POPULATION AND WAGES
663
Country
Marriage-rates
Birthrate
Ratios
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
1865-9
1876-80
1887-91
1865-9
1876-80
t 887-91
t86s-9
t876-8o
r887-9i
7.89
7.61
7.26
25.9
25.4
23.0
3-3
3-3
3-2
— ■
7.40
7
II
—
31 -3
27
7
—
4.2
3
8
7-58
6.90
7
22
31.8
31-9
29
3
4.2
4.6
4
I
8.36
7.67
7
51
35-3
35-4
31
3
4.2
4.6
4
2
—
7-83
7
93
—
39-2
36
5
—
5.0
4
6
8.10
7.84
7
02
35-1
364
33
4
4-3
4.6
4
7
6.18
6.58
S
98
30.4
30.2
28
4
4-9
4.6
4
7
6.45
7.18
6
36
30-3
31-5
30
6
4-7
4-4
4
8
7-30
751
7
69
37-2
36.8
37
6
51
4-9
4
9
8.6g
7-74
7
74
37-9
38.8
38
4-4
5.0
4
9
10.28
9.61
8
64
40.7
44.1
42
8
4.0
4.6
.S
5.29
4.56
4
41
26.4
25.8
22
8
5.0
5-7
5
2
France . . . . Switzerland Belgium . . . England . . . Germany . . Holland ... Sweden . . . Norway . . .
Italy
Austria . . . . Hungary .. . Ireland . . . .
It appears from this table that, in general, marriage has declined very perceptibly in almost all European countries; and, as might naturally be expected, the birth-rate has also fallen with much rapidity. It also appears that in the more civilized countries marriage is less frequent than in the less civilized ; a fact due, no doubt, to a superior standard of living, making married life both more difficult and (owing to other and less expensive attractions) less desirable. Such exceptions as Ireland, Sweden, and Norway are easily explained by the great emigration constantly draining those countries of their marriage- able population. But the relation appears still more strikingly when we glance at the column of ratios, giving the approximate prolificness of marriages : we see from it that prolificness varies, almost without exception, inversely as the degree of civilization and prosperity;' while in some countri2s,as in Belgium, Switzer- land, and England, a notable fall of prolificness is observable ; the opposite phenomenon being of rare occurrence, and that in such backward countries as Hungary and Spain. M. Leroy- Beaulieu' has shown from statistical data that, in France and
pp. 5, 17. The ratios I have calculated myself. It is sometimes customary to call these ratios "number of births per marriage." This method, however, of estimating the prolificness of marriages can give only very rough approximations, especially for short periods. (See Malthus, Essay, Bk. II, chap, xi.)
' It must be remembered that England, as I have noticed above, is placed in very exceptional circumstances; yet it stands fourth in the order of increasing (approxi- mate) prolificness.
' V £conomiste franfais, 1892, 2" vol., pp. 353-6, 3!)3.
