1866 10,571 2,300 21.76 35.2 1867 12,051 2,853 23.68 35.4 1868 13,568 3,075 22.66 35.8 1869 15,903 3,509 22.07 34.8 1870 18,369 4,173 22.72 35.2 1871 21,484 4,685 21.81 35.0 1872 26,510 6,156 23.22 35.6 1873 32,837 7,386 22.49 35.4 1874 40,740 9,603 23.57 36.0 1875 51,144 13,103 23.66 35.4 1876 64,421 15,473 24.02 36.3 1877 76,369 18,423 24.11 36.0 1878 84,471 20,409 24.16 35.5 1879 90,603 22,057 24.34 34.7 1880 91,986 22,740 24.72 34.2 1881 93,615 21,950 23.45 33.9 1882 96,006 21,860 22.77 33.8 1883 98,873 21,577 21.82 33.5 1884 104,339 21,375 20.51 33.6 1885 105,622 21,277 20.14 32.9 1886 109,074 21,856 20.04 32.8 1887 111,937 20,590 18.39 31.9 1888 115,803 20,244 17.48 31.2 1889 123,223 20,503 16.64 31.1 1890 131,057 20,402 15.57 30.2 1891 141,269 22,500 15.93 31.4 1892 153,595 23,471 15.28 30.5 1893 169,344 25,430 15.02 30.8 1894 184,629 27,000 14.08 29.6 1895 201,075 29,263 14.55 30.4 1896 206,673 30,313 14.67 In this remarkable table the percentage of births to total membership gradually rose from 21.76, in 1866, to 24.72, in 1880, and then gradually declined to 14.67 in 1896. This is a striking instance of the fact that the decrease in the total birth-rate is due more to a decrease in the fecundity of marriage, than to a decrease of the marriage-rate. Mr. Webb adds:--"The well-known actuary, Mr. R.P. Hardy, watching the statistics year by year, and knowing intimately all the circumstances of the organisation, attributes this startling reduction in the number of births of children to these specially prosperous and specially thrifty artisans entirely to their deliberate desire to limit the size of their families."