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.