Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T04:50:59.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Malthusians, Eugenists, and the Declining Birth-Rate in England, 1900-1918*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Richard Allen Soloway
Get access

Extract

Recent studies of the social history of birth control in America have noted the importance of eugenics in securing the acceptance of family planning between the two world wars. Similarly in England the endorsement of contraception as a method of “race improvement” by eugenists in the scientific, medical, academic and ecclesiastical communities greatly enhanced the credence and respectability of the birth control movement. In the anti-racist, genetically more sophisticated climate since the Second World War it is often forgotten how pervasive eugenic assumptions about human inheritance were in learned and socially elevated circles in the early twentieth century. Belief in the inheritability of myriad physical, psychological and behavioral characteristics, identifiable, even quantifiable, in particular ethnic groups and social classes was reinforced by expert scientific testimony, and, perhaps equally important, middle and upper class prejudices.

Birth control leaders, whose respectability was always in some doubt, were for the most part no exception and readily mingled with the estimable worthies who adorned the ranks of the elitist Eugenics Education Society founded in 1907. Several officers of the old Malthusian League, including its last president, Charles Vickery Drysdale, and his wife, Bessie, were early if troublesome recruits to the Society, while Marie Stopes, the most dynamic promoter of birth control in England in the inter-war years, joined in 1912, and eventually became a Life Fellow who left the organization a financial legacy, her famous clinic and much of her library, upon her death in 1958.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Fall 1978 , pp. 264 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A version of this paper was presented at the Joint Session of the Conference on British Studies and the American Historical Association Annual Meeting in Dallas, Texas, 1977.

References

1 Gordon, Linda, Woman's Body, Woman's Right. A Social History of Birth Control in America (New York, 1976), pp. 274–90Google Scholar; Kennedy, David M., Birth Control in America. The Career of Margaret Sanger (New Haven, 1970), pp. 114–22Google Scholar; Reed, James, From Private Vice to Public Virtue: The Birth Control Movement and American Society since 1830 (New York, 1978)Google Scholar. Reed contends that eugenic hostility to birth control did not moderate until the 1930s.

2 Eugenics Education Society [EES], Minute Book, I, February 3, 1909, July 26, 1912Google Scholar, Eugenics Society Library, London. Also Faith Schenk and Parkes, A.S., “The Activities of the Eugenics Society,” Eugenics Review, 60, No. 3 (September, 1968): 153–54Google Scholar; Hall, Ruth, Passionate Crusader, The Life of Marie Slopes (London, 1977), p. 326Google Scholar.

3 See for example, Ledbetter, Rosanna, A History of the Malthusian League 1877-1927 (Columbus, 1976), pp. 204-05, 218Google Scholar; Searle, G.R., Eugenics and Politics in Britain 1900-1915 (Leyden, 1976), pp. 102–04CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forrest, D.W., Francis Gallon. The Life and Work of a Victorian Genius (New York, 1974)Google Scholar; Fryer, Peter, The Birth Controllers (New York, 1966)Google Scholar.

4 It should be noted that while the article concentrates upon organized Neo-Malthusians the term was often applied to any advocate of family limitation before World War I, though many of them eschewed any philosophical or practical association with the Malthusian League. Others like the suffragette, Edith How Martyn, or the novelist and Fabian Socialist, H.G. Wells, reluctantly joined the organization expressly because there was no other organization advocating birth control.

5 Mitchell, B.R. and Deane, Phyllis, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 20–30Google Scholar.

6 Among the first to call attention to the importance of corrected fertility were Newsholme, Arthur M.D. and Stevenson, T.H.C. M.D., “The Decline in Human Fertility in the U.K. and Other Countries as Shown by Corrected Birth Rates,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, LXDC(1906): 34–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers [P.P.], “Registrar General 82nd Report,” XI (1920), Cmd. 1017, Table3, p. 5Google Scholar.

8 Tranter, N.L., Population Since the Industrial Revolution. The Case of England and Wales (New York, 1973), p. 98Google Scholar.

9 Jackson, Holbrook, The Eighteen-Nineties (London, 1913)Google Scholar.

10 See Hynes, Samuel, The Edwardian Turn of Mind (Princeton, 1968), Ch. IIGoogle Scholar; Searle, G.R., The Quest for National Efficiency, 1899-1914 (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar; Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform. English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895-1914 (London, 1960), Chaps. I-III.Google Scholar

11 See P.P., “Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training” (Scotland), XXX (1903), 2 vols. Cd. 1507, 1508Google Scholar; “Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration,” XXXII (1904) 3 vols. Cd 2175, 2210, 2186Google Scholar; “Memorandum by the Director-General, Army Medical Service, On the Physical Unfitness of Men Offering Themselves for Enlistment in the Army,” XXXVIII (1903), Cd. 1501Google Scholar.

12 The Lancet, Vol. II (Nov. 10, 1906): 1290–91Google Scholar.

13 The Malthusian, XXX, No. 5 (May 1906): 33Google Scholar.

14 See Newsholme, and Stevenson, , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, LXIX (1906)Google Scholar; David Heron, On the Relation of Fertility in Man to Social Status, and on the Changes in this Relation that Have Taken Place During the Last Fifty Years, Drapers Company Research Memoirs. Studies in National Deterioration, No. 1 (London, 1906); Sidney Webb, The Decline in the Birth-Rate. Fabian Society Tract No. 131 (London, 1907); Elderton, Ethel M., Report on the English Birth Rate, Part I England North of the Humber, Eugenics Laboratory Memoirs XIX, XX (Cambridge, 1914)Google Scholar.

15 Census of England and Wales 1911. Fertility of Marriage, Vol. XIII, Part I (London, 1917)Google Scholar, Part II (London, 1923).

16 National Council of Public Morals, National Birth-Rate Commission [NBRC], The Declining Birth-Rate. Its Causes and Effects. Being the Report of and The chief evidence taken by the National Birth-Rate Commission instituted with official recognition, by the National Council of Public Morals—for the Promotion of Race Regeneration—Spiritual, Moral and Physical (London, 1916), pp. 20–21Google Scholar.

17 Census (1911), Pt. II, pp. cxix–cxxiGoogle ScholarPubMed.

18 Ibid., p. xcix; NBRC, The Declining Birth-Rate, pp. v–xGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19 Pearson, Karl, “Reproductive Selection,” in The Chances of Death and Other Studies in Evolution, 2 vols. (London, 1897), I: 78–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Pearson, Karl to Galton, Francis, Jan. 24, Oct. 14, 1908, Gallon Archives, 293/J, University College Library, The University of LondonGoogle Scholar.

21 Galton, first discussed the question of heredity in “Hereditary Talent and Character,” Macmillan's Magazine, XII (June, August, 1865): 157-66, 318–27Google Scholar, and developed his ideas more fully in Hereditary Genius. An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences (London, 1869)Google Scholar, and English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture (London, 1874)Google Scholar. He first coined the word eugenics in Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development (London, 1883), pp. 24–25Google ScholarPubMed (For Galton's views of eugenics as a new religion see p. 220).

22 Galton, Francis, “The Possible Improvement of the Human Breed Under the Existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment,” Nature, 64 (Nov. 1901): 659–65Google Scholar.

23 Pearson, Karl, The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Gaiton, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1914–1930), III: 226Google Scholar; Francis Gait on, “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and Aims,” Sociological Papers, I, 1904 (London, 1905): 47–50Google Scholar.

24 For the divisions within British sociology see Sofer, Reba, Ethics and Society in England. The Revolution in the Social Sciences, 1870-1914 (Berkeley, 1978)Google Scholar. At the time of Gabon's death in 1911 the Sociological Review noted with pride that the modern eugenics movement had been launched at the Sociological Society's first meeting in 1904. The Sociological Review, IV, no. 2 (April, 1911): 143Google Scholar.

25 Galton, , Sociological Papers, I, 1904, p. 47Google Scholar; also Sociological Papers, II 1905 (London, 1905): 19Google Scholar; III, 1906 (London, 1906): 160-74.

26 Galton, to Pearson, , March 2, 16, 1903, Galton Archives, 245/18FGoogle Scholar; also Pearson, , Life of Galton, III: 296–97Google Scholar.

27 Galton, , Sociological Papers, I, 1904, pp. 45–47Google Scholar; also Galton, to Bateson, William, June 12, 1904, Galton Archives, 245/3Google Scholar. Bateson was the principal proponent of Mend-dian genetics in Britain and an indefatigable opponent of biometrics.

28 For the origins of the Malthusian League and its basic precepts see Ledbetter, A history of the Malthusian League, Chape. 1-3.

29 For example, Newsholme, Arthur, The Declining Birth-Rate: Its National and International Significance (London, 1911), pp. 39–40Google Scholar; Census (1911), Ft. II, p. xciGoogle ScholarPubMed; Elderton, , Report, pp. viii, 234Google ScholarPubMed.

30 Sanger, Margaret, My Fight for Birth Control (New York, 1931), p. 83Google Scholar. The term apparently first appeared in the fourth issue of Mrs.Sanger's, new monthly sheet, The Woman Rebel, I, no. 4 (June, 1914)Google Scholar.

31 Drysdale, Charles Vickery, Small or Large Families. Birth Control From the Moral, Racial and Eugenic Standpoint (New York, 1917), pp. 16, 23Google ScholarPubMed.

32 The Malthusian, XXXVI, no. 1 (Jan. 1912): 8Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., no. 42 (July, 1882): 333.

34 Ibid., no. 2 (March, 1879): 16; no. 4 (May, 1879): 26-27; no. 19 (Aug. 1880): 146. See also The Queen v. Chartes Bradlaugh and Annie Besant (2nd ed.; London, 1888), pp. 96–99Google Scholar.

35 For Annie Besant's eclectic career see Nethercot, Arthur H., The First Five Lives of Annie Besant (Chicago, 1960)Google Scholar.

36 The Malthusian, XXVIII, no. 10 (Oct. 1904): 73–74Google Scholar.

37 Sociological Papers, 1, 1904, p. 60Google Scholar; II, 1905, pp. 21-22.

38 Ledbetter, , A History of the Malthusian League, p. 206Google Scholar.

39 Galton, , Inquiries, pp. 207–10Google ScholarPubMed; also Hereditary Genius, pp. 356-57; Pearson, Karl, The Problem of Practical Eugenics. Eugenics Laboratory Lecture Series, V, (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1912), p. 19Google Scholar.

40 Pearson, Karl, “Socialism and Sex,” in The Ethic of Freethought (2nd ed.; London, 1901), pp. 423–24Google Scholar. Also “The Moral Basis of Socialism,” ibid., p. 322.

41 The Malthusian, XXI, no. 12 (Dec. 1894): 90Google Scholar.

42 Pearson, to Galton, , January 10, 1901, Galton Archives, 293/EGoogle Scholar; Galton to Pearson, Jan. 6, Feb. 12,1907,245/18H. Pearson sent Galton copies of The Malthusian.

43 Darwin, Leonard to Ellis, Havelock, January 17, 1917, Havelock Ellis Manuscripts, Yale University LibraryGoogle Scholar.

44 Barr, James, The Aim and Scope of Eugenics (Edinburgh, 1911), p. 4Google Scholar. See also Searle, G.R., Eugenics and Politics in Britain, pp. 102–03Google ScholarPubMed. Barr's election to the presidency of the British Medical Association in 1912 was viewed as a major breakthrough in that conservative profession by birth control forces. For the hostility of the medical profession to birth control see Peel, J., “Contraception and the Medical Profession,” Population Studies, 18, no. 2 (November, 1964): 133–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Darwin to Ellis, Sept. 25, 1920, Ellis MSS Yale University.

46 Converts such as the militant suffragette and communist, Francis W. Stella Browne, the League's leading apostle to the working classes in the 1920s' and Robert Bird Kerr, a retired lawyer, and, in 1923, the Drysdales' successor as editor of The Malthusian were exceedingly skeptical of the scientific validity of eugenics and deplored its antidemocratic elitism. The New Generation, as The Malthusian was renamed in 1922, was frequently a battleground between the Drysdales' eugenic assertions and anti-socialist polemics and the angry replies they provoked among newer League members.

47 Although Alice Vickery Drysdale assumed the presidency of the League upon her husband's death in 1907 the organization was dominated by her son and daughter-in-law. C.V. Drysdale formally became president in 1921 when ill health forced his aged mother to resign.

48 Wells, who joined in 1914 and was persuaded to become a vice-president in 1915, threatened to resign two years later when the Drysdales' condemnation of socialists and militant trade unionists reached new levels of invective. See The Malthusian, XLI, no. 6 (June, 1917): 43–44Google Scholar.

49 Cookson, Montague, “The Morality of Married Life,” The Fortnightly Review, n.s. XII (1872): 397–412Google Scholar. Cookson changed his name to Crackanthorpe upon the inheritance of a Westmoreland estate in 1888.

50 Queen v. Bradlaugh and Besant, p. 114.

51 Saleeby, Caleb, Parenthood and Race Culture, An Outline of Eugenics (London, 1909), pp. 110–11Google Scholar. Also, The Malthusian, XXXIV, no. 5 (May, 1910: 35Google Scholar.

52 Crackanthorpe, to Galton, , March 1, 1907, Galton Archives, 226Google Scholar.

53 Drysdale, C.V., “Neo Malthusianism and Eugenics,” The Malthusian, XXXII, no. 9 (Sept. 1908): 65–66Google Scholar. Also, Drysdale, C.V., The Small Family System, Is it Injurious or Immoral (London, 1913), pp. 131–32Google Scholar.

54 The Malthusian, XXXVI, no. 8 (Aug. 1912): 57–58Google Scholar.

55 Eugenics Review, I, no. 3 (October, 1909): 146–47Google Scholar.

56 EES, Minute Book, I, June 7, 1910Google Scholar.

57 Eugenics Education Society, Problems in Eugenics. Papers Communicated to the First Alternational Eugenics Congress and Report of Proceedings. Held at the University of London, July 24th to 30th, 1912, 2 vols. (London, 1912–1913), IIGoogle Scholar; The Malthusian XXXVI, no. 8, (Aug. 1912): 57–58Google Scholar.

58 Darwin, Leonard, What is Eugenics? (London, 1928), pp. 74–75Google ScholarPubMed.

59 Census (1911), Pt. II, pp. lxxv-lxxxvii, xcivGoogle ScholarPubMed.

60 Ellis, Havelock, The Problem of Race Regeneration (London, 1911), p. 51Google Scholar. Spencer, Herbert, The Principles of Biology, 2 vols. (London, 1864), 1867), II, Ch. XII, Pt. VIGoogle Scholar.

61 NBRC, The Declining Birth-Rate, pp. 89–90Google ScholarPubMed.

62 EES, Minute Book, March 23, 1915Google ScholarPubMed; Eugenics Review, VII, no. 3 (Oct. 1915): 202Google Scholar.

63 Eugenics Review, VI, no. 3 (Oct. 1914): 197Google Scholar.

64 The Times, Sept. 6, 1915, p. 11Google ScholarPubMed.

65 Eugenia Review, VII, no. 2 (July, 1915): 94Google Scholar.

66 EES, Minute Book, Oct. 21, 1914, Sept. 15, 1915Google ScholarPubMed; Eugenics Review, VI, no. 3 (Oct. 1914): 200–01Google Scholar; VIII, no. 4 (Jan. 1917): 359.

67 EES, Minute Book, May 16, 1916Google ScholarPubMed. Also Eugenics Review, VII, no. 3 (Oct. 1915): 202Google Scholar; IX, no. 1 (April 1917): 2-9, 55; The Times, April 5, 1916, p. 5Google ScholarPubMed.

68 Eugenics Review, VII, no. 3 (Oct. 1915): 206–07Google Scholar.

69 Ibid.; NBRC, The Declining Birth-Rate, pp. 413–14Google ScholarPubMed.

70 The Malthusian, XXXVIII, no. 8 (Aug. 1914): 64Google Scholar; no. 9 (Sept. 1914): 71; no. 12 (Dec. 1914): 89-90.

71 The Malthusian League, Hygienic Methods of Family Limitation (London, 1913)Google Scholar; Drysdale, Bessie, War Babies (London, 1915)Google Scholar; The War [c. 1915]; To Working Men and Women! Get Rid of Poverty [c. 1915]; Should Working Men and Women be Urged to Have Large Families! (London, 1915)Google Scholar, in Malthusian Pamphlets, The London School of Economics and Political Science.

72 The Malthusian, XXXIX, no. 11 (Nov. 1915): 88Google Scholar.

73 NBRC, The Declining Birth-Rate, pp. 418–20Google ScholarPubMed.

74 The Malthusian, XL, no. 3 (March, 1916): 31Google Scholar.

75 Ibid., XXXVIII, no. 11 (Nov. 1914): 82-83.

76 See Winter, J.M., “Britain's ‘Lost Generation’ of the First World War,” Population Studies, 31, no. 3 (1977): 449–59Google ScholarPubMed.

77 See note to Ellis's, Havelock “Birth Control and Eugenics,” Eugenics Review, IX, no. 1 (April, 1917): 32Google Scholar.

78 In the early 1920s the Eugenics Education Society Council approved “An Outline of a Practical Eugenic Policy” which endorsed birth control for the “less fit” and the “poor” while condemning its use by the “better stocks.” The undated document is in the Eugenics Society Library.

79 Darwin to Henry Twitchin, January 30, 1927, “Correspondence With Major Darwin”, Eugenics Society Library, also Darwin, , What is Eugenics?, pp. 36–38Google ScholarPubMed.

80 The New Generation, IV, no. 9 (Sept. 1925): 102–03Google Scholar; VII, no. 7 (July, 1928): 82.

81 The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel at the opening of the twentieth century and the promulgation of his theories by William Bateson and others paralleled the rise of biometrics, and led to bitter controversy within the eugenics movement over the mechanisms of heredity. Though the Eugenics Education Society tended to side with Pearson, Galton and the biometricians, the Mendelian geneticists, had already made important inroads before the war and were much more influential after it.

82 The New Generation, III, no. 2 (Feb. 1924): 27Google Scholar.

83 C.B.S. Hodson to Marie Stopes, Dec. 11, 1923, Stopes Papers, The British Library, Add. MSS. 58644. Hodson was Secretary of the Eugenics Education Society.

84 The first birth control clinic in Great Britain was established in March, 1921 by Marie Stopes and her husband, Humphrey Verdon Roe. The Malthusian League followed with its own clinic later in the year. The total number of clinics established in the 1920s never exceeded seventeen. For the Eugenics Education Society's growing interest in them see Martyn, Edith How, The Birth Control Movement in England (London, 1930), p. 22.Google Scholar Also, Eugenics Society, Memorandum to Medical Officers and Superintendents. Birth Control Clinics in Stopes Papers, B.L., Add. MSS. 58644.