Title page missing. PAGE 
Introduction By William J. Robinson 5 
Malthus, a Biographical 
and Critical Study . . By Achille Loria . 11 
Birth-Control and the Wage 
Earners By Charles V. Drysdale 73 
Race Suicide in the United 
States By Ludwig Quessel . 99 
Eugenics, Birth-Control, 
and Socialism . . . .By Eden Paul . . . 121 
Economics op the Birth 
Strike By Ludwig Quessel . 149 
Decline in the Birth-Rate, 
Nationality, and Civilisa- 
tion By Eduard Bernstein . 163 
Philosophy op the Birth 
Strike By Ludwig Quessel . 179 
Over-Population as a Cause 
of War By B. Dunlop . . . 195 
The Decline in the Birth- 
Rate By R. Manschke . . 201 
Dysgenic Tendencies op 
Birth-Control and op the 
Feminist Movement . . By S. H. Halford . . 225 
Women and Birth-Control . By F. W. Stella Browne 247 
Editorial Summary and Conclusion 261 
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 
By William J. Robinson M.D. 
WHEN people are engaged in the noble pursuit of 
exterminating their fellow men; when a nation’s 
ingenuity is concentrated upon inventions which 
would destroy the largest number of human beings in the 
shortest possible time; when the patriotic delirium has 
reached such a pitch that any criticism of war as a proper 
means of settling disputes, or any sceptical attitude toward 
militarism as a useful institution, is treated as a treason- 
able offence, while the pacifist is regarded as an intolerable 
nuisance who should be given short shrift; worst of all, 
when the national hysteria fed and fostered by the delib- 
erate, systematically planned falsehoods of an unscrupu- 
lous but all-powerful press has become so well-nigh uni- 
versal that libertarians who have devoted their lives to the 
cause of freedom and humanity suddenly undergo a com- 
plete metamorphosis, make common cause with tyrants and 
reactionaries, sneer at universal brotherhood, and look not 
only with indifference but with approval at the ruthless 
and brutal suppression of free speech, free press and free 
assembly, being willing for the sake of a mythical possible 
democracy to swallow an active ruthless autocracy; when 
these things have come to pass in the life of a nation, then 
has the social worker who has preserved his balance and 6 
INTRODUCTION 
holds on to the eternal verities a scanty chance to be heard. 
When corybantine chauvinism is rampant peaceful human- 
ism is thrown in the discard. 
In fact, in times such as these, the social worker, the 
advocate of reforms, is looked upon with impatience, with 
annoyance; he is considered more than merely a nuisance; 
he is looked upon as a menace, as an abomination that 
should be done away with. 
Nevertheless, all the scant courtesy, all the contumely 
notwithstanding, the man who believes that he is right, 
who feels that he has a mission to perform must continue 
to do his work, must persist in his duty as he sees it; he 
must deliver his message, even if, under certain circum- 
stances, the message should seem to him a voice in the 
wilderness. 
These remarks apply with particular force to the subject 
of birth-control. When a nation has lost or is about to 
lose a million of its sons, physically the best specimens of 
manhood, then it listens with but ill-concealed or open and 
angry impatience to the suggestion of limiting the number 
of offspring, of controlling the production of future war 
material. But we, who feel that reckless breeding with its 
resulting overpopulation and economic and moral misery 
is one of the causes of war, must not halt in our propa- 
ganda; on the contrary, we must, if possible, intensify it. 
Even a voice in the wilderness is sometimes heard, and 
unwilling listeners do, now and then, become converted. 
And it is for this reason that it gives me pleasure and 
pride to introduce this excellent symposium to the intelli- 
gent English reading public. It cannot fail to do some 
good, perhaps much good, in. the important cause of the INTRODUCTION 
7 
rational limitation of offspring. And this cause needs con- 
tinuous tireless championing. For its enemies are becom- 
ing numerous, active and malicious. As long as the cause 
of birth-control was weak and worked quietly it was not 
paid much attention to by its opponents. But now as it 
is becoming stronger, bolder, articulate and is gaining ad- 
herents rapidly, the enemies of the rational control of 
offspring are beginning to use their legal power, their 
money and their venom to crush the movement, and to 
imprison or at least to besmirch and belittle its advocates. 
Unscrupulous hack writers and hireling lecturers, both lay 
and medical, are now in a position to eke out a living by 
denouncing and misrepresenting the birth control move- 
ment and its advocates, in the pages of magazines and on 
the platform. But the more active the enemies of birth- 
control become, the more active must we be, and we must 
not give up until our cause has been won. 
As in all intellectual and moral battles, the growth and 
success of the liberal element strengthen the opposition 
and increase the activity of the reactionaries; this in its 
turn calls forth greater activity and more unyielding de- 
termination on the part of the liberals, and so the fight goes 
on, until all the liberals and reactionaries are ranged in 
two camps, a battle royal is delivered, with the victory 
always on the side of the liberals—for eventually truth and 
common sense do win the day. In this country the day of 
the decisive battle was quite near; but for our entry into 
the war we might be witnessing it now. However the set- 
back is only a temporary one; the final struggle between 
the upholders of rational birth-control and the advocates 
of reckless breeding cannot be long delayed; and in order 8 
INTRODUCTION 
to make sure of victory, we must have a plentiful and 
varied supply of ammunition; hooks are our only ammuni- 
tion, and we must have as many and as varied books as 
possible. And this Symposium, Population and Birth 
Control, will, I feel certain, prove a valuable weapon in 
the armamentarium of the birth-control advocate. 
12 Mount Morris Park, W., New York. 
September 17, 1917. MALTHUS, 
A BIOGRAPHICAL 
AND CRITICAL 
STUDY MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL AND 
CRITICAL STUDY 
By Achille Loria 
THE life of Thomas Robert Malthus is a most com 
spicuous example of the omnipotent influence ex- 
ercised by the social environment in moulding the 
form and determining the direction of the productions 
of the mind, an influence which triumphs over every op- 
posing tendency of the individual educative factor. In 
fact, the epoch of British history in which the youth 
of our author was passed was leavened by a profound 
social revolution, in correspondence with which there oc- 
curred an extensive transformation in the mental outlook 
of the wealthy and governing classes. In England, just 
as elsewhere, while the brutalised and ignorant proletarians 
remained altogether inaccessible to intellectual illumina- 
tion, the ruling classes light-heartedly intoxicated them- 
selves with the theories of Voltaire and of Rousseau, and 
in their luxurious retreats gave themselves up to the bold- 
est intellectual extravagances, secure in the belief that 
not even as an attenuated echo would their indiscretions 
find a way to the ears of the outwearied and submissive 
masses. But as soon as the Revolution of 1789 trans- 
formed these philosophical doctrines into the terrible up- 
risings of an infuriated populace, there was diffused 
throughout the ranks of the governing classes a salutary 12 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
terror, which admonished them to sing another tnne, and 
to look askance upon theories which carried with them 
the germs of such grave and disastrous catastrophes. The 
typical representative of the mental transformation thus 
effected in Old England was to be found in the person of 
Edmund Burke. After having in times of political calm 
coquetted with philosophical radicalism and with the doc- 
trine of democracy, this writer was suddenly panic- 
stricken by the lurid spectacle of the French Revolution; 
he went over to the reactionaries, and from their ranks 
turned against the theories and the actions of the revolu- 
tionaries the keenest shafts of his marvellous eloquence. 
For, while the new reactionary tendency made its way 
with some difficulty among the members of the older gen- 
eration, whose minds were now so firmly set in the demo- 
cratic direction that they could not he detached from this 
circle of ideas, those of the younger generation, immune 
to the effects of this tradition, and accessible to new influ- 
ences, submitted themselves without question to the work- 
ing of the altered social environment, and with indescrib- 
able fervour embraced reactionary ideas. In vain did the 
older men, still enthusiasts for revolutionary democracy, 
endeavour to hold hack the young people from the 
threshold of the imminent reaction: for, in the titanic duel 
between education and environment, the latter ultimately 
triumphed, and the democratically-minded fathers were 
horrified to see their sons escape them, in order to plunge 
into the dark and icy waters of the reactionary Styx. 
Precisely of this character was the destiny of the youth- 
ful Malthus. Born on February 14th, 1766, at The Rook- 
ery near Dorking, he was at first educated by his father, MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
13 
Daniel Malthus, a country gentleman, moderately wealthy, 
a well-read man, and the anonymous author of several pass- 
able plays. Daniel Malthus, Rousseau’s personal friend 
and executor, and a fervent disciple of Rousseau and 
Condorcet, learned from the former writer’s Emile that 
the best education is that which accords with and en- 
courages the spontaneous initiative of the pupil. He 
therefore entrusted his promising son to the care of Rich- 
ard Graves, rector of Claverton, near Bath, author of 
The Spiritual Quixote, where the boy learned “little but 
Latin and good behaviour.” Young Malthus, indeed, 
soon acquired the elements of the former, but the same 
cannot be said of the latter; for he and his companions 
spent their days in games and fights, which left frequent 
and by no means ornamental traces upon his countenance, 
and which earned for him from his timorous preceptor 
the Neapolitan nickname of “Don Roberto.” At the age 
of fourteen, Malthus left his too indulgent tutor, to be 
entrusted to the more intelligent care of Gilbert Wake- 
field, ex-clergyman and dissenter, scholar and contro- 
versialist, a fervent disciple of Rousseau, whose influence 
was likewise confined to advice as to the best books and 
the most useful studies. Here, also, the refractory pupil 
exhibited the same irrepressible cheerfulness, which was 
destined to disappear only at a later date when he was 
confronted with the gloomy problem of poverty. He was 
always, to quote his father’s description, the family dar- 
ling, an admirable companion, sympathetic and generous; 
he made every one happy, and his presence was cheer- 
ing to all; at every opportunity he openly professed his 
faith in the restoration of human happiness by means 14 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
of new and better institutions. When eighteen years old 
he was entered, as was proper for a younger son, at Jesus 
College, Cambridge, where he eagerly studied universal 
history, poetry, modern languages, Italian literature, and 
mathematics; he became Fellow of his College in 1788, 
he took orders in 1789, and in 1797 became curate of Al- 
bury; during this period his convictions underwent grad- 
ual modification, and he derived from the changing en- 
vironment new and conflicting orientations. The instabil- 
ity of his democratic faith was already manifest in his 
unpublished work, The Crisis, dealing with political oc- 
currences in England and France during 1796, for in his 
book, to quote his father’s words, the young author 
“throws stones in his own garden,” the garden of liberty 
and democracy. In the following year, during a vaca- 
tion spent with his father, he had occasion to exhibit the 
most definite dissent from the latter’s views concerning the 
doctrines expounded by Godwin in Political Justice (1793) 
and in The Enquirer (1797). Godwin maintained, and the 
elder Malthus believed, that civil institutions are re- 
sponsible for human misery, and they looked forward 
to the coming of a social system founded upon equality 
and anarchy, which was to bring universal wellbeing and 
even physical immortality. Thus, while the old Jacobin 
grew warm in defence of these theories, the son, already 
an apostle of reaction, devoted himself to their rebuttal 
and to their repudiation. 
Now at the time when young Malthus was fully im- 
mersed in the flood of new and reactionary mental ten- 
dencies, there fell into his hands the works of Hume, 
Wallace, and Townsend, all of which made manifest the MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
15 
irresistible tendency of human population to increase be- 
yond the limits of subsistence, and thus to provoke pov- 
erty and to lead to the death of a more or less consider- 
able number of living beings. This unceasing and fatal 
recurrence of an excess of population over food, and of 
the poverty thereon dependent, arising as inevitable re- 
sults of biological and natural causes, appeared to the 
young thinker to be the most forcible and trenchant argu- 
ments he could employ on behalf of the ideas which he 
felt constrained to defend in opposition to paternal tradi- 
tions. The inexorable necessity of poverty, persisting for 
biological and physical reasons throughout all the most 
varied manifestations of the economic and social order— 
was not this, he asked himself, perhaps the most decisive 
condemnation of the theory that economic distress was 
the outcome of prevailing social institutions, and that 
from the reform of these institutions might be expected the 
general diffusion of human welfare? Did not this afford 
a most definite proof of the impotence of reformers to 
carry out their programme for universal happiness, and 
of the fundamental inalterability of the economic order, 
interconnected as it is by a series of invisible threads 
with the unyielding fatality of nature? It seemed super- 
fluous, then, to combat the Jacobin theory of social causa- 
tion with principles and with dogmas, for a better course 
was open; the theory could be exploded by the indis- 
putable authority of facts, by the incontrovertible data 
of statistical and demographic inquiry. Such precisely 
was the idea which moved him, such the inward impulse 
which urged him for the first time to address the public. 
It is in error that some writers affirm that our philosopher 16 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
wrote a partisan work merely, a book consciously aimed, 
for political ends, at the refutation of the Jacobin ideal. 
To assert this, is to do injustice to the objective serenity 
and scientific honesty of Malthus—qualities which never 
failed him for a moment in the whole course of his daily 
life. No, Malthus was fully convinced that the theories 
of the French democrats and of their disciple, Godwin, 
were essentially false; and was likewise profoundly as- 
sured of the truth and the inevitable existence of an ex- 
cess of population over the means of subsistence. Now, 
in this state of mind—animated, on the one hand, by an 
invincible horror of revolutionary France, and dominated, 
on the other, by the intimate conviction that excessive 
population and poverty arise from biological necessity— 
an inspired thought came to him of a sudden: to build 
a theoretical bridge between the conviction and the aver- 
sion, to employ the demonstration of the biological phe- 
nomenon as a deadly weapon against the Jacobin philos- 
ophy, in a word, to make use of demographic fact to slay 
the revolutionary hydra. 
This alone was the inspiring idea, this the psychological 
genesis, of An Essay on the Principle of Population as it 
affects the Future Improvement of Society, published 
anonymously (in accordance with the custom of his day) 
in the year 1798. In this essay, modest in size and price, 
the author attacked Godwin, reproaching him for his fail- 
ure to take into account the principle of population, for his 
failure, that is to say, to recognise the eternal and invinci- 
ble natural law in accordance with which human beings 
multiply in geometrical progression, whereas the means of 
subsistence increase in arithmetical progression. Let us MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
17 
suppose, said Malthus to Godwin, that there is instituted 
the society of equals to which you look forward, a society 
in which there shall be secured to every member the con- 
dition of completest wellbeing; such a society could not 
last for a moment, for the immediate increase of popula- 
tion, pressing upon the means of subsistence, would give 
rise in its turn to poverty, destitution, and death. The 
happiness you foresee will disappear beneath the waters 
of oblivion, and the old struggle for bread, the age-long 
inequality of station and of property, will reintroduce 
among us distressing manifestations and solvent influ- 
ences. There will be reconstituted a society of the familiar 
type, consisting of masters and servants, landowners and 
tenants, the wealthy and the disinherited. We go too 
far even in admitting that a society of equals can ever 
come into existence; for the principle of population, which 
would suffice to destroy the equalitarian society of God- 
win, would in addition suffice to prevent its birth. For, 
indeed, wherever there is sufficient room and a sufficiency 
of food, there population increases ceaselessly and without 
limit, until it comes to press upon the impregnable barrier 
of subsistence; and at this point there inevitably arises 
a fierce struggle for existence (the phrase is used by 
Malthus), in which death is the punishment of the van- 
quished and exclusive ownership the reward of the victor. 
Thus inequality finds its way into the very origins of 
the order of civil society, as the inevitable outcome of 
the principle of population. Erroneously, therefore, con- 
cludes our author, do Godwin and the whole French 
school regard human institutions as the cause of inequal- 
ity; for that which is in truth to blame for the existence 18 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
of inequality and for the lack of social equilibrium is 
human nature itself, the irresistible impulse to procreate 
by which human beings, or living beings, are dominated, 
and which itself alone, apart from any artificial impulse 
from without, constitutes the irremovable foundation of 
social inequality, and the insuperable obstacle to all the 
forces aiming at the abolition of such inequality. 
It would be erroneous to claim any originality for this 
thesis, which was previously enunciated by quite a num- 
ber of writers, and more especially by those to whom 
Malthus himself makes frank acknowledgment in his es- 
say. As early as 1752, Hume affirmed that in modern 
Europe the population was far greater than it had been 
in ancient times, alleging as a reason precisely the inces- 
sant working of the principle of population; shortly after- 
wards the Anglican clergyman, Wallace, writing in 1753 
and in 1761, referred to the excessive increase of popula- 
tion as the most formidable obstacle to the communism 
he desiderated; whilst another clergyman, Townsend, in 
his Dissertation on the Poor Laws (1786), admirably illus- 
trated, with the apologue of the island of Juan Fernandez, 
the inevitability of excess of population. Townsend added 
that this excess leads to the destruction of the more weakly 
individuals; he admitted the existence of two kinds of 
checks to population, natural (moral restraint and emi- 
gration) and unnatural (exposure of children, hunger, 
vows of chastity, life in seraglios, and entail), and from 
these considerations he derived arguments against the 
poor law, which furnished an impulse to improvident 
procreation, and he demonstrated the impotence of com- 
munism to preserve human beings from poverty. Nor did MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
19 
these writers stand alone. We may leave in their 
Olympian serenity Plato and Aristotle, whose minds were 
in fact undisturbed by the excess of population over sub- 
sistence, and who, in this connexion, thought rather of 
the injuries to the body politic which arise from urban 
agglomerations; nor need we give more than a word in 
passing to G. B. Yico, who regarded insufficiency of food 
as the chief goad to struggle among living beings; but it 
is known that Machiavelli and Botero drew attention to 
the possibility and the social danger of excess of popula- 
tion over the means of subsistence; that Galiani insisted 
upon the small number of germs of life which survive 
as contrasted with the enormous quantity of those which 
are lost and destroyed; that Benjamin Franklin, in the 
year 1751, referred to the pressure of population upon 
food; and that Ferguson insisted upon the same point 
in the year 1767; that, also in the year 1767, the Dutch 
pastor Bruckner (forestalling, not so much Malthus, as 
Darwin) affirmed that living beings were subject to a 
severe struggle for life, and that this struggle, by elimi- 
nating the less well adapted and the comparatively weakly, 
fulfilled a function advantageous to the progress of the 
species. In the same year, Sir James Steuart likewise 
enunciated a thesis which in most respects anticipated 
that of Darwin, differing from the latter merely in the 
fact that, in Steuart’s view, the excess of population and 
the consequent struggle for life determine the survival, 
not of the intrinsically stronger living beings, but of a 
certain number of living beings of any degree of intrinsic 
strength, who become strong for the simple reason that 
they are survivors, or, in other words, on account of the 20 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
abundance of food which is secured to the survivors 
through the disappearance of the vanquished competitors. 
Nor, from this review of precursors, must we omit the 
names of Genovasi (1769) and of Beccaria (1779-80), who 
affirmed that the growth of population encounters an in- 
superable obstacle in the restricted fertility of the soil; 
that of Kicci, who referred to the tendency of population 
to increase beyond subsistence, and upon this considera- 
tion based a criticism of charitable institutions (1787) ; 
and, finally, that of Ortes, who, eight years before Malthus 
(1790), strongly emphasised the existence of an excess 
of population over the means of subsistence. 
We must therefore recognise that Malthus, in his force- 
ful little work, says nothing which his readers could not 
have learned elsewhere. How, then, are we to explain 
the enormous success of the book? This will readily be 
understood if the fact be recalled that it reflects in a con- 
cise and clear-cut form the economic system of his day, 
and interprets that system in a manner perfectly har- 
monious with the interests of the governing classes. It 
is, in fact, certain that the excess of population over food 
was effectively manifest in its most disastrous form in 
England at the close of the eighteenth century; for the 
population, spurred on to improvident procreation by the 
very poverty in which it languished, encountered a pro- 
duction limited by protective barriers and by the tram- 
mels of entail. Now, whilst the poverty thus diffused 
throughout the population aroused in the sufferers fierce 
feelings of hatred, and whilst the revolutionary-minded 
derived from the fact of such poverty grounds for angry 
denunciation of the existing economic system, Malthus MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
21 
suddenly intervened to give this poverty its place in a 
universal theory, to prove its inevitable association with 
the eternal regularity of nature, and, finally, to demon- 
strate the innocence of the possessing classes in respect 
of the sufferings of the proletarian masses. It is there- 
fore no matter for wonder that the tories hastened to 
lavish eulogies upon the work of the whig writer—a 
work agreeable to the convictions to which they held so 
strongly, and supplying justification for the rents to which 
they held more strongly still. 
But his enormous success, far from inducing our philoso- 
pher to rest beneath his easily acquired laurels, stimulated 
him to devote himself with renewed and greater eagerness 
to the study of his grand argument. The first indication 
of his perseverance in this order of investigations was 
furnished by his anonymous publication, An Investigation 
of the Cause of the Present High Price of Provisions 
(1800), in which he contended that the rise in the price of 
food, primarily dependent upon the increase of population, 
was further increased by the poor laws in accordance with 
which the amount of monetary relief was proportional 
to the price of the necessaries of life. What really hap- 
pens, he said, is that this system, by increasing the mone- 
tary subsidy at every increase in the price of food, neces- 
sarily leads to an increase in the quantity of money of- 
fered in exchange for a constant quantity of food, and 
therewith leads to an unlimited rise in the price of the 
latter. Here also, then, the author’s researches revolved 
around the theme of his celebrated essay. But in addi- 
tion to amplifying the discussion of this or that aspect 
of his special subject, Malthus, with real wisdom, devoted 22 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
himself to the documentation of his fundamental thesis 
by direct evidence. With this end in view, in the spring 
of 1799, accompanied by three friends, Clark, the natural- 
ist and antiquarian, Otter, and Cripps, he undertook a 
series of journeys in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and 
Russia, and in 1802 he visited Switzerland and Savoy, 
everywhere in search of positive proofs of his thesis. Thus, 
if the voyages of Darwin inspired the theory of biological 
evolution, the travels of Malthus supplied the documents 
in proof of the theory of population. The result of our 
author’s journeys and of his unceasing meditations upon 
his argument, was the second edition of his work on popu- 
lation, published this time under his own name, and dif- 
fering from the first edition in the way in which a sys- 
tematic treatise differs from a preliminary essay. In 
this volume, Malthus reaffirmed the principle that popu- 
lation tends to increase in geometrical progression, whereas 
the means of subsistence increase in arithmetical progres- 
sion ; hence the balance between population and food must 
be secured by means of a series of preventive checks 
(moral restraint, that is to say, the postponement of mar- 
riage as long as there do not exist means for nourishing 
the offspring—or vice), or positive checks (unhealthy oc- 
cupations, excessive toil, extreme poverty, the underfeed- 
ing of children, the unwholesomeness of life in large towns, 
illnesses, epidemics, war, pestilence, and famine). From 
one historical epoch to another, or in the same epoch as 
we pass from one nation to another, we encounter varia- 
tions in the form and the character of the preventive or 
positive checks whose effect it is to bring about the de- 
sired equilibrium between population and the means of MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
23 
subsistence. Among savages, the checks are infanticide, 
the hardships imposed upon children, wars, epidemics, 
alcoholism, prostitution, emigration in mass; in classical 
Rome, they are degeneration and vice; in modern Rus- 
sia, it is excessive child mortality which forcibly main- 
tains the balance between population and the available 
means of subsistence; whilst in contemporary Tuscany, 
England, and Norway, the balance is more peacefully and 
less cruelly secured by means of the postponement of 
marriage. In more general terms, wrote Malthus, it may 
be affirmed that the whole history of the human race can 
be summed up as a gradual and ascendent evolution from 
the cruelty of positive checks to the higher civilisation 
that is characterised by the use of prudential checks. 
Coming next to draw the practical inferences from the 
theories he enunciated, Malthus proceeded to deduce what 
would to-day be called the policy of population, that is to 
say, the totality of the provisions best adapted to secure 
a lasting equilibrium between population and means of 
subsistence. In this connexion he turned once more upon 
the two chief objects of his hatred—communistic systems 
and legalised charity. The systems of equality propounded 
by Condorcet, Wallace, Godwin, and Owen were, he said, 
wrong in essence, because they were incapable of defend- 
ing themselves against the principle of population; nay, 
more, because in our congested society they would give 
free scope to the desolating and savage operation of that 
principle. In fact, by releasing the individual from the 
immediate consequences of improvident procreation, by 
securing to all those bom an inalienable right to share in 
the common heritage, such systems would furnish a dan- 24 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
gerous incentive to imprudent procreation, and would 
therewith give free scope for a fatal increase of popula- 
tion and for its excess over subsistence. The same thing 
might be said of the scheme of Arthur Young, to allot 
to every father of three or more children the ownership 
of an acre of potato land and pasturage for one or two 
cows; and also of the system of legalised charity which, 
by granting to the impoverished man a right to assistance, 
destroys in his mind all obstacles to the gratification of 
the senses, and thus operates as a most dangerous ac- 
celerator of the increase of population. Even emigration 
could impose upon this increase no more than a temporary 
check, for the stimulus which emigration furnished to 
procreation ultimately resulted in increasing its excess. 
Nay more! Even improvements in agriculture, the put- 
ting under cultivation of private parks or of untilled lands, 
could only defer the appearance, in any case unavoidable, 
of an excess of population. Nor would the free importa- 
tion of wheat be more effective in attenuating the distress 
thus arising, for this would merely serve to render the 
supply of provisions irregular, and would therefore make 
famines more frequent; whereas import duties, by restrict- 
ing the sources of supply to the home market, would make 
the food supply within this area to that extent more regu- 
lar and constant. Nor, finally, would it be of any use 
to bring about the introduction of less expensive articles 
of food, for these could not fail in their turn to give a 
further stimulus to the growth of population, and to ren- 
der its excess yet more marked. To sum up, it is here 
of no use to improve institutions, to perfect the forms of 
government, to arrange the public services more rationally; MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
25 
on the contrary, what is needed is to preach sexual re- 
straint, especially to common labourers, and to repeal the 
disastrous poor laws, to refuse parochial assistance to the 
children of marriages contracted one year after the act 
of repeal, and to illegitimate children born two years after 
the passing of such an act. 
The work of Malthus, which had now emerged from the 
narrow region of polemic into a loftier and serener sphere, 
gave rise to heated discussions, and became the object of 
enthusiastic praise and fierce criticism. The third edi- 
tion appeared in 1806, the fourth in 1807, the fifth in 1817, 
and the sixth in 1826, this being the last published during 
the author’s lifetime; each successive edition was further 
enriched by suggestive and interesting amplifications, re- 
visions, and replies to critics. The book became increas- 
ingly the object of commentaries, elucidations, and paeans 
of praise. In the year 1822, the tailor, Francis Place, de- 
fended the theory of Malthus, though finding fault with 
him for his aristocratic preferences and for his condemna- 
tion of legalised charity. Godwin replied to Malthus’ as- 
sault in a work upon population in which he was unable 
to conceal his respect for the reactionary thinker; Cole- 
ridge, Everett, Ensor, and Sadler made direct attacks 
from many sides, and with varying success, upon the 
rising colossus. But to what purpose? Around Malthus 
there formed a compact phalanx of economists, hailing the 
new prophet; in England, Ricardo, M’Culloch, Senior, 
James Mill, John Stuart Mill; in Germany, Justus Moser, 
Rau, and Roscher; in France, G. B. Say and Rossi; in 
Switzerland, Cherbuliez; in Italy, Ferrara—all urging the 26 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
inscription of the Malthusian dogma among the enduring 
scientific conquests of the new age. 
A precise examination of Malthus’ doctrine, and of the 
estimate of that doctrine by the scientific criticism of our 
own day would take us beyond the scope of this essay. 
We shall only say that the criticism directed against this 
thesis has not succeeded in destroying that kernel of truth 
to which it owes its immortal value. For, in fact, no one 
can deny that human population, when propagation is un- 
restricted, must sooner or later encounter the barrier im- 
posed by the means of subsistence, inasmuch as, through 
the fatal force of things and through the natural limita- 
tion of the productivity of the soil, these means increase 
with a more restricted and more tardy rhythm. Hu- 
manity, therefore, is from the very beginning menaced, 
more or less remotely, by an excess of population over food 
and by consequent destitution, and is thus faced by the 
unavoidable necessity of warding off such distress by 
means of the prudent postponement of marriage and the 
consequent restriction of offspring. 
Granting, however, the abstract or doctrinal value of 
Malthus’ teaching, it is only right to add that this teach- 
ing is altogether incompetent to explain the excess of 
population which actually arises in societies ancient and 
modern, and still more incompetent to explain the nature 
and the character of the poverty which permeates and 
rules these societies. In fact, production and population 
are not subordinated to the working of those two abstract 
factors of a physical and biological character which are 
associated in the doctrine of Malthus, but rather to two 
factors of an economic kind, which restrict production and MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
27 
stimulate propagation to an extent in excess of the restric- 
tion of the one and of the stimulation of the other that 
can he effected by the natural factors. For we have a 
series of strictly economic factors, whereby agrarian pro- 
duction is restrained within the limits to which it might 
attain in the conditions of productivity of the soil nat- 
urally prevailing at the time and in the existing develop- 
ment of technique. Malthus himself ultimately admitted 
this in many passages of his book. He recognised, for 
example, that the setting apart of huge areas of land for 
the purposes of luxury, short term leases, and unproduc- 
tive landed property, prevented the land from furnishing 
all that it might yield. He added, with perfect justice, 
that the very existence of profit forbade the cultivation 
of the more sterile areas of land, those whose produce 
would be barely sufficient for the subsistence of the la- 
bourers. Nay, more. In a letter to Senior, dated March 
23rd, 1829, he stated in plain terms that the quantity of 
the means of subsistence produced depended exclusively 
upon the will of the landowners, who were therefore able 
to confine that quantity far within the limits of what 
might actually be produced in the prevailing conditions of 
technique and of the fertility of the soil. But the fact 
is of far greater importance than appears on the face of 
these fragmentary assertions. We are not really concerned 
with anomalies, or with acts of omission, which are able 
artificially to limit the production of the means of sub- 
sistence ; we are concerned with organic conditions in each 
phase of the economic order, with limits that inevitably 
arise out of the historically existing relationships of pro- 
duction and distribution of wealth, and which forbid the 28 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
earth to furnish its maximum product in correspondence 
with the existing fertility of the soil and with the prevail- 
ing conditions of technique. 
Similar factors, extraneous to those considered by Mal- 
thus, influence human propagation. The increase of popu- 
lation itself encounters a series of organic checks which 
altogether escaped Malthus’ notice. Thus (as was well 
shown by Messedaglia) the increase of population in geo- 
metrical progression is incompatible with the very postu- 
late from which Malthus set out, namely, that increase 
in the means of subsistence proceeds in arithmetical 
progression; for the doubling of population, at any period 
under observation, can have reference only to the popula- 
tion actually alive at the time, and this is already re- 
stricted by the very fact that the means of subsistence 
increase only in arithmetical progression. Hence the in- 
crease in population, instead of proceeding in geometrical 
progression, will take place in an arithmetical progression 
wherein the difference between the terms is the double of 
the difference between the terms of the arithmetical pro- 
gression denoting the increase in the means of subsistence. 
Thus, for example, if the means of subsistence increase as 
represented by the progression 
1 2 3 4 5 
while population increases as represented by the progres- 
sion 
12 4 
of these four, three only can survive, owing to the limita- 
tion of the means of subsistence; hence their doubling in 
the next period will give a population of 6, of whom there MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
29 
will survive but 4 to undergo a further doubling, and so 
on; so that the real increase of population will be repre- 
sented by the progression 
1 2 4 6 8 etc. 
Putting aside, however, this purely arithmetical cor- 
rection, the rate of increase of population depends upon 
the quantity of that population, upon its composition in 
the matter of age, sex, etc., so that the increase of popula- 
tion is stimulated in varying degree according as these 
elements vary. Thus, if a population hitherto stationary 
now begins to increase, it is perfectly clear that for a 
considerable number of years, the first year excepted, 
there will be observed a decline in the birth rate, for until 
the time arrives at which those now being born in excess 
have attained sexual maturity, the number of births per 
annum remains constant while the population increases. 
Hence, simply in consequence of this statistical influence, 
the increase by geometrical progression anticipated by 
Malthus is seen to be mathematically impossible for a 
more or less considerable period. Thus, again, every 
change in the death-rate of the various age-classes suffices 
per se to bring about a correlative change in the fecundity 
of the population, leading to an increase in the birth-rate 
if the decline in the death-rate affects especially the more 
fecund age-classes while sparing the less fecund, and to 
a decrease in the birth-rate in the opposite event. Now, 
in a population that is increasing and is pressing against 
the barriers of subsistence, there occurs a high death-rate 
among adults, that is to say, among those fitted for re- 
production, and this alone suffices to diminish the birth- 30 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
rate, to check the increase of population, and thus to 
lessen the excess of population over the means of sub- 
sistence. Here we have a series of demographical or sta- 
tistical influences competent to impose checks upon the 
rate of increase of population, and thus to keep that rate 
below what would be represented by the terms of a 
strictly geometrical progression. 
Dismissing from consideration these checks of a purely 
statistical character imposed upon the growth of popu- 
lation in virtue of the composition or the quantity of 
that population, we find that there exists a series of purely 
economic influences by which the rate of increase of procre- 
ation and that of human population are rigidly predeter- 
mined, and we find that these influences are essentially 
mutable in accordance with changes in the economic sys- 
tem. Here also is a point to which Malthus ultimately 
referred in certain passages of his work. Thus, he al- 
luded to the limitations upon procreation peculiar to the 
slave system; now it is evident that these limitations be- 
long neither to the category of positive checks nor to the 
category of preventive checks enumerated by Malthus, but 
that they make their appearance as unwitting and natural 
emanations of a particular economic system. Elsewhere 
he admitted that an increase of wellbeing, by raising the 
standard of life, diminishes, instead of increasing, the 
number of marriages; now, this check, which makes its 
appearance and operates where there is an excess of food 
over population, is evidently outside the category of 
malthusian restraint, and its characteristics are simply 
dependent upon the nature of the economic system. 
But here we are concerned merely with fragmentary MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
31 
observations, which are not adequate to the supreme 
importance of the subject. The truth is that the birth- 
rate, far from being a figure necessarily dependent upon the 
biological condition of the human species, is the product of 
the economic conditions in which the individual is placed, 
and is in inverse ratio to his degree of wellbeing. This is 
a fact of which Malthus himself might have been con- 
vinced if he had taken the trouble to watch the people 
amongst whom he was actually living, for he would then 
have become aware that, whereas the poorer classes of 
England had given themselves up to imprudent procrea- 
tion, the families of the well-to-do were comparatively 
sterile and were on the way to undergo extinction. It 
follows from this that the total birth-rate in any given 
population must necessarily vary correlatively with varia- 
tions in the economic condition of the more numerous class. 
If this condition be unfavourable, it inevitably results 
that the labouring masses will abandon themselves to in- 
considerate procreation; whereas the opposite sequence of 
events occurs when the economic system provides for the 
more numerous class a worthier and a more human lot. 
Now, when the limits inherent in the economic system 
impose very considerable checks upon the production of 
the means of subsistence, and when the stimuli equally 
inherent in the economic system lead to a notable increase 
in the procreation of human beings, there inevitably re- 
sults an excess of population over food; but in the cases 
we have hitherto been considering this excess will not be 
the outcome of natural (physical and biological) causes, 
since it will depend exclusively upon causes of an eco- 
nomic character, and therefore per se temporal and tran- 32 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
sient. Mai thus’ own epoch was precisely one in which 
were displayed with unexampled potency the economic 
checks to agrarian production and the economic stimuli 
to the growth of human population; for agriculture, then 
hampered by tariffs, by the system of land tenure, and, 
by entail, furnished a scanty and extremely costly product, 
whilst the low wages of the labourers brutalised their 
standard of life and encouraged improvident marriage. It 
was not surprising therefore, in such conditions, that there 
should appear and increase a horde of supernumeraries, 
condemned to die for lack of food. The same conditions 
renewed themselves in other times and among other peo- 
ples; and the recent famines in Russia and in India, as 
well as the destitution of many regions of Italy, which has 
led the population to emigrate in unexampled numbers, 
have invariably resulted from the pressure of a poverty- 
stricken population (propagating without restraint simply 
on account of its poverty) upon the means of subsistence 
whose production and importation are restricted by an 
archaic and hide-bound technical and commercial system. 
Upon such conditions, peculiar to certain critical periods 
of history, Malthus established his theory and formulated 
his celebrated law, in accordance with which poverty is 
regarded as the inevitable destiny of the human race. But 
as soon as those economic causes which have given rise 
to the excess of population cease to operate, there imme- 
diately disappears all that complex of sinister phenomena 
upon which Malthus bases his deductions, and the facts 
then furnish a solemn contradiction to this lugubrious 
theory. 
Soon, in fact, agriculture, relieved from the tentacles that MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
33 
had restricted it, exhibited a vigorous expansion; whilst 
at the same time the wonderful advances in the means 
of transport and of communication threw open to the 
merchants of Europe the bountiful productions of lands 
beyond the sea. Hence arose an unprecedented increase 
in the world’s wheat supply, which was now capable of 
providing food in abundance for the swarming multitudes. 
At the same time, the appropriation of the whole surface 
of the globe, by rendering high wages compatible with the 
luxuriant development of the capitalist economy, provided 
for the labourers better wages, rendering possible a 
worthier life; and the higher standard of life served per se 
to induce a considerable curtailment of procreation. Now, 
the production of food increasing enormously, on the one 
hand, and the production of human beings being checked, 
on the other, through the influence of the rise in wages, 
we might expect to find that before long the terrible 
malthusian flood of excess of population would disperse 
itself to give place ultimately to the inverse phenomenon 
of an excess of food over population. And this is what 
actually happened. We are now, in fact, in a position 
to say with Heine in his Deutschland, “there is bread 
enough here below for all the sons of men! ’ ’ Lord Farrer 
recognises this most explicitly in his presidential address 
to the Statistical Society for the year 1894-5. He says: 
“As far as the greater part of the civilised world is con- 
cerned, not only does the population not increase more 
rapidly than the food supply, but precisely the opposite 
is the case, and the universal trouble is that the supply 
of food, and more particularly the supply of wheat, is in 
excess of the demand.” This is the cause of the agrarian 34 
POPULATION AND BIRTII-CONTROL 
crisis which has for so long been undergoing aggravation, 
of the fall in land-rents, and the fall in the price of pro- 
visions, the accumulation of the stock of unsold wheat 
which has to be utilised as forage, or as the raw 
material for the production of lubricating oil. And the 
very continuance of this excess of production over popu- 
lation, which shows no sign of abating, but which even 
appears to become much more marked, demonstrates the 
falsity of Malthus’ thesis, according to which increasing 
wellbeing, by stimulating procreation, itself thrusts back 
the human race into the old distress; for we find ourselves 
to-day faced by a population which, in spite of, or rather 
precisely owing to, the increase in wages, continues the 
practice of continent procreation, thus maintaining and 
perpetuating the excess of the production of the means 
of subsistence over the production of human beings. 
It is hardly necessary to add that this conclusion, which 
is so evident an inference from recent economic history, 
deprives the doctrine of Malthus of all effectual value, of 
all relationship to the real conditions of our time. “How 
is it possible to argue with Malthus?” exclaimed Burdett 
nearly a century ago; “we should require a thousand 
years to find an answer to all this.” But recent events 
are enough by themselves to put the theory of Malthus on 
a level with the lucubrations of the philosophers of Laputa 
concerning the probable effects of the cooling of the sun. 
Moreover, these results of contemporary experience radically 
contradict the practical conclusions of Malthus, or blunt the 
weapon he provides to combat every attempt at social re- 
form. It ought not, in fact, to be forgotten that the 
principle of population was put forward by Malthus, not MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
35 
merely upon theoretical and speculative grounds, but, in 
addition, with the practical aim of providing an invincible 
weapon against systems of social equality; for these, if 
we accept his view, by directly increasing individual well- 
being, will furnish such an impulse to procreation as speed- 
ily to induce and to increase excess of population over 
food and consequent poverty. Now, the calm analysis 
of things teaches us, in this respect, precisely the reverse; 
it teaches us that an economic system which raises the 
condition and the incomes of the majority of the popula- 
tion will necessarily result in the restriction of procrea- 
tion, and thus in the re-establishment of the equilibrium 
(where this has been disturbed) between population and 
the means of subsistence. Hence the principle of popula- 
tion, rightly understood, far from being the infernal ma- 
chine which can be used to destroy each and every plan 
for equalitarian reform, furnishes additional argument on 
behalf of such plans, on behalf of the need for replacing 
the existing economic system by a better and more stable 
one, for such replacement alone can provide for the 
demographic problem an equitable and enduring solution. 
But we have not yet finished with the deficiencies of the 
malthusian doctrine; to the comedy of errors which it 
presents to our view there is still lacking the last scene. 
When economic development shall have driven from the 
social firmament every trace of excess of population over 
the means of subsistence, we may well anticipate, accord- 
ing to the most correct interpretation of Malthus’ thesis, 
that for this reason there will also be removed from the 
world every trace of adversity and poverty, that is to say, 
that the more numerous classes, being now in happy 36 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
equilibrium with the supply of food, will henceforward 
enjoy a safe and satisfying wellbeing. Well, nothing is 
further from the facts, as we see in our own epoch, in 
which the supply of food is in excess of the needs of 
the population, and yet the scourge of poverty is terribly 
manifest, and inflicts the most horrible distresses upon the 
inhabitants of the two hemispheres. In England, the classi- 
cal land of superabundant and low-priced food, unemploy- 
ment has attained unexampled proportions, and in Octo- 
ber, 1908, about 10% of the members of the trade unions 
were out of work (The Labour Gazette, March, 1909). In 
a more or less attenuated form, similar conditions pre- 
vail among all the nations of the civilised world. Now 
this demonstrates very clearly that abundant production 
of the means of subsistence, whether in equivalence with 
or in excess of the needs of the population, does not suffice 
per se to exclude poverty and distress; it shows that the 
lot of a given population is determined, not by the quantity 
of the means of subsistence actually produced, but by that 
portion of this quantity which is available at the demand 
of labour. In other words, it is not the ratio between 
population and the means of subsistence, but the ratio be- 
tween population and productive capital, which determines 
the degree of wellbeing that any given population en- 
joys. The means of subsistence may exist in an excess as 
marked as you please to the estimated requirements of the 
population; but if the proprietary class determines to with- 
draw from its storehouses, in response to the demands of 
the workers, a quantity of food less than that which would 
be sufficient for the productive employment of the en- 
tirety of the population desirous of work, a fraction of this MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
37 
latter is necessarily condemned to unemployment and to 
poverty. If the owning class decides to withdraw from 
its storehouses an additional quantity of food, in order to 
distribute this as alms among the rejected labourers, these 
will be saved from death, but there will always remain an 
unemployed and poverty-stricken remnant, and therewith 
will be perpetuated the existence of that social residuum 
which constitutes the opprobrium and the danger of con- 
temporary society. In any case, indeed, the greatest pos- 
sible excess of the means of subsistence over population 
does not exclude the possible existence of an excess of popu- 
lation over the means of providing this population with 
employment, and therefore does not exclude poverty in 
its most aggravated forms. 
We find, in truth, a passage in Malthus’ book which 
seems to imply the recognition of some confused notion of 
this succession of phenomena. For, speaking of Siberia, 
he points out that it is not enough that a country should 
produce food in abundance; it is further necessary that 
there should be some one disposed to employ this food in 
the demand for labour, for otherwise even an abundance 
of food will not prevent poverty. And in such circum- 
stances what is needed is no longer an increase in produc- 
tion, but a better distribution of the product, or of the 
land. Unfortunately the significance of the phenomenon 
is far more considerable than that attributed to it by these 
brief references; for we have to do, not simply with casual 
anomalies, but with manifestations intimately connected 
with the capitalist system, which that system inevitably 
induces in the regular course of its development. In 
fact, the very conditions inherent in the capitalist economy 38 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
prevent the proprietary class from withdrawing from its 
storehouse the quantity of food necessary for the pro- 
ductive employment of all the hands that are offered: 
either because one part of the population must be syste- 
matically unemployed in order to prevent the wages of 
those workers who are employed from attaining a level 
which threatens the persistence of profit; or else because 
the fatal depression in the rate of profit dissuades a por- 
tion of the capitalists from devoting their savings to pro- 
ductive employments. There is thus implicit in the very 
nature of existing economic relationships the reduction of 
productive capital to a figure inferior to that which would 
he required to maintain the totality of the population, and 
therewith becomes inevitable the creation of an unoccu- 
pied and mendicant class. The existence of this class, it 
is now perfectly obvious, has nothing whatever to do with 
malthusian restrictions upon agrarian production or with 
malthusian stimuli to human propagation; it is in no way 
related to the positive excess of population over the means 
of subsistence, and as a rule it is even an accompaniment 
of a positive excess of food over population: it is due to 
the economic checks which limit the advances of produc- 
tive capital, and which make it impossible for the growth 
of that capital to keep pace with the increase in the labour- 
ing population, however slow the increase may be and how- 
ever much it may be exceeded by an increase in the means 
of subsistence. 
Our author’s theory presents in addition a very grave 
error of omission, for, as regards the phenomenon of popu-, 
lation, that theory elucidates exclusively the gloomy and 
sinister influences, without in any way taking into account MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
39 
the beneficent influences whereby the growth of popula- 
tion promotes human progress and civilisation. It is true 
that Malthus does not fail to point out here and there that, 
if an excess of population he injurious, a numerous popula- 
tion is nevertheless per se beneficial and is a prime condi- 
tion of progress, and elsewhere he declares that had there 
not occurred an increase in population, and consequent 
pressure upon the food supply, the great popular migra- 
tions would not have taken place, conquest and colonisa- 
tion would have remained unknown, and, in a word, the 
whole of human history would have been a blank page. 
This last assertion can, indeed, hardly be accepted, for the 
prime cause of colonial expansion and of conquest is not 
the increase of population, but the decline of income, which 
follows upon the increase of population per se altogether 
independent of excess of population over the means of 
subsistence. But this is not the fact of importance; that 
which it is important to show, and that which Malthus 
(apart from fugitive references) fails to show, is that the 
incessant increase of population, inasmuch as it enforces 
the cultivation of less and less fertile land, provides the 
great stimulus to economic progress, and is the prime cause 
of the continued and inevitable ascent to new and superior 
economic forms. For, in fact, as soon as the increasing 
population can no longer be supplied with food from the 
more fertile lands alone, the economic and technical sys- 
tem which has hitherto prevailed, and which is per se in- 
capable of making use of less productive areas of land, 
proves unendurable, giving rise to poverty and general 
adversity; hence it is essential to abolish that economic 
system and to replace it by a better one; which in its turn  POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
40 
must inevitably pass away as soon as the further increase 
of population shall have rendered it necessary to advance 
once again to the cultivation of new and even less produc- 
tive areas of land. Thus, increase of population is not 
merely, as Malthus indicates, the artificer of degeneration 
and of poverty; but it is at the same time the potent demi- 
urge of social transformations, the providential ferment in- 
ducing human advances; it does not merely furnish forth 
a horoscope of ruin and disaster, but it is pregnant with 
grandeur, with glory, with unending improvement. Now 
all this light-bearing aspect of the demographic phenom- 
enon completely escaped the notice of our thinker: when 
he contemplated the growth of population he saw clearly 
enough its maleficent activity, accidental, transient, and 
correlative rather to the increase in population per se 
than to its excess over the means of subsistence; but he did 
not see the beneficent activity, permanent and immutable, 
furnishing an impulse to the development of economic sys- 
tems always more advanced and more nearly approach- 
ing perfection. The lacuna, which M’Culloch already de- 
plored in his Literature of Political Economy, was all the 
more surprising, inasmuch as, before Malthus, Aristotle, 
Ferguson, and,' in Italy, Carli, had discovered in the in- 
creasing density of the population the great factor of hu- 
man progress—but the defect was probably dependent 
upon the malthusian postulate that an increase of popu- 
lation is always necessarily preceded by an increase in 
agrarian production. This postulate, however, which har- 
monises ill with the malthusian doctrine as a whole (be- 
cause, in a word, if an increase in population be always de- 
termined and preceded by an increase in the food supply, MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
41 
how can there be an excess of population?), was triumph- 
antly refuted by Ricardo, who showed that the progress 
of agrarian production always and necessarily manifests 
itself under the stimulus of an increase in population and 
of the pressure of population upon the means of sub- 
sistence. Now this simple consideration assigns to the in- 
crease of population a lofty function in the progress of 
civilisation; for it teaches us that it is precisely the in- 
crease of population, and the pressure of population upon 
the food supply, which is the great artificer of technical and 
economic revolutions, and which stimulates the social sys- 
tem to the adoption of forms continually more efficacious 
and more advanced. 
It is therefore evident that just as the theory of division 
or association of labour appears to modern science far more 
complex and manifold than it appeared when formulated 
in the pages of Adam Smith, so also the theory of popu- 
lation presents itself to our minds in a form extremely 
varied, diversified, and manifold, when compared with 
the gloomy and sinister conception which oppressed the 
mind of Malthus. 
If we rise superior to the petty and disagreeable aspect 
by which Malthus was obsessed, and which for so long a 
period formed one of the principal elements of the * ‘ science 
of despair,” the demographic phenomenon reveals a 
whole kaleidoscope of images at once lofty and encourag- 
ing, and, what is more important, it tends to divert the 
theory of population from its primitive and reactionary 
purposes towards aims of reform and innovation. Having 
originated as a theory of regression, as the extinguisher of 
all attempts at humanitarian improvement, as the most 42 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
efficient weapon against philosophic radicalism, the theory 
of population, adequately transformed and amplified, now 
takes its place among the most radical of the social theories. 
For it teaches that the unceasing flux of population is the 
irresistible ferment leading to the destruction of successive 
social forms; that if, in one stage of its career, it generates 
a social system, it does so only to induce, in a subsequent 
stage, the inevitable decomposition of that system; that, 
owing to its operation, there cannot exist any eternal in- 
stitutions, because by the force of its omnipotent lever all 
human institutions and aggregations must be brought to 
ruin and dissolution; that it is, in a word, the inexorable 
destroyer of all that exists, that it is essentially critical 
and revolutionary. 
If, however, the theory of Malthus exhibits many and 
striking omissions, and requires extensive rectifications, 
nevertheless there is but little justification for the criti- 
cisms and the hostility of those dissentients who dismiss the 
theory with extreme levity, or who would replace it by some 
other undemonstrated and fantastic theoretical construc- 
tion. First come the biologists, who claim that there ex- 
ists a natural law in accordance with which the growth of 
population is checked without any need for the exercise 
of sexual restraint. Thus, Doubleday opines that fertility 
is in inverse ratio to the supply of nutrition, and in this 
connexion quotes Thesaurus, writing of Charles the Fat, 
“Charles was sterile owing to his excessive obesity,” and 
quotes also Pliny, “steriliora cuncta pinguid et in maribus 
et in foeminis.” If this were so, to avoid an excess of 
population it would merely be necessary to increase the 
rations of food supplied to each inhabitant. The thesis has MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
43 
been refuted a hundred times, but even were this not so, 
it is evident at first sight that the argument is involved in 
a vicious circle. For the scanty food supply which, ac- 
cording to this view, would be the cause of excess of popu- 
lation, is in its turn no more than the effect of the excess 
of population; that is to say, it presupposes the exis- 
tence of the phenomenon which it pretends to explain. 
Spencer, again, contends that the increasing expenditure 
of nervous energy imposed by the increasing intensity of 
the struggle for existence, will suffice per se to reduce the 
manifestation of the generative powers, and will herewith 
spontaneously lead to an equilibrium between popula- 
tion and the means of subsistence. But this thesis is un- 
demonstrated and irrational; for the expenditure of gen- 
erative energy requisite to produce the maximum possible 
offspring is so trifling as to be perfectly compatible with 
the greater consumption of nervous energy demanded by 
the struggle for existence. Other naturalists have re- 
proached Malthus for failing to perceive the beneficent 
working of the increase of population, that is to say, for 
failing to discover the ameliorative selection among beings 
engaged in the struggle for existence which Darwin was 
subsequently to elucidate so admirably in his immortal 
works. 
It is to be noted that Darwin (as he himself informs us) 
drew the first idea of his theory of natural selection from 
the perusal, in the year 1838, of Malthus’ work on popu- 
lation. But if we compare the theory of population in the 
pages of Malthus and in those of Darwin, we are struck 
with the extraordinary contrast, quantum mutatus ab illo! 
Where Malthus deduces a theory of adversity and disaster, 44 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Darwin attains to a theory of improvement and progress; 
“a most significant contrast,” exclaims Messedaglia, “in 
which may be perceived the reflection of a correlative con- 
trast between two radically diverse and opposed social 
ages.” Messedaglia goes on to join himself to the ready 
critics who find fault with Malthus for drawing from his 
thesis a series of pessimistic inductions, and for ignoring 
the roseate conclusions to whose foundation the theory of 
population lends itself. Now I myself hold, as I have 
just said, that the theory of population is consistent with 
views of progress and victory which Malthus has altogether 
ignored: yet I do not consider that Malthus is open to criti- 
cism for having traced only the maleficent influences of the 
human struggle for existence. While, in fact, it is per- 
fectly true that the struggle for existence which arises from 
the excess of population over the means of subsistence is, 
in the case of the inferior orders of living beings, the great 
and providential factor of progressive selection, no such 
function can properly be assigned to the human struggle 
for existence; for this neither leads to the extinction of the 
vanquished, whom it condemns, on the contrary, to a hun- 
ger-stricken existence, nor does it lead to the survival of 
the best, though it does lead to the survival of the more 
astute or more degenerate. While, therefore, the naturalist 
Darwin is perfectly right in casting from the excess of 
population, and from the struggle for existence to which 
that excess gives rise, a conspicuously favourable and be- 
nign horoscope, the sociologist Malthus is equally right in 
discerning in the excess of population a sinister and de- 
structive factor. 
Finally, there are other biologists, doctors, self-styled MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
45 
experts in sexology, who wish to supplement the moral 
restraint of Malthus by other checks of a more equivocal 
character. Malthus, as we have seen, advises as an exclu- 
sive specific against excess of population abstention from 
marriage until the possession is attained of sufficient means 
for the support of the offspring; a postponement which 
would certainly suffice per se to effect a diminution in the 
number of children born, but which should not, according 
to the idea of our author, be associated with any prac- 
tice directly intended to restrict procreation. Other writ- 
ers, however, claim to solve the problem more expeditiously 
by the use of means for the prevention of conception: these 
means, advocated already on the morrow of the publication 
of Malthus’ work (as, for example, by G. Gamier), have 
given rise in the sequel to a distinct method of their own 
which is known by the name of Neo-Malthusianism, a 
method which culminates to-day in the enthusiastic recom- 
mendation of artificial abortion by the German physician 
Goldstein. Now let us say at once that as between these 
two tendencies, the malthusian and the neo-malthusian, 
there cannot be a moment’s hesitation in giving the prefer- 
ence to the former, which is reasonable, and free from the 
risk of causing physical and moral damage: whereas the 
latter method is wrong-headed, since it aims at lopping 
the tree in order that it may bear no fruit; at vitiating, 
that is to say, and corrupting the parents, in order to 
avoid the dreaded coming of offspring. It is no less true, 
however, that, except in the more northerly lands, where 
the coldness of the senses perhaps renders it easier to solve 
every sexual problem, the postponement of marriage can 
be . obtained only at the price of the institution and the 46 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
maintenance of prostitution; that is to say, malthusian 
restraint will conjure away the social degeneration aris- 
ing from poverty only in virtue of the maintenance of an 
institution which Malthus himself vituperates as the source 
of degradation and brutalisation. Nor is even this solu- 
tion possible in every case! For when the improvement in 
the economic conditions directly resulting from the ex- 
ercise of sexual restraint shall have had the desired effect 
of banishing poverty from the world, shall we find that 
prostitution will continue? With one voice universal ex- 
perience answers this question in the negative: 
Pauvrete, pauvrete, c’est toi la courtisane/ 
So true is this, that in the happy regions of the new 
world, where poverty is the exclusive appanage of Eu- 
ropean immigration, it is from the European immigrants 
alone that prostitution draws its recruits. Now, if prosti- 
tution were to disappear, it is evident that the postpone- 
ment of marriage would no longer he possible, and could 
no longer be reasonably advised. Then would become 
more alarmingly pressing the problem of how to hold in 
check the fecundity of young couples who celebrate their 
nuptials in the flower of vigour and enthusiasm. This is a 
weighty question, which we warmly recommend to the 
wisdom of the biologists of the future, for it is one which is 
certainly not solved by the vague speculations of Proudhon, 
Carpenter, and Stockham, concerning the spiritualisation 
of love. 
At this point, to the army of Malthus’ critics there now 
join themselves the statisticians, who affirm that, altogether MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
independently of the practice of sexual restraint, popula- 
tion tends to attain a spontaneous equilibrium with the 
means of subsistence, thanks to the operation of certain 
automatic checks which the growth of population itself 
develops. We have, indeed, previously referred to the 
existence and efficacy of certain spontaneous demographic 
checks, from the operation of which it results that the rate 
of increase of population remains inferior to that which 
would he expressed by the terms of a geometrical progres- 
sion. Statisticians err, however, when they arbitrarily as- 
sume that these cheeks will suffice to maintain the popula- 
tion in perfect equilibrium with the quantity of the means 
of subsistence. Thus, Quetelet has enunciated (without 
proving it) a law to the effect that the obstacles to the 
growth of population tend to increase as the square of the 
velocity with which the population itself tends to increase; 
while Sadler and Guillard more concisely insist that the 
fertility of a population is in inverse ratio to its density, 
and that for this reason population tends towards a spon- 
taneous equilibrium as the deficiency in the means of sub- 
sistence increases. More recently, again, Cauderlier does 
not hesitate to affirm that population always adjusts itself 
spontaneously to the growth of the means of subsistence, 
procreation slackening as soon as the increase of agrarian 
production becomes arrested; that for this reason an ex- 
cess of population over food is contradictory and impossi- 
ble; and that therefore an excessively high death rate, 
where this occurs, cannot be attributed to any excess of 
population over food, but simply to ignorance, or to vio- 
lation of the laws of hygiene, or to alcoholism. But while 
there may be a certain amount of truth in these assertions, 48 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
which are by no means universally supported by statistics, 
such truth as there is is already implicit in the economic 
theory of population, for this teaches us that an in- 
creasing density of population is itself frequently accom- 
panied by an economic transformation raising the condi- 
tion of the labourer, and thereby leading to a diminution in 
improvident procreation. On the other hand, however, when 
these statisticians, passing beyond arbitrary assertions, con- 
descend to tell us in what precisely consist the spontaneous 
checks which should restrain population within limits cor- 
responding to the means of subsistence, they inevitably fall 
back into the vicious malthusian circle out of which they 
hoped to find their way, that is to say, into the restricted 
orbit of his preventive or positive checks. Thus, when 
Cauderlier affirms that an excess of population cannot 
come into existence, because whenever there occurs a rise 
in the price of food there ensues a decline in the marriage 
rate or in the birth rate, what is this but to affirm (for the 
rest, more or less arbitrarily, for the assertion is not always 
supported by the facts) the adoption of malthusian re- 
straint in those conditions in which it appears to be espe- 
cially needed? And when Rumelin indicates, as an effec- 
tive factor in preventing an excess of population, a high 
child-mortality, or the excessive death rate of large towns, 
he forgets that the higher child-mortality and the higher 
death-rate among town dwellers are not the outcome of in- 
comprehensible biological laws, but depend upon the bad- 
ness of the vital conditions to which the great majority of 
children and town dwellers are exposed—he forgets, in 
other words, that these higher death rates depend upon the 
pre-existence of poverty, and for this reason, in many cases MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
49 
at least, depend upon the pre-existence of an excess of 
population. What have we here, after all, but a manifesta- 
tion of those positive checks which Malthus himself so 
minutely described? 
Among this motley crowd of Malthus’ opponents there 
cannot be missing the optimists, those who are unwearied in 
their attempts to dispel the clouds which the great pessi- 
mist summoned into the clear sky of economics. With this 
end in view they endeavour to replace the formula of Mal- 
thus by some other formula of a less severe or more elastic 
character. G. B. Say, for example, affirms that population 
is restricted by the means of existence, and Sismondi 
(though in so many other fields he is not an optimist) 
opines that population is restricted by the amount of the 
national income. Both these statements are erroneous, for 
the growth of population encounters an insuperable ob- 
stacle in the quantity of the food-supply; nor can an in- 
sufficiency in this respect be compensated by the existence 
of a larger quantity, however great, of luxury products, 
or by an excess of social income. Bastiat, Proudhon, Carey, 
and Henry George, affirm in their turn that increase of 
population, by laying a foundation for the amplification 
and increasing perfectionment of the association of labour, 
leads per se to a progressive increase in the production of 
food, and therewith spontaneously secures a balance be- 
tween population and the means of subsistence. But this 
assertion is likewise erroneous, for increase of population 
invariably imposes the necessity of proceeding to the cul- 
tivation of less and less fertile acreas of land, and these, 
notwithstanding the greatest advances in the association 
of labour, necessarily furnish less and less produce. Hence, 50 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
at a certain stage in demographic development, an excess 
of population over food must inevitably appear. 
Finally, to the assembly of the opponents of Malthus 
there hasten in a crowd the socialists, filled with indigna- 
tion, as may readily be understood, against a theory which 
proclaims the impotence of any social reform to banish pov- 
erty from the world. How much abuse have they showered, 
these prophets of the new evangel, upon the revered head of 
Malthus! Pierre Leroux reproaches Malthus again and 
again for the harsh assertion (which was withdrawn from 
the third edition of the Essay) : “A man who is born into a 
world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from 
his parents on whom he has a just demand and if the 
society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the 
smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to 
be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no va- 
cant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will 
quickly execute her own orders.” Proudhon affirms that 
only one man has been superfluous in the world, to wit, 
Malthus himself; Marx calls him a lackey of the aristoc- 
racy, a man of narrow intelligence, a plagiarist from Hume, 
Wallace, and Townsend, that is to say, from the very 
authors whom he loyally enumerates at the outset of his 
essay as founders of the faith he holds. Let us pass, how- 
ever, from such considerations, to record the theory of 
population counterposed by Marx to that of Malthus. 
Those deceive themselves, says Marx, who affirm that there 
is an abstract law' of population, valid among all peoples 
and in all ages. The truth is that every economic phase 
has its own specific law of population, valid while that 
phase continues, and ceasing to be valid when that phase MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
51 
comes to an end. Now, leaving out of consideration the 
specific laws of economic phases that have passed away, 
laws which remain incomprehensible from lack of docu- 
ments and data (which would in any case be of scant in- 
terest to us since history itself has passed its own criticism 
upon them by condemning them to death), it is our busi- 
ness to ascertain the specific law of population prevailing 
in the capitalist epoch, and this law may be expressed in 
the following terms. Since social capital is employed to 
an increasing degree in the form of machinery and raw 
material, it follows that the increase of capital devoted to 
or available for the payment of wages is proportionally 
checked, and may even undergo an absolute diminution; 
hence, if population increases in fixed proportion, or even 
if (in the second case) it is stationary, there necessarily 
results an excess of population; but this is not an excess 
over the means of subsistence, which may be much greater 
than the needs of the population, but an excess over the 
capital devoted to the demand for labour. For this reason, 
the excess of population which afflicts modern society does 
not possess a physical and biological foundation, but a 
capitalist foundation; it is not due to natural causes limit- 
ing agrarian production, or to biological causes stimulating 
human procreation, but is simply the outcome of the techni- 
cal composition of capital, whereby is limited the pro- 
portion of capital devoted to the demand for labour. And 
the formation of this excess of population, far from being 
disagreeable to the capitalist class, constitutes the most 
precious support to that class, for it reduces the wages of 
the workers who are employed, and leaves them without 
any means of resisting capitalist dominion. 52 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
The considerations previously enlarged upon render it 
needless to discuss at any length what portion of this doc- 
trine is true, and what portion is false or overstated. It 
is true that an excess of population may make its appear- 
ance notwithstanding the existence of perfect equilibrium 
between population and the means of subsistence, simply 
owing to the diminution or withdrawal of productive capi- 
tal ; only to this it is necessary to add that if the quantity 
of capital immediately withdrawn from the demand for 
labour becomes crystallised in the form of productive tech- 
nical capital, this determines (as Marx himself admits) 
within a longer or shorter period, an increase in produc- 
tion, and therefore in productive saving, as the outcome 
of which there is sooner or later reconstituted the demand 
for labour which has temporarily been checked. It follows 
that the most extensive increase in productive technical 
capital is incompetent per se to effect a permanent diminu- 
tion in the demand for labour, or to create a permanent 
excess of population over employment. For such a per- 
manent excess to arise, it is necessary that a part of the 
capital hitherto employed, or virtually capable of employ- 
ment, in the payment of wages, should undergo conver- 
sion, not into productive technical capital, but into un- 
productive capital. Apart from this, the most serious er- 
ror of Marx is to believe that this process, which is es- 
sentially capitalist in character, is the sole cause of ex- 
cess of population, or to deny the possible existence of a 
biological excess of population; whereas the truth really 
is that such an excess always arises in certain backward 
conditions of civilisation, and that it can appear at any 
time where the swarming population presses upon the more MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
53 
slowly increasing quantity of the means of subsistence. 
While, therefore, Malthus has undoubtedly mutilated the 
study of the phenomenon of population by seeing no more 
in that phenomenon than the brutal products of the ex- 
cess of people over bread; no less worthy of criticism is 
the mutilation which Marx inflicts upon the same phe- 
nomenon by seeing therein only its capitalist aspect, and 
ignoring its physical and biological aspect. 
Not all socialists, however, join the ranks of the oppo- 
nents of Malthus; for Mario alludes to the supreme im- 
portance of the problem of population, and hopes to solve 
it by the prohibition of marriage to those who are not yet 
of age and to those who cannot prove the ownership of a 
certain amount of capital; Kautsky, while denying that we 
have to-day an excess of population over food, admits 
that such an excess may manifest itself in the socialist 
society of the future, to which will accrue the serious task 
of diminishing or preventing it, and he has withdrawn his 
assertion only in fidelity to Marx’s doctrine; whilst Bebel, 
having critically studied, in the light of his varied erudi- 
tion, the problem of excess of population, can suggest no 
better remedy than the consumption of a certain lard 
soup which is reputed to have an anti-generative influence 
upon the agricultural population of Upper Bavaria! 
From this brief sketch of the criticisms passed upon Mal- 
thus, it will be sufficiently clear that, while these have suc- 
ceeded in removing some excrescences from his titanic 
thesis, they have not succeeded in demolishing or attenua- 
ting the essential truth which forms the kernel of his doc- 
trine, and which no philosophical disquisition or statistical 
investigation will ever be able to annul. For whatever may POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
be thought or said to the contrary, the theory of Malthus, 
besides being the revelation of a fact positively manifested 
in certain economic phases, possesses a profound and en- 
during educational value, as a warning of the social dan- 
gers which inevitably result from imprudent procreation, 
and as an antidote to the physiological tendencies which 
stimulate man to exceed the normal limits of his propaga- 
tion. And the value of this doctrine is equally unchal- 
lengeable in social phases such as our own, in which the 
excess of population over employment and the resulting 
poverty are the outcome of essentially capitalist and eco- 
nomic causes, and are actually independent of any failure 
of equilibrium between population and the means of sub- 
sistence. 
Such is the pith, such have been the varied fortunes, and 
such is the permanent value, of this celebrated work, which 
radically shifted the axis of sociological thought through- 
out the civilised world. From the summary we have given 
it appears very clearly that Malthus’ book is a work deal- 
ing with social philosophy or sociology, enriched here and 
there by the most sagacious reflections upon statistical 
method, but that it does not in reality belong to economic 
science proper. This is not because the theme of popula- 
tion does not form part of political economy, of which, on 
the contrary, it constitutes an integral and essential ele- 
ment ; but the manner in which the argument is treated by 
Malthus makes it impossible for us to consider his book as 
pertaining strictly to the sphere of economic science. The 
Essay is substantially devoted to the illustration, with his- 
torical examples and with the description of the most va- MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
55 
ried countries and customs, of the biological necessity which 
leads population to increase in excess of the food supply, 
and it is concerned with elucidating the means by which a 
remedy may be provided; but the author never attempts 
to discuss the intimate bonds whereby the process of 
population is associated with the most complex relationships 
of the existing economic system, and he never examines 
the extent to which the former determines the latter or is 
thereby determined. What influence does an increasing 
density of population exercise upon production, upon ad- 
vances in the association of labour, upon the ratio between 
labour and technical capital, upon the extension of agri- 
cultural and industrial undertakings? What is the in- 
fluence of the same phenomenon upon the rate of wages, 
upon profit, and upon land-rent, upon the fluctuations in 
demand and supply of products and of labour? And con- 
versely, what influence is exercised upon the rate of in- 
crease of population by the prevailing system of the dis- 
tribution of wealth, that is to say, by the way in which the 
product is distributed as between wages, profit, and land- 
rent ? These and other problems, constituting the nucleus 
of the economic theory of population, are completely ig- 
nored by Malthus, and for this reason we cannot speak 
of his hook as the work of an economist in the strict sense 
of the term, but rather as that of a brilliant investigator 
of natural and social philosophy. 
Unfortunately, domestic happenings and the influence 
of constituted authority constrained this highly endowed 
sociologist and philosopher to become a writer of eco- 
nomics. Almost immediately after the publication of the 
second edition of the Essay, Malthus was nominated by Pitt 56 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
(who had made his acquaintance three years earlier on a 
visit to Cambridge) to the distinguished position of pro- 
fessor of political economy and history at Haileybury Col- 
lege, just founded by the East India Company; and it was 
the promise of this appointment, securing for him hence- 
forward a safe and honourable competence, which en- 
abled him at length to fulfil the desire of his heart by 
espousing, on March 13th, 1804, Harriet Eckersall, by 
whom he had two daughters and one son. In face of these 
facts we see that there is absolutely no foundation for all 
the ill-natured gossip directed against our author, such as 
the assertion that he remained celibate in obsequious obedi- 
ence to the Cambridge prohibition of marriage to its fel- 
lows; or the converse assertion that, in defiance of his 
own principle of moral restraint, he had eleven children. 
The truth is that Malthus married when thirty-eight years 
of age (which excludes per se an excessive progenitive 
capacity), and only when he had attained to an employ- 
ment providing him with a secure and considerable in- 
come. It thus appears that his sexual conduct was per- 
fectly consistent with the principles he had always pro- 
fessed. Such a phenomenon is sufficiently rare even in 
the case of the most exalted thinkers, for it to be worthy 
of particular mention in this brief sketch. 
In his new dwelling-place, amid willows and ancient ver- 
dure enveloping it with shade and quietude, Malthus now 
proceeded to devote to science all the time he could spare 
from the ruling of his undisciplined pupils and from the 
vexations of an ill-managed and generally criticised in- 
stitution. Only for brief periods did he leave this retired 
residence to hold converse with Robert Owen at New MALTHUS, A BIOGEAPHICAL STUDY 
57 
Lanark in 1807; to travel with Horner in Wales in 1814; 
to visit the Counties of Kerry and West Meath in 1817 
and Paris in 1820; to make a continental tour in 1825 
(after his health had been affected by his daughter’s 
death) ; and to pay frequent visits to London and to his 
friend David Eicardo at Gatcomb Park. 
Now, if the natural bent of his mind made our author a 
sociologist, his professorial position made him an econo- 
mist, for the office he had assumed rendered it necessary 
for him to abandon the pleasant paths of sociological 
thought and to concentrate his attention on the more arid 
and rocky ways of economics; and his subsequent writings 
were almost exclusively concerned with this subject. In 
the Edinburgh Review for February, 1811, appeared 
his anonymous essay, The Depreciation of Taper Money. 
In 1814 he published Observations on the Effects of the 
Corn Laws, and in the following year The Grounds of an 
Opinion upon the Policy of Restricting the Importation of 
Foreign Corn, wherein he defended, with very weak argu- 
ments, all the errors of agrarian protection. In 1815 ap- 
peared An Enquiry into the Nature and Progress of 
Rent, and in 1820 Principles of Political Economy. In the 
last-named work, the goading thought which urges Malthus, 
the burden of his book, is the possibility, or, more strictly 
speaking, the inevitable necessity, of an excess of produc- 
tion over consumption, resulting in the withdrawal of capi- 
tal from enterprise, and in the unemployment and poverty 
of the working classes; conditions for which there is no 
remedy possible except the creation of a class of non- 
producers, fruges consumere nati, to whom is allotted the 
agreeable task of consuming the products with which the 58 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
market is glutted, but without having in return to produce 
or offer any products of their own. Thus, our author, 
after having rendered a precious service to the patrician 
and idle class, absolves that class of all responsibility in 
the matter of the misery of the plebs, rendering a further 
signal service by panegyrising their luxurious idleness and 
by representing their insolent prodigality as a perpetual 
source of universal wellbeing. 
But it is needless to insist upon the aristocratic stamp 
of this new doctrine of Malthus, or upon the indirect glori- 
fication of the wealthy debauchee which is its corollary. 
It is, moreover, hardly necessary to repeat that the whole 
doctrine is a fantasm and that the dread of an excess of 
production by which Malthus was haunted was nothing 
more than a chimera, a morbid and ephemeral product of 
delirium. Earlier than this, indeed, G. B. Say vainly en- 
deavoured to make it clear to Malthus that in view of the 
unlimited character of human needs and desires, it is im- 
possible for labour to be permanently devoted to the pro- 
duction of commodities for which there is no demand, and 
to show that new commodities can always be produced with 
the certainty of finding buyers. Admitting this, it is 
evident that a balance between the demand and the sup- 
ply of products should always be obtainable without need 
for the presence in the hive of a number of drones destined 
for the pleasurable and degrading function of unproduc- 
tive consumption. 
But the doctrine, however erroneous, has for us a su- 
preme value as a precious confession of the defect by 
which malthusianism is vitiated. For, by admitting that 
poverty may arise from the simple economic fact of an MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
59 
excess of products on offer over the demand for them in 
the market, Malthus at length recognises the possibility that 
poverty may manifest itself in conditions of perfect balance 
between population and the means of subsistence, and even 
when these means are present in excess. This admission on 
the part of Malthus at once supplies the refutation to all 
his angry animadversions against legalised charity, and 
furnishes for such charity a firm basis in civil legislation. 
As long as poverty appears to be the necessary and ex- 
clusive outcome of an excess of population over food, it 
is obvious that almsgiving is powerless to relieve, since the 
means of subsistence can be provided for the beneficiaries 
of charity only by depriving others of the necessaries of 
life. When, on the other hand, it is recognised that the 
most distressing poverty can perfectly well coexist with a 
complete equilibrium between population and the means of 
subsistence, it is also necessary to admit that social charity 
can alleviate or eliminate poverty by making use of the 
available supply of food to distribute it among the hungry. 
What more need be said? The very argument, so much 
misused by Malthus, that legalised charity is to be con- 
demned because it furnishes a stimulus to improvident 
procreation, becomes altogether valueless and unmeaning 
in face of poverty which is not the outcome of excessive 
propagation, but which manifests itself when there is per- 
fect equilibrium between population and food, merely ow- 
ing to a falling off in the demands of the consumers. Thus, 
the reflections of Malthus upon the excess of production 
were condemned equally by his own anti-populationist ex- 
aggerations, and by his own strictures on the poor laws, 
and made in his scientific and practical system a breach POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
60 
destined to be greatly widened by time and by the sub- 
sequent advances in economic thought. But a few short 
years, indeed, after the publication of Malthus’ book there 
appeared numerous criticisms of our economists’ attacks 
upon charity, proceeding from authoritative and moderate 
writers, the work of Romagnosi and Cattaneo, of Cavour 
and John Stuart Mill, whilst subsequently criticism became 
more and more intense, and finally, as we shall soon see, in- 
fluenced English legislation, and proved triumphant. 
In 1823, Malthus published yet another work on pure 
economics, The Measure of Value; and in 1824 his article 
New Political Economy appeared in the Quarterly Re- 
view. In the latter year he also contributed an article on 
Population to the supplement to the Encyclopasdia Bri- 
tannica. In 1827 came Definitions in Political Economy. 
Thereafter, Malthus returned to the field of his early stud- 
ies, publishing in the year 1830 the work entitled Summary 
View of the Theory of Population. 
This was our author’s swan-song, for, four years later, 
when on a visit to his father-in-law at St. Catherine near 
Bath, he succumbed to a heart attack on December 29th, 
1834, while still in the acme of his mental and physical 
energies. He died full of honour, having become an 
F. R. S. in 1819, a member of the Political Economy Club 
in 1821, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 
1825, and of the Statistical Society in 1827, a member of 
the Institute of France and a member of the French 
Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, and a member of 
the Academy of Berlin. What is yet more striking is that 
at the time of his death Malthus had attained to the sum- 
mit of his scientific triumph, when the whole world was MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
61 
persuaded of the truth of his doctrines, when all socialistic 
enthusiasm seemed to have been submerged beneath the 
icy current of the principle of population; and he died on 
the morrow of the day on which the English parliament, in 
obedience to his admonitions, had voted the new poor law, 
forbidding the payment of outdoor relief to able-bodied 
paupers, imposing on these latter murderous tasks, and, 
in a word, associating with legalised charity all kinds of 
bitterness and tribulation which rendered the assistance 
thus given more intolerable than death. Happy was Mal- 
thus in the hour of his departure, for had he lived longer 
he would have witnessed the disastrous overthrow of his 
dogmas and the total disorganisation of his complex pro- 
gramme of politics and of legislation. 
Within a few years, in fact, of Malthus’ death the dis- 
tressing picture which he drew with such rare mastery was 
completely reversed under the very eyes of the astonished 
public, for where there ought to have appeared a popula- 
tion swarming in excess of the food supply, there actually 
appeared a production in excess of the beings which the 
produce was destined to nourish. In face of this radical in- 
version, our prophet’s theory, at one time so widely ac- 
cepted, was now by general consent relegated to the mu- 
seum of intellectual antiquities, whilst the control of ex- 
isting phenomena, those of actual experience, was assumed 
by a very different doctrine, whose foundations were eco- 
nomic instead of physical and biological. Meanwhile so- 
cialism, which seemed to have been forever annihilated by 
the overwhelming sledge-hammer of the two malthusian 
progressions, arose once more in triumph from its passing 
trance, and. while recognising that more account must be 62 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
taken of the phenomenon of population, and that over- 
population must be avoided, made no pretence of lowering 
before the onslaught of the doctrine of population its own 
standards of rebellion and continued attack. To the mal- 
thusian apology for agrarian protectionism England re- 
plied, twelve years after the philosopher’s death, by re- 
pealing the Corn Laws, and by introducing free trade in 
wheat. Finally, the stringency and harshness of legalised 
charity, which constituted the greatest and most tangible 
triumph of Malthus in the realm of facts, gradually gave 
way before the irresistible demands of life, which peremp- 
torily imposed the return to gentler and more humane prac- 
tices. The further advanced, in fact, the evolution of the 
new economic system, the greater the increase in agrarian 
production, and the greater the continence of human pro- 
creation, the more fantastic appeared those denunciations 
of legalised charity which depicted it as a wanton incen- 
tive to excessive procreation; whilst the scourge of unem- 
ployment, persisting and increasing in face of a perfect 
equilibrium between population and food, rendered it 
necessary to throw open to the famished multitude the over- 
full granaries at whose doors they were furiously knock- 
ing. 
We see, then, how under the pressure of the changed 
economic system, the enforcement of the poor law lost its 
former rigour. The very functionaries who were charged 
with carrying out the law endeavoured to evade its strict 
regulations, first of all as regards children, next as regards 
the sick, the mentally deficient, and the elderly, and finally 
as regards the unemployed; whilst the state, instead of 
limiting itself to the grudging distribution of relief under MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
63 
conditions imposing humiliation and anguish, made assidu- 
ous efforts to improve the lot of social derelicts. In every 
district, side by side with the old charitable institutions, 
there has come into existence a public health organisation 
to care for the myriads of the sick, a local education au- 
thority, a local lunacy authority, a local unemployment 
authority, and a local pensions authority; and the result 
of the existence of these manifold organisations is an 
enormous increase in the cost of the poor. What, in fact, 
are the seven millions sterling spent annually upon paupers 
in 1834, greatly to the distress of the disciples of Malthus, 
When compared, with the fifty millions devoted to-day to 
similar purposes by organisations outside the poor law, 
and with the seventy millions which constitute the total 
annual expenditure at the present time upon the poor of 
the United Kingdom? But as if all this were not enough, 
the multitude of the authorities co-operating n the adminis- 
tration of works of beneficence (and often getting in one 
another’s way), the frequency of overlapping and of waste, 
anct the administrative anarchy which arises out of this 
multiplicity of authorities, have convinced the British gov- 
ernment that it is impossible to persist in so irrational and 
suicidal a system, and that it is necessary to undertake the 
radical reorganisation of the whole gigantic business. The 
elucidation of the problem and of the methods of its solu- 
tion was referred to a special commission, whose report was 
published at the beginning of 1909. The commission split 
into a majority and a minority, differing as regards cer- 
tain matters of administrative detail; but both sections 
were in agreement as to the necessity for abolishing the 
rigours of the poor law of 1834, and as to the need for re- 64 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
establishing (as had already in practice been re-established) 
the right to outdoor relief for able-bodied paupers; they 
agreed as to the need for abolishing the workhouses, these 
true houses of terror, and for doing away with the series 
of legislative cruelties that inflict martyrdom upon the vic- 
tims of poverty; they agreed finally that the energies of 
the state must be devoted, not to the oppression of the in- 
digent, but rather to their rehabilitation, to raising their 
standard of life, to restoring their human and civic dig- 
nity. Further, the commission was unanimous in its recog- 
nition that the state must interest itself more especially 
in the fate of those paupers who were fit for work, those 
who had been thrown out of work by the fluctuations of 
industry, and must endeavour to find them lasting employ- 
ment and a living wage. As if this were not enough, an 
Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 assigned to all who had 
been British subjects for more than twenty years, who had 
attained the age of seventy years, and whose annual in- 
come did not exceed £31. 10s., a pension, varying accord- 
ing to circumstances from one shilling to five shillings per 
week. Thus the highest assembly of the United Kingdom 
proclaimed the failure of the poor law of 1834, and took 
action accordingly; and the action thus taken served at 
the same time to condemn the malthusian theory of which 
the 1834 poor law was the application and the consequence. 
A no less decisive condemnation made itself heard in 
France, where various towns rivalled one another in offer- 
ing premiums to the parents of large families; in Aus- 
tria, where a bill brought forward in 1909 proposed special 
taxation upon celibates, and taxation at a lower rate upon 
childless married persons; in Germany, where a scheme of MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
65 
state insurance was promulgated, assigning an annual in- 
come to parents during the first youth of their children; 
in Australia, where it was suggested that motherhood 
should be constituted a social function, and as such be 
remunerated by the community at large; in the United 
States, where President Roosevelt did not hesitate to hurl 
anathemas against citizens of white descent who renounce 
procreation, thanks to whom, we are told, America will 
soon be peopled mainly by negroes; in practically all civi- 
lised countries, threatened with depopulation and afraid 
lest the empire of the world should pass into the hands 
of barbarians. 
What then is Malthus ? What is his lasting value ? Mal- 
thus is the fortunate being to whom a wonderful flash of 
insight suddenly disclosed a vital phenomenon of human 
society, throwing light into its abysses; who enshrined in 
imperishable pages a chance truth, revealed for the first 
time to him alone—a truth which he utilised to turn eco- 
nomics, history, and morality upside down, which became 
for him the supreme touchstone of politics and of civil 
institutions. It matters nothing that this truth had been 
previously affirmed by others; for no one else felt it so 
keenly or expressed it so strongly; no one else made it a 
corner-stone of the science of the nations, the principal 
foundation of sociological investigation. It matters noth- 
ing that Malthus considered his theme from too one-sided 
and too narrow an outlook; that he transformed an episode 
of the history of population into a universal law of popu- 
lation; that he did not refer to the influence of economic 
relationships upon population, or to the converse influence 
exercised by the rising human flood (altogether apart 66 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
from any excess over the quantity of the food supply) 
in stimulating the economic and social evolution of the 
peoples of all the world; that, finally x his therapeutics of 
the demographic disease were before long completely super- 
seded. Admitting all these things, it is the supreme merit 
of Malthus to have grasped the colossal problem, stating 
it for the first time in its true terms, and exposing it to 
the world as the most overwhelming and formidable of 
all social problems. Upon the problem of population as 
cursorily enunciated by Malthus’ predecessors the world 
could very easily turn its back, and did effectively do so; 
but as stated by Malthus himself, the problem of popula- 
tion could no longer by any possibility be ignored; hu- 
manity was forced henceforward to concern itself with the 
question, to examine it and seek a solution. The general 
horizon of the human mind was thus widened, the general 
sphere of human thoughts and struggles was thus enlarged 
by the addition of a region hitherto unsuspected and 
ignored. And this result, the greatest to which a thinker 
can aspire, was the exclusive work of Malthus, and will 
remain the indestructible evidence of his genius. 
Unfortunately that which Ruggero Bonglii asserts of 
Italy is equally true of England, namely that the most 
certain method for the destruction of a man of genius is 
to make him a professor. It may, in fact, be said that 
Malthus’ professorship, while furnishing him with bodily 
nutriment, denied to him at the same time spiritual nutri- 
ment, and led him to abandon the broad illumined way 
which he had entered spontaneously, and with flying col- 
ours, to follow others’ footsteps along the paths of a dark 
and stifling labyrinth. In truth a man of Malthus’ ability MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
67 
could not possibly imagine that the discussion of the 
gigantic problem which he had so brilliantly initiated could 
be completely exhausted by his first volume; it was, on the 
contrary, his duty to understand that the truth to which 
he had drawn attention was susceptible of many other 
fruitful applications, statistical economic, political, phil- 
osophical and moral. Now, instead of vigorously and te- 
naciously pursuing his own path, instead of patiently and 
steadfastly devoting himself to the study of the manifold 
aspects of the demographic process, what did he do ? Nar- 
rowed by his professorial tasks, which constrained him to 
turn his attention to trifling didactic questions, assailed 
by scruples of conscience which impelled him, as a duty 
attaching to his new office, to pronounce a judgment upon 
the most varied topics of political economy, he deserted the 
grave, lofty, and universal argument upon which a few 
years before he had thrown himself headlong, and in pur- 
suit of which he had raised the standard of triumphant 
thought, to lose himself thenceforward in a maze of ques- 
tions of pure economics, for whose discussion he was un- 
prepared and ill-fitted, and in which his thought meandered 
without leaving any lasting traces. In this respect how 
much in advance of Malthus was his great inheritor, the 
man who generalised his leading thought by extending it 
to all living beings, Charles Darwin, who, unhampered by 
professorial tasks, could pursue a straight course through- 
out life, his energies being applied from first to last to 
the creation and to the progressive development of one and 
the same fundamental idea! How superior also to Mal- 
thus, in the sphere of sociological research, was Karl Marx, 
who, free like Darwin from didactic shackles, devoted the  POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
68 
whole of his career to the development of the theoretical 
system which first revealed itself to his mind in the dawn 
of intellectual life! These butterfly professors dealing 
with the most varied themes without leaving their imprint 
upon any (and one of these is undoubtedly Malthus the 
professor, despite all the homage which is due to him), 
how small are they in comparison with the unwearied think- 
ers who stake their destiny upon a single cast, whose whole 
life is consecrated to the development of a single idea! 
If 
di Carrara i monti 
Marino non dan che paghi la ferita 
Del poeta,1- 
it is no less true that the most generous rewards which 
accrue to the man of learning are poor indeed when com- 
pared with what he usually gives in exchange, in forms 
invisible and ignored, though unmeasured and heartfelt; 
genius, native originality, creative productivity, arc hope- 
lessly entangled in the complicated and callous mechanism 
in which he is involved. As A. de Candolle has admirably 
shown in his Histoire des Sciences et des Savants, thoughts 
of Genius rarely issue from the university. Upon the 
threshold of the nuptial dwelling Aspasia lays aside her 
triumphal beauty and bewitching charm to assume the re- 
spectable lineaments of the housewife and of the affec- 
tionate instructress, and however much we may be dis- 
posed to eulogise her beneficent function, can we deny that 
she loses in her new sphere the luminous diadem of magnifi- 
cence and glory? 
1 “ If Carrara’s mountains yield no marble which can recompense 
the poet for his sufferings” (G. Carducci, Ode to Ugo Foscolo). MALTHUS, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY 
69 
I have hitherto spoken of Malthus the student of science, 
for, in fact, the whole of his life pursued the even tenor 
of its way among thoughts and studies, leaving no sensi- 
ble trace outside the region of his sublime meditations. 
But this essay would be incomplete were it to omit all 
reference to Malthus the man. Tall and well-built, with 
a frank and handsome countenance, and deep and thought- 
ful eyes in which there seemed to be a reflection of the 
profound peace of the valley country of the Thames, he 
realised to perfection the classical type of the British 
thinker, in whom the admirable traits of physical strength, 
power of brain, and an adamantine honesty of character, 
are so harmoniously mingled. 
This lofty thinker was at the same time (although a 
hare-lip impaired his articulation) an agreeable and amus- 
ing talker. This man so widely abused as an aristocrat, 
as callous, as a hater of the poor, this black and dreadful 
genius, ready to deprive the human race of all its hopes, as 
Godwin expressed it, was animated with infinite good- 
nature, and endowed with inexhaustible affection for the 
poor and the outcast. The whole of his life was unspotted 
by faults or vices, and was characterised throughout by 
acts of kindness, tenderness, and love. In his praise it is 
enough to say that Ricardo, the greatest and best man of 
his time, was his sincere and admiring friend, and that 
Empson, Harriet Martineau, Sydney Smith, and Horner 
spoke of him with fervent affection. In the inscription for 
Malthus’ tomb in Bath Abbey, Otter, Bishop of Chichester, 
described him as ‘‘one of the best and truest philosophers 
of any age or country, raised by native dignity of mind 
above the misrepresentations of the ignorant and the 70 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
neglect of the great, he lived a serene and happy life de- 
voted to the pursuit and communication of truth, sup- 
ported by a calm but firm conviction of the usefulness of 
his labours, and content with the approbation of the wise 
and good.” Mackintosh, too, a colleague of Malthus at 
Haileybury, one always worth quoting as an authority, 
summed up his opinion in the following terms: “I have 
known Adam Smith slightly, Ricardo well, Malthus inti- 
mately. Is it not something to say for a science that its 
three great masters were about the three best man I ever 
knew?” BIRTH-CONTROL 
AND THE 
WAGE EARNERS BIRTH-CONTROL AND THE WAGE 
EARNERS 
By Charles V. Drysdale 
OF all the problems which confront our civilisation 
none is more important than that of the improve- 
ment of the conditions of the great mass of the 
wage earners in the factories and on the land. For many 
years it has been the chief concern, not only of the wage 
earners themselves and of the trade unions and the labour 
party, but liberals and tories have been vying with one 
another in propositions or actual legislation for the osten- 
sible purpose of bettering the lives of the masses. In ad- 
dition to various schemes of education, we have had the 
direct economic legislation of Mr. Lloyd George’s budget 
and insurance acts, of old age pensions, of wages boards, 
etc.; and we were anticipating further steps towards hous- 
ing reform, maternity endowment, etc. Never in the his- 
tory of the world has such a volume of strenuous effort 
been made by the wage earners and by others on their 
behalf; and, whatever may be thought as to the sincerity of 
politicians, there can be no doubt as to that of large num- 
bers of the middle classes who have thrown themselves 
whole-heartedly and self-sacrificingly into the work. If 
united determination to help and to reform will secure 
utopia, we should surely be in a very fair way towards its 
attainment. POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
And yet are we certain that we are even making prog- 
ress? The wage earners themselves do not appear satis- 
fied on this point. Only the other day I was journeying 
northwards in the company of some women delegates to 
the labour conference at Manchester, and found them 
holding the opinion which I have heard expressed by 
socialist speakers before the war, that no matter what 
success they may apparently have in extorting reforms, the 
capitalists and powers that be are able by cunning de- 
vices to rob them of the fruits of their hard-earned vic- 
tories. 
And it must be confessed that at first sight there seems 
some justification for this view. From the commence- 
ment of this century to shortly before the war, the general 
level of money wages in this country had risen slightly 
(by about 1 or 2%), but this advantage was entirely re- 
versed by an increase in the cost of living amounting to 
15%, so that there was a decrease in real wages of 13%. 
These facts were generally admitted, and were emphasised 
by Mr. Asquith in his Guildhall speech in 1912. 
Since the outbreak of war, the same tendency has been 
seen on a more striking scale. Owing to the shortage of 
labour and the demand for munition work, wages have 
risen in many cases enormously, and we have heard of the 
“unparalleled prosperity” of the working classes. But 
the cost of living has recently nearly doubled, so that for 
all but the most highly paid skilled workers life has be- 
come harder than ever. The various trade unions have 
made demands for increase of wages to meet the increased 
cost of living, and they had considerable success in their 
agitation until the government suddenly abandoned its BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
75 
attitude of sympathy and began to adopt military methods 
of repression. And despite the strong representations of 
the unions, backed by the press, that the government ought 
then to fix a maximum price for food, we found that 
nothing was done until quite recently, except as regards 
sugar, and that now there is much more talk of fixing 
minimum prices to encourage farmers, than of arresting, 
much less reversing, the rise. To the socialistic and sus- 
picious wage earner, there seems every justification for 
the idea that the government and the “profiteers” are 
in league to raise prices and to rob labour of its hard- 
earned successes. 
The war, we may hope, will not endure very much 
longer, and it is not intended to deal here with its prob- 
lems. But it is most useful as an object lesson in certain 
economic influences which have existed in every time, and 
which we shall have to face, perhaps in a more acute form, 
when peace returns. It is quite obvious that after the 
war we shall have the same struggle for economic better- 
ment as before, and that if the same views prevail among 
the wage earners as to the sinister influences against them, 
we shall see the same class antagonism, suspicion, and 
strife which have exercised such a painful and paralysing 
influence in the past. That this may be avoided, and that 
we may all be able to join hands in the reconstruction of 
civilisation after this terrible conflict, must be the most 
earnest wish of every true lover of humanity. 
Now there is one thing which has been made clear by 
the war. Whatever may or may not be the case in peace, 
there is no doubt that there has been a real shortage of 
food for a long time past in Germany, and that the sub- 76 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
marine campaign and lack of shipping have made even 
the British food supply a matter of anxiety. We are told 
also that the world’s harvest has been seriously reduced. In 
other words, whether it be true or not that in peace time 
“there is plenty for all if it were only properly distrib- 
uted,” it is emphatically not true now in Germany, it is 
not probably the case in England, and it is doubtful 
whether it is true for the world at large. How does this 
affect the matter? Let me illustrate the point by a little 
experience. A few years ago there was an international 
congress of women in Sweden which was chiefly attended 
by ladies of the most pronounced humanitarian socialistic 
views, whose speeches breathed forth the most exalted 
ideals of the solidarity of humanity and detestation of the 
competitive system. After the strenuous work of the con- 
gress came the usual excursions, and one Sunday we found 
ourselves on a delightful steamer trip on the Swedish 
lakes en route for a visit to a historic castle. Weather, 
surroundings, and society, all conspired for our delectation 
and good humour. Now it will be known to those familiar 
with Sweden, but was not known to the majority of the 
congressists, that the custom is to have a light early break- 
fast, followed by a lunch about 11 a. m., after which the 
next meal is not taken till late afternoon. The boat being 
crowded, the majority decided to postpone refreshment till 
their arrival at midday, hut were dismayed to find it then 
unobtainable. Nevertheless the visit to the castle was un- 
dertaken, but interest flagged, tempers became less sunny, 
and humanitarian sentiments less prominent. At length 
the awaited meal-time drew near and we wended our way 
towards the garden where everything was en fete for our BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
77 
reception. On the way thither, some one mentioned that 
the boat party had been much larger than had been ex- 
pected, and that as it was Sunday it was quite likely that 
not enough provision had been made. 
The mere suggestion was enough. A rush was made for 
the garden, but the meal was not yet ready. At length a 
girl student appeared bearing dishes of meat. They were 
literally pounced upon by crowds of excited women, the 
dishes were upset over their white dresses, and food was 
scattered all over the ground in the struggle. It would 
indeed be a bold believer in the brotherhood of humanity 
and in the possibility of universal altruism who could have 
retained his ideals in that struggle. The moment hunger 
was felt and a shortage was feared, our amiable humani- 
tarians developed into fierce competitors. 
Is not the moral of this incident that the whole question 
as to whether a humanitarian ideal of society is to be real- 
ised or as to whether the wage earners are to receive a 
better real remuneration for their labour depends upon 
whether there is or is not ‘‘plenty for all’’? If the supply 
of the necessaries of life is insufficient, and each one deter- 
mines to do all in his or her power to buy a full ration, 
either prices must rise, or if they are legally fixed so that 
every one can get what he needs, the supply will be de- 
pleted before the next harvest, and famine will result. If 
wages are raised ‘ ‘ to meet the increased cost of living, ’ ’ as 
the trade unions have claimed, it means that each is in 
a position to offer more, and competition will force up 
prices again unless the wage earners agree voluntarily to 
ration themselves. And, as has even been pointed out by 
Sidney Webb and others, the legal limitation of prices 78 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
reduces the supply which we can induce other nations to 
send us. Whatever may be the situation in peace time, 
there can be no doubt that we are confronted with a 
serious deficiency in war time, and that any proposition 
for fixing prices and raising wages is fraught with the 
gravest danger. The result of raising wages in certain 
industries can only be to raise prices against those who 
have less power to make their demands felt, in particular 
against the wives and children of those who have gone 
to the front. 
Now what is the state of affairs in normal peace times? 
Since the controversy between Godwin and Malthus in 
1798, there have been two schools, one of which believes 
in the “beneficent nature” theory of the universe, and 
that “there would he plenty for all if it were only prop- 
erly distributed,” and the other which entirely dissents 
from this view, and contends that nature is not beneficent, 
that there is not and cannot be enough for all unless a 
strong curb is put on the number of births. According to 
the former view, poverty only exists because of the injus- 
tice of man; according to the latter it is due to the niggard- 
liness of nature, and to the struggle for existence thus 
brought about, which manifests itself in these injustices. 
Naturally the latter view is very unpopular among those 
who like to imagine that the universe was divinely or 
otherwise constituted for the benefit of mankind, and also 
among that great majority who always want to lay the 
blame for anything wrong upon some person or class. 
But Darwin’s immortal work (avowedly inspired by 
Malthus) has shown us beyond the shadow of a doubt that 
nature is not beneficent, that the whole of animate exist- BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
79 
ence up to and including man is an eternal struggle for 
food, and that this struggle has been the chief factor of 
evolution, i. e. of moulding the form and character of each 
species, including man. There never has been ‘ ‘ plenty for 
all if it were only properly distributed,” except perhaps 
for short periods in isolated countries, and it is the strug- 
gle brought about by want or by the fear of want which 
has produced the real or supposed greed of the capitalist 
as it produced the struggle of our humanitarian ladies. 
Those who have read the writings of Henry George or 
of Peter Kropotkin and similar works, will probably in- 
dignantly deny the above statement and affirm either that 
there is plenty for all, or that there could easily be more 
than ample for every one if it were not for unjust land 
tenure and distribution. Until a few years ago those who 
maintained the malthusian doctrine had no actual proofs 
of insufficiency other than those afforded by scientific: 
reasoning. But now we know from the writings of G. 
Hardy, the French sociologist, that for the more civilised 
half of the world there is a decided deficiency. Here is 
the comparison between the required physiological ration 
per adult man per day according to the consensus of physi- 
ologists, and that available with the most equitable dis- 
tribution in the year 1907 (a year of good agricultural 
production) : 
Proteids 
Fats 
Carbohy- 
drates 
Total 
Calories 
Standard ration 
Available 
125 
84 
80 
61 
520 
456 
3400 
2790 80 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
If these figures are correct, and they have never been 
successfully assailed, there is no doubt that instead of a 
sufficiency there was a decided deficit in the available food 
supply. 
As I write, the report of the Royal Society on the food 
supply of the United Kingdom has just come to hand, 
which gives the daily ration available per man before the 
war as 113 grams of proteid, 130 grams of fat, and 571 
grams of carbohydrate, totalling 4,009 calories. Even on 
this showing the amount of proteid is below the hitherto 
recognised standard, though the Royal Society attempts 
to follow the Germans in stating that 100 grams proteid 
is sufficient. But as the report later shows that the mili- 
tary ration (apart from extras bought by the men) is 140 
grams proteid, 180 fat, and 500 carbohydrate, and as it 
has neglected the amounts used for feeding domestic ani- 
mals, and has ignored other sources of inevitable loss, it 
seems unquestionable that even in our own country there 
was no plenty in pre-war times. There is no doubt from 
the investigations of Rowntree, Mrs. Pember Reeves, and 
Cadbury, that a very considerable proportion of our people 
were chronically underfed, and it should never be forgotten 
that however rich a person may be he cannot consume 
much more (and frequently consumes less) than the stand- 
ard ration. 
But we are then told that if the land were available and 
properly cultivated there could be abundance for every 
one. Unfortunately this also is a delusion. That every 
attempt should be made to improve agriculture may be 
granted, but to suppose that it will produce the results 
claimed by Kropotkin is absolutely absurd. The whole of BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
81 
his wonderfully convincing case in his Fields, Factories, 
and Workshops and his Conquest of Bread collapses hope- 
lessly on account of his neglect of one essential factor— 
the quantity of fertilising material available. Sir William 
Crookes pointed out in 1898 that the world’s supply of 
nitrogenous fertilisers was becoming rapidly exhausted, 
and predicted the rise in food prices which was manifested 
before the war. The more one studies agriculture (and 
especially practises it), the clearer it becomes that there is 
no royal road to the rapid increase of food. If the land 
were thrown open to all who are willing to cultivate it (as 
it may be through the exigencies of the war), it is quite 
certain that there would be no rapid increase in food 
supply. So far from this being the case it may be pre- 
dicted with practical certainty that the next world har- 
vest will be the worst ever known. Not because of the 
shortage of labour, hut because explosives are composed of 
nitrogen and every shell fired in the war reduces the pos- 
sibility of producing food. Each ton of explosive on an 
average contains about 300 lbs. of fixed nitrogen, the 
amount required for approximately 30 quarters of wheat. 
A quarter of wheat represents the annual requirement of 
an adult person, so that a million tons of explosives liter- 
ally takes the bread out of the mouths of 30,000,000 peo- 
ple. How many million tons of explosives are being used 
in this war? Is it any wonder that the last wheat harvest 
was only 75% of the normal, and can we even expect that 
the next harvest will be as good as the last one? 
Horrible as this war is in its tale of slaughter, starva- 
tion, misery, and hatred, it has done one invaluable ser- 
vice in forcing the importance of the food question upon 82 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
our attention; and sharp as our sufferings from the sub- 
marine menace may be, our descendants may have cause 
to bless it, if it leads to a fair trial of the possibilities of 
agriculture, and to a settlement of the eternal question 
as to whether human injustice or natural deficiency be the 
prime cause of poverty and social evils. If the incen- 
tives and facilities now being given to food production 
should result in a large increase of output, I for one will 
readily give up my championship of the malthusian doc- 
trine in favour of land nationalisation; but if, as I firmly 
believe, all these efforts prove vain, and Kropotkin’s iri- 
descent bubble bursts at the first contact with hard fact, 
I most fervently hope that this experience will convince the 
wage earners that they have been led astray, and that 
their real hope lies in the prosaic but practical course of 
cutting their coat to their cloth, i. e. of restricting their 
families to their prospects, as the middle classes are do- 
ing. 
One more illustration may be given of the absurdity of 
the “plenty for all” assumption. A favourite “disproof” 
of the malthusian doctrine, one which we owe to Henry 
George, is the assertion that the tendency to increase ap- 
plies much more to food than to human beings, that if man 
tends to double every twenty-five years the plants and 
animals he feeds on tend to increase ever so much faster. 
Pish above all other animals tend to increase a million- 
fold more rapidly than man. How then can there be a 
shortage of food? 
The fallacy here again lies in the neglect of nutritive 
material. The animals which form the food of man can- 
not increase because there is not food for them. The case BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
83 
of fish is specially interesting because they live in the sea, 
which is not private property, which does not vary in 
quality, and which needs no cultivation. Are fish getting 
more plentiful? Certainly not to any great extent. Why 
not? Because they cannot. The sea is the great reservoir 
of all the soluble portions of the soil. The rain washes 
down millions of tons of salts and nitrogenous material, 
and all the sewage of our great towns is passed into the 
sea. The ocean ought to be as full of plant and animal 
food as it is of salt. But it is not. The analysis of sea 
water shows hardly the slightest trace of either nitrogenous 
material or phosphorus. These substances are absorbed 
the instant they arrive, and the number of fish is rigidly 
limited by the possibilities of the food supply. 
This is the most striking fact in the whole of nature. 
The sea covers three fourths of the globe to an average 
depth of over two miles, whereas the available soil covers 
only a quarter or less of the surface to an average depth 
of only a few inches. Uncultivated areas are not entirely 
wasted. About 37 lbs. of nitrogen per acre drain there- 
from into the sea, and help towards the increase of marine 
life. If the soil were thoroughly tilled, it would certainly im- 
prove, but the total gain would not be so great as at first 
sight appears, for the drainage into the sea would be less. 
Is it not clear that those who have written so opti- 
mistically upon the possibilities of food production and 
of the importance of land reform,, have entirely overlooked 
this all-important question? Let those who have been car- 
ried away by the arguments of George and Kropotkin 
read these books again and see what consideration the 
authors have given to the fertiliser question. Certain 84 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
skilled persons on small areas of land can get remarkable 
results, which cannot be obtained over a large area for 
want of manure. Despite scientific agriculture and the 
electrical production of nitrates, Germany is starving. 
One direct question should be put to those who believe 
so strongly in the possibilities of agriculture and of land 
reform. Why do not the trade unions or other labour 
associations invest their funds in buying land in large 
quantities, which they can very easily and cheaply do, 
and get this land worked for the benefit of their members ? 
There is nothing whatever in the present conditions of 
land tenure to prevent this, and the actual food or profits 
realisable ought to give them the greatest security. 
The malthusian doctrine can now be put in a very sim- 
ple form. An examination of the birth- and death-rates 
actually existing in various countries shows that the 
former may be 50 per 1000 or more (Russia and parts of 
Egypt) while the deaths from old age need he only 10 
per 1000 or less (New Zealand, Australia, and, formerly, 
Ontario). In a community of 1000 people with unchecked 
birth-rate and sufficient food, there would therefore be 
50 or more births in the year and not more than 10 deaths, 
leaving an increase of 40 per thousand or 4% in the year. 
This does not seem great, but a sum of money put out 
at 4% compound interest doubles in 171/2 years and be- 
comes fifty times as great in a single century. Had there 
been plenty for all in this country during the last century 
the eight millions with which we started in 1801 would 
have become four hundred millions in the year 1901, and 
no one in his senses can imagine that we could have in- 
creased our agricultural production to keep pace with it. BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
85 
Every sensible person must admit that a considerable re- 
striction of births below their natural figure is imperative 
if dire want is to be avoided, and the only question which 
can exist between intelligent persons is as to how far 
this process must be carried, and as to whether present 
social evils can be better removed by change of laws and 
social institutions or by extending the practice of family 
limitation to the poor. 
Naturally there is no reason why both processes should 
not continue, as no doubt they will. But whatever else 
takes place, one thing is certain, that a rational philosophy 
of existence is imperatively needed, and that this will 
never come about while the “bountiful nature” fetish is 
worshipped. We must realise that instead of fighting 
against each other we ought to combine in fighting nature, 
and surely the malthusian doctrine, which shows us the 
real enemy, is infinitely more encouraging and hopeful, 
than a doctrine which sews distrust and antagonism among 
ourselves, and destroys the efficiency that is necessary if 
we are ever to make life tolerable for all. 
Let us now consider what the adoption of birth-control 
means for the wage earners. About twenty years ago it 
was common to see a chart with the title, ‘ ‘ The Boy, What 
Will He Become,” depicting the various stages of his 
ascent to wealth and honour through work, sobriety, and 
thrift, or of his descent to perdition through laziness and 
drink. Let us make a similar contrast in the case of the 
young wage earners, assuming in the one case that from 
ignorance or carelessness they do not practise birth-con- 86 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
trol, and in the other ease that they do. We will take 
the condition existing just before the war. 
Consider the case of a young man and a young woman 
of the wage earning classes, ignorant of birth-control. 
Like so many others they fall in love and marry without 
considering the morrow. Suppose the young man is earn- 
ing the ordinary labourer’s wage of 25/ a week and the 
girl 15/. Upon this they could marry and start a re- 
spectable and moderately comfortable little home. But 
within a few months of marriage the young wife becomes 
pregnant, and before the end of the year she has to or 
at least ought to give up her work, and the first baby ar- 
rives. The family income is reduced to the husband’s 
25/, and expenses are increased on every hand for the 
mother and child, but the young couple shoulder their 
task cheerfully and welcome the little stranger with open 
arms. The work of the household is increased, and the 
child may be fretful in the confined space of our large 
towns, so that broken nights are the rule. The young 
wife has less time to keep her home and herself bright 
and to be a companion to her husband. But thousands 
of such wives—all honour to them—succeed. 
Withing a few months, however, the phenomenon re- 
curs. The wife becomes pregnant again, even while nurs- 
ing the first child; it has to be weaned before its proper 
time, but the mother has the triple task of looking after 
her home, tending the first child, and carrying the second, 
before she has regained strength after her first confinement. 
The second child arrives, and therewith the pinch begins. 
The mother, weak from her second delivery, has two in- 
fants around her day and night. She has no margin for BIBTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
87 
extra nourishment or comfort, and it is one long weary 
struggle to keep things decent. In the evening the hus- 
band comes home to a tired and dispirited wife and crying 
children. Is it wonderful that the brightness of the pub- 
lic house begins to attract him? 
With the third child, which commonly arrives about 
a year later, the limit is reached. It is all very well for 
moralists of the old brutal puritanical school to point 
to families of a dozen brought up on a pound a week. 
Whatever may have been possible in the country with 
easily obtainable food and sympathetic help, is utterly 
impossible now in the towns, as has been amply proved 
by Kowntree and Mrs. Pember Beeves; and no decent- 
minded person to-day would deny that the couple with 
25/ to 30/ a week and three children are at the limit 
of possibilities as regards maintaining themselves, even 
if the husband is in perfectly steady employment and an 
abstainer, and if nothing is allowed for amusement or 
luxury of any kind. By the age of twenty-three to twenty- 
five, thousands of young couples are in this position, at 
the very threshold of their married life, and they have 
twenty years before them during which children may ar- 
rive at one or two year intervals, to say nothing of twins. 
For the strongest and healthiest of women, free from any 
economic difficulties, such an existence would be a strain; 
but when semi-starvation and lack of kindly help are super- 
added, life becomes a misery. Although the strain falls 
chiefly upon the woman it must react upon the man, he 
suffers from underfeeding and broken rest, he is unable 
to keep up strength and a good appearance, and he may POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
88 
not only lose the chance of promotion but may drift into 
the ranks of casual labour. 
And this is by no means the darkest side of the pic- 
ture. We have supposed husband and wife to be fairly 
strong and healthy and of the highest moral fibre. But 
the obvious evils of early marriage under ordinary con- 
ditions cause a considerable proportion of young men 
to delay marriage, and here we have, if not the only cause 
of prostitution, at least its unconquerable ally. The re- 
sult is a terrible prevalence of venereal disease, which 
enormously intensifies the misery of women. It is no un- 
common thing when one is going among the poor, to find 
young women under thirty, who for seven or eight years 
have undergone the misery of having diseased children, 
most of which have died under their eyes or have strug- 
gled on ricketty and deformed, half-blinded from gonor- 
rhoeal infection, or mentally defective from syphilis. And 
in addition there have probably been numerous miscar- 
riages or still births. 
Then there is the housing question. The couple with 
their one or two infant children can manage with some 
approach to decency in two rooms. But when the family 
runs into five or six and some of them begin to grow up 
what is to be done? More room is wanted, but the mar- 
gin for rent is less, and we thus find large families herded 
together like beasts, and living in promiscuity. It is from 
families like these that the prostitution market is re- 
cruited, and the race-blasting stream of venereal disease 
is kept up. 
No one who has had first-hand experience of the condi- 
tions of the poor can regard this picture as exaggerated. BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
89 
The records of social workers almost invariably show a 
progressive decline in the conditions of poor families as 
successive children arrive. 
Of course the stereotyped answer is that the state should 
provide for the children. But, quite apart from the mal- 
thusian contention that the state cannot provide for an 
unlimited number, there is the plain straightforward ques- 
tion to be met. Do the parents or does the state want 
more than a certain number of children? Even if there 
were no economic question at all in the matter, unlimited 
childbearing is a cruel strain on the health and strength 
of a woman; it ages her prematurely, and ruins all 
possibility of her being anything but a domestic drudge. 
The father and mother can find all the scope 
they need for their parental love with two or three chil- 
dren, and comparatively few people can do full justice to 
more. As to the state, we have seen that the possibilities 
of providing food for large numbers are much less than 
is generally supposed, and that high birth-rates simply 
involve higher death-rates, meaning that there is no gain 
of numbers, but that those who survive are less fit phys- 
ically and mentally for upholding their nation either in 
peace or in war. 
Lastly we have the question of wages and employment. 
When the teeming hordes of children grow up and go 
out into the world, underfed and poorly equipped, can 
we wonder that unemployment and low wages are rife? 
How common it was a few years ago for hundreds of 
men to apply whenever a poorly paid post was adver- 
tised. The man who has a wife and a large family cry- 
ing for food at home cannot afford to stand out for high 90 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
wages. He must take the first job that offers, and under- 
cut his fellows to get it. His own children begin to flood 
the labour market and to make it more difficult for him, 
and we have the cry of, “too old at thirty-five or forty,” 
because he and his fellows have flooded the market with 
“cheap labour.” In former days, the children might be- 
gin to work and help the family at an early age, but now 
the legislature very properly prevents their being made 
use of so soon. They are therefore unable to help their 
parents until long after the family has increased beyond 
the power of the parents to support it, and they then 
have only a few years of productiveness before the time 
comes for them in their turn to marry and to embark 
upon the responsibilities of a family. 
Just compare with this the opportunities given to the 
wage earners by a general knowledge that if they marry 
they can live their natural married lives and yet have chil- 
dren only as and when they please. The young man earn- 
ing 25/ and the girl earning 15/ can marry without 
fear soon after they reach the age of twenty, and can make 
a moderately comfortable start in life, without having first 
contracted irregular habits or disease. If they postpone 
the advent of the first child there is no need for the wife 
to give up her employment. They can have a margin for 
saving and for building up a nest for the little one later, 
and they can preserve their youth and romance. The man 
can be well fed and respectably clothed, and he can have 
leisure and funds for reading or attending classes to im- 
prove his efficiency, so that he advances in his trade and 
gets higher wages. After three or four years they are 
ready for their first child. The wife can leave her employ- BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
91 
ment without economic strain, she can pass her pregnancy 
and confinement under decent conditions and can give the 
child and herself proper care after its arrival. She can 
suckle the infant as long as is desirable, and then have a 
year in which to recuperate before commencing to have a 
second. In the meantime she has been able to keep herself 
and her home bright and cheerful and her husband well 
fed and contented. They have a small amount of cap- 
ital behind them which means that they can tide over any 
temporary unemployment, and that the husband can wait 
for the better jobs which will come his way on account 
of his greater skill and improved position. Instead of 
having five or six children, half of which are sickly or 
dead, by the time they are twenty-seven or twenty-eight 
years of age, they can have two or three healthy children 
by the time they are thirty, with their own youth and 
strength and joy in each other still unimpaired. 
As the children grow up, the parents can take an in- 
terest in their education and help them, and when the 
time comes for their beginning to work, they can ap- 
prentice them to some good trade instead of turning them 
into the first “blind alley” occupation that presents it- 
self. They can give them a chance of some technical edu- 
cation and see them well established in positions with 
decent prospects, while avoiding competition. If all fhe 
wage earners follow this course the over-supply of labour 
will be checked, and wages will rise, both because of 
the lessened supply and because of the greater efficiency 
of the workers of the future. 
Of course the latter point will be vehemently disputed 
by some socialists, who assert that family limitation, like 92 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
temperance and avoidance of luxury, is good for the in- 
dividual, but if generally followed will lead to lower 
wages. They quote Lassalle’s “iron law of wages” which 
states that wages will always fall to the lowest that the 
workers will consent to take, so that if they forego lux- 
uries they will accept lower wages. But they forget that 
Lassalle’s iron law of wages presupposes over-population 
or an over-supply of labour, so that there is always com- 
petition between the workers or “more men than jobs.” 
In this case the labour market is a sort of Dutch auction 
in which there is a tendency (held in check by trade 
unionism alone) to reduce the price to the lowest pos- 
sible. But if the reverse is the case and there are “more 
jobs than men” the process is reversed, and the employ- 
ers become the competitors who are forced to bid against 
each other for labour. 
Of course labour in the past has nearly always been un- 
duly plentiful, so that it may appear at first sight 
that the claim that wages would rise through birth-con- 
trol is illusory. But there have been a certain number 
of instances which go to justify it. One was the terrible 
Black Death of 1349, in which a great proportion of the 
workers died off. The almost immediate result, as Thor- 
old Rogers tells us in his Six Centuries of Work and 
Wages, was a great demand for labour and a great rise 
in wages. The workers at that time were not united and 
had no political power, and the employing classes passed 
the Statute of Labourers in order to keep wages down. 
But it was useless, the employers themselves broke their 
own laws in order to offer higher wages to get the men. 
In our own time we have seen two examples of the ef- BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
93 
feet of shortage of labour. One is that of boys of the 
artizan and middle classes among whom families have be- 
come much smaller of late years. This combined with 
the greater demand for boy labour in connection with 
machine production, etc., has led to practically a doubling 
of wages from about 5/ a week ten years ago to about 
10/ a week just before the war, without the slightest 
combination or political action on their behalf. The other 
no less striking example is that of domestic servants, who 
have become much less plentiful owing to the opening of 
so many other avenues of employment to women. Twenty 
years ago any number of good general servants could be 
obtained for £12 a year. Latterly they have become so 
scarce that wages rose before the war to £20 or more, 
and wealthy women have been waiting at registry offices 
begging for servants, and offering all sorts of conces- 
sions to secure them. This result has taken place with- 
out combination or agitation, and shows the futility of 
the idea that combination among employers would take 
place and keep wages down. Again, a striking example 
was given at the outbreak of the war. Whereas, during 
the fifteen years preceding the war, strikes and political 
agitation by the trade unions had failed to secure any 
appreciable rise in wages, the withdrawal of men for the 
army and the demand for labour for munition work led 
employers to compete strongly against each other for men 
(even when members of employers’ federations requiring 
them not to do so), and the result was an astonishing rise 
in wages in a few months, which would probably have 
gone on to this day, had not the trade unions attempting 94 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
to force up wages yet further by collective bargaining 
practically compelled government interference. 
And lastly, although the twenty years before the war 
showed a decline of real wages in England, Scotland, Ger- 
many, and the United States, and probably in all other 
countries where the birth-rates were high, they actually 
rose in France and Ireland with the two lowest birth- 
rates in the world, and in Holland, where family limita- 
tion has been taught to the wage earners through the 
agency of a state-approved society. 
The example of Holland is conclusive proof that the 
claims of the Neo-Malthusians that birth-control leads to 
general prosperity and wellbeing are justified. From 
1876 (the date of the Bradlaugh and Besant trial for 
publishing the Knowlton pamphlet describing the means 
for limiting families) there has been the same steady fall 
in the birth-rate which has taken place in most civilised 
countries; but Holland is the only country where Neo- 
Malthusians have been permitted to give such informa- 
tion freely to the poorer classes. The result from every 
point of view has been excellent. The death-rate and 
infantile mortality of the country have steadily fallen 
to the lowest in Europe, the stature of the people has 
greatly increased, real wages appear to have risen con- 
siderably, and there is hardly such a thing from end to 
end of the country as a slum. Amsterdam and the Hague, 
the two principal centres of propaganda, though large 
towns, show the most remarkably low general and in- 
fantile mortality ever known in Europe. There has, I 
believe, been very little of the social legislation in Hol- 
land which we have seen here, and the great and incon- BIRTH-CONTROL AND WAGE EARNERS 
95 
testable improvement shown in the condition of the people 
seems to have come about quickly and automatically with- 
out strife or class hatred. That an equally good result 
could be obtained in this country in the course of a few 
years is morally certain if the work of instructing the 
poorer classes in the methods of family limitation under- 
taken during the last few years by the Malthusian League 
were to be supplemented and extended. The end of the 
war is, we may hope and believe, at hand, and a time of 
severe economic depression may await us. If our men 
come back from the war to a slack labour market already 
overstocked by women, the result will be unemployment, 
labour unrest, and sex bitterness, to say nothing of prosti- 
tution and disease; but if they can marry at once, and 
work hand in hand with the women getting back into em- 
ployment gradually and waiting to have families until 
times are more prosperous, we shall have the one and 
only way of making life tolerable for all. The neo- 
malthusian remedy for poverty and low wages is sound 
in theory and proved by experience. Those who truly 
wish for the welfare of themselves and their fellow-workers 
will hasten to adopt it. 
It need hardly be pointed out that family limitation 
does not in the least weaken the power of the masses to 
effect any reforms. On the contrary, the fact of having 
reserves to tide over unemployment and to help any move- 
ment they are interested in must greatly assist their po- 
litical and social power. RACE SUICIDE 
IN THE 
UNITED STATES RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED 
STATES 
By Ludwig Quessel 
RACE suicide is the sensational battle-cry coined by 
Theodore Roosevelt for his campaign against one 
of the many remarkable phenomena of the social 
life of the new world. As is the case with all great move- 
ments affecting the life of the people, race suicide made 
its appearance gently and almost imperceptibly upon the 
stage of history. A long time elapsed before it was rec- 
ognised that we were face to face with a momentous and 
novel revolutionary phenomenon, the seed of a world- 
embracing transformation. Even to-day, outside the 
United States, little attention has been paid to the mat- 
ter. And yet the phenomenon is one of such far-reaching 
significance that many things about which a great deal of 
noise is made are but trivial in comparison. Would it not 
be a fact of enormous import if the dominant race of 
immigrants to North America, before which the Indian 
aborigines faded away into nothingness, were in its turn 
to vanish before the flood of immigrants from eastern and 
southern Europe? Those even who consider themselves 
superior to all race prejudice, cannot regard the threat- 
ened disappearance of the Anglo-American stock as with- 
out bearing on the history of the new world. Who can 
say to-day whether the immigration of Poles, Czechs, Rus- 100 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
sians, Slovaks, Slovenes, Finns, Greeks, Italians, and Hun- 
garians, may not threaten Anglo-American civilisation, 
just as in former times the immigration of Germanic tribes 
into Italy shook Koman civilisation to its foundations? 
Even if we admit that the degree of civilisation of a na- 
tion is a matter of far greater importance than its racial 
affinities, and that nations belonging to the same stage 
of civilisation, though separated by profound racial dif- 
ferences, stand nearer to one another than do nations 
which, while presenting identical ethnic characters, differ 
widely in civilisation—none the less, we must not under- 
estimate the historical significance of Anglo-American race 
suicide, for the new race, compounded of Slav, Magyar, 
and Komance racial elements, which is tending to replace 
the Anglo-American, exhibits notable differences from the 
latter in respect to civilisation. 
The question of race suicide in the United States is 
closely interconnected with other racial problems. There 
is no country in the world in which these problems are so 
urgent as in the land of the star-spangled banner. All 
observers agree that in America social contrasts are far 
less in evidence than racial contrasts. In the transatlantic 
democracy we encounter racial contrasts at every turn. 
Those who have read descriptions of the Italian quarter 
of New York, where the side streets recall Naples and the 
maffia reminds us of Sicily; those familiar with the de- 
scriptions of the New York ghetto, where the Jewry of 
eastern Europe is reassembled in all its grinding poverty; 
those who have been influenced by the accounts of every 
visitor to the exotic Chinatown of San Francisco—will 
admit that there is no room for doubt regarding the im- RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
101 
portance of racial problems in American life. Tbe ques- 
tion of race suicide must be discussed in connection with 
tbe racial problem. A superficial view of racial con- 
trasts in tbe new world may readily induce the impres- 
sion that the doctrine of historical materialism (the doc- 
trine that all recorded history is the history of class strug- 
gles) does not apply to America, inasmuch as there racial 
contrasts appear far more than class contrasts to deter- 
mine the course of historical evolution. But a closer ex- 
amination shows that the struggle of the white race against 
the Mongolian and the African is unquestionably, to this 
extent, a class struggle, namely, that the white protago- 
nists in the struggle constitute a single social class, the 
white proletariat, whose movement against the yellow and 
the black workers is, indeed, notably differentiated from 
the social struggles of the European working classes by 
the fact that in the former case the ethical ideals of lib- 
erty, equality, and fraternity of all mankind play no 
part. When American capital drew across the Pacific 
the cheap labour of the yellow races, the white proletariat 
immediately armed for defence. Denis Kearney preached 
open violence, and the white workers killed some of their 
yellow competitors. That which the workmen of Cali- 
fornia had begun in this way was continued by tbe labour 
organisations of other states by means of legislative ac- 
tion. A systematic agitation was pursued to expel all the 
yellow workers and to forbid their further immigration. 
In the year 1885, the class struggle of the white proletariat 
against the Mongolian workers came to an end with the 
passing of the Chinese Exclusion Act, whereby the immi- 
gration of Chinese workers was prohibited. It is true 102 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
that the law is not strictly enforced except in the case of 
women, for American capital cannot get on without yel- 
low workmen for certain unhealthy and dirty occupa- 
tions which the white workers refuse to undertake. The 
strict exclusion of women of the yellow races limits the 
reproduction of these races on American soil, and this is 
a very important consideration from the racial stand- 
point. Thus for the avoidance of the ‘ ‘ yellow peril, ’ ’ trans- 
atlantic democracy has availed itself of a method which 
was not unknown to classical communities. These lat- 
ter, for the most part, excluded their slaves from repro- 
duction by means of forcible segregation of the sexes. In- 
fertility cuts the vital thread of a race no less surely than 
suicide closes the life history of the individual. But we 
must not forget that the infertility of the yellow races 
on American soil is involuntary, being imposed by the 
dominant whites. Superficial observers have dilated freely 
on the indescribable viciousness of the yellow population 
of the States. Even to-day, in popular agitation against 
the Chinese, an accusation of unnatural vice plays no 
small part, the accusers conveniently ignoring that this 
vice is the direct and inevitable outcome of the exclusion 
of Chinese women. When the possibility of natural sexual 
relationships is left open to the Chinese, the practice of 
homosexuality is notably curtailed, and the same is true 
of opium smoking. Neither of these indulgences can 
justly be regarded as racial characteristics of Mongolians, 
and therefore as stigmata of inferiority. 
Putting on one side the Mongolian workers in the United 
States, living, as has been shown, in unnatural conditions 
forced on them by others, we find on the lowest rungs of EACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
103 
the social ladder, segregated from all other classes of the 
community, negroes and mulattoes, “ coloured folk,” con- 
tempt for whom is displayed by the genuine American 
at every possible opportunity. Since the despised “ nig- 
ger” engages in only the lowest kinds of occupation, 
European travellers likewise incline to regard him as an 
inferior being. “In the four decades of freedom that he 
has now enjoyed,” writes von Polenz, “the negro has 
proved that, notwithstanding the possession of a number 
of excellent and engaging qualities, he is and must remain 
a subordinate type.”1 We need not rush to the opposite 
extreme, and proclaim the complete intellectual and moral 
equality of negroes and mulattoes with the Anglo-Amer- 
ican race. For example, we may point out the remarkable 
fact that nowhere, when negroes are in competition with 
a white working class, do we find the former entering any 
skilled occupations. But writers well acquainted with 
the lower strata of American life are far from attributing 
it to the “subordinate type” of the coloured population 
that skilled avocations in the States are pursued almost 
exclusively by whites. In truth it is the white workers 
who rigidly bar negroes and mulattoes from all attempts 
to rise in the social scale, by refusing to work at the same 
machine or in the same factory with coloured operatives. 
White men in America make no distinction between full- 
blooded negroes and coloured persons of any degree. 
Whoever has a single drop of black blood in his veins 
is a “nigger.” Negro characteristics are unfailingly de- 
tected in hair, ears, finger-nails, etc.; and the “yellow 
nigger” is treated with no less contempt than the “black 
1Von Polenz, Das Land der ZuTcunft, Berlin, 1903, p. 148. 104 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
nigger.” Consequently the man of colour, however ac- 
complished, is compelled to pursue some unskilled occu- 
pation, and nothing but the lowest grades of manual la- 
bour are open to him. In a shop he may become errand- 
man, but not salesman; in a merchant’s office, he may be 
porter or floor scrubber, but not clerk or accountant; on 
the railway, he may be baggage porter, but not conductor; 
in the building trade, he may be hodcarrier or other kind 
of unskilled labourer, but not stonemason, bricklayer, or 
carpenter and joiner. Similar restrictions operate against 
women of colour, to whom positions as saleswomen or 
typists in white employ are inaccessible. The view put 
forward by many who have described American life, that 
negroes are fit only for employment as waiters, carmen, 
unskilled labourers, or domestic servants, is untenable. If 
negroes are so rarely found in skilled avocations, or in 
occupations which might give them a higher social posi- 
tion, this is not due to any intellectual or moral inferi- 
ority, but simply to the strong hand of the white pro- 
letariat. The unceasing class struggle, sometimes overt, 
sometimes concealed, carried on by white trade unionists 
against coloured workers, makes it absolutely impossible 
for negroes to rise in the social scale. In the southern 
states, where the coloured elements are especially numer- 
ous, this struggle assumes its most brutal form. Not only 
has the white population of the south deprived negroes of 
all political rights, but members of the coloured race have 
been forced to accept a position of social inferiority which 
is tantamount to the dominion of a caste system hardly 
less rigid than that of Hindustan. Negroes are forbidden 
to enter the same railway carriage with whites, or the RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
105 
same compartments in public tram-cars. No negro is ever 
addressed by a white with the courtesy title of Mr., Mrs., 
or Miss. No person of colour is admitted to a theatre, 
a concert hall, or even a church, frequented by whites. At 
every turn it is made unmistakably clear to the negro that 
he belongs to an inferior and subject race, that he is a 
member of a pariah caste, that the dominant whites de- 
mand obedience and abject subordination. 
Twenty years ago, Friedrich Ratzel expressed the fear 
that the African race in America, being more prolific than 
the white, would increase more rapidly, thereby endanger- 
ing the supremacy of Anglo-Americans. At that time 
there seemed good ground for such an apprehension. Dur- 
ing the half century from 1830 to 1880, the white popu- 
lation of the Union, through the operation of immigra- 
tion in addition to natural fertility, had increased from 
10.5 to 43.4 millions, whilst the negroes, through the sole 
operation of natural fertility, had during the same period 
increased fourfold. It is not surprising that Ratzel was 
alarmed lest the slackening of white immigration might 
lead to the formation of a “new Africa” upon American 
soil. But these forebodings have not been justified by 
the subsequent movement of population in the United 
States. The stream of immigration from Europe, far from 
slackening, has considerably augmented. On the other 
hand, the fierce campaign of the white proletariat against 
the negroes has not been without effect in checking increase 
in the coloured population. It was not, indeed, possible 
to condemn the blacks to racial extinction by prohibiting 
the immigration of coloured women, and the number of 
the latter is sufficiently great to render marriage possible 106 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
to every coloured man; moreover the ‘‘humane” hope that 
the coloured race might be swept away by tuberculosis 
has not been realised; but the fact that the white pro- 
letariat has forcibly prevented the negroes from rising in 
the social scale, and the consequent restriction of the lat- 
ter to conditions of life characterised by low wages and 
insanitary surroundings, have had a notable influence in 
checking the increase of the coloured population. The 
latest census returns from the forty-five states shows the 
enormously greater mortality of Afro-Americans: 
Deaths per Thousand Inhabitants 
Year 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
Whites.... 
Blacks 
18.8 
32.5 
17.5 
29.3 
17.1 
28.8 
17.1 
27.8 
17.9 
29.2 
17.5 
28.3 
17.2 
28.1 
18.1 
29.0 
16.5 
26.2 
Thus we see that the death-rate per thousand is from 
10 to 11 higher among the coloured than among the white 
population. It need hardly be said that this difference 
is not due to any greater vitality possessed by the whites, 
but arises simply because the blacks are condemned to 
the hardest and worst paid kinds of labour. The inferior 
standard of life increases the mortality, and especially 
the infantile mortality, of the coloured population. Skilled 
white workers live for the most part in salubrious little 
houses, each sheltering not more than one family; but 
members of the black proletariat are crowded into horrible 
slums, full of infectious disease and vice. Owing to ex- 
cessive mortality among the coloured population in RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
107 
conjunction with increasing immigration from Europe, 
there has actually been a decline in the ratio between 
coloured and white. This is shown in the following 
table: 
Year 
White 
Population 
Ratio to the To- 
tal Population 
Colored 
Population 
Ratio to the To- 
tal Population 
1880 
43,402,970 
55,166,184 
66,990,788 
86.5 
6,580,793 
7.488.788 
8.840.789 
13.1 
1890 
87.4 
11.8 
1900 
87.7 
11.5 
Tiie relative decline in the coloured population has thus 
temporarily removed the danger which Ratzel foresaw. 
But a new menace to the Anglo-American race has arisen, 
whereby the supremacy of that race is no less imperilled. 
The stream of white immigration which flows unceasingly 
into the American continent has in the course of the last 
few years changed in character. 
First of all, the Celtic element has diminished. The 
great influx from Ireland, which attained its maximum 
in the nineties, has notably declined. In the decennium 
1881-1890, Irish immigrants numbered 655,482 • 1891-1900, 
they numbered 405,496; 1901-1909, they numbered 309,- 
210. Although the Celtic (Irish) element has largely 
contributed to the formation of the Anglo-American race, 
the decline in Irish immigration was not unwelcome, for 
undoubtedly the Irish constituted that portion of the 
earlier stream of immigration which offered the greatest 
obstacles to assimilation by the dominant race. To the 
second and third generation, most Irish immigrants to the 
new world preserve a truly fanatical racial patriotism. 108 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
After his naturalisation papers have been taken out, the 
Irish Celt continues to feel himself a member of a dis- 
tinct race, one altogether hostile to Anglo-Amerieanism. 
This Celtic racial patriotism would seem to have originated 
in social conditions. As is well known, the grinding pov- 
erty resulting from the predatory land tenure of the 
Emerald Isle drove the Irish peasants and labourers in 
enormous numbers to the shores of the new world. But 
here they soon experienced bitter disillusionment, for the 
curse of poverty and ignorance which attached to them in 
their original home was not lifted by their removal to 
American soil. Through under-nutrition in Ireland they 
had been drained of vital energy, and had neither desire 
nor aptitude for such strenuous physical toil as would 
have been demanded from them in American agriculture, 
in the founding of a farm. So the unhappy Irish re- 
mained in the towns, crowding the slums, playing their 
part in all the scenes of the life-drama of an inferior 
race: work-shyness, drunkenness in both sexes, and con- 
sequently an unending series of family brawls and noc- 
turnal fights, in which broken crockery, iron cooking 
utensils, the inevitable whiskey, and black eyes, were the 
outstanding features. It is not surprising that in such 
an environment the children of the immigrants often 
proved unable to assimilate the best features of American 
civilisation, so that the native Americans soon came to 
regard with contempt this race of white paupers, an atti- 
tude which in its turn fanned the flames of Celtic racial 
patriotism. 
The decline in Celtic immigration would have been of 
trifling importance to the Anglo-American elements of RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
109 
the United States had not the stream of Teutonic immi- 
gration from Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Switzer- 
land, and Denmark, also exhibited simultaneously a sud- 
den diminution. The number of immigrants from the 
various countries named is shown in the following table: 
Country 
1881-1890 
1891-1900 
1901-1909 
Germany 
1,452,970 
543,922 
310,215 
Holland 
53,701 
31,816 
40,728 
Sweden \ 
/ 95,264 
172,967 
Norway j 
OOo,oO^ 
\ 230,679 
225,789 
Switzerland 
81,988 
33,149 
31,389 
Denmark 
88,132 
52,670 
58,301 
Totals 
2,245,153 
987,500 
839,389 
We see that immigration from the countries whose popu- 
lation is predominantly Germanic was during each of the 
last two decades less than half what it had been in the 
decennium 1881-1890. On the other hand, the stream 
of immigration from the countries of eastern and south- 
ern Europe increased as follows: 
Country 
1881-1890 
1891-1900 
1901-1909 
Austria-Hungary 
353,719 
265,088 
597,047 
593,703 
15,996 
655,694 
14,559 
10,960 
1,886,529 
1,410,514 
141,631 
1,830,340 
50,863 
157,241 
'Russia 
Greece 
Italy 
307,309 
Rumania 
Turkey 
Totals 
926,116 
1,887,959 
5,477,118 110 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
When compared with the 54 million immigrants to the 
United States from eastern and southern Europe during 
the period 1901-1909, the 0.8 million who have entered 
the United States from Germanic countries are as a brook 
when compared with a mighty river. Unprejudiced ex- 
amination of the figures of immigration during the last 
nine years produces the impression that the Anglo-Amer- 
ican race is predestined to submergence in the Slav flood. 
It is true that immigration from Italy also increases year 
by year, but the Italian contingent is very different in 
nature from the Slavonic. Comparatively few of the 
Italians are permanent immigrants, the others being mere 
migratory workers who ultimately return to Europe. 
Should the developments of recent years continue, a new 
Slavonic realm will ultimately arise on American soil, 
larger and mightier than any of the Slav countries of 
Europe. 
The critical reader will here interpolate that this fore- 
cast cannot be fulfilled unless the Anglo-American race 
condemns itself to infertility. A vigorous stock does not 
require for its maintenance any reinforcement by the im- 
migration of allied racial elements; it continues to grow 
through its own natural fertility. But it is precisely in 
this respect that the Anglo-American population is pe- 
culiar, inasmuch as the dominant race in the Union, which 
forcibly prevents the reproduction of Mongolian immi- 
grants, and partly limits the increase of the negroes by 
social oppression, is itself losing the will to propagate to 
the extent that is indispensable to ensure its own continu- 
ance. All available data combine to prove that the Anglo- 
American population has not merely attained its maxi- RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
111 
mum, but has already begun to decline. This is not, in- 
deed, immediately apparent from an examination of the 
movement of population. When we learn that during 
nine years the population of the Union has increased from 
75.6 to 88.2 millions, we are at first inclined to believe 
that the Anglo-American race must possess a powerful 
reproductive energy. An increase of 12.6 millions in nine 
years would certainly afford proof of remarkable fer- 
tility were the increase solely dependent upon an excess 
of births over deaths. But the larger moiety of the in- 
crease is due to immigration. The total immigration from 
Europe during the period under consideration amounted 
to 7.7 millions, so that only 4.9 millions remain to repre- 
sent the excess of births over deaths. From this, again, 
we must deduct 1.5 millions, a figure which approximately 
represents the excess of births over deaths among the 
coloured population. There are left 3.4 millions for the 
increase of the white population, numbering about 70 mil- 
lions, so that in the case of these the average annual ex- 
cess of births over deaths has been about 370,000. Ger- 
many, with a population of over 60 millions, shows an aver- 
age annual excess of births over deaths of 850,000, from 
which it is clear that the reproductive energy of the 
white population of the United States is less than half 
that of Germany. The statistics of those states of the 
Union in which there is a trustworthy system of registra- 
tion of births show very clearly that the birth-rate among 
the white population of America is far lower than that 
of Germany. 
The following table exhibits the number of births and 
deaths per 1,000 inhabitants, and the excess of births 112 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
over deaths, in six states of the Union, in Germany, and 
in France, during various years from 1903-1908: 
Country 
Year 
Births Per 1,000 
Inhabitants 
Deaths Per 1,000 
Inhabitants 
Excess of Births 
Over Deaths Per 
1,000 Inhabitants 
Germany 
1908 
32.0 
18.0 
14.0 
Maine 
1906 
22.1 
15.9 
6.2 
Vermont 
1907 
21.5 
16.2 
5.3 
Massachusetts... 
1905 
24.9 
16.8 
8.2 
Rhode Island 
1903 
25.6 
18.8 
6.8 
Connecticut 
1907 
25.3 
17.1 
8.2 
Michigan 
1905 
18.2 
13.5 
4.7 
France 
1908 
20.2 
19.0 
1.2 
The table shows that in the six American states the ex- 
cess of births over deaths is far lower than in Germany, 
and that it even approximates to the low level of France. 
But these figures relate to the entire composite population 
of America, of which the Anglo-Americans, derived from 
Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Germanic elements, constitute 
no more than a fraction. Now the researches made in 
various districts by American observers have shown that 
among the immigrant population the birth-rate is incom- 
parably higher than among native-born Americans. 
Bushee, for instance, publishes statistics of birth-rate, 
death-rate, and excess (or deficiency) of births over deaths, 
among the various races that make up the composite popu- 
lation of Boston, Massachusetts (see page 113). 
Whereas among the native-born families of Boston there 
is an actual decline of population, among the immigrant 
families there is an enormous excess of births over deaths, RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 113 
Former Nationality of Parents 
Birth-rate 
Per 1,000 
Death-rate 
Per 1,000 
Excess (+) or Defi- 
ciency ( —) Births as 
Compared with Deaths 
Per 1,000 
American 
16.4 
17.2 
- 0.8 
Scottish 
40.3 
15.7 
+ 24.6 
English 
41.0 
14.7 
+ 26.3 
Irish 
45.6 
25.2 
+20.4 
German 
48.0 
15.0 
+33.0 
Russo-Jewish 
94.6 
15.9 
+78.7 
Italian 
104.6 
25.3 
+89.3 
ranging from 24 to 79 per 1,000; this great excess is ex- 
plicable solely on the assumption that among the immi- 
grants at the time of landing there is a very small pro- 
portion of children and elderly persons. In certain other 
districts, the comparison is even more unfavourable to 
the native-born Americans. In New Hampshire, for ex- 
ample, the excess of births among immigrants is 58.5 per 
1,000, whereas among the native-born the deaths per 1,000 
actually exceed the births by as many as 10.4. Taking 
the New England states as a whole, we find that among 
the native-born white population of this area deaths ex- 
ceed births by 1.5 per 1,000 inhabitants.2 
What is the cause of this race suicide of the Anglo- 
American population? In books written as long ago as 
the early nineties, it is recorded that in the higher social 
strata of the states childless families are comparatively 
common. Since then, however, the desire to restrict the 
family to the smallest possible number appears to have af- 
fected the Anglo-American working classes as well. Kolb, 
2 Miinsterberg, Die Amerikaner, Berlin, 1904, vol. II, p. 291. 114 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
who spent six months in Chicago and San Francisco, liv- 
ing as a workman among workmen, tells us, in a book pub- 
lished in 1905, that neo-malthusian ideas are widely dif- 
fused among the working classes. “The practice of abor- 
tion is, of course, a criminal offence. But this prohibi- 
tion, like so many others, exists only on paper, and any 
one can tell you of doctors who make a living by the in- 
duction of artificial abortion. For working class women 
their fee is said to be ten dollars, a very moderate sum 
when compared with the cost of a confinement and of rear- 
ing a child.” Moreover, the frequent practice of crim- 
inal abortion does not date from yesterday in the Great 
Kepublic. At any rate, in his Geschichte der deutschen 
Frauen, Johannes Scherr quotes from The Medical Jour- 
nal of the year 1859 a passage to the effect that the 
women of New York “think less of abortion than they do 
of having a tooth out.” It is probable that Kolb over- 
estimates the influence of the practice of abortion in pro- 
ducing the fall in the birth-rate, and it can hardly be 
doubted that preventive methods are mainly responsible 
for this phenomenon. In any ease, it is perfectly clear 
that the low birth-rate among the Anglo-American popu- 
lation is not the result of natural sterility, but is due to 
a deliberate restriction of births. 
Among the social causes of this rapidly increasing re- 
fusal of parenthood, we have to mention, in addition to 
the high social position of women in America, the insecu- 
rity of livelihood. As far as the working classes are con- 
cerned, this insecurity is due to economic crises, more 
severe in North America than anywhere else in the world. 
The middle classes are affected, in addition, by the pe- RACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
115 
culiar insecurity due to the political system of the States. 
The very sections of the middle classes which in Europe 
enjoy an exceptionally secure position as public employes 
are exposed in the United States to a loss of situation 
with every oscillation of political mood. Such, too, is the 
working of the “spoils” system, that even when one po- 
litical party remains in power for several terms in suc- 
cession, the tenure of an official post is nevertheless ex- 
tremely uncertain, for it is a party maxim in America to 
give as many adherents as possible a share of the “spoils,” 
even though it be for a very brief period. Finally, there 
is no other country in the world in which for the middle 
classes the cost of living is so high as in the States. Tak- 
ing all these circumstances into consideration, the pre- 
cariousness of livelihood is so great that the foundation 
of a family becomes a sheer gamble whose issue no one can 
foresee. Thus there has arisen in America a system which, 
in contrast with the two-children-system so widely preva- 
lent in France, may rather be known as the no-children- 
system. In the middle classes very many persons enter 
upon marriage with the fixed determination to avoid hav- 
ing any children at all. With this end in view, they rent 
a bedroom in a comfortable boarding house, where they 
can live very agreeably, childless indeed, but free from 
care, and where they can maintain their social standard 
at small cost. The wide extension of this practice is 
shown by the fact that in Boston between the years 1891- 
1895 the number of persons inhabiting such boarding 
houses increased from 27,512 to 54,442. 
It would be an error to regard this no-children-system, 
which is being more and more widely adopted by middle 116 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
class Americans, as merely an accentuation of the two- 
children-system. Where the latter prevails, as in France, 
in Berlin, and among the Jewish population of Ger- 
many, we always find on the average from two to three 
children per marriage. Thus the two-children-system in- 
volves merely an arrest of the increase in population 
such as must sooner or later affect every civilised nation. 
But the one-child-system and no-children-system of Amer- 
ica lay the axe at the very root of the race; they destroy 
the existence of a people as inevitably as a slow poison 
puts an end to the vital functions of the individual. It 
is no longer merely a case of the regulation of fertility in 
response to the demands of a higher civilisation; it is the 
absolute suppression of fertility. Hence this phenomenon 
is justly characterised as race suicide. 
No positive means for the prevention of race suicide 
have as yet been advocated. An appeal to the racial 
patriotism of the women of Anglo-America, a demand that 
they should bear more children in the interest of the race, 
makes itself heard unceasingly from every corner of the 
land. But the result has been nil. Nor is such an ap- 
peal likely to have in the future any more effect than it 
has had in the past, for the evil of race suicide is far too 
closely associated with Anglo-American civilisation to be 
arrested by hooks or speeches. More important than ap- 
peals to race patriotism are the social and political meas- 
ures which have been recommended for the prevention of 
race suicide. Among these, the proposal most worthy of 
consideration is one that is very popular among the work- 
ing classes, namely, to restrict or prohibit immigration 
from southern and eastern Europe. It is undeniable that HACE SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES 
117 
since the early nineties the influx from Europe has ceased 
to be a source of rejuvenescence for the energies of Anglo- 
America. The great stream of immigration continues, as 
formerly, to supply an abundance of new racial wealth; 
but the constituents of the stream have changed, and the 
fresh racial elements fail to provide materials for the 
maintenance of the Anglo-American population. The 
latter must either accept extinction, or else must absorb 
foreign elements whereby its individuality will be de- 
stroyed. If the low birth-rate of the Anglo-American 
race were to continue nothing could save that race from 
extinction but a revival of the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic 
streams of immigration. Now it is not improbable that if 
the importation of cheap labour from southern and east- 
ern Europe were checked, immigration from the Anglo- 
Saxon and Germanic lands would revive, though to what 
extent this might occur it is impossible to forecast. But 
a general prohibition of white immigration, such as many 
demand in the belief that it is the fierce competition of 
the immigrants which compels the native-born Americans 
to remain childless, would involve the entire white popu- 
lation of the Union in grave peril. It cannot be doubted 
that the hopes of an increase in the birth-rate of the 
Anglo-American elements would not be realised. On the 
other hand it is no less certain that the great demand 
for labour which would result from the prohibition of 
immigration would give a powerful impulse to the growth 
of the coloured race. A mere reduction to normal of the 
present coloured death-rate would result in an excess of 
births over deaths of 35 per 1,000, and the coloured popu- 
lation of the Union would then be in a position to double 118 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
itself every twenty years. Taking the coloured population 
in 1910 as ten millions; it would in 1930 be twenty mil- 
lions; in 1950, forty millions; in 1970, eighty millions; 
and in 1990, one hundred and sixty millions. A general 
prohibition of white immigration would thus, within the 
space of about eighty years, suffice to transform the Union 
into a negro realm. Now although individual members 
of the Afro-American race have been able, when edu- 
cated by whites, to attain the highest levels of European 
civilisation, negroes as a whole have not hitherto proved 
competent to maintain a lofty civilisation. The condi- 
tion of affairs in the black republic of Haiti gives some 
justification for the fear that negro dominance would be 
disastrous. The prohibition of white immigration might 
expose the Great Republic to a peril even more serious 
than that of race suicide. On the other hand, the danger 
of the disappearance of the hitherto dominant Anglo- 
American race might be largely diminished by an effective 
encouragement of the immigration of those Anglo-Saxon 
and Germanic elements which are most closely allied to the 
Anglo-Americans. EUGENICS 
BIRTH-CONTROL 
AND 
SOCIALISM EUGENICS, BIRTH-CONTROL, AND 
SOCIALISM 
By Eden Paul 
Do Men Gather Grapes of Thorns or Figs of 
Thistles? 
SOCIALISTS advocate a scheme of social reconstruc- 
tion wherein, by communal ownership, under demo- 
cratic control, of the means of production, distri- 
bution, and exchange, there will be provided a secure and 
adequate livelihood for all who are willing and able to 
make, in return, a fair contribution to the common good. 
From every competent adult, this return will be demanded 
in the form of manual labour, poietic and executive mental 
work, supervision, or service. To women, the choice will 
be open of employment in any of these four fields on 
the same or on similar terms with men; in addition, the 
socialist community will accept the fulfilment (under cer- 
tain conditions) of woman’s specialised sexual function in 
the bearing of children as a complete discharge of her 
social duties; and thus will be secured the economic inde- 
pendence of woman, recognised ever more widely as one 
of the first prerequisites of further social and moral ad- 
vance. It is unnecessary to consider here the numerous 
difficulties, recognised by every socialist, in the way of 
socialist reorganisation, or to consider the general ques- 
121 122 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
tion of its practicability. One of the most serious of these 
difficulties, and one upon which especial stress is always 
laid by the opponents of socialism, is that of ensuring 
from the individual an adequate return in the matter of 
social service without subjecting him to a tyranny as 
grinding as that of capitalism—perhaps even a worse 
tyranny, for the coercion, we are told, will be overt in- 
stead of latent. Suffice it to say that it is a reasoned 
socialist belief, in view of the remarkable plasticity of 
the qualities summed up in the expression “human na- 
ture,” that, as the transition to socialism is effected, as 
the disappearance of economic individualism removes the 
present conflict between theoretical and practical moral- 
ity, and as the inculcation of a social instinct in our 
schools no longer tends, in proportion to the educator’s 
ability, to unfit the pupil for a reasonable measure of 
success in life, the number of competent adults who will 
endeavour to evade the performance of their due share 
of social labour will become an ever-diminishing quan- 
tity. But persons who desire, like those who live upon 
dividends under capitalism, to exist as parasites on the 
community, together with the thieves and homicides, the 
directly predatory and violent types, will, be they many 
or be they few, constitute an anti-social residuum, the 
criminals of the socialist state. What is to be done with 
them? How are we to deal also with those who, because 
they are ill, insane, or feeble-minded, are unable to make 
an adequate contribution to the common good ? On 
humanist principles they will be entitled (as they are 
to-day) to a share of the communal product. But, as to- 
day, they will receive that share on conditions, and in EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
123 
the writer’s view the conditions will be largely determined 
by eugenist considerations. 
The growth of the engenist idea was a necessary out- 
come of the diffusion of Darwin’s doctrine that the origin 
of species was effected through the survival of the fittest 
in the struggle for existence. Francis Galton, one of Dar- 
win’s most brilliant disciples, was the first to employ the 
word eugenics, as a substitute for the term viriculture in- 
troduced by himself at an earlier date. In his epoch- 
making Inquiries into Human Faculty Galton wrote: “We 
greatly want a brief word to express the science of im- 
proving stock, which is by no means confined to ques- 
tions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the 
case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend, 
in however remote a degree, to give to the more suitable 
races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing 
speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would 
have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express 
the idea.”1 The word signifies “good breeding,” used in 
the biological, not the educational, sense of the term. 
With the first crude application of the idea of natural 
selection to the study of human society, it was believed 
by many that the doctrine furnished a fresh justification 
for economic individualism; that the rich and the well- 
born (in the old class-privilege sense, not in the new 
eugenist sense), in virtue of their wealth and their priv- 
ileged position, had proved their fitness to survive; and 
that their predominant survival would ensure the con- 
tinued improvement of the race. It is needless to attempt 
1 Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, Every- 
man’s Library, p. 17, note. 124 
POPULATION AND BIRTII-CONTROL 
the detailed disproof of this fantastic conception, the 
fallacy of which is now generally admitted by the thought- 
ful. In primitive conditions, and before large-scale social 
aggregation had begun, the fierceness of the struggle for 
existence doubtless secured in our semi-human progenitors 
the maintenance of a certain level of fitness. But with 
the acquirement of articulate speech, with the formation 
of tribal aggregates, and still more with the development 
of writing and the improvement of the means of com- 
munication, leading to the formation of national social 
aggregates, great as have been the advantages of these 
developments of mutual aid and of the substitution of co- 
operation for competition, there have, none the less, been 
grave attendant disadvantages in the concomitant decline 
in the operation of natural selection and the consequent 
risk of racial deterioration. Among the most conspicuous 
of the ways in which this tendency has manifested itself 
are: the elimination of superior stocks by war and the 
preparation for war; the excessive multiplication of the 
feeble-minded and other inferior stocks; and the working 
of marriage in modern capitalist society. 
In an essay on War and Manhood, David Starr Jordan, 
president of Stanford University, has discussed the anti- 
selective influence of war. This influence was recognised 
more than two thousand years ago by Sophocles, who 
wrote: “War does not of choice destroy bad men, but 
good men ever.” Of preparation for war, Benjamin 
Franklin said: “There is one effect of a standing army 
which must in time be felt so as to bring about the aboli- 
tion of the system. A standing army not only diminishes 
the population of a country, but even the size and breed EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
125 
of the human species. For an army is the flower of the 
nation. All the most vigorous, stout, and well-made men 
in a kingdom are to be found in the army, and these men, 
in general, cannot marry. ’ ’ Having quoted earlier authori- 
ties, Jordan continues: “What is true of standing armies 
is still more true of the armies that fight and fall. Those 
men who perish are lost to the future of civilisation, they 
and their blood forever. For, as Franklin said again, 
‘Wars are not paid for in war time: the bill comes later.’ 
. . . ‘Always and ever,’ writes Novicov, ‘war brings 
about the reversal of selection.’ Those traits of character 
—physical strength, courage, dash, patriotism—which are 
desired in the soldier, are lost to the race which decrees 
the destruction of the soldierly. The delusion that war 
in one generation sharpens the edge of warriorhood in 
the next generation has no biological foundation. It is 
the man who is left who always determines the future.” 
Jordan applies this doctrine to explain the fall of the 
Roman empire, which, as Seeley put it, “perished for 
want of men.” It explains no less adequately the fall 
of the empire of Spain, and the subsequent stagnation of 
that once great country for two centuries and more. 
Writing in 1630, La Puente, an Augustinian friar, put 
the matter thus: ‘ ‘ Against the credit for redeemed souls, 
I set the cost of armadas and the sacrifice of soldiers and 
friars sent to the Philippines. And this I count the chief 
loss: for mines give silver and forests give timber, but 
only Spain gives Spaniards, and she may give so many 
that she may be left desolate and constrained to bring up 
strangers’ children instead of her own.” The same prin- 
ciple explains readily enough that puzzle for the panegy- 126 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
rists of militarism, the great marvel of Japan’s warlike 
prowess and her victory over Russia after three centuries 
of profound peace. There would have been no victory 
had the reversed selection of war been in full play during 
the long rule of the Tokugawas. Destruction through the 
operation of reversed selection, concludes Jordan, “is the 
inevitable end of all dominion of man over man by force 
of arms. ’ ’2 This aspect of war is so important that a 
German writer, Hans Fehlinger, may be quoted in ex- 
emplification of the same thesis. “The theory that war 
leads to the progressive elimination of the less fit is one 
whose falsity may readily be demonstrated. In war more 
of the fit are slain than of the unfit. For, first of all, 
the weaklings, and those with mental or bodily defect, 
do not take part in the war at all; and in the next place, 
it is precisely the bravest and most vigorous of the sol- 
diers who are more exposed to the risk of slaughter; thus 
those slain in battle excel in numerous respects the aver- 
age of their compatriots. The inevitable consequence of 
every war is that after it a larger proportion than before 
of the unfit take part in the procreation of the race— 
individuals such as, but for the war, would for the most 
part have remained childless through the operation of 
sexual selection. There is nothing more harmful than 
war to the welfare of the race; and if the coming of 
socialism puts an end to war, in this way alone a service 
will be rendered to humanity the value of which it would 
be impossible to overestimate.”3 
2 Jordan, Eugenics Eeview, July, 1910, pp. 95 et seq. 
3Fehlinger, Natural Selection and Non-Selective Elimination, “So- 
cialist Eeview,” September, 1911, p. 66. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
127 
We pass from consideration of the excessive elimina- 
tion of higher types to contemplate the other prime cause 
of racial degeneration, the undue multiplication of lower 
types. In an essay on Eugenics and Degeneracy, C. T. 
Ewart ignores the former cause, and stresses the latter, 
at times perhaps unduly. “If we recall for a moment,” 
he tells us, “the history of the rise, progress, and fall of 
the various nations which have been pre-eminent in the 
past, we find that the same course has been experienced 
by each. There has been a period of hardship and energy, 
accompanied by development, followed by a period of 
luxurious quiescence during the supremacy, and this has 
been succeeded by a decline and fall. A study of events 
during these periods shows us that it is by the interfer- 
ence of civilisation with the process of natural selection 
that the decline and fall is brought about. So soon as the 
necessity for striving and struggling is past, there is no 
longer the extermination of the weaker members, and 
their proportion steadily increases, the standard of the 
whole country is lowered, and there is a diminution in the 
mental, moral, and bodily powers, and an increase in the 
numbers of those who are unable properly to fulfil the 
duties of citizenship, until finally there is a preponder- 
ance of the latter, and the doom of that country is sealed. ’ ’ 
Two explanations, Ewart goes on to say, have commonly 
been offered to account for the rise, progress, and fall 
of the various eminent nations of history. One of these 
depends upon the belief that a nation, like an individual, 
has a “natural” cycle of youth, maturity, and decay, 
the other explanation involves a belief in the Lamarckian 
doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characters. Both 128 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
explanations are rejected by Ewart on grounds which 
appear convincing, but need not now be discussed. He 
continues: “What theory of this alleged racial degenera- 
tion is there to offer in their place, and especially what 
theory which explains racial degeneration amongst, not 
the conquered, but the conquerors—amongst the success- 
ful, the imperial, the cultured, the well-eared-for in all 
respects, mental and bodily? Why is it that not enslaved 
but imperial peoples degenerate? Why is it that nothing 
fails like success? The reason is that no race or species, 
vegetable, animal, or human, can maintain its organic 
level, let alone raise it, unless its best be selected for 
parentage. When a race is making its early way, by force, 
selection is stringent. The weak, diseased, and stupid are 
ruthlessly expunged from generation to generation. As 
civilisation advances, another ethical standard is reached; 
the diseased and feeble-minded are no longer left to pay 
the penalty sternly exacted by nature for unfitness; they 
are allowed to survive, which is well, and to multiply, 
which is ill. Babylon lasted four thousand years and yet, 
at last, it fell. If selection had been operating through- 
out that time, would Babylon have fallen? Without selec- 
tion, races must deteriorate, the lower individuals multi- 
plying more rapidly than the higher in accordance with 
Spencer’s law, that the higher the type of the individual, 
the less rapidly does he increase.” Giving a specific 
instance of the excessive multiplication of the unfit, Ewart 
writes: “Dr. Ettie Sayer, in the course of her work 
for the London County Council, studied the family his- 
tory of 100 normal families and 100 families where mental 
defectives were found. The normal family averaged 5 EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
129 
in number, while families showing abnormality aver- 
aged 7.6.” 4 
A third great cause of racial degeneration is the work- 
ing of our marriage system in modern capitalist society 
(the fault lies, be it noted, with capitalism more than 
with marriage). The anti-selective influence of marriage 
under capitalism is one of the principal themes of The 
Sexual Crisis, the translation of a German work by Grete 
Meisel-Hess.5 This writer’s views may be summarised as 
follows. The general result of the existing “sexual or- 
der,” that is to say, of our marriage customs as they 
work under the capitalist system, is, she declares, that the 
ablest and most energetic women, unwilling, on the one 
hand, to accept the economic dependence on man involved 
in marriage, and competent, on the other, to earn their 
own livelihood, are, by our industrial and social system, 
condemned to celibacy. From this point of view, mar- 
riage selects the less fit women to be the mothers of the 
new generation. The same system selects as fathers of 
the coming race, not the ablest, the strongest, the hand- 
somest men, or those who excel in moral cultivation—but 
those who are “fittest” because they have been successful 
competitors (or because their forebears have been suc- 
cessful competitors) in the arena of economic individual- 
ism. She goes on to speak of the prevalence of various 
forms of physical and moral degeneracy, and declares 
that in her opinion these wide-spread manifestations are 
the inevitable outcome of the cessation of sexual selec- 
4Ewart, Eugenics Degeneracy, “Journal of Mental Science,” 
October, 1910, pp. 670 et seq. 
6 Published by The Critic and Guide Company, New York, 1917. 130 
POPULATION AND BIRTII-CONTROL 
lion, of the fact that it is to-day impossible for a woman 
to choose freely from among those who seek her favour 
the mate who appears to her the most desirable. The 
selective process whereby the less fit males will be ex- 
cluded from parenthood can, she considers, be re- 
established in no other way than by rendering women 
economically independent. She urges this elementary de- 
mand of the woman’s movement from the joint outlook of 
socialism and of eugenics. 
The main argument may now be resumed. It has been 
shown that the eugenist recognises two chief causes of 
racial degeneration, excessive elimination of the better 
stocks and excessive procreation on the part of the worse. 
For each of these banes the eugenist proposes an appro- 
priate antidote. He will do all he can to favour breeding 
from the better stocks, this being the province of what is 
termed positive or constructive eugenics; and he will 
earnestly endeavour to discourage parenthood on the 
part of those belonging to inferior stocks, thus applying 
the principle of negative or restrictive eugenics. 
It will be readily understood that negative eugenics 
tends to be ahead of positive engenics, not only because, 
as Havelock Ellis points out, “it is easier to detect bad 
stocks than to be quite sure of good stocks ”;6 but also, 
on more general grounds, because restriction is easier than 
construction, because it is always easier to define and en- 
force a prohibition than to formulate and carry into ac- 
tion a positive and constructive policy. Yet, as far as 
written formulation goes, the idea of constructive eugenics 
“Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, vol. VI, “Sex in Delation 
to Society,” Davis, Philadelphia, 1910, p. 630. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
131 
is the older of the two, dating from Plato, who, in the 
fifth hook of The Republic, suggests that the “fittest” of 
his ideal community, the “Guardians,” are to be mated 
in accordance with the decision of the magistrates, just 
as a skilled breeder of animals is “anxious to breed as 
much as possible from the best,” and that “as fast as 
the children are born, they will be received by the offi- 
cers appointed for the purpose, both men and women, and 
placed in the general nursery. ’ ’7 These ideas of 1‘ the 
human stud-farm” and “the state nursery” are persist- 
ently fathered upon modern socialists and eugenists, but 
no responsible modern thinker proposes anything of the 
kind. “None but fanatics,” writes Havelock Ellis, “dream 
of abolishing love in order to effect pairing by rule. It 
is merely a question of limiting the possible number of 
mates from whom each may select a partner, and that, we 
must remember, has always been done, even by savages, 
for, as it has been said, ‘Eugenics is the oldest of the 
sciences.’”8 H. G. Wells describes practical eugenist 
possibilities in similar terms. “Compulsory mating is 
one thing, and the maintenance of general limiting con- 
ditions is another, and one well within the scope of state 
activity.”9 
As far, then, as constructive eugenics is concerned, we 
have to do with an ideal, whose effective application can- 
not be considered until our knowledge of heredity and the 
other elements of the problem has greatly increased. Even 
7 The Republic of Plato. Translated by Davis & Vaughan, Mac- 
millan, London, 1874, pp. 166-8. 
8 Ellis, op. cit., p. 583. 
9 Wells, A Modern Utopia, p. 182. 132 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
now humanity might do much to counteract the agencies, 
war and the like, which lead to the excessive elimination 
of the more fit; hut the time has not yet come, perhaps 
never will come, when we can deliberately attempt to breed 
a race of supermen. On the other hand, in the sphere 
of restrictive eugenics, much work lies ready to hand. 
In further illustration, not only of the need for restric- 
tive eugenist practice, but also of the fact that such prac- 
tice has actually begun, I may refer to a paper on 
Heredity and Insanity, by T. E. K. Stansfield. He writes 
of the great increase of insanity during recent decades. 
Whether this increase be real or apparent, there is no 
doubt about the numerical increase in the number of 
certified lunatics. Now it is a remarkable fact that this 
increase affects almost exclusively the number of pauper 
lunatics, the ratio of certified private lunatics to the popu- 
lation remaining practically unchanged. Stansfield be- 
lieves that the disproportion between the two ratios “is 
due to the growing appreciation, by that section of the 
community which sends us our private patients, of the 
important part played by heredity in the causation of 
insanity, and the ignoring of that fact by the class which 
supplies the large bulk of our pauper insane.”10 If this 
writer’s views are sound, we have an instance here of the 
deliberate application of scientific knowledge in accordance 
with the principle of restrictive eugenics, and in a way 
that will tend to the improvement of the human stock. 
It is now generally understood that there are two main 
factors in human progress. The first is the fruit of man’s 
10Sta-nsfield, ‘‘Journal of Mental Science,’’ January, 1911, pp. 55, 
et seq. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
133 
steadily increasing powers of controlling his natural en- 
vironment, the advance in this respect being itself due 
to the progressive accumulation of knowledge from gen- 
eration to generation. The socialist aim in relation to 
this process is an endeavour to secure that as far as pos- 
sible every human being shall get his fair share of previ- 
ously accumulated knowledge and his chance of adding 
to the social stock. Socialism is itself a fruit of accumulat- 
ing knowledge, more especially in the departments of 
ethics and economics. 
The other main factor in human progress is selection. 
It has been shown that in our existing civilisation natural 
(unconscious) selection has largely ceased to work towards 
the improvement of the human breed; it follows that the 
imminent risk of racial degeneration can be averted in 
one way only, by applying our advancing knowledge in 
this department also, and using it to control nature. We 
must aim at improving the human stock; we must encour- 
age procreation by the better types, and discourage procre- 
ation by the worse types. Eugenics, as Galton long ago 
phrased it, is man’s “attempt to replace natural selec- 
tion by processes that are more merciful and not less 
effective.” 
The mutual dependence of these two factors, the en- 
vironmental and the selective, will become apparent on 
brief consideration. It is assuredly of little use, from 
the racial outlook, that knowledge should increase, and that 
therewith for a time comfort should be more widely dif- 
fused, if concurrently the human breed degenerate. On 
the other hand, from the humanist point of view we shall 
gain little by improving the human stock, if the advan- 134 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
tages of increasing knowledge and increasing mastery over 
nature are to remain, as now, the privileges of a proprie- 
tary class. In this essay, the need for a vast transforma- 
tion in the social environment is taken for granted, and 
the writer’s aim is to show that to improve the condi- 
tions of life will not suffice, hut that we must also im- 
prove the conditions of being born—that, important as 
eugenics is under capitalism, it will become even more 
essential under socialism. The socialist tendency is to 
overrate the importance of environment, great as this un- 
doubtedly is. Nor has the error been confined to the 
socialist camp, for, as Karl Pearson writes, the nation 
has for years been backing the wrong horse, ‘‘putting 
its money on ‘Environment’ when ‘Heredity’ wins in a 
canter. ’ ’11 The impatience of the socialist and even of 
the social reformer with eugenist proposals has this justi- 
fication, that many evils thoughtlessly attributed to in- 
feriority of stock are unquestionably the outcome of a 
faulty environment. Until all are given a fair chance 
in life, there must be numerous cases in which, with our 
present knowledge, we cannot distinguish between the ef- 
fects of environment and the results of heredity. Even 
to-day, however, we can wisely and humanely apply re- 
strictive eugenist practice in the case of the feeble-minded 
and perhaps in that of the habitual (instinctive) criminal. 
But how much more feasible and necessary will such 
practice become when through the perfectionment of social 
environment under socialism the effects of bad inheritance 
have become the sole factor in producing inefficient and 
anti-social members of the community. A socialist eom- 
“Quoted by Ellis, op. cit., p. 618. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
135 
monwealth indiscreet enough to allot to all defectives a 
share of the communal product without imposing any re- 
strictions on their right to perpetuate their kind would 
deserve all the evil that would ensue. 
Before discussing the actual measures likely to be 
adopted under socialism to discourage or prevent procrea- 
tion hy the unfit, let us reconsider present-day possibili- 
ties. I will quote a second time from Ewart, a non- 
socialist medical man. He writes: ‘ ‘ AYhat makes the 
science of eugenics possible is the law of heredity that 
‘like tends to produce like,’ not that ‘like produces like.’ 
It is common experience that superior persons may pro- 
duce inferior children, and that inferior persons, though 
much less often, may produce superior children. Eugenics 
deals with averages, and on the average the law of hered- 
ity acts with practical certainty, and all race questions 
are questions of average. With regard to heritable dis- 
eases what is meant is, not the transference of the disease 
itself, but a transmission of a predisposition to it, and that 
is effected through the germ cells. Negative eugenics 
teaches us what to prevent; positive, what to encourage. 
The ‘fittest to survive’ are those who possess sound health, 
energy, and a well-balanced brain. These would be the 
most likely to be useful to themselves and the community. 
The greater part of feeble-mindedness, insanity, and 
criminality could be eliminated by segregation in one 
generation.” 12 
How do these considerations apply to the problems of 
socialism? Two primary socialist demands are the “mini- 
mum wage” and the “right to work.” Let us examine 
13 Ewart, op. cit, 136 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
the demands from the eugenist outlook. The proper basis 
of a minimum wage law is, as we are reminded in the ex- 
cellent Fabian tract on this subject, “the fixing and en- 
forcement of a wage sufficient to enable the workers to 
be maintained in healthy existence. Therefore the wages 
should be calculated on what the worker requires for 
physical health and efficiency, and not on what ‘ the trade 
will bear.’ . . . The effect of stopping competition in 
wages at the expense of the vitality of the workers is, 
to quote Industrial Democracy, to concentrate it upon ef- 
ficiency. A minimum wage would continue and intensify 
that salutary concentration. Doubtless a number of the 
weakest and least efficient workers would then be excluded 
from employment where formerly they had been able to 
keep themselves partially alive by their sweated and in- 
efficient labour. ’ ’13 Thus the harshness of the capitalist 
system, in which the test of efficiency is that a man should 
he able to produce by his labour more wealth than he re- 
ceives in the form of wages, and in which the inefficients, 
being unable to produce surplus value for the capitalist, 
are squeezed out of employment, would actually, for a 
time, be intensified by the adoption of the minimum living 
wage as an isolated measure. (I must not be interpreted 
to mean that under capitalism inefficiency is, any more 
than drunkenness, the sole, or even the principal, cause 
of unemployment; but it is undoubtedly, like drunken- 
ness, one of the determining factors in the selection of 
those who will be unemployed). A supplementary and no 
less important socialist demand is the right to work or 
maintenance. At present, those unable to obtain work 
13 Fabian Tract. No. 128. The Case for a Legal Minimum Wage. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
137 
at wages are supported, more or less inadequately, either 
by private charity, or by the old-established system of 
public assistance known as the poor law—and in times 
when unemployment is rife, by the form of public charity 
known as relief work. One justification of the demand for 
the right to work or maintenance is the undoubted fact that 
a considerable proportion of the able-bodied unemployed, 
even if inefficient, are so solely in consequence of errors 
of the social environment, such as inadequate education, or 
insufficient food and other unhygienic conditions during 
childhood; some of them, doubtless, are truly inefficient 
in the eugenist sense, members of a radically unsound 
stock which ought not to be allowed to procreate: but until 
we have perfected the social environment it will remain 
impossible to determine, in most cases, whether social in- 
adequacy is due to nature or to nurture. 
The eugenist conclusion is irresistible. Imagine the 
social environment perfected as socialists believe it can 
be perfected, so that, apart from inborn deficiencies, 
every one has a fair chance in life, then, if the state pro- 
vides an adequate subsistence for all alike, inefficients as 
well as efficients, making no attempt to limit the right to 
procreate of members of the former category, racial de- 
generation from the excessive multiplication of the unfit 
will be a more pressing danger than it is even to-day. 
Whether under socialism there will be wages at all must 
be left for the future to decide; the coming social order 
may devise some other means for the distribution of the 
communal product. But putting the matter in the 
terminology of the existing economic system, my conten- 
tion is that the socialist state will have to make ability 138 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
to earn the minimum wage a precondition of the right to 
become a parent. All human beings bom into the social- 
ist state will be entitled, on humanist principles, to a 
fair share of the communal wealth. It may well he, as 
Bernard Shaw contends, that the only criterion of fair- 
ness in this matter will be equality of shares. But from 
all competent adults the state will demand a return in 
the form of manual labour, poietic and executive manual 
work, supervision, or service; and those who are incom- 
petent, or unwilling, to make an adequate return will 
receive their share on conditions. In accordance with 
restrictive eugenist principles, a national minimum of 
social efficiency will be the indispensable prerequisite to 
the right to parenthood. This notion has been expounded 
with characteristic brilliancy by H. G. Wells in A Modern 
Utopia. “The state,” he writes, “is justified in saying, 
before you may add children to the community for the 
community to educate and in part to support, you must 
be above a certain minimum of personal efficiency, and 
this you must show by holding a position of solvency and 
independence in the world; you must be above a certain 
age, and a certain minimum of physical development, and 
free of any transmissible disease. You must not be a 
criminal, unless you have expiated your offence. Failing 
these simple qualifications, if you and some person con- 
spire and add to the population of the state, we will, for 
the sake of humanity, take over the innocent victim of 
your passions, but we shall insist that you are under a 
debt to the state of a peculiarly urgent sort, and one you 
will certainly pay, even if it is necessary to use restraint 
to get the payment out of you; it is a debt that has in EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
139 
the last resort your liberty as a security; and, moreover, 
if this thing happens a second time, or if it is disease or 
imbecility you have multiplied, we will take an absolutely 
effectual guarantee that neither you nor your partner 
offend again in this matter. 4Harsh,’ you say, and ‘Poor 
Humanity!’ You have the gentler alternative to study in 
your terrestrial slums and asylums. It may be urged that 
to permit conspicuously inferior people to have one or 
two children in this way wTould be to fail to attain the de- 
sired end, but, indeed, this is not so. A suitably qualified 
permission, as every statesman knows, may produce the 
desired social effects without producing the irksome pres- 
sure of a direct prohibition. Amidst bright and comfor- 
table circumstances, and with an easy practicable alterna- 
tive, people will exercise foresight and restraint to escape 
even the possibilities of hardship and discomfort; and 
free life in Utopia is to be well worth this trouble even for 
inferior people.”14 
Thus the policy of the national minimum is common 
ground to socialism and to eugenics. The socialist main- 
tains the right of every member of the community to the 
minimum essentials for a decent life. The eugenist makes 
the same demand because, until that demand is satisfied, 
restrictive eugenist practise gropes vainly in the dark. 
But, the minimum once granted, the right to live once 
secured, the eugenist insists that ability to earn the mini- 
mum wage, can alone give the additional and more mo- 
mentous right to become a parent. Unless the socialist is 
a eugenist as well, the socialist state will speedily perish 
from racial degradation. 
14 Wells, op. cit., pp. 182-3. 140 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
In an admirable paper on Eugenics and Socialism, S. 
Herbert writes: “We have to distinguish two factors in 
the process of race-culture: the hereditary factor, which 
is concerned with the change of the germinal composition 
of the stock and . . . the modification factor, which in- 
fluences the individual development of the social unit. ’ ’15 
For the very reason that each works in a separate field it 
is essential that the eugenist, dealing with the hereditary 
factor, and the socialist, dealing with the modification fac- 
tor, should each supplement the other’s work. Neither 
can gain and keep his goal without the other’s help. To 
forestall socialist criticism, it may at once be admitted that 
the transition to socialism will of itself remove certain 
influences which, in the present organisation of society, 
make for the deterioration of the human stock. They have 
all been enumerated in this essay, but it will be well to 
summarise them once more. In his work on Socialism and 
Positive Science, in the chapter on “The Survival of the 
Fittest, ’ ’ Enrico Ferri discusses the influences which make 
for what he calls “natural selection the wrong way,” and 
writes: “In the contemporary civilised world natural 
selection is vitiated by military selection, by matrimonial 
selection, and principally by economic selection. ... To 
these must be added that moral selection the wrong way 
which causes capitalism to-day in the struggle waged with 
the proletariat to favour the survival of men of servile 
character, whilst it persecutes and tries to keep in the 
shade men of strong character and all those who do not 
seem disposed to bear the yoke of the present economic 
“Herbert, “Eugenics Keview,” July, 1910, pp. 116, et seq. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
141 
order. ’ ’16 Herbert phrases the same thought as follows: 
“The present day capitalistic valuation, which measures 
success in terms of money, crushes out the studious and the 
moral man, who does not know how ‘to get on.’ Socialism, 
by removing the material handicap of the masses, and by 
giving equal opportunity to all, will create such social con- 
ditions as will lead to the automatic and natural survival 
of the types most desired.”17 Thus the fact that the in- 
fluences making for reversed selection will be abolished 
under socialism is a sufficient reason why all eugenists 
should also be socialists. But it has been shown that there 
are other and even weightier influences leading to the 
excessive procreation of the unfit, and that their potency 
will actually be greater under socialism then under eco- 
nomic individualism, unless the effect of these influences 
be counteracted by the deliberate adoption of eugenist 
practice as part of the working of the socialist state. The 
argument is further reinforced by the humanist considera- 
tion that those who will suffer or cause suffering ought not 
to be born. It remains, then, to ask precisely how, under 
socialism, eugenist principles are to be practically ap- 
plied. 
Considering first the domain of positive or constructive 
eugenics, it is only indirectly, by the abolition of the dis- 
astrous anachronism of war, with its excessive elimination 
of the more fit, and by similar indirect methods, that in the 
light of our present knowledge we can work towards this 
end. Kurella tells us that Lombroso, though an enthu- 
i0 Ferri, Socialism cf Positive Science, English translation by Edith 
Harvey, I. L. P., London, 1909, pp. 40-42. 
17 Herbert, op. cit. 142 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
siast for the application to the human species of voluntary- 
in the place of natural or unconscious selection, “never 
suggested the deliberate breeding of supermen”;18 and 
where the great Italian anthropologist feared to tread it is 
not for lesser mortals to rush in. 
In the domain of negative or restrictive eugenics, on 
the other hand, those competent to advise are already be- 
ginning to speak with fair confidence. The three direct 
means by which those regarded as unfit in the eugenist 
sense may be prevented from procreating their kind are, 
death, operative sterilisation, and segregation of the sexes. 
Death has had its advocates, even among modern men of 
science. “Dead men tell no tales,” says the old proverb; 
and it is no less true that “dead men have no offspring.” 
In especial, the painless extinction of blighted lives in 
infancy has been recently recommended, not solely on eu- 
genist grounds, but in addition to obviate the suffering 
which grossly malformed children would endure if they 
were allowed to grow up.19 But it seems improbable that 
modern humanist sentiment, which is setting so strongly 
against death as a penalty for crime, will tolerate the 
lethal chamber even as a means of protecting society 
against the procreation of the worst anti-social types. 
Operative sterilisation is already practical politics, 
though in England solely as a matter of recommendation. 
Modern surgery provides a simple operation, practically 
devoid of risk, by which, without mutilation, sterilisation 
can be secured with no loss of any of the distinctive pow- 
18Kurella, Cesare Lombroso, A Modern Man of Science, Kebman, 
London, 1911, p. 123. 
18 Engel, Elements of Child Protection, Allen, London, 1912, passim. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
143 
ers and attributes of sex other than that of the capacity 
for parenthood. In his essay on Heredity and Insanity, 
Stansfield, speaking of institutions for the permanent 
segregation of the feeble-minded and of the need for the 
prevention of hereditary mental disorder, writes: “Such 
an institution must become at once a prison and not a hos- 
pital—a prison without hope. To my mind there is but 
one remedy, and that is sterilisation. ’ ’20 Faulks goes 
further, and definitely advocates the sterilisation of the 
insane. He describes the working of the “Act to Pre- 
vent the Procreation of Confirmed Criminals, Idiots, Im- 
beciles, and Rapists,” approved by the legislature of In- 
diana on March 9, 1907. He urges legislation in Great 
Britain to secure the compulsory operative sterilisation of 
persons about to be discharged from asylums who are at 
the moment “under certificate for the second or further 
time.”21 I agree that operative sterilisation is unques- 
tionably desirable in selected cases with the consent of the 
patient. To compulsory operative sterilisation I consider 
there are grave objections. But then I do not share 
Stansfield’s views regarding the inhumanity of segregating 
the feeble-minded. 
I am confident that the best and humanest way of deal- 
ing with many inefficient and anti-social types is by per- 
manent segregation. The clearest case of all is that of the 
feeble-minded. In the homes at Waverley in Massachu- 
setts, at Sandlebridge in Cheshire, and elsewhere, sufficient 
experience has been gained of this class of mental defee- 
20 Stansfield, op. cit. 
21 Faulks, The Sterilisation of the Insane, “Journal of Mental 
Science, ’ ’ January, 1911, pp. 63, et seq. 144 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
tives to show that if the feeble-minded are caught young, 
before they have been corrupted by evil communications, 
and if they are early adapted to institutional life, they are 
far happier than they would be in the stress and struggle 
of the world, for which they are constitutionally unfitted. 
Speaking of the inmates at Sandlebridge, Miss Dendy says, 
“They have no wish to leave, and the only inclinations 
and ideas which seem to exercise them are those which 
are put into their heads by the responsible officials of the 
home. ”22 As far as the problem of the feeble-minded is 
concerned, permanent segregation is a complete and satis- 
factory solution. The relapsing insane offer greater diffi- 
culties. Society would hesitate to maintain segregation 
during lucid intervals, and may therefore ultimately be 
compelled to adopt the alternative of sterilisation. Besides 
the relapsing insane, there will be a certain proportion of 
cases with mental, moral, or physical transmissible blem- 
ishes—persons who would he unhappy if segregated, but 
dangerous as progenitors. To these, perhaps, the choice 
will be offered between segregation and sterilisation. 
Finally, as regards directly anti-social types, it must 
he remembered that under socialism there will ex hypo- 
thesi be no criminals produced by faulty environment; 
there will be none but instinctive or “born” criminals— 
precisely the kind that tend to leave criminal or other- 
wise defective offspring. The community will have to 
segregate these for its own comfort and wellbeing; and, 
unless the sexes are to be separated, it will have to sterilise 
them as well. But it will not inflict punishment, for the 
23Discussion in “Journal of Mental Science,” January, 1911, p. 
105. EUGENICS AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
145 
socialist state will have completely freed itself from the 
ideas of retributive and deterrent “justice,” together with 
other obsolete superstitions. I do not see, therefore, what 
can be adopted better than Well’s suggestion of self- 
governing islands, carefully patrolled, where each anti- 
social type will go its own way, “thanking heaven, no 
doubt, to be quit of a world of prigs.” The fact that the 
proposed settlements are to be self-governing distinguishes 
them radically from the old penal settlements for trans- 
ported felons. No socialist would dream of reviving such 
conditions as are pictured in His Natural Life by Marcus 
Clarke, and The Rogue’s March by E. W. Hornung. As 
Wells puts it: “You must seclude, hut why should you 
torment? All modern prisons are places of torture by 
restraint, and the habitual criminal plays the part of a 
damaged mouse at the mercy of the cat of our law. He 
has his little painful run, and back he comes to a state 
more horrible even than destitution. There are no Alsa- 
tias left in the world. For my own part I can think of 
no crime, unless it is reckless begetting or the wilful trans- 
mitting of contagious disease, for which the bleak terrors, 
the solitudes and ignominies of the modern prison do not 
seem outrageously cruel. If you want to go as far as that, 
then kill. Why, once you are rid of them, should you 
pester criminals to respect an uncongenial standard of 
conduct ? ”23 
I accept, unhesitatingly, this solution of the problem of 
how to deal with the instinctively anti-social types. We 
must protect ourselves from their activities, not merely as 
“Wells, op. cit., pp. 137-173, comprising the chapter “Failure in a 
Modern Utopia. ” 146 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
noxious members of their own generation, but as possible 
begetters of anti-social stocks which would injure genera- 
tions to come. If it reject the lethal chamber, what other 
alternative can the socialist state devise? But what ap- 
plies to the habitual criminal, applies no less to the other 
defective and anti-social types of which mention has been 
made in this paper. Neither the environmental nor the 
selective factor, working in isolation, is competent to ef- 
fect a lasting amelioration of the human lot. Socialism 
and eugenics must go hand in hand. ECONOMICS 
OF THE 
BIRTH STRIKE ECONOMICS OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
By Ludwig Quessel 
A SPECTRE haunts Europe—the spectre of the birth 
strike. All the powers of old Europe—Pope and 
Czar, von Bethmann-Hollweg and Poincare, French 
imperialists and German progressists—have entered a holy 
alliance to exorcise this spectre.” In these words might 
a Neo-Malthusian, desiring to announce a propaganda in 
favour of the birth strike, herald his views, and he could 
hardly be accused of exaggeration. The spectre of social- 
ism whereof the communist manifesto speaks has been 
thrust into the background by the spectre of the birth 
strike. 
Indeed we use too mild a phrase when we talk of the 
spectre of the birth strike. If by this phrase we mean a 
curtailment of births among the non-possessing and poorer 
classes, a curtailment so extensive as to force us to antici- 
pate a progressive diminution in the number of wage 
earners during ensuing decades, we must admit that the 
deliberate refusal to procreate is no longer a mere theory 
but has become a palpable reality of social life. The petty 
farmers and peasant proprietors of France, unlike their 
Italian and German congeners, stubbornly refuse to 
supply a proletarian progeny; the fact is so well known and 
so undisputed that statistical proof is superfluous. More- 
over, among the French urban proletariat the birth-rate is 150 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
now so low that numbers are not fully maintained from 
generation to generation. Inconsiderable as is capitalist 
expansion in France, entrepreneurs in that country are 
increasingly dependent upon the importation of foreign 
labour, and this applies above all to those industries which 
are uncongenial to French workers. The large majority 
of employes in the building trade are foreigners. We 
learn from the French labour press that in the recently 
opened coal basins of Normandy and in the ironfield of 
Longwy, foreign workers preponderate. Most of them are 
Italians, chiefly from the south of the peninsula, while 
others come from Luxemburg, Poland, and Germany; 
barely 10 per cent are Frenchmen. In the iron works of 
Normandy, a new enterprise, hands have been brought 
from yet further afield, from Greece and North Africa. 
The wages paid to imported labour are considerably below 
the French standard, but the working capacity of the 
foreign hands being much smaller than that of French- 
men, it is open to question whether the employment of 
imported labour will prove economical to the capitalists. 
Even socialist observers admit that the influx of for- 
eigners into the building and mining industries is 
not primarily due to the cheapness of foreign labour, but 
depends rather upon the impossibility of finding French- 
men willing to undertake disagreeable and arduous physi- 
cal toil. The decline in proletarian reproduction is con- 
tinuous, and were the republic to prohibit the import of 
foreign labour, France would gradually become a coun- 
try without a proletariat. 
Not in France alone is this decline in the birth-rate to 
be observed. In the United States, in so far as the in- ECONOMICS OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
151 
habitants are of western European origin, the same phe- 
nomenon is manifest. Like France, America would tend 
to become a land without a proletariat, were it not for the 
steady influx of foreign, and in especial of Slav, labour 
power. During the last few decades a fall in the birth-rate 
has become manifest even in Germany. Though large 
families are here still the rule, it is evident that in the 
great towns restriction of births is practised. Experi- 
ence shows that the movement will before long extend to 
the smaller centres of population, and it is not unnatural 
that considerable alarm at the prospect should be felt in 
capitalist circles. 
This development will be hailed with joy by Neo-Mal- 
thusians, for the most up-to-date members of this body 
approve the birth strike. The inadequate reproduction 
of proletarian life in France, Australia, and the United 
States is an outcome of certain social conditions, and the 
Neo-Malthusians believe that in this causal sequence they 
can discover proof that the deliberate limitation of births 
is competent to solve the social problem. We owe to 
Otto Ehinger the best formulation of the sociological theory 
of the birth strike. In Zeitgeist of October 6, 1913, he rea- 
sons as follows: “Under pressure of necessity, the mem- 
ber of the non-possessing classes sells his life piecewise, by 
the week or month. His wages depend, not on the real 
value of his work, but on the difficulty the employer ex- 
periences in finding hands. The greater the number of 
applicants and the more they underbid one another, the 
more wretched is their lot. The birth strike could rem- 
edy this state of affairs in a few decades. A restriction 
of births would inevitably lead to the supply of workers 152 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
falling below the demand. Owing to a proletarian refusal 
to bear children, the labour markets of the old world, now 
suffering from a glut of workers, would in course of time 
come to resemble the labour markets of young colonies, 
where a dearth of proletarians is characteristic. Unem- 
ployment would disappear through inadequacy in the sup- 
ply of labour; wages would rise until they came to repre- 
sent the real value of the work done; there would be a 
progressive decline in rent and profit. Thus the scarcity 
of proletarians would solve the social problem, and would 
solve it once for all.” 
No Marxist will deny the profound significance of the 
sociological theory of the birth strike. Marxists hold that 
capitalism derives its vital energy from the surplus value 
created by proletarian labour. In a land without a prole- 
tariat, capitalism must succumb. It would, however, be 
quite opposed to the marxist doctrine to regard the exist- 
ence of the proletariat as an immutable social phenomenon. 
In Capital (vol. I., chap. 24), Marx refers to the so-called 
“primitive accumulation,” in virtue of which those who 
have been liberated from feudal bonds do not become 
proletarians “until they have been robbed of all their 
means of production and of all the guarantees of exist- 
ence which were provided for them by the ancient feudal 
institutions.” The divorce of the producers from the 
means of production was effected by the deliberate will of 
the ruling class, and, as Marx writes: “In the annals 
of humanity, the story of this expropriation is recorded 
in letters of blood and fire. ’ ’ Marx also recognises clearly 
that when the divorce of the producers from the means 
of production has once been effected, it remains a perma- ECONOMICS OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
153 
nent feature of economic life, for the proletarian multi- 
tude spontaneously furnishes the posterity which capital 
needs for its maintenance and expansion. 
Now the advocates of the birth strike contend that it 
is no longer necessary for the proletariat to procreate 
without restriction. Formerly, under pressure of the 
sexual impulse, whose force is irresistible, the proletarian 
was led to reproduce his own misery in his offspring. As 
long as methods of birth-control were unknown, the re- 
production of proletarian existence seemed a law of na- 
ture. But it is otherwise to-day, when a knowledge of 
birth-control is becoming widely diffused. The worker has 
a far less anxious life if he has one or two children only, 
instead of a quiverful. Nor need his wife completely re- 
nounce the joys of motherhood. The advocates of the 
birth strike assure us that the working woman who con- 
tents herself with one or two children experiences these 
joys far more fully than the mother of a large family. 
The absolute renunciation of offspring is needless, for the 
one-child system or the two-children system will in due 
time put an end to the proletarian status, though the 
process will necessarily be slower than if no children were 
born at all in the ranks of the proletariat. 
The cheap witticism that the up-to-date Neo-Malthusian 
finds the solution of the social problem in the proletarian 
nuptial couch, is no longer an adequate answer to the 
arguments of those who advocate the birth strike. Should 
the entire proletariat of Europe refuse to provide progeny 
for the use of capital, the effect would unquestionably be 
revolutionary, and the magnitude of the ultimate results 
would he nowise lessened because these results would be 154 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
attained by imperceptible gradations. Marx has demon- 
strated that in a land without a proletariat the social con- 
ditions characteristic of capitalism cannot possibly be 
maintained. He records that an Englishman named Peel 
went to New Holland, intending to establish a factory 
there, and taking with him provisions, tools, and machin- 
ery, to the value of £50,000. He had the foresight to ship 
in addition three thousand persons of the working class, 
men, women, and children. But hardly had his labourers 
set foot in the new territory when they realised that in 
this thinly populated land they need no longer remain 
wage earners. Poor Mr. Peel was left in the lurch, lack- 
ing even a servant to make his bed for him. With aston- 
ishing rapidity the human material broke away from capi- 
talist methods of production. The workers no longer 
thought of selling their labour power to Peel or any other 
capitalist. They all preferred to work for themselves, 
becoming farmers, traders, or independent artisans. Even 
the technical superiority of the imported instruments of 
production was of no advantage to Peel, for there were no 
hands willing to set these instruments in motion. 
In contemporary Europe we may observe phenomena 
which strongly remind us of Peel’s unhappy experiences, 
although nowhere can we witness, as in New Holland, a 
complete absence of proletarian labour power. Ehinger 
draws attention to the fact that in Spain, Italy, and Hun- 
gary, the great landed proprietors have for some years 
past been suffering from grave embarrassment. An un- 
welcome guest, the emigration agent, invades the loyal 
villages. The peasants hasten to pack up their goods, leav- 
ing in their hovels nothing but the bugs and the cattle in ECONOMICS OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
155 
which they have no proprietary rights. Vainly does the 
hardfisted landowner now offer concessions. The peasants 
speed away to the mighty steamer which awaits them in 
the nearest port. The departure of these poor devils who 
have the courage to abandon their homestead forever puts 
the landlord in a quandary, for the countryside is now 
depleted of proletarians. In certain tropical colonies the 
situation is hardly less perplexing for the capitalist. Many 
of the coloured races are skilled abortionists, and despite 
all the efforts of the missionaries to impress the members 
of these races with a proper sense of their duty, they 
cannot see why they should rear proletarian offspring for 
the use of the white capitalist. 
No matter how unwilling we may be to admit the 
economic justification of the birth strike, we cannot deny 
that if it were generally practised by the European prole- 
tariat there would in the end be no proletariat left in 
Europe. The adoption of the one-child system would 
halve the population in each generation. Under such con- 
ditions capitalism could be upheld in no other way than 
by a miracle or by the import of Asiatic workers. But 
experience teaches that in all white men’s countries the 
opposition of the workers and of the lesser employers 
to Asiatic immigration is so fierce that such immigration 
can never be long continued. Australia offers a typical 
example. Here Asiatics had invaded many industries, 
both as workers and as employers, and by the competition 
of their lower standard of life were making a decent life 
impossible for those of European origin. Wherever 
Asiatic employers became numerous, they were able, by 
paying lower wages, to drive the European employers 156 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
out of business. The European employers were, indeed, 
perfectly willing to engage Asiatics, but could not make a 
satisfactory use of their services owing to linguistic diffi- 
culties. When the European industrials had been ruined, 
and their white hands sought employment from yellow 
employers, the white men had to accept starvation wages. 
The Asiatic employers, in concubinage with white women, 
were rearing a bastard race. Thus, in the end, a Eu- 
ropean race-solidarity was produced, and the further im- 
portation of yellow labour was forbidden by law. It can- 
not be doubted that the extensive importation of Asiatic 
labour into Europe would be followed by similar results, 
and that Asiatic immigration would be prohibited even 
were Europe to become as thinly populated as Australia. 
Seeing that the introduction of Asiatics to compensate a 
dearth of European proletarians due to a birth strike is 
in the long run out of the question, and seeing that capi- 
talist production could not be continued if the numbers 
of the proletariat were to undergo a steady diminution, 
the only remaining possibility, in those fields of great in- 
dustry which have attained high technical development, 
would be the co-operative organisation of labour. Admit 
the possibility that the European proletariat could do 
away with itself by the birth strike, and we must also 
admit that this would put an end to the capitalist sys- 
tem, for capitalism cannot survive without the surplus 
value it extracts from the proletariat. 
In view of these considerations, the supreme question for 
the German nation is this: what would be the consequences 
of a German birth strike? Those familiar with the high 
birth-rate and the low state of civilisation characteristic ECONOMICS OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
157 
of the eastern European peoples, cannot fail to contem- 
plate this possibility with grave anxiety, for as far as the 
twentieth century is concerned the idea of a general Eu- 
\ 
ropean birth strike is utopian. The conditions in eastern 
Germany are instructive in this connection. Every year 
from the great landed properties eastward of the Elbe 
thousands of proletarians move westward to seek work in 
factories and mines. Thus, in the eastern districts, this 
mass migration of proletarian progeny has much the effect 
of a birth strike. The proletarians of the east procreate 
more abundantly than other Germans, but hardly have 
their offspring become ripe for the production of surplus 
value when the members of the younger generation take 
the road to the west. Proletarian migration within the 
German empire has thus depleted of proletarians the agri- 
cultural regions of the east, though we should go too far 
if we were to speak of an absolute lack of proletarians. 
For year by year, as soon as the winter snows have melted, 
the eastern provinces are invaded by trainloads of men 
and women from Galicia, Poland and Russia, who come by 
hundreds of thousands. Year by year, the majority re- 
turn in the autumn to their Slav homes, but many remain. 
There are now in Germany 1,236,000 foreign proletarians, 
mostly of Slav origin. No protective legislation inter- 
feres with the importation of these foreign workers. Now, 
just as the proletarian exodus from the east has not 
sufficed to make this region a land without a proletariat, 
so also should we find in the German west that a birth 
strike would not permanently reduce the supply of labour 
below the demand. Immigration from the Slav lands of 
the east would soon fill the gaps resulting from the birth 158 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
strike. The danger, already existent, that the Germans 
will be ousted by the Slavs, would thereby be enormously 
accentuated. So long as Slav immigration is permitted, 
there is no prospect that the conditions of proletarian life 
in Germany will be bettered by means of the strike. They 
will, indeed, be worsened, for experience teaches that the 
continued influx of foreign labourers with a lower stand- 
ard of life tends to depress wages. Individual families 
may secure greater material comfort by the successful 
adoption of the one-child or two-children system, but the 
proletariat as a class gains nothing. Should the apostles 
of the birth strike win the German workers over to their 
views, the German nation will go down to destruction. 
These are reasons enough, in my opinion, why we should 
discountenance Neo-Malthusianism, even in its latest guise, 
and however brilliantly and attractively it may be pre- 
sented. 
Apart from the question whether the birth strike is com- 
petent to improve the social position of German workers, 
we have to recognise that the campaign against the idea 
of birth-control must not be waged on this ground alone. 
Those who are indifferent whether Germany be peopled by 
German or by Slav workers, may see little objection to a 
systematic refusal to bear offspring. From the outlook 
of a misunderstood internationalism the contention may 
even be urged that it is a matter of indifference whether 
the proletarians who supply surplus value for German 
capital are the offspring of German or Slav loins. In my 
own opinion, however, although the idea of the birth strike 
was promulgated by reputed Marxists, it is impossible for 
a socialist to ignore the national side of the issue. Nor ECONOMICS OP THE BIRTH STRIKE 
159 
could the national danger involved by the acceptance of 
this idea be averted by the prohibition of Slav immigra- 
tion. A serious decline in the birth-rate would expose 
Germany to a dangerous limitation of her fighting forces, 
and no one can regard this as a guarantee of peace. Oppo- 
sition to the birth strike is, primarily, a fight for national 
existence. This is a consideration which no socialist can 
venture to ignore. DECLINE 
IN THE 
BIRTH-RATE 
NATIONALITY 
AND 
CIVILISATION DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE, NA- 
TIONALITY, AND CIVILISATION 
By Eduard Bernstein 
THE choice of the locution “birth strike” for the 
rehash of the somewhat ancient propaganda in 
favour of the deliberate restriction of births is an 
instance of the extent to which a luxuriant growth of sen- 
sationalism tends to stifle the desire for a golden mean in 
the matter of expression. When applied to actions, the 
word strike signifies a complete and conspicuous suspen- 
sion of these. But the aim of the propaganda noisily in- 
itiated and heralded with this high-sounding catchword, is 
merely to advocate the practice of the old recipe of the 
Neo-Malthusians, restriction of births among the workers 
as a means for the improvement of their economic posi- 
tion. We cannot fail to recognise the good intentions of 
the new propagandists, but in truth the arguments they 
advance are not conspicuously better than those presented 
long ago by John Stuart Mill, and subsequently by Drys- 
dale and others, in favour of the restriction of births by 
members of the working classes. Indeed, contemplated 
from their own outlook, the propaganda of the new en- 
thusiasts is far less timely than was that of Mill and his 
school. 
Half a century ago, when John Stuart Mill announced 
his conviction that restriction of births among the workers 164 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
would secure them a more favourable share of the na- 
tional income, it was still possible to believe that there 
was a tendency to over-population, not in England alone, 
but in the greater part of Europe. In England, the birth- 
rate was extremely high, and the excess of births over 
deaths was considerably greater than in any other coun- 
try in Europe. Moreover, Mill wrote for a land where 
the majority of the inhabitants continued to hold strict 
religious views, and where any attempt to interfere with 
the consequences of the sexual act was regarded as im- 
moral. Thus it was that many of Mill’s arguments dealt 
with the question from the ethical point of view. Besides, 
Mill was enmeshed in the dogmas of the wages-fund 
theory, the doctrine according to which the struggle be- 
tween workers and employers always concerns the dis- 
tribution of a wages-fund of a definite size. The believer 
in this theory was perfectly logical in holding that the 
most effective way to promote the welfare of the working 
class would be to reduce its numbers. If there are x 
workers and y means of subsistence, y being a constant 
quantity, every diminution in the number represented by 
x must increase the share of the individual in the national 
supply. 
During Mill’s lifetime, however, the wages-fund theory 
was already exploded. Even in England the strictness of 
Puritanism has abated. A decline in the birth-rate is 
manifest throughout civilised Europe. Less than ever, 
therefore, is restriction of births in the economic interest 
of the working classes. Prom the economic standpoint, 
such restriction is significant solely in relation to the 
domestic balance-sheet of the individual worker or the DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
165 
individual working-class family. In particular cases the 
worker will doubtless be better able to make ends meet if 
bis family remain a small one, but it is no longer neces- 
sary to proclaim this to the workers from every public 
platform. A glance at the birth statistics will show that 
the result for which the Neo-Malthusians have so long and 
so zealously been working has been brought about by 
quiet and unobtrusive means, and not primarily by propa- 
gandists pointing a specific moral. It has been interesting 
to note how, in debates on the birth strike, speakers on 
either side have discussed generalities, or have wandered 
off into side issues, instead of systematically considering 
the economic and general social factors which influence the 
family life of the worker, and which ultimately prescribe 
the number of children it is desirable for him to have. 
Had the debaters followed this latter course it would soon 
have become apparent that the very conditions of modern 
existence, the perpetual rise in the standard of life, the 
increasing opportunities for amusement, enticing people 
away from a vegetative life between the four walls of the 
home, tend automatically to bring about a decrease in the 
number of children. I once jestingly observed: “A nu- 
merous family is not compatible with modern furniture.” 
The build of the houses in which the workers have to 
live, the shrinkage in the size and number of playgrounds, 
the need for continuous life in the streets, have collabo- 
rated to make people dread the “blessing” of many chil- 
dren. Contributory influences in this direction are the 
increasing extent to which life is lived outside the home, 
and the growing desire for intellectual and artistic en- 
joyment. The old saying that to beget children is the poor 166 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
man’s only pleasure, becomes ever less applicable to the 
working classes, the change being largely, though not ex- 
clusively, due to the labour movement. This movement 
exercises an influence in favour of the restriction of births, 
and it does so quite independently of any direct aid from 
the Malthusians. Owing to the unceasing demand for im- 
proved popular education, for the raising of the school 
age, for the prohibition of child labour, and for the re- 
striction in the employment of young persons in manu- 
facturing industry, the age has been progressively de- 
ferred at which the offspring can begin to contribute to 
the family income, can become accessory breadwinners; 
and these changes necessarily counteract the impulse to 
unrestricted procreation. In addition, the labour move- 
ment tends to deter the worker from spending his few 
hours of leisure in the public house, it leads him to think 
of the future, and it induces him to care for his children 
to the best of his ability. Wherever these changes are 
effected, a restriction of births automatically follows. It 
is obvious to any one who becomes intimate with the work- 
ers and who is concerned for the wellbeing of working- 
class families that the tendencies in this direction are now 
extremely strong, and that there has been a notable change 
in working-class opinion. 
Thus agitators on behalf of the birth strike are merely 
knocking at an open door, fighting with empty arguments 
for that which already exists. In this matter of the re- 
striction of births, other points have doubtless to be con- 
sidered, such as various questions of personal and social 
hygiene, but these are mere details of practical applica- 
tion, questions of how, and how much, which do not in- DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
167 
volve the principle per se. No reasonable person will wish 
that children should he brought recklessly into a world 
that has no room for them, nor will any one deny that 
instruction should be given regarding the essential pre- 
requisites for the procreation of healthy offspring. 
To admit, however, that in actual fact birth-control 
is already widely practised among the working classes, is 
not to say that the problem is completely solved. There 
is a seamy side to the matter, and perhaps more than 
one. At meetings where the birth strike is under dis- 
cussion, opponents raise what they consider a decisive ob- 
jection. The social revolution, they contend, can he ef- 
fected only by an increase in the number of the workers, 
and to decimate the proletariat by the general inaugura- 
tion of the birth strike would postpone to the Greek 
calends the attainment of the socialist goal. The social 
problem, they asseverate, “cannot he solved in the mar- 
riage bed. ’ ’ This last assertion is irrefutable, for the reali- 
sation of socialism will not be brought about by any sin- 
gle measure. But the main objection rests upon an eco- 
nomic fallacy resembling the wages-fund theory (of which 
it may be regarded as the counterpart), for the objectors 
overlook the fact that in a period of world-wide inter- 
course and of profound transformation in the mechanism 
of production, the need for human labour is not an in- 
alterable quantity. 
The objections brought forward by Ludwig Quessel to 
combat the idea that the birth strike will in any way 
alleviate the lot of the workers, are serious and are based 
upon facts that demand careful examination. Quessel 
aptly points out that where among a comparatively well-  POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
168 
to-do population the number of workers does not increase 
to a degree commensurate with the increase of the eco- 
nomic demand for labour, immigration of labour from 
economically backward countries ensues. Thereby, he 
says, wages are depressed, or at least a rise in wages is 
rendered impossible. On the American continent, the 
United States, in Europe, France, and in recent years, 
Germany, have all given examples of this. The increase 
in the number of foreign workers employed in Germany 
is well-known. In the census of employment of the year 
1907 it was found that there were in Germany 799,863 
foreign wage earners, and that more than half of these, 
440,800, were employed in manufacturing and mining in- 
dustries. At that time the total number of employes in 
manufacturing and mining industries was 8,593,000, so 
that something over 5 per cent were foreigners—a per- 
centage by no means insignificant. 
Now, has the presence of this 5 per cent of foreigners in 
the German labour market actually had the effect of de- 
pressing wages ? There is an obvious temptation to answer 
the question in the affirmative, and as regards individual 
cases, which may speciously seem typical, an affirmative 
answer will almost certainly be given. But if the ques- 
tion be examined from a wide economic outlook, the con- 
clusions that must be drawn will be found to differ from 
those of Quessel. 
German statistics of occupation show that the number 
of skilled workers engaged in manufacturing and mining 
industries rose from 3,851,929 in 1895 to 4,944,009 in 
1907. Thus, during a period wherein the total popula- 
tion of Germany had increased by no more than 19.22 per DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
169 
cent, the increase in skilled workers in these departments 
amounted to 28.35 per cent. But the distinction between 
skilled and unskilled workers, as a basis of statistical 
classification, is open to serious criticism from a technical 
point of view. Those charged with taking the census, 
the employers of labour, and even the workers themselves, 
usually adopt the rate of wages as a criterion of “skill.” 
But though the classification is thus technically indefen- 
sible, it is extremely convenient from that social outlook 
from which we are now contemplating the subject. 
In the first place we see that in the period under con- 
sideration the rate of increase of highly paid workers out- 
strips that of the general population, and does so despite 
the increase in the number of foreign workers. It seems 
possible, moreover, and even probable, that we might say 
“because of the increase in the number of foreign work- 
ers.” During this period the number of unskilled work- 
ers increased to a considerably greater extent than the 
number of skilled workers. The majority of foreign immi- 
grants belonged to the unskilled category. Now in most 
industries there is a definite relationship between the num- 
ber of skilled operatives it is possible to employ and the 
amount of unskilled labour available. Unless there be an 
adequate supply of unskilled labour, skilled labour lacks 
employment. The strict proof of this thesis by an analysis 
of the statistics of occupation would require a more de- 
tailed investigation than I am now able to undertake. But 
in so far as conclusions can be drawn from the data 
furnished by the census of occupations, we find that in the 
case of manufacturing industry the influx of foreign la- 
bour has not depressed, but has tended rather to elevate, 170 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
the wages of native workers. Those only whose habit it 
is to judge economic data from obvious externals will re- 
gard this as paradoxical. The outward phenomenal form 
and the ultimate economic significance of a process are 
fundamentally different. I do not ignore the injurious 
consequences which may ensue from the extensive immi- 
gration of workers from economically backward lands. 
But the temporary disadvantages to the native workers 
must not blind us to the fact that in the long run the 
influx of able-bodied people raises the general economic 
efficiency of the country, and must therefore prove ad- 
vantageous to the native workers. Statistical proof of 
this can be secured in many countries. On the other 
hand it would be difficult to point to any country whose 
economic life as a whole has been injuriously affected by 
such immigration. 
So much for the economic side of the question. Passing 
now to consider the national aspect of the matter, I differ 
strongly from Quessel, and am inclined to deny categori- 
cally that it has a national aspect at all. Certainly were 
the limitation of births to be carried to such lengths as to 
merit the designation of a birth strike, were it to lead to 
race suicide, then the fight might appropriately be termed 
a fight for national existence. But we are so far from such 
a possibility that no ground exists for speaking of a 
problem. What is of importance to us in the near future 
is the question to what extent an admixture of immigrant 
workers is likely to occur. We must definitely understand, 
in this connection, whether we intend to treat the question 
of nationality as one of civilisation or as one of race. As 
a socialist, I can admit the first conception only, and I DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
171 
believe that I am justified in assuming the same of Ques- 
sel. But the passage in his essay which begins, “From 
the outlook of a misunderstood internationalism the con- 
tention may even be urged that it is a matter of indif- 
ference whether the proletarians who supply surplus value 
for German capital are the offspring of German or of 
Slav loins,” admits of an interpretation to which I must 
demur. In this matter of immigration, the sole question 
which concerns us is that of assimilation, of the absorp- 
tion of the immigrants into the civilisation of our own na- 
tion considered as an integral part of the great interna- 
tional commonwealth. If we abandon this outlook we 
place foot on a dangerous declivity, and shall slip down it 
into the abyss of nationalist exclusivism. 
The peril thus indicated appears to me more imminent 
than that of the birth strike. There is a risk that we 
may lose our bearings amid the currents of nationalist 
agitation which encompass us. The most dangerous ten- 
dency of our day is the luxuriant overgrowth of the na- 
tionalist spirit. It is no exaggeration to say that herein 
we see the reaction of reactions, the movement wherein all 
other reactions are subsumed. For example, not only do 
the so-called national ehurches engage in nationalist propa- 
ganda, but the church of Home likewise enters into the 
fray. At an epoch when social life in general is more in- 
ternational in spirit than ever before, we find that in 
political literature nationalist catchwords exercise un- 
precedented influence. In the domain of practical politics, 
moreover, alike legislative and administrative, the tone is 
set by a nationalism narrower-minded than that of any 
earlier date, a nationalism that tends to degenerate into 172 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
the extremest exclusivism. I am, of course, aware that 
Germany is not the only country touched with this evil, 
but that others are similarly affected in varying degree. 
But our internationalism must be maintained intact; we 
must make no concessions; we must beware of sacrificing 
any part of our intellectual gains on the shrine of this 
false sentimentality. 
We do not deny nationality; we do not deny that the 
state which represents nationality may have specific na- 
tional interests; we are willing in case of need to take our 
share of national service. But if we forget that the nation 
is but the limb of a greater organism, this omission may 
lead us to the fatal sacrifice of the grand historical task 
of socialism. Although this greater organism is not as yet 
consolidated into a compact state structure, it is none the 
less sufficiently developed to endow its adherents with a 
higher degree of spiritual and material solidarity. I am 
thinking not only of the working-class international, but 
also of the great family of nations and nationalities which 
combine to form what is known as European civilisation. 
Though it is possible to maintain that humanity as a 
whole is still too amorphous to constitute a political entity, 
this objection cannot be sustained in the case of the Eu- 
ropean peoples. So intimate is the intellectual and eco- 
nomic intercourse among these peoples, so numerous are 
the threads of common interest by which they are inter- 
connected, that they have attained to a higher degree of 
unity than was exhibited by those world empires that were 
held together solely by the force of arms. Unless we con- 
ceive nationality as a limb of this greater unity, we DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
173 
shall drift rudderless between the Scylla of nationalism 
and the Charybdis of a formless internationalism. 
When we endeavour to give a precise definition of the 
term nation, we find that we have to regard the nation 
as no more than the idea} product of historical and en- 
vironmental tendencies. This view is accordant, not 
merely with socialist thought, but also with the assured 
results of sociological research, while it conflicts sharply 
with the doctrines of those socialists who talk so glibly about 
‘ ‘ race. ’ ’ The widely trumpeted theories that special racial 
endowments exist, and that these endowments have been 
decisive factors in history, have crumbled to nothing. 
Above all, the speculations regarding a connection between 
race and the form of the skull have had to yield to scien- 
tific criticism. It is doubtful if a pure race can be said to 
exist anywhere in the civilised world, and it is certain 
that no civilised nation is composed of one stock to so over- 
whelming a degree as to warrant the use of the term 
race as equivalent to nation. Wherever we look we find 
an intimate admixture of races. Darwin long ago pointed 
out that the races of man are not sufficiently differentiated 
to be able to exist side by side without mingling. In a 
weighty book, which discusses nationality principally 
from the outlook of the history of civilisation, Techet re- 
marks in illustration of Darwin’s theory: “For lack of 
knowledge we are unable to make any comparison between 
a mixed race and a pure race. When we speak of a pure 
race, we are using an erroneous expression to describe a 
mixed race whose characters have become fixed. Such 
terms as ‘pure bred’ and ‘race become pure’ are unmean- 
ing when applied to human divisions, for when after many 174 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
minglings a race ultimately attains to an approximately 
stable form, it is still improper to speak of it as ‘pure.’ ” 
Elsewhere he writes: “The whole history of Europe 
testifies to the wholesome effect of racial admixture ef- 
fected under favourable conditions, and it also proves that 
no race has ever created a progressive civilisation with- 
out a certain admixture of foreign blood. Every civilisa- 
tion in the world has been built up by racial minglings. 
For example, the contention that the Germans, had they 
been able to keep to themselves, and to avoid the infusion 
of Slav, Latin, and Celtic blood, might have attained an 
unprecedented and fabulous development of faculty—is 
an utterly erroneous one, conflicting with the whole history 
of civilisation. . . . There is no ground whatever for the 
belief that in the future the mingling of races will be re- 
placed by a process of purification. We must rather say 
that the admixture of races is likely to proceed more 
rapidly, above all among the peoples of European civilisa- 
tion.,?1 
This sequence of ideas is more worthy of close investi- 
gation than is the cry of distress which Roosevelt, the 
imperialist, has raised concerning race suicide. Birth- 
control makes its appearance whenever civilisation attains 
a certain level. Doubtless restriction of births wfill not 
furnish a socialist solution of the social problem, and 
were it not that immigration compensates for the deficiency 
of offspring, such restriction would hinder economic prog- 
ress. But the movement must be far more widespread be- 
fore it will become permissible to speak of a serious dan- 
1 Tecket, Vollcer, Vaterlander und Fiirsten, Munich, 1913, pp. 149 
and 162. DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
175 
ger to national existence. The socialist aim must rather 
be to favour those political changes whereby the immi- 
grant worker will be welcomed and uplifted to become a 
fellow partaker in the national civilisation. PHILOSOPHY 
OF THE 
BIRTH STRIKE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
By Ludwig Quessel 
THE philosophy of the birth strike is at once prac- 
tical and ideal, at once sober and fantastical. The 
philosophers of the strike are practical and sober- 
minded when they assure the workers that by refraining 
from having children an increase in material wellbeing 
may be secured. The larger the number of persons among 
whom the proletarian’s income is shared, the lower will 
be the standard of life. No matter how much we may ap- 
preciate the joys of parenthood, the fact remains that the 
duration of life and the vital efficiency of working-class 
children are profoundly influenced by the relationship be- 
tween the available means of subsistence (food, clothing, 
shelter and care) and the number of those among whom 
these means have to be divided. It is also true that though 
increase of wages may be secured by an arduous struggle 
with the employer, any advantage that might have accrued 
thereby may be annulled by the addition of another child 
to the family circle. The upholders of the small family 
system maintain that an income of £75 a year provides 
as much and more for a childless married pair than £85 
would provide for man and wife with two children. This 
appears incontestable, for every board of guardians knows 
that £10 per annum is the minimum that will supply the 
needs of one orphan. When eertain socialist opponents of 180 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
the birth strike ventured in public to ignore this indis- 
putable fact, the women among the audience at a public 
meeting in Berlin were justifiably incensed. No more 
than socialism itself, can the birth strike be refuted by 
the denial of obvious facts. The argument that in rural 
districts families can be reared less expensively no longer 
carries weight in Germany, for during recent decades the 
influx into the towns has been continuous, and German 
life is now predominantly urban. Nor is it possible, as 
an argument against the birth strike, to encourage the 
hope that the necessaries of life will become cheaper. 
Sering was right when, on February 9th, 1912, at a meet- 
ing of the Committee on Rural Economy, he declared: 
“The pressure formerly exercised upon the prices of 
cereals and cattle by the existence of land on the margin 
of cultivation will never again be operative, for all virgin 
soil has now been brought under the plough.’’ It is sug- 
gested that the means of subsistence may be increased by 
intensive culture, but under such conditions prices will 
remain stable or will rise; they will certainly not fall. 
With good reason do agricultural economists reckon upon 
a further increase in the world-prices of the means of 
subsistence. Persons, consequently, who consider mate- 
rial wellbeing the leading need of the working classes can 
find no valid arguments with which to counter those who 
advocate the birth strike. 
However sober-minded and practical the philosophers of 
the birth strike may be when they demonstrate to the 
worker that, without any personal sacrifice, and merely 
by voluntary sterility, he may improve his natural well- 
being and may enjoy a far higher standard of life than PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
181 
his fellows who procreate without restriction, they are no 
less fantastical and visionary in the exposition of their 
reasons for desiring to cut proletarian life at the root. 
The denial of the will to live on the part of proletarians 
derives from Schopenhauer, whose philosophy has received 
a very peculiar interpretation at neo-malthusian hands. 
Whereas with Schopenhauer the denial of the will to live 
is a purely spiritual process, not one inducing activity of 
any kind, but leading rather to quietism, renunciation, 
and resignation, in the case of those up-to-date Neo- 
Malthusians whose war-cry is the birth strike, the denial 
of the will to live is a form of socialist activity, a means 
of direct action whereby they hope to destroy the ancient 
structure of bourgeois society. This phenomenon is most 
plainly manifest in France. The French apostles of the 
birth strike spread pamphlets and leaflets broadcast among 
the working classes; they hold meetings in public and in 
private; they organise courses of medical instruction at 
which young working women are taught the means of birth- 
control; and they carry on everywhere an active trade in 
means for the prevention of conception.1 Though this 
active propaganda against working-class procreation 
seems so alien to the philosophy of Schopenhauer, yet it 
cannot be denied that the new theory has much in com- 
mon with his views. According to Schopenhauer, all life, 
all existence, is an evil. Witness our almshouses, invalid 
homes, and hospitals; witness all the poverty and illness 
with which we are confronted, and which no amount of 
fine words can conceal from us. There seems to be no 
1Cf. Bertilloii, La depopulation de la France, Paris, 1911, pp. 218 
et seq. 182 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
possibility of doing away with or even essentially miti- 
gating the misery of existence. Schopenhauer’s conten- 
tion is that the progress of civilisation makes men cleverer 
and more refined, but not a whit better or happier. On 
the contrary, with the advance of culture and with in- 
creasing knowledge, the misery of existence is felt more 
keenly. If, notwithstanding these considerations, very 
few persons throw off existence as an unbearable burden, 
this is because the inborn will to live is stronger than the 
philosophical reason which denies the value of life. By 
the denial of the will to live Schopenhauer becomes an 
opponent of marriage, for by marriage new beings are 
brought into the world to suffer the misery of existence. 
We learn from the philosopher’s disciples that with all 
the power of his eloquence he endeavoured to dissuade 
them from marriage. Schopenhauer remained true to his 
own teaching, passing his prime in the company of a faith- 
ful poodle and a morose elderly housekeeper. He died 
childless. Once in youth he seems to have experienced 
temptation, but when he came to set down on paper the 
pros and cons, the column recording the objections to mar- 
riage was soon overwhelmingly full. 
The philosophers of the birth strike differ from Schopen- 
hauer in that they do not deny the value of life per se, 
but merely the value of proletarian life. Nor does their 
philosophy lead to renunciation and self-denial in the 
sexual sphere. They regard as purposeless and irra- 
tional, even as immoral, the struggle against the power of 
the senses, and they consider that they do good work by 
instructing proletarian women how to renounce child- 
bearing without denying themselves any of the joys of PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
183 
love. Why should new lives be awakened to the miseries 
of working-class existence? Let the possessing classes, 
whose days are an unceasing round of beauty and joy, 
see to the perpetuation of the race, since for them life is 
really worth living. In the case of ninety per cent at 
least of the working class it would be better had they 
never been born, for their existence is squalid and miser- 
able. Neo-Malthusians present us with a picture of prole- 
tarian misery even more horrible than that limned by the 
anarchising socialists. ‘‘The life of our working classes,” 
writes Drysdale, “is worse than that of most of the beasts 
of burden. They toil unremittingly for ten or twelve 
hours a day, at a laborious, monotonous, and in many 
cases a deadly occupation; without hope of advancement, 
or personal interest in the success of the work they are 
engaged in. At night their jaded frames are too tired to 
permit their enjoyment of the few leisure hours; and the 
morn wakens them to the same dreary day of ceaseless 
toil. . . . This shows us that a deeply rooted scepticism 
on human affairs, for which so many thinkers have been 
blamed, is in reality the only view warranted by the real 
state of matters. ’ ’2 
The Neo-Malthusians are thus led to the conclusion that 
it would be far better not to live at all than to live as 
proletarians. But they are not, as was Schopenhauer, 
averse from marriage. All sexual relationships with the 
exception of marriage are, says Drysdale, full of miseries, 
disappointments, and ignominy. Marriage alone can pro- 
vide a free and dignified sexual life for man. This con- 
2 George Drysdale, Elements of Social Science, 35th edition, Stand- 
ring, London, 1905, pp. 332 and 339. 184 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
eeption is shared by the modern enthusiasts for birth-con- 
trol, yet their ideal of sexual companionship for the prole- 
tariat is not found in marriage as hitherto known, hut in 
a voluntary sterile marriage, one which shall not call into 
existence any new proletarian life. Thus, in the philoso- 
phy of the birth strike, the ideas of Schopenhauer recur, 
though strangely distorted. Schopenhauer, who was un- 
der no illusions regarding the power of the sexual im- 
pulse, believed that nothing short of a miracle could re- 
lease humanity from the miseries of existence. The mod- 
ern enthusiasts for birth-control, being men of action, wish 
to bring this miracle about. But they do not remain faith- 
ful to the teaching of the master, for they desire to abolish, 
not life in general, but only working-class life, the life of 
poverty, slavery, and degradation, considering that such 
an existence is not worth living. In no other way, they 
contend, than through the annihilation of proletarian life 
can the philosophy of optimism once more come into its 
own. In truth, it is not the working class alone which 
suffers from the oppression of proletarian misery. The 
gloomy atmosphere of poverty permeates modern life in 
its entirety and sensitive members of the privileged class 
are influenced by this atmosphere, and are unable to take 
an unalloyed delight in existence. 
Modern as the movement may appear, it is not with- 
out precursors. In the days of classical antiquity, in- 
deed, the idea of restricting births seems to have affected 
the possessing classes alone. In ancient Rome, down to 
the destruction of the empire, the lower classes were es- 
pecially distinguished as those who bred without restraint, 
and this is the origin of the term “proletariat.” He who PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
185 
could call nothing his own but his children, he who be- 
queathed nothing to posterity but his offspring was prole- 
tarius. Lack of other worldly goods and rich endowment 
in the matter of offspring, were the essential characteristics 
of this class, and the needier the proletariat the more fruit- 
ful was it. We have no record of any philosophising con- 
cerning the purpose of existence on the part of members of 
this class. 
Not until the middle of the eighteenth century, in the 
writings of the physiocrats, does such philosophising first 
make its appearance. French peasant farmers, wdio could 
call neither house, nor farm, nor cattle their own, being 
asked why their families were so small, made answer: “Is 
it worth while to bring children into the world that they 
may endure so miserable an existence?” The reply was 
full of weariness and resignation, but it aroused grave 
anxiety at Versailles. For centuries it had been taken as 
a matter of course that the nobleman’s land would con- 
tinue to bring forth increase, this increase including its 
stock of human serfs. But it now became evident that 
even among the lowest strata of the French people the 
difference between sexual union and procreation had been 
recognised. The miserable peasant farmer had begun to 
make the production of offspring dependent upon social 
considerations. Since the days of the physiocrats, the idea 
of optional sterility, which underlies that of the birth 
strike, has made continuous progress in France. Church 
and state may rail as they please against the two-children 
system; the French people clings firmly to its practical 
philosophy of life, and will not swerve from the convic- 186 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
tion that to have more than two children is to endanger 
the material wellbeing of the family. 
In Germany as late as the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, even among the bourgeoisie, infant mortality was 
the only regulator of the population. The proletariat be- 
gat so recklessly that year by year infants to the number 
of hundreds of thousands, insufficiently nourished and 
badly cared for, fell like blighted buds from the tree of 
humanity. Under the influence of the malthusian doctrine 
that population tends ever to press upon the means of 
subsistence, the idea of a restriction of births began to 
make its way into Germany. Schleiermacher attempted to 
provide a moral foundation for the notion of birth-control; 
and he formulated a new commandment, “thou shalt not 
heedlessly create life.” But the sexual ethics of Schleier- 
macher did not permeate the general population. His 
ideas remained an esoteric doctrine of the upper classes, 
who gradually learned to protect themselves from the 
pressure of life by restricting the size of their families. 
Throughout the nineteenth century, German workers re- 
mained ignorant of neo-malthusian philosophy. Leading 
a perfectly natural sexual life such as is characteristic of 
aspiring peoples, the German proletariat furnished such 
a wealth of offspring for the purposes of capitalist produc- 
tion that the growth of the population was enormous. It 
was not until the end of the nineteenth century that a 
change became manifest. Per thousand inhabitants, dur- 
ing the decade 1871-1880, the births numbered 40.7; dur- 
ing the decade of 1901-1910, they numbered 33.9; during 
the year 1911, they had fallen to 29.5. The fall in the Ger- 
man birth-rate during the first decade of the twentieth PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
187 
century is so remarkable, especially if the urban popula- 
tion be separately considered, that it is no longer possible 
to doubt that enlightenment as to the methods of birth- 
control has spread among the working classes. Just like 
the French peasant farmer of a hundred and fifty years 
ago, the German operative is beginning to ask himself 
whether the calling of new human beings into life is likely 
to bring happiness to him or to his household. He answers 
this question with an emphatic negative. It is true that 
in the decline of the German birth-rate we see as yet no 
more than a weak manifestation of the refusal to procreate, 
but the change in the outlook upon the sexual life is un- 
mistakable, and the ingenuous naturalness which regulated 
proletarian sex relations during the nineteenth century 
has passed away for ever. A new epoch of sexual philoso- 
phy and morality is dawning. 
Can this development be arrested? At the outset we 
must make it perfectly clear that we have to do with an 
intellectual movement against which compulsory measures 
will be fruitless. An optimistic philosophy may be op- 
posed to the pessimistic conceptions which prevail among 
the proletarian enthusiasts for birth-control, but we can- 
not expect that the optimist will convince the pessimist. 
The pious Christian and the Neo-Malthusian are both im- 
pressed with the philosophical conviction that this earth 
is a vale of tears. The former looks forward to the joys 
of a future life, whereas the latter endeavours to make 
pessimism endurable by the contemplation of a brighter 
temporal future in a society without a proletariat. The 
conflict between pessimism and optimism has existed since 
the dawn of thought, making its appearance in ever new 188 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
forms. The individual’s choice between these two philoso- 
phies is dependent, partly upon his natural temperament, 
and partly upon the social conditions of his personal en- 
vironment. Whilst the economics of the birth strike can 
be critically examined and refuted in detail, the philosophy 
of this same strike is, in ultimate analysis, an affair of 
feeling and of belief, and is therefore impregnable to 
purely rational considerations. It is, further, indubitable 
that a pessimistic estimate of working-class life will secure 
increasing acceptance during an epoch in which the masses 
find it ever more difficult to maintain their standard of life 
if they have large families. Unquestionably the philosophy 
of the birth strike is one well calculated to gain adherents 
in times when rising prices and an increasing difficulty in 
securing employment impose such grave difficulties upon 
working-class housekeeping. It remains for the future to 
show whether the optimist views of socialism will be strong 
enough to form an effective counterpoise, and thus to pro- 
tect the nation from the dangers which a refusal to bear 
children inevitably involves. One thing, at least, is clear. 
The diffusion of a knowledge of birth-control among the 
working class opens a new epoch in the history of Eu- 
ropean humanity, and foreshadows noticeable changes in 
social and moral life. It is impossible to contemplate this 
turning point in human history altogether without con- 
cern. 
Of all the dangers involved in the adoption of birth- 
control, the greatest in my opinion lies in the domain of 
nationality. Eduard Bernstein, it is true, refuses to ad- 
mit the national danger of the declining birth-rate, and 
even goes so far as to deny that there is any occasion to PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
189 
speak of a national danger at all. The extensive immigra- 
tion of Slav workmen to take part in agriculture, mining, 
and manufacturing industry, seems to him a matter of no 
importance so long as we succeed in assimilating the im- 
migrants, in incorporating them into the framework of 
our own civilisation. I admit that racial differences be- 
tween the white nations are not sufficiently great to im- 
pose any serious difficulties in the way of such a process 
of assimilation. But the important question is whether the 
Slav workers will allow themselves to be assimilated. 
Language is the essential basis of every national cul- 
ture. In conjunction with its artistic and literary ir- 
radiations, language constitutes so important a constituent 
of civilisation, that it is impossible to conceive of any 
community of culture without a community of tongues. 
To me, at any rate, it seems inconceivable that a 
man who does not know the tongue of Kant and Goethe 
can be accepted into the civilisation of the German people. 
No doubt the German language can be learned, and in this 
way a unifying bond can be created between the German 
and the Slav workers living in Germany. But the period 
during which the Slav immigrants were willing to accept 
unresistingly the language of the country in which they 
were seeking a livelihood, has long passed away. To-day 
national sentiment among the Slav workman is so power- 
ful that we can no longer hope to win them for the Ger- 
man language and thus for German civilisation. The 
upshot of Slav immigration can best be studied in the 
manufacturing districts of Rhenish Westphalia, where 
whole areas have already become Slav enclaves hermeti- 
cally closed not only to official German civilisation, but 190 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
also to the cultural activities of German socialist work- 
men. It is simply impossible to talk here of assimilation, 
and German socialists have no ground for believing that 
they will succeed where the Prussian elementary schools 
have failed. Now, when two nations speaking different 
tongues live side by side on the same territory, and when 
their civilisations are of equal rank, continuous friction 
arises. It is in this case, perhaps, that the contrast of 
nationalities first becomes manifest in its fullest inten- 
sity. It is impossible to obviate national conflicts by the 
granting of autonomy, for it is impossible to administer 
one and the same area simultaneously after the German 
and the Slav manner. In view of Austrian experience in 
this matter of national struggles, it is hardly possible to 
doubt that a population riven asunder by national con- 
trasts has its progress in civilisation gravely imperilled. 
When the foreign immigrants have a lively sentiment of 
nationality, the assimilation on their part of their hosts’ 
civilisation becomes impossible. If German socialism, fol- 
lowing Bernstein’s desire, were to institute a campaign on 
behalf of political changes whereby the Slav immigrants 
would be made fellow-partakers in German civilisation, 
the only result would be to incur the deadly hostility of 
these same immigrants. 
I admit that foreign immigration, extensive and alarm- 
ing as it already is, does not yet constitute a grave na- 
tional danger. But such a danger would certainly arise 
if, owing to a decline in the German birth-rate, foreign 
immigration were to attain to vaster proportions. Those 
even who are free from national prejudice will refuse to 
regard with equanimity the danger of the appearance on PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIRTH STRIKE 
191 
German soil of a population speaking different tongues. 
In my own view such a phenomenon would he of far- 
reaching and momentous significance, and in comparison 
therewith numerous matters about which public opinion 
is now greatly exercised seem to me of trifling importance. 
Inasmuch as indications of the genesis of a mixed popu- 
lation, speaking different tongues, are already manifest 
both in the west and in the east of the German empire, 
and since the further progress of this movement cannot 
fail to lead to a violent struggle of nationalities, it would 
be utterly wrong-headed of German socialists to close their 
eyes to these possibilities. In my opinion, one of the im- 
portant duties of socialists is, in the interest of peace be- 
tween the nations, and while there is still time to take ef- 
fective measures, to counteract that confusion of the na- 
tions which is a characteristic outcome of capitalism. OVER-POPULATION 
AS A CAUSE 
OF WAR OVER-POPULATION AS A CAUSE 
OF WAR 
By B. Dunlop 
BEFORE August, 1914, few people seemed willing 
to consider the proposition that high birth-rates 
are the fundamental cause of war. Yet, in view 
of the notable and continuous decline in the birth-rate in 
most civilised countries, this theory was a most encourag- 
ing one. It was, moreover, no more than an extension to 
social problems of the great principle of evolution which 
had been accepted in all other departments of biology. 
The reproduction of animals in constant great excess of 
their means of subsistence is recognised to result inevita- 
bly in a struggle for existence. The normal consequence 
is to force the unfortunate or the unfit out of the race; 
occasionally, as among ants, the struggle for existence 
takes the form of that organised strife known as war. 
Man, like the lower animals, has been subject to the 
operation of malthusian checks, for his birth-rate must 
rarely if ever have been less than 35 per thousand per 
annum. This means that there has been a continuous 
tendency for human population to increase at the rate of 
at least 25 per thousand per annum, although prior to 
the nineteenth century increase in the food supply can 
rarely have been effected at a higher rate than 5 per 
thousand per annum, which very low rate is still that for 196 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
the world as a whole. Thus there has always been a high 
death-rate, and an excess of population for the current 
means of subsistence. 
High birth-rates caused poverty, poverty created un- 
rest, unrest led to migrations or wars. Consequently 
man’s history has largely been one of migrations and 
wars. But it seems to be part of his evolution that he 
should remain blind as long as possible to the real cause 
of his distress; thus, for example, he often believed that 
he was fighting only for his religion. The great Greek 
philosophers partially realised the problem, but it was not 
until the French Revolution gave birth to communism, and 
this doctrine in its turn stimulated Malthus to formulate 
his anti-communistic theories, that niggardly nature was 
clearly shown to be the real enemy. Though Darwin was 
thus led to discover the principle of evolution, the mal- 
thusian doctrine as applied to man was almost eclipsed for 
many years by the industrial revolution. Yet, in sum, the 
changes that now ensued served merely to enable the manu- 
facturing nations to advance the rate of increase of food 
supply from the previous 5 to between 10 and 15 per 
thousand per annum—whereas, as already stated, their 
high birth-rate really required at the very least an an- 
nual increase of food of 25 per thousand if poverty was 
to be avoided. 
Napoleon is said to have remarked that the French 
must either reduce their birth-rate or make war. After 
the Revolution they adopted the former course; and in 
1876, or in some cases a little later, all neighbouring coun- 
tries began to follow the French example. But in Ger- 
many a birth-rate of over 30 per thousand per annum UNDER 20 PEfj /000 
20-2.S » I » 
2S~ "I n 
30- 6.0 < 
4-0- SO y » 
EUROPE. 
Mcridiim of 0 firowwiri 
Von£itiwl» Eajjt, 50 «| CpfV*'*'^v'> 
BIRTH RATES OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES—1906-1910 OVER-POPULATION AS A CAUSE OF WAR 
197 
long persisted, giving rise to much poverty and unrest, 
and inducing extensive preparations for territorial ex- 
pansion. In 1901, however, the German birth-rate began 
to fall at record speed, and after 1909 one felt that if 
peace should last a few years longer it would continue 
indefinitely so far as western Europe alone was con- 
cerned. But, alas, in 1914, the war that had been so long 
prepared for broke out. 
Now look at the map which C. V. Drysdale has kindly 
allowed me to reproduce here and which he well calls his 
“War Map of Europe.’’ It will be seen that, consistently 
with the foregoing rather compressed argument, the war 
began among the high birth-rate countries—Germany, Aus- 
tria, Serbia, and Russia; and that Belgium, France, and 
England (like Norway, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and 
Switzerland, which have also been foremost in the move- 
ment towards pacifism) were low birth-rate countries. 
My conclusion is that there will continue to be great 
danger of war so long as any large and progressive coun- 
try has a birth-rate of over 30 per thousand per annum. 
And in case any one might still be inclined to scorn the 
scientific evolutionary contention that high birth-rates are 
the fundamental cause of war I shall close by asking this 
question: Can you imagine war occurring if no one in the 
world had more than two children? THE 
DECLINE 
IN THE 
BIRTH-RATE THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
By R. Manschke 
IN the discussion of the possible causes of the decline 
in the birth-rate, little consideration has hitherto been 
paid to the question whether a contributory and per- 
haps the principal cause may not he a decline in fertility. 
The existence of such a decline can in fact he definitely 
proved. The statistical material upon which the thesis of 
a decline in fertility may be based is far from being so 
scanty as might be imagined. Most important of all are 
the Badenese statistics. In Baden, for every 1,000 deliv- 
eries there were: 
Period 
Miscarriages 
Premature 
Births 
Irregular Births 
and Operative 
Deliveries 
1870-1875 
12.4 
1876-1880 
14.7 
34.1 
63.3 
1881-1885 
17.4 
36.6 
72.9 
1886-1890 
22.8 
38.3 
89.5 
1891-1895 
22.7 
36.0 
89.2 
1896-1898 
23.9 
36.2 
94.0 
1899-1900 
25.2 
36.0 
98.4 
1901-1902 
25.9 
37.1 
102.9 
1903-1904 
27.6 
36.5 
105.8 
1905-1906 
29.7 
39.0 
111.4 
1907-1908 
31.6 
40.3 
112.5 
1909-1910 
32.5 
40.0 
113.2 
1911 
41.7 
45.6 
117.6 202 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Thus during forty years the number of miscarriages 
has increased more than threefold, the number of irregu- 
lar births and operative deliveries has almost doubled, 
while the premature births have augmented by more than 
a third. If we classify miscarriages and premature births 
with the other anomalies, we find that the frequency of 
all anomalies has almost doubled, rising from 11.2% to the 
high figure of 20.5% during the brief period from 1876-80 
to 1911. The suggestion that the increase in operative 
cases is due to improved midwifery can hardly be sus- 
tained, for the reports refer only to deliveries attended 
by doctors or midwives, all other cases being excluded. 
Moreover, it is the more serious manipulations and opera- 
tions which have most notably increased. 
Per 1,000 premature and full time deliveries, cases of 
artificial premature delivery, craniotomy, dismemberment 
of the foetus, and Caesarean section, occurred as follows: 
Period 
Cases 
1870-1875 
0.96 
1876-1880 
0.95 
1881-1885 
1.61 
1886-1890 
2.16 
1891-1895 
2.31 
1896-1898 
2.51 
1899-1900 
2.63 
1901-1902 
3.13 
1903-1904 
3.28 
1905-1906 
3.78 
1907-1908 
3.67 
1909-1910 
5.09 
1911 
5.65 
More especially in those towns which are in general 
characterised by a very low birth-rate, premature births THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
203 
and miscarriages, operative assistance during child-birth, 
and above all severe operations, are strikingly common. 
In the town of Mannheim, for example, during the year 
1911, miscarriages numbered 8.73% of all deliveries; in 
Weinheim, 8.90%; in Constance, 6.64%; in Lorrach, 
6.80%. It is improbable that in these cases we have to 
do with the deliberate production of abortion, for we are 
concerned here with miscarriages attended by midwives 
or doctors, and therefore miscarriages which occurred at 
a comparatively advanced stage of pregnancy. 
Agnes Bluhm reports an increase of operative inter- 
ference during delivery for the town of Hamburg, accom- 
panied by an increased mortality: 
Period 
Operations 
Per Hundred 
Deliveries 
Number of Maternal Deaths 
Number of Infantile Deaths 
Per 
Hundred 
Operations 
Per 
Thousand 
Deliveries 
Per 
Hundred 
Operations 
Per 
Thousand 
Births 
1885-1889 
4.74 
4.14 
1.96 
22.91 
10.70 
1890-1894 
5.15 
3.72 
2.01 
21.11 
10.72 
1895-1899 
6.32 
3.30 
2.08 
19.29 
12.97 
1900-1904 
6.99 
4.80 
3.35 
18.69 
12.90 
1905-1909 
7.49 
5.21 
3.91 
18.08 
13.65 
Thus improvements in midwifery have not been able to 
prevent an increase in the maternal and infantile deaths. 
As in Baden, so here, there has been an increase in the 
number of premature births (see page 204). 
Moreover, as far as statistics are available concerning 
infantile deaths due to congenital developmental defects, 
we find that in this case also the increase has been rapid 
and unmistakable, above all in England. 204 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Year 
Premature Births 
Per 100 Births 
Deaths from Debility Per 
100 Infants Born Alive 
1905 
5.82 
3.05 
1906 
5.76 
3.66 
1907 
5.96 
3.71 
1908 
6.44 
3.90 
1909 
6.47 
4.06 
Of a thousand infants horn alive, there died of con- 
genital developmental defects: 
Period 
England 
and Wales 
Scotland 
Ireland 
1856-1860 
1.671 
1.13 
1861-1865 
1.76 
1.54 
1866-1870 
1.82 
1.84 
0.40 
1871-1875 
1.85 
2.19 
0.25 
1876-1880 
2.80 
2.40 
0.29 
1881-1885 
3.23 
2.76 
0.76 
1886-1890 
3.39 
3.19 
0.83 
1891-1895 
3.86 
3.65 
0.92 
1896-1900 
4.18 
3.95 
1.23 
1901-1905 
6.12 
5.42 
2.79 
For the British Colonies in Australia the figures were as 
follows: 
Period 
New South 
Wales 
Victoria 
Queensland 
S. Australia 
W. Australia 
1891-1895.. 
1901-1905 . . 
3.39 
4.63 
3.67 
5.51 
4.02 
8.50 
3.27 
2.88 
1.07 
4.40 
In Ireland, where, though the birth-rate is very low, 
infantile mortality being minimal, conjugal fertility is 
11858-1860. THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
205 
high, cases of congenital developmental defect are rarer 
than elsewhere in Great Britain, though here also they are 
increasing. It must be noted that in England, notwith- 
standing the great increase of deaths due to congenital 
developmental defects, there has been a continuous decline 
in infantile mortality in general. 
If the deaths from congenital debility be classed with 
the deaths from developmental defects, the increase is even 
more striking. Of 1,000 infants born alive, there died of 
congenital debility and congenital developmental defects: 
Period 
England 
and Wales 
Ireland 
Netherlands 
1858-1860 
12.7 
1861-1865 
13.0 
1866-1870 
13.4 
i.9 
1871-1875 
14.4 
1.8 
1876-1880 
16.6 
2.1 
6.2 
1881-1885 
17.4 
3.4 
5.2 
1886-1890 
19.5 
4.0 
5.2 
1891-1895 
22.3 
4.6 
9.6 
1896-1900 
23.8 
6.4 
10.2 
1901-1905 
26.5 
9.2 
22.8 
In Prussia, too, notwithstanding a notable decline in 
infantile mortality, a similar phenomenon is discernible. 
Of 1,000 infants born alive, there died in Prussia from con- 
genital debility and from congenital developmental de- 
fects. The number given at top of page 206. 
Thus, after a trifling decline in the extraordinarily high 
rate, there occurs a fresh increase in the death-rate. It 
must he remembered that were it not for skilled assistance 206 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Period 
1876-1880 
31.1 
1881-1885 
34.2 
1886-1890 
34.7 
1891-1895 
36.3 
1896-1900 
37.4 
1901-1905 
36.4 
1906 
34.8 
1907 
35.3 
1910 
35.9 
1911 
38.6 
at child-birth, which is available especially in the towns, the 
deaths would probably have been far more numerous. 
In the following circles in Prussia (1911), conditions 
are especially bad: 
Circle 
Infantile 
Mortality 
per 100 Born 
Alive 
Deaths 
from Infantile 
Debility Per 
100 Born Alive 
Births Per 
1,000 In- 
habitants 
Culm 
23.0 
9.17 
38.4 
Brandenburg-on-the-Havel 
24.3 
6.07 
23.7 
Adelnau 
19.8 
8.83 
39.3 
Schmiegel 
13.6 
6.83 
37.6 
Kempen in Posen 
18.1 
8.74 
38.6 
Stanislau 
20.3 
8.38 
32.9 
Rosenberg in Upper Silesia 
17.5 
8.92 
36.2 
Tost-Gleiwitz 
22.0 
8.32 
39.1 
Beuthen Land 
22.9 
8.43 
44.4 
Osterholz 
18.1 
6.36 
28.6 
Sigmaringen 
17.4 
5.96 
27.5 
Haigerloch 
26.2 
6.54 
31.3 THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
207 
The table shows that in some of these circles the birth- 
rate is comparatively low. The objection may however be 
raised that in general the causes of the high infantile mor- 
tality are a high birth-rate, lack of skilled assistance in 
child-birth, and the like. A table may therefore be given 
to show the conditions that prevail in such backward re- 
gions as Galicia and Dalmatia. 
Prefecture 
Total 
Number of 
Births 
During 1910 
Birth-rate 
Per 1,000 In- 
habitants 
in 1910 
Deaths from 
Infantile 
Debility 
Per 100 Born 
Alive 
Percentage of 
Women Delivered 
in 1900 Without 
the Assistance of 
Either Doctor or 
Qualified Midwife 
Bohorodczany. .. 
3167 
46.1 
0.13 
77.7 
Zolkiew 
4020 
40.7 
0.10 
79.1 
Bencovac 
2207 
50.7 
0.23 
95.2 
Imotsky 
2085 
50.1 
0.00 
97.1 
Jaslo 
2975 
34.0 
0.20 
86.3 
Limanowa 
3003 
37.2 
0.17 
96.0 
Skalat 
3523 
36.9 
0.09 
81.2 
Such instances are by no means isolated. Speaking 
generally, in Galicia, Bukowina, and in the greater part 
of Dalmatia, deaths from infantile debility are extremely 
rare, whilst in Prussia there is not a single district where 
the frequency of deaths from this cause is less than 1.5 per 
hundred born alive. Among all the governmental districts 
of Prussia, those in which the infantile death-rate is (com- 
paratively) low are shown in the following table: 208 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Governmental District 
Birth-rate 
Per 1,000 Inhabitants 
for 1911 
Deaths from Infantile 
Debility for 1911 Per 
100 Born Alive 
Oppeln 
39.3 
6.14 
Sigmaringen 
27.5 
5.99 
Allenstein 
33.9 
5.17 
Posen 
36.3 
5.11 
Danzig 
36.3 
4.63 
Bromberg 
38.0 
4.58 
Marienwerder 
37.1 
4.26 
Magdeburg 
26.8 
4.25 
Breslau 
31.3 
4.24 
Stralsund 
29.6 
4.16 
Sleswig 
27.4 
4.10 
Potsdam 
23.4 
4.00 
Cassel 
27.6 
1.77 
Aurich 
30.2 
2.19 
Coblenz 
28.1 
2.56 
Luneburg 
26.6 
2.60 
Hildesheim 
26.2 
2.61 
Osnabriick 
32.5 
2.62 
Wiesbaden 
24.3 
2.62 
Koslin 
31.4 
2.70 
Hanover 
24.8 
2.70 
Minden 
29.9 
3.11 
Erfurt 
27.8 
3.18 
Treves 
33.4 
3.29 
The corresponding figures for Bavaria for the year 1910 
are given on page 209. 
In Prussia taken as a whole, with a birth-rate of 30.2, 
there died during the year 1911, of infantile debility, per 
hundred born alive, 3.85; in Bavaria the figures for 1910 
were, birth-rate 32.4, deaths per cent from, infantile de- 
bility 5.62; whereas in Austria for the year 1910, with a 
birth-rate of 33.4, the deaths from infantile debility per THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
209 
District 
Birth-rate Per 
1,000 Inhabitants 
Deaths from 
Infantile Debility 
Per 100 Born Alive 
Upper Bavaria 
30.4 
6.08 
Lower Bavaria 
37.8 
8.44 
Palatinate 
32.8 
3.29 
Upper Palatinate 
37.2 
6.40 
Upper Franconia 
30.5 
4.92 
Middle Franconia 
30.0 
4.73 
Lower Franconia 
30.8 
4.06 
Swabia 
32.4 
6.72 
hundred born alive were only 2.40. The conditions pre- 
vailing in the individual provinces of Austria are shown 
in the following table: 
Province 
Birth Rate Per 
1,000 Inhabitants 
Deaths from Infantile 
Debility per 100 Born 
Alive 
Lower Austria 
25.2 
3.28 
Upper Austria 
29.5 
3.61 
Salzburg 
30.9 
3.83 
Styria 
30.5 
1.56 
Carinthia 
32.5 
4.53 
Carniola 
34.7 
3.34 
Trieste 
33.9 
5.50 
Gorz and Gradisca 
40.1 
8.59 
Istria 
40.1 
3.62 
Tyrol 
32.4 
2.35 
Vorarlberg 
29.3 
2.45 
Bohemia 
29.4 
3.25 
Moravia 
32.6 
3.19 
Silesia 
35.0 
1.30 
Galicia 
39.7 
1.14 
Bukowina 
40.7 
1.11 
Dalmatia 
42.3 
3.00 2 
2 The mortality in Dalmatia, if the prefectures of Zara and Knin 
be excepted, is 1.78. 210 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
If, in Austria, with the exception of Dalmatia, the gen- 
eral infantile mortality be high notwithstanding the low 
mortality from infantile debility, the reasons must be 
sought elsewhere. 
Somewhat similar results are furnished by an examina- 
tion of the comparative frequency of still-births. The still- 
births per 1,000 births were as follows: 
Sweden 
Denmark 
Prussia 
Bavaria 
Austria 
Belgium 
France 
Italy 
1896-1900.. 
25.5 
24.4 
32.3 
29.9 
28.1 
44.6 
45.8 
40.7 
1901-1905.. 
26.0 
23.7 
30.8 
28.8 
26.5 
43.5 
45.2 
42.9 
1910 
23.1 
29.6 
27.0 
24.6 
43.4 
44.4 
42.1 
Spain 
Portugal 
Nether- 
lands 
Switzer- 
land 
Russia in 
Europe 
Serbia 
Rumania 
Bulgaria 
Japan 
1896-1900.. 
9.9 
43.4 
35.1 
3.5 
11.8 
15.4 
5.6 
88.3 
1901-1905.. 
24.9 
14.6 
40.8 
34.8 
21.4 
19.3 
5.7 
93.6 
1910 
39.0 
32.6 
— 
26.5 
86.5 
It thus appears that in the countries of western Europe 
still-births are far more frequent than in Russia or Ba- 
varia. The deliberate production of abortion has nothing to 
do with the figures, for miscarriages are not registered at 
all. In all these cases we have to do with the still- 
birth of infants which have lived at least until the seventh 
month in the mother’s womb. 
Especially unfavourable is the relationship if we com- 
pare the figures for certain restricted areas with those for 
Galicia and Dalmatia. The statistics of the following 
Prussian circles are exceptionally bad (1911): THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
211 
Circle 
Birth-rate 
Still-births Per 
Hundred Births 
J iiterbog-Luckenwalde 
22.0 
4.65 
Liibben 
23.6 
4.52 
Trebnitz 
30.7 
4.96 
Guhrau 
33.0 
4.65 
Sprottau 
29.8 
5.43 
Goldberg-Haynau 
32.8 
6.20 
Liegnitz Land 
32.8 
4.96 
Jauer 
32.5 
4.85 
Schonau 
34.1 
5.40 
Bolkenhain 
30.9 
5.16 
Hirschberg 
29.1 
4.92 
Lowenberg 
30.1 
4.89 
Bremervorde 
32.6 
5.37 
Fritzlar 
28.7 
4.74 
Astonishingly high are the figures, above all, in the 
smaller towns. Austria in this respect presents us with 
records. For example, in the fashionable spa of Carlsbad, 
in the year 1909, 11.8% of the births were still-births, 
and in addition 2.7% of those born alive succumbed from 
infantile debility, leaving still-births out of account, the 
birth-rate was only 17.4 per thousand. In the Galician 
town of Tarnopol with 30,000 inhabitants, half of whom are 
Jews, the still-births in 1909 wrere 10.9%, and 15.8% of 
those born alive died of debility. Here, while the birth- 
rate was extraordinarily low, being only 14.1 per thousand 
inhabitants (still-births not counted), infantile mortality 
attained the almost incredible figure of 47.1%. It is true 
that in many small towns in Germany similar results are 
recorded, but these may be chance instances, whereas in 212 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Carlsbad and Tarnopol we have to do with conditions 
which have persisted for years. 
Extremely interesting, in this connection, is a compari- 
son between France and Dalmatia: 
Department 
i 
Number Born Alive Per 
1,000 Inhabitants (Cor- 
rected Birth-rate) 
Infants Who Have Not 
Breathed per 100 Born: 
Average of the Years 
1907-1910 
Duration of Pregnancy 
(Miscarriages Not 
Counted) Per 100 
Births 
Per 100 Births Regard- 
ing Which Data are 
Available. Number At- 
tended by a Doctor 
(1907-1910) 
Less 
than 
8 Months 
8 Months 
Finistere 
29.7 
2.50 
1.55 
0.99 
23.2 
Gers 
13.3 
4.20 
2.13 
1.27 
10.7 
Gironde 
16.3 
4.05 
2.61 
1.61 
12.9 
Alpes Maritimes 
22.5 
6.18 
4.27 
1.82 
18.4 
Territoire de Belfort. . 
24.0 
5.45 
3.61 
1.51 
4.8 
Manche 
21.5 
3.32 
2.74 
1.22 
57.0 
Orne 
22.9 
3.14 
2.24 
1.48 
56.2 
Corsica 3 
21.1 
0.92 
0.85 
0.19 
3.5 
Yonne 
15.0 
3.61 
2.65 
1.09 
45.8 
Seine 
20.1 
5.06 
4.70 
2.23 
14.4 
Vaucluse 
18.5 
5.02 
2.62 
1.40 
23.1 
Var 
17.6 
4.80 
2.60 
1.49 
12.9 
Rhone 
17.1 
4.67 
2.26 
0.80 
38.9 
France (general) 
20.3 
3.83 
2.60 
1.39 
22.6 
Thus, in France still-births are extraordinarily common, 
the only exceptions being Corsica and Finistere, the most 
prolific regions of the country. The more backward Slav 
regions of Austria offer a striking counterpart to France: 
the figures relate to the year 1910: 
8 Notwithstanding the low birth-rate, the mean number of children 
is higher than anywhere on the French mainland. THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
213 
Provinces and 
Administrative Districts 
Births per 1,000 
Inhabitants 
Still-births Per 
100 Births 
Per 100 Births Number 
of Deliveries Unassisted 
by Doctor or Quali- 
fied Midwife 
Dalmatia 
41.5 
1.62 
68.4 
Bencovac 
50.7 
0.14 
95.2 
Imotsky 
50.1 
0.24 
97.1 
Knin 
50.4 
0.29 
98.8 
Macarsca 
37.9 
0.38 
82.8 
Sinj 
44.9 
0.38 
86.0 
Galicia 
39.0 
1.76 
75.5 
Husiatyn 
38.0 
0.61 
78.1 
Bohorodezany.... 
46.1 
1.00 
77.7 
Lemberg Land... 
41.9 
0.98 
69.6 
Przemyslany 
41.6 
0.75 
86.5 
Skalat 
36.9 
0.77 
81.2 
Zbaraz 
36.2 
0.92 
83.4 
In contrast with this it is to be noted that, as far as Prus- 
sia and Bavaria are concerned, the highest and the lowest 
percentages of still-births occur in the districts named in 
the following table, the high percentages being given on 
the left and the low percentages on the right: 
Still-births 
Per 100 
Births 
Still-births 
Per 100 
Births 
Liegnitz 
4.52 
Sigmaringen 
1.38 
Berlin 
3.68 
Oppeln 
2.11 
Breslau 
3.56 
Lower Franconia. . 
2.14 
Frankfort . 
3.37 
Swabia 
2.30 
Aurich 
3.34 
Lower Bavaria.... 
2.32 
Middle Franconia... 
3.31 
Munster 
2.33 
Stralsund 
3.29 
Erfurt 
2.43 
Cassel 
3.22 
Danzig 
2.44 
Hanover 
3.25 
Aix-la-Chapelle.... 
2.48 
Potsdam 
3.21 
Osnabriick 
2.51 214 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
The tables show beyond question that conditions in the 
“more highly civilised states,” in comparison with such 
countries as Russia and Bavaria, and above all in compari- 
son with the backward regions of Austria, are by no means 
favourable. As far as statistics are available, it can also 
be proved that in highly civilised countries the mortality 
of women in childbed is comparatively high. 
When we institute a comparison between to-day and ear- 
lier times, we encounter the remarkable fact that long ago 
still-births must have been far less numerous than they 
now are. Nor can the increase be attributed to the secret 
practice of abortion, for the available figures refer solely 
to deliveries at term, miscarriages not having been regis- 
tered. Among 1,000 births, the still-births numbered: 
Period 
Sweden 
Prussia 
Bavaria 
France 
1751-1755 
24.4 
.... 
1761-1765 
25.9 
1781-1785 
27.9 
.... 
.... 
1791-1795 
29.0 
. . . . 
1801-1805 
24.8 
.... 
1811-1815 
24.7 
.... 
1821-1825 
25.7 
32.5 
24.84 
1831-1835 
29.2 
36.1 
27.1 
1841-1845 
30.8 
38.5 
30.4 
32.7 
1851-1855 
32.1 
39.6 
30.8 
39.1 
1861-1865 
32.8 
41.6 
32.8 
43.6 
1871-1875 
32.1 
40.7 
33.4 
44.6 
1876-1880 
29.4 
40.8 
34.3 
44.1 
1881-1885 
27.6 
39.5 
33.5 
45.2 
1886-1890 
26.6 
37.2 
32.7 
45.8 
1891-1895 
26.6 
33.1 
31.4 
46.8 
1896-1900 
25.5 
32.3 
29.9 
45.8 
1901-1905 
1907 
26.0 
30.8 
29.8 
28.8 
27.4 
45.2 
45.4 
1910 
29.6 
27.0 
44.4 
41826-1830. THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
215 
This shows that in earlier times the frequency of still- 
births was comparatively low; a steady increase took place 
until the second half of the nineteenth century, to be fol- 
lowed by a decline under the influence of the advance in 
the technique of midwifery. But even in Prussian towns 
there has during the last few years been once again mani- 
fest an increase in the number of still-births. Per 1,000 
births in Prussian towns, there were in the year 1909, 
30.2 still-births; in 1910, 30.8; in 1911, 30.9; and in 1912, 
31.1. 
When we turn, in conclusion, to consider the mortality 
of childbed, we find that, speaking generally, this mortal- 
ity is higher in proportion as the centre of population is 
larger and the birth-rate lower. The figures in the follow- 
ing table relate to Prussia in the year 1911: 
Births Per 
1,000 In- 
habitants 
Deaths in 
Childbed Per 
1,000 Births 
Without 
Puerperal 
Fever 
In large towns 
In middle-sized towns (20,000 to 
25.7 
5.00 
2.20 
100,000 inhabitants) 
28.1 
4.03 
1.81 
In small towns (20,000 & under) 
27.7 
2.95 
1.45 
In rural districts 
33.3 
2.75 
1.57 
General 
30.2 
3.34 
1.70 
By von Gruber and other distinguished physicians and 
persons of importance who have intervened in this con- 
troversy it is taken as axiomatic that nothing but improper 
interference with the course of pregnancy can be the cause 
of this high mortality in childbed. But statistics afford a 
decisive disproof of any such contention. Deaths following 216 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
miscarriage, among which instances of the suggested kind 
must be included, play no part in accounting for the mor- 
tality of childbed, while this mortality is mainly dependent 
upon cases in which we can utterly exclude the question of 
improper interference. Among the 141 cases of death in 
childbed (from causes other than puerperal fever) re- 
corded in the Berlin statistics for the year 1910, 15 only 
were a sequel of miscarriage, while 25 were due to intra- 
abdominal pregnancy, and 30 were due to eclampsia. 
If we compare former conditions with present, we do 
indeed find that the mortality of childbed underwent a 
decline owing to improvements in midwifery, for in Meck- 
lenburg-Schwerin eighteenth century statistics show the 
mortality to have been 8 to 12 per 1,000 of all deliveries, 
and there was a fall in the mortality-rate throughout the 
nineteenth century; but recently there has once been an 
increase. 
In Prussia, per 1,000 deliveries, the maternal deaths 
ranged as follows: 
Period 
Deaths 
1875-1880 
5.99 
1881-1885 
5.86 
1886-1890 
4.87 
1891-1895 
4.07 
1896-1900 
3.19 
1901-1905 
3.23 
1906 
2.88 
1907 
2.94 
1910 
3.14 
1911 
3.39 
It consequently appears that there must be a progressive 
decline in the bodily powers of resistance. The mortality THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
217 
is especially high in western Europe. In England, per 
1,000 deliveries, the maternal deaths (leaving puerperal 
fever out of consideration) numbered: 
Period 
Deaths 
1871-1875.. 
2.99 
1881-1885 
2.14 
1891-1895 
2.94 
1901-1905 
2.28 
This should be compared with Prussian conditions. In 
Prussia, abstracting the deaths from puerperal fever, the 
mortality in childbed per 1,000 deliveries was in 1906, 1.75; 
in 1910, 1.71; and in 1911, 1.73. 
Worst of all in this respect—no French data are avail- 
able—are the United States and Australasia, countries 
Region 
Period 
From 
Puerperal 
Fever 
From Other Vari- 
eties of Mortality 
in Childbed 
Total 
Maine 
1900-1904 
2.11 
4.24 
6.35 
Michigan 
1898-1902 
5.04 
5.16 
10.20 
N. S. Wales... . 
1891-1895 
1.78 
3.61 
5.39 
do. 
1901-1905 
2.49 
4.36 
6.85 
Victoria 
1891-1895 
1.79 
3.21 
5.00 
do. 
1901-1905 
1.90 
4.10 
6.00 
Queensland. . . . 
1891-1895 
0.45 
4.37 
4.85 
do. 
1901-1905 
0.61 
4.11 
4.72 
S. Australia.... 
1891-1895 
1.36 
3.12 
4.48 
do. 
1901-1905 
1.64 
2.90 
4.54 
W. Australia. . . 
1891-1895 
0.92 
3.24 
4.16 
do. 
1901-1905 
1.17 
4.11 
5.28 
Tasmania 
1891-1895 
0.95 
2.98 
3.93 
do. 
1901-1905 
0.69 
3.33 
4.02 
New Zealand... 
1901-1905 
1.01 
4.40 
5.41 218 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
where the birth-rate is peculiarly low. On the other hand, 
as far as a judgment is possible, Dalmatia is exception- 
ally fortunate in this matter! Take first the conditions 
in Maine, Michigan, and Australasia, where, per 1,000 de- 
liveries, deaths occurred as shown in preceding table. 
An exact statement is impossible as regards Australasia, 
for data concerning still-births are not given in the Aus- 
tralasian records. Consequently about 1 or 2 ought to 
he subtracted from the figures in the second place of 
decimals. But the error is so slight that it can he dis- 
regarded. 
As regards Dalmatia, on the other hand, certain statis- 
tics are available concerning the deaths from puerperal 
fever. We find, for example, that for the entire province 
during the year 1910 there were 26,843 births, and that 
only 11 women died of puerperal fever, whereas in Berlin 
during the year 1911 there were 44,835 births and 243 
deaths from puerperal fever. In Galicia, however, where 
in many districts positive epidemics of puerperal fever 
occur, the records are less favourable, although even here 
better conditions prevail than in many parts of Germany. 
As regards Prussia in the year 1910, the districts in 
which puerperal mortality was highest and those in which 
it was lowest are indicated upon the left and the right side 
respectively of the table on page 219. 
If we leave out of consideration the easterly districts, 
in which as many as 50% of all births may still take place 
without the assistance of a doctor or a qualified midwife, 
we observe that childbed mortality is exceptionally high 
in many regions with an extremely low birth-rate, and 
conversely that it is strikingly low in districts where the THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
219 
Governmental District 
Births Per 
1,000 Inhabitants 
Deaths in Childbed 
Per 1,000 Deliveries 
Berlin (suburban) 
22.0 
6.97 
Sigmaringen 
30.0 
4.81 
Danzig 
37.3 
4.45 
Allenstein 
34.7 
4.20 
Potsdam 
24.4 
3.68 
Hanover 
25.9 
3.67 
Marienwerder 
38.3 
3.53 
Stralsund 
30.7 
3.39 
Konigsberg 
31.6 
3.38 
Minden 
31.2 
3.33 
Stade 
31.5 
1.73 
Munster 
41.2 
2.24 
Wiesbaden 
26.0 
2.27 
Schleswig 
28.7 
2.32 
Erfurt 
29.7 
2.39 
Diisseldorf 
32.5 
2.43 
Aix-la-Chapelle 
31.6 
2.43 
Osnabriick 
33.3 
2.44 
Magdeburg 
28.0 
2.44 
Oppeln 
40.2 
2.63 
birth-rate is high. The following towns and circles dis- 
play an especially high childbed mortality. During the 
year 1911, per 1,000 births, the mortality in childbed was 
as shown in the table on next page. 
These are conditions in comparison with which those 
that prevailed in Mecklenburg during the eighteenth cen- 
tury may, when we consider the hygienic environment of 
those days, be regarded as ideal. In Mecklenburg, per 
1,000 deliveries, in the years 1797-1798 (exceptionally 
favourable, it is true) the deaths in childbed numbered 
8.1 only. It is especially in many small towns character- 220 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Town or Circle 
Deaths 
Graudenz (town) 
8.31 
Berlin (town) 
8.39 
Berlin-Schoneberg (town) 
10.80 
Greifswald (town) 
10.30 
Hirschberg (circle) 
10.82 
Gorlitz (town) 
9.37 
Stendal (town) 
11.76 
Halle-on-the-Saale (town) 
9.45 
Gottingen (town) 
8.05 
Towns of the Circle of Aschendorf 
21.13 
Paderborn (town) 
8.52 
Hanau (town) 
9.76 
ised by a comparatively low birth-rate that we find an ex- 
traordinarily high childbed mortality. This phenomenon 
cannot be referred solely to defective midwifery, even 
though neglect may be partially responsible for the fre- 
quent occurrence of puerperal fever in such towns as 
Greifswald, etc. In the very circles in which as regards 
skilled midwifery the circumstances are most unfavourable, 
and where from 40 to 50% of all deliveries are effected 
without even the assistance of a qualified midwife, we find 
a moderately and sometimes an extremely low mortality. 
It is therefore evident that a decline in women’s physical 
powers of resistance must be a contributory cause. 
Sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish be- 
yond the possibility of refutation that there has been a 
decline in the capacity for childbearing. It may be as- 
sumed with confidence that the conditions which have led 
to an increase in the mortality from infantile debility, to 
an increase in the number of still-births, and ultimately to 
an increase in the mortality in childbed, have likewise led 
to a diminution in the capacity for conception. It may THE DECLINE IN THE BIRTH-RATE 
221 
be regarded as no less certain that these conditions are the 
principal causes of the decline in the birth-rate. All the 
contentions which refer this decline chiefly to a deliberate 
restriction of births rest solely upon personal conviction. 
Not one Neo-Malthusian has ever yet succeeded in furnish- 
ing any proof of the soundness of such views. On the 
other hand, there are ample statistical grounds to enable 
us to challenge the accuracy of the neo-malthusian as- 
sumption, while the occurrence of a deterioration in the 
physical constitution of the feminine world is indubitable. 
It must therefore be taken as certain that the decline in 
the birth-rate is above all a physiological phenomenon 
characteristic of modern civilisation. It proves nothing 
that innumerable distinguished physicians and other per- 
sons of importance hold the opposite view. The arguments 
they put forward can prove almost anything you please, 
but the one thing they cannot prove is that the decline 
in the birth-rate is the outcome of deliberate interference. 
With such arguments as they employ we can prove with 
equal certitude that the devil is black and has an evil 
odour, for all experts upon the subject have been firmly 
convinced of these facts. DYSGENIC 
TENDENCIES 
OF 
BIRTH-CONTROL 
AND OF THE 
FEMINIST 
MOVEMENT DYSGENIC TENDENCIES OF BIRTH- 
CONTROL AND OF THE FEMINIST 
MOVEMENT 
By S. H. Halford 
IN every estimate of the possibilities that lie before 
the human race, great stress is laid on the improve- 
ment which, it is said, must result from the general 
spread of education. Although compulsory schooling has 
been operating for thirty-six years without appreciably 
adding to the average of intelligence, people still speak and 
write with the greatest confidence in the ultimate result of 
compelling every one to be taught. As if learning and 
teaching were the same thing! If one points to the fact 
that the general average of mental ability is as low as be- 
fore the passing of the Education Act, he is told that is 
an evidence of defect in our system. The human mate- 
rial is all right; therefore we have only to bring our 
schools up to an effective pitch, and then all men and 
women will be bright, clever, capable* and thoughtful. 
Of course this is not true. Defects in schooling are not 
the real cause of our low intellectual capacity, and to 
bring the schools to a greater mechanical perfection will 
not under any circumstances provide the pupils with 
brains. Brains are the result of heredity and are an en- 
dowment from ancestors. They are hardly more the con- 
sequence of education than is the fleece of the merino 226 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
sheep. That, we know, is the result of careful selection on 
the part of breeders, and only by such selection exercised 
by thoughtful human beings can the average mental abil- 
ity of men and women be raised. Hence it follows that 
to attain that object we must see to it that no process is 
put into operation, or encouraged, by which the unintelli- 
gent are allowed to increase at the expense of the more 
highly endowed. That necessarily involves our scrutinising 
carefully all those tendencies to birth restriction now so 
rife, with a view to deciding, not whether restriction is 
advisable (that hardly needs arguing), but whether, as 
it is now exercised, there is no danger of the process work- 
ing so much more powerfully amongst persons of higher 
mental capacity as to endanger the general intelligence of 
the race, as to threaten the elimination of the intellectu- 
ally fit. 
Yet if a man be asked to make a contribution to any 
discussion on such a matter as the voluntary restriction of 
births, and that in a book intended for the general public, 
he finds himself confronted by a mass of difficulties. It 
is a question involving sex, and there is no subject, not 
even religion, which is fenced about by such extreme preju- 
dice so far as this country and the United States are con- 
cerned. Nor is there any subject on which question- 
begging is more general. For instance, marriage is always 
pretended to be a matter of “pure” affection. Children 
and, sexual relations are seldom taken overtly into ac- 
count. This is evident from the fact that not more than 
a very minute fraction of the marriages which take place 
in English-speaking countries are ever contracted with 
the least consideration of the eugenic capacity of the DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
227 
parties concerned. This is so even amongst fairly conscien- 
tious people. It is true that in spite of our tremendous 
prejudices we do not quite stand still. We should not 
now-a-days find a novelist doing as Lytton did in Night and 
Morning, that is, making his hero marry a mental defec- 
tive. Nor would the more thoughtful man of to-day think, 
as did Horatius Bonar, that it was his duty to keep an 
engagement to marry after the other party had developed 
pronounced insanity. But even so, we still very success- 
fully suppress free discussion of sex matters; and most 
people are still so ignorant of the power of heredity that 
the trifling advances hitherto made in the eugenist direc- 
tion are more than outweighed by countervailing influ- 
ences. Let any person with a wide circle of acquaintances 
look around and he will find that as a rule a large family 
goes with inferior parents and a small with superior. 
Moreover, he will realise that the smaller families are in 
most cases the result of intention; that the same intelli- 
gence which marks out the parents as superior leads them 
to adopt a policy of voluntary restriction of births. That 
is the real reason why the average family declines in size 
as we go upward in the social scale, because, as we rise 
higher, we reach a better capacity for forethought, and 
that forethought is exercised in the limitation of the num- 
bers for whom it is responsible. This is implying, what it 
is difficult to deny, that those individuals who are capable 
of the greater forethought tend to rise by reason of that 
superior intelligence into the upper stratum of society 
and to constitute it. 
If we think logically at all, we can hardly fail to realise 
that birth restriction is an absolute necessity to populations 228 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
enjoying the protection of modern sanitary science, if 
those populations are not to increase beyond the capacity 
of their countries for the production of food. We can 
contemplate with comparative indifference a birth-rate of 
sixty per thousand in a city of the near east, because a 
death-rate of the same magnitude is secured by the lack 
of sanitation in which such cities fester. But when a 
modern European state annexes such a place and imposes 
from without so much of western civilisation as will re- 
duce the death-rate without giving the people that intel- 
lectual culture which will make a corresponding reduction 
in the births, then there speedily arise very serious prob- 
lems of over-population. This is aggravated in the case of 
peoples whose religions impose real or imagined tabus on 
voluntary restriction. In such instances nothing but famine 
remains as the ultimate factor which will reduce numbers 
to a workable point (unless a particular religion, with 
amazing inconsistency, can countenance infanticide while 
forbidding restriction of births). Despite all the hypo- 
critical pretences with which in this country we disguise 
our real attitude on such matters, we are bound to admit 
that the practice of voluntary birth restriction has made 
and is making great progress. It is one of the principal 
causes of our low and declining birth-rate. Another 
factor is the general postponement of marriage until an 
age which leaves women with a very reduced period dur- 
ing which childhearing is possible. A third factor, related 
to the first, is the increasing inability of women to bear 
and rear children, an inability consequent upon the soften- 
ing effects of our civilisation, and there is, in civilised 
peoples a feeling of chivalry which makes husbands more DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
229 
and more indisposed to impose upon women any burden 
of childbearing for which they are disinclined. 
Now, no thoughtful person would find fault with the 
general result of these tendencies, so far as birth restric- 
tion alone is concerned, if the effect were equal through- 
out all strata of society. But it is easy to prove that un- 
fortunately this is not the case. Birth-control, as already 
pointed out, implies forethought; this indicates superior 
brains; and therefore we get the races with superior 
mentalities rapidly lowering their rate of reproduction, 
and, within these races, the most intellectual classes doing 
this at much greater speed than the rest. Thus we see a 
vicious and essentially dysgenist process at work. The 
higher races are using the resources of scientific knowl- 
edge to reduce the death-rate of the inferior peoples and 
the birth-rate of the superior. Consequently, if we are hon- 
est with ourselves, we ought to be greatly disquieted by 
an outlook which shows the better types voluntarily de- 
clining at a vastly greater rate than the inferior, and also 
by late marriage losing the most vigorous years of re- 
production. 
"We can get no comfort from realising that the whole 
course of what is called “feminine emancipation” inten- 
sifies these disastrous tendencies, that all influences mak- 
ing restriction of births greater in the circles in which 
it should least operate are those receiving the approval 
of every “woman’s advocate.” Postponement of marriage 
is approved because it defers that important contract until 
“a woman is old enough to know her own mind.” Re- 
striction of births is welcomed as evidence that “women 
are gaining the control of their own bodies.” The re- 230 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
munerative employment of clever women is held to indi- 
cate that “woman is taking her place side by side with 
man, as simple justice requires.” The higher education 
of women, more potent perhaps than any other influence 
in rendering them unwilling to undertake either marriage 
or motherhood, is likewise acclaimed as an act of “simple 
justice.” 
We know that all advocates of feminine “emancipation” 
very naturally and reasonably make their first plank the 
question of the “moral right” of women to certain re- 
forms, and rely upon advancing this “moral right” as a 
conclusive argument. Now, morality must mean that 
course of conduct which will lead to the greatest common 
good. It is not enough to prove that certain actions will 
result in benefit or increased happiness to the individual 
or individuals who perform them. This consideration is 
invalid if it can he successfully shown that such benefit 
will be outweighed by the injury wrought to the com- 
munity. Yet injury to the community is imminently 
likely to result from much, if not from all, that is advo- 
cated in the programme of the woman suffragist. 
No one can deny that the particular section of the 
population most affected, or to be affected, by feminist 
reforms, or by any process making for birth restriction, 
is the intelligent section. It is equally easy to prove that 
the whole course of feminine emancipation tends, in that 
section of women most influenced by feminist ideals or 
reforms, to lower both the marriage-rate and the birth- 
rate. Now if we admit the contention of such authorities 
as Forel on the continent and Galton and Nott at home, 
that high intelligence is largely, if not entirely, the result DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
231 
of heredity, the increasing exclusion of intelligent women 
from motherhood must decrease the proportion of able 
children born into our community; and so must steadily 
lower the average of intelligence in our nation. Yet this 
decrease is undeniably a consequence of the very social 
changes which feminists aim at extending. Look, for in- 
stance, at the case expressed roughly in figures: 
In this country the proportion of married in the total 
population of marriageable age has fallen during the past 
forty years from 55% to 45%. 
Now if we suppose that of our population the highly 
intelligent section numbers 3,000,000 (and that is a very 
liberal estimate) we get a proportion of intelligent of one 
in fifteen in the existing community. 
Let us suppose that only 40% of the intelligent section 
marry (a very favourable estimate), and let us assume 
that, whereas per marriage of non-intelligents 5 children 
attain to maturity, per marriage of intelligents no more 
than 3 children attain to maturity (again an estimate 
unduly favourable to the intelligents), the relative preva- 
lence of intelligence and non-intelligence will be as follows 
in successive generations: 
45% of Total Population 
45,000,000 = 20,250,000 —10,125,000 Marriages 
40% of Intelligent 
3,000,000= 1,200,000 = 600,000 “ Intelligent. 
( = 1 in 15) 
Leaving 9,525,000 “ Non-Intelligent. 
600,000 Intelligent X 3= 1,800,000 ~| 
9,525,000 Non-intelligent X 5 = 47,625,000 [ 1 in 27 
Total—2nd Generation 49,425,000 J 232 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
45% of 49,425,000 = 22,241,250 = 11,120,625 Marriages 
40% of 1,800,000= 720,000= 360,000 “ Intelligent. 
Leaving 10,760,625 “ Non-Intelligent. 
360,000 Intelligent X 3 = 1,080,0001 
10,760,625 Non-Intelligent X 5 = 53,803,120 l _ 1 51 
Total—3rd Generation 54,883,120 J 
45% of 54,883,120 = 24,697,404 = 12,348,702 Marriages 
40% of 1,080,000= 432,000= 216,000 “ Intelligent. 
Leaving 12,132,702 “ Non-Intelligent. 
216,000 Intelligent X 3 = 648,0001 
12,132,702 Non-Intelligent X 5 = 60,663,810 l = i jjj 95 
Total—4-th Generation 61,311,810 J 
Let it be remembered that the foregoing is a very favour- 
able estimate; both as to the present and future propor- 
tion of intelligence. It is not likely that even the existing 
low birth-rate of intelligent people will be maintained; 
or that it will fall at as slow a rate as the other. We have 
to face the practical certainty that the gradual throwing 
open of trades and professions to women will involve the 
payment of large salaries to the more capable, and that 
this will place a premium, in women, upon celibacy or 
childlessness. 
In any ease there seems no other prospect, if the full 
feminist ideal be realised, than the entire extinction of 
British or American intelligence within the next two or 
three generations. The fate which, according to Bateson, 
overtook ancient Greece will be ours; only in our case it DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
233 
seems likely that it will be, if possible, more complete. 
It is certainly only right that these arguments should 
be supported by actual quotation from statistics; and I 
therefore adduce certain figures from the registrar gen- 
eral’s reports which were quoted by me in an article in 
the Socialist Review for October and December, 1914. 
Towns Where Higher Education of Girls Is General: 
Population 
Number of 
Births, 1910 
Dulwich 
14,975 
201 
Hampstead 
95,510 
1,269 
Hornsey 
84,602 
1,377 
Stoke Newington 
50,683 
955 
Total 
235,770 
3,802 
Towns Where Higher Education of Girls Is Rare: 
Population 
Number of 
Births, 1910 
Audley, Staffs 
16,107 
480 
Chester-le-Street 
78,595 
2,825 
Canning Town 
82,261 
2,756 
Poplar 
56,327 
1,740 
Total 
233,290 
7,801 
This provides us with a comparison of current birth- 
rates in the two types of community; but note how rapidly 
the rate declines in the better class: 234 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
1904 
1910 
Population 
Births 
Population 
Births 
Stoke Newington. . .. 
51,247 
1,147 
50,683 
955 
Hampstead 
81,942 
1,445 
85,510 
1,269 
Hornsey 
72,056 
1,626 
84,602 
1,377 
205,245 
4,218 
220,795 
3,601 
So here we find that, with an increased population of 
15,000, these towns have reduced their annual quota 
of births by 15%; and that in six years! If the 1904 
birth-rate had been maintained there would have been 
4,533 births; therefore the real fall is about 21%. 
Now make the same comparison with the four working 
class towns for the same period: 
1904 
1910 
Population 
Births 
Population 
Births 
Audley, Staffs 
Chester-le-Street 
Canning Town 
Poplar 
15,008 
60,552 
70,718 
58,514 
547 
2,590 
2,786 
1,940 
16,107 
78,595 
82,261 
56,327 
480 
2,825 
2,756 
1,740 
204,792 
7,863 
233,290 
7,801 
These statistics show that what has been presumed here 
as to the decline in the birth-rate of the intelligent is 
really an understatement of the seriousness of the posi- 
tion. For the rate of reduction revealed by the four or 
five towns whose figures have been utilised is so great 
that if it continue and be general throughout the middle DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
235 
and upper classes their practical extinction will not take 
even the three or four generations that I have allowed. 
It is assumed that intelligence and the middle and upper 
classes are synonymous, not because the working people 
produce no mental ability, but because ability appearing 
among the workers usually effects a rise into the middle 
class, or at least the adoption of such ideals as ensure the 
same restriction of births. That it is right to claim this 
can be proved by comparing with the birth-rate of Audley, 
Chester-le-Street, etc., the rate in a town populated by 
members of the engineering class, who are generally con- 
sidered the most intelligent of working men. We have 
already seen that the four towns quoted with a popula- 
tion of 233,290 produce 7,801 births. They are very poor 
working-class districts inhabited by miners and dock 
labourers. Here is the case of an engineering town: 
Population 
Births, 1910 
Barrow-in-Furness 
63,775 
1,611 
Now if the birth-rate of Audley, Chester-le-Street, Can- 
ning Town and Poplar, obtained also in Barrow, the num- 
ber of births there would be 2,130. So that even among 
the workers we see that any improvement in intelligence 
or ability is reflected in a reduced birth-rate. 
Now compare this town in 1904 and 1910: 
1904 
1910 
Population 
Births 
Population 
Births 
Barrow 
57,856 
1,894 
63,775 
1,611  POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Here is the same picture—an increased population with 
a positively smaller total of births. But the worst aspect 
is that the percentage of fall is only slightly less than 
in the wealthy towns quoted. Hence we find that statistics 
bear out the anticipation that the drop in the birth-rate 
is in direct proportion to the intelligence of the popula- 
tion; so that it is greatest in the highest classes, smallest 
in the lowest, and intermediate in those that lie between. 
It ought to be mentioned in this connection, as an evi- 
dence that the working classes do not retain any con- 
siderable proportion of intelligence, that Havelock Ellis, 
in his Study of British Genius finds their contribution to 
the ranks of eminent men and women practically nil. I 
confess to having been much impressed by his state- 
ments. 
Now it is my contention that all these evil tendencies 
in the way of reduction of intelligence are caused and 
are being stimulated by the very alterations in society for 
which the feminist is striving. If that be true, the injury 
resulting is more than sufficient to outweigh any claim 
for the women’s case which is based upon its “positive” 
morality. There is no such thing as “positive” morality. 
Morality is merely a means to an end; and that end is 
more life. By its result in that direction must every 
course of conduct be tested; and the result in more life 
or death is the proof of morality or immorality. 
It is all very well to say glibly that if the human race 
depends for its continuance on the (supposed) subjection 
of women, then it had better die out. It will not die 
out. What will take place will be its steady and continu- 
ous debasement by the progressive elimination of its best DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
237 
factors. Let any man imagine a stockbreeder breeding 
cattle on the lines which feminism makes compulsory 
among men, and he will see the disastrousness of the pol- 
icy. The whole argument of this essay is an appeal for 
the preservation of female intelligence. It is better to 
preserve and continue this to all future generations, than 
to cultivate, employ, and destroy it, by education and 
emancipation, in one or two. By this I mean to imply, 
not only that economic factors are being enlisted in the 
destruction of intelligence, but that psychological influ- 
ences, the result of higher education, also contribute sub- 
stantially towards the unfitting of women for marriage. 
Feeling usually being so strong among Anglo-Saxons 
when sex matters are referred to, it is natural that British 
writers should err on the side of caution when they deal 
with any subject that involves sex. Yet McDougall, 
speaking with all the weight that his statements carry, 
hints guardedly at what has been contended here. In the 
conclusion of his little volume on Psychology in the Home 
University Library he says: ‘ ‘ Especially we want to know 
what changes, if any, are being brought about in the innate 
mental constitution of these populations under their pres- 
ent conditions; whether, as some assert, various forms of 
social selection are making strongly for deterioration; or 
whether, as is commonly believed, the civilised stocks con- 
tinue to evolve a higher type of mental structure; or, 
lastly, whether the principal change being effected is not 
a greater differentiation, resulting in the production of a 
comparatively low-grade mass of population at one end 
of the scale, and of a number of stocks of exceptional 
ability and moral stamina at the other. All these ques- 238 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
tions must be answered in detail before we can build up 
a true science of society.” 
Are there not suggestions here that it is the Jewish 
race that will form the stock of “exceptional ability and 
moral stamina”? Its womenfolk alone seem able to ab- 
sorb all the influences of civilisation without being steri- 
lised by them. 
There is a suggestive passage in Keith’s recent book 
on the Antiquity of Man. He is dealing with the extinct 
Cro-Magnon type of prehistoric man and is pointing out 
its very large brain capacity. He answers the natural 
objection that the type with the larger brain ought not to 
have become extinct, by asserting that a large brain is 
by no means a guarantee of the survival of a race; but 
that strong sexual desire and a great capacity for repro- 
duction are far better securities. Hughlings Jackson, who 
was a genius in these matters, once made a similar re- 
mark. 
It must be evident from the foregoing statements that, 
in my view, women exist primarily for racial ends. The 
tendency to exempt the more refined of them from the pains 
and anxieties of childbearing and motherhood, although 
arising out of a very attractive feeling of consideration for 
the weaker individuals of the race, is not, admirable as it 
seems, in essence a moral one. The assertion that woman 
exists primarily for racial ends is justified by the fact that 
most moralists are ready to admit that no individual, 
male or female, exists for himself or herself alone. To 
be truly moral, conduct must be regulated by consideration 
of its effect upon the community as a whole. It is indeed 
difficult for men to regard women from this standpoint, DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
239 
for the sexual instinct in men affects them with illusions 
which, although known to be such by most psychologists, 
are regarded by nearly all men as realities. As Mercier 
puts it, ‘‘The lover falls in love, not with his adored ob- 
ject as she exists, but with the imaginary attributes with 
which he invests her”; and this illusion is not confined 
altogether to a man’s conception of a particular woman. 
It powerfully influences most men’s conceptions of the 
entire sex. This is the grave difficulty, this devotion of 
men to women, because it is greatest in the best men and 
in the best social strata. Hence each man tends, even if 
he recognises the value of the contribution of his class 
to the total births, to exempt his own wife and to hope 
that his omission will be exceptional. In a word, each will 
leave the duty of childbearing to some one else, not from 
selfish, but from unselfish, motives. Effectively to counter- 
act modern tendencies making for the elimination of the 
intelligent, it is necessary not only to persuade intellectual 
men and women as to their value as parents, but also to 
convince each one that the argument “my individual con- 
tribution hardly counts” is totally false. Each one will 
so argue until the whole class falls behind in its necessary 
rate of reproduction. After all, an ideal of woman for 
herself alone which results in the wholesale debasement 
of the race, male and female, cannot be a moral or justifi- 
able one. Even if the present generation were to gain 
substantially by the propagation of such an ideal, and 
that is open to question, it is impossible to argue that such 
gain to one or two generations would outweigh the injury 
inflicted on a vast number of succeeding ones. 
Moreover, the argument that woman in no sense exists 240 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
for the other sex implies what is not true—that men can 
as a rule exist happily without opportunities for the exer- 
cise of the sexual act for itself. That is a favourite asser- 
tion and implication of English and American writers, 
and is part of our conventional hypocrisy in dealing with 
sex matters. Even if it be admitted that the effects of 
modern progress in what is called “emancipating” women 
may add a considerable amount to the total of their real 
happiness (and that has not yet been demonstrated irre- 
futably), yet if these processes of education and emanci- 
pation result, as they are resulting, in a large development 
of sexlessness amongst women, then it can hardly be 
doubted that the injury done to one sex will outweigh the 
benefit which accrues to the other. Of course this implies, 
what is here claimed, that the sexual act is something which 
is justifiable as an end in itself. Despite the current hypo- 
critical conventional opinions concerning this matter, to 
which all of us are expected as a matter of course to sub- 
scribe, it is not true that to all men continence is at once 
easy, healthy, and practicable. It is not so even for all 
women, although it becomes so by acquired asexuality in 
most highly educated ones. The strain of prolonged 
continence is most severely felt by the very best and 
most generous men. As a tender conscience and pro- 
nounced sexual desire go together (they are intimately 
related), it follows as a necessary consequence that de- 
privation such as the woman’s movement must inevitably 
ensure will press most painfully and harshly on those 
who are entitled to the greatest consideration—on those 
who least deserve the suffering in which they will be in- 
volved. It must be admitted that the fact is rarely ac- DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
241 
knowledged in England either in press or pulpit. This 
is part of our racial hypocrisy, a characteristic which is 
shared by our American cousins to perhaps an even greater 
degree. But the hypocrisy of the puritan tradition, en- 
forced both by Christians and Agnostics, cannot alter 
facts, as is evident from the examples of pronounced 
neurasthenic breakdown from excessive and prolonged 
sexual repression to be found amongst our eminent divines, 
Anglican, Roman, or Nonconformist. However carefully 
dissembled under the euphuism of overwork, by the 
trained observer the principal and ultimate cause can be 
clearly discerned. 
Many feminist ideals are tolerated for the sole reason 
that public opinion compels an outward assent to the idea 
that sexual intercourse for its own sake is not only essen- 
tially degrading, but quite unnecessary. 
Although in what has been said here the general atti- 
tude of British and American writers on this subject has 
been so freely condemned, let me acknowledge that there 
are notable exceptions. Mott, for instance, frankly ad- 
mits that “sexual passion although it may not be mani- 
fest to the external world, nevertheless occupies a large 
place in the conscious and subconscious self; it suffuses 
silent thought and consciousness ... ; its suppression is 
one of the causes of insanity.” One of his colleagues, a 
woman, says much the same thing in a recent number of 
the “Practitioner.” There are of course others; but they 
are all men and women high up in the profession, holding 
salaried posts that give them a certain independence of 
fees. For, as a very accomplished physician said to me 
when I protested against his silence in face of the popular 242 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
and conventional lies that hold the field on the subject, 
‘‘To speak the truth on this matter would mean the loss 
of all my patients.” Americans, too, although even more 
held captive by the puritan tradition than we, are some- 
times outspoken—witness Brand Whitlock in an article 
that appeared in the English Review a year or so back. 
It is true that he is not a medical man, but the U. S. 
Minister to Belgium; still that does not affect the fact 
that he says some painfully true things about our and 
his fellow countrymen’s opinions on this matter. 
After all, however hypocritically we may assume that 
love and passion are different things, the scientific inves- 
tigation of these forces shows that they are identical. 
Therefore a society where processes making for passion- 
lessness in women are allowed free play, is one which 
tends to render love in its most intense sense an impos- 
sibility. If, as Browning declares, the chief thing in 
life is to love, are the gains to woman from the aforesaid 
processes worthy for a moment to be compared with the 
losses to both sexes which will ensue? 
There is already quite enough concealed misery as a 
consequence of our unwillingness to permit the public 
recognition of sexual needs. There is real cruelty involved 
as a result of generally assuming as highly moral this 
refusal to admit necessity. The whole tendency of modern 
refinement, reinfored by feminist ideals, is to create for 
the best of men a public opinion and an economic and 
psychological situation which makes their position one of 
superlative suffering. Their inevitable need calls for 
preferential consideration over the sentimental grievances DYSGENIC TENDENCIES 
243 
of women or the cowardly prejudices and fears of con- 
ventional moralists. 
The whole question of birth restriction and sexual rela- 
tions bristles with problems because of the tremendous 
difficulty of accepting necessary conclusions opposed to 
sentimental, emotional, economic, and pseudo-moral preju- 
dices. Let us, however, once rid ourselves of the illusion 
that beliefs scientifically false are in any sense profitable 
in the long run, even although consonant with these preju- 
dices, and all the difficulties of recognition will disappear, 
and it may then become possible to practise birth restric- 
tion, which is a necessity, without either debasing the race 
or rendering its best individuals wretched. WOMEN 
AND 
BIRTH- 
CONTROL WOMEN AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
By F. W. Stella Browne 
EARLY in July, 1914, a very subtle artist and hu- 
manitarian pioneer pointed out that “the social 
problem in nearly every department has overtaken 
the organising efforts of our experts and administrators”; 
that “the least scientific and the most haphazard branch 
of our training and education of the young, and of our 
social organisation, is that of sex”; and finally, that “noth- 
ing concerning sex can be rightly dealt with apart from 
the full equation. ’ ’1 
Much blood has flowed under all Europe’s bridges since 
these words were written, and we have had ample oppor- 
tunity to observe what Geddes has defined as “the tendency 
to masculine dictature always renewed by war.” We are 
threatened with a more mercilessly systematic exploita- 
tion both of women’s industry and their reproductive fer- 
tility than has ever before been attempted; and the lines 
on which this artificial stimulation to breed will be essayed 
are already clearly indicated. They include the extra 
taxation of bachelors and possibly of self-supporting spin- 
sters; the remission of taxes together with special educa- 
tional facilities in the case of large families; some mu- 
nicipal or national scheme of maternity insurance or re- 
1 Publication No. I of the British Society fo-r the Study of Sex 
Psychology. Policy and Principles. 248 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
lief; a specialised education for girls, concentrating on 
the sentimental and the domestic; and a fevered propa- 
ganda in favour of what some reactionaries already term 
‘ ‘ the normal family ”; a propaganda in which the licensed 
imbecilities of the pulpit are backed up by the venal and 
impertinent irrelevancies of the press and the pomposi- 
ties of the debating platform, and stiffened by determined 
attempts to penalise (or at least to restrict) the sale of 
contraceptives to the poor.2 
To this propaganda there can be only one answer from 
the woman who claims to be, not a domestic utensil, hut a 
citizen, a human being, and free in her motherhood and 
her love. 
Let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the bearing 
of children is women’s supreme duty to the state. This 
duty postulates rights and reciprocal duties. The state 
as it at present exists, in all the large monetarist and 
militarist national entities, is a masculine structure ex- 
clusively. It gives to women neither equality of oppor- 
tunity nor adequate special protection. If women are to 
devote their best energies and the period of their effective 
womanhood to bearing and rearing children, they must 
do so under tolerable conditions and with some reason- 
able probability of a tolerable existence for their children. 
The realisation of these demands as regards one country 
alone, namely Great Britain, would include the following 
indispensable items: 
(1) A thorough measure of housing reform on broad 
3 Cf. the senile tirades of Sir James Crichton Browne, at the Guild- 
hall, October, 1915: cf. also the “Cape Times,” October 30, 1916; 
and the clerical and capitalist press generally. WOMEN AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
249 
and generous lines, giving scope to the social and aesthetic 
qualities of human nature, and recognising to the full the 
infinite possibilities of co-operative housekeeping. 
(2) The reform, root and branch, of that ancient 
iniquity, the British system of land tenure. 
(3) A really scientific and practical treatment of agri- 
culture. 
(4) The safeguarding of the people’s food supply and 
the resolute abolition of efforts towards protectionism. 
(5) A national educational system which would not be 
a disgrace to our heads and hearts alike, which would 
recognise both individual variations and communal needs, 
and would make some provision for definite sex instruc- 
tion. 
(6) An efficient public health service, including a free 
supply of all appliances, drugs, and services necessary 
for the care of pregnancy, child-birth and infancy, and 
equitable and thorough measures for combating venereal 
diseases. 
(7) The reform of the English laws of separation and 
divorce on the lines suggested by the majority report of 
the recent Royal Commission (1909-1912). 
This is the absolute minimum that should be demanded; 
justice and common sense suggest, further, the concession 
that the married mother should be regarded as the legal 
parent of her child. 
(8) The amendment of the English bastardy laws, which 
are mainly responsible for an infantile death-rate among 
illegitimate infants twice as high as among those born 
in wedlock, and for an enormous amount of prostitution, 
infanticide, and physical deterioration. Teutonic and 250 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Scandinavian Europe is far ahead of us in this respect: 
the German government recognises that, even from the 
strictly militarist point of view, it is inadvisable to throw 
away potential cannon-fodder; while the recently enacted 
Norwegian statute “concerning children whose, parents 
have not married each other” is a splendidly sane, fair, 
and courageous measure. 
(9) Finally (if the forms of democracy are still hon- 
oured), universal adult suffrage—one citizen, one vote. 
The government of the state, until it has instituted these 
necessary steps towards just and decent conditions for its 
present and future citizens, has not the faintest right to 
demand a single additional birth. A political system 
which denies women alike equality of opportunity and 
adequate special protection; an economic system which 
is iniquity and waste incarnate; and sexual institutions 
founded on the needs and preferences of a primitive type 
of man alone, and now in their debacle, creditable and 
satisfactory to neither sex—these can have no moral claim 
on women’s bodies as instruments of propagation. And 
women’s side of the case must be put forward with em- 
phasis and persistence, or in their present inferior eco- 
nomic and political status it will be ignored. It has never 
been safe for women to trust to the gratitude and justice 
of groups of men. (E. g., in spite of the praise and prom- 
ises showered on women for their services to the national 
state in war work, the Barristers’ trade union has refused 
women the entrance into that profession, by an over- 
whelming vote; and all that is basest and most blatant in 
the British press is now demanding that women shall be WOMEN AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
251 
subjected to industrial conscription, before they have even 
the tiny safeguard of the vote!) 
There is one propagandist body in particular, on which 
there lies a peculiarly heavy responsibility with regard 
to this matter. The Eugenics Education Society has 
among its members many most open-minded and truly 
progressive individuals; but the official policy it has pur- 
sued for years has been inspired by class-bias and sex- 
bias. The society laments with increasing vehemence the 
multiplication of the less fortunate classes at a more rapid 
rate than the possessors of leisure and opportunity. (I 
do not think it relevant here to discuss whether the in- 
nate superiority of endowment in the governing class, 
really is so overwhelming as to justify the Eugenics Edu- 
cation Society’s peculiar use of the terms “fit” and 
“unfit”.) Yet it has persistently refused to give any 
help towards extending the knowledge of contraceptives 
to the exploited classes. Similarly, though the Eugenics 
Review, the organ of the society, frequently laments the 
“selfishness” of the refusal of maternity by healthy and 
educated women of the professional classes, I have yet 
to learn that it has made any official pronouncement on 
the English illegitimacy laws or any organised effort to- 
wards defending the unmarried mother. 
The Women’s Co-operative Guild, on the other hand, 
has pursued a boldly constructive policy. I cordially rec- 
ommend that deeply poignant and absorbingly interesting 
collection of personal testimonies from working-class 
women, Maternity,3 to all students of social conditions, 
particularly as affecting women. 
3 Published by George Bell & Sons, London, 1915, 2/6 net. 252 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Apart, however, from the present laws and customs af- 
fecting women, and apart from the hazardous cruelty of 
bringing numerous human lives into the world as it will 
be for the next thirty or fifty years, the fundamental ques- 
tion arises whether maternity can ever be a duty towards 
any outside entity—state, individual or deity.4 
I deny that it can. 
The maternal relation, like the sexual, is in certain re- 
spects peculiar and unique. It is more deeply instinctive, 
more intensely personal, than any other. Its value, its 
beauty, its very raison d’etre, depend on its complete 
spontaneity. In my opinion, an enormous percentage of 
mental and physical degeneracy, of deficient vitality, and 
of obscure perversions of instinct and will, are due to the 
unwilling and unloving conception and gestation of such 
life. This may be regarded as a fantastic hypothesis, but 
it is founded on a good deal of personal observation. Re- 
member how intimate is the connection between mother 
and baby during pregnancy; how the mother’s mental 
as well as physical state may influence the child.5 Such 
compulsory breeding is an outrage and a vile cruelty to 
both mother and child. But, in the past, men’s instinctive 
wonder and idealisation of the physical side of maternity 
has been untroubled by any questioning of its spiritual 
content. The ascetic ideas incorporated in Christianity 
4 The question has been put very ably, without special reference to 
women, in the “International Journal of Ethics,’’ October, 1916. 
Birth-Control and Biological Ethics, by Warner Fite. 
5 The increasing number of women who study medicine and biology 
may bring valuable contributions from their special feminine experi- 
ence, if they have the courage to refuse the masculine mythology 
which has gathered round motherhood. WOMEN AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
253 
have seized on the pangs of child-birth, as a divinely ap- 
pointed purgation for the exercise of the sex function— 
although the particular partner on whom the ordeal of 
parturition fell may have had very little definite pleasure 
in the act of intercourse. There has grown up a masculine 
mythology suppressing and distorting all the facts of 
women’s sexual and maternal emotions. Thus we find 
even an expert biologist like Walter Heape assuming that 
sexual gratification is a matter of indifference to women 
and only of moment to them as an indispensable prelude 
to motherhood.6 
It is this complacent blindness and dogmatism which 
needs to be met by a perfectly candid and explicit state- 
ment of the women’s point of view. In their individual 
attitude towards maternity as a matter of choice, women 
show the very wide range of diversity which is characteris- 
tic of them in all the functions and emotions of sex. But 
when the chance of refusing compulsory motherhood is 
offered them, women of the most diverse types of tempera- 
ment (so long as all intelligence and spirit has not been 
crushed out of them) respond with eager gratitude. Un- 
der proper conditions, the majority of women would prob- 
ably prefer to have more than one child. Even women 
who were not specially philoprogenitive or domestic, would 
probably prefer to experience maternity at their own 
choice of times, circumstances, and father of their child. 
The birth-control movement, far from being a movement 
for general sterilisation, is the expression of a more in- 
telligent and discriminative maternal love. 
* Feminism $• Sex Antagonism, by Walter Heape, F.B.S., F.Z.S., 
London, Constable, 1913. 254 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
And here the sentimental idolaters of motherhood may- 
be reminded that thousands of women of a strongly ma- 
ternal type, who love children and would be devotedly 
happy with a child of their own, are condemned by the 
obsolescent patriarchal system and the sickly chastity 
tabus consecrated by religion, to remain without their 
deepest instinctive need. We women are out to smash 
compulsory sterility, with its tragedy of bitterness and 
disease, just as much as compulsory maternity. 
Our point in regard to this claim has been wantonly 
obscured by the putrescent remnants of canon law, and 
by the carefully cultivated ignorance of women concern- 
ing their own physiology—an ignorance still responsible 
for much gratuitous suffering. The right to prevent the 
conception of life must logically and justly include the 
right to remove the life-seed which has been fertilised 
against the mother’s will, either through accident or in- 
tention.7 No woman’s right is more fundamental than 
this, and none has been more disregarded. Yet if abor- 
tion he procured in the first or second months of pregnancy, 
no sentient life is destroyed; and if the operation he ef- 
fected with proper skill and care, under cleanly and sani- 
tary conditions, it need have no injurious effects on the 
mother. No country, in the past or in the present, has 
ever succeeded in extirpating abortion by the severest 
legal penalties: what has been done is to create a criminal 
occupation, and a largely criminal class; to endow black- 
mail ;8 and to ruin the health and sanity of many women. 
7 This right has been vindicated by certain feminists in Scandinavia 
and Germany. 
8 An appalling case, in which hundreds of women were blackmailed 
by scoundrels who advertised as pharmacists, is recorded in A History 
of Penal Methods, by George Ives. WOMEN AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
255 
To a really humane and rational age, none of our estab- 
lished sexual or social barbarisms will seem more hideous 
than this: that even when conception was the result of 
rape, the woman’s right to abortion was denied. Con- 
sider the recent decisions of the French Government, con- 
cerning the French women and girls who were with child 
as a result of abuse by the invading enemy. The most 
cumbrous methods—change of name and residence, and 
state rearing of the children (unhappy children whose 
origin will never be forgotten against them!)—were 
adopted: rather than that women’s right over their own 
bodies should be officially admitted. 
Note that I do not defend the destruction of the life 
of the unborn child at seven months. But in the early 
stages of gestation it should be the woman’s absolute right 
to say whether her incipient burden shall develop or not. 
If her decision is in the negative, the resources of science 
should be at her disposal for its execution. 
The right of abortion is also an indispensable second 
line of defence, pending the invention and circulation of 
an absolutely reliable preventive. There is no doubt that 
existing methods might be greatly improved. Here is a 
humane field for our constructive experimental chemists. 
I do not doubt that in the finer social order for which 
some of us are working (in however insignificant and piece- 
meal a fashion), abortion will be very rare. But it will 
be recognised, and respected as an individual right. 
The hope of any amelioration of sexual habits and of 
any increase of human happiness in this direction lies in 
the power to differentiate between the erotic and the re- 
productive functions, and in bringing the exercise of the 256 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
latter completely under volitional control. This is also 
the only line of freedom and a more varied and active 
life for women. It is a sheer confusion of the issue to 
maintain that birth-control is synonymous with desexuali- 
sation. JUndoubtedly the patriarchal family tends to pro- 
duce a profound disparity between the sexual impulse 
of men and women respectively. The chastity tabu on un- 
married women puts a premium on infanticide and 
enormously fosters secret self-abuse. On the other hand 
a group of powerful vested interests, and a whole despised 
and demoralised social class, live on the stimulation of 
sexual desire, of the crudest type, among men. These con- 
ditions do not seem to some of us very admirable, and if 
they are final and irrevocable we should, on the whole, 
prefer extinction. No doubt sexual anaesthesia9 among 
a large percentage of ‘ ‘ civilised ’ ’ women presents a cruelly 
difficult problem to the more refined type of man, who 
desires an equal and actively responsive mate. The rem- 
edy is to make the conditions of women’s sex life more 
dignified and congenial, to free women from that terror 
of undesired pregnancy which is so often a source of in- 
complete gratification and nervous ruin. 
Excessive and rapid childbearing is also sexually de- 
vitalising, and many women have been exhausted by ma- 
ternity before they were able to enjoy and benefit by 
sexual relations. 
No doubt the quality of the race is not improved when 
many of its most intelligent, determined, and morally 
“In judging this point, women’s sexual variability is often forgot- 
ten. Apparent sexual anaesthesia may mean constitutional anaemia 
—and a stupid or clumsy lover. WOMEN !AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
257 
elevated women refuse maternity. But these women will 
have love and children under conditions which do not 
offend against their own human dignity, conscience, and 
reason, or—not at all. Education and social readjust- 
ments are necessary here; and an attitude of greater 
sympathy and consideration for the more diffused and 
complex sexual requirements of women. 
The whole power of voluntary maternity to improve the 
race is intimately dependent on free sexual selection by 
women. It should he for them to choose whether they 
will have children or not: and if so, how many, at what 
intervals, and with whom. 
This will imply revolutionary changes in all depart- 
ments; but it will also imply the development of hitherto 
isolated human harmonies, of intense and vivid variations 
of faculty and type, in however remote a future. Mean- 
while, the birth-strike is already, and increasingly, prac- 
tical politics. EDITORIAL 
SUMMARY 
AND 
CONCLUSION EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND 
CONCLUSION 
IN the selection of contributions to this symposium 
on population and birth-control, it seemed needless to 
the editors to invite discussion on the moral bearing 
of the question. To those who were good enough to com- 
pose essays to fill special gaps in the argument, the sug- 
gestion was made that detailed reference to moral issues 
would be superfluous. For in our view it is preposterous 
to stigmatise birth-control as immoral, absurd to involve 
antiquated religious sanctions and outworn legal enact- 
ments against a practice almost universally adopted by 
self-respecting persons who can acquire the necessary- 
knowledge. What is customary among normal human 
beings is moral or ethical in the narrower sense of these 
terms (derivatively, the words all mean the same thing); 
and those who, in order to fulminate against customary- 
actions, borrow the lightnings of medkeval theologians, suc- 
ceed merely in making themselves somewhat ridiculous. 
But there is a wider sense in which the moral objection 
deserves serious consideration, the objection of those who, 
like Halford (supra, p. 238), consider that “to be truly 
moral, conduct must be regulated by its effect upon the 
community as a whole.” We may agree that the civilised 
human being will not ignore communal reactions, but this 
is not to say, as Halford seems to imply, that it is the 
duty of men, and still more the duty of women, to procre- 262 
POPULATION. AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
ate undesired children for the sake of an abstract entity, 
the race, the community, or the state. We need not echo 
Hilda Wangel’s impatient exclamation against “that ugly, 
horrid word ‘duty,’ ” but we can at least say of duty, 
as was so finely said of liberty, “How many crimes are 
committed in thy name!” To prove this, it is unneces- 
sary to go back to the times when the holy inquisition 
flourished in Europe; we need merely look around us to- 
day. To ask a woman to bear an undesired child for the 
sake of “stern duty, daughter of the voice of the state,” 
is to commit a crime, and to make of the state or of the 
race what Stirner aptly termed a spook. “Thou shalt 
not exploit” is not merely the premier commandment, but 
the essence of the entire decalogue; and to exploit a 
woman’s faculty for maternity, to do this for the sake 
of the community, present or to come, is, in our view, an 
immoral action. It is customary, of course, but it is re- 
pugnant to the higher civilised sentiment of the day, and 
will therefore be neither customary nor ethical in the com- 
monwealth of to-morrow. This is the aspect of the matter 
that is so spiritedly voiced by Stella Browne. None the 
less we agree with Halford that those who favour the 
practice of birth-control (the advisability of which, under 
conditions, he himself frankly recognises in the second 
paragraph of his essay) would err should they fail to take 
into consideration the possibly unfavourable reactions 
of the measures they advocate, and should they fail to 
point out how these contingent social disadvantages may 
best be obviated. To this matter we shall return. 
It will be profitable to discuss here, in the light of 
Achille Loria’s luminous exposition, the bearing of EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
263 
Malthus’ theory of population upon the problem of birth- 
control. In all the writings of this distinguished Italian 
economist, the pressure of increasing population is treated 
as a prime factor of social evolution. But in the essay 
translated for the present volume he shows that while 
Malthus elucidated a profoundly important truth, the 
author of the Essay on Population erred in respect of 
many of its applications. In existing conditions, at any 
rate (i. e., under capitalism), there is no general excess 
of population over food supply, but merely, in certain 
countries, an excess of people in relation to the privately 
owned capital which is able to secure profitable investment 
—a very different matter. Hence, as a result, not of over- 
population, but simply of capitalist conditions, we have, 
in addition to the mass of the workers who obtain sub- 
sistence, on the one hand the owning class with a super- 
fluity, and on the other a parasitic class of dependents, 
paupers, semi-criminals, and criminals. Loria contends, 
further, that Malthus’ theory is invalidated by the ascer- 
tained fact that, as far as human beings are concerned, 
an excess of food over population does not necessarily lead 
to an increasing birth-rate, that a rising standard of life 
is nowadays apt to be characterised by diminished procrea- 
tion. Elsewhere than in the Malthus essay, apropos of 
the risk of over-population, he writes of certain post- 
malthusian applications of Malthus’ theory: “Some also 
suggest various physiological expedients—the obscene 
abominations of the so-called Neo-Malthusians—to limit 
population. Do they not see that there is no excess of 
mouths to be fed, and that procreation will of itself dimin- 
ish with the amelioration of the condition of the working 264 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
classes, without recourse to loathsome and unnatural prac- 
tices.” 1 Terms of abuse, such as “obscene abominations” 
and “loathsome practices,” may be ignored by the scien- 
tific controversialist, and the significance of the accusation 
that birth-control is ‘ ‘ unnatural ’ ’ will be reserved for sub- 
sequent consideration. Suffice it to point out that in the 
passage quoted, and repeatedly in the Malthus, Loria fails 
oddly, for so acute a mind, in his analysis of operating 
causes. As a result of a rising standard of life—conse- 
quent upon improved economic conditions among the 
proletariat—the labourers, we are told, “become less pro- 
lific. ’ ’2 Thus the growth of population is * ‘ automatically ’’ 
regulated by economic means, and it is needless to have 
recourse to “physiological expedients” to limit popula- 
tion. Yet nowhere does Loria attempt to elucidate the 
working of this economic factor, or to show how it can 
possibly operate unless precisely in virtue of what he is so 
strangely and so inconsistently moved to condemn, namely 
the deliberate application of physiological knowledge, by 
individual couples, in order to regulate the size of their 
families. In a word, by birth-control. Bernstein’s error 
is analogous to that of Loria when the German socialist 
declares (supra, p. 166) that the labour movement “exer- 
cises an influence in favour of the restriction of births 
. . . quite independently of any direct aid from the Mal- 
thusians. ” Doubtless knowledge of the possibilities of 
birth-control will, in favourable circumstances, spread 
slowly from individual to individual, even among the more 
1 Loria, Contemporary Social Problems, Swan. Sonnenschein, London, 
1911, p. 79. 
aOp. cit., p. 80. EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
265 
ignorant strata of the community, as happened presumably 
in eighteenth century rural France. But information as 
to the most approved methods is rarely thus acquired, and 
it seems to us preposterous to deny that the existence of 
a group of enthusiasts, well-educated, inspired with the 
zeal of the propagandist, and even with that of the martyr, 
has had a potent direct influence upon the natality sta- 
tistics of the last forty years. 
This leads us to examine Manschke’s contention that the 
observed decline in the birth-rate, beginning in France in 
the middle of the eighteenth century (for, as a reference 
to Quessel will show, Dunlop is mistaken in dating it from 
the Revolution), manifesting itself a century later in Eng- 
land, and subsequently spreading, as if by contagion, to 
Germany and the other countries of western Europe, is 
not due to the adoption of deliberate measures, but is de- 
pendent upon a spontaneous physiological decline in fer- 
tility. Mansehke’s figures are interesting, but they fail to 
prove his case. Admitting the increase in stillbirths, op- 
erative deliveries, etc., and ignoring the possibility that 
(as in the analogous case of the alleged increase in the 
prevalence of insanity) this increase may in large part be 
apparent merely, due to a progressive improvement in 
statistical records, we must dispute the contention that 
there is any manifestation here of a spontaneous decline 
in the capacity for child-bearing. As far as the female 
partner in the sexual act is concerned, the capacity for 
child-bearing depends upon three factors—the capacity 
for conception, the capacity for successful gestation and 
parturition, and the capacity for rearing the offspring. 
Manschke’s figures have no bearing whatever upon the 266 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
first-named element, and this is the one with which we are 
mainly concerned, for the decline he shows to exist in the 
capacity for successful gestation and parturition, and the 
decline in the capacity for the successful rearing of infant 
life, are utterly incompetent quantitatively to account for 
the observed decline in the birth-rate and for the circum- 
stances in which that decline has become apparent. His 
assumption of a decline in woman’s capacity for concep- 
tion is far more baseless than the assumption to which he 
takes exception, that the observed failure to conceive is 
the outcome of deliberate interference. The phenomenon 
to which he draws attention deserves careful study. It is 
important that we should ascertain why increased urban 
life, why capitalist civilisation, should have these dis- 
astrous accompaniments, and some of us may have a 
shrewd idea where to look for the root of the mischief— 
but the matter has little bearing, either positive or nega- 
tive, upon the question of birth-control. Manschke lays 
much stress upon the absence of direct statistical evidence 
that the fall in the birth-rate is due to the use of con- 
traceptives. He might as reasonably complain that, in 
the absence of direct evidence, hundreds of men are exe- 
cuted every year for murder. People do not (except in 
war time) make a point of killing one another coram 
publico, and if circumstantial evidence were to be ruled 
out of court a great many murderers would escape judicial 
punishment. Similarly as regards birth-control. In this 
respect we live in an age of transition, and the majority 
of those who use contraceptives do not trumpet their do- 
ings from the housetops. They are not ashamed of their 
actions; they pass on information quietly to their friends; EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
267 
but, in view of the continued prevalence of widespread 
prejudice, they avoid undue publicity. When we have out- 
grown certain musty conventions regarding sex, direct sta- 
tistical data will doubtless be available. Meanwhile, many 
of us use contraceptives, and are perfectly frank about the 
matter; many of us have advised friends and patients 
where to get contraceptives and how to employ them; there 
will be few readers of this book who will not number among 
their personal acquaintances many young married couples, 
childless or with very few children, whose use of con- 
traceptives may be considered a moral (or immoral) cer- 
tainty. The opponents of birth-control have no doubt 
where the enemy lurks: they clamour for repressive legis- 
lation. Need those who favour conscious procreation seri- 
ously doubt that the general adoption of the practice is the 
main cause of the decline in the birth-rate? 
When we find that so cautious a sociologist as Havelock 
Ellis assures us that “the whole tendency of civilisation 
is to reduce the birth-rate ”;3 when, with Ellis and in 
defiance of Manschke and of Loria, we believe that the 
fall in the birth-rate is mainly due to deliberate birth- 
control; when we refuse to condemn on abstract moral 
grounds a practice thus universally characteristic of ad- 
vancing civilisation, and (as Halford, to give but one in- 
stance, conclusively shows) predominantly adopted by the 
more intelligent and therefore presumably the more 
“moral” members of these advanced communities—what 
remains but to look upon the problem as one of pure ex- 
pediency, and to ask ourselves what are the comparative 
advantages and disadvantages, respectively individual and 
3 Havelock Ellis., Essays in War-Time. 268 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
social, of this new phenomenon of conscious procreation? 
The most comprehensive claim on behalf of birth-control 
is that put forward many years ago by George Drysdale 
in his Elements of Social Science (first published in Lon- 
don in the year 1854), and ably voiced in the present 
volume by his nephew, Charles V. Drysdale, to the effect 
that birth-control will per se suffice to solve the problem 
of poverty. These writers are anti-socialist, but the same 
contention is urged by certain socialist and syndicalist 
advocates of la greve des ventres. It is hard to allow the 
claim in its entirety. The cause of poverty to-day is not 
so much pressure of population upon the means of sub- 
sistence, as a defective distribution of those means owing 
to the nature of the economic system now dominant. The 
matter is so brilliantly elucidated by Loria that it is need- 
less to recapitulate his arguments. So long as the means 
of production are privately owned and used primarily for 
the furnishing of private profit, it is difficult to under- 
stand how any restriction of proletarian births could com- 
pletely solve the social problem, though it might well prove 
a powerful adjuvant. Birth-control would here act like 
abstinence from alcohol. This latter, in a society in which 
a tendency to the abuse of alcohol is prevalent greatly 
favours the economic welfare of the abstainer, and re- 
dounds to the advantage of his family; but directly the 
society as a whole becomes abstinent, the preponderant 
advantage to the individual abstainer is cancelled. One 
whom the French Malthusians term a pere lapin is worse 
off than his fellow workmen who adopt the two-children 
system; but the total disappearance of pere-lapinisme 
would not lead to the cessation of economic competition EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
269 
between individual workers, nor would it put an end to the 
class struggle between workers and capitalists; it would 
merely deprive the father of a restricted family of his 
present comparative advantage. In France, restriction 
of births is now so general as practically to furnish a test 
case. As far as urban districts are concerned, large fam- 
ilies are exceedingly rare. In a land where the housing 
standard is set by childless, one-child, and two-children 
households, the indiscriminate procreator and his family 
have to suffer almost intolerable hardships, and their woes 
bulk largely in the newspapers during the “general post” 
which takes place among Parisian tenants on each suc- 
ceeding quarter day. At these times, the families nom- 
breuses have to be housed by the municipalities until land- 
lords willing to accommodate can at length be discovered. 
But the number of such exceptions is in actual fact so 
small that something closely approximating to the birth- 
strike is a reality among town operatives. Now the present 
writers are not relying on hearsay evidence, but upon 
personal observation as residents in working-class quarters 
of Paris, when they assert that, in accordance with the iron 
law of wages, the subsistence level is that of a small fam- 
ily. The French working man and woman, with average 
families of one to three, are no better off than their Eng- 
lish compeers with average families of three to five. In 
Paris a far larger proportion of these small families live 
in one room tenements than is customary in London, and 
they pay the same rent for a single room that a similar 
but larger London family pays for two rooms or three. 
In other respects the standard of life is much the same 
in the two countries. Special advantages, where they exist, 270 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
are due to effective trade union action and to other causes 
which operate in France as they do in England in prac- 
tical independence of the question of birth-control. Fur- 
ther, wherever birth-control is so effective as to limit the 
supply of labour demanded by productive capital, the re- 
sults are those ably sketched by Quessel in the present 
book. To supply the deficiency, foreign labour is im- 
ported from more prolific lands, and the national in- 
tegrity is threatened. We may be told that the remedy 
is, as in Australia, to prohibit such import, but this meas- 
ure has not eliminated poverty in Australia, nor has it 
hitherto. “Labour governments” notwithstanding, threat- 
ened there to effect the final overthrow of capitalist domi- 
nation. Possibly if there were no “more prolific lands” 
to furnish an unlimited supply of proletarians, the eco- 
nomic power of the birth-strike would be more effective. 
Since this is but one among several instances in which the 
deficiencies and dangers of birth-control might be over- 
come if its practice could but be universalised, the further 
consideration of the matter may be deferred. Meanwhile, 
let those who find Drysdale’s arguments, so ably 
marshalled, thoroughly convincing, turn back to pages 
35 to 38 in Loria’s essay, and reconsider these. Loria 
does not contend that insufficiency of food may not be 
a cause of poverty, but he provides ample ground for the 
conclusion that such insufficiency is not the main cause 
of poverty under capitalism, and he supplies cogent reason 
for believing that birth-control would not alone suffice to 
render poverty unknown. He shows that even Malthus 
confusedly recognised this truth. 
Another important advantage claimed for birth-restric- EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
271 
tion is that it will prevent war. Dunlop urges this view 
in a brief contribution to our symposium, illustrated by 
a striking map. His contention is endorsed by the high 
authority of Havelock Ellis, who writes (op. cit., p. 65) : 
“If we survey the belligerent nations in the war we may 
say that those which took the initiative in drawing it 
on, or at all events were most prepared to welcome it, 
were Russia, Austria, Germany, and Serbia. We may also 
note that these include nearly all the nations in Europe 
with a high birth-rate. We may further note that they 
are all nations which—putting aside their cultural sum- 
mits and taking them in the mass—are among the most 
backward in Europe; the fall in the birth-rate has not 
yet had time to permeate them. On the other hand, of 
the belligerent peoples of to-day, all indications point to 
the French as the people most intolerant, silently but 
deeply, of the war they are so ably and heroically waging. 
Yet the France of the present, with the lowest birth-rate 
and the highest civilisation, was a century ago the France 
of a birth-rate higher than that of Germany to-day, the 
most militarist and aggressive of nations, a perpetual men- 
ace to Europe. For all those among us who have faith 
in civilisation and humanity, and are unable to believe that 
war can ever be a civilising or humanising method of 
progress, it must be a daily prayer that the fall of the 
birth-rate may be hastened.” 
In the report of the so-called National Birth-Rate Com- 
mission recently held in this country under the auspices 
of the National Council for Public Morals, we read: “A 
pressure of population in any country brings as a chief 
historic consequence overflows and migrations into neigh- 272 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
bouring or other accessible countries, not only for peace- 
ful settlement but also for conquest and for the subjugation 
and exploitation of weaker peoples. This always remains 
a chief cause of international disputes and wars.”4 Mrs. 
Billington-Greig writes still more uncompromisingly: 
“This present inferno of destruction in Europe is due to 
the pressure of population. The rate of increase of the 
German people is rapid. The Kaiser’s claim for a place 
in the sun is merely the claim for food and drink for the 
flood of German babies. The German people have been 
brought to welcome and rejoice in a warfare of aggres- 
sion, not so much by militarist propaganda as by the ever- 
increasing pressure of their numbers. On their east fron- 
tier they had also the menace of a Russia increasing even 
more rapidly than themselves, and all history went to as- 
sure them that an outlet would be found for the Russian 
millions across their borders within another generation, 
unless they first took the initiative. This is a very rough 
presentment economically and internationally of what the 
lack of restriction of births means for us, of what it 
has meant all down the ages.”5 
A distinguished German sociologist, likewise writing 
since the outbreak of the war, declares that Europe should 
fortify the peoples of the east against their domestic op- 
pressors, thus creating for itself allies from among these 
same peoples. “No longer, then, will the swarming masses 
of the east be a menace to the west, a menace against 
* The Declining Birth-Eate: Its Causes and Effects, Chapman and 
Hall, London, 1916, p. 43. 
B Billington-Greig, Commonsense on the Population Question, Mal- 
thusian League, London, p. 10. EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
273 
which the west must provide by rivalry in armaments 
and rivalry in uncontrolled procreation. ’ ’6 Finally, to 
quote but one more authority, William Archer, writing on 
The Education Problem in the Daily News of January 4, 
1917, concludes his article with the words: “It is certain 
that if no check is ever to be placed on human fecundity, 
wars of conquest and extermination can never end.” 
Imposing as is this array of opinions (and many more 
might be cited), the editors are by no means convinced, 
either that pressure of population was the main cause of 
the present war, or that the universalisation of birth- 
control would suffice to prevent war in the future. Grant 
that in certain stages of human evolution pressure of popu- 
lation upon the means of subsistence was the leading and 
ofttimes the sole cause of war, grant with Malthus that 
this was the main factor in inducing the barbarian migra- 
tions of the epoch that bridged the gulf between the 
classical and the modern world (though even as far as 
these movements of population are concerned few will be 
so bold as to deny that sheer human pugnacity and love 
of adventure may have been a contributory cause), there 
are other economic phases wherein the motive forces of 
war are of a very different character. What evidence is 
there that the aggressive wars of later republican and of 
imperialist Borne were the outcome of over-population; 
what evidence is there that the imperialist conquests of 
Spain during the sixteenth century or those of England 
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were con- 
ditioned by the pressure of population upon the means of 
a Rudolf Goldseheid, Deutschlands grosste Gefahr, Orell Fiissli, 
Zurich, 1916. p. 35. 274 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
subsistence? There is no such evidence. They were due 
(once more ignoring wanderlust and innate pugnacity) 
to economic causes of a very different kind, to the desire 
of dominant classes to augment their wealth and to ag- 
grandise their position by the exploitation of more back- 
ward races. We will not enter into the vexed question 
of the causes of the war that is now raging. Suffice it 
to express the belief that the dispassionate historians of 
a later age will decide that pressure of population was but 
a subsidiary factor, and that, apart from the instinctive 
combativeness of semi-civilised humanity, and apart from 
the widespread influence of misrepresentations and mis- 
understandings, the leading determinant was the rivalry 
of capitalist imperialisms. Surely the unimportance of 
pressure of population in Germany is sufficiently proved 
by Quessel’s account of the regions in eastern and western 
Germany in which the dominance of the German type is 
threatened, just as the dominance of the French type is 
threatened in certain districts of France, by the flood of 
alien proletarian immigration? 
The same considerations apply to the future. Restric- 
tion of births is for many reasons eminently desirable, but 
we shall delude ourselves if we believe that the universali- 
sation of the practice will, unaided, prove competent to 
suppress the menace of war. Dunlop terminates his 
paper with the enquiry: “Can you imagine war occurring 
if no one in the world had more than two children?” We 
answer: “We can imagine it very well, so long as large- 
scale exploitation continues. While the government of 
‘civilised’ nations remains in the hands of profiteering 
classes, other causes of war will continue to operate, EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
275 
causes which no restriction of population, however effec- 
tive, could possibly put out of action.” 
Let us turn from these social advantages of birth- 
control which, though realisable to a degree, are not, we 
think, realisable in the completeness anticipated by cer- 
tain enthusiasts, to consider the individual advantages 
likely to accrue from conscious procreation. Some of 
these need not be discussed at length, for they are familiar 
to all. It is precisely because the individual benefits are 
so plain, that the practice of birth-control makes unceas- 
ing progress, so that the more fanatical among its op- 
ponents, those with an eye only for its real or fancied 
social dangers, are led to clamour (as fanatics invariably 
clamour) for repressive legislation. People would not 
interfere with the natural consequences of the sexual act 
unless experience showed that, under present conditions, 
such interference promotes material wellbeing. Let us 
never speak slightingly of the desire for material well- 
being. Whether it be or be not man’s leading need, it is 
at any rate the first of all his needs, and if it can be satis- 
fied (without exploitation, active or passive, and without 
excess) we may trust that the other graces will follow in 
their proper places. 
Like most other questions in our “man-made world,” 
birth-control has until quite recently been mainly re- 
garded as a man’s question. But of late, in England, 
Germany, France, and Italy, and not least in the United 
States, it has been brought much to the fore by women, 
and as a matter concerning individual women and chil- 
dren even more than individual men. In the ease of chil- 
dren the benefits of birth restriction are overwhelming. 276 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
Not only is the decline in fitness among the later children 
of a large family established beyond the possibility of dis- 
pute, but it is obvious on a priori grounds that a few 
children can be better cared for by their parents than can 
many, and that a reduction in the ratio between children 
and adults throughout the community will enormously 
facilitate the solution of educational problems, rendering 
it possible to have smaller classes in our schools, and in 
various other ways enabling the reduced numbers of chil- 
dren to receive more of that intelligent individual care 
and attention which is the central feature of sound edu- 
cation. As we write there comes to hand a letter from 
a personal friend, a skilled manual worker in a large mid- 
land town. Apropos of the problems of heredity and en- 
vironment, he says: “The smaller families now common 
among the artisan class are hopeful in so far as environ- 
ment is a factor in the child’s development. Generally 
the children are better nourished and placed in the world 
with a much greater regard to the child’s wishes and gen- 
eral aptitudes, than among the labouring classes with their 
much larger families.” We do not deny that many large 
families are wonderfully well cared for, among the poor 
no less than among the well-to-do. But on the average, 
wherever lapinisme prevails we have numbers of neglected 
children, a fact to which the fall in the youthful death- 
rate that invariably follows a fall in the birth-rate bears 
eloquent testimony. 
But it is when we come to consider the individual woman 
that we find the advantages of birth-control overwhelming. 
It is not needful to discuss the matter in detail, since the 
possibilities are eloquently set forth in the essay on Women EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
277 
and Birth-Control. If a word of cautions editorial criti- 
cism be permissible, we would say that while we fully 
agree with Stella Browne that enforced maternity is “an 
outrage and a vile cruelty to both mother and child,” we 
think that in her observations on page 252 she is inclined 
to replace by a new feminine mythology the masculine 
mythology which she tells us (truly enough) has gathered 
round motherhood. The connection between the mother 
and the child in utero is not of such a character as to ren- 
der it likely that “an enormous percentage of physical 
degeneracy, of deficient vitality, and obscure perversions 
of instinct and will, are due to the unwilling and unloving 
conception and gestation of such life”; and we venture 
to express the opinion that the personal observations to 
which the writer appeals are likely, on close analysis, to 
prove no less unconvincing than those commonly adduced 
in support of the belief in telegony and in maternal im- 
pressions in general. But we pass from minor points of 
difference between the editors and Stella Browne to en- 
visage the social reactions of the change in the status of 
womanhood that will ensue upon the generalisation of 
birth-control. 
Many influences are co-operating in modern social life 
to secure the economic independence of women, but among 
these influences the factor we are now considering will 
prove in the end more potent than all the others combined. 
For not merely will birth-control render motherhood 
a purely voluntary profession, enable women to remain 
independent wage earners for as long as they please; but 
further, as will be shown in the sequel, it will positively 
compel the community to endow motherhood, and will thus 278 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
render all adult women, married as well as unmarried, 
and with or without children, completely independent of 
the economic caprices of the individual male. This will 
assuredly remove the economic pressure which is one of 
the potent factors in keeping up the supply of women 
for the modern slave market of prostitution. It will not 
suffice per se to abolish prostitution; but it will diminish 
its prevalence and will transform its characteristics in 
ways whose consideration lies beyond our present scope. 
On the one hand, while the curtailment of opportunities 
for casual and purchased sexual gratification will intensify 
the masculine need for early marriage, the practice of 
birth-control will, on the other, enormously facilitate this 
desirable consummation. (Incidentally, the decline in the 
prevalence of prostitution will greatly simplify the prob- 
lem of preventing venereal disease—another notable social 
gain.) But only upon one condition will the consumma- 
tion be thoroughly desirable. If marriage were to remain 
an inseparable bond, if marriage were still to be “wed- 
lock, ’ ’ it had better be entered upon late rather than soon, 
for the unlikelihood of securing that suitability of tem- 
perament upon which conjugal happiness so largely de- 
pends would be enormously greater if unions necessarily 
permanent were to be formed between comparatively im- 
mature and entirely inexperienced couples. (Briefer, too, 
would be the period of misery under an ill-fitting yoke!) 
Now, in the past there have been two chief reasons for 
maintaining the institution of coercive marriage—the pro- 
tection of women against being left economically defence- 
less with one or more children to support, and the pro- 
tection of the community against the liability of having EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
279 
to provide for such mothers and their children. But the 
whole case for coercive marriage falls to the ground if 
motherhood becomes a voluntary act and if motherhood 
be endowed. People will marry, as of old, that is to say 
they will enter into publicly acknowledged sexual unions 
in the hope that these unions will prove enduring. But 
for various reasons, and not least because they will wish 
before rearing a family to feel reasonably secure of the 
permanence of their mutual affection, they will not as a 
rule begin parenthood until they have lived together for 
a considerable time. All marriages will, in fact, be trial 
marriages. To many contemporary minds, to not a few 
even among the advocates of birth-control, the idea will 
be alarming, if not actually repulsive. But to the present 
writers, not only does trial marriage seem an inevitable 
outcome of the diffusion of knowledge of birth-control, but, 
under the changed circumstances, they welcome the in- 
stitution as certain to have the most widely beneficial so- 
cial reactions. The matter cannot now be further con- 
sidered, and we will content ourselves with referring those 
interested in the outlooks thus opened to a recently pub- 
lished sociological study by a German writer of estab- 
lished repute.7 
If, however, in these directions the effects of birth-con- 
trol will be revolutionary, greatly improving individual 
status, and radically transforming the social environment 
for the general advantage, there are two ways in which the 
practice entails dangers of the gravest character. These 
dangers are interrelated, and both are fully discussed in 
1 Grete Meisel-Hess, The Sexual Crisis. Critic and Guide Co., New 
York, 1916. 280 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
our symposium, for Halford, in especial, dwells upon the 
tendency of injudicious and partial restriction of births 
within each national unit to promote the preferential sur- 
vival of the unfit; while Quessel, in all three of his con- 
tributions, shows how less prolific racial and national types, 
assumed by him to be superior, are threatened with ex- 
tinction by the preponderant procreation of inferior or 
at any rate less advanced national and racial stocks. In 
both cases the same dysgenist influence is at work, and 
the greater fertility of the less fit is tending to reverse 
the gains of biological and social evolution. We may ap- 
preciate much of Bernstein’s shrewd criticism of Ques- 
sel’s nationalism; we may agree with Teehet, whose ad- 
mirable Volker, Vaterlnnder and Fiirsten Bernstein quotes, 
that every civilisation is built up by racial minglings; 
we may go further than either Bernstein or Teehet, and 
consider that new ideas contribute more potently than new 
blood to the upbuilding of a progressive civilisation; we 
may be inclined to criticise Halford’s assumption (strange 
in a socialist, though supported by the general drift of 
Niceforo’s investigations concerning the anthropology of 
the non-possessing classes) that the dominant classes of 
capitalist civilisation and those who make their way into 
these classes from beneath are of superior biologic type 
—and we may yet feel that we cannot contemplate with 
perfect equanimity the lesson of Halford’s figures, the 
menace of race suicide in the United States, or the possi- 
bility mooted by Quessel that the German type is destined 
to submergence beneath the flood of Slav alien immigra- 
tion. When (p. 170) Bernstein, speaking of race suicide, 
cheerfully declares, “we are so far from such a pos- EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
281 
sibility that no ground exists for speaking of a problem,” 
he reminds us of those Gallios who, if we ask what is 
going to happen to our civilisation and to the industrial 
system upon which it is at present based when, within a 
few brief centuries, the coal measures will be exhausted, 
reply without concern, “Take short views! The coal 
will last our time; and when the problem presses the men 
of science will find out how to tap some new source of 
energy.” The sociologist is one whose business it is to 
take long views, and when Quessel lays stress upon certain 
tendencies which, if not counteracted, will before long 
produce undesirable social results, he shows himself a 
more thoughtful sociologist than Bernstein. 
As regards the United States it is not necessary to add 
much to the facts and figures adduced by Quessel. Im- 
migration from eastern Europe has been suspended by 
the war, and it is by no means certain that the suspen- 
sion will be brief. But there are other sources of supply, 
and the problem will persist even though its form be 
changed. Apart from the outcries of those whose na- 
tional emotions are genuinely stirred but whose outlook 
is unquestionably narrow, there are many thoughtful ob- 
servers to whom this American problem presents itself 
as a matter for grave anxiety. E. A. Ross, for example, 
in his book, The Old World and the New, expresses the 
opinion that Slav immigration is bringing the middle 
ages into America, and is profoundly concerned lest what 
he calls the “pioneer breed” should be squeezed out by 
what he regards as refugees from inferior civilisations. 
Robert J. Sprague, again, a man free from spread-eagleism 
and far from unfriendly to the idea of birth-control, spoke 282 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
as follows in a lecture he recently delivered at the Massa- 
chusetts Agricultural College:• “If the insufficient birth- 
rate of the upper classes were to continue, and we were 
obliged to get our increase in numbers either from the 
overflowing poverty-stricken families of foreign countries, 
or from the poor classes of our own population, I should 
say let us draw the increase from our own people, reared 
under our own flag, language, and customs, even though 
in poverty. The adoption of birth-control by poor fam- 
ilies to the extent that it is practised by the economically 
higher classes will condemn this continent forever to be 
not only the mixing bowl of the world but the scrap heap 
of the races.” America, however, is not yet a unified na- 
tion, though the great area of the United States has long 
been under unified rule. The question of national sur- 
vival threatened by birth-control presents itself in its 
simplest form in the case of France, a national unit now 
for many centuries, and a land in which, though racial ad- 
mixture is plentiful enough, a comparatively unified na- 
tional type is unmistakable. Nor is the danger merely 
one of foreign immigration, for from the militarist point 
of view the risk involved in the more rapid multiplication 
of the German neighbours had attracted serious attention 
long before the present war, and had led to the foundation 
of the Alliance Nationale pour V Accroissement de la Popu- 
lation Frangaise. 
It is usually preferable to let enthusiasts state their own 
case. With this end in view the editors procured a num- 
ber of the publications of the Alliance, respectively en- 
titled (we translate) : The Country is in Danger; How to 
Save France; Birth-Control and National Defence; We’ll EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
283 
do for them—But afterwardsf (This by a military man, 
the reproduction of a lecture delivered to soldiers at the 
front in July, 1916) ; The Decline in the Birth-Bate and the 
Future of France. The two first-named are mere pictorial 
squibs, of the familiar type of election literature, like those 
of the “big loaf campaign” in England or of the “honest 
dollar campaign” in the United States, and every picture 
could easily he countered by a similar ex parte reply. Num- 
bers three and four, likewise, have little scientific value. 
But the last enumerated is a well-written pamphlet by Paul 
Gemahling, and had we been able to obtain permission to 
translate it we would gladly have incorporated it as a 
chapter in the present volume. The Alliance, however, re- 
fuses to countenance the reproduction in extenso abroad of 
the arguments which it thinks good enough for home con- 
sumption (justifying its refusal on the same patriotic 
grounds to which it appeals in its domestic propaganda), 
and we must therefore content ourselves with a summary. 
Nations, contends Gemahling, must either increase or dis- 
appear; but while the population of France is stationary 
and even threatens to diminish, the population of neigh- 
bouring lands is increasing with alarming rapidity. In 
the year 1911 the births in France numbered 742,000, the 
deaths 776,000. During the years 1906-1910, per ten thou- 
sand inhabitants, the excess of births over deaths was, in 
Germany 141, in Great Britain 115, in Italy and in Aus- 
tria-Hungary 113, in Belgium 87, and in France 5. In 
1871, just after the Franco-German war, the population 
of France (36,000,000) was nearly equal to that of Ger- 
many (40,000,000), and was greater than that of Great 
Britain (31,000,000). What has been the subsequent 284 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
growth of population in Europe? For every 100 Rus- 
sians living in 1871 there were 177 living in 1911. 
The corresponding increase in the other leading coun- 
tries during the same period was: Germany, from 100 
to 161; Great Britain, from 100 to 146; Austria-Hun- 
gary, from 100 to 137; Italy, from 100 to 129; France, 
from 100 to 109. Regarding Germany as the most danger- 
ous neighbour, the following comparison is instructive. In 
1850, there were 97 Germans for every 100 Frenchmen. In 
1872, the ratio was 116 GOO. In 1911, it was 168 GOO. 
In 1926, if the movement of population in the respective 
countries is continued, if the Germans go on propagating 
at the present rate and if there is no further diminution 
in the French birth-rate, the ratio will be 200 GOO. In 
fifteen years (Gemahling was writing in 1911) the popula- 
tion of Germany will be double that of France. 
The decline in the birth-rate, continues the writer, lies 
at the root of all the problems that press for solution in 
France. It is owing to this decline that France tends to 
fall out of the ranks of the great powers. Judged by 
population, in 1856 France was the second of the Eu- 
ropean states, Russia alone being more populous; but in 
1910 France came sixth on the list—or seventh if Japan 
be counted among the great powers, for in the period named 
the population of Japan increased from 20,000,000 to 53, 
000,000. For the same reason, the influence of the French 
language and of French civilisation has been lessened 
throughout the world. The country’s powers for defence 
are gravely compromised, for with fewer children she has 
fewer soldiers at her disposal. Her colonial expansion is 
hindered; she herself tends to be colonised by strangers. EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
285 
She is under-populated, for she has but 74 inhabitants per 
square kilometre, whereas Germany has 120. Her eco- 
nomic development is enfeebled. 
Nor, contends Gemahling, are these evils compensated 
by either material or spiritual benefits. There is an actual 
diminution in material wellbeing. Under modern condi- 
tions, the financial charges which the great nation has to 
meet are continually increasing, and in default of a pro- 
portional increase in population there is per head a heav- 
ier burden of taxation. Nor does the fall in birth-rate 
improve the condition of the working class, for when the 
economic life of society languishes in consequence of an 
arrest in the growth of population it is impossible that 
the workers should fail to suffer. Even if a reduction in 
their numbers should render it possible here or there for 
them to enforce the payment of better wages, the im- 
provement is but temporary, for capital soon breaks the 
opposition by the import of foreign labour or by the multi- 
plication of machines. As regards spiritual losses, to re- 
strict the family would greatly limit possibilities for the 
production of genius. The writer quotes Henri Joly to the 
following effect: “If no one had ever had more than two 
children the world would have known neither Montaigne, 
nor Descartes, nor Richelieu. Had the family never ex- 
ceeded three, there would have been no Michelangelo in 
Italy, no Cromwell in England, no Napoleon in France. 
Had the limit been four, Mozart and Mirabeau would never 
have seen the light. Benjamin Franklin was a fourteenth 
child. ’ ’ Another evil attendant on family limitation is that 
it increases the preponderance of elderly people in human 
society. Where the mature and the elderly are dispro- 286 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
portionately numerous, thrift and routinism are in favour, 
misoneism is rife, and the revolutionary and venturesome 
tendencies needful for great enterprises are discouraged. 
Legislation is likely to concern itself more with the in- 
terests of maturity and age than with those that concern 
youth and the future of the race. 
Of all Gemahling’s arguments, the two last seem to the 
editors to be of most enduring weight. But because in the 
past certain great geniuses would never have let their 
light shine into the world had their parents adopted the 
two-children-system, we need not therefore assume that the 
universal and rigid adoption of this system (a highly im- 
probable event) would completely deprive us of geniuses. 
Even if we restrict our possibilities by limiting the field 
of production, it is the contention of the advocates of 
birth-control that we shall be enabled in the future, by 
improved nurture, to make a much better use of this re- 
stricted field. Of some of the geniuses mentioned by Joly 
it may be contended (no names need be named, and read- 
ers may make their own selection) that the world could 
have got on very well without them. Besides, our present 
tendency is to lay less stress on breeding giants than on 
elevating the race. A high average of faculty with thor- 
ough and judicious cultivation of that faculty is what the 
world needs for happiness and continued progress, and 
the means for securing this end are sketched in the essay 
on Eugenics, Birth-Control, and Socialism. In the future 
commonwealth, where the average of intelligence will be 
much higher than at present, genius will not be lacking, 
but it will necessarily be less conspicuous: EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
287 
Ah, though the times, when some new thought can bud, 
Are but as poet’s seasons when they flower, 
Yet seas, that daily gain upon the shore, 
Have ebb and flow conditioning their march, 
And slow and sure comes up the golden year. 
When wealth no more shall rest in mounded heaps, 
But smit with freer light shall slowly melt 
In many streams to fatten lower lands. 
And light shall spread, and man be liker man 
Through all the season of the golden year. 
Shall eagles not be eagles, wrens be wrens? 
If all the world were falcons, what of that? 
The wonder of the eagle were the less, 
But he not less the eagle. Happy days 
Roll onward, leading up the golden year. 
More serious is the danger attributable to the preponder- 
ance of maturity and old age. Yet in a world in which 
young people were rarer, and in which their birth was a 
matter of choice not chance, they would certainly he bet- 
ter educated, and would perhaps he better valued. Age, 
too, is not simply a question of years. Largely it is a 
question of cares, and those who become parents in the 
early twenties of life, and bring up a numerous family, tend 
to age early. Premature elderliness and an excessive re- 
spect for the aged have ever been characteristic of excep- 
tionally prolific races like the Japanese and the Jews. 
May not the admitted tendency of people to remain young 
longer than they did in our grand-parents ’ times be in large 
part due to the limitation of families and to the deferred 
parenthood characteristic of our own epoch? The possi- 
bility at any rate, is not one to be lightly dismissed. The 
counsels of youth and the counsels of maturity have always 
been essential to the good ordering of the world. The coun- 288 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
sels of senility have ever been disastrous. Two remedies 
suggest themselves as likely to counteract the prevalence 
of senile influences. The first is that as the world grows 
wiser we cease to revere age, qua age, having of late made 
much healthy progress in this respect. The second remedy 
is perhaps novel, and is considerably more radical. It will 
he lightly indicated in bringing this essay to a close. 
Turning for the nonce to examine Gemahling’s proposals 
for meeting an undeniable danger, we cannot but pro- 
nounce them disastrously absurd. “Increase or disappear” 
is to be the motto. Because Germany increases more 
rapidly than France, because Russia increases still more 
rapidly than Germany, the French are to hearken to the 
gospel expounded by Zola in Fecondite; they are to resusci- 
tate lapinisme; they are to breed, breed, breed. At this 
rate, within a few generations, there will be positively no 
standing room left in Europe—and the slaughter of the 
war begun in 1914 will he as nothing to that which is to 
come. For the whole propaganda is conducted with an 
eye to the future military struggle. “Rivalry in arma- 
ments and rivalry in uncontrolled procreation!” It is no 
wonder that those Frenchmen who can contemplate the 
problems of civilisation only through the blood-tinted spec- 
tacles of the soldier should assure us, as Captain de Blic 
(author of We’ll do for them—But afterwardsf) gravely 
assures us, that neo-malthusian propaganda in France is 
encouraged and subsidised by Germany. 
If we refuse to accept this nightmare vision of an in- 
creasingly prolific and increasingly militarised world, 
what is the alternative ? There is but one, the universalisa- 
tion of birth-control. Hardy, editor of Le Neo-Malthusien, EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
289 
round whose name birth-control propaganda centres in 
France, as it centres in England round that of Drysdale, 
in Holland round that of Rutgers, and in America round 
that of Dr. Robinson, is unquestionably right when (arous- 
ing, doubtless, the virtuous and patriotic indignation of all 
the Captain de Blics of Germany) he declares in a letter 
addressed on October 19, 1916, to the French government 
of national defence: “The only way of avoiding a new 
catacylsm is to reduce the deplorable fertility of the more 
prolific races. Far from asking Frenchmen to imitate their 
enemies, we must, on the contrary, teach them our own 
wisdom. Peace and general disarmament will never be- 
come possible until, in every nation, births are regulated 
in accordance with the national resources. After the war, 
and even from this very hour, we must circulate by the 
hundred thousand in Germany pamphlets popularising 
the methods of birth-control.—To make a beginning, I beg 
permission to distribute among the German prisoners of 
war in this country a pamphlet on the subject which I 
published in Paris in the German language a few months 
before the outbreak of war. The pamphlet is entitled 
Mitt el zur Schwangerschaftsverhiitung (Means for the 
Prevention of Pregnancy), and will, I doubt not, secure 
among the prisoners a success comparable with that which 
attended its circulation in Germany at the time of its 
first publication.—Who can doubt that when the war is 
over the prisoners will pass on the information to their 
fellow countrymen ? This pamphlet, or similar pamphlets, 
should he translated into all other languages, and above 
all into the Slav tongues, for the coming peril is the Slav 
peril. All governments desiring national security and 290 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
world peace should see to it that the necessary literature 
is circulated in enormous quantities.” 
These rival arguments, Gemahling’s and Hardy’s, may 
be illustrated by analogy. Let us suppose that among the 
nations of the world, four, A, B, C, and D, occupy leading 
positions, and that these four are neighbours. In one 
matter A is greatly behind the others, in respect of habits 
of personal cleanliness. The trouble is not merely aesthet- 
ic, for the A’s are infested with body-lice, and typhus is 
consequently rife. Intercourse between these advanced 
nations is free, and the inhabitants of B, C, and D are 
seriously endangered by the dirt-engendered disease. Are 
they to join forces and exterminate their good friends of 
A? Apart from the other losses that would be involved, 
it is unquestionable that under the conditions of camp- 
life B, C, and D would also be ravaged by typhus. Are 
they to enclose A within a ring fence, and rigidly avoid all 
communications? In the modern world the suggestion is 
impracticable; and were it practicable B, C, and D would 
lose more than they would gain. Some vociferate that the 
only salvation for the peoples of B, C, and D is to return 
to the simple and uncleanly habits of their less artificial- 
ised forefathers, and to accept lice and typhus, with resig- 
nation and even with gratitude, as divinely ordained insti- 
tutions. Others, more revolutionary, contend that the in- 
habitants of A should be taught to rid themselves of lice. 
To drop the parable, the remedy for the national perils at- 
tendant upon the partial application of birth-control is 
simple. The practice must be universalised. 
Similiar considerations apply to the very real danger 
pointed out by Halford, and the same method must be EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
291 
utilised to counteract the dysgenist tendencies of imper- 
fectly adopted birth-control. For birth-control has come, 
and it has come to stay. The Alliance Nationale, like 
similar groups in other lands, demands the prohibition of 
neo-malthusian propaganda and desires to penalise the 
sale of contraceptives. The result of course, would be to 
stimulate the employment of comparatively undesirable 
expedients for birth-control, and to accentuate the dysgen- 
ist tendencies of the practice. In America, for instance, 
the coloured sections of the community and the most igno- 
rant among the immigrants would continue to indulge in 
indiscriminate procreation, wdiile the limitation of the An- 
glo-American stock would persist. In every community, 
racial questions apart, the better informed would still 
make use of the new knowledge, while the ignorant, kept 
ignorant by a reactionary law, would increase and multi- 
ply. Worst of all, there would be no legal means, no repu- 
table means, no practical means of any kind, for realising 
the eugenist advantages of birth-control, for restricting the 
multiplication of the biologically unfit. Dysgenist tenden- 
cies would be reinforced, and eugenist tendencies would 
be counteracted. In these conditions, the gloomy vaticina- 
tions of Halford would to a large extent be fulfilled 
and racial degeneration would be inevitable. It is above 
all among the masses, and among the inferior stocks, that 
the knowledge of birth-control must be diffused with the 
utmost speed and by all possible means; hence the absurd- 
ity of repressive legislation; herein the supreme value of 
the work of such enthusiasts as Margaret Sanger. 
Our analysis has shown that the benefits of birth-control 
are predominantly individual (with, it need hardly be re- 292 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
peated, important social reactions of a most advantageous 
character) ; and that the drawbacks and the dangers are 
predominantly social. Thus there is a justification and 
a need for social action in this matter; but, as we have 
seen, merely repressive measures could not fail to be 
disastrous. The community desiring to improve the qual- 
ity of the population, and the community in which the 
need for a larger population is felt, will have to take 
appropriate means to check the multiplication of less 
desirable types, to promote the procreation of the biologi- 
cally and socially fit, and, in case of need, to stimulate the 
growth of a more abundant population. Halford, indeed, 
assures us (supra, p. 236) that the goal of morality is the 
production of more life. Surely it is not more life but 
better life that is the supreme need ? This is the answer to 
the injunctions of the militarists who tell us to multiply 
and to replenish the earth in order that there may be more 
soldiers, more munitioners, and ever more breeders of fu- 
ture soldiers and munitioners. That way madness lies, 
and many of us, while content to live out our own lives 
even in a militarised world, would certainly refuse to in- 
troduce “more life” into a world wherein military effi- 
ciency is to be the supreme test of civilisation. In Sylvia 
Pankhurst’s recent pamphlet on The Birth-Rate we read: 
“Dr. Saleeby urged that the birth-rate must be increased 
in order to provide more soldiers. But women have no 
desire to produce mere cannon-food, and the determina- 
tion is undoubtedly beginning to mature in the minds of 
many thoughtful women not to bear any more soldiers 
while conscription is able to claim their sons and war re- 
mains a menace.” These sentiments are not confined to EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
293 
women. For example, in a pamphlet published before the 
war, and entitled Socialisme et Population, Leon Marinont 
writes of the fall in the German birth-rate, and goes on to 
say: “The Germans, we see, are as little inclined to make 
children simply to be a mark for our lebels as we French- 
men are inclined to make children who may he used to test 
the penetrative power of the German mausers.” 
We have a sufficiently robust faith in the human mind 
to believe, not merely that this war will come to an end, 
but that its lessons will perchance be so impressive as to 
relieve us before long of the worst aspects of militarism. 
In that case we shall not be forced to waste our energies, 
in a war after the war, upon a struggle which will find its 
extremest expressions in the birth strike against militarism 
on the one hand and in repressive measures against birth- 
control on the other. We shall have sane communities, 
willing to accept birth-control as they have accepted other 
advances in man’s control over nature, willing, while wisely 
counteracting its disadvantages, to utilise its advantages to 
the full. The first thing, clearly, is to universalise the 
practice, to diffuse the new knowledge among all races and 
through all classes of the community. This alone will suf- 
fice to minimise the dangers indicated by Halford and by 
Quessel; and even if it will not inaugurate the social mil- 
lennium (as suggested by Drysdale) nor put an end to 
war (as hoped by Dunlop) it will at any rate greatly 
ameliorate social conditions and will furnish powerful as- 
sistance in the war against war. 
If the universalisation of birth-control should lead, in 
certain countries, to an actual decline in population, need 
this prospect alarm us? Is not density of population, like 294 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
capitalism and like modern industrialism, no more than a 
necessary but in many ways extremely disagreeable stage in 
human evolution? We quite agree with what Loria (supra, 
pp. 38-41) writes of the stimulus to progress afforded by 
pressure of population, hut there is no reason why hu- 
manity, grown self-conscious, should continue for all time 
to require such a goad. The Alliance Nationale complains 
that France is under-populated as compared with Germany. 
To a large extent the figures are fictitious, for, as in all 
advanced industrial communities, the growth of German 
population is predominantly urban, while in the rural dis- 
tricts of Germany, people are by no means thick on the 
ground. As regards the countryside, the writers, who have 
tramped several thousand kilometres on French byways, 
are convinced that France is grossly over-populated; and 
the same is true, though perhaps to a less extent, of many 
regions in rural England. Turning to the industrial and 
urban areas, and fixing our minds on the ideal, not of more 
life but of better life, not of quantity but of quality, can- 
not we look forward with joy rather than with mere 
equanimity to a future in which such abominations as the 
English black country, such spreading cancers as Paris, 
London, and Chicago, will he the almost forgotten night- 
mares of a remote past? And whatever our individual 
tastes may be, the time will assuredly come in which the 
exhaustion of the coal measures will enforce upon the world 
a more reasonable standard of population. But even if 
we do not look so far as this into the future, we can at 
least recognise that the communities of a morrow that is 
already dawning will attempt to formulate some idea 
of what population is most desirable for the areas they re- EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
295 
speetively occupy, and will seek reasonable means of se- 
curing that population. They will not leave the matter to 
all the desperate hazards of fortuitous immigration and 
promiscuous breeding, but will encourage the growth or the 
restriction of population as circumstances may dictate. 
Now so long as social conditions remain of the present, in 
many ways extremely undesirable, type, it is probable that 
the universalisation of birth-control (inevitable if hu- 
manity is to be saved from racial degeneration and if 
civilisation is to be preserved from destruction by mili- 
tarism) will be followed by a notable tendency to the 
dwindling of population. Personal and family egoism— 
commendable egoism—can hardly fail to lead to this re- 
sult. The community, desiring to maintain population, 
will be forced to react from motives of self-preservation. 
Since, ex hypothesi, it cannot react by repressive measures, 
it must react in the only other way possible, by the pro- 
vision of advantages to the parents of a certain number of 
children. The sole practicable method is the endowment 
of motherhood, and this reform, essential on other grounds 
besides the one now under consideration, will have social 
reactions of the most revolutionary and far-reaching char- 
acter. The extent of the endowment, the number of chil- 
dren to which it applies, the conditions under which it is 
given, and numerous other details, will vary in accordance 
with the good sense and experience of the community, in 
accordance with the increase in our understanding of eu- 
genics, and in accordance with the degree to which it is 
desirable to stimulate or to repress the growth of popula- 
tion. The essential point is that (like eugenics and soeial- 296 
POPULATION AND BIRTH-CONTROL 
ism) birth-control and the endowment of motherhood are 
reciprocal necessities. 
Birth-control, eugenics, socialism, and the endowment of 
motherhood, are but fresh extensions of the principle of 
man’s control over nature, that nature of which man him- 
self, and man’s social environment, are parts. The con- 
trol of inanimate nature is of very old date. It began as 
soon as man became man; it marked his emergence from 
the status of merely instinctive animality. But the appli- 
cation of conscious purpose and deliberate will to man’s 
own nature, and to the social milieu wherein “human na- 
ture” is so largely fashioned, are of comparatively recent 
growth, and are full of hope for the future. This is the 
answer to those who tell us that birth-control is “un- 
natural.” So is clothing, so is fire, so is articulate speech. 
All these are essentially human characteristics, by which 
man is distinguished from his brute forbears; all these are 
“artificial,” but we do not propose to abandon them on 
that account. Having discovered them, we endeavour to 
use them wisely, to make them our servants instead of our 
masters, as with nature in general. Birth-control? Why 
not? And why not, too, death-control? Loria tells 
us (supra, p. 14) that Godwin and the elder Mal- 
thus “looked forward to the coming of a social system 
founded upon equality and anarchy, which was to bring 
universal wellbeing and even physical immortality.” 
Death-control in that sense is perhaps undesirable, and is 
certainly beyond our grasp. But the death-control that 
will enable us to choose our own time for leaving the world 
is just .as much within our power as the birth-control that 
enables us to determine when we shall bring new life into EDITORIAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
297 
the world. Not by a “fixed period” like that of Britan- 
nula in Trollope’s novel, imposed upon reluctant elders by 
an authoritative state, but by the free choice of those who, 
having enjoyed to the utmost the splendours and the de- 
lights of life and of love, are ready to depart when the 
time is ripe, unwilling to lag superfluous on the stage, loath 
to spoil the record of a fine existence by degenerating into 
exploiters, and reluctant to lose the savour of independent 
struggle amid the parasitic miseries of decrepitude. Vol- 
untary death-control is the remedy for the curse of senility 
in a world that exists for the young and for the mature. 
A free spirit will not create undesired life, nor continue a 
life desirable neither to self nor to others. The following pages 
contain announce- 
ments of some of 
The Critic and Guide 
Co.’s publications BIRTH CONTROL 
The Limitation of Offspring by 
the Prevention of Conception 
BY 
WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, M.D. 
With an Introduction by 
A. JACOBI, M.D., LL.D. 
Ex-President of The American Medical Association 
All the arguments for and against the voluntary 
limitation of offspring or birth control concentrated in 
one book of 250 pages. 
The Limitation of Offspring is now the burning 
question of the day. It has been made so by Dr. William 
J. Robinson, who was a pioneer in this country to demand 
that people be permitted to obtain the knowledge how to 
limit the number of their children, how to prevent con- 
ception when necessary. For many years he fought 
practically alone; his propaganda has made hundreds of 
thousands of converts—now the ground is prepared and 
the people are ready to listen. 
Written in plain popular language. A book which 
everybody interested in his own welfare and the welfare 
of the race should read. 
PRICE ONE DOLLAR 
THE CRITIC AND GUIDE CO. 
12 MT. MORRIS PARK W., NEW YORK SEXUAL PROBLEMS 
OF TODAY 
By WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, M.D. 
Dr. Robinson’s work deals with many phases of 
the sex question, both in their individual and social as- 
pects. , In this book the scientific knowledge of a 
physician, eminent as a specialist in everything per- 
taining to the physiological and medical side of these 
topics, is combined with the social views 
of a thinker who has radical ideas and is not afraid 
to give them outspoken expression. 
A few of the subjects which the author discusses 
in trenchant fashion are: 
The Relations Between the Sexes and Man’s Inhumanity 
to Woman. — The Influence of Abstinence on Man’s Sexual 
Health and Sexual Power. — The Double Standard of Morality 
and the Effect of Continence on Each Sex.— The Limitation of 
Offspring: the Most Important Immediate Step for the Better- 
ment of the Human Race, from an Economic and Eugenic 
Standpoint. — What To Do With the Prostitute and How To 
Abolish Venereal Disease.—The Question of Abortion Considered 
In Its Ethical and Social Aspects. — Torturing the Wife When 
the Husband Is At Fault. — Influence of the Prostate on Man’s 
Mental Condition.—The Most Efficient Venereal Prophylactics, 
etc. etc. 
“SEXUAL PROBLEMS OF TO-DAY” will give 
most of its readers information they never possessed 
before and ideas they never had before — or if they 
had, never heard them publicly expressed before. 
Cloth-bound, 320 Pages, $2 Postpaid 
THE CRITIC AND GUIDE CO. 
12 MT. MORRIS PARK W. NEW YORK WOMAN: 
HER SEX AND LOVE LIFE 
FOR MEN AND WOMEN 
By 
WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, M.D. 
Profusely Illustrated 
The best book of its kind in any 
language. Contains nothing 
superfluous, but does contain 
everything that is essential. 
It is the book intelligent men and 
women have been waiting for. 
TREASURY OF REAL INFORMATIONS* 
Price, Cloth Bound, $3.00 
CRITIC AND GUIDE COMPANY 
12 MT. MORRIS PARK WEST :: NEW YORK CITY 
Ready for delivery October 15th AN EPOCH-MAKING BOOK 
Never-Told Tales 
GRAPHIC STORIES OF THE DISASTROUS 
RESULTS OF SEXUAL IGNORANCE 
By 
WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, M.D. 
Editor of the American Journal of Urology and of The Critic and Guide 
Every doctor, every young man and woman, every newly-married 
vouple, every parent who has grown-up children, should read this 
6ook. 
Every one of the tales teaches a distinct lesson, a lesson of vital 
importance to the human race. 
_, We knew that we were getting out a useful, a NECESSARY book, 
And we expected it would meet with a favorable reception, but we 
never expected the reception would be so extravagantly and so 
unanimously enthusiastic. There seems to have been a long-felt 
but dormant want for just such a book. One reader, who has a 
fortune running into the millions, writes: 
“I would have given a good part of my fortune if the knowledge 
I obtained from one of_jour stories to-day had been imparted to 
me ten years ago.” 
Another one writes: 
“I agree with you that your plain, unvarnished tales from real 
life should have been told long ago. But better late than never. 
Your name will be among the benefactors of the human race for 
having brought out so forcibly those important, life-saving truths. 
i know that I personally have already been benefited by them.” 
Fine Cloth Binding. One Dollar per Copy 
NINTH EDITION 
THE CRITIC AND GUIDE COMPANY 
12 MT. MORRIS PARK, WEST NEW YORK I consider myself extremely fortunate in having been instru- 
mental in making this remarkable book accessible to the English 
leading public. It is a great book well worth a careful perusal. 
From Dr.'/William J. Robinson’s Introduction. 
The Sexual Crisis 
A CRITIQUE OF OUR SEX LIFE 
A Psychologic and Sociologic Study 
By GRETE MEISEL-H ESS 
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION BY EDEN AND CEDAR PAUL 
EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
By WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, M. D. 
One of the greatest of all books on the sex question 
that have appeared in the Twentieth Century. 
It is a book that no educated man or woman, lay or 
professional, interested in sexual ethics, in our marriage 
system, in free motherhood, in trial marriages, in the 
question of sexual abstinence, etc., etc., can afford to 
leave unread. Nobody who discusses, writes or lectures 
on any phases of the sex question, has a right to overlook 
this remarkable volume. Written with a wonderfully 
keen analysis of the conditions which are bringing about 
a sexual crisis, the book abounds in gems of thought and 
in pearls of style on every page. It must be read to be 
appreciated. 
A Complete Synopsis of Contents Will Be Sent on Request 
350 PAGES. PRICE $3.00 
THE CRITIC AND GUIDE CO. 
12 MT. MORRIS PARK, WEST :: :: :: :: NEW YORK CITY