Birth Control, Halliday G. Sutherland [classic books for 11 year olds txt] 📗

should be tolerated by the Home Secretary. Charles Bradlaugh was condemned to jail for a less serious crime.

(c) Tending towards the Servile State

Thirdly, the policy of birth control opens the way to an extension of the Servile State, [79] because women as well as men could then be placed under conditions of economic slavery. Hitherto, the rule has been that during child-bearing age a woman must be supported by her husband, and the general feeling of the community has been opposed to any conditions likely to force married women on to the industrial market. In her own home a woman works hard, but she is working for the benefit of her family and not directly for the benefit of a stranger. If, instead of bearing children, women practise birth control, and if children are to be denied to the poor as a privilege of the rich, then it would be very easy to exploit the women of the poorer classes. If women have no young children why should they be exempt from the economic pressure that is applied to men? And indeed, where birth control is practised women tend more and more to supplant men, especially in ill-paid grades of work. One of the birth controllers has suggested that young couples, who otherwise could not afford to marry, should marry but have no children, and thus continue to work at their respective employments during the day. As the girl would have little time for cooking and other domestic duties, this immoralist is practically subverting the very idea of a home! The English poor have already lost even the meaning of the word “property,” and if the birth controllers had their way the meaning of the word “home” would soon follow. The aim of birth control is generally masked by falsehood, but the urging of this policy on the poor points unmistakably to the Servile State. When a nation, or a section of a nation, is oppressed, their birthrate rises. That is the immutable law of nature as witnessed in history. Thus, the Israelites increased under the oppression of the Pharaohs. Thus, the Irish, from the Union to the Famine, multiplied prodigiously under the oppression of an iniquitous political and land system. By the operation of this law the oppressed grow in numbers, and break their chains.

 

Section 7. A MENACE TO THE NATION

(a) There is a Limit to lowering the Death-rate

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

 

“It may be pointed out that, though the effect of the fall in the

birthrate has hitherto been an a sense advantageous in that it has

increased the proportions living at the working ages, a tendency to the

reversal of this fact has already set in, and may be expected to

develop as time goes on….

 

“The general characteristics of the figures indicate very clearly the

effects of the long-continued decline in the birthrate of this

country, and show, by the example of France, the type of

age-distribution which a further continuance of the decline is likely

to produce. The present age-distribution of the English population is

still favourable to low death-rates, but is becoming less so than it

was in 1901. The movements along the curve of the point of maximum

heaping up population, referred to on page 61 (See [Reference:

Population]), has shifted this from age 20-25 to a period ten years

later, when mortality is appreciably higher.”—Census of England and

Wales, 1911. General Report, with Appendices, pp. 62 and 65.

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

(b) Birth Control tends to extinguish the Birthrate

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

(c) A Danger to the Empire

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

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

 

“The requirements of wheat [83] for the United Kingdom and the extent

to which Home and overseas supplies contributed towards these

requirements during the period under review can be briefly summarised

by the following table, viz.:

 

Normal Supplies Proportion of supply

Annual requirements

average Home Overseas Home Overseas

 

Million Million Million Per Per

cwts cwts cwts cent cent

 

1901-5 138.8 28.7 110.1 20.7 79.3

1906-10 143.2 31.9 111.3 22.3 77.7

1911-13 149.2 32.9 116.3 22.1 77.9

 

“The main sources of overseas supply are too well known to require

recapitulation here. The imports from the Dominions and India and their

proportionate contribution to the United Kingdom’s total imports and

wheat requirements since 1901 have been as follows:

 

1901-5

 

Percentage

From Annual Total Total

average imports requirements

 

Million Per Per

cwts cent cent

 

Canada 10.3 9.2 7.4

Australia 6.6 5.9 4.8

New Zealand .4 .4 .3

India 15.5 13.9 11.2

 

32.8 29.4 23.7

 

1906-10

 

Percentage

From Annual Total Total

average imports requirements

 

Million Per Per

cwts cent cent

 

Canada 17.2 15.1 12.0

Australia 9.4 8.2 6.6

New Zealand .3 .3 .2

India 13.3 11.7 9.3

 

32.8 29.4 23.7

 

1911-13

 

Percentage

From Annual Total Total

average imports requirements

 

Million Per Per

cwts cent cent

 

Canada 24.5 20.5 16.4

Australia 12.6 10.6 8.4

New Zealand .4 .3 .3

India 21.5 18.0 14.4

 

59.0 49.4 39.5

 

“The large increase in the proportion received from the Dominions is,

of course, mainly due to the great extension of wheat cultivation in

Western Canada since the beginning of the century.” [84]

 

Future Supplies

 

“As the United Kingdom is dependent for so large a proportion of its

wheat supplies on the surplus of oversea countries, it is of material

interest to examine whether this surplus is increasing, or whether the

growth of population is proceeding more rapidly than the extension of

the wheat-growing area.

 

“The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1912 estimated [85] that the

extension of the wheat area and the growth of population during the

period 1901-1911 was as follows:

 

Wheat area Percent Population. Percent

Wheat-growing age in age in

countries. 1901. 1911. crease 1901. 1911. crease

 

British Empire Thousand Thousand Thousands Thousands

(United Kingdom, acres. acres.

Canada,

Australia,

New Zealand,

and India). 34,696 50,490 +45.5 283,385 302,154 + 6.6

European

countries. 98,326 115,105 +17.1 291,685 337,181 +15.6

Others 67,908 81,408 +19.9 139,927 168,818 +20.6

 

“_It is important to find that, while in foreign countries, both

European and extra-European, the increase of wheat area is proceeding

at practically the same rate as the increase of population, in the

British Empire the wheat area is developing far more rapidly, so that

the Empire as a whole is becoming more self-supporting.

 

“The total production of wheat within the British Empire, which