32 THE FALL OF THE BIRTH-RATE 



the beginning of the fall as it corresponds in time 

 with the opening of the Bradlaugh-Besant propa- 

 ganda. Those who hold this simple theory in its 

 purest form seem to think that in murmuring "con- 

 traceptive measures'* they have explained everything. 



Personally it seems to me to be a theory which even 

 if true explains nothing. If someone asked why so 

 many young men came to Cambridge about the 

 middle of January, he would hardly be satisfied by 

 the information that they came in trains. Contra- 

 ceptive measures are a means not a cause. 



Have we any reason for supposing that they have 

 been even the primary means? The only definite 

 evidence we possess directly negatives the idea. Cer- 

 tain information was obtained by the Birth-rate Com- 

 mission (ref. n, pp. 323-4) as to size of family and 

 limitation. On 167 schedules the question as to 

 limitation was unanswered: limitation was acknow- 

 ledged by 289 and denied by 188. Excluding child- 

 less families, the average number of children in " un- 

 limited" families was 2-5, in "limited" families as a 

 whole 2-6, in families limited by artificial means (as 

 distinct from abstinence, which ought not to be con- 

 founded with them) 2-5. There is no appreciable 

 difference. But, it may be said, this shows perhaps 

 only that the "unlimited" families are naturally the 

 less fertile: on the contrary they come from slightly 

 the more fertile stocks. The number of children in 

 the parental families averages 6-1 for the unlimited, 

 5-5 for the limited. 



The basis here is small but the conclusion is in 

 accord with the evidence of other samples, even 

 smaller though these are. Some schedules obtained 

 by Mr Sidney Webb show an average of 2-88 children 

 for "unlimited" marriages of about 18 years dura- 

 tion; 2-7 for "limited" marriages of 14 years dura- 



