Chapter II: , it follows that it is the female rather than the male that (8)

It is said that infanticide was formerly characteristic of five-sixths of British India.[1400] Recently it was common in Central India, Rajputana, Cutch Bhooj, Agra Province, Khondistan, among the Jats, and in the Punjab generally.[1401] The Mysore census for 1852 showed that in a population of 3,410,382 there was a 10 per cent. excess of males in the adult population in spite of a 16 per cent. excess of female births.[1402] It is stated to exist among the Nagas[1403] though the evidence is conflicting.[1404] It was formerly ‘very common all over the Jeypore country’.[1405] It was especially prevalent among the Khond people,[1406] where ‘it was expressly sanctioned and promoted by their religious doctrine’.[1407] It was also common among the Todas.[1408] ‘Lieut.-General Walker estimated that about 33,000 female children were annually put to death in Cutch and Gujerat, a rate amounting to about one-fourth of the total births and therefore to about half of the girls born. Watson and Kaye assert that “no criminality either by law or usage was ever attached among the Rajputs to infanticide. The child was smothered in milk or else opium was smeared upon the mother’s breasts in quantities sufficient to cause immediate death.” The _Encyclopaedia of India_ asserts that in one of the districts of this Province, while there were 82,400 boys, there were only 35,137 girls at the 1874 enumeration, a discrepancy which clearly showed that more than one-half of the girls had been destroyed.’[1409]

It is worthy of note that in addition to infanticide ‘the wilful neglect of female children operates destructively in every town and village throughout the length and breadth of India’.[1410] This is especially noticeable where in recent days infanticide has much diminished. Thus in Rajputana girls are allowed to die when in the case of a boy medical aid would be summoned.[1411]

Infanticide was extensively practised among the Teutonic tribes before their conversion to Christianity.[1412] The well-known statement of Tacitus that the Germans did not practise infanticide is certainly erroneous. Lecky suggests that the whole passage is to be taken rather as an indirect way of scolding his own people than as a sober statement of fact about another. ‘Guizot regards the picture which Tacitus draws as being analogous to the portrait Fenimore Cooper gives of the Red Indians.’[1413] There is ample evidence that the practice was common. ‘Grimm declares that “all the Teutonic Sagas are full of the exposure of children, and there can be no doubt that in the early days of heathenism it was lawful”. Müller says that all the Teutonic races in early times had the right of exposing their children, but in the course of centuries it came to be exercised only by the parent.... It is related that, when in A. D. 1000 the Norsemen of Iceland were converted to Christianity, they stipulated that the right of slaying their infants should not be removed.’[1414] There is evidence from graves that infanticide was practised in Neolithic times in England.[1415] It is thus of particular interest to notice that, where we can catch sight of peoples emerging out of the prehistoric period, we find infanticide established as a practice; the conclusions derived from the direct evidence of the peoples of this group are thus linked on to the conclusion to which in the last chapter we came from indirect evidence.[1416]

13. Turning to sub-groups three and four, disease, war, famine, and child mortality have already been dealt with. The remaining factors are those in respect of which there is a contrast between these sub-groups and those just considered. Furthermore, as regards these factors there are certain important differences as between what we may call mediaeval and modern races.

Of pre-puberty intercourse there is no evidence. Among modern races it is certainly negligible. If it occurred at all in the mediaeval period it was very uncommon, and we may therefore regard this factor as of no account. Hitherto we have found that, though far from being universal, it is a fairly common practice. Its disappearance thus makes one distinction between these races and those which we have previously studied.

The length of the suckling period marks a similar distinction. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast distinction; even at the present day in certain country districts it is prolonged, as, for instance, in Hungary for several years according to Gönezi.[1417] Generally speaking, however, the tendency has been for a reduction to the conditions which now rule in Western Europe.

14. A far more remarkable difference between these races and those hitherto considered is provided by the conditions regarding celibacy and the postponement of marriage. Hitherto we have found that, with the exception of a very few individuals who chiefly for religious reasons did not marry, all women, if indeed not married before puberty, got married soon after. Such postponement of marriage as occurred was confined to men, and therefore neither celibacy nor postponement had any effect upon numbers. At this point we come upon wholly new conditions.

The views of St. Paul with regard to marriage are well known and the attitude of all early Christians authors is similar though usually more pronounced. If marriage was tolerable, virginity was in any case preferable. ‘For why’, says Tertullian, ‘should we long to bear children, whom, when we have them, we desire to send before us ... ourselves also longing to be removed from this most wicked world.... Therefore whether marriage be for the sake of the flesh, or of the world or of having descendants, not one of these necessities belongeth to the servants of God.’[1418] Such a passage as this can be paralleled in the works of almost any of the Fathers. They return to the subject over and over again. St. Augustine did not avoid the practical difficulty. ‘But I am aware’, he says, ‘of some that murmur. What, say they, if all men should abstain from sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would thus; ... much more speedily would the City of God be filled and the end of the world hastened.’[1419] There are many decrees of the early Council regarding celibacy. It was first enjoined by the Popes in 385.[1420] Gregory VII was very zealous on behalf of celibacy, and owing to his efforts it became very general in Europe in the eleventh century though it was not rigidly enforced until the thirteenth century among the clergy.[1421] Much earlier, however, in certain countries celibacy had come, under the influence of Christian teaching, to be of importance. It was initiated by Paul the Theban and St. Antony after the Decian persecution[1422] and according to Schönberg there were at one time in a single diocese in Egypt 20,000 men and 10,000 women celibates.[1423] It was felt to be necessary to take steps to limit the extent of the practice, and in 381 the Council of Saragossa forbade virgins to take the veil unless over forty years of age.[1424] Thus under the influence of Christianity celibacy became for the first time in human history a factor of importance. That the celibate is to be preferred to the married state is emphasized by the Council of Trent.[1425]

Also in this period for the first time in the history of the world postponement of marriage became of importance. The evidence as to the age at marriage is unfortunately far from exact. There is, however, a very large amount of evidence which shows that, at least in the society typical of most European countries from the tenth century onwards, marriage was, except among the privileged classes, always somewhat, and often very long, postponed both for men and women, though more for the former than the latter. This postponement was brought about by the pressure of social conditions, customs, and laws. To these conditions and customs it will be necessary to refer in the next chapter, and it will suffice to say here that, generally speaking, in the country there was a limited number of households and that, until death made vacancies, there was no house for those wishing to marry, who in consequence had to wait, and that in the towns guild restrictions bound apprentices for a large number of years during which they might not marry, and that at many times in many places the poor were prohibited from marrying.

There is very little statistical evidence. The matter has been investigated by Rubin, who worked with the Danish figures for the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. ‘It was the universal rule’, he says, ‘that as soon as the obstacles ... were surmounted, every one proceeded to get married.’[1426] Apart, therefore, from religious celibacy, there was no voluntary celibacy such as we find at the present day. But these obstacles in the case of the dependent class were serious, and marriage was long postponed by men in this class, though postponed for a shorter time by women than by men. ‘Even though the social and economic structure of the community of old restrained one section of the population—the dependent section—from marriage, the other part of the population, the independent section, married far earlier than nowadays. There was perhaps ... some holding back in certain circles of the best society. But for ordinary independent people marriage at an early age was a matter of course. Those who could marry early, then, did so. But those who were unable to marry till late in life—when they no longer held the position of journeymen, labourer, &c.—yet married.’[1427] With regard to women there was ‘a state of affairs resembling that found in the case of men, a compulsory condition of celibacy for certain sections of the population.... In certain classes of the population there were a good many more unmarried women at something over twenty years of age than there are now.’[1428] Summing up his conclusions the same author says ‘in spite of the fact that in the independent section of the community marriage took place, as a rule, at an earlier age in the eighteenth century than it does now, the average age of marriage was yet higher at that time, because the more numerous dependent class married later’, and adds that ‘there must have been a difference between the age of the bride and bridegroom considerably greater than in the marriages of our time’.[1429]

The state of things indicated above is that typical of mediaeval Europe and lasted up to the industrial revolution. It is not to be supposed that there was any abrupt change from the conditions prevalent before; on the contrary the conditions described developed slowly as European mediaeval society assumed its typical aspect. The growth of these conditions is connected with the disappearance of abortion and infanticide, and, as we shall see; there is evidence that there was a lengthy period during which these customs continued to be practised after the introduction of Christianity.

The transition from the conditions of what we have called the mediaeval period to those of the modern period was relatively sudden. The economic changes connected with the rise of the industrial system in the latter half of the eighteenth century did away with the obstacles to marriage which have been mentioned. As a result the average age at marriage was lowered. In England between 1867 and 1888 it was for men twenty-six and for women twenty-four. The question of the age at marriage in the modern period need not detain us because it was not the variations in that factor which have controlled numbers. There have been variations, but these variations have been compensated for by other factors.

Celibacy for religious reasons, which at certain times and places was of great importance in the mediaeval period, has ceased to be of any importance in the modern period. On the other hand, for the first time in history voluntary celibacy on grounds other than religious has come to be of importance. ‘In the course of this century [nineteenth century] Wappaus found that in Saxony 14·6 of the unmarried adult population died single; in Sweden 14·9 per cent., in the Netherlands 14·2 per cent., and in France 20·6 per cent.’[1430] The returns of the thirteenth United States[1431] Census showed that of the females 35–44 years of age 10 per cent. were single.

In this connexion there is another matter which may be mentioned here. It will be referred to in detail later on. Whereas in the mediaeval period the independent class married early and the dependent class considerably later, in the modern period this has been reversed. It is now the wage-earning class which marries earlier than the independent class.

15. Contraceptive methods were known in the mediaeval period,[1432] but there is no evidence that either these practices or restraint from intercourse between married persons were of any importance. According to Rubin, ‘so far as the eighteenth century ... is concerned, it may be taken as a fact that in the main the limit of fertility of marriage was set by nature alone.’[1433] This applies equally to the whole of the period. In this respect, therefore, this period resembles those which preceded it.

Whatever effects may have to be attributed to these factors in the former periods, it is within the modern period that they first become of primary importance. Something was said in the First Chapter as to the history of the so-called Neomalthusian propaganda, and it was pointed out that it began relatively early in the century. It is obviously very difficult to obtain any definite facts regarding the extent of these practices, but a very great body of evidence points to the conclusion that, not only have these practices come to be of great importance, but also that it is by means of variation in their use, together with deliberate restraint from intercourse between married persons, by which population has come to be regulated.

With regard to definite evidence the results of an inquiry carried out by the National Birth-Rate Commission may be quoted. Of 481 schedules issued, 366 gave definite replies regarding the limitation of births. In 288 cases the marriages were specifically stated to be limited, and in 203 of these 288 cases there were further particulars. In 105 cases (51·7 per cent.) limitation appears to have been due merely to restriction of intercourse to periods when conception was believed to be unlikely or to abstention from intercourse. There were 98 cases in which contraceptive methods were apparently employed.[1434]

16. We now come to a consideration of the three practices which we found to be of such importance in the first two groups. Of prolonged restraint from intercourse imposed as a social custom there is no trace. It was certainly not characteristic of the mediaeval period; it is possible that in the earlier portion of the period, of which in these respects we have little definite knowledge, the practice may have been continued from the times previous to conversion to Christianity, just as we shall find that abortion and infanticide were continued in some cases. It is important also to notice that abortion and infanticide, at least in the form of well-recognized social customs, are also absent. For the first time in history none of these practices are in common use. We may shortly consider how they came to disappear.

‘Abortion’, says Lecky, ‘was probably regarded by the average Roman of the later days of Paganism much as an Englishman in the last century regarded convivial excess, as certainly wrong, but so venial as scarcely to deserve censure. The language of the Christians from the very beginning was widely different. With unswerving consistency and with the strongest emphasis, they denounced the practice, not simply as inhuman, but as definitely murder.’[1435] The evidence goes to show that the Christian objection to abortion was the chief factor in bringing this practice into discredit. The Christian attitude was due to the belief that children in the womb possessed souls. St. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, was of opinion that such children had guardian angels. It is probable that abortion was not stamped out altogether; it may have continued to some extent throughout the whole mediaeval period; it is known to be practised to a considerable extent among the less educated classes in the more advanced countries at the present day.[1436] Figures have been given which show that abortion is at the present day a considerable factor in France. But it is clear that from being a factor of the first importance it has come to be altogether a secondary factor and what is more to be regarded definitely as criminal.

The first protest against infanticide was made by Philo in the first century A. D.[1437] The Christians opposed infanticide as they did abortion, but it does not appear that Christian influence played as large a part in putting down this practice as it did in the case of abortion. Speaking of the later days of the Empire, Lecky says that ‘the legislators then absolutely condemned it and it was indirectly discouraged by laws which accorded special privileges to the fathers of many children.... Pagan and Christian authorities are united in speaking of infanticide as a crying vice of the Empire and Tertullian observed that no laws were more easily or constantly evaded than those which condemned it. A broad distinction was popularly drawn between infanticide and exposition. The latter, though probably condemned, was certainly not punished by law; it was practised on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference, and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered a very venial offence.’[1438] Finally in 374 Valentinian made all infanticide a capital offence and particularly enjoined the punishment of exposition. There is much evidence to show that many centuries elapsed before the practice was finally suppressed in Europe. It was apparently common in France up to the time of Charlemagne, who made it a capital offence. A law of the Spanish Visigoths in the seventh century punished both abortion and infanticide with death.[1439]

The disappearance of both these practices is connected with the evolution of the typical conditions of mediaeval society which are marked, as we saw, by postponement of marriage and religious celibacy. As the former went out the latter came in, and we shall find that numbers came to be regulated by the peculiar methods of the latter period as they had previously been regulated by those of the former.

17. Mention may perhaps be made of the influence of venereal disease. Gonorrhoea has long been prevalent; there is some reason to think that it was known in Assyria. Syphilis is of more recent introduction into Europe and may be of more recent evolution. Though syphilis is a frequent cause of abortions, still-births, and infant mortality, it does not produce sterility. The presence of gonorrhoea tends to prevent conception in women and, if not cured within a certain time, it may cause permanent sterility. A considerable proportion of the sterile marriages at the present day may, as indicated in the Fourth Chapter, be due to gonorrhoea. Though no great influence is to be attributed to venereal diseases when the whole question is broadly viewed, it may be remembered that within the third period they have been prevalent and thus further distinguish that period from the first two periods.[1440]

XI
THE REGULATION OF NUMBERS AMONG HISTORICAL RACES

1. At the beginning of the Ninth Chapter it was shown that under any given conditions there is a certain density of population which is the most desirable. What was there said applies whenever men enjoy the benefits of co-operation. In the first and second groups, most men are engaged in the production of food, and, except in some races in the second group, the distinction between rich and poor, the division of labour, and other complications of social life are not far advanced. Where such complications are much increased, as in the third group, it may seem that so simple an idea as that of an optimum number is no longer even in general valid. It must suffice here to state that such complications do not destroy the general validity of this view. In fact the quotation from Professor Cannan given in the Sixth Chapter has direct reference to modern conditions, and the principle there laid down was intended by him to apply to the economic conditions of the present day, though it is, as he says, also applicable to any society once co-operation has arisen.

Among the complications of social life to which we may refer are those connected with property, the division of labour, and the division into classes. The latest development connected with property—the introduction of the capitalist system and the appearance of a large class of wage earners—does not change the general position. One remarkable modern development of the division of labour results in one country devoting itself largely to manufacture while another may devote itself to the production of food. Of all such complications there is only one which so modifies the idea of an optimum number as to require mention in a broad survey. That complication is the division into classes. Where there is a more or less well-marked division into classes performing more or less well-defined kinds of labour, there is nevertheless generally such an ebb and flow between them that there can hardly be any question, broadly speaking, of over-population in any one class. This, however, may not always be so, and in particular at the present day it may be that in the lowest social class there is over-population though not in the nation as a whole. It may be that in this class there is a failure to attain to such a standard of living as is within reach owing to over-population, and whether this does in fact happen will have to be discussed later.

In the Ninth Chapter, when discussing the data of the first and second groups, we showed how approximation to the desirable number might be brought about and we further came to the conclusion that normally there was such an approximation. It is proposed here to treat the data for the third group in the same fashion, though the treatment will be even slighter than in the case of the other groups. Subsequently we shall discuss the chief causes of failure of adjustment in this and in the preceding groups. Lastly we shall touch upon the questions of migration and war which have often been held to be caused by over-population.

2. The difficulties in dealing with the first sub-group are so great that we shall only devote a very few words to the consideration of the problems that arise. The facts regarding the social conditions in Egypt, Assyria, and other great empires are very scanty. It is only with regard to Greece and Rome that we have any considerable amount of information. Our conclusions as to what was in the main the position with regard to the ancient empires will be rather in the nature of a deduction when we have completed our sketch of all the races in the third group.

How adjustment may be conceived to have come about in these races is in the absence of knowledge of their social conditions not possible to illustrate. We know, however, that the social life of these races was based upon the cultivation of the land. It is true that in addition to the cultivator we find the artisan and the wage-earner.[1441] The question as to how the increase of the artisan, merchant, and wage-earning classes may be kept down to the desirable level will be discussed when dealing with the third and fourth sub-groups, and, as in general the conditions are probably much the same everywhere, we may omit the consideration of what happens among these classes in this sub-group. With regard to the cultivators we have already seen, when dealing with the second group, how, when either family or village communities are limited to a certain area, we can understand that the undesirability of such an increase as would cause the average earnings to fall below the possible maximum not only might, but actually does, result in a limitation of increase. So again here among the cultivators, we can suppose that the danger of an undue increase was brought to notice in the same fashion. We shall also discuss in some little detail what happens among the cultivators in the third sub-group, and thus we can omit the consideration of what facts there are for this sub-group and merely ask what methods there are whereby increase could have been checked.

Of fertility we have little evidence. It has to be remembered that on general grounds fecundity was if anything greater than among the races of the former groups. Lactation was apparently often prolonged and pre-puberty marriage may not have been uncommon. Disease and war were very important as factors of elimination, and moreover they were both erratic in their action. It is no longer possible to think of a certain average degree of elimination from these causes which varied little from year to year. On the other hand there is no difficulty in supposing that abortion and infanticide were employed in varying degrees to meet the situation. It may be observed that abortion in Rome and infanticide in Greece were practised systematically, and not merely when pressure had arisen but in order that it might not arise. Thus Hesiod recommends the cultivator not to bring up more than one son at home, for thus ‘wealth will increase in the house’.[1442] What practices were in use among the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and other peoples we do not know in any detail, though there is considerable evidence of the prevalence of infanticide. There may have been a tendency to practise these customs to some average degree, but there is no difficulty in supposing that following upon war and pestilence there would be such a relaxation as soon to bring numbers up to the former level. The question as to how far we may assume these methods to have been effective will be left for discussion until later in the chapter.

3. There is a great variety of races in the second sub-group; they fall under the headings of the more or less nomadic peoples, the more primitive peoples of India, who in many respects are comparable to the races of the second group but who have been to some extent influenced by Eur-Asiatic culture and the chief races of India and China. Those races which fall under the second and third headings are predominantly agricultural; 75 per cent. of the population of Bengal, for instance, is supported directly or indirectly by agriculture. Whether, as in many parts of India, the village community system obtains,[1443] or whether, as in China, there is family or individual ownership of the land,[1444] what was said above regarding the possibility of the desirable number making itself felt also applies here. So also does what was there said about the position of the artisan and wage-earner. As a typical example of the manner in which the pressure is felt where the family system obtains in an agricultural community, we may take the conditions in China as described by two Chinese authors. ‘In a village the well-to-do family is a rare exception, and the typical family is the working-class family. The father is, as a rule, a husbandman, and the sons follow his footsteps. If they do not possess a piece of land of their own they cultivate either the land of the ancestral hall, of the village temple, or that of any private owner. The mother, daughter, and daughter-in-law do the household work together, and also add considerably to the family income by such employment as may be carried on in the home. The earnings of all the members of a family are given to the mother in a hotch-potch for the maintenance of the corporate whole. The family from our point of view is a living organism which possesses a spirit quite apart from the individuals who form it. Each member does not live and work for himself, but for the family to which he belongs. Every other member has a claim on his earnings.’[1445] Another author, after describing this system, tells us that ‘any member of the family who should disgrace himself in any way, as by becoming an inveterate gambler and permanently neglecting his work, or by developing the opium vice to great excess, would be formally cast out, his name being struck off the ancestral register. Men of this stamp generally sink lower and lower, until they swell the ranks of the professional beggars, to die perhaps in a ditch.’[1446]

With regard to the nomadic peoples we always find that they are restricted to clearly marked territories. Robertson Smith, after describing the local groups among the Arabs, goes on to say that ‘the nomadic Arabs, whose way of life supplied the type in which all Arabian society was mainly moulded, are not to be thought of as roaming quite at large through the length and breadth of the peninsula. Each group, or confederation of groups, had its own pastures, and still more its own waters, beyond which it could not move without immediate risk of a hostile encounter.’[1447] Somewhat similar conditions are recorded of all nomadic people.[1448]

4. When we consider the factors which bear upon fertility and elimination, we find that, as in the first sub-group, war and disease are of importance—especially the latter—and that, further, the amount of elimination to which they give rise is very irregular from one period to another. For some thousands of years India appears to have been subject to the passage of scourge after scourge, sweeping away hundreds of thousands of the population. Famine at times is the cause of many deaths, and is due in part, as it is in varying degrees among all races, to climatic factors. It happens, however, that in India these conditions are such as to produce famine more often than anywhere else. Peninsular India is ‘subject to excessive variations [of rainfall] distributed quite irregularly and over very long periods. In such regions years of adequate rainfall and abundant yield may follow in successive decades at a time during which a considerable population settles and opens up the country; then follow a few years of drought with high temperature and aridity; and unless migration and storage works are practicable and are executed in time, the land is deserted.’[1449] Famine is also due at times to some failure in social organization or to some failure to keep up the previous level of skill, as, for instance, to maintain irrigation works.

Fecundity, as we have seen, is probably, on the whole, higher among these races than among the races of the second group. Pre-puberty marriage in India probably has a considerable influence in reducing fertility, at least among the Hindu part of the population. With regard to practices limiting fertility and causing elimination, we have seen that infanticide and abortion are widespread and perhaps to some small extent contraceptive practices or prudential restraint are employed by all these races. It may also be noticed that there is plenty of evidence that in former times in any case marriage customs existed which ensured that before marriage took place the bridegroom was competent to support a family at the recognized standard of living. ‘The days are still remembered when no young Munda could marry before he was able to construct a plough with his own hands, nor would a Munda girl be given away in marriage before she could, with her own hands, weave mats with palm leaves and spin cotton.’[1450]

5. There is no reason for thinking that over-population occurs among the nomadic people such as the Arabs; presumably the methods we have seen to be in use are effective. There has been much discussion as to whether over-population exists in India, and there is a very great difference of opinion on the matter. Hitherto, in order to throw some light on this point, we have had to rely on general evidence; here, for the first time, there is some exact evidence of the kind which should enable a definite answer to be given. What we want to know in the case of India is whether the real income per head is increasing or not with the increase of population. Unfortunately the evidence in India is somewhat contradictory. It has recently been summed up by Wattal.[1451] He shows that some of the arguments in favour of the view that there is no over-population are of very doubtful validity. It has been said, for instance, that large areas are sparsely populated; in this connexion it has to be remembered that the soil is poor in these areas. It has also been said that the complaints about insufficiency of labour point to the same conclusion. There are, however, many reasons to account for this fact. On the other hand, Wattal points out that the acreage per unit of the agricultural population hardly exceeds one and a half acres and further shows a tendency to fall. He also points out that in Europe 250 persons to the square mile is thought to be the limit of density where agriculture is practised, whereas in India from four to five times that number in many places find their support on an area of this size. He finds the explanation of this not in any superiority of soil or of skill but in the lowness of the standard of living. Four persons subsist on an income that would hardly support one person in Europe. The lowness of the standard of living, the small area of land per head, and the tendency for the amount of land per labourer to decrease points strongly to the conclusion that over-population does occur in many parts of India.

It is also probable that many parts of China are over-populated. The apparent overcrowding and the low standard of living lend support to this views and in this connexion it is interesting to note that infanticide is practised not so much as a regular custom but at times when, numbers being so great, no further increase could be supported. Moule says that infanticide is ‘local and spasmodic’ rather than ‘chronic and national’ and notices that it is especially connected with ‘want from flood, or famine or civil war’.[1452] There is much other evidence to the same effect.[1453] It will be remembered that some evidence was given in the last chapter pointing to the great prevalence of infanticide; it is necessary to remember that such conditions are consistent with a state of over-population. The prevalence of such a custom in no way shows that numbers are as a result being kept down to the desirable level. These customs may bring about this result, or they may, in a country in the position in which there is reason to believe that many parts of China now are, merely eliminate those for whom there is no place at all. Almost the same amount of infanticide, which would limit numbers to a desirable level in a country where such a level was being maintained, would, in a country where numbers were already excessive, merely cut off those for whom enough food to support existence could not be found.

What, then, is the cause of the over-population which almost certainly exists in parts of India and China? The irregularity of the factors of elimination is itself no bar to the adjustment of population, but this irregularity may indirectly have an important bearing upon the outlook of man and ultimately upon the behaviour of the mass of the population. Great scourges must tend to produce a hopelessness of outlook. When time and again war and disease sweep through a country, there must arise a tendency for the standard of living to be lost sight of. Gradually there may come about a condition of things when there is no hope or fear. European influence may have had an ill effect. The lessening of elimination through disease and war does not of necessity in itself tend to bring about any over-population. On the contrary, it tends rather to remove the causes which produce degraded social conditions and the consequences referred to above which flow from them. But in other ways European influence is not beneficial. Those customs, for instance, which insist upon the bridegroom possessing a certain degree of skill break down, and unless a more or less distinctly formulated ambition takes their place, there is nothing to ensure that the necessary effort to secure the highest standard of living that is possible will be made.

That which is common to these races, where over-population is suspected, is the absence of hope and fear alike, of ambition and of a standard of living; they are contented to subsist on what will just support life. Such conditions are fatal to the attainment of the desirable number. Abortion and infanticide may still be practised, but as a rule only in the presence of absolute need, not as regular customs before the need arises. To the bringing about of these conditions the factors mentioned above contribute, but they probably never represent the whole cause. In these cases we seem always to find that political misfortunes have overtaken these peoples. They have suffered from oppression in one form or another and gradually the old customs have been lost; hope and ambition have faded from the outlook. In consequence of oppression the mass of the people has by degrees sunk to a degraded condition in which neither the former customs are practised nor is an individual effort, as a rule, made towards the attainment of the best which the skilled methods available, surroundings and so on, make possible.

It is also probable that there is over-population in Egypt; it is probable, that is to say, that with the recent increase of the fellaheen population there has been a decrease in the income per head. Any one who has had an opportunity of watching the behaviour of the fellaheen side by side with that of members of some race such as the Somalis cannot fail to have been very much impressed. The fellaheen cultivate one of the richest countries on earth, and they have within their grasp and to some extent within their use a considerable degree of modern skilled methods. At an Egyptian port these men were to be seen at work during the war. From time to time Somalis disembarked with shiploads of camels. The Somalis live in a country which relatively to Egypt is infertile and have little knowledge of skilled methods. Stepping ashore for the first time in a modern port, bewildered as was inevitable with his surroundings, the Somali, nevertheless, showed himself a man. He carried a certain pride with him. The fellaheen grovelled to him; the Somali obviously despised him. The Somali is a man who has not suffered from a tradition of oppression as has the Egyptian fellah; it is easy to understand how among the Somalis conditions would arise and would be maintained whereby excess of numbers would not reduce them to a bare level of subsistence, whereas among the fellaheen numbers probably tend to be regulated by the ability of the land to keep men alive in spite of the possibility of the return per head being far higher in Egypt than in Somaliland.

6. Passing to the third sub-group we come for the first time upon conditions substantially different to those with which we have hitherto met. All those factors, which in previous groups we have noticed as having a bearing upon fertility, have either diminished in importance or more often have vanished altogether. Lactation was not prolonged, there was no pre-puberty marriage, and there is no evidence of restraint from intercourse between married persons being imposed as a social custom. Though the knowledge of contraceptive practices may have been present there is no evidence of their extensive use. It has also to be remembered that fecundity, if anything, was increasing. On the other hand disease was the cause of a very high death-rate, higher almost certainly than in any previous age.

The most striking difference, however, between this and former sub-groups is the absence of abortion and infanticide. Further, we find what we have never found before, or rather never in such a degree as to be of any importance, postponement of marriage and celibacy; in other words, for the older methods there has been substituted a new method whereby fertility may be reduced. We have now to inquire how the realization of the desirability of some limitation brought about the most important factor—postponement of marriage—and how effective it was. With regard to religious celibacy, which was of less importance and ceased to be of any importance in England during the sixteenth century, we may merely notice its existence. Under conditions, such as we shall describe, and which rendered marriage difficult, monastic institutions were obviously a refuge for many for whom there was little prospect of marriage.[1454] The estimates of the number of religious celibates are too vague and conflicting to be worth analysing. It can only be regarded as a secondary factor representing the most extreme result of the working of the pressure which we are about to describe.

7. The following sketch is in the main confined to conditions in England since the thirteenth century, and we may first notice that in that century ‘almost every one not only possessed land, but cultivated it’.[1455] Yet the serf, in addition to the pressure to postpone marriage which was felt by all cultivators, was definitely restricted with regard to marriage. Besides being unable to move away from his manor, ‘the serf was disabled from marrying his daughter without licence and fine. Very numerous instances are found of these kinds of payment, under the name of mercheta, in the earliest times. Similarly fines are paid for marrying a daughter outside the manor, for marrying a nief, i. e. a female serf, who was possessed of property, and men of another manor for marrying a female serf from her lord’s manor. I have found traces of this custom,’ says Rogers, ‘though they become very infrequent far on into the fifteenth century.’[1456] Such facts are to be regarded as the legal enforcement among serfs of that amount of postponement which was on the average enforced by circumstances upon cultivators in general. As villein tenements were usually indivisible, the question arises as to what happened when there was more than one son. ‘The indivisibility of villein tenements is chiefly conspicuous in the law of inheritance; all the land went to one of the sons if there were several; very often the youngest inherited; and this custom, to which mere chance has given the name of Borough English, was considered as one of the proofs of villeinage. It is certainly a custom of great importance, and probably it depended on the fact that the elder brothers left the land at the earliest opportunity and during their father’s life. Where did they go to? It is easy to guess that they sought work out of the manor as craftsmen or labourers; that they served the lord as servants, craftsmen and the like; that they were provided with holdings, which for some reason did not descend to male heirs; that they were endowed with some demesne land, or fitted out to claim land from the waste. We may find for all these suppositions some supporting quotations in the records. But still it would be hard to believe that the entire increase of population found an exit by these by-paths. If no exit was found, the brothers had to remain on their father’s plot, and the fact that they did so can be proved, if it needs proof, from the documents. The unity of the holding was not disturbed in this case; there was no division.’[1457] Here we see the pressure at work. The tenement would in general be of the size which could well support a family, and a tenement might not be divided, thus ensuring that there was no overcrowding of families until life could only just be supported.

8. Far more important than any particular disabilities regarding marriage which attach to serfs are the conditions making very difficult any increase in population which are always found among cultivators. When a village has as many hands as it requires, the number of houses is not increased. Speaking generally of the Middle Ages Pollard says that ‘the number of holdings was almost stationary and the number of families fixed’.[1458] The number of hands in a village found to be required would be about that which experience has shown to produce the largest average income. Any further increase is made very difficult, if not impossible. ‘Country life was as elsewhere rigid in its habits; young people found it difficult to establish themselves till some married pair had passed from the scene and made a vacancy in their own parish; for migration to another parish was seldom thought of by an agricultural labourer under ordinary circumstances. Consequently whenever a plague or famine thinned the population, there were always many waiting to be married, who filled the vacant places.’[1459]

Such always are the conditions among cultivators in a settled country; it is forced to the notice of every one that not more than a certain number of hands are required and postponement of marriage is thus imposed upon the younger people. Neither land nor houses are available for them at an early age. ‘Before the Reformation, not only were early marriages determinately discouraged, but the opportunity for them did not exist. A labourer living in a cottage by himself was a rare exception to the rule; and the work of the fields was performed generally ... by servants who lived in the families of the squire or farmer, and who, while in that position, commonly remained single, and married only when by prudence they had saved a sufficient sum to enable them to enter some other position.’[1460] Miss Davies, working on figures for the parish of Corsley, found reason for thinking that at any one time there was usually a number of younger people who were debarred from marrying and were waiting their turn, so to speak, until they could step into places vacated by members of an older generation.[1461]

9. In addition to those who cultivated the land there were merchants and craftsmen who for the most part lived in the towns. ‘The essence of the mediaeval town was the formation of gilds of merchants and craftsmen’ and ‘within the limits of the corporation gilds had the monopoly of manufacture or trade’.[1462] Membership of a guild was a birthright or an inheritance, and newcomers could only enter after a long period of apprenticeship. The result of this system of apprenticeship was to bring about the postponement of marriage, and thus to limit the undue increase of population. ‘The position of a son who acquired a holding when his parent died is analogous to that of an apprentice who cannot set up as a master till given permission by the proper authorities. It is quite plain that in the eyes of the ordinary man in the sixteenth century one of the advantages of a system of compulsory apprenticeship was that it prevented youths marrying at a very early age, e. g. an Act (2 and 3 Philip and Mary) forbids the admitting of any one to the freedom of the City of London before the age of twenty-four, and enacts that apprentices are not to be taken so young that they will come out of their time before they are twenty-four. The reason alleged for this rule is that distress in the city of which “one of the chief occasions is by reason of the over-hasty marriages and the over soon setting up of householdes by the younge folke of the city ... be they never so younge and so unskilful”.’ Again a petition of the weavers states (Hist. MSS. Com. Cd. 784, p. 114): ‘whereas by the former good laws of their trade none could exercise the same until he had served an apprenticeship for seven years and attained the age of twenty-four, now in these disordered times many apprentices having forsaken parents and masters ... refuse to serve out their time, but before they are 18 or 20 years old betake themselves to marriage.’[1463]

Rubin, whose conclusions regarding the age at marriage in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries have already been quoted, sums up the position in these words: ‘The domestic servant class then, as now, was unmarried, but that class was much more numerous than at present. Subordinates in the industrial class and in handicrafts were not, as in our own time, free and independent, but lived for the most part in the houses of their masters, and, at any rate, were accustomed to wait until they became masters before marrying; the chances of attaining the position of master were greater than now. The same rule applied to other journeymen in various employments, whether in town or country.’[1464]

Thus in the town as well as on the land the pressure was at work. The result was twofold. Marriage was made difficult, and many sought refuge in lifelong celibacy in religious institutions. Again, a standard of skill was insisted upon which tended to ensure that young husbands would be able to support a family as well as ensuring that they would not have a family at all until there was a place for them. And it must be assumed that the number of families felt to be desirable was somewhere about that which given all circumstances produces the maximum benefit from co-operation. It may also be observed that we can in evidence of the above kind detect the recognition of a standard of living—the essential feature in any community in which an approach to the desirable number is to be attained. For this standard of living is only the income per head which, given all the circumstances, is the highest within reach.

10. Regulations prohibiting the marriage of the poor were not uncommon in this period. ‘In Bavaria ... the regulations of the Government and the Police Ordinances of 1616 forbade the marriage of servants, day labourers, and others without property, and the punishments by which those were threatened by the legislation of 1751 who, without the permission of the superior authorities, entered into wedlock, and were afterwards unable to support themselves without begging or the like, extended to corporal chastisement and the like.’[1465] The Poor Law Commission of 1834 obtained reports regarding the regulations in various European countries. Of Denmark we hear that ‘all those persons who are in receipt of parish relief are not allowed to marry unless by permission granted on special grounds by the Commissioners’.[1466] In Würtemberg no subject of the state could marry until he possessed ‘the rights of a member of a community or a settled non-freeman. But even such a one must prove to the magistrates before his marriage that he possesses sufficient means of subsistence. The want of such means of subsistence is considered as existing, (_a_) in every one who is not primarily qualified in the exercises of a liberal art or science, or for exercising on his own account, commerce, a profession, agriculture or some other business sufficient for the support of a family, or possesses sufficient property for the independent support of a family; and (_b_) in every one who, at the time of the intended marriage, is the subject of political or police investigation, for vagabondage, prodigality, habitual idleness, notorious propensity to drinking, or repeated fraud, repeated theft or systematic begging, or who has been punished for the same, during the two years immediately preceding, or who in the course of the three preceding years (except in the case of misfortune not incurred by his own fault) has received assistance from public funds for his own support, or is in receipt of such at the time of the intended marriage.’[1467]

11. Somewhat similar conditions to those which led to postponement of marriage in England were operative elsewhere. Looking at this period in general there is little doubt that the restrictions upon increase were upon the whole effective. There were fluctuations in the nearness of approach to the desirable number; at times for some reason too great an increase became noticeable. Adjustment, however, soon followed. ‘There was reason to believe that towards the middle of the fifteenth century there was a considerable increase in population, unaccompanied by any great improvement in the means of production, and consequently a relative over-population in many European countries. The frequent complaints of poverty and lack of employment which led eventually to stringent measures against foreign competitors, confirms the evidence from other sources to show that the gilds were being overstocked with journeymen who could hardly hope to attain the position of householders and employers. In the callings where the old-world organization was effective there was an increasing tendency, during the fifteenth century, to restrict the avenues by which the freedom to exercise a craft could be obtained; larger fines were demanded on admission, while the social qualifications of those who were eligible as apprentices were raised.’[1468] At other times certain social changes caused over-population. Such was the case in the sixteenth century owing to the enclosures. ‘According to one calculation made in 1548 three hundred thousand men had been thrown out of work by the decay of agriculture—or about ten per cent. of the whole population.’[1469] What is important, however, is that in general the determination of the people to maintain the standard of living brought about adjustment—which at this period usually took the form of making marriage more difficult.