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?
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?
Sutherland - Birth Control- A Statement of Christian Doctrine against the Neo-Malthusians
On October 31, 1921, the _Sussex Daily News_
published the following paragraph from its London correspondent.
"BIRTH CONTROL
"Reverberations of Lord Dawson's recent sensational address to the
Church Congress on birth control are still being felt as well in
medical as in clerical circles. Indeed, the subject has been discussed
by the lawyers at Gray's Inn. The London Association of the Medical
Women's Federation had so animated a discussion on it that it was
decided to continue it at the next meeting. It is quite evident that
Lord Dawson did not speak for a united medical profession. Indeed,
quite a number of doctors of all creeds are attacking the new Birth
Control Society. A London physician has a pamphlet on the subject in
the Press, and the controversy rages fiercely in the neighbourhood of
'birth-control' clinics. Much is likely to be made of the example of
France, where the revolt against the practices advocated is now in full
swing, and strong legal measures have been taken and are in
contemplation. French medical opinion is said to be very pronounced on
the subject, and it has, of course, a great deal of clinical experience
to back it. "
On November 8, a second paragraph appeared:
"BIRTH CONTROL
"My remark recently that 'a number of doctors of all creeds are
attacking the new Birth-Control Society' has been challenged by the
hon. secretary of the body in question, who observes that I am
misinformed. I must adhere to my statement, which was a record of
personal observation. Many doctors have spoken to me on the subject,
and their opinions on the ethics of birth control differ widely; but I
can only remember one who did not attack this particular society. The
secretary suggests that I am confusing what his society advocates with
something else. As a matter of fact, the whole question of birth
control has been discussed more than once by medical bodies. A doctor
who attended one such discussion shortly after the opening of the
clinic in Holloway told me that, while there was division of opinion on
the general subject, the feeling of the meeting was overwhelming
against the particular teaching given at the clinic, as undesirable and
actively mischievous. The subject is controversial, and I profess to do
no more than record such opinions as are current. "
On November 17 the _Sussex Daily News_ published the following letter:
"CONSTRUCTIVE BIRTH CONTROL
"Sir,--Your recent paragraph of 'opinions' about the Mothers' Clinic
and the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress is
not only extremely unrepresentative, but grossly misleading. Your
writer says that he can only remember one doctor who did not attack
this particular society. This implies that the medical profession is
against it, which is absolutely untrue, as is quite evident from the
fact that we have three of the most distinguished medical men in Great
Britain on our list of Vice-Presidents; four others, also very
distinguished, on our Research Committee; and that Dr. E. B. Turner, in
a Press interview after the recent Church Congress, singled out
Constructive Birth Control as the only 'Control' which was not
mischievous.
"_That there may be medical men who do not approve of birth control is
natural, when one remembers that a doctor has to make his living, and
can do so more easily when women are ailing with incessant pregnancies
than when they maintain themselves in good health by only having
children when fitted to do so. Opinions of medicals, therefore, must be
sifted. The best doctors are with us; the self-seeking and the biassed
may be against us_.
"Details about the society, including the manifesto signed by a series
of the most distinguished persons, can be obtained on application to
the Honorary Secretary, at . . . London, N. 19. --Yours, etc.
"MARIE C. STOPES,
"President Society for Constructive and Racial Progress. "
The italics are mine, and they draw attention to a disgraceful statement
concerning the medical profession. As the reader is aware, certain members
of our profession approve of artificial birth control. What, I ask, would
be the opinion of the general public, and of my friends, if I were so
distraught as to suggest that these men approved of birth control because
they had a financial interest in the sale of contraceptives? That
suggestion would be as reckless and as wicked as the statement made by Dr.
Marie C. Stopes. In the _British Medical Journal_ of November 26 I quoted,
without comment, the above italicised paragraph as her opinion of the
medical profession, and on December 10 the following reply from the lady
appeared:
"Your two correspondents, Dr. Halliday Sutherland and Dr. Binnie
Dunlop, by quoting paragraphs without their full context, appear to
lend support to views which by implication are, to some extent,
detrimental to my own. This method of controversy has never appealed to
me, but in the interests of the society with which I am associated, I
must be allowed to answer the implications. The paragraph quoted by Dr.
Sutherland is not, as would appear from his letter, a simple opinion of
mine on the medical profession, but was written in reply to a rather
scurrilous paragraph so worded as to lead the public to believe that
the medical profession as a whole was against the Society for
Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. My answer, which
appeared not only in the papers quoted but in others, contained the
following statement: 'We have three of the most distinguished medical
men in Great Britain on our list of Vice-Presidents; four others, also
very distinguished, on our Research Committee. ' Reading these words
before the paragraph your correspondent quotes, and taking all in
conjunction with an attack implying that the entire medical profession
was against us, it is obvious that the position is rather different
from what readers of Dr. Sutherland's letter in your issue of November
26 might suppose. "
It will be noted that Dr. Stopes does not withdraw but attempts to justify
her scandalous suggestion by stating, firstly, that the full context of her
letter was not quoted by me, and secondly, that her original letter was
written "in reply to a rather scurrilous paragraph. "
As I have now quoted in full her original letter, excepting the address
of her society, and the two paragraphs from the _Sussex Daily News_, my
readers may form their own judgment on the following points: Is it possible
to maintain that the whole context of her original letter puts a different
complexion on her remarks concerning the medical profession? Can either
of the paragraphs from the _Sussex Daily News_ be truthfully described
as "rather scurrilous," or are they fair comment on a matter of public
interest? Moreover, even if a daily paper _had_ published a misleading
paragraph about this society, surely that is not a valid reason why its
President should make a malignant attack, not on journalists, but on the
medical profession?
Section 3. A CAUSE OF UNHAPPINESS IN MARRIAGE
Nor does birth control lead to happiness in marriage. On the contrary,
experience shows that the practice is injurious not only to the bodies
but also to the minds of men and women. As no method of contraception is
infallible, the wife who allows or adopts it may find herself in the truly
horrible position of being secretly or openly suspected of infidelity.
Again, when a family has been limited to one or two children and these die,
the parents may find themselves solitary and childless in old age; and
mothers thus bereaved are often the victims of profound and lasting
melancholy. The mother of a large family has her worries, many of them not
due to her children, but to the social evils of our time: and yet she is
less to be pitied than the woman who is losing her beauty after a fevered
life of, vanity and self-indulgence, and who has no one to love her, not
even a child.
Moreover, these practices have an influence on the relation between husband
and wife, on their emotions towards each other and towards the whole sexual
nisus. Mr. Bernard Shaw recently stated [71] that when people adopt methods
of birth control they are engaging, not in sexual intercourse, but in
reciprocal masturbation.
That is the plain truth of the matter. Or, from another point of view, it
may be said that the man who adopts these practices is simply using his
wife as he would use a prostitute, as indeed was said long ago by St.
Thomas Aquinas. [72] The excuse offered for illicit sexual intercourse is
not usually pleasure, but that the sex impulse is irresistible: and the
same argument is used for conjugal union with prevention. In both cases the
natural result of union is not desired, and positive means are taken to
prevent it.
And what of the results on the mutual love, if an old-fashioned word be
not now out of place, and on the self-respect of two people so associated?
Birth control cannot make for happiness, because it means that mutual love
is at the mercy of an animal instinct, neither satisfied nor denied. It is
an old truth that those who seek happiness for itself never find it. And
yet the advocates of birth control have the temerity to claim that these
practices lead to happiness. I presume that of the bliss following marriage
with contraceptives the crowded lists of our divorce courts are an index.
The marriage bond is weakened when a common lasting interest in the care
of children is replaced by transient sexual excitement. Once pregnancy is
abolished there is no natural check on the sexual passions of husband or
wife, for they have learnt how sexual desire may be gratified without the
pain, publicity, and responsibility of having children. In the experience
of the world marriages based merely on passion are seldom happy, and
artificial birth control means passion uncontrolled by nature. These
methods are not practised by nations such as Ireland and Spain, who accept
the moral rule of the natural law expressed in God's commandments and
sanctioned by His judgments; and no man who has ever lived in these
countries could truthfully maintain that the people there, on whom the
burdens of marriage press as elsewhere, are in reality anxious to obtain
facilities for divorce. On the other hand, there are many who allege that
the people of England are shouting out for greater facilities for divorce
than they now possess. At any rate, it is obvious enough that there are
those amongst us who are straining every nerve to force such facilities
upon them.
Section 4. AN INSULT TO TRUE WOMANHOOD
It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel; and
apparently chivalry is the last refuge of a fool. Some of the advocates of
birth control who have never thought the matter out, either passionately or
dispassionately, claim to speak on behalf of women. They protest that "many
women of the educated classes revolt against the drudgery, anxieties,
inconveniences, disease, and disfigurements which attend the yearly
child-bearing advocated by the moralist. " [73]
What moralist? Who ever said it? Again, they plead for women who "revolt"
from the "disfigurement" of the gestation period. The great artist
Botticelli did not think this was disfigurement. What true women do? Are
they not those of whom Kipling writes, "as pale and as stale as a bone"?
And, if so, are these unworthy specimens of their sex worth tears? The vast
majority of women bear the discomforts of gestation and the actual perils
and pangs of birth with exemplary fortitude: and it is a gross slander for
anyone to maintain that a few cowardly and degenerate individuals really
represent that devoted sex. But these writers are indeed well out of the
ruck of ordinary humanity, because they tell us that "whatever the means
employed, and whether righteous or not, the propensity to limit the highest
form of life operates silently and steadily amongst the more thoughtful
members of all civilized countries," and yet add that "it is not perhaps
good taste to consider the means employed to this end. " While they thus
approve and commend the practice of birth control as natural to "the
more thoughtful members," they nevertheless question the "good taste" of
discussing the very methods of which they approve, even in the columns of a
medical journal! Again, they tell us that "assuredly continence is not, and
never will be, the principal" method. That may be possibly true, so long as
Christianity is more professed than practised; God knows we are all lacking
enough in self-control. And yet throughout the ages moralists have preached
the advantages of self-control, and we ordinary men and women know that we
could do better, and that others who have gone before us have done better;
but it is the self-styled "thoughtful members" who proclaim to the world
that self-control in matters of sex is an impossibility, and therefore not
to be even attempted. They are no common people--these epicureans, selfish
even in their refinement. In addition to losing their morals, they have
certainly lost their wits.
Section 5. A DEGRADATION OF THE FEMALE SEX
In the Neo-Malthusian propaganda there is yet another fact which--should
be seized by every married woman, because it is a clear indication of a
tendency to reduce women to degrading subjection. No recommendations of
limited intercourse or of self-restraint according to the dictates
of reason or of affection are to be found in the writings of birth
controllers. Unrestrained indulgence, without the risk of consequences, is
their motto. To this end they advocate certain contraceptive methods, and
the reader should note that these methods require precautions to be taken
solely by the woman. If she fails to take these precautions, or if the
precautions themselves fail, all responsibility for the occurrence of
conception rests on her alone; because her Malthusian masters have decided
that she alone is to be, made responsible for preventing the natural or
possible consequences of intercourse. Why? That is a very interesting
question, and one to which a leading Neo-Malthusian has given the answer.
In 1854 there was published, _Physical, Sexual and Natural Religion: by a
Graduate of Medicine_. In the third edition the title was altered to _The
Elements of Social Science_, and the author's pseudonym to _A Doctor of
Medicine_. This book, which contains over 600 pages of small type, may be
truthfully described as the Bible of Neo-Malthusians, and includes, under
the curious heading _Sexual Religion_, a popular account of all venereal
and other diseases of sex. In the Preface to the first edition, [74] the
anonymous author states: "Had it not been the fear of causing pain to a
relation, I should have felt it my duty to put my name to this work; in
order that any censure passed upon it should fall upon myself alone. " The
relation appears to have had a long life, because anonymity was preserved
for fifty years, presumably out of respect for his, or her, feelings: and
he, or she, must have lived as long as the author, who died in 1904 at the
age of seventy-eight; because the author's name was not revealed until a
posthumous edition, the thirty-fifth, appeared in 1905, from which we learn
that the book was written by the late Dr. George Drysdale, brother of
the first President of the Malthusian League, and uncle of the present
incumbent. The last edition, in recompense for its smudgy type, contains a
most welcome announcement by the publisher:
"PUBLISHER'S NOTE. --. . . It is due alike to the reader and the publisher
to explain why the present edition is printed (in the main) from
stereotypes that have seen fifty years' service. The cost of resetting
the work would be prohibitive on the basis of present (and probable
future) sales. To some extent the plates have been repaired; but such
an expedient can do no more than remove the worse causes of offence. "
But the fact with which I am at present concerned is that in every edition
all contraceptive methods that apply to the male are _condemned_ for the
following reasons:
"The first of these modes [_coitus interruptus_] is physically
injurious, and is apt to produce nervous disorder and sexual
enfeeblement and congestion, from the sudden interruption it gives to
the venereal act, whose _pleasure_ moreover it interferes with. The
second, namely the sheath, _dulls the enjoyment_, and frequently
produces impotence in the man and disgust in both parties; so that it
also is injurious" (p. 349). . . . "Any preventive means, to be
satisfactory, must be used by the woman, as _it spoils the passion and
the impulsiveness_ of the venereal act _if the man have to think of
them_" (p. 350).
The italics are mine, but the following comments are by a woman, who was
moreover the first woman to qualify in medicine--the late Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell.
"Here, in this chief teacher of the Neo-Malthusians, the cloven foot is
fully revealed. This popular author, who in many parts of his book
denounces marriage as the enslavement of men and women, who sneers at
continence, and rages at Christianity as a vanishing superstition--all
under a special pretence of benevolence and desire for the advancement
of the human race, here clearly, shows what he is aiming at, and what
his doctrines lead to. Male sexual pleasure must not be interfered
with, male lust may be indulged in to any extent that pleasure demands,
but woman must take the entire responsibility, that male indulgence be
not disturbed by any inconvenient claims from paternity. Whatever
consequences ensue the woman is to blame, and must bear the whole
responsibility.
"A doctrine more diabolical in its theory and more destructive in its
practical consequences has never been invented. This is the doctrine of
Neo-Malthusianism. " [75]
Section 6. SPECIALLY HURTFUL TO THE POOR
(a) _Affecting the Young_
There are three special and peculiar evils that attend the teaching of
birth control amongst the poor. Of the first a doctor has written as
follows:
"Morally, the doctrine is indefensible--it follows the line of least
resistance, and sacrifices the spirit to the flesh. Materially, it is
fraught with grave danger to the home and to our national existence. It
is proposed to disseminate a knowledge of contraceptive methods
throughout the overcrowded homes of the ill-fed, ill-clad poor. Now it
is in these homes that the moral sense has already but little chance of
development, where the child of eight or ten already knows far more
than is good for the health of either body or mind, and, though we may
succeed in reducing the size of the family, yet the means we employ
will militate against the raising of the moral tone of the household,
and the children will not be any less precocious than before. " [76]
That danger is ignored by the advocates of birth-control. "But he that
shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were
better for, him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he
were drowned in the depth, of the sea. " [77]
(b) _Exposing the Poor to Experiment_
Secondly, the ordinary decent instincts of the poor are against these
practices, and indeed they have used them less than any other class. But,
owing to their poverty, lack of learning, and helplessness, the poor are
the natural victims of those who seek to make experiments on their fellows.
In the midst of a London slum a woman, who is a doctor of German philosophy
(Munich), has opened a Birth Control Clinic, where working women are
instructed in a method of contraception described by Professor McIlroy as
"the most harmful method of which I have had experience. " [78] When we
remember that millions are being spent by the Ministry of Health and by
Local Authorities--on pure milk for necessitous expectant and nursing
mothers, on Maternity Clinics to guard the health of mothers before and
after childbirth, for the provision of skilled midwives, and on Infant
Welfare Centres--all for the single purpose of bringing healthy children
into our midst, it is truly amazing that this monstrous campaign of birth
control 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 birth-rate 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 birth-rate is the cause of a high
death-rate, and that over-population is the cause of poverty. Yet, in spite
of their beliefs, they make the following statement: "Neo-Malthusians have
not aimed at reducing population, but only at reducing unnecessary death,
which injures the community without adding to its numbers. " [80] In defence
of this statement they argue that if the death-rate falls people will
live longer, and therefore the population will not decrease, although the
birth-rate is lowered. There are two fallacies in their argument. They
overlook the fact that every one of us must die, and that therefore there
is a limit beyond which a death-rate cannot possibly fall, whereas there
is no limit, except zero, to the possible fall in a birth-rate. If a
birth-rate fell to nothing and no children were born, it is obvious that
the population would eventually vanish. The second fallacy is that a low
birth-rate will permanently lower the death-rate. At first a falling
birth-rate increases the proportion of young adults in the population, and,
as the death-rate during early adult life is relatively low, the total
death-rate tends to fall for a time. Sooner or later there is an increase
in the proportion of old people in the population, and, as the death-rate
during old age is high, the total death-rate tends to rise. That is now
happening in England, and these are the _actual facts_ as recorded by the
Registrar-General:
"It may be pointed out that, though the effect of the fall in the
birth-rate has hitherto been an a sense advantageous in that it has
increased the proportions living at the working ages, a tendency to the
reversal of this fact has already set in, and may be expected to
develop as time goes on. . . .
"The general characteristics of the figures indicate very clearly the
effects of the long-continued decline in the birth-rate of this
country, and show, by the example of France, the type of
age-distribution which a further continuance of the decline is likely
to produce. The present age-distribution of the English population is
still favourable to low death-rates, but is becoming less so than it
was in 1901. The movements along the curve of the point of maximum
heaping up population, referred to on page 61 (See [Reference:
Population]), has shifted this from age 20-25 to a period ten years
later, when mortality is appreciably higher. "--Census of England and
Wales, 1911. General Report, with Appendices, pp. 62 and 65.
Of these facts the birth controllers, would appear to be ignorant. That
is a charitable assumption; but, in view of the vital importance of this
question their ignorance is culpable.
(b) _Birth Control tends to extinguish the Birth-rate_
Whatever may be the nebulous aim of birth controllers, the actual results
of birth control are quite definite. We have no accurate information
regarding the extent to which, birth control is practised, for, needless to
say, the Malthusians can provide us with no exact figures bearing on this
question; but we do know that birth control, when adopted, is mostly
practised amongst the better paid artisans and wealthier classes. After
full examination of the evidence; the National Birth-rate Commission were
unanimously agreed "That the greater incidence of infant mortality upon the
less prosperous classes does not reduce their effective fertility to the
level of that of the wealthier classes. " [81] It is probable that this
Commission overestimated the extent to which birth control has contributed
to the declining birth-rate; but, even so, this does not alter the obvious
fact that artificial birth control, when adopted, reduces fertility to
a lower level than Nature intended. If language has any meaning, birth
control means a falling birth-rate, and a falling birth-rate means
depopulation. Here and there this evil practice may increase the material
prosperity of an individual, but it lowers the prosperity of the nation
by reducing the number of citizens. Moreover, as birth control is not
a prevailing vice amongst semi-civilised peoples, the adoption of this
practice by civilised nations means that the proportion of civilised to
uncivilised inhabitants of the world will be reduced. If birth control had
been extensively practised in the past the colonisation of the British
Empire would have been a physical impossibility; and to-day, in our
vast overseas dominions, are great empty spaces whose untilled soil and
excellent climate await a population. Is that population to be white, or
yellow? A question which to-day fills the Australian with apprehension.
(c) _A Danger to the Empire_
Many people are honestly perplexed by Neo-Malthusian propaganda, and are
honestly ignorant of the truth concerning the population and the food
supply of the British Empire. They think that _if_ the population is
increasing faster than the food supply, there is at least one argument in
favour of artificial birth control from a practical, although possibly not
from an ethical, point of view. They apply to that propaganda the ordinary
test of the world, namely, 'Will it work? ' rather than that other test
which asks, 'Is it right? ' The question I would put to people who reason in
that way, and they are many, is a very simple one.
If it can be proved that
Neo-Malthusian propaganda is based on an absolute falsehood, will it not
follow that the chief argument in favour of artificial birth control has
been destroyed? Let us put this matter to the proof. Neo-Malthusians state
that the population of the Empire is increasing more rapidly than the
food supply. That is a definite statement. It is either true or false.
To discover the truth, it is necessary to refer to the Memorandum of the
Dominions Royal Commission, and it may be noted that publications of that
sort are not usually read by the general public to whom the Neo-Malthusians
appeal. The public are aware that the staff of life is made from wheat, but
they are not aware of the following facts, which prove that in this matter,
at any rate, Neo-Malthusian statements are absolutely false. In foreign
countries the increase of the wheat area is proceeding at practically the
same rate as the increase of population. Within the British Empire _the
wheat area is increasing more rabidly than the population_.
Between 1901 and 1911 the percentage increase of the wheat area _was nearly
seven times greater_ than the increase of population; and the percentage
increase in the actual production of wheat _was nearly twelve times
greater_ than the increase of population. As these facts alone completely
refute the Neo-Malthusian argument, it is advisable to reproduce here the
official statistics. [82]
"The requirements of wheat [83] for the United Kingdom and the extent
to which Home and overseas supplies contributed towards these
requirements during the period under review can be briefly summarised
by the following table, viz. :
Normal Supplies Proportion of supply
Annual requirements
average Home Overseas Home Overseas
Million Million Million Per Per
cwts cwts cwts cent cent
1901-5 138. 8 28. 7 110. 1 20. 7 79. 3
1906-10 143. 2 31. 9 111. 3 22. 3 77. 7
1911-13 149. 2 32. 9 116. 3 22. 1 77. 9
"The main sources of overseas supply are too well known to require
recapitulation here. The imports from the Dominions and India and their
proportionate contribution to the United Kingdom's total imports and
wheat requirements since 1901 have been as follows:
1901-5
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements
Million Per Per
cwts cent cent
Canada 10. 3 9. 2 7. 4
Australia 6. 6 5. 9 4. 8
New Zealand . 4 . 4 . 3
India 15. 5 13. 9 11. 2
32. 8 29. 4 23. 7
1906-10
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements
Million Per Per
cwts cent cent
Canada 17. 2 15. 1 12. 0
Australia 9. 4 8. 2 6. 6
New Zealand . 3 . 3 . 2
India 13. 3 11. 7 9. 3
32. 8 29. 4 23. 7
1911-13
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements
Million Per Per
cwts cent cent
Canada 24. 5 20. 5 16. 4
Australia 12. 6 10. 6 8. 4
New Zealand . 4 . 3 . 3
India 21. 5 18. 0 14. 4
59. 0 49. 4 39. 5
"The large increase in the proportion received from the Dominions is,
of course, mainly due to the great extension of wheat cultivation in
Western Canada since the beginning of the century. " [84]
_Future Supplies_
"As the United Kingdom is dependent for so large a proportion of its
wheat supplies on the surplus of oversea countries, it is of material
interest to examine whether this surplus is increasing, or whether the
growth of population is proceeding more rapidly than the extension of
the wheat-growing area.
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1912 estimated [85] that the
extension of the wheat area and the growth of population during the
period 1901-1911 was as follows:
Wheat area Percent Population. Percent
Wheat-growing age in age in
countries. 1901. 1911. crease 1901. 1911. crease
British Empire Thousand Thousand Thousands Thousands
(United Kingdom, acres. acres.
Canada,
Australia,
New Zealand,
and India). 34,696 50,490 +45. 5 283,385 302,154 + 6. 6
European
countries. 98,326 115,105 +17. 1 291,685 337,181 +15. 6
Others 67,908 81,408 +19. 9 139,927 168,818 +20. 6
"_It is important to find that, while in foreign countries, both
European and extra-European, the increase of wheat area is proceeding
at practically the same rate as the increase of population, in the
British Empire the wheat area is developing far more rapidly, so that
the Empire as a whole is becoming more self-supporting.
"The total production of wheat within the British Empire, which was
227,500,000 cwts. in 1901, had risen to 399,700,000 cwts. in 1911, an
increase of 75 per cent_.
"The relative yield per acre in 1911 was as follows:"
Yield per acre.
Average for five
years, 1906-10. 1911.
Bushels. Bushels.
United Kingdom 32. 88 32. 96
Canada 17. 56[86] 20. 80[87]
Australia 11. 74 9. 65[88]
New Zealand 28. 72 36. 73
India
(including Native States) 11. 44 12. 02
The foregoing facts destroy the chief Neo-Malthusian argument, and, as
birth control tends to extinguish the birth-rate, this Neo-Malthusian
propaganda is a menace to the Empire. In fact, the danger is very great for
the simple reason that the proportion of white people within the Empire is
very small.
"The British Empire's share of the world's people is very large, but it
mainly consists, it should be remembered, of Asiatics and African
natives. The Empire as a whole contains about 450 millions of the
world's 1,800 millions, made up roundly as follows:
United Kingdom 47,000,000
Self-governing Dominions 22,000,000
Rest of the Empire (chiefly India,
319 millions) 378,000,000
Total 447,000,000
"Of the great aggregate Empire population of 447 millions, the white
people account for no more than 65 millions. That is to say, outside
the United Kingdom itself the Empire has only 18 million white people,
or less than four million families. That figure, of course, includes
Boers, French-Canadians, and others of foreign extraction. This fact is
clearly not realized by those present-day Malthusians who assure us
that too many Britons are being born. " [89]
It is also well to remember that depopulation in Italy preceded the
disintegration of the Roman Empire. Historians have estimated that, while
under the Republic, Italy could raise an army of 800,000 men, under Titus
that number was halved.
Unfortunately there are some to whom this argument will not appeal, and
wandering about in our midst are a few lost souls, so bemused by the
doctrines of international finance that they see no virtue in patriotism
or, in other words, in the love that a man has for his own home. They are
unmoved by the story of sacrifice, of thrift, and of patient trust in
God that is told for instance in the history of the Protestant manses of
Scotland, where ministers on slender stipends brought up families of ten
and twelve, where the boys won scholarships at the universities, and where
women were the mothers of men.
These days have been recalled by Norman Macleod:
"The minister, like most of his brethren, soon took to himself a wife,
the daughter of a neighbouring 'gentleman tacksman,' and the
grand-daughter of a minister, well born and well bred; and never did
man find a help more meet for him. In that manse they lived for nearly
fifty years, and there were born to them sixteen children; yet neither
father nor mother could ever lay hand on a child and say, 'We wish this
one had not been. ' They were all a source of unmingled joy. . . . " [90]
"A 'wise' neighbour once remarked, 'That minister with his large family
will ruin himself, and if he dies they will be beggars. ' Yet there has
never been a beggar among then to the fourth generation. " [91]
How did they manage to provide for their children? In this pagan, spoon-fed
age, many people will laugh when they read the answer--in a family letter,
written more than a hundred years ago by a man who was poor:
"But the thought--I cannot provide for these! Take care, minister, the
anxiety of your affection does not unhinge that confidence with which
the Christian ought to repose upon the wise and good providence of
God! What though you are to leave your children poor and friendless?
Is the arm of the Lord shortened, that He cannot help? Is His ear
heavy, that He cannot hear? You yourself have been no more than an
instrument in the hand of His goodness; and is His goodness, pray,
bound up in your feeble arm? Do you what you can; leave the rest to
God. Let them be good, and fear the Lord, and keep His commandments,
and He will provide for them in His own way and in His own time. Why,
then, wilt thou be cast down, O my soul; why disquieted within me?
Trust thou in the Lord! Under all the changes and the cares and the
troubles of this life, may the consolations of religion support our
spirits. In the multitude of thoughts within me, Thy comforts O my
God, delight my soul! But no more of this preaching-like harangue, of
which, I doubt not, you wish to be relieved. Let me rather reply to
your letter, and tell you my news. " [92]
That letter was written by Norman Macleod, ordained in 1774, and minister
of the Church of Scotland in Morven for some forty years. His stipend was
£40, afterwards raised to £80. He had a family of sixteen. One of his sons
was minister in Campbelltown, and later in Glasgow. He had a family of
eleven. His eldest son was Chaplain to Queen Victoria, and wrote the
_Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_.
The birth controllers ask why we should bring up children at great cost and
trouble to ourselves, and they have been well answered by a non-Catholic
writer, Dr. W. E. Home. [93]
"One of my acquaintances refuses to have a second child because he
could not then play golf. Is there, then, no pleasure in children which
shall compensate for the troubles and expenses they bring upon you? I
notice that the penurious Roman Catholic French Canadian farmers are
spreading out of Quebec and occupying more and more of Ontario. I fancy
these hard-living parents would think their struggles to bring up their
large (ten to twenty) families worth while when they see how their
group is strengthening its position. If a race comes to find no
instinctive pleasure in children it will probably be swept away by
others more virile. One man will live where another will starve;
prudence and selfishness are not identical.
"In her book, _The Strength of a People_, Mrs. Bosanquet, who signed
the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission, tells the story of two
girls in domestic service who became engaged. One was imprudent,
married at once, lived in lodgings, trusted to the Church and the
parish doctor to see her through her first confinement, had no
foresight or management, every succeeding child only added to her
worries, and her marriage was a failure. The other was prudent, did not
marry till, after six months, she and her fiancé had chosen a house and
its furniture. Then she married, and their house was their own careful
choice; every table and chair reminded them of the afternoon they had
had together when it was chosen; they were amusement enough to
themselves, and they saved their money for the expenses of her
confinement. He had not to seek amusement outside his home, did his
work with a high sanction and got promoted, and each child was only an
added pleasure. Idyllic; yes, but sometimes true. One of the happiest
men I have known was a Marine sergeant with ten children, and a bed in
his house for stray boys he thought he should help.
"One of my friends married young and had five children; this required
management. He certainly could not go trips, take courses and extra
qualifications, but he did his work all right, and his sons were there
to help in the war, and one of them has won a position of Imperial
usefulness far above that of his father or me. Is that no compensation
to his parents for old-time difficulties they have by now almost
forgotten? A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. "
Dr. W. E. Home is right, and the Neo-Malthusian golfer is wrong. Moreover,
he is wrong as a golfer. Golf requires skill, a fine co-ordination of sight
and touch, much patience and self-control: and many unfortunate people lack
these qualities of mind and body, and are therefore unable to play this
game with pleasure to themselves or to others. Consequently every golfer,
no matter whether he accepts the hypothesis of Spencer or that of Weismann
concerning the inheritance of acquired characteristics, should rejoice to
see his large family in the links as a good omen for the future of this
game, although there be some other reasons that also justify the existence
of children.
_(d) The Dangers of Small Families_
In a Malthusian leaflet, written for the poor Dr. Binnie Dunlop states:
"You must at least admit that there would be nothing like the usual
poverty if married couples had only one child for every 20s. or so, a
week of wages. Yet the population would continue to increase rapidly,
because very few of the children of small families die or grow up
weakly; and it would become stronger, richer, and of course much
happier. " [94]
The false suggestion contained in his first sentence, namely that a high
birth-rate is the cause of poverty, has already been exposed (Chap. II),
and apparently Dr. Binnie Dunlop has never considered _why_ so many of the
English people should be so poor as to enable him to make use of their very
poverty in order to tempt them to adopt an evil method of birth control.
Moreover, his second contention, that a small family produces a higher type
of child, better fed, better trained, and healthier, than is found amongst
the children of large families is contrary to the following facts, as
stated by Professor Meyrick Booth:
"1. A civilisation cannot be maintained with an average of less than
about four children per marriage; a smaller number will lead to actual
extinction.
"2. Much information exists tending to show that heredity strongly
favours the third, fourth, fifth, and subsequent children born to a
given couple, rather than the _first two_, who are peculiarly apt to
inherit some of the commonest physical and mental defects (upon this
important point the records of the University of London Eugenics
Laboratory should be consulted). A population with a low birth-rate
thus naturally tends to degenerate. _It is the normal, and not the
small family, that gives the best children_.
"3. The present differential birth-rate--high amongst the less
intelligent classes and low amongst the most capable families--so far
from leading upwards, is causing the race to breed to a lower type.
"4. The small family encourages the growth of luxury and the
development of what M. Leroy-Beaulieu calls _l'esprit arriviste_.
"5. The popular idea that _childbirth is injurious_ to a woman's health
is probably _quite erroneous_. Where the _birth-rate is high the health
of the woman is apparently better_ than where it is artificially low.
"6.
published the following paragraph from its London correspondent.
"BIRTH CONTROL
"Reverberations of Lord Dawson's recent sensational address to the
Church Congress on birth control are still being felt as well in
medical as in clerical circles. Indeed, the subject has been discussed
by the lawyers at Gray's Inn. The London Association of the Medical
Women's Federation had so animated a discussion on it that it was
decided to continue it at the next meeting. It is quite evident that
Lord Dawson did not speak for a united medical profession. Indeed,
quite a number of doctors of all creeds are attacking the new Birth
Control Society. A London physician has a pamphlet on the subject in
the Press, and the controversy rages fiercely in the neighbourhood of
'birth-control' clinics. Much is likely to be made of the example of
France, where the revolt against the practices advocated is now in full
swing, and strong legal measures have been taken and are in
contemplation. French medical opinion is said to be very pronounced on
the subject, and it has, of course, a great deal of clinical experience
to back it. "
On November 8, a second paragraph appeared:
"BIRTH CONTROL
"My remark recently that 'a number of doctors of all creeds are
attacking the new Birth-Control Society' has been challenged by the
hon. secretary of the body in question, who observes that I am
misinformed. I must adhere to my statement, which was a record of
personal observation. Many doctors have spoken to me on the subject,
and their opinions on the ethics of birth control differ widely; but I
can only remember one who did not attack this particular society. The
secretary suggests that I am confusing what his society advocates with
something else. As a matter of fact, the whole question of birth
control has been discussed more than once by medical bodies. A doctor
who attended one such discussion shortly after the opening of the
clinic in Holloway told me that, while there was division of opinion on
the general subject, the feeling of the meeting was overwhelming
against the particular teaching given at the clinic, as undesirable and
actively mischievous. The subject is controversial, and I profess to do
no more than record such opinions as are current. "
On November 17 the _Sussex Daily News_ published the following letter:
"CONSTRUCTIVE BIRTH CONTROL
"Sir,--Your recent paragraph of 'opinions' about the Mothers' Clinic
and the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress is
not only extremely unrepresentative, but grossly misleading. Your
writer says that he can only remember one doctor who did not attack
this particular society. This implies that the medical profession is
against it, which is absolutely untrue, as is quite evident from the
fact that we have three of the most distinguished medical men in Great
Britain on our list of Vice-Presidents; four others, also very
distinguished, on our Research Committee; and that Dr. E. B. Turner, in
a Press interview after the recent Church Congress, singled out
Constructive Birth Control as the only 'Control' which was not
mischievous.
"_That there may be medical men who do not approve of birth control is
natural, when one remembers that a doctor has to make his living, and
can do so more easily when women are ailing with incessant pregnancies
than when they maintain themselves in good health by only having
children when fitted to do so. Opinions of medicals, therefore, must be
sifted. The best doctors are with us; the self-seeking and the biassed
may be against us_.
"Details about the society, including the manifesto signed by a series
of the most distinguished persons, can be obtained on application to
the Honorary Secretary, at . . . London, N. 19. --Yours, etc.
"MARIE C. STOPES,
"President Society for Constructive and Racial Progress. "
The italics are mine, and they draw attention to a disgraceful statement
concerning the medical profession. As the reader is aware, certain members
of our profession approve of artificial birth control. What, I ask, would
be the opinion of the general public, and of my friends, if I were so
distraught as to suggest that these men approved of birth control because
they had a financial interest in the sale of contraceptives? That
suggestion would be as reckless and as wicked as the statement made by Dr.
Marie C. Stopes. In the _British Medical Journal_ of November 26 I quoted,
without comment, the above italicised paragraph as her opinion of the
medical profession, and on December 10 the following reply from the lady
appeared:
"Your two correspondents, Dr. Halliday Sutherland and Dr. Binnie
Dunlop, by quoting paragraphs without their full context, appear to
lend support to views which by implication are, to some extent,
detrimental to my own. This method of controversy has never appealed to
me, but in the interests of the society with which I am associated, I
must be allowed to answer the implications. The paragraph quoted by Dr.
Sutherland is not, as would appear from his letter, a simple opinion of
mine on the medical profession, but was written in reply to a rather
scurrilous paragraph so worded as to lead the public to believe that
the medical profession as a whole was against the Society for
Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. My answer, which
appeared not only in the papers quoted but in others, contained the
following statement: 'We have three of the most distinguished medical
men in Great Britain on our list of Vice-Presidents; four others, also
very distinguished, on our Research Committee. ' Reading these words
before the paragraph your correspondent quotes, and taking all in
conjunction with an attack implying that the entire medical profession
was against us, it is obvious that the position is rather different
from what readers of Dr. Sutherland's letter in your issue of November
26 might suppose. "
It will be noted that Dr. Stopes does not withdraw but attempts to justify
her scandalous suggestion by stating, firstly, that the full context of her
letter was not quoted by me, and secondly, that her original letter was
written "in reply to a rather scurrilous paragraph. "
As I have now quoted in full her original letter, excepting the address
of her society, and the two paragraphs from the _Sussex Daily News_, my
readers may form their own judgment on the following points: Is it possible
to maintain that the whole context of her original letter puts a different
complexion on her remarks concerning the medical profession? Can either
of the paragraphs from the _Sussex Daily News_ be truthfully described
as "rather scurrilous," or are they fair comment on a matter of public
interest? Moreover, even if a daily paper _had_ published a misleading
paragraph about this society, surely that is not a valid reason why its
President should make a malignant attack, not on journalists, but on the
medical profession?
Section 3. A CAUSE OF UNHAPPINESS IN MARRIAGE
Nor does birth control lead to happiness in marriage. On the contrary,
experience shows that the practice is injurious not only to the bodies
but also to the minds of men and women. As no method of contraception is
infallible, the wife who allows or adopts it may find herself in the truly
horrible position of being secretly or openly suspected of infidelity.
Again, when a family has been limited to one or two children and these die,
the parents may find themselves solitary and childless in old age; and
mothers thus bereaved are often the victims of profound and lasting
melancholy. The mother of a large family has her worries, many of them not
due to her children, but to the social evils of our time: and yet she is
less to be pitied than the woman who is losing her beauty after a fevered
life of, vanity and self-indulgence, and who has no one to love her, not
even a child.
Moreover, these practices have an influence on the relation between husband
and wife, on their emotions towards each other and towards the whole sexual
nisus. Mr. Bernard Shaw recently stated [71] that when people adopt methods
of birth control they are engaging, not in sexual intercourse, but in
reciprocal masturbation.
That is the plain truth of the matter. Or, from another point of view, it
may be said that the man who adopts these practices is simply using his
wife as he would use a prostitute, as indeed was said long ago by St.
Thomas Aquinas. [72] The excuse offered for illicit sexual intercourse is
not usually pleasure, but that the sex impulse is irresistible: and the
same argument is used for conjugal union with prevention. In both cases the
natural result of union is not desired, and positive means are taken to
prevent it.
And what of the results on the mutual love, if an old-fashioned word be
not now out of place, and on the self-respect of two people so associated?
Birth control cannot make for happiness, because it means that mutual love
is at the mercy of an animal instinct, neither satisfied nor denied. It is
an old truth that those who seek happiness for itself never find it. And
yet the advocates of birth control have the temerity to claim that these
practices lead to happiness. I presume that of the bliss following marriage
with contraceptives the crowded lists of our divorce courts are an index.
The marriage bond is weakened when a common lasting interest in the care
of children is replaced by transient sexual excitement. Once pregnancy is
abolished there is no natural check on the sexual passions of husband or
wife, for they have learnt how sexual desire may be gratified without the
pain, publicity, and responsibility of having children. In the experience
of the world marriages based merely on passion are seldom happy, and
artificial birth control means passion uncontrolled by nature. These
methods are not practised by nations such as Ireland and Spain, who accept
the moral rule of the natural law expressed in God's commandments and
sanctioned by His judgments; and no man who has ever lived in these
countries could truthfully maintain that the people there, on whom the
burdens of marriage press as elsewhere, are in reality anxious to obtain
facilities for divorce. On the other hand, there are many who allege that
the people of England are shouting out for greater facilities for divorce
than they now possess. At any rate, it is obvious enough that there are
those amongst us who are straining every nerve to force such facilities
upon them.
Section 4. AN INSULT TO TRUE WOMANHOOD
It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel; and
apparently chivalry is the last refuge of a fool. Some of the advocates of
birth control who have never thought the matter out, either passionately or
dispassionately, claim to speak on behalf of women. They protest that "many
women of the educated classes revolt against the drudgery, anxieties,
inconveniences, disease, and disfigurements which attend the yearly
child-bearing advocated by the moralist. " [73]
What moralist? Who ever said it? Again, they plead for women who "revolt"
from the "disfigurement" of the gestation period. The great artist
Botticelli did not think this was disfigurement. What true women do? Are
they not those of whom Kipling writes, "as pale and as stale as a bone"?
And, if so, are these unworthy specimens of their sex worth tears? The vast
majority of women bear the discomforts of gestation and the actual perils
and pangs of birth with exemplary fortitude: and it is a gross slander for
anyone to maintain that a few cowardly and degenerate individuals really
represent that devoted sex. But these writers are indeed well out of the
ruck of ordinary humanity, because they tell us that "whatever the means
employed, and whether righteous or not, the propensity to limit the highest
form of life operates silently and steadily amongst the more thoughtful
members of all civilized countries," and yet add that "it is not perhaps
good taste to consider the means employed to this end. " While they thus
approve and commend the practice of birth control as natural to "the
more thoughtful members," they nevertheless question the "good taste" of
discussing the very methods of which they approve, even in the columns of a
medical journal! Again, they tell us that "assuredly continence is not, and
never will be, the principal" method. That may be possibly true, so long as
Christianity is more professed than practised; God knows we are all lacking
enough in self-control. And yet throughout the ages moralists have preached
the advantages of self-control, and we ordinary men and women know that we
could do better, and that others who have gone before us have done better;
but it is the self-styled "thoughtful members" who proclaim to the world
that self-control in matters of sex is an impossibility, and therefore not
to be even attempted. They are no common people--these epicureans, selfish
even in their refinement. In addition to losing their morals, they have
certainly lost their wits.
Section 5. A DEGRADATION OF THE FEMALE SEX
In the Neo-Malthusian propaganda there is yet another fact which--should
be seized by every married woman, because it is a clear indication of a
tendency to reduce women to degrading subjection. No recommendations of
limited intercourse or of self-restraint according to the dictates
of reason or of affection are to be found in the writings of birth
controllers. Unrestrained indulgence, without the risk of consequences, is
their motto. To this end they advocate certain contraceptive methods, and
the reader should note that these methods require precautions to be taken
solely by the woman. If she fails to take these precautions, or if the
precautions themselves fail, all responsibility for the occurrence of
conception rests on her alone; because her Malthusian masters have decided
that she alone is to be, made responsible for preventing the natural or
possible consequences of intercourse. Why? That is a very interesting
question, and one to which a leading Neo-Malthusian has given the answer.
In 1854 there was published, _Physical, Sexual and Natural Religion: by a
Graduate of Medicine_. In the third edition the title was altered to _The
Elements of Social Science_, and the author's pseudonym to _A Doctor of
Medicine_. This book, which contains over 600 pages of small type, may be
truthfully described as the Bible of Neo-Malthusians, and includes, under
the curious heading _Sexual Religion_, a popular account of all venereal
and other diseases of sex. In the Preface to the first edition, [74] the
anonymous author states: "Had it not been the fear of causing pain to a
relation, I should have felt it my duty to put my name to this work; in
order that any censure passed upon it should fall upon myself alone. " The
relation appears to have had a long life, because anonymity was preserved
for fifty years, presumably out of respect for his, or her, feelings: and
he, or she, must have lived as long as the author, who died in 1904 at the
age of seventy-eight; because the author's name was not revealed until a
posthumous edition, the thirty-fifth, appeared in 1905, from which we learn
that the book was written by the late Dr. George Drysdale, brother of
the first President of the Malthusian League, and uncle of the present
incumbent. The last edition, in recompense for its smudgy type, contains a
most welcome announcement by the publisher:
"PUBLISHER'S NOTE. --. . . It is due alike to the reader and the publisher
to explain why the present edition is printed (in the main) from
stereotypes that have seen fifty years' service. The cost of resetting
the work would be prohibitive on the basis of present (and probable
future) sales. To some extent the plates have been repaired; but such
an expedient can do no more than remove the worse causes of offence. "
But the fact with which I am at present concerned is that in every edition
all contraceptive methods that apply to the male are _condemned_ for the
following reasons:
"The first of these modes [_coitus interruptus_] is physically
injurious, and is apt to produce nervous disorder and sexual
enfeeblement and congestion, from the sudden interruption it gives to
the venereal act, whose _pleasure_ moreover it interferes with. The
second, namely the sheath, _dulls the enjoyment_, and frequently
produces impotence in the man and disgust in both parties; so that it
also is injurious" (p. 349). . . . "Any preventive means, to be
satisfactory, must be used by the woman, as _it spoils the passion and
the impulsiveness_ of the venereal act _if the man have to think of
them_" (p. 350).
The italics are mine, but the following comments are by a woman, who was
moreover the first woman to qualify in medicine--the late Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell.
"Here, in this chief teacher of the Neo-Malthusians, the cloven foot is
fully revealed. This popular author, who in many parts of his book
denounces marriage as the enslavement of men and women, who sneers at
continence, and rages at Christianity as a vanishing superstition--all
under a special pretence of benevolence and desire for the advancement
of the human race, here clearly, shows what he is aiming at, and what
his doctrines lead to. Male sexual pleasure must not be interfered
with, male lust may be indulged in to any extent that pleasure demands,
but woman must take the entire responsibility, that male indulgence be
not disturbed by any inconvenient claims from paternity. Whatever
consequences ensue the woman is to blame, and must bear the whole
responsibility.
"A doctrine more diabolical in its theory and more destructive in its
practical consequences has never been invented. This is the doctrine of
Neo-Malthusianism. " [75]
Section 6. SPECIALLY HURTFUL TO THE POOR
(a) _Affecting the Young_
There are three special and peculiar evils that attend the teaching of
birth control amongst the poor. Of the first a doctor has written as
follows:
"Morally, the doctrine is indefensible--it follows the line of least
resistance, and sacrifices the spirit to the flesh. Materially, it is
fraught with grave danger to the home and to our national existence. It
is proposed to disseminate a knowledge of contraceptive methods
throughout the overcrowded homes of the ill-fed, ill-clad poor. Now it
is in these homes that the moral sense has already but little chance of
development, where the child of eight or ten already knows far more
than is good for the health of either body or mind, and, though we may
succeed in reducing the size of the family, yet the means we employ
will militate against the raising of the moral tone of the household,
and the children will not be any less precocious than before. " [76]
That danger is ignored by the advocates of birth-control. "But he that
shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were
better for, him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he
were drowned in the depth, of the sea. " [77]
(b) _Exposing the Poor to Experiment_
Secondly, the ordinary decent instincts of the poor are against these
practices, and indeed they have used them less than any other class. But,
owing to their poverty, lack of learning, and helplessness, the poor are
the natural victims of those who seek to make experiments on their fellows.
In the midst of a London slum a woman, who is a doctor of German philosophy
(Munich), has opened a Birth Control Clinic, where working women are
instructed in a method of contraception described by Professor McIlroy as
"the most harmful method of which I have had experience. " [78] When we
remember that millions are being spent by the Ministry of Health and by
Local Authorities--on pure milk for necessitous expectant and nursing
mothers, on Maternity Clinics to guard the health of mothers before and
after childbirth, for the provision of skilled midwives, and on Infant
Welfare Centres--all for the single purpose of bringing healthy children
into our midst, it is truly amazing that this monstrous campaign of birth
control 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 birth-rate 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 birth-rate is the cause of a high
death-rate, and that over-population is the cause of poverty. Yet, in spite
of their beliefs, they make the following statement: "Neo-Malthusians have
not aimed at reducing population, but only at reducing unnecessary death,
which injures the community without adding to its numbers. " [80] In defence
of this statement they argue that if the death-rate falls people will
live longer, and therefore the population will not decrease, although the
birth-rate is lowered. There are two fallacies in their argument. They
overlook the fact that every one of us must die, and that therefore there
is a limit beyond which a death-rate cannot possibly fall, whereas there
is no limit, except zero, to the possible fall in a birth-rate. If a
birth-rate fell to nothing and no children were born, it is obvious that
the population would eventually vanish. The second fallacy is that a low
birth-rate will permanently lower the death-rate. At first a falling
birth-rate increases the proportion of young adults in the population, and,
as the death-rate during early adult life is relatively low, the total
death-rate tends to fall for a time. Sooner or later there is an increase
in the proportion of old people in the population, and, as the death-rate
during old age is high, the total death-rate tends to rise. That is now
happening in England, and these are the _actual facts_ as recorded by the
Registrar-General:
"It may be pointed out that, though the effect of the fall in the
birth-rate has hitherto been an a sense advantageous in that it has
increased the proportions living at the working ages, a tendency to the
reversal of this fact has already set in, and may be expected to
develop as time goes on. . . .
"The general characteristics of the figures indicate very clearly the
effects of the long-continued decline in the birth-rate of this
country, and show, by the example of France, the type of
age-distribution which a further continuance of the decline is likely
to produce. The present age-distribution of the English population is
still favourable to low death-rates, but is becoming less so than it
was in 1901. The movements along the curve of the point of maximum
heaping up population, referred to on page 61 (See [Reference:
Population]), has shifted this from age 20-25 to a period ten years
later, when mortality is appreciably higher. "--Census of England and
Wales, 1911. General Report, with Appendices, pp. 62 and 65.
Of these facts the birth controllers, would appear to be ignorant. That
is a charitable assumption; but, in view of the vital importance of this
question their ignorance is culpable.
(b) _Birth Control tends to extinguish the Birth-rate_
Whatever may be the nebulous aim of birth controllers, the actual results
of birth control are quite definite. We have no accurate information
regarding the extent to which, birth control is practised, for, needless to
say, the Malthusians can provide us with no exact figures bearing on this
question; but we do know that birth control, when adopted, is mostly
practised amongst the better paid artisans and wealthier classes. After
full examination of the evidence; the National Birth-rate Commission were
unanimously agreed "That the greater incidence of infant mortality upon the
less prosperous classes does not reduce their effective fertility to the
level of that of the wealthier classes. " [81] It is probable that this
Commission overestimated the extent to which birth control has contributed
to the declining birth-rate; but, even so, this does not alter the obvious
fact that artificial birth control, when adopted, reduces fertility to
a lower level than Nature intended. If language has any meaning, birth
control means a falling birth-rate, and a falling birth-rate means
depopulation. Here and there this evil practice may increase the material
prosperity of an individual, but it lowers the prosperity of the nation
by reducing the number of citizens. Moreover, as birth control is not
a prevailing vice amongst semi-civilised peoples, the adoption of this
practice by civilised nations means that the proportion of civilised to
uncivilised inhabitants of the world will be reduced. If birth control had
been extensively practised in the past the colonisation of the British
Empire would have been a physical impossibility; and to-day, in our
vast overseas dominions, are great empty spaces whose untilled soil and
excellent climate await a population. Is that population to be white, or
yellow? A question which to-day fills the Australian with apprehension.
(c) _A Danger to the Empire_
Many people are honestly perplexed by Neo-Malthusian propaganda, and are
honestly ignorant of the truth concerning the population and the food
supply of the British Empire. They think that _if_ the population is
increasing faster than the food supply, there is at least one argument in
favour of artificial birth control from a practical, although possibly not
from an ethical, point of view. They apply to that propaganda the ordinary
test of the world, namely, 'Will it work? ' rather than that other test
which asks, 'Is it right? ' The question I would put to people who reason in
that way, and they are many, is a very simple one.
If it can be proved that
Neo-Malthusian propaganda is based on an absolute falsehood, will it not
follow that the chief argument in favour of artificial birth control has
been destroyed? Let us put this matter to the proof. Neo-Malthusians state
that the population of the Empire is increasing more rapidly than the
food supply. That is a definite statement. It is either true or false.
To discover the truth, it is necessary to refer to the Memorandum of the
Dominions Royal Commission, and it may be noted that publications of that
sort are not usually read by the general public to whom the Neo-Malthusians
appeal. The public are aware that the staff of life is made from wheat, but
they are not aware of the following facts, which prove that in this matter,
at any rate, Neo-Malthusian statements are absolutely false. In foreign
countries the increase of the wheat area is proceeding at practically the
same rate as the increase of population. Within the British Empire _the
wheat area is increasing more rabidly than the population_.
Between 1901 and 1911 the percentage increase of the wheat area _was nearly
seven times greater_ than the increase of population; and the percentage
increase in the actual production of wheat _was nearly twelve times
greater_ than the increase of population. As these facts alone completely
refute the Neo-Malthusian argument, it is advisable to reproduce here the
official statistics. [82]
"The requirements of wheat [83] for the United Kingdom and the extent
to which Home and overseas supplies contributed towards these
requirements during the period under review can be briefly summarised
by the following table, viz. :
Normal Supplies Proportion of supply
Annual requirements
average Home Overseas Home Overseas
Million Million Million Per Per
cwts cwts cwts cent cent
1901-5 138. 8 28. 7 110. 1 20. 7 79. 3
1906-10 143. 2 31. 9 111. 3 22. 3 77. 7
1911-13 149. 2 32. 9 116. 3 22. 1 77. 9
"The main sources of overseas supply are too well known to require
recapitulation here. The imports from the Dominions and India and their
proportionate contribution to the United Kingdom's total imports and
wheat requirements since 1901 have been as follows:
1901-5
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements
Million Per Per
cwts cent cent
Canada 10. 3 9. 2 7. 4
Australia 6. 6 5. 9 4. 8
New Zealand . 4 . 4 . 3
India 15. 5 13. 9 11. 2
32. 8 29. 4 23. 7
1906-10
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements
Million Per Per
cwts cent cent
Canada 17. 2 15. 1 12. 0
Australia 9. 4 8. 2 6. 6
New Zealand . 3 . 3 . 2
India 13. 3 11. 7 9. 3
32. 8 29. 4 23. 7
1911-13
Percentage
From Annual Total Total
average imports requirements
Million Per Per
cwts cent cent
Canada 24. 5 20. 5 16. 4
Australia 12. 6 10. 6 8. 4
New Zealand . 4 . 3 . 3
India 21. 5 18. 0 14. 4
59. 0 49. 4 39. 5
"The large increase in the proportion received from the Dominions is,
of course, mainly due to the great extension of wheat cultivation in
Western Canada since the beginning of the century. " [84]
_Future Supplies_
"As the United Kingdom is dependent for so large a proportion of its
wheat supplies on the surplus of oversea countries, it is of material
interest to examine whether this surplus is increasing, or whether the
growth of population is proceeding more rapidly than the extension of
the wheat-growing area.
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1912 estimated [85] that the
extension of the wheat area and the growth of population during the
period 1901-1911 was as follows:
Wheat area Percent Population. Percent
Wheat-growing age in age in
countries. 1901. 1911. crease 1901. 1911. crease
British Empire Thousand Thousand Thousands Thousands
(United Kingdom, acres. acres.
Canada,
Australia,
New Zealand,
and India). 34,696 50,490 +45. 5 283,385 302,154 + 6. 6
European
countries. 98,326 115,105 +17. 1 291,685 337,181 +15. 6
Others 67,908 81,408 +19. 9 139,927 168,818 +20. 6
"_It is important to find that, while in foreign countries, both
European and extra-European, the increase of wheat area is proceeding
at practically the same rate as the increase of population, in the
British Empire the wheat area is developing far more rapidly, so that
the Empire as a whole is becoming more self-supporting.
"The total production of wheat within the British Empire, which was
227,500,000 cwts. in 1901, had risen to 399,700,000 cwts. in 1911, an
increase of 75 per cent_.
"The relative yield per acre in 1911 was as follows:"
Yield per acre.
Average for five
years, 1906-10. 1911.
Bushels. Bushels.
United Kingdom 32. 88 32. 96
Canada 17. 56[86] 20. 80[87]
Australia 11. 74 9. 65[88]
New Zealand 28. 72 36. 73
India
(including Native States) 11. 44 12. 02
The foregoing facts destroy the chief Neo-Malthusian argument, and, as
birth control tends to extinguish the birth-rate, this Neo-Malthusian
propaganda is a menace to the Empire. In fact, the danger is very great for
the simple reason that the proportion of white people within the Empire is
very small.
"The British Empire's share of the world's people is very large, but it
mainly consists, it should be remembered, of Asiatics and African
natives. The Empire as a whole contains about 450 millions of the
world's 1,800 millions, made up roundly as follows:
United Kingdom 47,000,000
Self-governing Dominions 22,000,000
Rest of the Empire (chiefly India,
319 millions) 378,000,000
Total 447,000,000
"Of the great aggregate Empire population of 447 millions, the white
people account for no more than 65 millions. That is to say, outside
the United Kingdom itself the Empire has only 18 million white people,
or less than four million families. That figure, of course, includes
Boers, French-Canadians, and others of foreign extraction. This fact is
clearly not realized by those present-day Malthusians who assure us
that too many Britons are being born. " [89]
It is also well to remember that depopulation in Italy preceded the
disintegration of the Roman Empire. Historians have estimated that, while
under the Republic, Italy could raise an army of 800,000 men, under Titus
that number was halved.
Unfortunately there are some to whom this argument will not appeal, and
wandering about in our midst are a few lost souls, so bemused by the
doctrines of international finance that they see no virtue in patriotism
or, in other words, in the love that a man has for his own home. They are
unmoved by the story of sacrifice, of thrift, and of patient trust in
God that is told for instance in the history of the Protestant manses of
Scotland, where ministers on slender stipends brought up families of ten
and twelve, where the boys won scholarships at the universities, and where
women were the mothers of men.
These days have been recalled by Norman Macleod:
"The minister, like most of his brethren, soon took to himself a wife,
the daughter of a neighbouring 'gentleman tacksman,' and the
grand-daughter of a minister, well born and well bred; and never did
man find a help more meet for him. In that manse they lived for nearly
fifty years, and there were born to them sixteen children; yet neither
father nor mother could ever lay hand on a child and say, 'We wish this
one had not been. ' They were all a source of unmingled joy. . . . " [90]
"A 'wise' neighbour once remarked, 'That minister with his large family
will ruin himself, and if he dies they will be beggars. ' Yet there has
never been a beggar among then to the fourth generation. " [91]
How did they manage to provide for their children? In this pagan, spoon-fed
age, many people will laugh when they read the answer--in a family letter,
written more than a hundred years ago by a man who was poor:
"But the thought--I cannot provide for these! Take care, minister, the
anxiety of your affection does not unhinge that confidence with which
the Christian ought to repose upon the wise and good providence of
God! What though you are to leave your children poor and friendless?
Is the arm of the Lord shortened, that He cannot help? Is His ear
heavy, that He cannot hear? You yourself have been no more than an
instrument in the hand of His goodness; and is His goodness, pray,
bound up in your feeble arm? Do you what you can; leave the rest to
God. Let them be good, and fear the Lord, and keep His commandments,
and He will provide for them in His own way and in His own time. Why,
then, wilt thou be cast down, O my soul; why disquieted within me?
Trust thou in the Lord! Under all the changes and the cares and the
troubles of this life, may the consolations of religion support our
spirits. In the multitude of thoughts within me, Thy comforts O my
God, delight my soul! But no more of this preaching-like harangue, of
which, I doubt not, you wish to be relieved. Let me rather reply to
your letter, and tell you my news. " [92]
That letter was written by Norman Macleod, ordained in 1774, and minister
of the Church of Scotland in Morven for some forty years. His stipend was
£40, afterwards raised to £80. He had a family of sixteen. One of his sons
was minister in Campbelltown, and later in Glasgow. He had a family of
eleven. His eldest son was Chaplain to Queen Victoria, and wrote the
_Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_.
The birth controllers ask why we should bring up children at great cost and
trouble to ourselves, and they have been well answered by a non-Catholic
writer, Dr. W. E. Home. [93]
"One of my acquaintances refuses to have a second child because he
could not then play golf. Is there, then, no pleasure in children which
shall compensate for the troubles and expenses they bring upon you? I
notice that the penurious Roman Catholic French Canadian farmers are
spreading out of Quebec and occupying more and more of Ontario. I fancy
these hard-living parents would think their struggles to bring up their
large (ten to twenty) families worth while when they see how their
group is strengthening its position. If a race comes to find no
instinctive pleasure in children it will probably be swept away by
others more virile. One man will live where another will starve;
prudence and selfishness are not identical.
"In her book, _The Strength of a People_, Mrs. Bosanquet, who signed
the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission, tells the story of two
girls in domestic service who became engaged. One was imprudent,
married at once, lived in lodgings, trusted to the Church and the
parish doctor to see her through her first confinement, had no
foresight or management, every succeeding child only added to her
worries, and her marriage was a failure. The other was prudent, did not
marry till, after six months, she and her fiancé had chosen a house and
its furniture. Then she married, and their house was their own careful
choice; every table and chair reminded them of the afternoon they had
had together when it was chosen; they were amusement enough to
themselves, and they saved their money for the expenses of her
confinement. He had not to seek amusement outside his home, did his
work with a high sanction and got promoted, and each child was only an
added pleasure. Idyllic; yes, but sometimes true. One of the happiest
men I have known was a Marine sergeant with ten children, and a bed in
his house for stray boys he thought he should help.
"One of my friends married young and had five children; this required
management. He certainly could not go trips, take courses and extra
qualifications, but he did his work all right, and his sons were there
to help in the war, and one of them has won a position of Imperial
usefulness far above that of his father or me. Is that no compensation
to his parents for old-time difficulties they have by now almost
forgotten? A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. "
Dr. W. E. Home is right, and the Neo-Malthusian golfer is wrong. Moreover,
he is wrong as a golfer. Golf requires skill, a fine co-ordination of sight
and touch, much patience and self-control: and many unfortunate people lack
these qualities of mind and body, and are therefore unable to play this
game with pleasure to themselves or to others. Consequently every golfer,
no matter whether he accepts the hypothesis of Spencer or that of Weismann
concerning the inheritance of acquired characteristics, should rejoice to
see his large family in the links as a good omen for the future of this
game, although there be some other reasons that also justify the existence
of children.
_(d) The Dangers of Small Families_
In a Malthusian leaflet, written for the poor Dr. Binnie Dunlop states:
"You must at least admit that there would be nothing like the usual
poverty if married couples had only one child for every 20s. or so, a
week of wages. Yet the population would continue to increase rapidly,
because very few of the children of small families die or grow up
weakly; and it would become stronger, richer, and of course much
happier. " [94]
The false suggestion contained in his first sentence, namely that a high
birth-rate is the cause of poverty, has already been exposed (Chap. II),
and apparently Dr. Binnie Dunlop has never considered _why_ so many of the
English people should be so poor as to enable him to make use of their very
poverty in order to tempt them to adopt an evil method of birth control.
Moreover, his second contention, that a small family produces a higher type
of child, better fed, better trained, and healthier, than is found amongst
the children of large families is contrary to the following facts, as
stated by Professor Meyrick Booth:
"1. A civilisation cannot be maintained with an average of less than
about four children per marriage; a smaller number will lead to actual
extinction.
"2. Much information exists tending to show that heredity strongly
favours the third, fourth, fifth, and subsequent children born to a
given couple, rather than the _first two_, who are peculiarly apt to
inherit some of the commonest physical and mental defects (upon this
important point the records of the University of London Eugenics
Laboratory should be consulted). A population with a low birth-rate
thus naturally tends to degenerate. _It is the normal, and not the
small family, that gives the best children_.
"3. The present differential birth-rate--high amongst the less
intelligent classes and low amongst the most capable families--so far
from leading upwards, is causing the race to breed to a lower type.
"4. The small family encourages the growth of luxury and the
development of what M. Leroy-Beaulieu calls _l'esprit arriviste_.
"5. The popular idea that _childbirth is injurious_ to a woman's health
is probably _quite erroneous_. Where the _birth-rate is high the health
of the woman is apparently better_ than where it is artificially low.
"6.
