THE PRICE OF SURVIVAL
By R. F. HARROD iT is now nearly twenty years since Miss Eleanor Rathbone pub- lished her classic work The Disinherited Family ; reading the signs of the times she may well believe that she will live to see the triumph of the cause of family allowances of which she has been the most effective advocate. If this indeed occurs, what a happy con- summation! ' She based her case exclusively on the need to relieve poverty and not at all on the need to prevent race extinction. When she wrote, the birth-rate had 'hardly fallen below the replace- ment level. Indeed, she and others, in order to fend off criticism, pooh-poohed the tendency of subventions to stimulate births, using arguments which may make some of us feel a little uncomfortable now. Only in the late 'twenties did it become apparent, and then but to a few, that we were confronted with a major population-crisis. Even now the knowledge is not sufficiently widespread. In a recent debate a Member of Parliament actually protested that we ought not to foster an increase of population in these islands. Alas, the cause of survival has not found an advocate of such fire and force, a pen of such compelling power, as that plied by Miss Rath- bone in the cause of social conditions. The counterpart to her great book has still to be written. And the sad thing is that if, like hers, it takes twenty years to persuade the country, it will already be too late.
If appropriate measures are not taken sooner—and those required for survival differ in many respects from those required for the relief of poverty—we shall no longer be able to avoid a great shrinkage. It would be interesting to see, although one hopes we may not have to, how the average man would react when confronted not merely by statistical prognostications, but by the stark fact of a great dwindling. He might become despondent, and that would mean the end of England ; the great historic chain of political wisdom, constitutional adaptation, literature, science, would be closed and sealed at both ends ; historians would have another dead civilisation to study. Or, the only alternative, there might be a great filibustering, brutal campaign for more births, not only offensive to those refined souls who are impatient even of the gentle exhortations of to-day, but likely to do real injury to our genius for toleration and kindliness.
The facts which ought to be generally known are simple. The average size of families has been shrinking for more than half a century, and has recently stood at about one-third of the mid- Victorian level. In the 'thirties it has been at a level which will involve a loss, once the progeny of a more philo-progenitive age have had time to grow old and die off, of one quarter of the popu- lation in each generation—namely, every twenty-seven or -eight years. To put the matter in another way, there must be one extra child born for every three born in the recent period if the population is to replace itself. This is a tremendous requirement, since it is an average requirement, covering all classes and including those who cannot, if they would, have more children. Thus those who are able must increase their families still more to offset the others and raise up the general average. This requirement may be somewhat eased if there is a further seduction in deaths, but not so as to alter the main picture. Even if there were no deaths at all below the age of fifty—and this is a perfection we cannot hope to achieve—a size of families no larger than that of the 'thirties would entail the loss of one-seventh of our population in every twenty-seven years. Further- more, an improvement must come fairly soon now. We have been living on our fat for some time. The birth-rate has been below the replacement level for twenty years, and still the population has continued to increase. That is because the greater birth-rate of an earlier period has provided us with an abnormally large proportion of women of the fertile age. If we do not have a big improvement in the next two decades, a subsequent restoration of the birth-rate to the replacement level will not suffice -to prevent great losses ; to do that the size of families would have to be increased by still more than one in three.
Is there not an evident case fox providing an economic induce- ment to larger families? If we think only of poverty we may be in- clined to favour the proposal of a weekly allowance of 5s. for each child. Would it not be much bmer to provide 'cis. each for the third and fourth children only? It is doubtful if 5s. would really make any differemx to the number of births. Moreover ordinary parental instinct usually extends to the production of two children. It is when there are already two that the economic hardships begin to overweigh parental feeling, though we need have no doubt that there is still an unsatisfied reserve of that feeling below the surface. Now if we could secure a third and fourth child as a general rule, the population problem would be solved. There is no need to revert to the Victorian level. It is true that a flat rate of 5s. for all would be a little more logical and tidy than los. for the third and fourth only ; but this is a trifle, a feather in the balance, against the need that this large expenditure of money should have some actual-effect on reproduction. It is precisely in order to make the ordinary man accept this piece of logical untidiness that it is so important that the gravity of the population-crisis should be generally known. So far as poverty is concerned, the case for subvention when there are only one or two children is much weaker, and where there are four, as it is to be hoped there will be in the greate5 number of cases, the relief would be the same. Indeed, without using more money than would be required by the 5s. scheme, the grants for each of the third and fourth children could be made even higher than ros.
But more than this is needed for the middle classes, including that large section of our people whose normal pay exceeds, say, kzoo a year. Parents spend upon their children amounts which vary roughly in proportion to their income, and the economic inducement must have regard to this. I do not suggest direct dis- bursement by the State of larger sums. The matter could be arranged on the basis of compulsory insurance, in which both contributions and benefits were adjusted to the size of income. Professor R. A. Fisher has suggested that there is an analogy for this in the compulsory scheme of insurance for university teachers now in force, by which the pension accruing is pro- portional to the income previously received ; and between the incomes of various members of this profession there are of course wide divergences. The problem of insurance for children would be rather more complicated, since the greater part of the contributions would be payable after the benefits had been received ; but it would by no means be beyond the mathematical ingenuity of our actuaries. Furthermore, a number of contributors would receive no benefits ; but this is normally the case under compulsory social insurance. Such a scheme would not involve any public subvention to the middle classes ; each income-grade would be self-supporting; but each grade would make a redistribution of its income in favour of those discharging their parental responsibilities. Ir is essential that the benefits should be sufficient to cover in respect of each of the third and fourth children what members of their income-grade do in fact habittially spend, foolishly or not, upon their children.
Reform of the public schools, entailing a reduction of costs, will, if it happens, not remove the need for graduated benefits ; indeed, the majority of the whole class affected do not now go to public schools. Schooling is only a part of the problem ; there is the cost of service, clothes, doctors' bills, holidays, travel, and so on. Now it is idle to say that these expenses are merely a feature of our unequal system of wealth of which we must take no official cognisance. So long as the system exists, we must pay attention to its consequences. It may be that in the long run this country will adop a policy of com- plete levelling. But surely no realist would regard that as likely to happen within the next twenty years. Yet that is the crucial tine. Thathappens afterwards is of little interest in this connexion, since if the birth-rate does not revive meanwhile the tide of England will have ebbed out.
Who, for that matter, can see the future so clearly as to be sure that a small nation, which has lost the vital sinew of man- power, will be free to adopt whatever social system it deems best, regardless of the prejudices of its neighbours? Meanwhile, under the system we have, parents will not have another child if they feel un- able to give it the amenities customary in their income-grade and fear that it may jeopardise the chances of those already born. In the eye of the philosopher this may be the greatest nonsense. The so-called " chances " may do more harm than good. A human being, that marvellous delicate instrument, that treasure-house of a thousand faculties, born of healthy stock into an environment that has room for him and social need of him—that is the thing! Beside it the whole gamut of our educational system is a mere bauble, all the amenities and advantages that a loving parent may gather together for him by means of little money, a mere handful of lollipops. But ordinary men are not philosophers. We must temper the wind to parental weakness. In particular we must direct some part of our surplus income—only a comparatively small part is needed—into the hands of parents who are willing to have a third and fourth child, so as to enable them to do as well for those as they are able out of their own resources to do for the first and second. This is a small price to pay for the survival of our race.
Previous page
