THE NATIONAL PERIL.

Evening Star, Issue 14966, 28 August 1912, Page 7

THE NATIONAL PERIL.

A DECLINING BIRTH RATE. Press' Association— By Telegraph — Copyright. LONDON, August 27. The birth rate for England and Wales for the quarter ended June ia 3.7 per cent, below the average for the 10 preceding second quarters and the lowest record for any second quarter. Tho death rate was 1.7 per cent, below the average for the above periods, and was also tho lowest on record. ARE THE ENGLISH RACE DETERIORATING? To this momentous question Mr Henry James Forman, of New York, replies affirmatively! He says that “tho South African War brought that fact homo to England more sharply even than the persistent commercial and industrial decline that has been progressing for some time.” r lho British birth rate lias been falling alarmingly since 1877, and statisticians declare that at the present rate England will bo in the position of France before 1030—her population will then have ceased to reproduce itself. _ How to prevent this national decay is the problem which Professor Karl Pearson, j head of the Galton Laboratory _in | Gorsee street, London, is endeavoring to solve by laborious research, in the domain of eugenics. The business of Professor Pearson, who is assisted by Dr Heron, the Galton Research Fellow, Miss Ethol Eldoston, the Galton Research scholar, and by Miss Amy Barrington (as computer), is to study and publish the results of their investiga- ! tious in a series of memoirs. One of j the most startling discoveries so far I made by tho quartet of workers is ; that relating to the —Selective Death Rate.— Without involving the reader in too much technical language, it may be stated thus: “All the vast development of our modern institutions for taking care of the halt and tho maim, the weak, tho imbecile, and the infirm has virtually suspended the selective death rate.” That is, instead of allowing Nature to kill them in the old way we, on the Contrary, protect and preserve the unfit to the best of our ability. To counterbalance “the whole trend of legislation and social action,” declares Professor Pearson, “has been to disregard parentage, and to emphasise environment.” And every improvement of environment has lowered tho death rate and increased tho net birth rate of the unfit. Associated with this has been the steadily-decreasing birth rate of the fib—Professor Pearson's Proofs.— “ In Huddersfield, given to the manufacture of woollens, he found that the birth rate began to fall slightly as early as 1567. But in 1877 it plunged down sharply to such an extent that by 1907, iu 30 years, tho births had decreased from more than seven to less than three per family. Bolton and Bradford two other manufacturing towns, while showing little or no change in 1867, both show a marked decline from 1877 on, and tho number per family similarly decreases from something like seven to the neighborhood of three. Cornwall and Norfolk, rural districts, show no rapid change in 1867, hut a marked and rapid decline from 1887 on. Thus even from those greatly condensed statistics _we cannot _ help seeing that 1867, 1877, and 1887 are ominous dates, so far as the English birth rate, is concerned. What, if anything, is tho obvious query, happened in these particular years to cut so deeply into England's population? —Legislation and the Birth Rate.— This is what happened; A number of factory laws wore passed regulating and restricting tho employment of women and children. And what has been the effect on the birth rate of England ? “ From 1864 to 1867 were passed a number of Factory Acts that culminated in tho Workshop Regulation Act of 1867. These Acts applied especially'to textile works and to certain other industries, like copper, iron, and steel. They provided that no child under eight could he employed in any handicraft, and between the ages of eight and thirteen only half time was permitted. And that was the reason tho birth rate of towns like Huddersfield began to show a decline in 1867.” Now wo must glance at the far more important date of 1877. " In 1874 Parliament raised the minimum age of the child laborer to 10, and in 1878 an Act went ino effect that seriously discouraged tho employment of children. Only half time was allowed between tho ages of 10 and 14, and even the employment of the child at home was covered by the Act, which also demanded medical certificates. *The board schools were created in 1870, and in 1876 attendance at school for children was made compulsory. Also, tho trial of Charles Bradtaugh and Mrs Annie Besant did much to spread Malthusian ideas. Then set in tho heavy decline that persists to this day. The Mines Act of 1887, prohibiting boys under 12 to work underground, the further raising of the age at which children might work in 1801, and even | subsequent laws aimed against child | labor, show a record of legislation of j which England or any other country might well be proud. —Children No Economic Asset.— “ But England’s population has been sinking so rapidly that another 15 years will make Britain resemble France. The population will not bo reproducing itsclt. The child, in short, had ceased to he an economic asset. It was no longer, of pecuniary value. Children had ceased to pay.” Professor Pearson concludes:— Tho Factory Acts in no manner assisted tho rearing of those children, who were forbidden to make their parents any pecuniary return for 13 to 15 years. The father was handicapped in the struggle for existence as against the childless man. In the same manner the mother was directly and indirectly handicapped as compared with the childless woman. Economically, parentage was placed at a great disadvantage in the battle of life. Such was the result of a class, the children of which are not economic assets, making the laws for a class in which children had from an early age a pecuniary value. —Two Startling Facts.— Intertwined with this falling birth rate are these two glaring, startling factors: that the fit are not producing themselves, while the unfit are flourishing more prolific than ever. In a word, the population of England is not only decreasing, but is deteriorating;. A few years ago President Eliot, of Harvard, expressed grave alarm that the married graduates of that great university were not reproducing themselves, owing to the smallness of their families. The same is more or less true of England to-day. Professor Pearson gives the average size of the English intellectual’s family a figure of 4.7. For the normal London artisan he calculates the figure to be 0.1. A glance at the statistics of the so-called pathological classes shows a marked difference. Deaf mutes in England show a family of 6.2 children, insane 6.0, and London mentally defective of 7-0 children per family. —Tho Remedy— Professor Pearson_ suggests that “if we can give the child economic value the birth rate will rise. If we can differentiate between economic values of good and bad parentage, if we can make the possession of healthy, sound children a greater economic asset than the possession of feeble offspring, then we nave for the mass of the people solved the problem of practical eugenics. Laws penalising parentage among the fit must be reversed, and public opinion must be educated to make the ideals of the euflwnitt sealisable,”