THE FALL OF THE BIRTH-RATE 33 



tion (ibid. p. 26). In yet another small sample 19 

 schedules for "unlimited" families gave an average 

 of 2\ children; 75 for "limited" families an average 

 of 3 J (ibid. p. 330). Surely, in view of these data, it 

 cannot be pretended that a reference to contraceptive 

 measures goes far to explain the fall in fertility or 

 even indicates the chief means by which it has been 

 effected ? 



But, it may be said, have we any evidence to show 

 that at other times or in other countries a decrease in 

 fertility has taken place apart from the use of contra- 

 ceptive measures of an artificial kind? It is not 

 necessary to find a decrease in fertility : if we find an 

 increase, and can be confident that in the earlier year 

 contraceptive measures were not practised, we have 

 shown all that is necessary, viz. that a low fertility 

 may occur without the necessary implication of arti- 

 ficial methods. Dr Stevenson himself cites a very 

 striking case of the kind, without, as it seems to me, 

 realising its logical consequences. The case is that of 

 Connaught (ref. n, pp. 350-1). In Table IX are 



TABLE IX. 

 Fertility in Connaught. 



N. and S. Comparison with 



standardised Tail's 



birth-rate coefficient 

 Year (i) (2) 



1871 '83 



1881 33-60 



1891 



1901 37-9 -95 



45'3 '39 



1871 iSSi 1881 

 (2) 



IOOO 



940 1000 1000 



1049 1116 



1066 1130 1134 



1306 1348 1389 



given standardised legitimate birth -rates for Con- 

 naught calculated by the method of Newsholme and 

 Stevenson and given by them in ret. 5 and ref. i i, 

 and also the values of Tail's coefficient calculated by 

 myself for the sake of comparison over the whole 



