|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 15
Now, it is a remarkable coincidence that in this very year, 1877, the
Neo-Malthusians began to make their influence felt, and spread amongst
all classes of the people a knowledge of preventive checks to
conception.
People were encouraged to believe that large families were an evil. A
great many, no doubt, had already come to this conclusion; for there is
no more common belief amongst the working classes, at least, than that
large families are a cause of poverty and hardship. And this is even
more true than it was in the days of the Neo-Malthusians, for then child
and women labour was a source of gain to the family, and a poor man's
earnings were often considerably augmented thereby.
The uniform decrease of the birth-rate is a matter of statistics, and
admits of no dispute. It has been least rapid in the German Empire, and
most rapid in New Zealand.
With the declining birth-rate the marriage-rate must be considered.
Malthus would have expected a declining birth-rate to be the natural
result of a declining marriage-rate, and a declining marriage-rate to be
due to the practice of moral restraint, rendered imperative because of
hard times, and a difficulty in obtaining work, wages, and food.
Given the purchasing power of a people, Malthus would have estimated,
according to his laws, the marriage-rate, and, given the marriage-rate,
he would have estimated the birth-rate.
But anticipations in this direction, based on Malthus's laws, have not
been realised. The purchasing power of the people we know has enormously
increased; the marriage-rate has not increased, it has, in fact,
slightly decreased; but the birth-rate per marriage, or the fecundity of
marriage, has decreased in a remarkable degree.
In "Industrial Democracy," by Sydney and Beatrice Webb (p. 637), the
following occurs:--"The Hearts of Oak Friendly Society is the largest
centralised Benefit Society in this country, having now over two hundred
thousand adult male members. No one is admitted who is not of good
character, and in receipt of wages of twenty-four shillings a week or
upwards. The membership consists, therefore, of the artisan and skilled
operative class, with some intermixture of the small shopkeeper, to the
exclusion of the mere labourer. Among its provisions, is the "Lying-in
Benefit," a payment of thirty shillings for each confinement of a
member's wife."
From 1866 to 1880 the proportion of lying-in claims to membership slowly
rose from 21.76 to 24.78 per 100. From 1880 to the present time it has
continuously declined, until now it is only between 14 and 15 per 100.
The following table (from the annual reports of the Committee of
Management of the Hearts of Oak Friendly Society, and those of the
Registrar-General) shows, for each year from 1866 to 1895 inclusive, the
number of members in the Hearts of Oak Friendly Society at the
beginning of the year, the number of those who received Lying-in Benefit
during the year, the percentage of these to the membership at the
beginning of the year, and the birth-rate per thousand of the whole
population of England and Wales.
HEARTS OF OAK FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
Year. Number of Number of Cases Percentage of England and
Members at of lying-in cases paid to Wales: births
the beginning Benefit paid total Membership per 1000 of
of each year. during year. at beginning the total
of year. population.
1866 10,571 2,300 21.76 35.2
1867 12,051 2,853 23.68 35.4
1868 13,568 3,075 22.66 35.8
1869 15,903 3,509 22.07 34.8
1870 18,369 4,173 22.72 35.2
1871 21,484 4,685 21.81 35.0
1872 26,510 6,156 23.22 35.6
1873 32,837 7,386 22.49 35.4
1874 40,740 9,603 23.57 36.0
1875 51,144 13,103 23.66 35.4
1876 64,421 15,473 24.02 36.3
1877 76,369 18,423 24.11 36.0
1878 84,471 20,409 24.16 35.5
1879 90,603 22,057 24.34 34.7
1880 91,986 22,740 24.72 34.2
1881 93,615 21,950 23.45 33.9
1882 96,006 21,860 22.77 33.8
1883 98,873 21,577 21.82 33.5
1884 104,339 21,375 20.51 33.6
1885 105,622 21,277 20.14 32.9
1886 109,074 21,856 20.04 32.8
1887 111,937 20,590 18.39 31.9
1888 115,803 20,244 17.48 31.2
1889 123,223 20,503 16.64 31.1
1890 131,057 20,402 15.57 30.2
1891 141,269 22,500 15.93 31.4
1892 153,595 23,471 15.28 30.5
1893 169,344 25,430 15.02 30.8
1894 184,629 27,000 14.08 29.6
1895 201,075 29,263 14.55 30.4
1896 206,673 30,313 14.67
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|