34 THE FALL OF THE BIRTH-RATE 



series of census years from 1871 to 1911. Calling the 

 fertility 1000 in 1871 it fell to 940 only in 1881 ; rose 

 again to 1049 in 1891, and to 1066 in 1901 and then 

 swooped to no less than 1306 in 1911. These figures 

 are based on my calculation of Tait's coefficient. 

 Newsholme and Stevenson gave standardised legiti- 

 mate birth-rates for 1881, 1901 and 1911 only and I 

 have not calculated the figures on their basis for the 

 other years. Comparing the two series, however, for 

 the three years for which both are given, so as to 

 check the startling result for the last intercensal 

 decade, it will be seen that we are in practical agree- 

 ment in 1901 and differ by 3 per cent, only in 1911. 

 We are then safe in concluding that the fertility of 

 these Irishwomen was 35 to 39 per cent, greater in 

 1911 than in 1881 : it was also some 6 per cent, 

 greater in 1871 than in 1881 . It is agreed that contra- 

 ceptive measures in this case may be ruled out of 

 consideration, Connaught being an almost purely 

 Roman Catholic district and the Church setting its 

 face sternly against their use. What then was happen- 

 ing in 1 88 1 ? It is true that even then the fertility, as 

 measured by Tait's coefficient, was greater than that 

 of the married women in the lowest-class districts of 

 London, but still it was far under the fertility of 

 which the Irishwomen were capable. Surely only 

 one conclusion is possible ; that a fertility under the 

 maximum of which women are capable is not to be 

 regarded as an unnatural phenomenon, but as a 

 perfectly natural consequence of natural causes. This 

 one, but remarkable, instance is, as it seems to me, 

 sufficient to rule out the idea that the use of artificial 

 methods of preventing conception is necessarily in- 

 volved when fertility is low. 



If we want evidence from earlier times before 1875 

 the chief difficulty is the lack of trustworthy statistics. 



