and a careful account of the checks spoken of by Mr. Dale
Owen and Mr. Carlile. This work was followed after a long interval by a
small pamphlet by Mr. Austin Holyoake, entitled _Large and Small
Families_, which, in company with the tracts by Carlile, Owen, and two
other works were sold for many years by booksellers of the ultra-liberal
party, latterly styled the _Secularists_.
In 1876 the _Fruits of Philosophy_, after circulating without notice for
forty years, was suddenly attacked as an obscene publication under an
Act of Parliament called “Lord Campbell’s Act,” and a bookseller in
Bristol, of the name of Cook, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment
for selling it. The London publisher of the work, Mr. C. Watts, was also
prosecuted for selling it, but, on submission, was let off with merely
the payment of costs, or about two hundred pounds fine. The work would
have been suppressed had not Mr. C. Bradlaugh, the head of the
Secularist party and editor of the _National Reformer_, the most
advanced liberal journal in England, in company with a young but already
most distinguished lady, Mrs. Annie Besant, come forward and sold it
openly. In order to try the case, Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant entered
into partnership in a publishing establishment in Stonecutter Street,
Farringdon Street, London, and sold the _Fruits of Philosophy_ quite
openly, sending copies of it to the city authorities. Mr. Bradlaugh had
for many years been an avowed Malthusian, and the lady also was quite
convinced of the importance of the question. Both were determined that
no bigoted society should put the work under the ban of the law without
a fight for it. The case was first tried at Guildhall, and was sent on
to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.
The trial began on the 18th of June, 1877, and lasted three days. The
jury contained, among other persons of wealth and position, the name of
Arthur Walter, Esq., the son of the proprietor of the _Times_ journal.
After a most powerful defence, in which Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh
delivered speeches which told most powerfully upon the judge and all
present in the Court, the jury delivered the following verdict: “We are
unanimously of the opinion that the book in question (the _Fruits of
Philosophy_) is calculated to deprave public morals; but at the same
time we entirely exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motives in
publishing it.” The judge—who had charged quite in favor of the
defendants—would have let them off with a nominal fine, but, influenced
by the information that they intended carrying on the sale of the work,
strangely sentenced them to a heavy imprisonment and fine. Fortunately,
the higher Court of Appeal decided that there had been an error in the
indictment, and thus the defendants were set free. The prosecution has
not been repeated since that date.
The excitement caused by the trial led to the formation of a society
called The Malthusian League, which was set on foot as a means of
opposing both active and passive resistance to the attempts made to
stifle discussion on the population question. Mr. Bradlaugh had
commenced such a league many years previously, but the time was not ripe
for it. The first meeting of the League was held in the Minor Hall of
the Hall of Science, Old Street, on July 17th, 1877, for the election of
officers. That meeting elected Dr. C. R. Drysdale president, and Mrs.
Annie Besant honorary secretary, in company with Mr. Hember and Mr. R.
Shearer. The Council of the League consisted of Messrs. Bell, Brown,
Dray, Page, Mr. and Mrs. Parris, Mr. and Mrs. Rennick, Messrs. Rivers,
Seyler, G. Standing, Truelove, and Young. Mr. Swaagman was elected
treasurer to the League.
Very soon after the formation of the League, another prosecution of Mr.
Edward Truelove, bookseller, of High Holborn, took place in the Queen’s
Bench on February 1st, 1878. The works he was prosecuted for were quite
of the same character as Knowlton’s _Fruits of Philosophy_, and were
entitled: _More Physiology_, a most philanthropic pamphlet by Mr. Robert
Dale Owen, Senator of the United States, and another pamphlet entitled
_Individual, Family and National Poverty_. Mr. Truelove was most
effectually defended by Mr. William Hunter, and the case fell through,
as one of the jury considered the book quite moral and philanthropic in
its tendencies. The secretary for the “Society for the Suppression of
Vice,” Mr. Collette by name, followed up the prosecution, and Mr.
Truelove was tried in the Central Criminal Court on May 9th, 1878, and
condemned to a fine of fifty pounds and an imprisonment of four months
duration, which he underwent. An immense meeting was held in St. James
Hall, on the evening of June 6, 1878, to protest against this
disgraceful treatment of an honest man like Mr. Truelove, at which the
president of the League took the chair, and enthusiastic addresses were
delivered by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh.
The trial of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh lasted several days, and
aroused a greater interest in the subject than had been known since the
days of Malthus. The English Press was full of the subject; scientific
congresses gave it their attention; many noted political economists
wrote about it; over a hundred petitions were presented to Parliament
requesting the freedom of open discussion; meetings of thousands of
persons were held in all the large cities; and as result, a strong
Neo-Malthusian League was formed in London.
* * * * *
From the small beginning described in the above article the English work
has spread over all the rest of the world. The following is a list of
the leagues having membership in the Federation Universelle de la
Regeneration Humaine, in which the English organization has always
played a leading part:
FEDERATION UNIVERSELLE DE LA REGENERATION HUMAINE
(Federation of Neo-Malthusian Leagues).
_First President_: The late Dr. CHARLES R. DRYSDALE
_President_: Dr. ALICE DRYSDALE VICKERY
VICE-PRESIDENTS
Señor ALDECOA, Director of Government Charities, Madrid.
Mr. G. ANDERSON, C.E.
Major-General E. BEGBIE, _C.B._, D.S.O., Brighton.
Dr. C. CALLAWAY, Cheltenham.
M. VICTOR ERNEST, Belgium.
M. G. GIROUD, Paris.
Herr MAX HAUSMEISTER, Stuttgart.
Mrs. HEATHERLEY.
Mr. S. VAN HOUTEN, Deputé of the First Chamber, The Hague.
Dr. ALETTA JACOBS, Amsterdam.
Mr. JOSEPH MCCABE.
Dr. MASCAUX, Courcelles, Belgium.
Mr. ARTHUR B. MOSS.
P. MURUGESA MUDALIAR, Madras.
Mr. VIVIAN PHELIPS.
Rt. Hon. J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P.
Dr. J. RUTGERS, Verhulststraat, 9 Den Haag, Holland.
Me. HOITSEMA RUTGERS, Verhulststraat, 9 Den Haag, Holland.
Frau MARIE STRITT, Dresden.
Dr. (Ph.) HELENE STOCKER, Berlin.
Professor KNUT WICKSELL, Lund, Sweden.
CONSTITUENT BODIES.
ENGLAND (1877).—The Malthusian League. Periodical, _The Malthusian_.
HOLLAND (1885).—De Nieuw-Malthusiaansche Bond. Secretary, Dr. J.
Rutgers, 9 Verhulststraat, Den Haag. Periodical, _Het Gellukkig
Huisgezin_.
GERMANY (1889).—Sozial Harmonische Verein. Secretary, Herr M.
Hausmeister, Stuttgart. Periodical, _Die Sozial Harmonie_.
FRANCE (1895).—_Génération Consciente._ 27 Rue de la Duée, Paris XX.
SPAIN (1904).—Liga Española de Regeneración Humana. Secretary, Señor
Luis Bulffi, Calle Provenza 177, Pral, la, Barcelona. Periodical,
_Salud y Fuerza_.
BELGIUM (1906).—Ligue Néo-Malthusienne. Secretary, Dr. Fernand
Mascaux, Echevin, Courcelles. Periodical: _Génération Consciente_,
27 Rue de la Duée, Paris XX.
SWITZERLAND (1908).—Group Malthusien. Secretary, Valentin Grandjean,
106 Rue des Eaux Vives, Geneva. Periodical, _La Vie Intime_.
BOHEMIA-AUSTRIA (1901).—_Zadruhy._ Secretary, Michael Kacha, 1164
Zizhov, Prague.
PORTUGAL.—_Paz e Liberdade_, Revista Anti-Militarista e
Neo-Malthusiana. E. Silva, junior, L. da Memória, 46 r/e, Lisbon.
BRAZIL (1905).—Sección brasileña de propaganda. Secretaries: Manuel
Moscosa, Rua de’Bento Pires 29, San Pablo; Antonio Dominiguez, Rua
Vizcande de Moranguapez 25, Rio de Janeiro.
CUBA (1907).—Sección de propaganda. Secretary, José Guardiola,
Empedrado 14, Havana.
SWEDEN (1911).—Sallskapet for Humanitar Barnalstring. President: Mr.
Hinke Bergegren, Vanadisvagen 15, Stockholm, Va.
FLEMISH BELGIUM (1912).—National Verbond ter Regeling van het
Kindertal. President, M. L. van Brussel, Rue de Canal, 70,
Louvain.
ITALY (1913).—Lega Neomalthusiana Italiana. Secretary, Dr. Luigi
Berta, Via Lamarmora 22, Turin. Periodical, _L’Educazione
Sessuale_.
AFRICA.—Ligue Néo-Malthusienne, Maison du Peuple, 10 Rampe Magenta,
Alger.
The English organization, with headquarters in London, has for its
officers some of the most distinguished men and women in England:
FIRST PRESIDENT
The late C. R. DRYSDALE, M.D., M.R.C.P., Lond., F.R.C.S., Eng.
PRESIDENT: Dr. ALICE DRYSDALE VICKERY.
47 Rotherwick Road, Hampstead Garden Suburb, N. W.
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
Major-Gen. ELPHINSTONE BEGBIE, C.B., D.S.O.
ARNOLD BENNETT, Esq.
CHAS. CALLAWAY, Esq., M.A., D.Sc.
Lieut.-Col. J. FALLON, L.R.C.P., R.A.M.C.
E. S. P. HAYNES, Esq.
DENNIS HIRD, Esq., M.A., J.P.
Mrs. HEATHERLEY.
Captain KELSO, R.N.
JOSEPH MCCABE, Esq.
C. KILLICK MILLARD, Esq., M.D., D.Sc., M.O.H.
A. B. MOSS, Esq.
VIVIAN PHELIPS, Esq.
EDEN PHILLPOTTS, Esq.
Right Hon. J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P.
Lieut.-Colonel A. W. WARDEN, late Indian Army.
H. G. WELLS, Esq.
HON. TREASURER:
W. V. OSBORNE, Esq.
HON. SECRETARY:
BINNIE DUNLOP, Esq., M.B., Ch.B., Queen Anne’s Chambers, Westminster,
S.W.
(To whom all correspondence and subscriptions should be sent.)
GENERAL SECRETARY:
Miss O. M. JOHNSON, B.A.
EDITORS OF “THE MALTHUSIAN”:
DR. C. V. DRYSDALE; MRS. B. DRYSDALE.
AUDITOR:
Mrs. E. AYRES PURDIE, A.L.A.A., Hampden House, Kingsway, W.C.
LITERARY SECRETARY:
Mr. GEORGE STANDRING, 7–9 Finsbury Street, London, E.C.
(From whom Books on the Population Question can be obtained.)
The following are some extracts from the League’s rules:
II.—OBJECTS.
That the objects of this Society be:—
1. To spread among the people, by all practicable means, a knowledge of
the law of population, of its consequences, and of its bearing upon
human conduct and morals.
2. To urge upon the medical profession in general, and upon hospitals
and public medical authorities in particular, the duty of giving
instruction in hygienic contraceptive methods to all married people who
desire to limit their families, or who are in any way unfit for
parenthood; and to take any other steps which may be considered
desirable for the provision of such instruction.
III.—PRINCIPLES.
1. “That population (unless consciously and sufficiently controlled) has
a constant tendency to increase beyond the means of subsistence.”
2. That the checks which counteract this tendency are resolvable into
positive or life-destroying, and prudential or birth-restricting.
3. That the positive or life-destroying checks comprehend the premature
death of children and adults by disease, starvation, war, and
infanticide.
4. That the prudential or birth-restricting check consists in the
limitation of offspring (1) by abstention from or postponement of
marriage, or (2) by prudence after marriage.
5. That prolonged postponement of marriage—as advocated by Malthus—is
not only productive of much unhappiness, but is also a potent cause of
sexual vice and disease. Early marriage, on the contrary, tends to
ensure sexual purity, domestic comfort, social happiness and individual
health; but it is a grave social offence for men and women to bring into
the world more children than they can adequately house, feed, clothe,
and educate.
6. That over-population is the most fruitful source of pauperism,
ignorance, crime, and disease.
7. That it is of great importance that those afflicted with hereditary
disease, or who are otherwise plainly incapable of producing or rearing
physically, intellectually and morally satisfactory children, should not
become parents.
8. That the full and open discussion of the Population Question in all
its necessary aspects is a matter of vital moment to Society.
It has been the object of this organization during these years to carry
on the theoretical propaganda of Birth Control mainly among the
educators, consisting of clergymen, physicians, scientists,
sociologists, economists and others who in turn would form a strong,
reliable public opinion who would force the dissemination of practical
information among that element of society who are propagating the
diseased and unfit.
It is only within the last few years that this League has begun to
distribute information to prevent conception. Thousands of copies of
this leaflet have been distributed in nearly every country throughout
the civilized world except _The United States of America_ where laws
prevent its circulation.
PRACTICAL METHODS OF FAMILY LIMITATION
Notice.—The Council of the Malthusian League, while continuing to regard
this as a matter which is strictly within the province of the medical
profession, and which ought to be taken over by them, has compiled a
leaflet entitled “Hygienic Methods of Family Limitation,” for the
benefit of those desirous of limiting their families, but who are
ignorant of the means of doing so, and unable to get medical advice on
the subject. This leaflet can only be issued, however, to persons over
twenty-one years of age who are either married or about to be married,
and who declare their conscientious belief that family limitation is
justifiable on personal and national grounds. Anyone wishing to obtain a
copy of this leaflet must write his or her name and address clearly upon
both of the forms of declaration below, and send them to the Hon.
Secretary. The sealed leaflet will then be sent them. In order to
encourage family limitation among the poorest classes, _no charge will
be made either for the leaflet or postage_, but it is hoped that those
who can afford it will enclose stamps for postage or a small donation to
help the League in its work.
_Under no circumstances whatever can the practical leaflet be supplied
without a properly filled up declaration_, nor can more than one copy be
supplied to the same person. Those wishing to help others, may have
additional copies of the declaration form to hand on.
_The Malthusian League regrets that it is unable to comply with
applications for this leaflet from the United States._
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT IN HOLLAND
Interest in the subject did not confine itself to England, for in 1878
at an International Medical Congress in Amsterdam the subject was
discussed with great enthusiasm. A paper prepared and read by Mr. S. Van
Houten (later Prime Minister) caused a wider interest in the matter and
a year later the Neo-Malthusian (or Birth Control) League of Holland was
organized. Charles R. Drysdale, then President of the English League,
attended the conference.
As is usual in such causes, many of the better educated and intelligent
classes adopted the practice at once, as did the better educated
workers; but the movement had as yet no interest among the poorest and
most ignorant. The League set to work at once to double its efforts in
these quarters. Dr. Aletta Jacobs, the first woman physician in Holland,
became a member of the League, and established a clinic where she gave
information on the means of prevention of conception free to all poor
women who applied for it.
All classes, especially the poor, welcomed the knowledge with open arms,
and requests came thick and fast for the League’s assistance to obtain
the necessary appliances free of charge. The consequence has been that
for the past twelve years the League has labored chiefly among the
people of the poorest districts. Dr. J. Rutgers and Madame Hoitsema
Rutgers, two ardent advocates of these principles, have devoted their
lives to this work. Dr. Rutgers says that where this knowledge is taught
there is a reciprocal action to be observed: “In families where children
are carefully procreated, they are reared carefully; and where they are
reared carefully, they are carefully procreated.”
The Neo-Malthusian (or Birth Control) League of Holland has over 7,000
men and women in its membership, and more than fifty nurses whom it
indorses.
These nurses are trained and instructed by Dr. Rutgers in the proper
means and hygienic principles of the methods of Birth Control. They are
established in practice in the various towns and cities throughout
Holland. They advise women as to the best method to employ to prevent
conception. They work mainly in the agricultural and industrial
districts, or are located near them; and their teachings include not
only the method of prevention of conception, but instruction in general
and sexual hygiene, cleanliness, the uselessness of drugs, and the
non-necessity of abortions. (The Council of the Neo-Malthusian or Birth
Control League calls attention to the fact that it has for its sole
object the Prevention of Conception, and not the causing of abortion.)
The clinic organized by Dr. Jacobs,—the first clinic in the world for
the organized dissemination of information on Birth Control,—proved so
efficient and beneficial to the standards of the community that others
were opened and established until there are now more than fifty in
operation.
There is no doubt that the establishment of these clinics is one of the
most important parts of the work of a Birth Control League. The written
word and written directions are very good, but the fact remains that
even the best educated women have very limited knowledge of the
construction of their generative organs or their physiology. What, then,
can be expected of the less educated women, who have had less advantages
and opportunities? It is consequently most desirable that there be
practical teaching of the methods to be recommended, and women taught
the physiology of their sex organs by those equipped with the knowledge
and capable of teaching it.
It stands to the credit of Holland that it is perhaps the only country
where the advocates of Birth Control have not been prosecuted or jailed;
because the laws regarding the liberty of the individual and the freedom
of the press uphold it, and protect its practise.
THE DUTCH NEO-MALTHUSIAN (BIRTH CONTROL) LEAGUE REPORT FOR 1914
Despite the outbreak of war, the progress of the League has been most
satisfactory. The membership increased from 5,057 at the beginning of
1914 to 5,521 at the end; and branches now exist in twenty-eight towns
in Holland. The list of officers and correspondents alone now occupies
four pages of the Report, and comprises nearly two hundred names. As
these are of persons in every part in the country, it will be realised
how great are the facilities for everyone to obtain practical
information. Besides the great amount of advice given by the trained
workers, 7,200 copies of the League’s booklet giving practical advice on
methods of family limitation (birth control) were supplied. It is
instructive to see, in the reports from the various branches open
statements that Mrs. X (full name given) helped 149 women and supplied
seven gross of preventives, the kinds being clearly specified. The
branch reports give particulars of nearly 1,300 women personally
instructed in preventive methods by trained workers, but the war
prevented the returns from being anything like complete. And this in a
country of only six million inhabitants.—_The Malthusian_, London, July
15, 1915.
RESULTS OF BIRTH CONTROL TEACHING IN HOLLAND
There is no doubt that the Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control) League of
Holland stands as the foremost in the world in organization, and also as
a practical example of the results to be obtained from the teaching of
the prevention of conception. Aside from the spreading influence of
these ideas in Belgium, Italy, and Germany, Holland presents to the
world a statistical record which proves unmistakably what the advocates
of Birth Control have claimed for it.
The infantile mortality of Amsterdam and The Hague is the lowest of any
cities in the world, while the general death rate and infantile
mortality of Holland has fallen to be the lowest of any country in
Europe. These statistics also refute the wild sayings of those who shout
against Birth Control and claim it means race suicide. On the contrary,
Holland proves that the practice of anti-conceptional methods leads to
race improvement, for the increase of population has accelerated as the
death rate has fallen. There has also been a rapid improvement in the
general physique and health of the Dutch people, while that of the high
birth rate countries, Russia and Germany, is said to be rapidly
deteriorating.
The following figures will suffice to show some of the improvements
which have been going on in Holland since 1881, the time the League
became actively engaged in the work:—
VITAL STATISTICS OF CHIEF DUTCH TOWNS
Taken from Annual Summary of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in England
and Wales, etc., for 1912.[1]
Amsterdam (Malthusian (Birth Control) League started 1881; Dr. Aletta
Jacobs gave advice to poor women, 1885.)
1881–85 1906–10 1912
Birth Rate 37.1 24.7 23.3 per 1,000 of population
Death Rate 25.1 13.1 11.2 per 1,000 of population
Infantile Mortality: per thousand living
(Deaths in first 203 90 64 births
year)
The Hague (now headquarters of the Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control)
League)
1881–85 1906–10 1912
Birth Rate 38.7 27.5 23.6 per 1,000 of population
Death Rate 23.3 13.2 10.9 per 1,000 of population
Infantile Mortality: per thousand living
(Deaths in first 214 99 66 births
year)
Rotterdam.[2]
1881–85 1906–10 1912
Birth Rate 37.4 32.0 29.0 per 1,000 of population
Death Rate 24.2 13.4 11.3 per 1,000 of population
Infantile Mortality per thousand living
(Deaths in first 209 105 79 births
year)
Fertility and Illegitimacy Rates.
1880–2 1890–2 1900–2
Legitimate birth per
Legitimate Fertility 306.4 296.5 252.7 1,000 Married Women
aged 15 to 45.
Illegitimate births per
Illegitimate Fertility 16.1 16.3 11.3 1,000 Unmarried
Women, aged 15 to 45.
The Hague.
1880–2 1890–2 1900–2
Legitimate Fertility 346.5 303.9 255.0
Illegitimate Fertility 13.4 13.6 7.7
Rotterdam.
1880–2 1890–2 1900–2
Legitimate Fertility 331.4 312.0 299.0
Illegitimate Fertility 17.4 16.5 13.1
Footnote 1:
These figures are the lowest in the whole list of death rates and
infantile mortalities in the summary of births and deaths in cities in
this Report.
Footnote 2:
Lowest figure for the Continent.
There has been a marked improvement in the labor conditions in Holland
during these last ten years especially, wages having increased and hours
of labor decreased, with the cost of living taking a comparatively very
small rise.
There is no country in Europe where the educational advantages are so
great as in Holland.
That the Birth Control propaganda has been a success in Holland any one
travelling through that delightful, clean and cheerful country can
testify.
In that enlightened country, Holland, the teaching by the medical
profession of the most hygienic methods of birth limitation has enabled
the poor to have small families which they could raise to be physically
and morally better equipped than formerly, and what is most interesting
to observe is that, whether as a result of this or for some other
reason, the families among the well-to-do are not nearly as small as in
other countries.—_Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, in The Survey for November,
1916._
GERMANY
Germany was the next to follow, in 1889, when Herr Max Hausmeister and
Herr Karl Lotter founded the Sozial Harmonische Verein, with its paper
_Die Sozial Harmonie_. Like the English League, this society has
confined its teachings to the theoretical and economic aspects of the
subject, in which it has especially distinguished itself. In Germany all
such doctrines are of course anathema, but the enormous decline in the
birth-rate in several towns testifies to the refusal of the German
people to be hectored into misery. All the signs point at present to an
extraordinary ferment of new ideas in Germany, and a large number of
other movements are more or less openly Neo-Malthusian.—From _The
Malthusian_ (London), January, 1909.
The German Sozial Harmonische Verein, founded in 1889, by Herr Max
Hausmeister, has continued its quiet, but effective, work, and its
periodical, _Die Sozial Harmonie_, has contained many articles of great
economic value. A remarkable feature in Germany, however, has been the
rapid rise of the Mutterschutz Society, under the able presidency of Dr.
Helene Stocker, a society which aims at obtaining greater security and
freedom for married and unmarried mothers, and at securing better
conditions for the rearing of their offspring. Neo-Malthusianism (Birth
Control) is becoming an important feature of this work, and is also
dealt with in the _Zeitschrift fur Sexual-wissenschaft_, a scientific
journal devoted to sex matters. The birth-rate of Prussia has seen one
of the most rapid declines, from 36.2 in 1901 to 33.7 in 1906, and 33.0
in 1907; while the death-rates for the same years have been 20.5, 17.9,
and 17.8, and the infantile mortalities 200, 177, and 168 respectively.
The birth-rate of Berlin in 1907 was 24.3, or below that of London,
26.8.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) for July 15th, 1909.
FRANCE
France differs from all other countries in having realized the
individual advantages of the practice of birth control long before any
other country in Europe. It is said that the sale of the lands
(forfeited by the Emigrés or confiscated by the Commune after the
Revolution) to the people, together with the law of equal inheritance in
accordance with the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity
adopted for their guidance formed the chief incentive to restriction of
the numbers of the family.
The birth-rate declined in an irregular manner from 1870 to the present
time, especially among the wealthy classes, while the poor and ignorant
continued to be burdened with large families. This led M. Paul Robin in
1896 to form the French Ligue de la Regeneration Humaine, and to employ
his enormous energy and enthusiasm towards the formation of leagues in
other countries. Bohemia, Spain, Brazil, Belgium, Cuba, Africa and
Switzerland formed leagues in succession, most of them circulating
periodicals dealing with Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control) theory and
practice. At the same time M. Robin formed a Federation Universelle de
la Regeneration Humaine, in which the various leagues have been
associated and which has held two international meetings—the first at
Paris in 1900 and the second at Liege in 1905.—From _The Malthusian_
(London) January, 1909.
Fifteen years after the founding of M. Robin’s work, the propaganda in
France is very complete and intense. Theoretical or practical, it
appears under many forms. It acts through books, pamphlets, leaflets,
journals, lectures, pictures, and even songs. Tens of thousands of
theoretical volumes and pamphlets are disseminated, hundreds of
thousands of leaflets are distributed. The practical pamphlets find
their success in rapidly disappearing editions. In every part of the
land—in town, and even country—lectures are given, and numerous militant
workers diffuse the good tidings in multitudes of papers. The centers of
our propaganda are too numerous to be fully quoted. In the first rank
are the societies exclusively Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control), which, in
fact, each carry on in their own manner the work undertaken by
_Regeneration_. The most active, the most enterprising, and the most
combative of these organizations, _Génération Consciente_, multiplies
its efforts, extends its action, and prospers unceasingly. Again there
exists a different class of propagandists—the individual—who, without
periodical, place or society, works by disseminating not only the
pamphlets, leaflets, and books, but also the means of prevention.—From
_The Malthusian_ (London) of September 15, 1910.
France has her population practically under control, and can increase or
diminish at will according to the prospects of good or bad times. (See
Page 37 for French Birth and Death Rate).—From _The Malthusian_ (London)
of April 15th, 1909.
France has set the example of real civilization and other nations are
following her more or less rapidly according to their advancement in
culture.
There has been a tendency to ascribe the low birth-rate in France to
infertility or degeneracy, although this is patently absurd to all those
who are acquainted with the French people. For the low birth-rate of
France is practically entirely due to prudential control of families
among married people who make no pretense to the avoidance of preventive
intercourse.
Dealing with the conditions of the people in France there is little that
does not compare favorably with all other old countries. The average
duration of life is about fifty years, which is nearly the highest in
Europe. The infantile mortality is the worst feature,[3] but it has been
declining for some years.
Footnote 3:
Note: This is a problem of hygiene and infant welfare. If the same
care were given the babies of France as is being given the infants of
other advanced countries there is little doubt that the mortality rate
would decline proportionately.—M. H. S.
There is no “too old at thirty-five” difficulty in France, elderly men
being employed where boys are (in other countries); there is no
unemployment worth speaking of; there is no land problem, and house
rents, instead of being forced up by excess of demand, are actually
lowered by excess of supply, so that the “unearned increment” is
frequently negative.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) for April 15th,
1909.
Writing of France in 1879, a few years after the close of the disastrous
Franco-Prussian War, Johannes Swaagman said:
“France, notwithstanding the heavy war indemnity of five milliards, and
perhaps an equal expenditure of her own war material, is now the only
country that has a surplus on its estimated budget, and can even dream
of reducing taxation. Besides this, large sums are being spent on
improvements, with a view of accelerating commerce and industry.
“France has still many things to learn, notably as regards hygiene, but
we have no hesitation in asserting that as regards the solution of the
most distressing problems which humanity has to face and as regards
general happiness and culture she is far ahead of all other countries
and she has simply led the way in the direction in which all other
nations are bound to follow, and in which they are already
hastening.”—From _The Malthusian_ (London) of April 15th, 1909.
Strong and vigorous movements exist in Switzerland, Belgium, Hungary,
Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Italy, while there are somewhat less
active ones in Russia, Japan, India, and even China. I will not take the
space to furnish the details of the movement in these countries because
they are mainly inspired in their activities from those well organized
Leagues already mentioned.
BIRTH AND DEATH RATE IN FRANCE
The actual facts as regards the French birth-rate are constantly
misrepresented. Taking the actual population, this appears to have been
24.8 millions in 1783, 28.9 millions in 1806, and to have gone on more
or less steadily increasing to 39.26 millions in 1907. Exceptions to
this increase have taken place six times since 1881, there being a
deficit or excess of deaths over births of 38,446 in 1890, of 10,505 in
1891, of 20,041 in 1892, of 17,813 in 1895, of 25,988 in 1900, and of
19,920 in 1907. Despite these deficits the natural increase, or excess
of births over deaths, was 1,232,744 in the twenty-five years from 1881
to 1905, while the total increase, including immigration, etc., was
1,690,000 during the same period. It is worthy of note also in view of
the suggestions that the deficit is about to become chronic, and that
France is therefore a “dying nation,” that in 1893 and 1894, after three
years of deficits, there were excesses of 7,000 and 39,000; in 1897 and
1898 of 93,700 and 108,000; and in 1901 of 72,000. There has been no
report since 1907, but Le Jour Officiel of Paris has given the figures
for the first six months of 1908, which show an _increase_ of 12,066,
partly due to a rise of 8,657 in the births and partly a decline of
8,416 in the deaths.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) of April 15th, 1909.
BIRTH RATE IN FRANCE
Compiled from _The Malthusian_ (London), for April 15th,
1909
Year Increase Decrease
1890 38,446
1891 10,505
1892 20,041
1893 7,000
1894 39,000
1895 17,813
1896 No record available
1897 93,700
1898 108,000
Total for 8 years 247,700 86,800
86,800
———————
Total increase 160,900
———————
Rate of increase per year (approximately) 20,100
Increase in total population from 1783 to 1907 15,000,000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
It is interesting to know that the present agitation for the
dissemination of knowledge to prevent conception, as expressed in the
various leagues throughout the world to-day had its greatest impetus and
inspiration from two books written by Americans in the United States.
The first of these was a pamphlet entitled “Moral Physiology,” written
by United States Senator Robert Dale Owen, son of Robert Owen, which was
published in New York City in 1830 and gave a description of the
physical checks made use of in France, where it was the custom to limit
the number of children to the means at the command of the family. This
book was much read and commented favorably upon in America.
So favorably did this publication appeal to the thinking minds of the
time, that Dr. Charles Knowlton, an able Boston physician, on reading
Owen’s pamphlet, was so struck by its importance as a contribution to
the science of hygiene that he brought out a similar work in 1833,
entitled “The Fruits of Philosophy.” His book was addressed to young
married people and gave a popular description of the anatomy of the
organs of reproduction, especially in the female, and a somewhat more
detailed account of the physical checks to prevent conception than had
been given in Owen’s pamphlet.
“The Fruits of Philosophy” circulated unchallenged for more than forty
years, and finally, in 1876, was attacked as an obscene publication
under the new act of Parliament called “Lord Campbell’s Act,” and a
bookseller of Bristol, England, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment
for selling it.
This work would have been suppressed altogether had not Charles
Bradlaugh and Mrs. Annie Besant, two ardent defenders of British
liberty, come forward and volunteered to sell it in order to test the
case in the English courts. The trial, as has been described herein
under the title of “Birth Control League of England,” attracted great
attention to this philosophy throughout the world. It is a sad
commentary upon the legislative bodies of this country that up to the
present every attempt by advocates of this principle to discuss this
subject and awaken our people to its needs has been met with prosecution
and jail sentences.
During these last forty years the movement has made rapid progress in
all civilized countries except the United States. In this progressive
matter we find ourselves classed with Russia, Japan, India and China,
where national interest is concerned with quantity of human beings
rather than with quality.
But during the last five years the subject has come forcibly to the
front, mainly through prosecutions. Again a message has gained a hearing
from the dock which it could never have won from the platform.
The people of this country are now awakened to the need of knowledge to
prevent conception. Social workers, nurses, and members of the medical
profession find their work hampered and their activities nullified by
oppressive laws denying the individual the right of health, life and the
pursuit of happiness.
The most advanced thinkers in America are with us in this movement, the
sentiment being largely in favor of the establishment of clinics,
similar to those in Holland, where the poor and overburdened mothers may
come for advice to be given by doctors, nurses or others competent to
instruct.
Following are some of the names of men and women in the United States
who stand for the dissemination of such knowledge, have allied
themselves to this great humanitarian cause, and have come out in the
press for birth control as a national necessity:
WELL KNOWN WOMEN WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL
Mrs. J. Borden Harriman
Mrs. Amos Pinchot
Mrs. Charles Tiffany
Mrs. Robert M. La Follete
Mrs. Herbert Croly
Mrs. Phillip Littell
Mrs. Raymond B. Stevens
Mrs. Simeon Ford
Mrs. Philip Lydig
Mrs. William I. Thomas
Mrs. Robert P. Bass
Mrs. Inez Haynes Irwin
Mrs. Paul Manship
Mrs. Frank Cothren
Mrs. George B. Hopkins
Mrs. J. Sargeant Cram
Mrs. William Leon Graves
Mrs. Gifford Pinchot
Mrs. J. G. Phelps Stokes
Mrs. Elsie Clews Parsons
Mrs. Amy Walker Field
Mrs. Mary Heaton Vorse
Mrs. Juliet Barrett Rublee
Mrs. Frances Hand
Mrs. Mabel Foster Spinney
Mrs. Belle I. Moskowitz
Miss Caroline Rutz-Rees
Miss Jessie Ashley
Miss Lillian D. Wald
Princess Troubetskoy
NOTED PHYSICIANS WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL
Dr. Abram Jacobi, ex-president, American Medical Association, New York
City.
Dr. Hermann M. Biggs, State Commissioner of Health, New York.
Dr. John N. Hurty, secretary, State Board of Health, Indiana.
Dr. Godfrey R. Pisek, professor of diseases of children, New York
Post-Graduate Medical School and Hospital, New York City.
Dr. J. W. Trask, United States Public Health Service, Washington, D.
C.
Dr. Ira S. Wile, editor, _American Medicine_, member Board of
Education, New York City.
Dr. John A. Wyeth, professor of surgery and president of the New York
Polyclinic Medical School and Hospital, ex-president of the
American Medical Assn., and New York Academy of Medicine, New York
City.
Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, professor of medicine, department of
Phthisio-therapy, at New York Post-Graduate Medical School and
Hospital, New York City.
Dr. Lydia Allen de Vilbiss, formerly of New York State Department of
Health, now in charge of the division of Child Hygiene of the
State Board of Health of Kansas.
NOTED WRITERS AND TEACHERS WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL
Ernest Poole
Will Irwin
Walter Lippman
Paul Kellogg
Max Eastman
Winthrop D. Lane
John Reed
Prof. Warner Fite
Prof. William P. Montagu
Prof. Charles Zueblin
Prof. Durant Drake
Prof. Thomas Nixon Carver
Prof. Melvil Dewey
Prof. William H. Allen
Prof. Franklin H. Giddings
Prof. Irving Fisher
Hon. Homer Folks
Hon. William H. Wadhams
Dr. Henry Moskowitz
Hiram Myers
Dr. Scott Nearing
Eugene V. Debs
NOTED MINISTERS WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL
Rev. Dr. Frank Crane, formerly pastor of the Union Congregational
Church, Worcester, Mass., now notable writer of editorial articles
for New York _Globe_, etc.
Rev. Dr. Percy Stickney Grant, rector, Protestant Episcopal Church of
the Ascension, New York City.
Rev. Dr. Frank Oliver Hall, minister, Church of the Divine Paternity,
New York City.
Rev. Dr. John Haynes Holmes, minister, Unitarian Church of the
Messiah, New York City.
Rev. Dr. Harvey Dee Brown, minister, Unitarian Church of the Messiah,
New York City.
Rev. Dr. Stephen S. Wise, rabbi of the Free Synagogue, New York City.
Rev. Dr. Sidney E. Goldstein, rabbi of the Free Synagogue, New York
City.
Rev. Dr. Waldo Adams Amos, rector, Protestant Episcopal Church of St
Paul, Hoboken, N. J.
PROMINENT RESIDENTS OF CHICAGO, ILL., WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL
Dr. Isaac A. Abt
Rev. Myron E. Adams
Rev. Edward S. Ames
Dr. Charles S. Bacon
Mrs. E. W. Bemis
Mrs. I. S. Blackwelder
Mrs. Tiffany Blake
Dr. Anna E. Blount
Ralph E. Blount
Mrs. Joseph T. Bowen
Mr. and Mrs. Horace Bridges
Mr. and Mrs. Edward B. Burling
Mrs. Benjamin Carpenter
Dr. and Mrs. Frank Cary
Mr. and Mrs. William L. Chenery
Dr. Frank S. Churchill
Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Dauchy
Dr. J. B. De Lee
Mr. and Mrs. William F. Dummer
Mrs. Joseph N. Eisendrath
Mrs. Kellogg Fairbank
Dr. John Favill
Prof. and Mrs. James A. Field
Mrs. Walter L. Fisher
Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Frank
Rev. and Mrs. Charley W. Gilkey
Dr. and Mrs. Maurice L. Goodkind
Dr. Ethan A. Gray
Mr. and Mrs. E. T. Gundlach
Mrs. Alfred Hamburger
Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Hamill
Dr. Alice Hamilton
Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Harding
Dr. N. Sproat Heaney
Mrs. Charles Henrotin
Dr. Rudolph W. Holmes
Mrs. Leila K. Hutchins
Dr. Karl K. Koessler
Mr. and Mrs. Herman Landauer
Dr. W. George Lee
Prof. and Mrs. Frank R. Lillie
Prof. and Mrs. J. Weber Linn
Mrs. Edwin L. Lobdell
Max Loeb
Judge and Mrs. Julian W. Mack
Prof. and Mrs. George H. Mead
Dr. James H. Mitchell
Mr. and Mrs. William S. Monroe
Prof. and Mrs. Addison W. Moore
Mrs. James W. Morrisson
Mr. and Mrs. George Packard
Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin Page
Mrs. Elia W. Peattie
Allen B. Pond
Mr. and Mrs. James F. Porter
Mrs. Julius Rosenwald
Mrs. Dunlap Smith
Mrs. Henry Solomon
Dr. Alexander F. Stevenson
Prof. Graham Taylor
Mrs. Harriet W. Walker
Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby Walling
Mrs. George Watkins
Mr. and Mrs. Payson Wild
Mrs. Wilmarth
Dr. Rachelle Yarros
Victor S. Yarros
Mr. and Mrs. Sigmund Zeisler
Physicians, scientists, economists, social workers and others interested
in the forward march of this country are simply marking time in progress
until it is decided whether or not the medical profession and its
assistants have the legal right to impart information to prevent
conception to those who need it. A favorable decision would permit men
and women to stem the incoming tide of feebleminded, unfit, degenerate
individuals who undermine our present social structure and place a
burden on generations yet unborn.