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.
Fig. 1.—POPULATION OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES.
VARIATIONS IN BIRTH RATE &c., IN ENGLAND & WALES
Fig. 2.—ENGLAND AND WALES.
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.
[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.
Fig. 4.—AUSTRALIA.
Fig. 5.—NEW ZEALAND.
Fig. 6.—ONTARIO, CANADA.
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, population | 1,145,585 | 1,647,766 | 2,231,531 | 3,151,355 | 3,765,339 | 4,425,083 |
| Per cent. increase in decade | 43.8 | 35.5 | 41.2 | 19.5 | 17.5 | |
| New Zealand, population | 625,508 | 768,278 | 1,002,679 | |||
| Per cent. increase in decade | 22.6 | 30.5 |
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.
[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 1901–11 | Percentage of Population 1901 | Excess Births, – Deaths | Actual Increase | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Births | Deaths | Births | Deaths | |||
| Bengal, Behar and Orissa | 29,351,442 | 25,373,322 | 39.10 | 33.80 | 3,978,120 | 4,552,293 |
| 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 population | 206,162,360 | 263,896,330 | 287,314,671 | 294.361.056 | 315.001.099 |
| Per cent. increase in decade | 23.1 | 13.1 | 2.4 | 7.0 | |
| British Provinces | 195,840,000 | 199,200,000 | 221,380,000 | 231,600,999 | 244,279,888 |
| Per cent. increase in decade | .08 | 1.6 | 11.0 | 4.5 | 5.5 |
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.
[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.
Fig. 8.—CEYLON.
Fig. 9.—FRANCE.
Fig. 10.—GERMANY.
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.
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.