Chapter XXX: Section 1: Not, as Malthusians Assert, Due Mainly to Contraceptives

In support of the Malthusian contention, Dr. C.V. Drysdale, who is not a doctor of medicine but a doctor of science, has published the following statements:

"... We might note that a recent investigation of the records of the
Quakers (the Society of Friends) reveals the fact that family
limitation has been adopted by them to a most astonishing extent. Their
birthrate [_sic_] stood at 20 per thousand in 1876, and has now
actually fallen to about 8 per thousand. The longevity of Quakers is
well known, and the returns of deaths given by their Society show that
the great majority live to between seventy and ninety years. Infantile
mortality is practically unknown among them, although none of the
special steps so dear to most social reformers have been taken for the
protection of infant life. The Quakers are well known to be very
earnest Christians, and to give the best example of religious morality.
Their probity in business and their self-sacrifice in humanitarian work
of all kinds are renowned. Yet it would seem that they have adopted
family restriction to a greater extent than any other body of people,
and, since the decline of their birth-rate only began in 1876, that it
is due to adoption of preventive methods." [62]

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 Poincaré, who, although married,
has no children, twenty-four senators and littérateurs. 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
publishing 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-class 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.