[27] Enigmas of Life. Op. cit., by W.R. Greg, p. 142.
[28] It is a fact not to be lost sight of, says Dr. J.C. Toner of Washington, that the proportion between the number of American children under fifteen years of age, and the number of American women between the child-bearing ages of fifteen and fifty, is declining steadily. In 1830, there were to every 1,000 marriageable women, 1,952 children under fifteen years of age. Ten years later, there were 1,863, or 89 less children to every thousand women than in 1830. In 1850, this number had declined to 1,720; in 1860, to 1,666; and in 1870, to 1,568. The total decline in the forty years was 384, or about 20 per cent of the whole proportional number in 1830, a generation ago. The United-States census of 1870 shows that there is, in the city of New York, but one child under fifteen years of age, to each thousand nubile women, when there ought to be three; and the same is true of our other large cities.—The Nation, Aug. 28, 1873, p. 145.
[29] Vid. a pamphlet by the Rev. Dr. Todd.
[30] The New Englander, July, 1873. Art., Iowa College.
[31] Body and Mind. Op. cit., p. 85.
[32] Use of the Ophthalmoscope. By T.C. Allbutt. London. P. 5.
[33] Some physiologists consider that the period of growth extends to a later age than this. Dr. Anstie fixes the limit at twenty five. He says, "The central nervous system is more slow in reaching its fullest development; and the brain, especially, is many years later in acquiring its maximum of organic consistency and functional power."—Neuralgia, Op. cit., by F.E. Anstie, p. 20.
[34] Wear and Tear. Op. cit., p. 33-4.
[35] It is a curious commentary on the present aspect of the "woman question" to see many who honestly advocate the elevation and enfranchisement of woman, oppose any movement or law that recognizes Nature's fundamental distinction of sex. There are those who insist upon the traditional fallacy that man and woman are identical, and that the identity is confined to the man, with the energy of infatuation. It appears from the Spectator, that Mr. and Mrs. Fawcett strongly object to the Ten-hour Act, on the ground that it discriminates unfairly against women as compared with men. Upon this the Spectator justly remarks, that the true question for an objector to the bill to consider is not one of abstract principle, but this: "Is the restraint proposed so great as really to diminish the average productiveness of woman's labor, or, by increasing its efficacy, to maintain its level, or even improve it in spite of the hours lost? What is the length of labor beyond which an average woman's constitution is overtaxed and deteriorated, and within which, therefore, the law ought to keep them in spite of their relations, and sometimes in spite of themselves."—Vid. Spectator, London, June 14, 1873.