Part 7 (1/2)

Again, he translates the following quotation from a Swiss author:

”In France a national committee has been formed which has as its object an agitation for the increase of the population. Upon this committee these [? there] sit, besides President Poincare, who, although married, has no children, twenty-four senators and litterateurs. These twenty-five persons, who preach to their fellow citizens by word and pen, have between them nineteen children, or not one child on the average per married couple. Similarly, a Paris journal (_Intransigeant_, August and September, 1908) had the good idea of publis.h.i.+ng four hundred and forty-five names of the chief Parisian personalities who are never tired of lending their names in support of opposition to the artificial restriction of families. I give these figures briefly without the names, which have no special interest for us. Anyone interested in the names can consult the paper well known in upper circles. Among them:

176 married couples had 0 children = 0 children 106 ” ” ” 1 child = 106 ”

88 ” ” ” 2 children = 176 ”

40 ” ” ” 3 ” = 120 ”

19 ” ” ” 4 ” = 76 ”

7 ” ” ” 5 ” = 35 ”

4 ” ” ” 6 ” = 24 ”

3 ” ” ” 7 ” = 21 ”

1 ” ” ” 9 ” = 9 ”

1 ” ” ” 11 ” = 11 ”

Total 445 with 578

That is, an average one and a third children per couple, while each single one of these families could much more easily have supported twenty children than a working-cla.s.s family a single child.”

”Comment on the above is superfluous,” adds Dr. C.V. Drysdale, and with that remark most people will cordially disagree. The obvious interpretation of the foregoing figures is that there has been a decline in natural fertility amongst highly educated and civilised people. But that interpretation does not suit Dr. Drysdale's book, and hence we have the disgraceful spectacle of a writer who, in order to bolster up an argument which is rotten from beginning to end, does not hesitate to launch without a particle of evidence a charge of gross hypocrisy against the Quakers of England, a body of men and women who in peace and in war have proved the sincerity of their faith, and against four hundred and seventy respected citizens of Paris. Further comment on _that_ is superfluous. At the same time it is obvious that, in so far as their pernicious propaganda spreads and is adopted, Malthusians may claim to contribute to the fall of the birth-rate, and towards the decline of the Empire.

Section 2. DECLINE IN FERTILITY DUE TO SOME NATURAL LAW

In the course of an inquiry on the fertility of women who had received a college education, the National Birth Rate Commission [63] attempted to discover to what extent birth control was practised amongst the middle and professional cla.s.ses. Of those amongst whom the inquiry was made 477 gave definite answers, from which it was ascertained that 289, or 60 per cent., consciously limited their families, or attempted to do so; and that 188, or 40 per cent. made no attempt to limit their families. Amongst those who limited their families 183 stated the means employed, and of these, 105, or 57 per cent., practised continence, whilst 78, or 43 per cent., used artificial or unnatural methods.

Now comes a most extraordinary fact. Dr. Major Greenwood, [64] a statistician whose methods are beyond question, discovered that there was no real mathematical difference between the number of children in the ”limited” families and the number in the unlimited families. In both groups of families the number of children was smaller than the average family in the general population, and in both groups there were fewer children than in the families of the preceding generation to which the parents belonged.

Dr. Greenwood states that this is _prima facie_ evidence that deliberate birth control has produced little effect, and that the lowered fertility is the expression of a natural change. Nevertheless, he holds that the latter explanation cannot be accepted as wholly proved on the evidence, owing to certain defects in the data on which his calculations were based.

”I am of opinion that we should hesitate before adopting that interpretation in view of the cogent indirect evidence afforded by other data that the fall of the birth-rate is differential, and that the differentiation is largely economic. There are at least two considerations which must be borne in mind in connection with these schedules. The first is, that all the marriages described as unlimited may not have been so. I do not suggest that the answers are intentionally false, but it is possible that many may have considered that limitation implied the use of mechanical means; that marriages in which the parties merely abstained from, _or limited the occasions of_, s.e.xual intercourse may have frequently entered as of unrestricted fertility.”

The above italics are mine, because, if that surmise be correct, it goes to prove that the restriction of intercourse to certain periods, which restriction the married may lawfully practise, is as efficacious in limiting the size of a family as are those artificial methods of birth control contrary both to natural and to Christian morality. Dr. Major Greenwood continues as follows:

”In the second place, the schedules do not provide us with information as to when limitation was introduced. We are told, for instance, that the size of the family was five and that its number was limited. This may mean _either_ that throughout the duration of the marriage preventive measures were adopted from time to time, _or_ that _after_ five children had been born fertile intercourse was stopped. In the absence of detailed information on this point it is plainly impossible to form an accurate judgment as to the effect of limitation.”

There are, therefore, no accurate figures to indicate the extent to which birth control has contributed to the decline in the birth-rate.

Section 3. AND TO CHARACTER OF OCCUPATION

Moreover the claim of birth controllers, that the decline in the English birth-rate is mainly due to the use of contraceptives, is rendered highly improbable by the fact that the Registrar-General [65] has shown that in 1911 the birth-rate in different cla.s.ses varied according to the occupation of the fathers. The figures are these:

Births per 1,000 married Social Cla.s.s. males aged under 55, including retired.

1. Unskilled workmen 213 2. Intermediate cla.s.s 158 3. Skilled workmen 153 4. Intermediate 132 5. Upper and middle cla.s.s 119

Thus, ascending the social scale, we find, in cla.s.s upon cla.s.s, that as the annual income increases the number of children in the family diminishes, until we come to the old English n.o.bility of whom, according to Darwin, 19 per cent. are childless. These last have every reason to wish for heirs to inherit their t.i.tles and what land and wealth they possess, and, as their record in war proves them to be no cowards' breed, it would be a monstrous indictment to maintain that their childlessness is mostly due to the use of contraceptives. If _all_ these results arose from the practice of birth control, it would imply a crescendo of general national selfishness unparalleled in the history of humanity. No, it is not possible to give Neo-Malthusians credit, even for all the evil they claim to have achieved.