CHAPTER IXCONCLUSION: EMINENT OPINIONS
WAGES AND THE COST OF LIVING. C. V. Drysdale, D.Sc.
Unlike those of other countries, who, in Lord Morley’s words, have shirked the population question, the statesmen of Holland have been fully alive to it, and have made their country the only one where facilities have been given to the poorer classes to freely obtain knowledge as to the best means of restricting families. The following strong statement by Heer S. van Houten, late Minister of the Interior in the Netherlands (Staats Kundige Brieven, 1899), leaves no doubt as to this difference of outlook:—
“Wage-slavery exists as a consequence of the carelessness with which the former generation produced wage-slaves; and this slavery will continue so long as the adult children of these wage-slaves have nothing better to do than to reproduce wage-slaves. The fault lies in our poorer classes themselves, and also in some clergymen andorthodox pedantswho, in their preaching about morality, only permit a choice between an unnaturally lengthened celibacy or an ever-increasing family with the bonds of marriage, and who prevent the acceptance of the higher morality, which finds such easy acceptance among the better classes, of marriage and restriction of the family to the number which the parents can feed and comfortably rear.”
And Heer N. G. Pierson, late Dutch Minister of Finance, has expressed himself equally strongly in his Political Economy, which has just been translated into English:—
“No improvement in the economic situation can be hoped for if the number of births be not considerably diminished.”
Under the ægis of these gentlemen and of Heer Gerritsen, a prominent Councillor of Amsterdam, a Dutch Neo-Malthusianische Bond was formed in 1881, and has carried on an active propaganda among the working classes, with the help of a number of qualified medical men and trained midwives. So great has its success been that it now numbers over 5,000 members, and it was recognised by Royal Decree in 1895 as a society of public utility. An enormous number of practical brochures describing methods of limitation are sent out gratis annually, and poor men and women can get gratuitous advice in every important centre in Holland.
The result of this work, as indicated by the vital statistics, is clearly seen in Fig.11. The birth-rate has fallen from 37 in 1876 to 28 in 1912, and with especial regularity and rapidity during the last few years. The death-rate has fallen more regularly and rapidly than in any other country in the world (from a value averaging about 25 per 1,000 to only just over 12 per 1,000 in 1912), and the infantile mortality has similarly shown the most rapid fall on record. It will be observed that, far from this decline in the birth-rate having checked the increase of population, the rate of “natural increase” is now higher than at any previous period, and the highest in Western Europe. This indicates not only that social conditions are rapidly improving, but that the productive efficiency of the population is increasing, instead of diminishing, as in our own country, where the “natural increase” has fallen from 12 to 10 per 1,000. This is explainable on the eugenic ground that in Holland family restriction has taken place among the poor, and has thus tended to eliminate unfitness; while in this and other countries the poor are almost entirely ignorant of restrictive methods. And this view is strikingly confirmed by the paper read by Dr. Soren Hansen at the Eugenics Congress of 1912, in which he stated that the average stature of the Dutch people had increased by four inches within the last fifty years. An examination of the heights of the young men drawn for military service shows that since 1865 the proportion under 5 ft. 2½ in. in height has fallen from 25 per cent. to under 8 per cent., while that of those above 5 ft. 7 in. has increased from 24.5 per cent. to 47.5 per cent. This is a most decided evidence of increased well-being and elimination of unfitness. On the many occasions that I have been in Holland, I have never yet seen any cases of that terrible physical deterioration and economic misery which are so conspicuous in this country. Further, the emigration of the Dutch population is almost infinitesimal.
As regards wages and cost of living, Dutch statistics do not give weighted index numbers to compare with the other figures. But the unweighted mean of money wages of workers in the different government services show the most rapid increase recorded, being about 25 per cent. in Holland between 1894 and 1908, as against 18 per cent. in France and 10 per cent. in England and Wales. (Fig.12).
As to prices, it is not easy to come to a definite conclusion, as some articles have risen and some fallen in price; but there seems good ground for believing that the cost of living has risen comparatively little in Holland, and that real wages have therefore risen very materially during the period when they have been declining in this and other countries. It is certainly difficult in any case to see how the undoubtedly great advance in health and physique experienced by the Dutch population could have taken place without a great increase in real wages.
According to a diagram given in the Manchester Guardian of August 16th last the cost of living in Holland had gone up by 23 per cent. in 1912.An examination of detailed prices, however, showed a relatively small rise up to 1909.
These facts, together with many others which could be adduced, make it clear that in Holland, the only country in which the population problem has been realised and facilities for family limitation been extended to the poor, the expectations of the Neo-Malthusians have been completely justified, and their doctrines have received the confirmation of experience. Amsterdam, in which the first lady doctor in Holland opened a gratuitous clinic for the instruction of poor women in preventive methods, has now the lowest deathrate and infantile mortality of any European capital. And this is in no way attributable to any extension of State help either of a socialistic type, or of that familiar to us in this country, as Holland has been distinguished for its adherence to individualism, and has apparently adopted hardly any measure of State assistance.
DR. S. ADOLPHUS KNOPF IN THE SURVEY, quoting Dr. J. Rutgers, Honorable Secretary to Neo-Malthusian League of Holland.
“All children you now see are suitably dressed, they look now as neat as formerly only the children of the village clergyman did. In the families of the laborers there is now a better personal and general hygiene, a finer moral and intellectual development. All this has become possible by limitation in the number of children in these families. It may be that now and then this preventive teaching has caused illicit intercourse, but on the whole morality is now on a much higher level, and mercenary prostitution with its demoralizing consequences and propagation of contagious diseases is on the decline.
The best test (the only possible mathematical test) of our moral, physiological and financial progress is the constant increase in longevity of our population. In 1890 to 1899 it was 46.20; in 1900 to 1909 it was 51 years. Such rise cannot be equalled in any other country except in Scandinavia where birth limitation was preached long before it was in Holland. None of the dreadful consequences anticipated by the advocates of clericalism, militarism and conservatism have occurred. In spite of our low birth-rate the population in our country is rising faster than ever before, simply because it is concomitant with a greater economic improvement and better child hygiene.”
The good doctor closes his letter by saying: “One must have been a family physician for twenty-five years like myself in a large city (Rotterdam) to appreciate the blessings of conscious motherhood resulting in the better care of children, the higher moral standard. And all these blessings are taken away from you by your government’s peculiar laws, made to please the Puritans.”
Dr. Jacobi, Ex-President of the American Medical Association and the New York Academy of Medicine, said:
“The future of mankind is conditioned by its children. Unless they be healthy and fit to work physically and mentally, they can not perform any duty in the service of the family, the municipality or the state. Hereditary influences propagate epilepsy, idiocy, feeble-mindedness and cretinism. Such children should not have been permitted to be born. Yet the prohibition of unnecessary and not wanted accessions of human beings is considered criminal.”
Dr. Lydia Allen de Vilbis of the New York State Department of Health, said that among the 25,000 deaths of children under one year of age that occur annually in New York State, half were due to causes with which medical boards could not hope to cope—the defective, the deformed, the crippled, the diseased.
“What are we going to do about these babies who are born only to suffer and die?” she asked. “There are at least 12,000 a year, 1,000 for each month, more than thirty a day. What for? Because we are so stupid that we still believe a pound of cure is better than an ounce of prevention.”
MARY ALDEN HOPKINS. Harper’s Weekly, 1915.
“Last year more than ten thousand children were proposed to the Department of Charities of New York City for commitment to institutions,” writes John A. Kingsbury, Commissioner of Charities in the Department of Public Charities of New York City, in reply to my inquiry concerning his view of the limitation of families. “Poverty or sickness or unemployment has outworn the welcome of more than ten thousand innocent little citizens in their own homes. These children are paying the penalty of the social error of too large families. It is frequently remarked that children are often found in the largest number in those homes which are least equipped to properly provide for them. I believe it is as serious a mistake for parents in adverse circumstances to bring children into the world for whom they are not prepared, as for parents in affluent circumstances to decline to bear children because of the inconvenience or embarrassment to their scheme of living. If contraception can benefit the born by limiting the unborn, without bringing about any physical or moral deterioration in human lives, I am unqualifiedly in sympathy with it.”
JUDGE WM. H. WADHAMS, Court of General Sessions, New York. “The Spreading Movement for Birth Control.” The Survey, Oct. 21, 1916.
In the Court of General Sessions, New York City, Judge Wadhams suspended sentence upon a woman, mother of six children, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, her second offense. His investigation showed, the judge declared, that the mother had made a hard, but unsuccessful attemptto support her children since the father had been driven from his work in garment working five years ago. Meantime, two of the children had been born. Said Judge Wadhams:—
“Her husband is not permitted by the authorities to work because of his being ill with tuberculosis. It would be dangerous for him to work on children’s garments. It might spread consumption to the innocents. There is a law against that. As a result of this law the husband has had no work for four years. Nevertheless, he goes on producing children who have very little chance under the conditions to be anything but tubercular, and, themselves growing up, repeat the process with society. There is no law against that. But we have not only no birth regulation in such cases, but if information is given with respect to birth regulation people are brought to the bar of justice for it. There is a law they violate. The question is whether we have the most intelligent law on this subject we might have. These matters are regulated better in some of the old countries, particularly in Holland, than they are in this country. I believe we are living in an age of ignorance, which at some future time will be looked on aghast.”
LETTER ADDRESSED TO PRESIDENT WILSON BY A GROUP OF NOTABLE ENGLISH WRITERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS, September, 1915.
To the President of the United States,White House, Washington, D.C.
To the President of the United States,White House, Washington, D.C.
To the President of the United States,White House, Washington, D.C.
To the President of the United States,
White House, Washington, D.C.
Sir,—We understand that Mrs. Margaret Sanger is in danger of criminal prosecution for circulating a pamphlet on birth-problems. We therefore beg to draw your attention to the fact that such work as that of Mrs. Sanger receives appreciation and circulation in every civilised country except the United States of America, where it is still counted as a criminal offence.
We, in England, passed a generation ago, through the phase of prohibiting the expressions of serious and disinterested opinion on a subject of such grave importance to humanity, and in our view to suppress any such treatment of vital subjects is detrimental to human progress.
Hence, not only for the benefit of Mrs. Sanger, but of humanity, we respectfully beg you to exert your powerful influence in the interests of free speech and the betterment of the race.
We beg to remain, Sir,Your humble Servants,(Signed)Lena Ashwell,Dr. Percy Ames,William Archer,Arnold Bennett,Edward Carpenter,Aylmer Maude,Prof. Gilbert Murray,M. C. Stopes,H. G. Wells.
We beg to remain, Sir,Your humble Servants,(Signed)Lena Ashwell,Dr. Percy Ames,William Archer,Arnold Bennett,Edward Carpenter,Aylmer Maude,Prof. Gilbert Murray,M. C. Stopes,H. G. Wells.
We beg to remain, Sir,Your humble Servants,(Signed)
We beg to remain, Sir,
Your humble Servants,
(Signed)
Lena Ashwell,Dr. Percy Ames,William Archer,Arnold Bennett,Edward Carpenter,Aylmer Maude,Prof. Gilbert Murray,M. C. Stopes,H. G. Wells.
Lena Ashwell,
Dr. Percy Ames,
William Archer,
Arnold Bennett,
Edward Carpenter,
Aylmer Maude,
Prof. Gilbert Murray,
M. C. Stopes,
H. G. Wells.