* * * *
One of the odd things I have come across in Mr. Seebohm Rowntree's Poverty and Progress (I make no apology fa referring again to this notable work ; this is probably not the last time) is the prevalence of celibacy in three typiCal house. holds, whose records happen to be immediately juxtaposed in a series of ten times that number. The first consists of man of 61 wife of 6o, and three " children " of 3o, 28 and 21 ; the secon of man and wife, each 69, and four children of 35, 34, 32,21 the third of man and wife, each 6o, and six children aged 40, 3o, 27, 24, 22 and 19. (There is some reason for this, in that this series consists of the most comfortably circumstanced families, and they are most comfortable because there are a many members contributing to the household expenses.) That set me wondering what the proportion of celibates of both seta over, say, 20 is to the whole population. A little research has produced the figures from the 193x census, the latest available. They show that in that year the unmarried over 20 numbered 479,620, and the married and widowed 789,316. In orbs words a good deal more than half the marriageable populanoa remained unmarried—which seems to suggest that we are suffering from a low marriage-rate at least as much as from low birth-rate within marriage.
* * * *
Previous page
