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.