Part 2

Statistics in this country are as yet so imperfect, that we are necessitated to a process of deduction. If it can be shown that a state of things prevails elsewhere to a certain extent, explainable only on one supposition, and that the same state of things prevails in this country to a greater extent, all other causes, save the one referred to, being in great measure absent, little doubt can be entertained of the part this plays; but if it can, in addition, be proved that this cause must necessarily be stronger with us than elsewhere, then its existence becomes morally certain. Accordingly, if we find that in another country living births are steadily lessening in proportion alike to the population and to its increase, that natural or preventive causes are insufficient to account for this, while the proportion of still-births and of known abortions is constantly increasing, and these last bear an evident yet increasing ratio to the still-births; that in this country the decrease of living births, and the increase of still-births, are in much greater ratio to the population, and the proportion of premature births is also increasing; that these relations are constant and yearly more marked, we are justified in supposing that abortions are at least as frequent with us, and probably more so.

In many countries of Europe, it has been ascertained that the “fecundity” of the population, or the rate of its annual increase, is rapidly diminishing.[9]

In Sweden, it has lessened by one-ninth in 61 years. In Prussia, by a third in 132 years. In Denmark, by a quarter in 82 years. In England, by two-sevenths in a century. In Russia, by an eighth in 28 years. In Spain, by a sixth in 30 years. In Germany, by a thirteenth in 17 years. In France, by a third in 71 years.[10]

Or, in other words:

In Sweden it has lessened by a fifth; in Prussia, by a fourth; in Denmark and England, by a third; and in Russia, Spain, Germany, and France by a half, in a single century.

For the sake of convenience, larger bodies of statistics existing concerning it, and from the fact that it represents the extreme of the alleged decrease, we take France for our comparisons.

In France at large, according to the official returns as analyzed by Legoyt, the increase of the population which, from 1801 to 1806, was at the rate of 1.28 per cent. annually, from 1806 to 1846 had fallen to about .5 per cent.[11] The exact ratio of decrease after this point is better shown by the figures themselves. The increase from 1841 to 1846 was 1,200,000; from 1846 to 1851, 380,000; from 1851 to 1856, 256,000.

In England, during this latter period, with a population of but one-half the size, the returns of the Registrar-General show a relative increase nine times greater.[12] In thirty-seven years, from 1817 to 1854, the mean annual increase in France was not more than 155,929, yet in five years, from 1846 to 1851, it had fallen to 76,000 yearly, and from 1851 to 1856, to 51,200, and this with a population ranging from twenty-nine to thirty-four millions.

A comparison of these facts, with those obtaining in other European States, will make the above still more evident. We now quote from Rau.[13]

Rate of Increase. Per Cent. Hungary, according to Rohrer 2.40 England, from 1811 to 1821 1.78 ” from 1821 to 1831 1.60 Prussia, from 1816 to 1827 1.54 ” from 1820 to 1830 1.37 ” from 1821 to 1831 1.27 Austria, (Rohrer) 1.30 Scotland, from 1821 to 1831 1.30 Netherlands, from 1821 to 1828 1.28 Saxony, from 1815 to 1830 1.15 Baden (Heunisch,) from 1820 to 1830 1.13 Bavaria, from 1814 to 1828 1.08 Naples, from 1814 to 1824 0.83 France (Mathieu,) from 1817 to 1827 0.63 France, more recently, (De Jonnés) 0.55

A similar and corroborative table, containing additional matter, is given by Quetelet;[14] its differences from the preceding are owing to its representing a series of different years.

Rate of Increase. Per Cent. Ireland 2.45 Hungary 2.40 Spain 1.66 England 1.65 Rhenish Prussia 1.33 Austria 1.30 Bavaria 1.08 Netherlands 0.94 Naples 0.83 France 0.63

And more recently, Legoyt brings up these results to the close of 1846.[15] As shown by the census, the rate of increase was, in

Per Cent. Great Britain, exclusive of Ireland 1.95 Prussia 1.84 Saxony 1.45 Norway 1.36 Sardinia 1.08 Holland 0.90 Austria 0.85 Sweden 0.83 France 0.68

Or, as shown by the annual excess of births over deaths, and therefore more reliable—

Per Cent. Norway 1.30 Prussia 1.18 Sweden 1.14 Holland 1.03 Wurtemberg 1.00 Great Britain, exclusive of Ireland 1.00 Denmark 0.95 Austria 0.90 Saxony 0.90 Hanover 0.85 Belgium 0.76 Bavaria 0.71 Russia 0.61 France 0.50

In four departments of France, among which are two of the most thriving of Normandy, the deaths actually exceed the births.[16]

From the above facts, it would naturally be supposed that the percentage of births to the whole population must be smaller than in other European countries, and from the lessened annual rate of increase of the population, that the proportionate number of births must be decreasing in similar ratio. This is found, indeed, to be the case.

From large statistics furnished by De Jonnés, we have compiled the following table of the comparative ratios of births to the population in the principal countries of Europe:—

Ratio. Venice and Dependencies, 1827 1 to 23 Tuscany, 1834 ” Lombardy, 1828 1 to 24 Russia, 1835 1 to 25 Wurtemberg, 1821 to 1827 ” Prussia, 1836 ” Mecklenburg, 1826 1 to 26 Sardinia, 1820 ” Naples and Dependencies, 1830 ” Greece, 1828 ” Poland, 1830 1 to 27 Ireland, 1821 to 1831 ” Germany, 1828 ” Switzerland, 1828 ” Spain, 1826 ” Portugal, 1815 to 1819 1 to 27.5 Sweden, 1825 1 to 28 Holland, 1832 ” Austria, 1829 ” Belgium, 1836 ” Bavaria, 1825 ” Two Sicilies, 1831 ” Sweden and Norway, 1828 1 to 30 Denmark, 1833 ” Roman States, 1836 ” Turkey, 1835 ” Hanover, 1835 1 to 31 Sicily, 1832 ” Austria, 1828 to 1830 1 to 32 Great Britain, 1821 to 1831 ” Scotland, 1821 to 1831 1 to 34 England, 1821 to 1831 1 to 35 Norway, 1832 ” France, 1771 to 1851 1 to 25 to 1 to 37

In a total population, at different periods, of 232,673,000, there were 8,733,000 births; whence an average on the grand scale of one birth to every 26.6 individuals.

In France, however, the ratio has been steadily lessening, as seen by the following table:—

Ratio of births. 1771 to 1775 1 to 25 1801 to 1810 1 to 30 1811 to 1825 1 to 32 1826 to 1836 1 to 33 1836 to 1840 1 to 34 1841 to 1845 1 to 35 1846 to 1850 1 to 37

The position of France, as compared with the rest of Europe, in respect to the ratio of births to the population at different periods, is made still more manifest by another table:—

Annual ratio of births. 1 to 23 Venetian Provinces, 1827; Tuscany, 1834. 1 to 23.5 Kingdom of Naples, 1822 to 1824. 1 to 24 Tuscany, 1818; Sicily, 1824; Lombardy, 1827 to 1828; Russia, 1831. 1 to 24.5 Prussia, 1825 to 1826. 1 to 25 France, 1781; Austria, 1827; Russia, 1835; Prussia, 1836. 1 to 26 Sardinia, 1820; Hanover, Wurtemberg and Mecklenburg, 1826; Greece, 1828; Naples, 1830. 1 to 27 Spain, 1826; Germany and Switzerland, 1828; Poland, 1830; Ireland, 1831. 1 to 27.5 Portugal, 1815 to 1819. 1 to 28 Holland, 1813 to 1824; Bavaria and Sweden, 1825; Austria, 1829; Belgium, 1836. 1 to 29 Canton Lucerne, 1810; Holland, 1832. 1 to 29.8 France, 1801. 1 to 30 Sweden and Norway, 1828; Belgium, 1832; Denmark, 1833; Turkey, 1835; States of the Church, 1836. 1 to 31 Sicily, 1832; Hanover, 1835. 1 to 31.4 France, 1811. 1 to 31.6 France, 1821. 1 to 32 Austria, 1830; Great Britain and Switzerland, 1831. 1 to 33 France, 1828 to 1831. 1 to 34 Norway and Holstein, 1826; Scotland, 1831; France, 1834 to 1841. 1 to 35 Denmark, 1810; England, 1831; Norway, 1832. 1 to 37 France, 1851.

In Paris, strange to say, the decrease in the ratio of births to the population, though decided and steady, has not, in actual proportion, been as great as in the empire at large, showing that the cause, whatever we find it to be, is not one depending on the influence of a metropolis alone for its existence.

From 1817 to 1831 there averaged, in Paris, one birth to 26.87 inhabitants; but from 1846 to 1851, one to 31.98.[17]

Again, as might have been expected, we find that the proportion of still-births, in which we must include abortions, as has hitherto been done, however improperly, in all extensive statistics, is enormous, and is steadily increasing. To show this the more plainly, we first present a table of the ratio of still-births to the living births in the various countries of Europe.[18]

Geneva,[19] 1824 to 1833 1 to 17 Berlin Hospitals, 1758 to 1774 1 to 18 Paris Maternité,[20] 1816 to 1835 1 to 20 Sweden, 1821 to 1825 1 to 23.5 Denmark, 1825 to 1834 1 to 24 Belgium,[21] 1841 to 1843 1 to 24.2 Prussia,[22] 1820 to 1834 1 to 29 Iceland, 1817 to 1828 1 to 30 Prague, 1820 1 to 30 London Hospitals, 1749 to 1781 1 to 31 Vienna, 1823 1 to 32 Austria, 1828 1 to 49 France at large, 1853 1 to 24 Department of Seine 1 to 15 Paris,[23] 1836 to 1844 1 to 14.3 ” 1845 to 1853[24] 1 to 13.8

The proportion of still-births in the rural districts of France is governed by the same laws as in the metropolis.

In 363 provincial towns the ratio was, from

1836 to 1845 1 to 19.55 1846 to 1850 1 to 18.8

While districts more thinly populated gave, from

1841 to 1845 1 to 29 1846 to 1850 1 to 27[25]

In Belgium, during a similar period, the ratio was much the same.[26]

1841 to 1843, in towns 1 to 16.1 1841 to 1843, in country 1 to 29.4

The apparent discrepancy between city and country, noticed as equally obtaining in Belgium and France, is chiefly owing to greater negligence of the country officials in registering the still-births, and to the fact, as we have seen in Paris, that the ratio of births to the population is greater in the city than in the country at large.

Finally, while the proportion of still-births to the whole number is greatly increasing in Paris, so is the number of known abortions.

We omit, for the present, the evidence afforded by arrests and trials, which we might here have turned to account. At the Morgue, which represents but a very small fraction of the fœtal mortality of Paris, and in this matter almost only crime, there were deposited during the eighteen years preceding 1855, a total of 1115 fœtuses,[27] of which 423 were at the full term, and 692 were less than nine months; and of these last, 519, or five-sixths, were not over six months, a large proportion of them showing decided marks of criminal abortion.

Again, of the 692 fœtuses of less than nine months, deposited at the Morgue during these eighteen years, 295 were between 1836 to 1845, an average, at that time, of 32.7 yearly; and from 1846 to 1855 there were 397, an average of 44.1. During the means of these periods the births in France were as follows[28]:—In 1841, 1,005,203, and in 1851, 1,037,040, from which it is evident that there was deposited at the Morgue, in 1841, one infant, dead from abortion, to every 30,700 births; and in 1851, one to every 23,500. The increased ratio is seen to be striking; it will hereafter become apparent that the increase is far greater in reality.

We turn now to our own country, to which the City of New York holds much the same relation, as respects public opinion no less than in other matters, that Paris holds to France.

Since 1805, when returns were first made to the Registry of New York, the number, proportionate as well as actual, of fœtal deaths, has steadily and rapidly increased. With a population at that time (1805) of 76,770, the number of still and premature births was 47; in 1849, with a population estimated at 450,000, the number had swelled to 1320.[29] Thus, while the population had increased only _six_ times since 1805, the annual number of still and premature births had multiplied over _twenty-seven_ times.

The following table shows the rapidity of this increase:—The ratio of fœtal deaths to the population, was in

1805 1 to 1633.40 1810 1 to 1025.24 1815 1 to 986.46 1820 1 to 654.52 1825 1 to 680.68 1830 1 to 597.60 1835 1 to 569.88 1840 1 to 516.02 1845 1 to 384.68 1849 1 to 340.90

In the three years preceding 1849, there were registered in New York 400 premature births, and 3139 children still-born; a total of 3539, representing at that time a yearly average of some 1200 fœtal deaths. While it will be shown hereafter that a large proportion of the reported premature births must always be from criminal causes, and that though almost all the still-births at the full time, even from infanticide, are necessarily registered, but a small proportion of the abortions and miscarriages occurring are ever reported to the proper authorities, it will immediately be made apparent that at the present moment the abortion statistics of New York are far above those of 1849.

In the three years preceding 1857, there were registered in New York 1196 premature, and 4735 still-births,[30] a total of 5931, representing a yearly average of some 2000 fœtal deaths; showing that in the short space of seven years, the number of fœtal deaths in New York, already enormous, had very nearly doubled.

Again, in 1856, the total number of births at the full time in New York, was 17,755; of these, 16,199 were living;[31] proving that of children at the full time alone, setting aside the great number of viable children born prematurely, and the innumerable earlier abortions not recorded, one in every 11.4 is born dead.

From foreign statistics on a large scale, it is found that the proportion of still-births, even allowing a wide margin for criminal causes, does not, in those countries, drop below 1 in 15, and this in France, ranging from that number up to 1 in 30 or 40 of the whole number of births reported. We have already given a table upon this point.

In Geneva, out of 10,925 births occurring from 1824 to 1833, 1221 of them being _illegitimate_, and therefore to be supposed liable to a large percentage of deaths from criminal causes, there were only 646 fœtal deaths; a proportion of 1 in 17.

In Belgium there were 29,574 _illegitimate_ births from 1841 to 1843, and of these, 1766 were born still;[32] 1 in 16.8.

In New York, from 1854 to 1857, there were 48,323 births, and 5931 still-births, at the full time and prematurely; or in other words, 1 to every 8.1 was born dead.

The ratio of still-births in New York, including, as we have seen, abortions, is steadily increasing, as seen by the following table,[33] in which we have compared the still-births, supposable perhaps of accidental value, with the general mortality, whose value is at least as accidental, if not more so. The evidence, like that already furnished, is astounding.

Total mortality. Still-births. Ratio. 1804 to 1809 13,128 349 1 to 37.6 1809 to 1815 14,011 533 1 to 26.3 1815 to 1825 34,798 1,818 1 to 19.1 1825 to 1835 59,347 3,744 1 to 15.8 1835 to 1855 289,786 21,702 1 to 13.3 1856[34] 21,658 1,943 1 to 11.1

The frequency of abortions and premature births reported from the practice of physicians, and thus to a certain extent, but not entirely, likely to be of natural or accidental origin, is as follows:—

In 41,699 cases registered by Collins, Beatty, La Chapelle, Churchill, and others,[35] there were 530 abortions and miscarriages. Here all the abortions were known; their proportion was 1 in 78.5.

In New York, from 1854 to 1857, there were 48,323 births at the full time reported, and 1196 premature. Here all the abortions were not known, probably but a very small fraction of them; the proportion was 1 in 40.4.

Finally, we compare the recorded premature still-births of New York, with those still at the full time.

In the seventeen years from 1838 to 1855,[36] there were reported 17,237 still-births at the full time, and 2710 still prematurely; the last bearing the proportion of 1 to 6.3.

In the nine years, from 1838 to 1847, omitting 1842 for reasons stated below, there were 632 premature still-births, and 6445 still at the full time; a yearly average of 1 in 10.2.

In the eight years, from 1848 to 1855, there were 2078 premature still-births, and 10,792 still at the full time; an average of 1 in 5.

While in 1856 there were 387 still prematurely, and 1556 at the full time; or 1 in 4.02.

From these figures there can be drawn but one conclusion, that criminal abortion prevails to an enormous extent in New York, and that it is steadily and rapidly increasing. “We cannot refer,” was well said by a former inspector of that city,[37] “such a hecatomb of human offspring to natural causes.” We shall now endeavor to prove this point by other reasoning.

That our deductions concerning the population and births of France are perfectly legitimate, is admitted beforehand by the leading political economists of the day; ignorant as they were in its various relations of much of the evidence now brought forward, and of the conclusion to which the whole matter, directly and with almost mathematical exactness, is proved to tend.

“In France,” remarks De Jonnés,[38] “the fecundity of the people is restrained within the strictest limits.”

“The rate of increase of the French population,” says Mill, “is the slowest in Europe;[39] the number of births not increasing at all, while the proportion of births to the population is considerably diminishing.”[40]

We have seen, moreover, that in France the actual ratio of living births is constantly and rapidly diminishing, while the still-births, actual and proportional, are as fast increasing; that the premature births progress in similar ratio, and by deduction and actual statistics, the criminal abortions; and that these facts obtain not merely in the metropolis, but throughout the country.

What are the causes of these remarkable facts, need it now be asked? Let all allowances be made for certain conjugal habits extensively existing among the French, and by no means rarely imitated in this country, but the proportionate decrease of living births is too enormous, the actual and proportionate increase of premature and still-births is too frightful to be wholly explained thus, or as West,[41] Husson,[42] and De Jonnés[43] have thought, to be attributed to a mere progressive lack of fecundity. Reason and the evidence alleged compel us to believe that in great measure they are owing to criminal abortion.

Political economists allow the facts in France to be as we have stated. Their interpretation of the causes, unwilling as they would be to confess its ultimate bearing, we now compel to serve as evidence.

“They depend,” according to one writer,[44] “either on physical agents, especially climate, or on the degree of civilization of a people, their domestic and social habits.” “In France the climate is favorable to an increase of population, and this obstacle, this restraint, is found in its advanced civilization.”[45]

“This diminution of births,” says Legoyt,[46] “in the presence of a constant increase of the general population and of marriages, can be attributed to nothing else than wise and increased foresight on the part of the parent.”

“The French peasant is no simple countryman, no downright ‘Paysan du Danube;’ both in fact and in fiction he is now ‘le rusé paysan.’ That is the stage which he has reached in the progressive development which _the constitution of things has imposed on human intelligence and human emancipation_.”[47]

“These facts are only to be accounted for in two ways. Either the whole number of births which nature admits of, and which happen in some circumstances, do not take place, or if they do, a large proportion of those who are born, die. The retardation of increase results either from mortality or prudence; from Mr. Malthus’s positive, or from his preventive check; and one or the other of these must and does exist, and very powerfully too, in all old societies. Wherever population is not kept down by the prudence of individuals or of the State, it is kept down by starvation or disease.”[48]

But on the other hand, it has been forgotten that the alternative supposed does not exist in the case we have instanced. Marriages in France, unlike some other continental States, are continually increasing, and starvation and disease are yearly being shorn of their power. The authors quoted are therefore forced to a single position; that the lessening of births can only be owing to “prudence” on the part of the community.