[247-8] In Prussia, in 1849, there were in every one hundred families in the cities, 492 individuals; in the country, 512. In Belgium, in 1846, 459 and 497 respectively. (Horn, Bevölk. Studien, I, 88, ff.) In France, in 1853, in the cities, 358; in Paris alone, 299. In the Zollverein, the number of individuals in a family increased in 1852-55, 5.81 per cent.; the population only 3.02 per cent.; the population of those over fourteen years of age, by 4.41 per cent.; of minors by 1.02 per cent. Only in Saxony and the cities of Hanover was the reverse the case. (v. Viebahn, II, 278, seq.)
[247-9] Thus, for instance, in Belgium, for every 100 households, there are 74 marriages; in the cities of Belgium, 70; in the Belgian country parishes, 75; in Prussia in 1849, 84. (Horn, I, 93 seq.) It is estimated that in Prussia, only 3 per cent. of the adult population live outside of the family. (Viebahn, II, 273.)
[247-10] It is strange that Süssmilch, Göttl. Ordnung, I, § 13, considers mortality an unalterable law, while he fully recognizes the social grounds which caused the frequency and prolificacy of marriages to vary (I, § 56, 99).
HISTORY OF POPULATION.—NUMBER OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.
So far as the mere number of the population is concerned, it is obviously a matter of indifference whether there are annually 1,000 births and 800 deaths, or 2,000 births and 1,800 deaths. But we see in the former an element of higher civilization,[248-1] especially, on account of the conditions which determine it. It can occur only where even the most numerous, that is the lower class, feel other wants than those of the mere means of existence and of the satisfaction of the sexual instinct: wants, duties which probably could not be satisfied in a state of marriage thoughtlessly entered into; where the virtues both of foresight and self-control are very generally practiced.
And then let us consider the consequences. The efficacy of the repressive hinderances to over-population either consists in immoral acts or easily leads to immorality. Until a "surplus" child has died, what a series of troubles for good parents, and what a chain of evil deeds for bad ones, to say nothing of the poor child itself.
Further, every man, no matter how short or long his life, requires a large advance of capital and trouble which he has later to return to society through the activity of his riper years. If he dies before his maturity, this advance has been made in vain. The more, therefore, the population of a country, in order to maintain itself within the bounds of its field of food, has to calculate on the death of children, the greater is this loss.[248-2] Hence, from a national-economic point of view, it is to be considered a great advance, that in England in 1780, there was one death among its people under 20 years of age in every 76 of the population, in 1801, in every 96, in 1830, in every 124, in 1833, one only in every 137. (Porter.) Lastly, the longer the average duration of life of a child the greater, other circumstances remaining the same, the number of grown people as compared with that of the children; but grown people are, as a rule, independent, capable of self-defense, economically productive, competent to discharge all the rights and duties of citizenship, while children are dependent, incapable of self-defense, unproductive, immature. Only he who knows the relative numbers of the different age-classes of a nation can draw fruitful conclusions from the data per capita relating to taxation, from the statistics of crime, suicides, illegitimate births, of school-children, etc., or judge correctly of a locality's military contingent.[248-3] [248-4] Here, indeed, it should not be overlooked that in the highest age-classes, human beings return in many respects to the helplessness of childhood. Yet, as a rule, to reach a good old age is generally considered a personal good fortune; and the existence of a great many aged persons in a country, if not in itself an advantageous element in its economy, may, nevertheless, be called a pleasing symptom.[248-5] On an average there is only one person over sixty to every twelve under fifteen years of age. (J. G. Hoffmann.) We may, hence, readily measure what an advantage France possesses in this, that in 1861, in every 1,000 inhabitants, only 273 were under fifteen years of age, 524 between sixteen and fifty, the most vigorous years of life, and 203 over fifty years old. The average age of the French population was 31.06 years against 27.22 in Sardinia and 25.32 in Ireland.
However, a positively unfavorable conclusion from a relatively large number of children in a nation should not be drawn except in the case of a people the limits of whose field of food cannot be extended. (§ 239.) Where the nation's economy has a rapid growth, as for instance in young colonies, the comparatively easy rearing of children which there obtains, without any corresponding mortality, is not so much considered a burthen[248-6] as a symptom of their good fortune and even a positive good.[248-7] On the other hand, of the Belgian provinces, for instance, suffering Flanders had relatively the smallest number of children, because it had the largest child-mortality.[248-8]
Almost all the signs which, according to the above paragraphs, distinguish a higher stage of civilization from a lower, may be shown within the limits of the same age and nation to characterize the upper classes as compared with the lower. We may even claim that the greater foresight and self-control of the former in the matter of marriage and in the procreation of children, since the abolition of the greater number of legal advantages of class, are by far the most important of the elements constituting their superiority over the latter. The word proletariat, from proles, means first of all, having many children (Vielkinderei)!