435

The Royal Commission on Population

-

THE LANCETLONDON: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1945

THE debate on the birth-rate began about twelveyears ago. It was not too soon, for the rate of human

reproduction in Britain had already been decliningfor over fifty years. It had fallen by 60%. It was

leaving us poorer by some 100,000 children everyyear.To the Governments of the 1920’s and the 1930’s

the immediate results of this trend were helpful.They assisted in keeping infant and maternal mortalityto a respectable figure ; they made it unnecessaryto hurry forward with plans for new maternity homesto match the rising demand for institutional confine-ments ; and they meant that the problem of classesof 40 and more children in State schools would,in the end, solve itself. Indeed, no Governmentembarking on a population policy can hope to benefitfinancially during its lifetime ; on the contrary, anyGovernment public-spirited enough to enact long-distance legislation concerning the family is going tobe unpopular with the general taxpayer. Fathersand mothers may be enthusiastic, but they will soonbe outnumbered by people who have long since

passed the reproductive period.When the Coalition Government appointed a Royal

Commission in March, 1944, the terms of referencewere drawn widely enough to cover all these subjects.The Commission were asked " to examine the facts

relating to the present population trends in GreatBritain ; to investigate the causes of these trendsand to consider their probable consequences ; to

consider what measures, if any, should be takeniii the national interest to influence the future trendof population ; and to make recommendations."Now, eighteen months after their appointment, theyhave issued a clear and forthright statement abouttheir work, their future activities, and the conclusionsalready reached. In a brief and lucid account of

the mechanism of population change they show nouncertainty. Discussing the trend up to the outbreakof war, they say that " it appeared extremely probablethat the population of Great Britain would shortlybegin to decline." This is very different languagefrom that of a white-paper 2 published by the sameGovernment in 1942 when the birth-rate was 20%lower than today. Then the tone was brightlyoptimistic ; the unofficial experts (if we may callthem that) were frowned on ; and it was suggestedthat a decline in population was not likely to beginfor at least twenty years. Evidently the RoyalCommission do not share this opinion of 1942..Theyhold that if the future volume of births continues todecline, " the effect on British social and economiclife, on migration to the Dominions, and on Britain’s1. Statement by the Royal Commission on Population. HMStationery Office, September, 1945.

2. Current Trend of Population in Great Britain, Cmd. 6358, May,1942.

position among the nations, will be far-reaching.And behind all these considerations lies the ultimatethreat of a gradual fading out-of the British people.This threat, though remote at present, is real, and itovershadows the whole problem."

After a review of long-term trends, the reportexamines the striking rise in the birth-rate since 1941.The number of births registered in Great Britain in1939 was 706,000. The figure dropped to 693,000 in1940 and to 669,000 in 1941. Then the tide turned, andthe number rose to 745,000 in 1942, 778,000 in 1943,and to 841,000 in 1944. This movement is in sharpcontrast to the experience during 1914-18, and nocomplete explanation is offered. It is suggested,however, that the abnormally high level of marriagesduring the past decade has played an importantpart, and it is pointed out that the birth-rate hasrisen, not only in Britain but in many Europeancountries, as well as in the Dominions and the UnitedStates (the figures were given in these columns lastJuly).3The purpose of this review of population trends is

to introduce the chief point of the report-namely,that many more facts are needed. We are indeed

appallingly ignorant about such matters as theincidence of childlessness, the distribution of familiesof various sizes, the spacing of births, and fertilitydifferences between occupational and social groups.A few of the experts have been saying this kind ofthing for years. They have told us that the first(and only) fertility inquiry was made as long ago as1911, and that a great many vital statistics that havebeen collected have not been published. It is excel-lent news that some of these deficiencies are now to beremedied. An investigation has, for example, beenstarted by the Biological and Medical Committee ofthe Commission (assisted by the Medical ResearchCouncil and the Royal College of Obstetricians andGynaecologists) into certain aspects of sterility. Whatapparently is also wanted, to obtain additionalfertility data, is a complete family census. But this,in the Commission’s opinion, is not practicable at themoment. We are not told why. The last censuswas held in 1931 ; it was impossible to hold one in1941, and if we have to wait another six yearsthe results will not be available until about 1954.Yet April, 1946-midway between 1941 and 1951-seems to be the appropriate time. We cannotwait until conditions return to normal-whateverthat may mean. If the Government of India cancarry out a census of 350 million people and publishthe results in 49 volumes within 2t years, it should notbe any harder to overcome the difficulties of census-

taking in Britain in 1946.However, the Commission are proposing, in place

of a family census-, to obtain the information theyneed from " a representative sample of marriedwomen," and they intend to ask for the cooperationof wives and mothers in a voluntary family census.Until the additional data on fertility are availableit seems that they cannot make much headway withtheir work. It is to be hoped, therefore, that thehelp they need will be readily forthcoming, and thatthe results will be published so that -the generalpublic can take part in debating this momentousquestion.

3. Lancet, 1945, ii, 18.