SECTION CCLVIII.. Means of Limiting the Increase of Population.

MEANS OF LIMITING THE INCREASE OF POPULATION.

A. The means which consists in rendering marriage less easy by legislation is surrounded with peculiar difficulties in densely populated countries, which are always highly civilized. The state would have here to swim against the stream, and it would be generally a much less difficult task to enlarge the field of food. If there remained from a former period any inducements held out to promote marriage, it is self evident that they should now be discontinued. A voluntary bachelor must now no longer be considered as a man who permits one more woman to become an old maid, but as one who facilitates marriage to another couple.[258-1] On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that, for men, generally, marriage is not only an occasion of increased outlay, but also an incentive to increased activity and greater economy.[258-2] Many states have endeavored to condition the founding of a family by requiring evidence that the father has a prospect of being able to support one.[258-3] Distinguished theorizers accede to this condition, inasmuch as they deny the right of over-population.[258-4] But, unfortunately, it is impossible, except in a few extreme cases, to assert or deny a prospect of being able to support a family.[258-5] How easily is the most remunerative power of labor destroyed by physical or mental disease. Scarcely less subject to change is the so-called certain opportunity of acquisition afforded by a profession or a trade, when it is not guarantied by the possession of considerable capital or of landed property, or by some legal privilege. The amount of property required by many laws is so small that it alone would suffice to support the family only for a few years.[258-6] And yet it has been generally provided that the proof of such a property gave one an unconditional right to establish a domicile and to marry. It is only where this is wanting that special consent is required. But who shall exercise this right of consent? The parish, perhaps, because on it the impoverished family would fall as a burthen. But it is to be feared that the course of procedure here would be too severe. Local narrow-heartedness might refuse the right of domicile to skillful and industrious candidates, who are in the best situation to maintain a family, but whose competition the older members of the parish might dread.[258-7] Hence, in most countries, the parish is treated as a party, on whose protest against the marriage the state itself decides[258-8] If the state authorities were to give the immediate decisions in such cases, we might expect, in ordinary times, a liberality which would frustrate the object of the law; but sometimes, also, considerable chicanery on grounds of so-called higher police.

Where there still exist classes and corporations with real independence, the members of which still attach a real value to the body, the matter takes care of itself. The journeyman, for instance, voluntarily retards his marriage until he has become a master workman, and once he has attained that degree, he "works the golden mine of his trade."[258-9] But wherever a numerous proletariat exists, the individuals of which have no better future to expect, whatever their present sacrifices and self-denial, and who know nothing of class-wants or class-honor, prohibitions of marriage are severely felt, and are far from being well enforced.[258-10] The rule which excites least opposition is the fixing of a normal age for marriage, under which males should not be allowed to undertake its engagements.[258-11] Of all privileges those attaching to age are viewed with least aversion. Something similar is effected in most countries to-day by military conscription, which, on this account, in young countries, has a very restrictive effect on the increase of population.[258-12] The best means against thoughtless marriages certainly consists in increasing the measure of individual wants (§ 163); assuming, of course, that the added wants are proper and worthy.[258-13] There is always the consideration that all limitation of marriage, even voluntary self-limitation, by decreasing or postponing marriage, may prove disastrous to morals. It should, however, not be forgotten that there are other sins besides impurity, and that complete poverty constitutes one of the worst of temptations. Especially is it not the angel guardian of chastity.[258-14]

In England[258-15] and France, all governmental hinderances to marriage have long since ceased, and in Prussia, at least all general police hinderances; and we can by no means say that the consequences have been evil. On the other hand, no favorable results as to their influence on pauperism can be shown statistically from the restrictive laws of Württemberg. Rather do statistics point here to the unfavorable probable result of an increase of illegitimate births.[258-16] According to the law of the North German Confederation of 1868, the contract of marriage, except in the case of soldiers, officials, clergymen and teachers, is so free, so far as police influence is concerned, that even actual poverty is no impediment.[258-17] [258-18] [258-19]