Chapter XL: Section 7: A Menace to the Nation

(a) _There is a Limit to lowering the Death-rate_

Birth controllers believe that a high birth-rate is the cause of a high death-rate, and that over-population is the cause of poverty. Yet, in spite of their beliefs, they make the following statement: "Neo-Malthusians have not aimed at reducing population, but only at reducing unnecessary death, which injures the community without adding to its numbers." [80] In defence of this statement they argue that if the death-rate falls people will live longer, and therefore the population will not decrease, although the birth-rate is lowered. There are two fallacies in their argument. They overlook the fact that every one of us must die, and that therefore there is a limit beyond which a death-rate cannot possibly fall, whereas there is no limit, except zero, to the possible fall in a birth-rate. If a birth-rate fell to nothing and no children were born, it is obvious that the population would eventually vanish. The second fallacy is that a low birth-rate will permanently lower the death-rate. At first a falling birth-rate increases the proportion of young adults in the population, and, as the death-rate during early adult life is relatively low, the total death-rate tends to fall for a time. Sooner or later there is an increase in the proportion of old people in the population, and, as the death-rate during old age is high, the total death-rate tends to rise. That is now happening in England, and these are the _actual facts_ as recorded by the Registrar-General:

"It may be pointed out that, though the effect of the fall in the
birth-rate has hitherto been an a sense advantageous in that it has
increased the proportions living at the working ages, a tendency to the
reversal of this fact has already set in, and may be expected to
develop as time goes on....

"The general characteristics of the figures indicate very clearly the
effects of the long-continued decline in the birth-rate of this
country, and show, by the example of France, the type of
age-distribution which a further continuance of the decline is likely
to produce. The present age-distribution of the English population is
still favourable to low death-rates, but is becoming less so than it
was in 1901. The movements along the curve of the point of maximum
heaping up population, referred to on page 61 (See [Reference:
Population]), has shifted this from age 20-25 to a period ten years
later, when mortality is appreciably higher."--Census of England and
Wales, 1911. General Report, with Appendices, pp. 62 and 65.

Of these facts the birth controllers, would appear to be ignorant. That is a charitable assumption; but, in view of the vital importance of this question their ignorance is culpable.

(b) _Birth Control tends to extinguish the Birth-rate_

Whatever may be the nebulous aim of birth controllers, the actual results of birth control are quite definite. We have no accurate information regarding the extent to which, birth control is practised, for, needless to say, the Malthusians can provide us with no exact figures bearing on this question; but we do know that birth control, when adopted, is mostly practised amongst the better paid artisans and wealthier classes. After full examination of the evidence; the National Birth-rate Commission were unanimously agreed "That the greater incidence of infant mortality upon the less prosperous classes does not reduce their effective fertility to the level of that of the wealthier classes." [81] It is probable that this Commission overestimated the extent to which birth control has contributed to the declining birth-rate; but, even so, this does not alter the obvious fact that artificial birth control, when adopted, reduces fertility to a lower level than Nature intended. If language has any meaning, birth control means a falling birth-rate, and a falling birth-rate means depopulation. Here and there this evil practice may increase the material prosperity of an individual, but it lowers the prosperity of the nation by reducing the number of citizens. Moreover, as birth control is not a prevailing vice amongst semi-civilised peoples, the adoption of this practice by civilised nations means that the proportion of civilised to uncivilised inhabitants of the world will be reduced. If birth control had been extensively practised in the past the colonisation of the British Empire would have been a physical impossibility; and to-day, in our vast overseas dominions, are great empty spaces whose untilled soil and excellent climate await a population. Is that population to be white, or yellow? A question which to-day fills the Australian with apprehension.

(c) _A Danger to the Empire_

Many people are honestly perplexed by Neo-Malthusian propaganda, and are honestly ignorant of the truth concerning the population and the food supply of the British Empire. They think that _if_ the population is increasing faster than the food supply, there is at least one argument in favour of artificial birth control from a practical, although possibly not from an ethical, point of view. They apply to that propaganda the ordinary test of the world, namely, 'Will it work?' rather than that other test which asks, 'Is it right?' The question I would put to people who reason in that way, and they are many, is a very simple one. If it can be proved that Neo-Malthusian propaganda is based on an absolute falsehood, will it not follow that the chief argument in favour of artificial birth control has been destroyed? Let us put this matter to the proof. Neo-Malthusians state that the population of the Empire is increasing more rapidly than the food supply. That is a definite statement. It is either true or false. To discover the truth, it is necessary to refer to the Memorandum of the Dominions Royal Commission, and it may be noted that publications of that sort are not usually read by the general public to whom the Neo-Malthusians appeal. The public are aware that the staff of life is made from wheat, but they are not aware of the following facts, which prove that in this matter, at any rate, Neo-Malthusian statements are absolutely false. In foreign countries the increase of the wheat area is proceeding at practically the same rate as the increase of population. Within the British Empire _the wheat area is increasing more rabidly than the population_.

Between 1901 and 1911 the percentage increase of the wheat area _was nearly seven times greater_ than the increase of population; and the percentage increase in the actual production of wheat _was nearly twelve times greater_ than the increase of population. As these facts alone completely refute the Neo-Malthusian argument, it is advisable to reproduce here the official statistics. [82]

"The requirements of wheat [83] for the United Kingdom and the extent
to which Home and overseas supplies contributed towards these
requirements during the period under review can be briefly summarised
by the following table, viz.:

Normal Supplies Proportion of supply
Annual requirements
average Home Overseas Home Overseas

Million Million Million Per Per
cwts cwts cwts cent cent
1901-5 138.8 28.7 110.1 20.7 79.3
1906-10 143.2 31.9 111.3 22.3 77.7
1911-13 149.2 32.9 116.3 22.1 77.9

"The main sources of overseas supply are too well known to require
recapitulation here. The imports from the Dominions and India and their
proportionate contribution to the United Kingdom's total imports and
wheat requirements since 1901 have been as follows:

1901-5
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements

Million Per Per
cwts cent cent

Canada 10.3 9.2 7.4
Australia 6.6 5.9 4.8
New Zealand .4 .4 .3
India 15.5 13.9 11.2

32.8 29.4 23.7

1906-10
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements

Million Per Per
cwts cent cent

Canada 17.2 15.1 12.0
Australia 9.4 8.2 6.6
New Zealand .3 .3 .2
India 13.3 11.7 9.3

32.8 29.4 23.7

1911-13
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements

Million Per Per
cwts cent cent

Canada 24.5 20.5 16.4
Australia 12.6 10.6 8.4
New Zealand .4 .3 .3
India 21.5 18.0 14.4

59.0 49.4 39.5

"The large increase in the proportion received from the Dominions is,
of course, mainly due to the great extension of wheat cultivation in
Western Canada since the beginning of the century." [84]

_Future Supplies_

"As the United Kingdom is dependent for so large a proportion of its
wheat supplies on the surplus of oversea countries, it is of material
interest to examine whether this surplus is increasing, or whether the
growth of population is proceeding more rapidly than the extension of
the wheat-growing area.

"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1912 estimated [85] that the
extension of the wheat area and the growth of population during the
period 1901-1911 was as follows:

Wheat area Percent Population. Percent
Wheat-growing age in age in
countries. 1901. 1911. crease 1901. 1911. crease

British Empire Thousand Thousand Thousands Thousands
(United Kingdom, acres. acres.
Canada,
Australia,
New Zealand,
and India). 34,696 50,490 +45.5 283,385 302,154 + 6.6
European
countries. 98,326 115,105 +17.1 291,685 337,181 +15.6
Others 67,908 81,408 +19.9 139,927 168,818 +20.6

"_It is important to find that, while in foreign countries, both
European and extra-European, the increase of wheat area is proceeding
at practically the same rate as the increase of population, in the
British Empire the wheat area is developing far more rapidly, so that
the Empire as a whole is becoming more self-supporting.

"The total production of wheat within the British Empire, which was
227,500,000 cwts. in 1901, had risen to 399,700,000 cwts. in 1911, an
increase of 75 per cent_.

"The relative yield per acre in 1911 was as follows:"

Yield per acre.

Average for five
years, 1906-10. 1911.
Bushels. Bushels.

United Kingdom 32.88 32.96
Canada 17.56[86] 20.80[87]
Australia 11.74 9.65[88]
New Zealand 28.72 36.73
India
(including Native States) 11.44 12.02

The foregoing facts destroy the chief Neo-Malthusian argument, and, as birth control tends to extinguish the birth-rate, this Neo-Malthusian propaganda is a menace to the Empire. In fact, the danger is very great for the simple reason that the proportion of white people within the Empire is very small.

"The British Empire's share of the world's people is very large, but it
mainly consists, it should be remembered, of Asiatics and African
natives. The Empire as a whole contains about 450 millions of the
world's 1,800 millions, made up roundly as follows:

United Kingdom 47,000,000
Self-governing Dominions 22,000,000
Rest of the Empire (chiefly India,
319 millions) 378,000,000
Total 447,000,000

"Of the great aggregate Empire population of 447 millions, the white
people account for no more than 65 millions. That is to say, outside
the United Kingdom itself the Empire has only 18 million white people,
or less than four million families. That figure, of course, includes
Boers, French-Canadians, and others of foreign extraction. This fact is
clearly not realized by those present-day Malthusians who assure us
that too many Britons are being born." [89]

It is also well to remember that depopulation in Italy preceded the disintegration of the Roman Empire. Historians have estimated that, while under the Republic, Italy could raise an army of 800,000 men, under Titus that number was halved.

Unfortunately there are some to whom this argument will not appeal, and wandering about in our midst are a few lost souls, so bemused by the doctrines of international finance that they see no virtue in patriotism or, in other words, in the love that a man has for his own home. They are unmoved by the story of sacrifice, of thrift, and of patient trust in God that is told for instance in the history of the Protestant manses of Scotland, where ministers on slender stipends brought up families of ten and twelve, where the boys won scholarships at the universities, and where women were the mothers of men.

These days have been recalled by Norman Macleod:

"The minister, like most of his brethren, soon took to himself a wife,
the daughter of a neighbouring 'gentleman tacksman,' and the
grand-daughter of a minister, well born and well bred; and never did
man find a help more meet for him. In that manse they lived for nearly
fifty years, and there were born to them sixteen children; yet neither
father nor mother could ever lay hand on a child and say, 'We wish this
one had not been.' They were all a source of unmingled joy...." [90]

"A 'wise' neighbour once remarked, 'That minister with his large family
will ruin himself, and if he dies they will be beggars.' Yet there has
never been a beggar among then to the fourth generation." [91]

How did they manage to provide for their children? In this pagan, spoon-fed age, many people will laugh when they read the answer--in a family letter, written more than a hundred years ago by a man who was poor:

"But the thought--I cannot provide for these! Take care, minister, the
anxiety of your affection does not unhinge that confidence with which
the Christian ought to repose upon the wise and good providence of
God! What though you are to leave your children poor and friendless?
Is the arm of the Lord shortened, that He cannot help? Is His ear
heavy, that He cannot hear? You yourself have been no more than an
instrument in the hand of His goodness; and is His goodness, pray,
bound up in your feeble arm? Do you what you can; leave the rest to
God. Let them be good, and fear the Lord, and keep His commandments,
and He will provide for them in His own way and in His own time. Why,
then, wilt thou be cast down, O my soul; why disquieted within me?
Trust thou in the Lord! Under all the changes and the cares and the
troubles of this life, may the consolations of religion support our
spirits. In the multitude of thoughts within me, Thy comforts O my
God, delight my soul! But no more of this preaching-like harangue, of
which, I doubt not, you wish to be relieved. Let me rather reply to
your letter, and tell you my news." [92]

That letter was written by Norman Macleod, ordained in 1774, and minister of the Church of Scotland in Morven for some forty years. His stipend was £40, afterwards raised to £80. He had a family of sixteen. One of his sons was minister in Campbelltown, and later in Glasgow. He had a family of eleven. His eldest son was Chaplain to Queen Victoria, and wrote the _Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_.

The birth controllers ask why we should bring up children at great cost and trouble to ourselves, and they have been well answered by a non-Catholic writer, Dr. W.E. Home. [93]

"One of my acquaintances refuses to have a second child because he
could not then play golf. Is there, then, no pleasure in children which
shall compensate for the troubles and expenses they bring upon you? I
notice that the penurious Roman Catholic French Canadian farmers are
spreading out of Quebec and occupying more and more of Ontario. I fancy
these hard-living parents would think their struggles to bring up their
large (ten to twenty) families worth while when they see how their
group is strengthening its position. If a race comes to find no
instinctive pleasure in children it will probably be swept away by
others more virile. One man will live where another will starve;
prudence and selfishness are not identical.

"In her book, _The Strength of a People_, Mrs. Bosanquet, who signed
the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission, tells the story of two
girls in domestic service who became engaged. One was imprudent,
married at once, lived in lodgings, trusted to the Church and the
parish doctor to see her through her first confinement, had no
foresight or management, every succeeding child only added to her
worries, and her marriage was a failure. The other was prudent, did not
marry till, after six months, she and her fiancé had chosen a house and
its furniture. Then she married, and their house was their own careful
choice; every table and chair reminded them of the afternoon they had
had together when it was chosen; they were amusement enough to
themselves, and they saved their money for the expenses of her
confinement. He had not to seek amusement outside his home, did his
work with a high sanction and got promoted, and each child was only an
added pleasure. Idyllic; yes, but sometimes true. One of the happiest
men I have known was a Marine sergeant with ten children, and a bed in
his house for stray boys he thought he should help.

"One of my friends married young and had five children; this required
management. He certainly could not go trips, take courses and extra
qualifications, but he did his work all right, and his sons were there
to help in the war, and one of them has won a position of Imperial
usefulness far above that of his father or me. Is that no compensation
to his parents for old-time difficulties they have by now almost
forgotten? A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit."

Dr. W.E. Home is right, and the Neo-Malthusian golfer is wrong. Moreover, he is wrong as a golfer. Golf requires skill, a fine co-ordination of sight and touch, much patience and self-control: and many unfortunate people lack these qualities of mind and body, and are therefore unable to play this game with pleasure to themselves or to others. Consequently every golfer, no matter whether he accepts the hypothesis of Spencer or that of Weismann concerning the inheritance of acquired characteristics, should rejoice to see his large family in the links as a good omen for the future of this game, although there be some other reasons that also justify the existence of children.

_(d) The Dangers of Small Families_

In a Malthusian leaflet, written for the poor Dr. Binnie Dunlop states:

"You must at least admit that there would be nothing like the usual
poverty if married couples had only one child for every 20s. or so, a
week of wages. Yet the population would continue to increase rapidly,
because very few of the children of small families die or grow up
weakly; and it would become stronger, richer, and of course much
happier." [94]

The false suggestion contained in his first sentence, namely that a high birth-rate is the cause of poverty, has already been exposed (Chap. II), and apparently Dr. Binnie Dunlop has never considered _why_ so many of the English people should be so poor as to enable him to make use of their very poverty in order to tempt them to adopt an evil method of birth control. Moreover, his second contention, that a small family produces a higher type of child, better fed, better trained, and healthier, than is found amongst the children of large families is contrary to the following facts, as stated by Professor Meyrick Booth:

"1. A civilisation cannot be maintained with an average of less than
about four children per marriage; a smaller number will lead to actual
extinction.

"2. Much information exists tending to show that heredity strongly
favours the third, fourth, fifth, and subsequent children born to a
given couple, rather than the _first two_, who are peculiarly apt to
inherit some of the commonest physical and mental defects (upon this
important point the records of the University of London Eugenics
Laboratory should be consulted). A population with a low birth-rate
thus naturally tends to degenerate. _It is the normal, and not the
small family, that gives the best children_.

"3. The present differential birth-rate--high amongst the less
intelligent classes and low amongst the most capable families--so far
from leading upwards, is causing the race to breed to a lower type.

"4. The small family encourages the growth of luxury and the
development of what M. Leroy-Beaulieu calls _l'esprit arriviste_.

"5. The popular idea that _childbirth is injurious_ to a woman's health
is probably _quite erroneous_. Where the _birth-rate is high the health
of the woman is apparently better_ than where it is artificially low.

"6. A study of history does not show that nations with low birth-rates
have been able to attain to a higher level of civilisation. Such
nations have been thrust into the background by their hardier
neighbours." [95]

Moreover, M. Leroy-Beaulieu, in _La Question de la Population_ [96] states that those districts of France which show an exceptionally low birthrate are distinguished by a peculiar atmosphere of materialism, and that their inhabitants exhibit, in a high degree, an attitude of mind well named _l'esprit arriviste_--the desire to concentrate on outward success, to push on, to be climbers, to advance themselves and their children in fashionable society. This spirit means the willing sacrifice of all ideals of ethics or of patriotism to family egoism. To this mental attitude, and to the corresponding absence of religion, he attributes the decline of population. In conclusion the following evidence is quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth:

"The _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for July 1911 contains a valuable account,
by a doctor resident in Gascony, of the state of things in that part of
France (where, it will be remembered, the birth-rate is especially
low). He expresses with the utmost emphasis the conviction that the
Gascons are deteriorating, physically and mentally, and points out, at
the same time, that the decline of population has had an injurious
effect upon the economic condition of the country. 'L'hyponatalité est
une cause précise et directe de la dégénérescence de la race,' he
writes. And, dealing with the belief that a low birthrate will result
in the development of a superior type of child, he says: 'C'est une
illusion qui ne résiste pas à la lumière des faits tels que les montre
l'étude démographique de nos villages gascons. Depuis que beaucoup de
bancs restent vides à la petite école, les écoliers ne sont ni mieux
doués, ni plus travailleurs, et ils sont certainement moins vigoureux.'
And again, 'La quantité est en général la condition première et
souveraine de la qualité.'" [97]