checks to population in modern europe.
book ij. of malthus’ essay treats of the checks to population in the different states of modern europe,—norway, sweden, russia, germany, switzerland, france, great britain, and ireland. in malthus’ day, norway seems to have been, perhaps, the most prosperous country in europe; and it was distinguished by the great healthiness of its people. the death-rate he puts down as only one in 48, in a population of about three-quarters of a million.
with such a very low positive check, malthus at once looked for the existence of a very high preventive check; and found this to be present in the very small proportion of marriages (one in 130) taking place annually in norway.
there were, then as now, no large manufacturing towns in norway to take away the overflowing population of the country; and, hence, as emigration was not then in vogue, the norwegian peasant seldom left the village he was born in. until, then, some married person died, there was usually no place for another marriage to take place. “in countries more fully peopled (says malthus) this subject is always involved in great obscurity. each man naturally thinks that he has as good a chance of finding employment as his neighbour, and that if he fail in one place he shall succeed in another. he marries, therefore, and trusts to fortune: and the effect too frequently is, that the redundant population occasioned in this manner is repressed by the positive checks of poverty and disease.”
it is without doubt, says our author, owing to the preventive check to population, as much as to any peculiar healthiness of air, that the mortality of norway is so low. in every country the principal mortality takes place among very young children; and the smaller number of these in norway, in proportion to the whole population, will naturally occasion a smaller mortality than in other countries, supposing the climate to be equally healthy.
the population of norway is now about 1,800,000, a very large accession since the days of malthus, and there has of 26late years been a very large emigration from that country to the united states, which indicates that, in all probability, there will soon be less of prudential restraint in the matter of births, and hence, doubtless, a higher death-rate than at the commencement of this century. the former low death-rate of norway, one in 48, is not attained to at present by almost any european state except norway. it is little more than 20 per 1000 per annum.
malthus mentions in his work that norway is almost the only country in europe where a traveller will hear any apprehensions expressed of a redundant population, and where the danger to the happiness of the lower classes of people from this cause, is in some degree seen and understood. “this obviously arises from the smallness of the population altogether and the consequent narrowness of the subject. if our attention were confined to one parish, and there were no power of emigrating from it, the most careless observer could not fail to remark that, if all married at twenty, it would be perfectly impossible for the farmers, however carefully they might improve their land, to find employment and food for those that would grow up; but when a great number of these parishes are added together in a populous kingdom, the largeness of the subject and the power of moving from place to place obscure and confuse our view. we lose sight of a truth which before appeared completely obvious; and in a most unaccountable manner attribute to the aggregate quantity of land a power of supporting people beyond comparison greater than the sum of all its parts.”
in sweden, in mr. malthus’ day, the inhabitants of the towns were only one-thirtieth part of the whole population; and the mortality, when malthus wrote, seems to have been as high as one in 35. the proportion of yearly marriages he found, in sweden, to be about one in 112: varying from one in 100, in good years, to one in 124, in bad ones. when it is remembered that the marriage-rate in norway was but one in 135, against one in 112 in sweden, the reason of the high death-rate is at once explained.
as usual, in europe at that time, however, swedish legislators were in the habit of endeavouring to increase population in all sorts of foolish ways, as, for instance, by encouraging strangers to settle in the country. malthus remarks that, by doing so, the government of sweden was merely raising the already high death-rate, and not really increasing the population at all.
27according to the economist, cantzlaer, the principal measures in which the government had been employed for the encouragement of the population were the establishment of the colleges of medicine, and of lying-in and foundling hospitals. malthus remarks, that “the example of the hospitals of france may create a doubt whether such establishments are universally to be recommended. foundling hospitals, whether they attain their professed object or not, are, in every view, hurtful to the state.”
the population of sweden, in 1751, was 2,229,000. it is now 4,400,000. there has recently been, as from norway, a very large emigration from that state to america. “the sickly periods in sweden (says malthus) which have retarded the increase of its population, appear in general to have arisen from the unwholesome nourishment occasioned by severe want. and this want has been caused by unfavourable seasons falling upon a country which was without any reserved store, either in its general exports, or in the liberal division of food to the labourer in common years, and which was therefore peopled up to its produce before the occurrence of the scanty harvest. such a state of things is a clear proof that if, as some of the swedish economists assert, their country ought to have a population of nine or ten millions, they have nothing further to do than to make it produce food sufficient for such a number, and they may rest perfectly assured that they will not want mouths to eat it, without the assistance of lying-in and foundling hospitals.”
with regard to the state of russia at the beginning of this century, malthus has left us a most interesting account derived from queries made during his travels in that country. at that date, the births in some parts of russia were, to the deaths, according to russian statistics, nearly as three to one. this reminds us moderns of 1879, of the birth and death-rate of our happy colony of new zealand, where in 1877, there was the prodigious birth-rate of 41 per 1000, with the very low death-rate of only 12·4. russian mortality, in malthus’ time, must have been very low indeed; and mr. tooke, in his view of the russian empire, published about that time, made out that the general mortality in russia was one in 58 of the population annually. this is incredible, we think, in such an uncivilised state as russia then was.
the birth-rate in russia was, at that date, about 40 per 1,000, or similar to that of new zealand. the marriage-rate (one in 90) was vastly higher than that of norway (one in 28130), so that the population of russia was evidently increasing most rapidly at that time. if we are to give any credit to the healthiness of russia in malthus’ time, it is clear that the city of saint petersburg was an exception to it, for the half of all persons born there lived only till the age of 25.
with regard to foundling hospitals, mr. malthus’ visit to the renowned russian state hospitals of this description, has often been quoted, and deserves to be attentively studied by all who speak of the question of illegitimacy and charity. malthus found the mortality in the maison des enfans trouvés prodigious. one hundred deaths a month was a common average. the average number of children taken into this charity was at that time ten daily, and the death-rate terrible and heartrending. children were taken in and no questions asked from the mothers, but were handed over to nurses, and given back to their parents at any time when they could prove themselves able to support them.
the country nurses to whom these unfortunate children were given were paid only some fifteen-pence a week, and the children were received into that hospital without any limit. the children returned from the country (when they did return, for most of them died), at the age of six or seven; and the girls left the charity at 18, the boys at 20. the excessive mortality of the london foundling hospital of former days, caused it to be forced almost entirely to close its doors; and to become, what it now is, one of the many useless charities and shams of the metropolis of mr. malthus’ native land.
mr. malthus also speaks of the great mortality of the moscow foundling hospital, which was instituted in 1786, as follows: “it appears to me that the greatest part of this mortality is clearly to be attributed to these institutions, miscalled ‘philanthropical.’ if any reliance can be placed on the accounts given of the infant mortality in the russian towns and provinces, it would appear to be unusually small. the greatness of it, therefore, in the foundling hospitals, may justly be laid to the account of the institutions which encourage a mother to desert her child, at the very time when, of all others, it stands most in need of her fostering care. the frail tenure by which an infant holds its life will not allow of a remitted attention, even for a few hours.”
foundling hospitals, it is clear, in paris, vienna, and in all countries, tend to cause women to become thoughtless and heartless. malthus, indeed, makes a remark which we have recently heard paralleled in vienna. “an english merchant 29at saint petersburg told me that a russian girl, living in his family, under a mistress who was considered as very strict, had sent six children to the foundling hospital, without the loss of her place. and with regard to the moral feelings of a nation, it is very difficult to conceive that they must not be very sensibly impaired by encouraging mothers to desert their offspring, and endeavouring to teach them that their love for their new-born infants is a prejudice, which it is the interest of their country to eradicate.”
malthus mentions that the population of russia, in 1796, was 36,000,000. at present it is computed at eighty-five and a half millions, only seven millions of which is found in asia, and the rest in europe.
a government that had a true sense of what was advantageous for its subjects would, instead of offering encouragements to population, and incentives to thoughtlessness on the part of parents, such as foundling hospitals and other charities, encourage, by all means in its power, the feeling of parental responsibility among all classes. to do this, the most direct way would be, to show by some slight fine on the production of large families, that there is no possibility of attaining comfort and a low death-rate without conjugal prudence.
in chapter ix. of book ii., malthus treats on the checks to population in the middle parts of europe at the beginning of this century. he makes the observation that there are few countries where the poorer classes have so much foresight as to defer marriage till they have a fair prospect of being able to support properly all their children: and in all countries, he adds, a great mortality, whether arising from the too great frequency of marriage, or occasioned by the number of towns and the natural unhealthiness of the situation, will necessarily produce a great frequency of marriage.
in holland, in the registers of twenty-two villages, sussmilch noted one marriage to every 64 persons living, the usual rate being about 1 in 120. malthus says he was for some time puzzled at this high annual marriage-rate, until he found that the mortality in these villages was actually 45 per 1,000 of the population. the extraordinary number of marriages was merely produced by the rapid dissolution of the old marriages by death, and the consequent vacancy of some employment by which a family might be supported. in norway the mortality in his day was only 22 per 1,000, and the annual marriage-rate 1 in 130. this is a notable contrast with the figures relating to holland just quoted.
30of late years the birth and death-rate in holland have been much more satisfactory than they were in the days of malthus: but the extreme poverty of the working classes in south, as compared with north-holland, has been recently shown by mr. s. van houten to result in a far higher birth-rate and death-rate in the districts adjoining rotterdam, than occurs among the more prudent and well-fed inhabitants of groningen. still, there have been years quite recently in holland, when the death-rate has been as high as 29 per 1,000 (1871), and even as lately as 1875 it was 25 per 1,000.
the standard of comfort has greatly changed in several cities in germany. thus, in leipsig, malthus mentions that, in 1620, the annual marriage-rate was 1 in 82: whilst it fell in 1756 to 1 in 120. he observes that, in countries which have long been fully peopled, and in which no new sources of subsistence are opening, the marriages being regulated principally by the deaths, will generally bear nearly the same proportion to the whole population, at one period as another. in berlin, at the commencement of this century, the annual marriage-rate was 1 in 110, whilst it was 1 in 137 at paris. berlin, then as now, was probably a very unhealthy city. the death-rate of infants there at present is said to amount to one-half of all born in the first year of life in some years.
direct encouragements to marriage are, says malthus, either perfectly futile, or produce a marriage when there is no place for one, thus increasing the mortality. montesquieu, sussmilch, and other authors thought that princes and statesmen would really merit the name of fathers of their people, if from the proportion of 1 in 120–125, they could increase the marriages to the proportion of 1 in 80 or 90. but, says malthus, as this would greatly raise the death-rate and the poverty in the state, such princes would more justly deserve the title of destroyers of the people. had mr. malthus lived in our day, he would have been aware that a high marriage-rate is not by any means necessarily followed by a high birth-rate, since, in modern france, where there are the greatest number of married women in proportion to population, over the age of 15, of any european state, the birth-rate is lower than in any other european state. but, in malthus’ day, human beings were still dominated greatly by instinct, and had not begun to allow reason to prevail in the most important of all human acts, that which leads to the addition of new members to society.
mr. malthus mentions that it had been calculated in his time 31that, when the proportion of the people in towns in any state was to those in the country as 1 to 3, then the mortality was about 28 per 1,000, rising to 32 in 1,000, when the proportion of townsmen to countrymen was as 3 to 7; and falling below 28 per 1,000 when the townsmen are to the countrymen as 1 to 4. this holds true in principle in modern times: and it is out of the question to expect to have the death-rate of large cities as low as it is in country districts inhabited by well-fed peasants.
in chapter vi. our author speaks of the checks to population in switzerland. from statistics existing in geneva, it seems that in that town, during the sixteenth century, the probability of life, or the age to which half of those born live, was only 4·88, or rather less than 5; and the mean life was about 18? years. in the seventeenth century the probability of life was 11?, and the mean life 23?. in the eighteenth century the probability of life had increased to 27, and the mean life to 32.
m. muret, a swiss clergyman of vevey, in the eighteenth century, mentions the case of a village called leyzin, with a population of 400 persons, where there were only eight births a year. the probability of life in this model parish appeared to be so extraordinarily high as to reach 61 years. and the average number of the births having been for 30 years almost accurately equal to the number of deaths, clearly proved that the habits of the people had not led them to emigrate, and that the resources of the parish for the support of the population had remained nearly stationary. as the marriages in this parish would, with few exceptions, be very late, it is evident that a very large proportion of the subsisting marriages would be among persons so far advanced in life that the women had ceased to bear. the births were only about 1 in 49 of the population or much fewer than in france of modern days (1 in 40). in england they are 1 in 28 of the population at present.
m. muret made some calculations at vevey respecting the fecundity of marriages. he found that 375 mothers had produced 2,093 children: i.e., about six children each: and he also found that there were 20 sterile women out of 478, or about 1 in 23 wives. taking this into account, the average number of children to a family at vevey was 5?. in modern france it is about 3, in prussia 4·68, and in england about 4?. in those days, the proportion of annual marriages to population was lower in the canton de vaud than even in norway, being only 1 in 140. in the model village of leyzin 32only one-fifth of the total mortality was among persons under fifteen. such were the results of what mr. malthus considered as the only true “moral restraint,” late marriages. all these calculations of m. muret imply the operation of the preventive check to population in a very great degree in the canton de vaud. in the town of berne, the proportion of unmarried persons, including widows and widowers, was considerably above the half of the adults, and the proportion of the living below sixteen to those above was nearly as 1 to 3 in the beginning of this century. the peasants in berne were noted for comfort and wealth, doubtless owing to the low birth-rate in that country. a law there prevented those who had no means from marrying.
mr. malthus gives an amusing account of a conversation he had with a peasant who went with him from the lac de joux to the sources of the river orbe. this man said that the habit if early marriage might be really said to be the vice of the country: and he was so strongly impressed with the necessary and unavoidable wretchedness that must result from it, that he thought a law ought to be made restricting men from entering into the married state before they were forty years of age, and then allowing it only with old maids, who might bear them two or three children instead of six or eight. that peasant would have been, we doubt not, one of the most zealous advocates of the two children system, so wonderfully carried out in many of the most flourishing districts of france, and probably would have abandoned all desire to keep prudent couples like those in these french districts from marrying. we hold with that simple peasant of the jura, who had learnt the truths he expounded by sad and cruel experience, he having married himself when very young, and with his family, suffered much from poverty, that governments are culpable when they do not attempt to lessen high birth-rates. to forbid early marriage, indeed, is to encourage prostitution and cause many other evils; but to affix a stigma on those who produce large families is, as far as we can see, a plan which can only produce good and need produce no evil results. it is an utter misunderstanding of the rights of the individual to suppose that each man and woman ought to have the right to cause misery to their unfortunate children, and at the same time produce a pressure upon the powers of the soil and lessen the productive powers of past and present labour. that this will ere long be seen to be the truth arising out of the discoveries of the great english professor we cannot for a moment doubt.
