POPULATION AND BIRTH RATE
_In this chapter it is demonstrated that a high birth rate invariably
means a high death rate, particularly a high infant mortality. Where a
knowledge of methods to prevent conception results in a lowering of the
birth rate, proportionately more of those children born survive, and a
healthier, sturdier population is the result._
BIRTH CONTROL
BY HAVELOCK ELLIS
It may be said that Nature has been seriously troubled with the problem
of reproduction even from the first creation of life. Our own doubts and
difficulties in that sphere are but a continuation of those experienced
on the earth long before Man’s ancestors descended from the forest
trees. Nature’s first insistent impulse was for reproduction, and so the
lowlier organisms increase at an enormous rate, though by far the
greater number of the creatures thus produced are doomed to early
destruction by other creatures which prey upon them. Then sex arose and
developed. And the object of sex may be said to act as a check on
reproduction, and not, as we have sometimes too hastily assumed, to
ensure reproduction, for that was already more than fully ensured by
other methods already in existence. The device of sex rendered
reproduction more difficult, but in decreasing the quantity of offspring
it at the same time improved their quality. As the sexual process
increased in complexity the individuals produced equally grew more
complex and better equipped to resist the dangers they were subjected
to. Fishes are spawned by the thousand, but only a few come to maturity.
The higher mammals produce but few offspring and surround them with
parental care until they are able to lead their own lives with a fair
chance of surviving. Thus the sexual process in its finally developed
form may be regarded as a mechanism for subordinating quantity to
quality, and so promoting the evolution of life to ever higher stages.
This process, which is plain to see on the largest scale throughout
living nature, may be more minutely studied, as it acts within a
narrower range, in the human species. Here we statistically formulate it
in the terms of birth-rate and death-rate; by the mutual relationship of
the two courses of the birth-rate and the death-rate we are able to
estimate the evolutionary rank of a nation, and the degree in which it
has succeeded in subordinating the primitive standard of quantity to the
higher and later standard of quality.
It is especially in Europe that we can investigate this relationship by
the help of statistics which in some cases extend for nearly a century
back. We can trace the various phases through which each nation passes,
the effects of prosperity, the influence of education and sanitary
improvement, the general complex development of civilisation, in each
case moving forward, though not regularly and steadily, to higher stages
by means of a falling birth-rate, which is to some extent compensated
for by a falling death-rate, the two rates nearly always running
parallel, so that a temporary rise in the birth-rate is usually
accompanied by a rise in the death-rate,—by a return, that is to say, to
the conditions which we find at the beginning of animal life,—and a
steady fall in the birth-rate is always accompanied by a fall in the
death-rate.
The modern phase of this movement, soon after which our precise
knowledge begins, may be said to date from the industrial expansion, due
to the introduction of machinery, which Professor Marshall places in
England about the year 1760. That represents the beginning of an era in
which all civilised and semi-civilised countries are still living. For
the earlier centuries we lack precise data, but we are able to form
certain probable conclusions. The population of a country in those ages
seems to have grown very slowly and sometimes even to have retrograded.
At the end of the sixteenth century the population of England and Wales
is estimated at five millions and at the end of seventeenth at six
millions,—only 20% increase during the century—although during the
nineteenth century the population nearly quadrupled. This very gradual
increase of the population seems to have been by no means due to a very
low birth-rate, but to a very high death-rate. Throughout the Middle
Ages a succession of virulent plagues and pestilences devastated Europe.
Smallpox, which may be considered the latest of these, used to sweep off
large masses of the youthful population in the eighteenth century. The
result was a certain stability and a certain well-being in the
population as a whole, these conditions being, however, maintained in a
manner that was terribly wasteful and distressing.
The industrial revolution introduced a new era which began to show its
features clearly in the early nineteenth century. On the one hand, a new
motive had arisen to favor a more rapid increase of population. Small
children could tend machinery and thereby earn wages to increase the
family takings. This led to an immediate result in increased population
and increased prosperity. But on the other hand, the rapid increase of
population always tended to outrun the rapid increase of prosperity, and
the more so since the rise of sanitary science began to drive back the
invasions of the grosser and more destructive infectious diseases which
had hitherto kept the population down. The result was that new forms of
disease, distress, and destitution arose; the old stability was lost,
and the new prosperity produced unrest in place of well-being. The
social consciousness was still too immature to deal collectively with
the difficulties and frictions which the industrial era introduced, and
the individualism which under former conditions had operated wholesomely
now acted perniciously to crush the souls and bodies of the workers,
whether men, women or children.
As we know, the increase of knowledge and the growth of the social
consciousness have slowly acted wholesomely during the past century to
remedy the first evil results of the industrial revolution. The
artificial and abnormal increase of the population has been checked
because it is no longer permissible in most countries to stunt the minds
and bodies of small children by placing them in factories. An elaborate
system of factory legislation was devised, and is still ever drawing
fresh groups of workers within its protective meshes. Sanitary science
began to develop and to exert an enormous influence on the health of
nations. At the same time the supreme importance of popular education
was realised. The total result was that the nature of “prosperity” began
to be transformed, instead of being, as it had been at the beginning of
the industrial era, a direct appeal to the gratification of gross
appetites and reckless lusts, it became an indirect stimulus to higher
gratifications and more remote aspirations. Foresight became a
dominating motive even in the general population, and a man’s anxiety
for the welfare of his family was no longer forgotten in the pleasure of
the moment. The social state again became more stable, and more
“prosperity” was transformed into civilisation. This is the state of
things now in progress in all industrial countries, though it has
reached varying levels of development among different peoples.
It is thus clear that the birth-rate combined with the death-rate
constitutes a delicate instrument for the measurement of civilisation,
and that the record of these combined curves registers the upward or
downward course of every nation. The curves, as we know, tend to be
parallel, and when they are not parallel we are in the presence of a
rare and abnormal state of things which is usually temporary or
transitional.
It is instructive from this point of view to study the various nations
of Europe, for here we find a large number of small nations, each with
its own statistical system, confined within a small space and living
under fairly uniform conditions. Let us take the very latest official
figures (which are usually for 1913) and attempt to measure the
civilisation of European countries on this basis. Beginning with the
lowest birth-rate, and therefore in gradually descending rank of
superiority, we find that the European countries stand in the following
order: France, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
Switzerland, Norway, Scotland, Denmark, Holland, the German Empire,
Prussia, Finland, Spain, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria,
Roumania, Russia. If we take the death-rate similarly, beginning with
the lowest rate and gradually descending to the highest, we find the
following order: Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the
United Kingdom, Belgium, Scotland, Prussia, the German Empire, Finland,
Ireland, France, Italy, Austria, Serbia, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Roumania, Russia.
Now we cannot accept the birth-rates and death-rates of the various
countries exactly at their face value. Temporary conditions, as well as
the special composition of a population, not to mention peculiarities of
registration, exert a disturbing effect. Roughly and on the whole,
however, the figures are acceptable. It is instructive to find how
closely the two rates agree. The agreement is, indeed, greater at the
bottom than at the top; the eight countries which constitute the lowest
group as regards birth-rate are the identical eight countries which
furnish the heaviest death-rates. That was to be expected; a very high
birth-rate seems fatally to involve a very high death-rate. But a very
low birth-rate (as we see especially in the case of France) is not
invariably associated with a very low death-rate though it is never
associated with a high death-rate. This seems to indicate that those
qualities in a highly civilised nation which restrain the production of
offspring do not always or at once produce the eugenic racial qualities
possessed by hardier peoples living under simpler conditions. But with
these reservations it is not difficult to combine the two lists in a
fairly concordant order of descending rank. Most readers will agree,
that taking the European populations in bulk, without regard to the
production of genius (for men of genius are always a very minute
fraction of a nation), the European populations which they are
accustomed to regard as standing at the head in the general diffusion of
character, intelligence, education, and well-being, are all included in
the first twelve or thirteen nations, which are the same in both lists
though they do not follow the same order. These peoples, as peoples—that
is, without regard to their size, their political importance, or their
production of genius—represent the highest level of democratic
civilisation in Europe.
It is scarcely necessary to add that various countries outside Europe
equal or excel them; the death-rate of the United States, so far as
statistics show, is the same as that of Sweden, that of Ontario, still
better, is the same as Denmark, while the death-rate of the Australian
Commonwealth with a medium birth-rate, is lower than that of any
European country, and New Zealand holds the world’s championship in this
field with the lowest death-rate of all. On the other hand, some
extra-European countries compare less favorably with Europe: Japan, with
a rather high birth-rate, has the same high death-rate as Spain, and
Chili, with a still higher birth-rate, has a higher death-rate than
Russia. So it is that among human peoples we find the same laws
prevailing as among animals, and the higher nations of the world differ
from those which are less highly evolved precisely as the elephant
differs from the herring, though within a narrower range, that is to
say, by producing fewer offspring and taking better care of them.
The whole of this evolutionary process, we have to remember, is a
natural process. It has been going on from the beginning of the living
world. But at a certain stage in the higher development of man without
ceasing to be natural, it becomes conscious and deliberate. It is then
that we have what may properly be termed _Birth Control_. That is to say
that a process which had before been working slowly through the ages,
attaining every new forward step with waste and pain, is henceforth
carried out voluntarily, in the light of the high human qualities of
reason and foresight and self-restraint. The rise of birth control may
be said to correspond with the rise of social and sanitary science in
the first half of the nineteenth century, and to be indeed an essential
part of that movement. It is firmly established in all the most
progressive and enlightened countries of Europe, notably in France and
in England; in Germany, where formerly the birth-rate was very high,
birth control has developed with extraordinary rapidity during the
present century. In Holland its principle and practice are freely taught
by physicians and nurses to the mothers of the people, with the result
that there is in Holland no longer any necessity for unwanted babies,
and this small country possesses the proud privilege of the lowest
death-rate in Europe. In the free and enlightened democratic communities
on the other side of the globe, in Australia and New Zealand, the same
principles and practice are generally accepted, with the same beneficent
results. On the other hand, in the more backward and ignorant countries
of Europe, birth control is still little known, and death and disease
flourish. This is the case in those eight countries which come at the
bottom of both our lists.
* * * * *
Even in the more progressive countries, however, birth control has not
been established without a struggle which has frequently ended in a
hypocritical compromise, its principles being publicly ignored or denied
and its practice privately accepted. For at the great and vitally
important point in human progress which birth control represents, we
really see the conflict of two moralities. The morality of the ancient
world is here confronted by the morality of the new world. The old
morality, knowing nothing of science and the process of Nature as worked
out in the evolution of life, based itself on the early chapters of
Genesis, in which the children of Noah are represented as entering an
empty earth which it is their business to populate diligently. So it
came about that for this morality, still innocent of eugenics,
recklessness was almost a virtue. Children were given by God, if they
died or were afflicted by congenital disease, it was the dispensation of
God, and, whatever imprudence the parents might commit, the pathetic
faith still ruled that “God will provide.” But in the new morality it is
realised that in these matters Divine action can only be made manifest
in human action, that is to say through the operation of our own
enlightened reason and resolved will. Prudence, foresight,
self-restraint—virtues which the old morality looked down on with
benevolent contempt—assume a position of the first importance. In the
eyes of the new morality the ideal woman is no longer the meek drudge
condemned to endless and often ineffectual child-bearing, but the free
and instructed woman, able to look before and after, trained in a sense
of responsibility alike to herself and to the race, and determined to
have no children but the best.
Such were the two moralities which came into conflict during the
nineteenth century. They were irreconcilable and each firmly rooted, one
in ancient religion and tradition, the other in progressive science and
reason. Nothing was possible in such a clash of opposing ideas but a
feeble and confused compromise such as we still find prevailing in
various countries of old Europe. It was not a satisfactory solution,
however inevitable, and especially unsatisfactory by the consequent
obscurantism which placed difficulties in the way of spreading a
knowledge of the methods of birth control among the masses of the
population. For the result has been that while the more enlightened and
educated have exercised a control over the size of their families, the
poorer and more ignorant—who should have been offered every facility and
encouragement to follow in the same path—have been left, through a
conspiracy of secrecy, to carry on helplessly the bad customs of their
forefathers. This social neglect has had the result that the superior
family stocks have been hampered by the recklessness of the inferior
stocks.
Such is the situation to-day when we find America entering this field.
Up till now America had meekly accepted at Old Europe’s hands the
traditional prescription of our Mediterranean book of Genesis, with its
fascinating old-world fragrance of Mount Ararat. On the surface, the
ancient morality had been complacently, almost unquestionably accepted
in America, even to the extent of permitting a vast extension of
abortion—a criminal practice which ever flourishes where birth-control
is neglected. But to-day we suddenly see a new movement in the United
States. In a flash, America awoke to the true significance of the issue.
With that direct vision of hers, that swift practicality of action, and
above all, that sense of the democratic nature of all social progress,
we see her resolutely beginning to face this great problem. In her own
vigorous native tongue we hear her demanding: “What in the thunder is
all the secrecy about anyhow?” And we cannot doubt that America’s own
answer to that demand will be of immense significance to the whole
world.
_BIRTH CONTROL. MARY ALDEN HOPKINS, in Harper’s Weekly, 1915._
No one knows what the birth rate of the United States is, or what it
ever has been. Every European country knows its birth rate and its death
rate, because every birth and every death is registered. Where the
number of births, the number of deaths and the number of the population
are all known, it is an easy matter to calculate the rates per thousand.
But in the international tables of vital statistics our country’s
figures are omitted.
Our 1910 census announced that 23 states had “fairly complete” death
registration. They recorded about 90% of their deaths. But the birth
registration situation was shocking. The New England States,
Pennsylvania and Michigan were the only acceptable states. The figures
for the cities of Washington, D.C., and New York City passed muster
also. The 1910 census birth rate is not yet published, but the 1900
census made shift to figure it out by means of the number of the
population’s increase and the death rate. This would be surer if the
death rate were not itself approximate. However, the calculated rates
were, birth rate, 35.1 per 1000 population; death rate, 17.4 per 1000;
excess of births over deaths 17.7 per 1000. Comparing these rates with
the rates of the European countries for the same decade, we find
ourselves near the head of the list for high birth rate, near the foot
of the list for low death rate, and increasing faster than any other
nation. These figures leave nothing to be desired from an emotional
viewpoint. But they leave much to be desired in the way of accuracy. In
addition to our lack of statistics we are confused by the effect of
immigration.
The birth rate of every civilized country is falling. The following
comparison of national birth rates is based on the ten largest countries
of Europe. The less important ones show the same general
characteristics. Asiatic countries must be excluded as they have no
reliable vital statistics. The United States must be considered
separately because both our mortality records and our birth registration
are so defective that only approximate calculations can be made. The
maximum birth rate preceding the present decline occurred in France
1811–20; in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Prussia 1821–30;
Belgium 1831–40; Denmark 1851–60; Scotland and Spain 1861–70; England,
Wales, Ireland, Hungary, Switzerland, Germany, Bavaria, Saxony, and the
Netherlands 1871–80; Portugal, Italy, Serbia and Roumania, 1881–90.
The figures of the following table are taken from the Report of the
Registrar General of Great Britain for 1910. Five year periods are used
in place of single years to eliminate variations of exceptional years.
Seventy-third Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths
and Marriages in England and Wales, 1910, London. Pub. by His Majesty’s
Stationery Office. Printed by Darling and Sons, Ltd., Bacon St., E.
London. 1912.
Yearly Number of Births per 1000
Inhabitants.
1881–5 1906–10
Russia (European) 49.1 47.7[4]
Hungary 44.6 36.7
German Empire 37.0 34.3[4]
Spain 36.4 33.6
Austria 38.2 33.6
Italy 38.0 32.6
The Netherlands 34.8 29.6
Belgium 30.7 27.7[4]
England and Wales 33.5 26.6
France 24.7 19.7
Footnote 4:
Figures for previous five years.
The countries are arranged in order of their 1906–10 rates.
By subtracting the figures in the second column from the first we obtain
the fall in the rates between 1881–5 and 1906–10. Russia, in 1910, had
the highest birth rate, and had suffered the slightest diminution, only
1.4 per thousand. Curiously Hungary, standing second in line, showed the
greatest fall, 7.9. England and Wales, far down the scale, had a drop of
6.9 per thousand. Italy, The Netherlands, France, and Austria kept a
fairly even pace with a fall of around 5. Belgium, Spain, and the German
Empire lost only about 3 per thousand.
Much discussion has arisen concerning the cause of this decline. Two
distinct stages occur in the fecundity of animal life. In the species
below the human race it is checked by biological causes. In the human
race it is checked by social and economic causes. As the scale of life
rises, the number of offspring become fewer. The higher the animal, the
fewer the offspring.
When we reach the human animal, we find in addition to pestilence, war,
and “acts of God,” various forms of voluntary check. Semi-civilized
countries manage the affair rather crudely; in India the Ganges is
hardly yet free from infant corpses, and in China girl babies show an
assisted mortality. More civilized countries limit the birth rate more
felicitously, reducing the number of marriages and advancing the age of
marriage, by imposing social, ethical, and financial obligations. This
decreases the number of possible children. These indirect checks held
back the increase of population so slightly, evenly and over so long a
period as to be hardly perceptible. In the seventies appeared a
phenomenon of spectacular novelty—the small family. Harmless methods of
contraception had been perfected, the knowledge disseminated, and the
means supplied. The birth rate, which had slowly declined through aeons,
from eggs by the millions to yearly babies, dropped with dizzying
rapidity.
As the birth rates of the nations fall, so fall the death rates. Here
are the death rates for the same ten nations for the same years as the
previous birth rate table.
Yearly Number of Deaths per
1,000 Inhabitants
1881–5 1906–10
Russia (European) 35.4 30.9[5]
Hungary 33.1 25.0
Spain 32.6 24.3
Austria 30.1 22.3
Italy 27.3 21.0
German Empire 25.3 19.9[5]
France 22.2 19.2
Belgium 20.6 17.0[5]
England and Wales 19.4 14.7
The Netherlands 21.4 14.3
Footnote 5:
Figures for previous five years.
A comparison of the two tables shows immediately that the countries
having the highest birth rate have also the highest death rate. Russia,
which heads the list in births, heads the list in deaths. Hungary comes
second in both lists. Next come, in a slightly altered order, the four
countries, German Empire, Spain, Austria and Italy. An exception occurs
in France which has the unusual combination of a low birth rate and a
medium death rate. Belgium, and England and Wales occupy the same
position in both lists with low birth rates and low death rates. The
Netherlands is the notable country with its medium birth rate and its
low death rate. The Neo-Malthusians love to mention at this point that
this country has governmental encouragement in teaching contraception.
The increase of a country is the difference between its birth rate and
its death rate. The population of a country depends, not upon its birth
rate, but upon its birth rate, minus its death rate. If the two are
identical, the population is stationary. This happened in France in the
1891–5 period. The number of births per thousand inhabitants was exactly
the number of deaths per thousand inhabitants. The rest of the world
tolled the knell for France. But France instead of declining into the
have-been nations showed that a controlled birth rate can be raised as
well as lowered. Slowly and apparently intentionally she raised her rate
during the succeeding years.
Decline and rise of French Birth rate: 1881–5, 2.5; 1886–90, 1.1;
1891–5, 0.0; 1896–1900, 1.2; 1901–5, 1.6; 1906–10, .7. Nor has France
since those early nineties allowed her birth rate to fall below her
death rate.
The populations of European nations are increasing, because the death
rates are falling faster than the birth rates.
If we subtract the deaths per thousand inhabitants, given in the second
table, from the births per thousand inhabitants given in the first
table, we shall have the natural rate of increase. In every single case
the number of births is greater than the number of deaths—so every
country is increasing in population.
Natural Increase in Population
per 1,000 Inhabitants
1881–5 1906–10
Russia (European) 13.7 16.8[6]
The Netherlands 13.4 15.3
German Empire 11.7 14.4[6]
Hungary 11.5 11.7
England and Wales 14.1 11.5
Italy 10.7 11.4
Austria 8.1 11.3
Belgium 10.1 10.7[6]
Spain 3.8 9.3
France 2.5 .7
Footnote 6:
Figures for previous five years.
From the second column we find that Russia is increasing most rapidly.
The Netherlands comes second in rate of increase—an honorable position
to which the regulationists point triumphantly when they assert that
control of the birth rate does not mean the ruin of the nation. The
German Empire comes next, with Hungary following. England stands fifth
in the rating of increase, and England takes the position with woeful
lamentations. Italy, Austria, Belgium, and Spain are near the foot of
the list, and France brings up the rear a long, long way behind. France
is the only one that is anywhere in sight of a stationary population.
Excepting France and England, every one of these countries is increasing
at a faster rate than formerly, because though the birth rate has fallen
fast, the death rate has fallen faster. By comparing the second column
showing the increase in the 1906–10 period with the first column showing
the increase in the 1881–5 period, in the preceding table, we see how
much each country is gaining in her rate of increase. This increase may
or may not be considered desirable according to whether one wishes to
conserve the food supply or increase the army. To every one it presents
an interesting condition. It is unexpected to find with a falling birth
rate an increasingly increasing population,—always excepting France and
England.
FROM “THE EMPIRE AND THE BIRTH-RATE”
BY C. V. DRYSDALE, _D.Sc._
When we are considering the growth of population it is not the _births_
but the _survivals_ that count; and it is a remarkable fact, of which
illustrations will appear anon, that comparatively few of those who have
made strong remarks on the birth-rate question seem to have realised
this. The child that perishes before entering on a productive existence
is not an asset to the numbers or efficiency of the community, but a
drain upon it for which there is no compensating gain.
VARIATIONS OF POPULATION, BIRTH-RATE, &c., IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE
We shall now study the principal parts of our Empire _seriatim_, and it
will suffice if we consider Great Britain and Ireland, Australasia,
Canada, South Africa, and India.
_England and Wales._—Special attention should be given to this diagram
(Fig. 2), as, apart from England’s intrinsic Imperial importance, it
exhibits changes typical of those taking place in the majority of
civilised countries at the present time. Our Registrar-General’s Reports
give us figures starting from the year 1853, and it will be seen that
there was a fairly definite rise in the birth-rate till the year 1876,
after which there set in that rapid and steady decline which we hear so
much about to-day.
As to the cause of this remarkable decline, it is now pretty generally
known that the chief factor is the voluntary reduction of the fertility
rate (the average number of children to a marriage). Further, the
decline has been largely a class one, affecting first the richer and
more cultured classes, rapidly extending through the various grades of
the middle classes until it has now reached the skilled artizans, but
not the poorest and most unskilled laborers.
The evidence for these contentions is briefly (_a_) that just before the
year 1876 an actuarial enquiry made by Mr. Ansell on behalf of the
National Life Assurance Society revealed the fact that the average
number of children to a family in the upper and professional classes at
that time was somewhat over five, while the average for the whole
population was 4.63 according to the Registrar-General’s Report; (_b_)
that the birth-rate reckoned on the number of married women has since
fallen from 304.1 per thousand in 1876 to 196.2 in 1911; (_c_) that
families are now notoriously very small among the professional classes;
and (_d_) that the birth-rate in some of the poorest districts of our
large towns is still about as high as it was in 1876. We have not yet
got the detailed returns of families for the census of 1911 in England
and Wales; but for Scotland, where the variations in the birth-rate have
been very similar, Dr. J. C. Dunlop, in a paper read before the Royal
Statistical Society the other day, gave these details. The average
number of children to a family among the poorest unskilled laborers is
still about seven, while it is only 3.91 for medical practitioners, 4.33
for the clergy, and 3.76 for army officers.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—POPULATION OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES.]
_VARIATIONS IN BIRTH RATE &c., IN ENGLAND & WALES_
[Illustration: FIG. 2.—ENGLAND AND WALES.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.—IRELAND.]
Turning at once, however, to the accompaniments of these changes in the
birth-rate, we find that the death-rate has also shown very decided
changes, although the temporary fluctuations prevent our locating them
with the same precision. For between fifteen and twenty years after 1853
the general deathrate was approximately stationary, or perhaps slightly
rising; but since then there has been a rapid and steady fall from about
22 per thousand to a little over 13. The infantile mortality, after
various minor fluctuations, has fallen very rapidly since 1900. The net
result of these changes is that the rate of natural increase of
population (excess of birth-rate over death-rate) during the last five
years has averaged 11 per thousand, which is nearly the same as in the
first five years 1853–57, when it was 11.7 per thousand, although it
temporarily increased to 14.3 per thousand in the quinquennium 1874–78.
The cry of “depopulation” or of “race suicide” has little more
justification to-day when our birth-rate is only 24 and the average
family probably between three and four children than it had in 1855 with
a birth-rate of 34 and an average of 5 births per marriage. In an
article in the _Daily Telegraph_ of January 17 last, a writer pointed
out that mortality was very high among the large families of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and asked: “If to lose half, or
more than half, their children was common among well-to-do people, how
did poor folks fare?”
The actual rise of the population, after allowing for migration, is, of
course, given by the census returns. Fig. 1 shows the variation of the
total population of the United Kingdom and of England and Wales, from
1850 onwards.
Many of you will have heard alarmist statements from various quarters to
the effect that our population is rapidly becoming stationary owing to
the combined results of a declining birth-rate and an accelerated
emigration. In the _Fortnightly Review_ for February last an article on
“The Danger of Unrestricted Emigration,” by Mr. Archibald Hurd,
contained a characteristic statement of this kind:—“The population of
Ireland and Scotland is rapidly declining, and that of England and Wales
is now practically stagnant, the natural increase only slightly
exceeding the outflow due to emigration.”
We will deal with Ireland in a moment; but as regards both England and
Wales and Scotland the statement appears entirely unwarranted. The
actual increase of population in England and Wales between the censuses
of 1901 and 1911 was 10.9 per cent., which is only a little below the
“natural” increase (in Wales it reached the unprecedentedly high
increase of 18.1 per cent.); while in Scotland the actual increase of
population was 6.4 per cent. over the decade. Probably these alarms were
due to consideration of emigration apart from immigration or from return
of our own emigrants.[7] The actual increase of population for the whole
of the United Kingdom was 9.1 per cent.; and this has only been exceeded
twice in the past six decades.
Footnote 7:
Further investigation appears to indicate that the official statistics
concerning emigration and immigration are very unreliable. The
Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom for 1912 gives the total
emigration in the ten years 1901–10 as 4,724,233, and the total
immigration 2,409,490, leaving an outward balance of 2,314,723. In the
same period there were 11,628,493 births and 6,780,266 deaths, giving
a natural increase of 4,848,227; and since the actual increase by the
census returns was 3,757,944, the net loss by emigration could only
have been 1,091,283 or less than half of the officially recorded
number. Thus it appears that little over one-fifth of our natural
increase is lost by emigration. (Since writing this, I find the
Registrar-General admits the returns prior to 1908 were defective.)
We need not consider Scotland further, as its variations resemble those
of England and Wales.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.—AUSTRALIA.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—NEW ZEALAND.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—ONTARIO, CANADA.]
[Illustration: FIG. 7.—TORONTO.]
_Ireland._—Ireland’s statistics differ so much from those of most other
countries that they merit special consideration. In Fig. 3 are shown the
variations of its birth and death-rates. From these it appears that, for
many years past, Ireland has had very low but practically steady
birth-and death-rates. On further studying the matter, however, we find
that Ireland’s low birth-rate is not due to small families, but to a low
marriage rate (probably due to immigration of young people). The
fertility rate of its women has remained high and steady, 283 per
thousand in 1881, and 289 in 1901. The excess of births over deaths has
averaged 6 per thousand recently, although it was much higher forty-five
years ago. But the terrible poverty succeeding the famine produced the
great tide of emigration which has reduced the population from eight to
little over four millions. It should be observed, however, that it is
late in the day to deplore the depopulation of Ireland, _as it has now
practically ceased_. The fall of population was 11.8 per cent. between
the censuses of 1851 and 1861, but only 1.7 per cent. between those of
1901 and 1911; while in the closing years of the decade, the
Registrar-General’s returns gave the population as almost exactly
stationary. It is highly probable that the next census will show an
increase in the population of Ireland for the first time since 1846.
We may now turn to the various parts of our Empire overseas, and it will
be sufficient if we consider the four principal divisions: Australasia,
Canada, Union of South Africa, and India. The order is chosen as dealing
with the populations of British origin first.
_Australasia._—Australia and New Zealand both call for particular
attention in this connection, as family limitation appears to be very
general in them, and many authorities have spoken about it in strong
terms. Mr. Roosevelt, for example, wrote as follows in 1911: “The rate
of natural increase in New Zealand is actually lower than in Great
Britain, and has tended steadily to decrease; while Australia increases
so slowly that, even if the present rate were maintained, the population
would not double itself in the next century.”
Again, the Bishop of London, last year appears to have told the
North-West Australian Diocesan Association “that the birth-rate in
Australia is going down even more rapidly than at home (United Kingdom),
and that he did not know how we are going to keep Australia even
British.”
In addition to these grave warnings, fears have been continually
expressed concerning the danger of Australia from the Japanese or
Chinese. We are told also that from the industrial point of view
Australia is calling out for population; and a law giving a bonus of £5
for each child was passed a twelve-month ago. It would appear,
therefore, that the birth-rate question is a very serious one in
Australasia, especially when we are aware that determined attempts at
checking the resources of family limitation have signally failed.
Let us now examine the actual figures for the variation of the
birth-rate, etc., and compare them with the above statements. These are
given in Figs. 4 and 5.
In both countries the birth-rate fifty years ago was remarkably high
(well over 40 per thousand), and it has since fallen very rapidly to 26
or 27 per thousand. But in both of them the death-rate has fallen
somewhat, and they now have the lowest death-rates in the world, that of
New Zealand having been about 9.5 per thousand for many years past. So,
instead of increasing slowly, _their rate of natural increase by excess
of births over deaths is actually the highest in the world (with the
possible exception of Bulgaria)_. The natural increase of New Zealand
during the last five years has been more than 50 per cent. greater than
in Great Britain, instead of being less, as stated by Mr. Roosevelt; and
instead of the birth-rate going on falling, it has, on the contrary,
risen lately. The natural increase of Australia is 16 per thousand,
which would cause the population to double in forty-four years, or to
become five times as large in a century. The Australian birth-rate has
been well maintained during the past seven years, and the death-rate has
slightly declined; so the natural increase has slightly accelerated.
The foregoing statements are, of course, quite independent of
immigration, and the following are the actual census figures for the
increase of population.
1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
Australia, 1,145,585 1,647,766 2,231,531 3,151,355 3,765,339 4,425,083
population
Per cent.
increase 43.8 35.5 41.2 19.5 17.5
in decade
New Zealand, 625,508 768,278 1,002,679
population
Per cent.
increase 22.6 30.5
in decade
It is worthy of note that in Australia, which is supposed to be needing
population so much, the actual increase in the last two decades has been
only slightly in excess of the natural increase. This means that the net
immigration must have been very small, or that nearly as many people
must have left Australia as entered it—a curious commentary on the
alleged need for them.[8] New Zealand, on the other hand, shows a
phenomenally large increase by the combination of natural increase and
immigration.
Footnote 8:
In the five years 1901–05 there was an actual net loss of over 16,000
persons by excess of emigration.
It will be well at this point to examine the justification for the
yellow peril theory as regards Australia. Japan has certainly moved in
the opposite direction to Australia in having increased its birth-rate
from 26 to 33 per thousand between 1891 and 1910. But its general and
infantile mortality have also increased. Thus its natural increase
to-day is only 12.5 per thousand as against the 16 or 17 per thousand of
Australia and New Zealand, while its actual rate of increase is far
short of theirs. Although the population of Japan is about ten times
that of the whole of Australasia, every year makes the proportionate
disparity of numbers less instead of greater; while as regards health,
physique and financial resources, the advantage, of course, lies heavily
with our people. That Australasia will be well advised to look to her
defences may be granted; but there seems no reason whatever to be
dissatisfied with the increase of her population.
_Canada._—Little can be said about this part of our Empire, owing to
paucity of statistical information; but that little is most interesting
and significant. As regards the total population, the census returns
show a very rapid increase, that of 34 per cent. (from 5,371,315 in 1901
to 7,204,838 in 1911) being without parallel in modern times. When we
come to consider the birth-rate, however, a remarkable phenomenon
appears. The only part of the Dominion for which vital statistics appear
to be available is the Province of Ontario. Fig. 6 shows that the
birth-rate of Ontario was only 22 or 23 per thousand in the eighties,
and actually dropped to 19 in 1895, since then it has recovered (owing
to an increased marriage-rate) to about 25 per thousand. Its lowest
birth-rate was equal to that of France to-day. But the death-rate had
also fallen—namely, to 10 per thousand, so that the natural increase was
9 per thousand, or not much behind that of most civilised countries.
This fact may be commended to the consideration of those who think that
the slow rate of increase of the French population is due to its low
birth-rate.
The remarkable phenomenon now appears. The increase of the birth-rate in
Ontario to 25 per thousand has been accompanied, not by a corresponding
rise in the natural increase, but by an increase of the death-rate to 14
per thousand! So the additional births appear to have populated the
graveyards rather than the country. It has been suggested to me by Dr.
Stevenson that the increase in the birth and death rates of Ontario may
be exaggerated, in that due allowance has not been made by the Canadian
authorities for the effect of immigration. But even making the fullest
allowance for this, there can be no doubt that both the birth and death
rates have risen, and by nearly the same amount. The city of Toronto
(Fig. 7) is a most striking example of the same phenomenon.
There need be no great difficulty in understanding this result. We have
continually heard in the papers recently of poverty and unemployment in
most of the large towns of Canada. Although the resources of the country
are no doubt enormous, they can only be brought relatively slowly into
operation, owing to the shortness of the summer and the difficulties of
transport. The frequently quoted statement that her food exports show
signs of lessening indicates that the inability of food to keep pace
with an unrestricted population will prove true here as elsewhere.
Canada offers excellent opportunities for sturdy efficient workers, and
will be able to support an immense population some day. But any attempt
to crowd it rapidly with children or inefficient town-bred immigrants
will only raise the death-rate, unemployment and labor unrest. The lives
of women settlers are generally exceedingly strenuous and trying; and
this, in combination with the long distances from medical or other help,
makes the bringing up of large families very precarious.
_South Africa._—Beyond the fact that the population of the Union of
South Africa increased from 5,175,824 in 1904 to 5,973,394 in 1911
(i.e., an increase of 15.4 per cent. in seven years) little information
appears to be available. The white population seems to have increased
from 1,116,806 to 1,276,242 (i.e., by 14.28 per cent.) in the interval,
while the native population increased from 3,491,056 to 4,019,006 (i.e.,
by 15.12 per cent.). But since no figures as to birth-rates are
available nothing can be said beyond the fact that the actual increase
works out at about 20 per thousand per annum, which is fairly high.
_India._—We now turn from colonies mainly occupied by our own race and
exhibiting our modern characteristics to a most marked degree, and come
to our great Eastern possession which has preserved the ancient
traditions of rapid reproduction. Writer after writer has launched into
panegyrics on “the glorious fertility of the East,” and the Bishop of
Ripon a few years ago issued this impressive warning: “Learn from the
East. If we could but bring ourselves to do so, perhaps at no very
distant period the Yellow Peril might turn out to be the White
Salvation.”
That India is a country of high birth-rate is of course notorious. The
custom of almost universal child marriage, and the anxiety which
prevails among some (apparently not all) of the religious sects for a
large posterity would alone render this inherently probable. According
to the Statesman’s Year Book for 1913 the average birth-rate for India
in the three years 1908–10 was 37.7 per thousand. This, however, was
“officially but imperfectly recorded,” and the census report for 1901
gave the probable birth-rate for India as 48.8 per thousand. This figure
is not at all an unlikely one, for the same rate has prevailed in Russia
and parts of Egypt; but such figures as have appeared in the 1911 census
report seem to confirm the lower estimate. Here are the figures for
three of the important provinces:—
Total for decade Percentage of Excess Actual
1901–11 Population Births, – Increase
1901 Deaths
Births Deaths Births Deaths
Bengal, Behar 29,351,442 25,373,322 39.10 33.80 3,978,120 4,552,293
and Orissa
Punjab 8,286,261 8,843,708 40.8 43.5 –557,447 355,383
Assam 1,883,545 1,564,022 35.70 29.65 319,523 489,892
It is possible that these figures are correct, even without any
restraint upon births, as the census report of 1901 mentioned that
premature and repeated maternity combined with chronic under-nutrition
appeared to lead to exhaustion and loss of fertility. In any case,
however, the birth-rate counts among the highest at the present day.
But when we turn to the death-rate and the natural and actual increase
of population there seems little reason for congratulation. The
death-rate, given by the Statesman’s Year Book, for the three years
above quoted was no less than 34.3, leaving a natural increase of only
3.4 per thousand—the lowest in our Empire, and nearly as low as that of
France. The figures for Bengal, etc., above only show a natural increase
of 4.7 per thousand, half that of Ontario at its lowest birth-rate of 19
per thousand; those for the Punjab reveal, despite the high birth-rate,
an actual diminution of population by excess of deaths over births.
The emigration from India appears to be so infinitesimal in comparison
with its population that the actual increase represents the natural
increase almost exactly. In Fig. 1 is shown the variation of population
in the whole of India and in the British Provinces according to the
census returns.
1872 1881 1891 1901 1911
Total 206,162,360 263,896,330 287,314,671 294.361.056 315.001.099
population
Per cent.
increase 23.1 13.1 2.4 7.0
in decade
British 195,840,000 199,200,000 221,380,000 231,600,999 244,279,888
Provinces
Per cent.
increase .08 1.6 11.0 4.5 5.5
in decade
Thus the rate of increase of population has been exceedingly slow except
as regards the totals for 1881 and 1891, and for the British Provinces
in 1891. But the Census Commissioners themselves state that the first
few enumerations rapidly increased in completeness, which probably
accounted for a good deal of the two former increases; while as regards
the British Provinces, there was an increase in area of no less than 25
per cent. between 1881 and 1901, which heavily discounts the increase of
11 per cent. in population in 1891. The average increase in the British
Provinces comes out at only 4.3 per cent. per decade over the whole
period from 1861 to 1911; so when the increase of area is taken into
account it may be doubted whether there has been any great excess of
births over deaths at all.
A more absolute contradiction to the theory that a “glorious fertility”
produces numbers and vigor it would be difficult to conceive. India is a
land of famine. We all know of the terrible holocausts of 1876–8 when
over five million perished, and that of 1899–1901, which was held
responsible for over a million deaths, besides numerous smaller ones.
But as Mr. W. S. Lilly has written in _India and its Problems_, “We may
truly say that in India, except in the irrigated tracts, famine is
chronic—endemic. It always has been.” Sir Frederick Treves in his
charming work, _The Other Side of the Lantern_, has expressed the same
opinion, and he says:—“These are some of the great hordes who provide in
their lean bodies victims for the yearly sacrifice to cholera, famine,
and plague.” The average death-rate of 34.3 per thousand, which is
probably underestimated, means, with a population of 315 millions, over
ten million deaths annually. Were the Indian death-rate 10 per thousand
as in Australasia, there would be only three million deaths. Hence,
unless medical authorities can give good reason for postulating an
inherent racial predisposition to premature death among the inhabitants
of India, this means that at least seven millions of lives are wasted
annually by starvation or the diseases to which it renders them an easy
prey.
There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who studies the figures,
that India is a chronically, seriously over-populated country, despite
the oft-quoted dictum of Sir William Hunter. That India might produce
food enough to feed her present population need not be contested. But
that any action on the part of the authorities will succeed in providing
for an increase of ten millions annually is inconceivable. The whole
Empire owes a tribute of gratitude and admiration to Sir A. Cotton whose
magnificent irrigation schemes have so greatly increased the
possibilities of agriculture. They have no doubt been the real cause of
the 7 per cent. increase of population in the last decade. This,
however, only means providing for two out of the seven millions to be
saved; and irrigation like everything else has its limits.[9] Nothing
will remove starvation, pestilence, misery and unrest from India, except
the adoption by her people of the parental prudence of western nations.
Footnote 9:
In the article on India in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” it is stated
that the Irrigation Commission of 1901–03 emphatically asserted that
irrigation alone could not cure famine.
The idea has been constantly put forward that the religious prejudices
of the Indian population make such a contingency impossible. Is it
certain, however, that this is so? The Census Report of 1901 suggested
that in Assam some restraints upon births had been in vogue. In 1911,
again, the Vice-President of the Calcutta Municipality, Babu Nilambara
Mukerji, M.A., called attention to the extreme poverty caused by
over-population, and strongly advocated such restraints. His address
seems to have been received with considerable favor, and I have been
asked to write articles for prominent native papers on the subject.
The project of encouraging emigration from India has, of course, been
put forward. But the recent experiences in South Africa and elsewhere
hardly favor this proposition, and Mr. Archer in an interesting article
on “India and Emigration,” in the _Daily News_ of December 26, pointed
out that the real difficulty of over-population could not be appreciably
lessened in this way.
_Ceylon._—In view of the foregoing, reference may be made to Ceylon
which has published its birth and death rates continuously since 1881,
though I do not know what reliance can be placed on them. Fig. 8 shows
that the birth-rate has rapidly risen from 27 to 41 per thousand, but
that the death-rate and infantile mortality have also greatly increased.
_The Empire._—The top line in Fig. 1 shows the increase of the
population of the whole of our Empire according to the Statistical
Abstract just issued. The figures are as follows:—
Census 1891 1901 1911
Population 345,356,000 385,572,000 417,268,000
Per cent. increase in decade 11.6 8.3
Of course the increase from 1891 to 1901 was swelled by the addition of
the Union of South Africa, etc., but the addition in the second period
probably fairly represents the natural increase. The countries which go
to swell this increase are those in which small families are the rule,
and have rates of increase varying from 11 to 17 per thousand. It is
India with the highest birth-rate which pulls down the average.
The population of the world is now probably about 1,800,000,000, and
increasing at the rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. in a decade. So our
Empire includes about a quarter of the world’s population and is
increasing more rapidly than the remainder.
OTHER COUNTRIES
No consideration of this subject would be complete if comparison were
not made with the more important nations outside our own Empire. If
Imperialist security depends upon numbers, it is relative, not absolute,
numbers which count, and our attitude towards the falling birth-rate
must depend upon what is happening among our rivals.
_France._—The case of France appears to be the chief cause of the fears
concerning the declining birth-rate, and she is variously spoken of as
“dying,” “becoming depopulated,” “decadent,” etc. In Fig. 9, I have
collected the vital statistics for France over the whole period of her
declining birth-rate, i.e. from before the Revolution. They show the
following characteristics:—
1. France is _not_ becoming depopulated. Her population has been slowly
but steadily rising ever since the Franco-German war, both actually and
by excess of births over deaths, although in some years the deaths have
exceeded the births.
2. The excess of births over deaths in the last decade 1901–10, though
small, is double that of the previous decade, notwithstanding that the
birth-rate fell from 22.2 to 20.6. It averaged about 48,000 per annum.
3. In 1781–84, before the decline of the birth-rate set in, the
birth-rate had the high value of 38.9 per thousand. But instead of this
giving a high natural increase of population, the death-rate was no less
than 37 per thousand, giving an excess of births over deaths of only 1.9
per thousand—little more than that (1.2) of the last decade.
4. The enormous fall of the birth-rate from 38.9 to 20.6 per thousand,
has been accompanied by a fall in the death-rate from 37 to 19.4 per
thousand. Thus a fall of 18.3 in the birth-rate has been accompanied by
a fall of 17.6 in the death-rate, and only a drop of .7 per thousand in
the rate of increase.
[Illustration: FIG. 8.—CEYLON.]
[Illustration: FIG. 9.—FRANCE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 10.—GERMANY.]
[Illustration: FIG. 11.—BERLIN.]
5. The present low rate of natural increase in France is not necessarily
due to its low birth-rate, as Ontario in Canada, with a similar
birth-rate, had a death-rate of 10 per thousand, or a natural increase
of 9 per thousand—nearly as great as our own. The low increase of France
is therefore due to its high death-rate, not to its low birth-rate, and
an explanation or remedy should be found for the former before objection
is made to the latter.
6. Possibly as a result of the present agitation in France in favor of
large families, the births in the first half of last year increased by
8,000 over those of the corresponding period of 1912. _Instead of
producing a greater increase of population, the deaths increased by
12,000, so that the survivals actually diminished._
It appears from the foregoing that while it is true that France is
increasing in population much more slowly than other countries, there is
no justification for believing that an increased birth-rate would
populate it more rapidly. Much more likely is it that the result would
be the same as that shown in Ontario and other countries—a higher
death-rate without any advantage as regards numbers.
_Germany._—As France is held up as the awful example of a low
birth-rate, so is Germany regarded as the good example of a high one. It
is certainly fear of Germany that is responsible for so much of the
anxiety concerning our birth-rate.
That the population of Germany is increasing very rapidly is quite true,
and it certainly has also a relatively high birth-rate. (Fig. 10). But
the birth-rate has fallen rapidly since 1876, and despite this the
natural increase of population has actually accelerated, because the
death-rate has fallen still more rapidly. As the German death-rate is
still considerably above the 9 or 10 per thousand line, there is plenty
of room for this process to continue. The curve of actual increase of
population in Fig. 1, shows that it has become exceedingly high of late
years, despite the great fall in the birth-rate.
Those, however, who still think that Germany’s high birth-rate is a
source of advantage to her may be consoled to know it will not continue
long. The fall in the last few years has been phenomenal; and the
statement made in a German paper a few days ago that at the present rate
the German birth-rate will be down to that of France in ten years’ time
appears to be justified. The birth-rates of her large towns are already
close to this point (Berlin 20.4, Hamburg 21.8, Dresden 20.2, Munich
21.9, while that of London is still about 24) and the country districts
are sure to follow. But the example of Berlin is a most striking one as
to the fallacy of regarding high birth-rates as conducive to rapid
increase. Fig. 11 shows that the birth-rate of Berlin rose with great
rapidity from 32 per thousand in 1841 to over 45 in 1876, since when it
has fallen even more rapidly. But, neglecting sudden variations due to
war and epidemics, the death-rate has risen and fallen in such close
correspondence as to produce comparatively little change in the rate of
natural increase. The variation of the infantile mortality is very
similar. On all grounds, therefore, it seems difficult to see what
advantage Germany has derived from her high birth-rate, and the
disadvantages were so obvious that it is little wonder that the German
people have decided in favor of a low one.
_Austria_ shows very similar variations to Germany.
_Russia._—Russia has the largest population of any European nation,
120,588,000 in 1911. Its birth-rate for many years was the highest in
the world, very nearly 50 per thousand. But its death-rate and infantile
mortality have been the highest in Europe, so that its rate of increase
of population, though rapid, has been less than that of New Zealand or
Australia. Over two millions of unnecessary deaths have taken place
annually, and one infant in every four (or over a million annually) dies
in its first year. The war with Japan, a country of half its population
and a much lower birth-rate, strikingly illustrated the inefficacy of
mere numbers. In the _Standard_ of March 6, it was stated that although
the general recruiting standard in Russia is lower than in Austria,
France, Germany, or Great Britain, the rejections in many localities
reach the enormous figure of 70 per cent.
_The Netherlands._—The foreign countries already dealt with are quite
sufficient to give us a fair idea of our position among the great powers
as regards the birth-rate question. No thoughtful person, however, can
fail to see that this has another aspect which has generally been quite
overlooked. It will therefore be of special interest to study the record
of a nation in which this has been kept in view for many years. Holland
is an intensely patriotic country, and its need for military efficiency
is beyond dispute. It is inconceivable that her statesmen could
contemplate a policy in any way detrimental to this. Yet it appears that
in 1881 an organisation having as its direct object the reduction of the
birth-rate, especially among the poor, was formed in Amsterdam, and that
it received the warm support of Dr. van Houten, Minister of the
Interior, and of Mynheer N. G. Pierson, the Finance Minister. It was
thus enabled to conduct an energetic propaganda in favor of small
families among the poorest classes, whose means or health did not permit
them to do justice to large families. In 1895 its work had become so
appreciated that it was approved by Royal Decree as one of the Societies
of Public Utility. To-day it is a large and flourishing association with
medical and other helpers in all the great centers. Thus in Holland the
diminution of the birth-rate has been favored and directed on
humanitarian and eugenic lines; and there has been a tendency for the
State to become more individualistic in character, rather than to adopt
that policy of State assistance which has been forced on most other
nations by the gravity of their social problems, and which, by pressing
on the educated classes, has led them seriously to restrict their
numbers.
The results of their policy as regards the numbers and health of the
population can be seen from Fig. 12. The birth-rate has fallen steadily
and rapidly, especially in the last decade. The death-rate, however, has
fallen so much more rapidly, that it has now reached 12.3 per thousand
in 1912—the lowest figure in Europe; and the natural increase has
reached 15.7 per thousand, the highest figure in Western Europe. The
infantile mortality has also fallen more rapidly than in any other
country. Indeed, Amsterdam and The Hague, the principal centres of the
propaganda, had the lowest general and infantile mortality of all the
great cities of the world, according to our Registrar-General’s Annual
Summary for 1912.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.—THE NETHERLANDS.]
When we turn from the question of numbers to the physical and social
condition of the people, the results are even more gratifying. Those who
have traveled in Holland will, I think, admit that the country looks
prosperous, and the men, women and children robust and contented. Slums
such as we have in our great cities seem practically non-existent; nor
is there any sign of the stunting and anaemia so noticeable in our large
towns, and even in our countryside. Dr. Soren Hansen in the Eugenics
Congress of 1912 stated that the average stature of the Dutch people had
increased by four inches in the last fifty years. The army records given
in the official Year Book of the Netherlands are also most striking. The
number of young men drawn annually for conscription by lot has increased
from 27,559 in 1865 to 48,509 in 1911 (out of a population of
6,000,000); and of these the proportion over 5 ft. 7 in. in height has
increased from 24.5 per cent. to 47.5 per cent., while that of those
under 5 ft. 2½ in. has fallen from 25 per cent. to under 8 per cent.
This is doubtless due to the fact that in Holland the poorest and least
fit have been encouraged to be prudent, while in our country they have
been having the largest families—the fitter classes having smaller
families in consequence. Real wages which have fallen here and in
Germany have apparently gone up in Holland, and her agriculture has
rapidly improved. In every way that I have been able to test, her
prosperity and progress has been most satisfactory. Moreover, Holland
stands next to ourselves as a successful coloniser. Her possessions in
the East and West Indies occupy an area of 783,000 square miles with a
population of 38,000,000 (seven times her own population), 81,000 being
Europeans. Germany, with a home population ten times greater, has
colonies aggregating 1,029,000 square miles with a population of only
14,000,000 inhabitants, of whom but 25,000 are whites.
CONCLUSION
In view of all these records I cannot think that any unbiassed person
will be able to avoid the conclusion that large numbers and national
efficiency are not to be secured by a high birth-rate, especially in the
lower strata of society. High birth-rates to-day invariably mean high
general and infantile death-rates, and, when accompanied by humanitarian
legislation, a serious process of reversed selection.
The explanation of this apparent paradox lies in the fact, which never
seems to be properly understood, that the population of the world and of
nearly all countries is constantly being kept in check by insufficiency
of food. A French statistician, M. Hardy, has calculated (and his
figures, though challenged by great authorities, have now been accepted)
that if the total food production of the world were fairly distributed
among its inhabitants, the ration of proteids available for each would
only be two-thirds of that recognised as necessary for efficiency. Mr.
Seebohm Rowntree has shown that large numbers of families in our own
country—the richest in the world—have deficiencies of protein in their
diet by amounts up to 40 per cent., and over 2,500,000 adult male
workers have wages of 25s. a week or less, upon which with the present
cost of living and rent in towns it is impossible to bring up more than
three children properly. As a result, whenever families are large a
considerable proportion of the children die, and of those who survive
many grow up stunted and incapable of assimilating a good training. The
over-crowding caused by large families with an ever decreasing margin
for rent is also a potent cause of disease and of immorality—the latter
evil being further greatly intensified by the economic difficulties in
the way of marriage that are the chief bar to the prevention of those
terrible diseases for which the Royal Commission, presided over by our
Chairman, is investigating a remedy.
That the rate of increase of population of a country depends in almost
every case upon its power of feeding its people by its own or imported
food, and not upon its birth-rate, is a matter which statesmen will have
to recognise; and those who are anxious for the increase of the
population of our country and Empire, should turn their attention to the
acceleration of food production instead of deploring the declining
birth-rate. No intelligent person will claim that the food producing
possibilities of the world are exhausted, but it does appear difficult
to increase them at more than a very slow rate (probably at present not
more than 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. in a decade); and the world’s
population cannot increase faster than the food does. Irrigation in
India has been followed by an increase in population far greater than
before, and encouragement of agriculture or of the industries which
bring food to this country is the only means by which our increase of
population can be accelerated. No shuffling of the incidence of
taxation, and no humanitarian schemes, will affect it—except
prejudicially by favoring the increase of the inefficient rather than
the efficient. Nor will emigration, the panacea of the orthodox
Imperialist, solve the problem. We do not want effective producers to
leave us, and these are the only people our colonies really desire. Our
town-bred weaklings are frequently less fitted to succeed in the
Colonies than at home, as the experience of Canada appears to testify.
It has been said that “no Empire can survive which is rotten at the
core”; and if we persist in the policy of encouraging the excessive
reproduction of the poor, of taxing the capable for their support, of
keeping about a third of our men and women unmarried, and of seeing many
of our best emigrate for want of decent prospects at home, we need not
be surprised if our Imperial efficiency diminishes.
On the other hand, if we consider the example of Holland we may be
assured that a further fall in the birth-rate among the poorer classes
will be accompanied by an immediate and progressive improvement in their
conditions, by a checking of the output of physical and mental
defectives, and by a gain in the national efficiency, and probably also
in the rate of increase of our population. As the Bishop of Ripon said
at the Church Congress of 1910: “If the diminution of the birth-rate
could be shown to prevail among the unfit, we might view the phenomenon
without apprehension, and we might even welcome the fact as evidence of
the existence of noble and self-denying ideals.” There is no reason why
the death-rate in any part of our Empire should be higher than the 9 per
thousand of New Zealand, where poverty as we know it scarcely exists.
The birth-rate of Great Britain can therefore fall to 20 per thousand
before our normal natural increase of 11 per thousand is reduced. As
this paper is being concluded, the Registrar-General’s figures for 1913
have come to hand, and show that the fall of the birth-rate in the last
three years has been accompanied by a recovery in the natural increase
to 10.8 per thousand.
DIAGRAMS OF INTERNATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS
Prepared by Charles V. Drysdale, D.Sc., 1911
In the accompanying diagrams white strips imply birth-rates, shaded
strips death-rates, and black strips infantile mortality, or deaths of
children under one year. The amount of the white strip visible above the
shaded strip is, of course, the excess of birth over death-rate, or the
rate of natural increase of population.
Fig. 1.—Shows the relation between birth and death-rates and infantile
mortality in various countries in 1901–05.
Fig. 2.—Relation between birth-rate and _corrected_ death-rates in
various countries. (This shows that France is healthier than appears in
Fig. 1.)
Fig. 3.—Shows relation between birth and death-rates from various causes
in five districts of London.
Fig. 4.—Relation between the birth-rate and death-rate for various
arrondissements of Paris in 1906. (Note that the increase in the Elysée
quarter is as high as the average in the quarters of high birth-rate.)
Figs. 5 and 6.—Variations of the total population of birth- and
death-rates in the United Kingdom and the German Empire. (Note that the
fall in the death-rate corresponds fairly closely to that in the
birth-rate.)
Fig. 7.—The same for France. (Note that the population is still
increasing, although slowly.)
Fig. 8.—Birth and death-rates for France since 1781. (Note that the rate
of increase of population in 1781 was no higher with a birth-rate of 39
per 1,000 than in 1901–6 with a birth-rate of only 21 per 1,000. A fall
of 17.8 per 1,000 in the birth-rate has resulted in a fall of 17.5 per
1,000 in the death-rate.)
Fig. 9.—Birth and death-rates and infantile mortality for England and
Wales. Also marriage rate, fertility of married women, illegitimacy, and
variation of diseases. (Note that the illegitimate birth-rate has fallen
to half since the fall of the birth-rate set in.)
Fig. 10.—Birth and death-rates and infantile mortality in the
Netherlands. (Notice the rapid increase of population as the death-rate
falls, and the great fall of infantile mortality, probably due to the
practical work of the Dutch Neo-Malthusian Birth Control League among
the poor.)
Figs. 11–13.—Protestant Countries. (Notice the correspondence between
the birth and the death-rates and infantile mortality in all.)
Figs. 14–16.—Roman Catholic Countries. (Note that the fall of the
birth-rate has taken place almost equally with that in the Protestant
countries, and with the same result.)
Figs. 17–20.—The only four countries in which the birth-rate is
approximately _stationary_. (Notice that the death-rate has not
fallen—except perhaps in Russia—and that the infantile mortality has not
fallen. Also that the highest birth-rate produces the highest death rate
and infantile mortality, and the lowest birth-rate the lowest
mortality.)
Figs. 21–24.—The only four countries with _rising_ birth-rates. The
_death rate and infantile mortality have increased in every one_.
Fig. 25.—Australia. The death-rate has fallen with the birth rate, and
is now only about 10 per 1,000.
Fig. 26.—New Zealand. The only country in which the fall in the
birth-rate has not produced a fall in the death-rate, and which is not
therefore over populated. The infantile mortality is the lowest in the
world, and the death-rate less than 10 per 1,000, which gives us an
ideal which we can reach in all countries by lowering the birth-rate
sufficiently.
Fig. 27.—The City of Toronto. The birth-rate has fallen and afterwards
risen. The death-rate has fallen with the birth-rate, and afterwards
risen, indicating that the improvements in sanitation have not been the
cause of the falling death rate in other countries.
Fig. 28.—Berlin. The birth-rate rose rapidly from 1841 to 1876, and
afterwards fell even more rapidly. The death-rate, except for epidemics
and wars, rose and fell in almost precise correspondence with the
birth-rate.
Fig. 29.—Berlin. The dotted area shows the fertility rate or births per
1,000 married women, and indicates the remarkably rapid fall since 1876.
The correspondence of the infantile mortality with the birth-rate shown
in Fig. 28 is very close.
Figs. 30 and 31.—Europe and Western Europe. These show that the total
population of Europe is increasing faster the more the birth-rate falls,
while in Western Europe the birth and death-rates correspond almost
exactly. Calculations made from this show that about 25,000,000 fewer
births and deaths have occurred in Europe since 1876, due to the fall in
the birth-rate caused by the Knowlton Trial and the Neo-Malthusian
movement. It should be noted that in the great majority of cases the
decline of the birth-rate commenced in 1877, the year of the Knowlton
Trial.
CHARLES V. DRYSDALE, D.Sc.
1911.
_VARIOUS COUNTRIES
1901–05._
[Illustration: FIG. 1.]
_VARIOUS COUNTRIES.
CRUDE & CORRECTED DEATH-RATES._
[Illustration: FIG. 2.]
_LONDON
1905–1909._
[Illustration: FIG. 3.]
_PARIS
1906._
[Illustration: FIG. 4.]
_UNITED KINGDOM. Growth of Population._
[Illustration: FIG. 5.]
_UNITED KINGDOM. Birth and Death Rates._
[Illustration: FIG. 5A]
_GERMAN EMPIRE. Growth of Population._
[Illustration: FIG. 6]
_GERMAN EMPIRE. Birth and Death Rates._
[Illustration: FIG. 6A.]
_FRANCE POPULATION._
[Illustration: FIG. 7]
_FRANCE._
_BIRTH & DEATH RATES._
[Illustration: FIG. 7A.]
_VARIOUS DISEASES._
[Illustration: FIG. 7B.]
_FRANCE._
_BIRTH & DEATH RATES._
[Illustration: FIG. 8.]
_ENGLAND & WALES._
_BIRTHS & DEATHS._
_MARRIAGE, FERTILITY, & ILLEGITIMACY._
_VARIOUS DISEASES._
[Illustration: FIG. 9]
_THE NETHERLANDS._
[Illustration: FIG. 10.]
_NORWAY._
[Illustration: FIG. 11.]
_SWEDEN._
[Illustration: FIG. 12.]
_DENMARK._
[Illustration: FIG. 13.]
_BELGIUM._
[Illustration: FIG. 14.]
_ITALY._
[Illustration: FIG. 15.]
_SPAIN._
[Illustration: FIG. 16.]
COUNTRIES WITH NEARLY STATIONARY BIRTH-RATE
_RUSSIA._
[Illustration: FIG. 17]
_ROUMANIA._
[Illustration: FIG. 18]
_JAMAICA._
[Illustration: FIG. 19]
_IRELAND._
[Illustration: FIG. 20]
COUNTRIES WITH RISING BIRTH-RATES
[Illustration: FIGS. 21-23]
BRITISH COLONIES
_CANADA (Ontario)._
[Illustration: FIG. 24]
_AUSTRALIA (Commonwealth)._
[Illustration: FIG. 25]
_NEW ZEALAND._
[Illustration: FIG. 26]
_THE CITY OF TORONTO._
[Illustration: FIG. 27]
_BERLIN._
[Illustration: FIG. 28]
_BERLIN._
[Illustration: FIG. 29]
_EUROPE._
[Illustration: FIG. 30]
_WESTERN EUROPE._
[Illustration: FIG. 31]