CHAPTER II.

ORIGIN AND PRACTICE OF BIRTH CONTROL IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

_In the countries covered by this chapter Birth Control has been recognised as a legitimate science; leagues advocating the prevention of conception have been formed; and the leading authorities have approved the practice as being the foundation of a better social structure._

_THE CONTROL OF BIRTHS. MARY ALDEN HOPKINS. Harper’s Weekly, April 10th, 1915._

The European laws on this subject are in striking contrast to ours. They treat contraception and abortion as two separate matters. The laws against abortion are strict. The laws concerning contraception are directed against distasteful advertising but not against private advice or public propaganda. In England the applicant must state in writing over his or her signature that he or she is married or about to be married. In Holland formulas and methods may be supplied privately, but must not be publicly advertised. In Germany there is no law on the matter, but sentiment is strongly opposed to advertising. In Switzerland it is forbidden to advertise or circularize. In Norway and Sweden advertising is not expected. Italy and France have no law on the subject. In Russia advertising in the newspapers is common. Everywhere in Europe contraceptives are for sale at pharmacies.

The Birth Control Movement is antagonistic to the general practice of abortion. The Hungarian senate, a few years ago, declared that the limitation of families by prevention of conception was absolutely necessary in order to check the wide-spread evil of attempted abortion.

Our present laws confuse the issue by classing—in a shockingly ignorant fashion,—contraception, abortion, and pornography, in the same category. The group is treated in the New York State Penal Code under the astonishing title of “Indecent Articles.” The eye of the law distinguishes no difference between the books of August Forel, a scientist revered in laboratories all over the world, and the obscene penny postcard sold by some slinking vendor.

_THE MALTHUSIAN LEAGUE OF ENGLAND. The Origin and History of Birth Control in Great Britain. Reprinted from The Malthusian, April, 1880._

Little improvement can be expected in morality until the production of large families is regarded in the same light as drunkenness, or any other physical excess.—John Stuart Mill, 1872.

In obedience to the request of the Nestor of political economists of Europe, the distinguished editor of the _Journal des Economistes_ of Paris, M. Joseph Garnier, we give a short account of the reasons which led to the foundation of the Malthusian League, the latest product of the nineteenth century’s ideas in the direction of social progress. It gives us unfeigned pleasure to be the means of making the most thorough of all French writers on the doctrines of our English latter-day economists acquainted with the position which the great population question has recently assumed in this country. It is not, we believe, too much to allege that the most advanced thinkers of this country are at this moment well aware of the existence of the new-Malthusian remedy for the evils of society. How this has come to pass we proceed at once to show.

It was not long after the publication of Mr. Malthus’ work that some thoughtful men began to notice that in modern France the late marriage customs of most European states were replaced to a certain extent by prudence after marriage. Mr. Francis Place was one of the first to write a work on population, in which he recommended the physical checks so commonly made use of by the French parents for adoption in England. He is said to have remonstrated with Mr. Malthus about an expression in the first edition of his essay, in which he spoke of such checks under the head of _Vice_, and the tradition is that Malthus left out the expression in his subsequent edition: and, as he himself had two children, Mr. Porter (of Nottingham) believes that Mr. Malthus was, like Mr. Mill (the father of John Stuart Mill), himself a believer in the _conjugal prudence_ practised by the better class of peasantry and townspeople. Mr. Place is also said to have converted Mr. Robert Owen, the socialist to his opinion, and it is believed that Mr. Owen owed the success of his colony of New Lanark to a knowledge of this point, which he communicated to his workmen. Mr. Robert Dale Owen, a son of Robert Owen, emigrated in his youth to the United States of America, and became before his death, in 1877, one of the foremost citizens of the western republic. That gentleman, having doubtless heard the question discussed by his father, Mr. Francis Place, and other friends in London, was induced in 1830 to publish a now well-known treatise on the population question, entitled _Moral Physiology_, a work written with the most philanthropic design and couched in the most careful language consistent with clearness and the attainment of its end, in which he gave a description of the above-mentioned physical checks. This work was, however, written subsequently to the publication of Mr. Richard Carlile’s tract, entitled _Every Woman’s Book_, which was a most outspoken work, written by one of those fearless thinkers who have done so much to complete the reformation in England and secure freedom of speech and of the press for this country. Had it not been for him and his co-workers, England might at this day have been in as backward a condition as modern Spain. Dr. Charles Knowlton, an able physician of Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., was the next person who wrote upon this question in his now famous little pamphlet, the _Fruits of Philosophy_, wherein there was contained a good deal of popular information on physiology, and a careful account of the checks spoken of by Mr. Dale Owen and Mr. Carlile. This work was followed after a long interval by a small pamphlet by Mr. Austin Holyoake, entitled _Large and Small Families_, which, in company with the tracts by Carlile, Owen, and two other works were sold for many years by booksellers of the ultra-liberal party, latterly styled the _Secularists_.

In 1876 the _Fruits of Philosophy_, after circulating without notice for forty years, was suddenly attacked as an obscene publication under an Act of Parliament called “Lord Campbell’s Act,” and a bookseller in Bristol, of the name of Cook, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for selling it. The London publisher of the work, Mr. C. Watts, was also prosecuted for selling it, but, on submission, was let off with merely the payment of costs, or about two hundred pounds fine. The work would have been suppressed had not Mr. C. Bradlaugh, the head of the Secularist party and editor of the _National Reformer_, the most advanced liberal journal in England, in company with a young but already most distinguished lady, Mrs. Annie Besant, come forward and sold it openly. In order to try the case, Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant entered into partnership in a publishing establishment in Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, London, and sold the _Fruits of Philosophy_ quite openly, sending copies of it to the city authorities. Mr. Bradlaugh had for many years been an avowed Malthusian, and the lady also was quite convinced of the importance of the question. Both were determined that no bigoted society should put the work under the ban of the law without a fight for it. The case was first tried at Guildhall, and was sent on to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. The trial began on the 18th of June, 1877, and lasted three days. The jury contained, among other persons of wealth and position, the name of Arthur Walter, Esq., the son of the proprietor of the _Times_ journal. After a most powerful defence, in which Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh delivered speeches which told most powerfully upon the judge and all present in the Court, the jury delivered the following verdict: “We are unanimously of the opinion that the book in question (the _Fruits of Philosophy_) is calculated to deprave public morals; but at the same time we entirely exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motives in publishing it.” The judge—who had charged quite in favor of the defendants—would have let them off with a nominal fine, but, influenced by the information that they intended carrying on the sale of the work, strangely sentenced them to a heavy imprisonment and fine. Fortunately, the higher Court of Appeal decided that there had been an error in the indictment, and thus the defendants were set free. The prosecution has not been repeated since that date.

The excitement caused by the trial led to the formation of a society called The Malthusian League, which was set on foot as a means of opposing both active and passive resistance to the attempts made to stifle discussion on the population question. Mr. Bradlaugh had commenced such a league many years previously, but the time was not ripe for it. The first meeting of the League was held in the Minor Hall of the Hall of Science, Old Street, on July 17th, 1877, for the election of officers. That meeting elected Dr. C. R. Drysdale president, and Mrs. Annie Besant honorary secretary, in company with Mr. Hember and Mr. R. Shearer. The Council of the League consisted of Messrs. Bell, Brown, Dray, Page, Mr. and Mrs. Parris, Mr. and Mrs. Rennick, Messrs. Rivers, Seyler, G. Standing, Truelove, and Young. Mr. Swaagman was elected treasurer to the League.

Very soon after the formation of the League, another prosecution of Mr. Edward Truelove, bookseller, of High Holborn, took place in the Queen’s Bench on February 1st, 1878. The works he was prosecuted for were quite of the same character as Knowlton’s _Fruits of Philosophy_, and were entitled: _More Physiology_, a most philanthropic pamphlet by Mr. Robert Dale Owen, Senator of the United States, and another pamphlet entitled _Individual, Family and National Poverty_. Mr. Truelove was most effectually defended by Mr. William Hunter, and the case fell through, as one of the jury considered the book quite moral and philanthropic in its tendencies. The secretary for the “Society for the Suppression of Vice,” Mr. Collette by name, followed up the prosecution, and Mr. Truelove was tried in the Central Criminal Court on May 9th, 1878, and condemned to a fine of fifty pounds and an imprisonment of four months duration, which he underwent. An immense meeting was held in St. James Hall, on the evening of June 6, 1878, to protest against this disgraceful treatment of an honest man like Mr. Truelove, at which the president of the League took the chair, and enthusiastic addresses were delivered by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh.

The trial of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh lasted several days, and aroused a greater interest in the subject than had been known since the days of Malthus. The English Press was full of the subject; scientific congresses gave it their attention; many noted political economists wrote about it; over a hundred petitions were presented to Parliament requesting the freedom of open discussion; meetings of thousands of persons were held in all the large cities; and as result, a strong Neo-Malthusian League was formed in London.

* * * * *

From the small beginning described in the above article the English work has spread over all the rest of the world. The following is a list of the leagues having membership in the Federation Universelle de la Regeneration Humaine, in which the English organization has always played a leading part:

FEDERATION UNIVERSELLE DE LA REGENERATION HUMAINE (Federation of Neo-Malthusian Leagues).

_First President_: The late Dr. CHARLES R. DRYSDALE

_President_: Dr. ALICE DRYSDALE VICKERY

VICE-PRESIDENTS

Señor ALDECOA, Director of Government Charities, Madrid. Mr. G. ANDERSON, C.E. Major-General E. BEGBIE, _C.B._, D.S.O., Brighton. Dr. C. CALLAWAY, Cheltenham. M. VICTOR ERNEST, Belgium. M. G. GIROUD, Paris. Herr MAX HAUSMEISTER, Stuttgart. Mrs. HEATHERLEY. Mr. S. VAN HOUTEN, Deputé of the First Chamber, The Hague. Dr. ALETTA JACOBS, Amsterdam. Mr. JOSEPH MCCABE. Dr. MASCAUX, Courcelles, Belgium. Mr. ARTHUR B. MOSS. P. MURUGESA MUDALIAR, Madras. Mr. VIVIAN PHELIPS. Rt. Hon. J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P. Dr. J. RUTGERS, Verhulststraat, 9 Den Haag, Holland. Me. HOITSEMA RUTGERS, Verhulststraat, 9 Den Haag, Holland. Frau MARIE STRITT, Dresden. Dr. (Ph.) HELENE STOCKER, Berlin. Professor KNUT WICKSELL, Lund, Sweden.

CONSTITUENT BODIES.

ENGLAND (1877).—The Malthusian League. Periodical, _The Malthusian_.

HOLLAND (1885).—De Nieuw-Malthusiaansche Bond. Secretary, Dr. J. Rutgers, 9 Verhulststraat, Den Haag. Periodical, _Het Gellukkig Huisgezin_.

GERMANY (1889).—Sozial Harmonische Verein. Secretary, Herr M. Hausmeister, Stuttgart. Periodical, _Die Sozial Harmonie_.

FRANCE (1895).—_Génération Consciente._ 27 Rue de la Duée, Paris XX.

SPAIN (1904).—Liga Española de Regeneración Humana. Secretary, Señor Luis Bulffi, Calle Provenza 177, Pral, la, Barcelona. Periodical, _Salud y Fuerza_.

BELGIUM (1906).—Ligue Néo-Malthusienne. Secretary, Dr. Fernand Mascaux, Echevin, Courcelles. Periodical: _Génération Consciente_, 27 Rue de la Duée, Paris XX.

SWITZERLAND (1908).—Group Malthusien. Secretary, Valentin Grandjean, 106 Rue des Eaux Vives, Geneva. Periodical, _La Vie Intime_.

BOHEMIA-AUSTRIA (1901).—_Zadruhy._ Secretary, Michael Kacha, 1164 Zizhov, Prague.

PORTUGAL.—_Paz e Liberdade_, Revista Anti-Militarista e Neo-Malthusiana. E. Silva, junior, L. da Memória, 46 r/e, Lisbon.

BRAZIL (1905).—Sección brasileña de propaganda. Secretaries: Manuel Moscosa, Rua de’Bento Pires 29, San Pablo; Antonio Dominiguez, Rua Vizcande de Moranguapez 25, Rio de Janeiro.

CUBA (1907).—Sección de propaganda. Secretary, José Guardiola, Empedrado 14, Havana.

SWEDEN (1911).—Sallskapet for Humanitar Barnalstring. President: Mr. Hinke Bergegren, Vanadisvagen 15, Stockholm, Va.

FLEMISH BELGIUM (1912).—National Verbond ter Regeling van het Kindertal. President, M. L. van Brussel, Rue de Canal, 70, Louvain.

ITALY (1913).—Lega Neomalthusiana Italiana. Secretary, Dr. Luigi Berta, Via Lamarmora 22, Turin. Periodical, _L’Educazione Sessuale_.

AFRICA.—Ligue Néo-Malthusienne, Maison du Peuple, 10 Rampe Magenta, Alger.

The English organization, with headquarters in London, has for its officers some of the most distinguished men and women in England:

FIRST PRESIDENT

The late C. R. DRYSDALE, M.D., M.R.C.P., Lond., F.R.C.S., Eng.

PRESIDENT: Dr. ALICE DRYSDALE VICKERY.

47 Rotherwick Road, Hampstead Garden Suburb, N. W.

VICE-PRESIDENTS:

Major-Gen. ELPHINSTONE BEGBIE, C.B., D.S.O. ARNOLD BENNETT, Esq. CHAS. CALLAWAY, Esq., M.A., D.Sc. Lieut.-Col. J. FALLON, L.R.C.P., R.A.M.C. E. S. P. HAYNES, Esq. DENNIS HIRD, Esq., M.A., J.P. Mrs. HEATHERLEY. Captain KELSO, R.N. JOSEPH MCCABE, Esq. C. KILLICK MILLARD, Esq., M.D., D.Sc., M.O.H. A. B. MOSS, Esq. VIVIAN PHELIPS, Esq. EDEN PHILLPOTTS, Esq. Right Hon. J. M. ROBERTSON, M.P. Lieut.-Colonel A. W. WARDEN, late Indian Army. H. G. WELLS, Esq.

HON. TREASURER: W. V. OSBORNE, Esq.

HON. SECRETARY: BINNIE DUNLOP, Esq., M.B., Ch.B., Queen Anne’s Chambers, Westminster, S.W. (To whom all correspondence and subscriptions should be sent.)

GENERAL SECRETARY: Miss O. M. JOHNSON, B.A.

EDITORS OF “THE MALTHUSIAN”: DR. C. V. DRYSDALE; MRS. B. DRYSDALE.

AUDITOR: Mrs. E. AYRES PURDIE, A.L.A.A., Hampden House, Kingsway, W.C.

LITERARY SECRETARY: Mr. GEORGE STANDRING, 7–9 Finsbury Street, London, E.C. (From whom Books on the Population Question can be obtained.)

The following are some extracts from the League’s rules:

II.—OBJECTS.

That the objects of this Society be:—

1. To spread among the people, by all practicable means, a knowledge of the law of population, of its consequences, and of its bearing upon human conduct and morals.

2. To urge upon the medical profession in general, and upon hospitals and public medical authorities in particular, the duty of giving instruction in hygienic contraceptive methods to all married people who desire to limit their families, or who are in any way unfit for parenthood; and to take any other steps which may be considered desirable for the provision of such instruction.

III.—PRINCIPLES.

1. “That population (unless consciously and sufficiently controlled) has a constant tendency to increase beyond the means of subsistence.”

2. That the checks which counteract this tendency are resolvable into positive or life-destroying, and prudential or birth-restricting.

3. That the positive or life-destroying checks comprehend the premature death of children and adults by disease, starvation, war, and infanticide.

4. That the prudential or birth-restricting check consists in the limitation of offspring (1) by abstention from or postponement of marriage, or (2) by prudence after marriage.

5. That prolonged postponement of marriage—as advocated by Malthus—is not only productive of much unhappiness, but is also a potent cause of sexual vice and disease. Early marriage, on the contrary, tends to ensure sexual purity, domestic comfort, social happiness and individual health; but it is a grave social offence for men and women to bring into the world more children than they can adequately house, feed, clothe, and educate.

6. That over-population is the most fruitful source of pauperism, ignorance, crime, and disease.

7. That it is of great importance that those afflicted with hereditary disease, or who are otherwise plainly incapable of producing or rearing physically, intellectually and morally satisfactory children, should not become parents.

8. That the full and open discussion of the Population Question in all its necessary aspects is a matter of vital moment to Society.

It has been the object of this organization during these years to carry on the theoretical propaganda of Birth Control mainly among the educators, consisting of clergymen, physicians, scientists, sociologists, economists and others who in turn would form a strong, reliable public opinion who would force the dissemination of practical information among that element of society who are propagating the diseased and unfit.

It is only within the last few years that this League has begun to distribute information to prevent conception. Thousands of copies of this leaflet have been distributed in nearly every country throughout the civilized world except _The United States of America_ where laws prevent its circulation.

PRACTICAL METHODS OF FAMILY LIMITATION

Notice.—The Council of the Malthusian League, while continuing to regard this as a matter which is strictly within the province of the medical profession, and which ought to be taken over by them, has compiled a leaflet entitled “Hygienic Methods of Family Limitation,” for the benefit of those desirous of limiting their families, but who are ignorant of the means of doing so, and unable to get medical advice on the subject. This leaflet can only be issued, however, to persons over twenty-one years of age who are either married or about to be married, and who declare their conscientious belief that family limitation is justifiable on personal and national grounds. Anyone wishing to obtain a copy of this leaflet must write his or her name and address clearly upon both of the forms of declaration below, and send them to the Hon. Secretary. The sealed leaflet will then be sent them. In order to encourage family limitation among the poorest classes, _no charge will be made either for the leaflet or postage_, but it is hoped that those who can afford it will enclose stamps for postage or a small donation to help the League in its work.

_Under no circumstances whatever can the practical leaflet be supplied without a properly filled up declaration_, nor can more than one copy be supplied to the same person. Those wishing to help others, may have additional copies of the declaration form to hand on.

_The Malthusian League regrets that it is unable to comply with applications for this leaflet from the United States._

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT IN HOLLAND

Interest in the subject did not confine itself to England, for in 1878 at an International Medical Congress in Amsterdam the subject was discussed with great enthusiasm. A paper prepared and read by Mr. S. Van Houten (later Prime Minister) caused a wider interest in the matter and a year later the Neo-Malthusian (or Birth Control) League of Holland was organized. Charles R. Drysdale, then President of the English League, attended the conference.

As is usual in such causes, many of the better educated and intelligent classes adopted the practice at once, as did the better educated workers; but the movement had as yet no interest among the poorest and most ignorant. The League set to work at once to double its efforts in these quarters. Dr. Aletta Jacobs, the first woman physician in Holland, became a member of the League, and established a clinic where she gave information on the means of prevention of conception free to all poor women who applied for it.

All classes, especially the poor, welcomed the knowledge with open arms, and requests came thick and fast for the League’s assistance to obtain the necessary appliances free of charge. The consequence has been that for the past twelve years the League has labored chiefly among the people of the poorest districts. Dr. J. Rutgers and Madame Hoitsema Rutgers, two ardent advocates of these principles, have devoted their lives to this work. Dr. Rutgers says that where this knowledge is taught there is a reciprocal action to be observed: “In families where children are carefully procreated, they are reared carefully; and where they are reared carefully, they are carefully procreated.”

The Neo-Malthusian (or Birth Control) League of Holland has over 7,000 men and women in its membership, and more than fifty nurses whom it indorses.

These nurses are trained and instructed by Dr. Rutgers in the proper means and hygienic principles of the methods of Birth Control. They are established in practice in the various towns and cities throughout Holland. They advise women as to the best method to employ to prevent conception. They work mainly in the agricultural and industrial districts, or are located near them; and their teachings include not only the method of prevention of conception, but instruction in general and sexual hygiene, cleanliness, the uselessness of drugs, and the non-necessity of abortions. (The Council of the Neo-Malthusian or Birth Control League calls attention to the fact that it has for its sole object the Prevention of Conception, and not the causing of abortion.)

The clinic organized by Dr. Jacobs,—the first clinic in the world for the organized dissemination of information on Birth Control,—proved so efficient and beneficial to the standards of the community that others were opened and established until there are now more than fifty in operation.

There is no doubt that the establishment of these clinics is one of the most important parts of the work of a Birth Control League. The written word and written directions are very good, but the fact remains that even the best educated women have very limited knowledge of the construction of their generative organs or their physiology. What, then, can be expected of the less educated women, who have had less advantages and opportunities? It is consequently most desirable that there be practical teaching of the methods to be recommended, and women taught the physiology of their sex organs by those equipped with the knowledge and capable of teaching it.

It stands to the credit of Holland that it is perhaps the only country where the advocates of Birth Control have not been prosecuted or jailed; because the laws regarding the liberty of the individual and the freedom of the press uphold it, and protect its practise.

THE DUTCH NEO-MALTHUSIAN (BIRTH CONTROL) LEAGUE REPORT FOR 1914

Despite the outbreak of war, the progress of the League has been most satisfactory. The membership increased from 5,057 at the beginning of 1914 to 5,521 at the end; and branches now exist in twenty-eight towns in Holland. The list of officers and correspondents alone now occupies four pages of the Report, and comprises nearly two hundred names. As these are of persons in every part in the country, it will be realised how great are the facilities for everyone to obtain practical information. Besides the great amount of advice given by the trained workers, 7,200 copies of the League’s booklet giving practical advice on methods of family limitation (birth control) were supplied. It is instructive to see, in the reports from the various branches open statements that Mrs. X (full name given) helped 149 women and supplied seven gross of preventives, the kinds being clearly specified. The branch reports give particulars of nearly 1,300 women personally instructed in preventive methods by trained workers, but the war prevented the returns from being anything like complete. And this in a country of only six million inhabitants.—_The Malthusian_, London, July 15, 1915.

RESULTS OF BIRTH CONTROL TEACHING IN HOLLAND

There is no doubt that the Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control) League of Holland stands as the foremost in the world in organization, and also as a practical example of the results to be obtained from the teaching of the prevention of conception. Aside from the spreading influence of these ideas in Belgium, Italy, and Germany, Holland presents to the world a statistical record which proves unmistakably what the advocates of Birth Control have claimed for it.

The infantile mortality of Amsterdam and The Hague is the lowest of any cities in the world, while the general death rate and infantile mortality of Holland has fallen to be the lowest of any country in Europe. These statistics also refute the wild sayings of those who shout against Birth Control and claim it means race suicide. On the contrary, Holland proves that the practice of anti-conceptional methods leads to race improvement, for the increase of population has accelerated as the death rate has fallen. There has also been a rapid improvement in the general physique and health of the Dutch people, while that of the high birth rate countries, Russia and Germany, is said to be rapidly deteriorating.

The following figures will suffice to show some of the improvements which have been going on in Holland since 1881, the time the League became actively engaged in the work:—

VITAL STATISTICS OF CHIEF DUTCH TOWNS

Taken from Annual Summary of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in England and Wales, etc., for 1912.[1]

Amsterdam (Malthusian (Birth Control) League started 1881; Dr. Aletta Jacobs gave advice to poor women, 1885.)

1881–85 1906–10 1912

Birth Rate 37.1 24.7 23.3 per 1,000 of population

Death Rate 25.1 13.1 11.2 per 1,000 of population

Infantile Mortality: per thousand living (Deaths in first 203 90 64 births year)

The Hague (now headquarters of the Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control) League)

1881–85 1906–10 1912

Birth Rate 38.7 27.5 23.6 per 1,000 of population

Death Rate 23.3 13.2 10.9 per 1,000 of population

Infantile Mortality: per thousand living (Deaths in first 214 99 66 births year)

Rotterdam.[2]

1881–85 1906–10 1912

Birth Rate 37.4 32.0 29.0 per 1,000 of population

Death Rate 24.2 13.4 11.3 per 1,000 of population

Infantile Mortality per thousand living (Deaths in first 209 105 79 births year)

Fertility and Illegitimacy Rates.

1880–2 1890–2 1900–2

Legitimate birth per Legitimate Fertility 306.4 296.5 252.7 1,000 Married Women aged 15 to 45.

Illegitimate births per Illegitimate Fertility 16.1 16.3 11.3 1,000 Unmarried Women, aged 15 to 45.

The Hague.

1880–2 1890–2 1900–2

Legitimate Fertility 346.5 303.9 255.0

Illegitimate Fertility 13.4 13.6 7.7

Rotterdam.

1880–2 1890–2 1900–2

Legitimate Fertility 331.4 312.0 299.0

Illegitimate Fertility 17.4 16.5 13.1

Footnote 1:

These figures are the lowest in the whole list of death rates and infantile mortalities in the summary of births and deaths in cities in this Report.

Footnote 2:

Lowest figure for the Continent.

There has been a marked improvement in the labor conditions in Holland during these last ten years especially, wages having increased and hours of labor decreased, with the cost of living taking a comparatively very small rise.

There is no country in Europe where the educational advantages are so great as in Holland.

That the Birth Control propaganda has been a success in Holland any one travelling through that delightful, clean and cheerful country can testify.

In that enlightened country, Holland, the teaching by the medical profession of the most hygienic methods of birth limitation has enabled the poor to have small families which they could raise to be physically and morally better equipped than formerly, and what is most interesting to observe is that, whether as a result of this or for some other reason, the families among the well-to-do are not nearly as small as in other countries.—_Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, in The Survey for November, 1916._

GERMANY

Germany was the next to follow, in 1889, when Herr Max Hausmeister and Herr Karl Lotter founded the Sozial Harmonische Verein, with its paper _Die Sozial Harmonie_. Like the English League, this society has confined its teachings to the theoretical and economic aspects of the subject, in which it has especially distinguished itself. In Germany all such doctrines are of course anathema, but the enormous decline in the birth-rate in several towns testifies to the refusal of the German people to be hectored into misery. All the signs point at present to an extraordinary ferment of new ideas in Germany, and a large number of other movements are more or less openly Neo-Malthusian.—From _The Malthusian_ (London), January, 1909.

The German Sozial Harmonische Verein, founded in 1889, by Herr Max Hausmeister, has continued its quiet, but effective, work, and its periodical, _Die Sozial Harmonie_, has contained many articles of great economic value. A remarkable feature in Germany, however, has been the rapid rise of the Mutterschutz Society, under the able presidency of Dr. Helene Stocker, a society which aims at obtaining greater security and freedom for married and unmarried mothers, and at securing better conditions for the rearing of their offspring. Neo-Malthusianism (Birth Control) is becoming an important feature of this work, and is also dealt with in the _Zeitschrift fur Sexual-wissenschaft_, a scientific journal devoted to sex matters. The birth-rate of Prussia has seen one of the most rapid declines, from 36.2 in 1901 to 33.7 in 1906, and 33.0 in 1907; while the death-rates for the same years have been 20.5, 17.9, and 17.8, and the infantile mortalities 200, 177, and 168 respectively. The birth-rate of Berlin in 1907 was 24.3, or below that of London, 26.8.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) for July 15th, 1909.

FRANCE

France differs from all other countries in having realized the individual advantages of the practice of birth control long before any other country in Europe. It is said that the sale of the lands (forfeited by the Emigrés or confiscated by the Commune after the Revolution) to the people, together with the law of equal inheritance in accordance with the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity adopted for their guidance formed the chief incentive to restriction of the numbers of the family.

The birth-rate declined in an irregular manner from 1870 to the present time, especially among the wealthy classes, while the poor and ignorant continued to be burdened with large families. This led M. Paul Robin in 1896 to form the French Ligue de la Regeneration Humaine, and to employ his enormous energy and enthusiasm towards the formation of leagues in other countries. Bohemia, Spain, Brazil, Belgium, Cuba, Africa and Switzerland formed leagues in succession, most of them circulating periodicals dealing with Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control) theory and practice. At the same time M. Robin formed a Federation Universelle de la Regeneration Humaine, in which the various leagues have been associated and which has held two international meetings—the first at Paris in 1900 and the second at Liege in 1905.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) January, 1909.

Fifteen years after the founding of M. Robin’s work, the propaganda in France is very complete and intense. Theoretical or practical, it appears under many forms. It acts through books, pamphlets, leaflets, journals, lectures, pictures, and even songs. Tens of thousands of theoretical volumes and pamphlets are disseminated, hundreds of thousands of leaflets are distributed. The practical pamphlets find their success in rapidly disappearing editions. In every part of the land—in town, and even country—lectures are given, and numerous militant workers diffuse the good tidings in multitudes of papers. The centers of our propaganda are too numerous to be fully quoted. In the first rank are the societies exclusively Neo-Malthusian (Birth Control), which, in fact, each carry on in their own manner the work undertaken by _Regeneration_. The most active, the most enterprising, and the most combative of these organizations, _Génération Consciente_, multiplies its efforts, extends its action, and prospers unceasingly. Again there exists a different class of propagandists—the individual—who, without periodical, place or society, works by disseminating not only the pamphlets, leaflets, and books, but also the means of prevention.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) of September 15, 1910.

France has her population practically under control, and can increase or diminish at will according to the prospects of good or bad times. (See Page 37 for French Birth and Death Rate).—From _The Malthusian_ (London) of April 15th, 1909.

France has set the example of real civilization and other nations are following her more or less rapidly according to their advancement in culture.

There has been a tendency to ascribe the low birth-rate in France to infertility or degeneracy, although this is patently absurd to all those who are acquainted with the French people. For the low birth-rate of France is practically entirely due to prudential control of families among married people who make no pretense to the avoidance of preventive intercourse.

Dealing with the conditions of the people in France there is little that does not compare favorably with all other old countries. The average duration of life is about fifty years, which is nearly the highest in Europe. The infantile mortality is the worst feature,[3] but it has been declining for some years.

Footnote 3:

Note: This is a problem of hygiene and infant welfare. If the same care were given the babies of France as is being given the infants of other advanced countries there is little doubt that the mortality rate would decline proportionately.—M. H. S.

There is no “too old at thirty-five” difficulty in France, elderly men being employed where boys are (in other countries); there is no unemployment worth speaking of; there is no land problem, and house rents, instead of being forced up by excess of demand, are actually lowered by excess of supply, so that the “unearned increment” is frequently negative.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) for April 15th, 1909.

Writing of France in 1879, a few years after the close of the disastrous Franco-Prussian War, Johannes Swaagman said:

“France, notwithstanding the heavy war indemnity of five milliards, and perhaps an equal expenditure of her own war material, is now the only country that has a surplus on its estimated budget, and can even dream of reducing taxation. Besides this, large sums are being spent on improvements, with a view of accelerating commerce and industry.

“France has still many things to learn, notably as regards hygiene, but we have no hesitation in asserting that as regards the solution of the most distressing problems which humanity has to face and as regards general happiness and culture she is far ahead of all other countries and she has simply led the way in the direction in which all other nations are bound to follow, and in which they are already hastening.”—From _The Malthusian_ (London) of April 15th, 1909.

Strong and vigorous movements exist in Switzerland, Belgium, Hungary, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Italy, while there are somewhat less active ones in Russia, Japan, India, and even China. I will not take the space to furnish the details of the movement in these countries because they are mainly inspired in their activities from those well organized Leagues already mentioned.

BIRTH AND DEATH RATE IN FRANCE

The actual facts as regards the French birth-rate are constantly misrepresented. Taking the actual population, this appears to have been 24.8 millions in 1783, 28.9 millions in 1806, and to have gone on more or less steadily increasing to 39.26 millions in 1907. Exceptions to this increase have taken place six times since 1881, there being a deficit or excess of deaths over births of 38,446 in 1890, of 10,505 in 1891, of 20,041 in 1892, of 17,813 in 1895, of 25,988 in 1900, and of 19,920 in 1907. Despite these deficits the natural increase, or excess of births over deaths, was 1,232,744 in the twenty-five years from 1881 to 1905, while the total increase, including immigration, etc., was 1,690,000 during the same period. It is worthy of note also in view of the suggestions that the deficit is about to become chronic, and that France is therefore a “dying nation,” that in 1893 and 1894, after three years of deficits, there were excesses of 7,000 and 39,000; in 1897 and 1898 of 93,700 and 108,000; and in 1901 of 72,000. There has been no report since 1907, but Le Jour Officiel of Paris has given the figures for the first six months of 1908, which show an _increase_ of 12,066, partly due to a rise of 8,657 in the births and partly a decline of 8,416 in the deaths.—From _The Malthusian_ (London) of April 15th, 1909.

BIRTH RATE IN FRANCE

Compiled from _The Malthusian_ (London), for April 15th, 1909

Year Increase Decrease 1890 38,446 1891 10,505 1892 20,041 1893 7,000 1894 39,000 1895 17,813 1896 No record available 1897 93,700 1898 108,000 Total for 8 years 247,700 86,800 86,800 ——————— Total increase 160,900 ———————

Rate of increase per year (approximately) 20,100 Increase in total population from 1783 to 1907 15,000,000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

It is interesting to know that the present agitation for the dissemination of knowledge to prevent conception, as expressed in the various leagues throughout the world to-day had its greatest impetus and inspiration from two books written by Americans in the United States.

The first of these was a pamphlet entitled “Moral Physiology,” written by United States Senator Robert Dale Owen, son of Robert Owen, which was published in New York City in 1830 and gave a description of the physical checks made use of in France, where it was the custom to limit the number of children to the means at the command of the family. This book was much read and commented favorably upon in America.

So favorably did this publication appeal to the thinking minds of the time, that Dr. Charles Knowlton, an able Boston physician, on reading Owen’s pamphlet, was so struck by its importance as a contribution to the science of hygiene that he brought out a similar work in 1833, entitled “The Fruits of Philosophy.” His book was addressed to young married people and gave a popular description of the anatomy of the organs of reproduction, especially in the female, and a somewhat more detailed account of the physical checks to prevent conception than had been given in Owen’s pamphlet.

“The Fruits of Philosophy” circulated unchallenged for more than forty years, and finally, in 1876, was attacked as an obscene publication under the new act of Parliament called “Lord Campbell’s Act,” and a bookseller of Bristol, England, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for selling it.

This work would have been suppressed altogether had not Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs. Annie Besant, two ardent defenders of British liberty, come forward and volunteered to sell it in order to test the case in the English courts. The trial, as has been described herein under the title of “Birth Control League of England,” attracted great attention to this philosophy throughout the world. It is a sad commentary upon the legislative bodies of this country that up to the present every attempt by advocates of this principle to discuss this subject and awaken our people to its needs has been met with prosecution and jail sentences.

During these last forty years the movement has made rapid progress in all civilized countries except the United States. In this progressive matter we find ourselves classed with Russia, Japan, India and China, where national interest is concerned with quantity of human beings rather than with quality.

But during the last five years the subject has come forcibly to the front, mainly through prosecutions. Again a message has gained a hearing from the dock which it could never have won from the platform.

The people of this country are now awakened to the need of knowledge to prevent conception. Social workers, nurses, and members of the medical profession find their work hampered and their activities nullified by oppressive laws denying the individual the right of health, life and the pursuit of happiness.

The most advanced thinkers in America are with us in this movement, the sentiment being largely in favor of the establishment of clinics, similar to those in Holland, where the poor and overburdened mothers may come for advice to be given by doctors, nurses or others competent to instruct.

Following are some of the names of men and women in the United States who stand for the dissemination of such knowledge, have allied themselves to this great humanitarian cause, and have come out in the press for birth control as a national necessity:

WELL KNOWN WOMEN WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL

Mrs. J. Borden Harriman Mrs. Amos Pinchot Mrs. Charles Tiffany Mrs. Robert M. La Follete Mrs. Herbert Croly Mrs. Phillip Littell Mrs. Raymond B. Stevens Mrs. Simeon Ford Mrs. Philip Lydig Mrs. William I. Thomas Mrs. Robert P. Bass Mrs. Inez Haynes Irwin Mrs. Paul Manship Mrs. Frank Cothren Mrs. George B. Hopkins Mrs. J. Sargeant Cram Mrs. William Leon Graves Mrs. Gifford Pinchot Mrs. J. G. Phelps Stokes Mrs. Elsie Clews Parsons Mrs. Amy Walker Field Mrs. Mary Heaton Vorse Mrs. Juliet Barrett Rublee Mrs. Frances Hand Mrs. Mabel Foster Spinney Mrs. Belle I. Moskowitz Miss Caroline Rutz-Rees Miss Jessie Ashley Miss Lillian D. Wald Princess Troubetskoy

NOTED PHYSICIANS WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL

Dr. Abram Jacobi, ex-president, American Medical Association, New York City.

Dr. Hermann M. Biggs, State Commissioner of Health, New York.

Dr. John N. Hurty, secretary, State Board of Health, Indiana.

Dr. Godfrey R. Pisek, professor of diseases of children, New York Post-Graduate Medical School and Hospital, New York City.

Dr. J. W. Trask, United States Public Health Service, Washington, D. C.

Dr. Ira S. Wile, editor, _American Medicine_, member Board of Education, New York City.

Dr. John A. Wyeth, professor of surgery and president of the New York Polyclinic Medical School and Hospital, ex-president of the American Medical Assn., and New York Academy of Medicine, New York City.

Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, professor of medicine, department of Phthisio-therapy, at New York Post-Graduate Medical School and Hospital, New York City.

Dr. Lydia Allen de Vilbiss, formerly of New York State Department of Health, now in charge of the division of Child Hygiene of the State Board of Health of Kansas.

NOTED WRITERS AND TEACHERS WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL

Ernest Poole Will Irwin Walter Lippman Paul Kellogg Max Eastman Winthrop D. Lane John Reed Prof. Warner Fite Prof. William P. Montagu Prof. Charles Zueblin Prof. Durant Drake Prof. Thomas Nixon Carver Prof. Melvil Dewey Prof. William H. Allen Prof. Franklin H. Giddings Prof. Irving Fisher Hon. Homer Folks Hon. William H. Wadhams Dr. Henry Moskowitz Hiram Myers Dr. Scott Nearing Eugene V. Debs

NOTED MINISTERS WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL

Rev. Dr. Frank Crane, formerly pastor of the Union Congregational Church, Worcester, Mass., now notable writer of editorial articles for New York _Globe_, etc.

Rev. Dr. Percy Stickney Grant, rector, Protestant Episcopal Church of the Ascension, New York City.

Rev. Dr. Frank Oliver Hall, minister, Church of the Divine Paternity, New York City.

Rev. Dr. John Haynes Holmes, minister, Unitarian Church of the Messiah, New York City.

Rev. Dr. Harvey Dee Brown, minister, Unitarian Church of the Messiah, New York City.

Rev. Dr. Stephen S. Wise, rabbi of the Free Synagogue, New York City.

Rev. Dr. Sidney E. Goldstein, rabbi of the Free Synagogue, New York City.

Rev. Dr. Waldo Adams Amos, rector, Protestant Episcopal Church of St Paul, Hoboken, N. J.

PROMINENT RESIDENTS OF CHICAGO, ILL., WHO ENDORSE BIRTH CONTROL

Dr. Isaac A. Abt Rev. Myron E. Adams Rev. Edward S. Ames Dr. Charles S. Bacon Mrs. E. W. Bemis Mrs. I. S. Blackwelder Mrs. Tiffany Blake Dr. Anna E. Blount Ralph E. Blount Mrs. Joseph T. Bowen Mr. and Mrs. Horace Bridges Mr. and Mrs. Edward B. Burling Mrs. Benjamin Carpenter Dr. and Mrs. Frank Cary Mr. and Mrs. William L. Chenery Dr. Frank S. Churchill Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Dauchy Dr. J. B. De Lee Mr. and Mrs. William F. Dummer Mrs. Joseph N. Eisendrath Mrs. Kellogg Fairbank Dr. John Favill Prof. and Mrs. James A. Field Mrs. Walter L. Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Frank Rev. and Mrs. Charley W. Gilkey Dr. and Mrs. Maurice L. Goodkind Dr. Ethan A. Gray Mr. and Mrs. E. T. Gundlach Mrs. Alfred Hamburger Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Hamill Dr. Alice Hamilton Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Harding Dr. N. Sproat Heaney Mrs. Charles Henrotin Dr. Rudolph W. Holmes Mrs. Leila K. Hutchins Dr. Karl K. Koessler Mr. and Mrs. Herman Landauer Dr. W. George Lee Prof. and Mrs. Frank R. Lillie Prof. and Mrs. J. Weber Linn Mrs. Edwin L. Lobdell Max Loeb Judge and Mrs. Julian W. Mack Prof. and Mrs. George H. Mead Dr. James H. Mitchell Mr. and Mrs. William S. Monroe Prof. and Mrs. Addison W. Moore Mrs. James W. Morrisson Mr. and Mrs. George Packard Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin Page Mrs. Elia W. Peattie Allen B. Pond Mr. and Mrs. James F. Porter Mrs. Julius Rosenwald Mrs. Dunlap Smith Mrs. Henry Solomon Dr. Alexander F. Stevenson Prof. Graham Taylor Mrs. Harriet W. Walker Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby Walling Mrs. George Watkins Mr. and Mrs. Payson Wild Mrs. Wilmarth Dr. Rachelle Yarros Victor S. Yarros Mr. and Mrs. Sigmund Zeisler

Physicians, scientists, economists, social workers and others interested in the forward march of this country are simply marking time in progress until it is decided whether or not the medical profession and its assistants have the legal right to impart information to prevent conception to those who need it. A favorable decision would permit men and women to stem the incoming tide of feebleminded, unfit, degenerate individuals who undermine our present social structure and place a burden on generations yet unborn.