1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Migration

by Richmond Mayo-Smith, Thomas Allan Ingram and Hans Friedrich Gadow

MIGRATION. Under this title will be considered movements of men with intention of changing their residence or domicile. Such migration (Lat. migrare) may be either external—that is, from one country to another, including emigration from mother country to colony; or it may be internal—that is, within the limits of a single country. Under external migration are comprised emigration and immigration, denoting simply direction from and to. The emigrants are at the same time the immigrants; that is, the material of the movement is the same, but the effect upon the country giving up and the country receiving the migrant requires separate treatment. Hence it is proper to separate emigration from immigration. Temporary migration, or travel for purposes of business, enterprise or pleasure, will be considered only incidentally, and because in some cases it is difficult to distinguish between such movements and permanent migration.

Migration in general may be described as a natural function of social development. It has taken place at all times and in the greatest variety of circumstances. It has been tribal, national, class and individual. Its causes have been political, economic, religious, or mere love of adventure. Its causes and results are fundamental for the study of ethnology (formation and mixture of races), of political and social history (formation of states and survival of institutions), and of political economy (mobility of labour and utilization of productive forces). Under the form of conquest it makes the grand epochs in history (e.g. the fall of the Roman Empire); under the form of colonization it has transformed the world (e.g. the settlement of America); under free initiative it is the most powerful factor in social adjustment (e.g. the growth of urban population). It must suffice here to indicate the character of the principal movements in the past, and then describe certain aspects of modern migration. The early movements may be grouped as follows: (a) Prehistoric migrations. Among savage and nomadic nations the whole tribe often moves into new territory, either occupying it for the first time or exterminating or driving out the indigenous inhabitants. We have only vague knowledge of these early movements, laboriously gleaned from archaeology, anthropology and philology. The cause has been commonly said to be the pressure of population on the food-supply. A more probable explanation is the love of booty and the desire of the stronger to take possession of the lands of the weaker. (b) Greek and Roman colonization. Both of these ancient civilizations extended their influence through migration of individual families and the planting of colonies. The motive seems to have been primarily commercial—that is, the love of gain. It may have been partly a sort of “swarming” process, caused by pressure of population at home. In some cases it had a political motive, as the planting of military colonies or providing new homes for the proletariat. The consequences were of course momentous. (c) The German Conquest. Beginning about the 5th century, the Roman empire was overthrown by German tribes from the north of the river Danube and east of the river Rhine. This Völkerwanderung, as it is called by German historians, again transformed the face of Europe, resulting in the establishment of independent kingdoms and a great mixture of races and institutions. It was coincident with the building-out of the feudal system. The conquered in many cases could be left as serfs and tillers of the soil, while the conquerors seized the higher positions of administration and power. (d) The later middle ages saw many minor migratory movements, such as those accompanying the crusades, the pushing of German colonization among the Slavs, and the introduction of Flemish weavers into England. The religious reformation caused a considerable amount of expatriation, culminating in the expulsion of the Huguenots from France. (e) The period of discovery and colonization opened up a new era for migration. The first expeditions were for adventure and booty, especially the discovery of gold and silver. Then came the establishment of commercial posts or factories for the purposes of trade. Finally came colonization proper—that is, the settlement of new countries by Europeans intending to remain there permanently, but still retaining their connexion with the mother country. This meant the opening up of the world to commerce and the extension of European civilization to vast areas formerly peopled by savages or half-civilized peoples. It meant a great outlet for the spirit of enterprise and adventure, relief from over-population, an enormous increase in wealth and power, and a struggle for supremacy among the nations of Europe. Colonization and colonial policy excited immense attention in Europe; and this extended into the 19th century (e.g. E. G. Wakefield’s plans for colonization, and the various colonization societies of modern times). The colonial policy proper was broken down by the revolt of the North American colonies from Great Britain, and later of Mexico and Central and South America from Spain. (f) The movement of population, however, has continued under the form of emigration. This movement is characterized firstly by its magnitude; secondly, by the fact that the emigrant changes his political allegiance, for by far the greater part of modern emigration is to independent countries, and even where it is to colonies the colonies are largely self-governing and self-regarding; and thirdly, it is a movement of individuals seeking their own good, without state direction or aid. This is 20th-century emigration, differing from all preceding forms and having an importance of its own.

Statistics of Emigration.—The direction of the modern movement is from Europe to America, Australia and South Africa, as shown in the following table:

Emigration from Certain States of Europe, 1890–1905.^[1]

Year.	Italy.	France.	Belgium.	Holland.	Spain.[2]	Portugal.	Austria-  Hungary.	Switzer-  land.	Germany.
1890	115,595	20,560	2976	3526	37,025	28,945	74,002	6693	97,103
1891	189,746	6,217	3456	4075	37,721	33,234	81,407	6521	120,089
1892	116,642	5,528	5174	6290	30,190	20,772	74,947	6689	116,339
1893	142,269	5,586	3881	4820	38,707	30,093	65,554	5229	87,677
1894	114,566	—	1267	1146	34,102	26,656	25,536	2863	40,964
1895	187,908	—	1318	1314	36,220	44,420	63,552	3107	37,498
1896	197,554	—	1429	1387	45,317	27,625	66,547	2441	32,152
1897	174,545	—	760	792	39,366	21,369	35,634	1778	23,249
1898	139,188	—	928	851	38,546	23,280	53,947	1694	20,966
1899	145,440	—	600	1347	47,058	17,539	99,299	1701	22,114
1900	171,735	—	876	1899	55,452	20,794	117,372	2650	20,921
1901	288,947	—	1019	1874	48,892	20,439	136,557	2968	20,874
1902	295,443	—	1695	2301	44,401	23,880	185,449	3617	30,915
1903	292,033	—	2101	2963	—	21,291	222,218	4669	35,453
1904	267,249	—	2269	2440	—	27,925	144,038	3727	27,265
1905	479,349	—	2540	2297	—	—	—	3780	27,403

Year.	Sweden.	Norway.	Russia.[3]	Denmark.	Great Britain and Ireland.
					England  and Wales.	Scotland.	Ireland.	Total United  Kingdom.
1890	30,128	10,991	85,548	10,298	139,979	20,653	57,484	218,116
1891	38,318	13,341	109,415	10,382	137,881	22,190	58,446	218,507
1892	41,275	17,049	74,681	10,442	133,815	23,325	52,902	210,042
1893	37,504	18,778	40,545	9,150	134,045	22,637	52,132	208,814
1894	9,678	5,642	17,792	4,105	99,590	14,432	42,008	156,030
1805	15,104	6,207	36,725	3,607	112,538	18,294	54,349	185,181
1896	12,919	6,679	32,127	2,876	102,837	16,866	42,222	161,925
1897	8,926	4,669	18,107	2,260	94,658	16,124	35,678	146,460
1898	7,321	4,859	27,853	2,340	90,679	15,570	34,395	140,644
1899	12,028	6,699	63,101	2,799	87,400	16,072	42,890	146,362
1900	16,434	10,931	92,833	3,570	102,448	20,472	45,905	168,825
1901	20,464	12,745	87,431	4,657	111,585	20,920	39,210	171,715
1902	33,477	20,343	110,453	6,823	137,121	26,285	42,256	205,662
1903	35,975	26,784	140,211	8,214	177,581	36,801	45,568	259,950
1904	—	22,264	—	9,034	175,733	37,445	58,257	271,435
1905	—	21,059	—	8,051	170,408	41,510	50,159	262,077

Since 1820 over twenty million persons have emigrated from Europe to countries beyond the sea. The greater part of this emigration has been to the United States of North America. The history of emigration is well shown in the following table of emigration from Great Britain and Ireland. Down to 1853 the figures include all emigrants from British ports; after 1853 emigrants of British and Irish origin only.

Emigration from Great Britain and Ireland, 1815–1905.

All Emigrants.
	To British North America.	To United States.	To Australia.	To other Places.	Total.
1815–1820 ( 5 years)	70,438	50,359	—	2,731	123,528
1821–1830 (10  „ )	139,269	99,801	9,036	1,805	249,911
1831–1840 (10  „ )	322,485	308,247	67,882	4,536	703,150
1841–1850 (10  „ )	429,044	1,094,556	127,124	34,168	1,684,892
1851–1852 ( 2  „ )	75,478	511,618	109,413	8,221	704,730
1815–1852 (37 years)	1,036,714	2,064,581	313,455	51,461	3,466,211
	Emigrants of British and Irish Origin.
1853–1860 ( 8 years)	123,408	805,596	365,307	18,372	1,312,683
1861–1870 (10 years„)	130,310	1,132,626	267,358	41,535	1,571,829
1871–1880 (10 years„)	177,976	1,087,372	303,367	110,204	1,678,919
1881–1890 (10 years„)	301,922	1,713,953	372,744	169,916[4]	2,558,535
1891–1900 (10 years„)	176,336	1,090,685	119,018	258,942[5]	1,644,981
1901–1905 ( 5 years„)	181,504	290,679	27,120	85,607[6]	584,910
1853–1905 (53 years)	1,091,456	6,120,911	1,454,914	684,576	9,351,857

The general direction of emigration from Europe is shown in the following table:—

Emigration from various Countries of Europe.

Country.	Country of Destination.
	United  States.	British North America.	Brazil.	Argentine.	Australasia.	Africa.	All other.	Total.
Great Britain and Ireland, 1905	122,370	82,437	—	—	15,139	26,307	15,824	262,077
Norway, 1905	19,638	1,386	—	—	4	25	6	21,059
Sweden, 1903	35,439	329	—	—	51	118	38	35,975
Germany, 1905	26,005	243	333	674	84	57	7	27,403
Denmark, 1905	7,158	453	—	—	55	19	366	8,051
Holland, 1905	2,282		—	—	—	15	—	2,297
Belgium, 1905	2,162	—	—	—	2	101	275	2,540
France, 1905			No	information	available.
Portugal, 1904	4,351		21,449	—	—	1,954	—	27,925
Spain, 1902	Cannot be given.		1,120	8,767	—	20,460	—	44,401
Italy, 1905	316,797	5,930	30,079	88,840	765	13,072	3,866	479,349
Switzerland, 1905	4,349	—	53	471	—	—	—	5,049
Austria-Hungary, 1905	284,967	10,399	—	5,346	—	—	—	—

Statistics of Immigration—.The statistics of the United States are the most important and the most complete. The statistics since 1820 are shown in the following table:

Immigration into the United States, 1820–1905.

Decade ending 30th June.	Aggregate Arrivals.	Annual Average.
1830	143,439	14,343
1840	599,125	59,912
1850	1,713,251	171,325
1860	2,598,214	259,821
1870	2,314,824	231,482
1880	2,812,191	281,219
1890	5,246,613	524,661
1900	3,844,422	384,442
1901–1905	3,833,076	766,615
Total	23,116,501

Prior to 1820 there was no official record of immigration, but it is estimated that the total number of immigrants from the close of the Revolutionary War was 250,000. During the decade from 1820 to 1830 the movement was very moderate. From 1830 to 1840 it steadily increased, but never reached 100,000 per annum. In 1846 came the Irish potato famine, and an enormous emigration began, followed by a very large German emigration from similar causes. The Civil War of the United States interrupted the movement, but it was speedily resumed on an enlarged scale owing especially to the improved means of ocean transportation. It culminated in the decade 1880–1890, and declined after the commercial crisis of 1893. Later there was another increase.

The relative movement of nationalities is best presented by the statistics of the United States. The nationality (country of origin of immigrants coming to the United States, 1871–1895) is shown in the following table:

Nationality of Immigration to the United States.

	25 Years 1871–1895.	Per cent. of Total Immigration
Anglo-Saxons, Celts, and Welshmen—
England and Wales	1,334,817	12·9
Scotland	286,807	2·8
	————	——
Total.	1,621,624	15·7
Irish—Ireland	1,334,635	12·9
Teutons—
Austria	374,872	3·6
Germany	2,607,562	25·3
Netherlands	96,035	0·9
	————	——
Total	3,078,469	29·8
Latins—
Belgium	42,447	0·4
France	148,683	1·4
Italy	655,104	6·3
Spain	14,292	0·2
Portugal	17,108	0·2
	————	——
Total	877,634	8·5
Scandinavians—
Denmark	159,759	1·5
Norway	331,258	3·2
Sweden	660,193	604
	————	——
Total	1,151,210	11·1
Czechs, Magyars, Slavs—
Bohemia	77,247	0·7
Hungary	256,347	2·5
Poland	141,908	1·4
Rumania	10,377	0·1
Russia	500,797	4·8
	————	——
Total	986,676	9·5
Swiss—Switzerland	135,736	1·3
Greeks—Greece	7,325	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$0·1
Turks—Turkey	3,411
Europe, not specified	294
	————	——
Total Europe	9,197,014	88·9
North America	776,071	7·5
All other countries	366,454	3·6
	—————	——
Grand Total	10,339,539	100·0

A very important transformation has taken place in the proportionate number coming from different countries during the last half of the 19th century. At first the Irish and Germans were most prominent. Of later years, the Italians, Czechs, Hungarians and Russians were, as will be seen from the following table, numerously represented.

Nationality of Immigrants to the United States, 1901–1905.

	Number.	%
Austria-Hungary	944,239	25·0
Belgium	16,884	0·44
Bulgaria, Servia and Montenegro	6,637	0·17
Denmark	33,968	0·9
France	31,419	0·8
Germany	176,995	4·6
Greece	49,962	1·3
Holland	18,501	0·48
Italy	959,768	25·0
Norway	103,065	2·7
Portugal	30,532	0·8
Rumania	35,185	0·4
Russia	658,735	17·0
Spain	10,243	0·27
Sweden	154,607	4·0
Switzerland	17,820	0·46
Turkey	10,909	0·3
United Kingdom—
England	155,343	4·0
Ireland	184,096	4·8
Scotland	38,842	1·0
Wales	6,972	0·18
All other European countries	216	0·006
Total	3,645,018	95

The following table shows the relative number of different nationalities represented in the immigration to the United States:—

Country.	1861–70.	1871–80.	1881–90.	1891–1900.
Great Britain	24·5	16·4	12·5	7·5
Ireland	18·8	15·5	12·5	10·0
Germany	34·0	25·5	27·7	14·0
Austria-Hungary	0·3	2·6	6·7	16·0
Norway and Sweden	4·7	7·5	10·8	8·6
Russia and Poland	0·2	1·9	5·1	14·0
Italy	0·5	2·0	5·9	18·0

Sex and Age.—Of all the immigrants (1871–1895), 61·25% were males and 38·75% were females.

This percentage remains fairly constant, but the proportion differs somewhat among different nationalities. The following table shows the proportions for 1905:—

	Males.	Females.
Austria-Hungary	207,034	77,933
France	5,574	3,889
Germany	21,586	15,357
Holland	3,082	1,758
Italy	216,268	51,273
Russia	111,795	66,065
Sweden and Norway	29,907	18,105
United Kingdom—
England	29,993	18,160
Ireland	18,754	18,890
Scotland	9,264	5,022

The immigrants were in the most vigorous period of life, few children and few old people, as shown in the following table:—

Ages of Immigrants to the United States, 1881–1890.

Country of Origin.	Under 15.		From 15 to 40.		Over 40 years.
	Number.	Percent.	Number.	Percent.	Number.	Percent.
Germany	386,934	26·6	904,002	62·2	162,034	11·2
Ireland	92,308	14·1	515,089	78·6	48,085	7·3
England	151,315	23·5	420,303	65·2	73,062	11·3
Sweden and Norway	104,254	18·3	414,609	73·0	49,499	8·7
Italy	47,603	15·3	212,475	69·2	47,771	15·5
Russia (including Poland)	65,427	24·7	174,754	65·9	24,907	9·4
Austria	50,027	22·1	149,909	66·3	26,109	11·6
Scotland	36,192	24·2	97,819	65·2	15,858	10·6
Hungary	18,785	14·7	95,635	74·9	13,261	10·4

Occupation.—The immigrants are for the most part unskilled labourers. The statistics for the United States show the following figures for the years 1881–1890:—

Occupation of Immigrants to the United States.

	Males.	Females.	Total.
Professional	25,257	1,749	27,006
Skilled	514,552	25,859	540,411
Miscellaneous	1,833,325	245,810	2,079,135
Not stated	73,327	42,830	116,157
Without occupation	759,450	1,724,454	2,483,904
Total	3,205,911	2,040,702	5,246,613

Those “without occupation” are mostly women and children. The “miscellaneous” are day labourers. It is probable that about 20% of the adult males are “skilled.”

Immigration to Other Countries.—In no other country is immigration conducted on so important a scale as in the United States. The statistics are very imperfect. The main figures have already been given in the table of emigration. Australia has an annual immigration of about 250,000, mostly of British origin. This is offset by a very heavy emigration, which sometimes exceeds the immigration in certain of the states. The immigration to Canada for the year 1905 was put down as 146,266, but a portion of this consisted of immigrants passing through to the United States. Brazil has had a large immigration (in 1895 equal to 169,524, but in 1904 only 12,447). The Argentine is credited with an immigration in 1905 of 177,117, and Uruguay with an immigration in 1903 of 6247. In all the South American immigration the countries principally represented are those of southern Europe, especially Italy. The majority of the immigrants are adult males and farm labourers.

Balance of Emigration and Immigration.—Even in the case of emigration from Europe to countries beyond the seas there is some return movement. Emigrants who have been successful in business return in order to end their days in the old country. Those who have not succeeded return in order to be cared for by friends and relatives, or simply from home-sickness. Thus, for Great Britain and Ireland, while the emigration of persons of British and Irish origin was, in 1905, 262,077, the immigration of persons of the same category was 122,712, leaving a net emigration of only 139,365. In the United States’ statistics we cannot distinguish in the outgoing passenger movement emigrants from other persons. But if for a period of years we take the total inward passenger movement and subtract from it the total outward passenger movement, we ought to have the net immigration. By this method we arrive at the conclusion that while the gross immigration during the five years 1901–1905 was 3,833,076, the net immigration was only 1,779,976, showing an outward movement of 273,134, or about 7·12% of the total number of immigrants.

Temporary Emigration.—In many European countries there is not only emigration beyond seas, but a very considerable movement to neighbouring countries in search of work, and generally with the intention of returning. Thus in Italy, the “permanent” emigration (i.e. to countries beyond seas) numbered, in 1905, 447,083; the “temporary” emigration to European or Mediterranean countries amounted to 279,248. This temporary emigration is strongest in the spring, and consists principally of adult males (agriculturists, farm and day labourers, bricklayers and masons) in search of work. It resembles somewhat the movement of Irish labourers into Great Britain at harvest time. It is notorious that the Italians who emigrate to the United States largely return.

Effects of Emigration.—There are two views with regard to emigration: one unfavourable, viz., that it is a drain on population, reducing its economic strength and disturbing social and political relations; the second looking upon it as a relief from over-population and a congested labour market. As a matter of fact, emigration has not succeeded in diminishing the population of Europe, which, on the contrary, doubled during the 19th century. The one great exception is Ireland, where population declined from 8,175,124 in 1841 to 4,458,745 in 1901. From 1851 to 1901 the total emigration from Ireland was 3,881,246 or 72·5% of the average population. Emigration, by carrying off the young men and women, also reduced the Irish marriage and birth-rates, which were almost the lowest in Europe. But hitherto the countries of strongest emigration (England, Germany, &c.) have shown practically undiminished birth and marriage-rates and a steady growth in population.

The intensity of emigration is measured not by the absolute number of emigrants, but by the number of emigrants to the total population. Its, effect is shown by comparing the number of emigrants with the excess of births over deaths per 1000 of the

population. This is shown in the following table (1905):—

	Excess of births over deaths per 1000 Inhabitants.	Emigrants per 1000 Inhabitants.
Great Britain and Ireland	11·4	6·06
England and Wales	12·0	4·96
Scotland	12·2	8·45
Ireland	6·3	11·42
Germany	13·2	·45
Switzerland	9·5	1·45
Sweden (1903)	10·6	6·89
Norway	12·6	9·11
Denmark	13·5	3·12
Italy	10·6	14·33
Austria-Hungary	12·2	6·29

It will be observed that, with the exception of Ireland and Italy, wherever there is a heavy emigration there is usually a considerable excess of births over deaths, i.e. natural increase more than makes up for the loss by emigration. Even taking Great-Britain and Ireland together, the loss by emigration per annum has not been very large, as is shown by the following table:—

Annual Emigration per 1000 of the Average Population of Great Britain and Ireland.
1853–1855 . . .	8·4	1881–1890 . . .	7·1
1856–1860 . . .	4·3	1891–1895 . . .	5·1
1861–1870 . . .	5·2	1896–1900 . . .	3·7
1871–1880 . . .	5·1	1901–1905 . . .	5·5

Even in particular districts where emigration is heavy the loss is made up by births. For instance, in 1891 the emigration from the provinces of West Prussia and Posen was extraordinarily heavy—10·9 and 10·4 per mille respectively—but the excess of births over deaths was 19·6 per mille. Emigration may give temporary relief to congested districts, but it is not in itself a remedy for so-called over-population.

It is difficult to analyse closely the economic effect of emigration, because so much depends upon the character of the emigrants and the condition of the labour market. The following considerations have been urged at different times: Although emigration does not diminish population, yet, as the emigrants are in the most productive period of life (15 to 45), the country of emigration loses adults and replaces them with children. It thereby loses the cost of rearing that number of people to adult age, and is left with a disproportionate number of children and old people. The age distribution of the population of Ireland lends some support to this view. In the same vein it is urged that voluntary emigration takes away the cream of the working-classes. It is the man of energy, of some means, of ambition, who takes the chances of success in the new country, leaving the poor, the indolent, the weak and crippled at home. It is maintained that such emigration institutes a process of selection which is unfavourable to the home country.

On the other side, it is said that the men who are doing well at home are the ones least likely to emigrate, because they have least to gain. Modern means of transportation have made the voyage so cheap that almost any one is able to go. It is therefore the restless, the unsuccessful, or at least those not fitted for the strenuous competition of the older countries, who are tempted to go. Emigration affords a natural outlet for the superfluous labour force of a country. The supply of labour is somewhat reduced, but wages are kept up for those who remain. Those who go find means of bettering their own condition beyond the seas, where they become producers of food and raw material for the home country, and at the same time customers for her manufactured products. Emigration is therefore an economic gain, both directly and indirectly. It is evident from these arguments that no general answer can be given to the question. In some cases it may be an evil; in most, when conducted under normal conditions, it would seem to offer little danger.

The same remark would hold true in regard to the social and political effects of emigration. In some cases, by taking away the strong, self-reliant and energetic, it may result In the deterioration of the home population. In other cases it allows restless spirits who have failed at home to try again elsewhere. Often in cases of political revolution the members of the defeated party have sought refuge elsewhere, as after the revolutionary movements of 1848. In case of conquest the conquered nationality takes to emigration on an extensive scale, as after the absorption of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany in 1871. The movement may be aided either by the state or by private associations. Of such character have been the state-aided emigration from Ireland, and the assisted emigration of paupers, criminals and other persons in the effort to relieve a congested population, or simply from the desire to get rid of undesirable members of the community. Such efforts fail if the new countries are unwilling to admit these persons. Finally, we have the expulsion of the Jews from Russia as an example of the effort of a community to get rid of an element which has made itself obnoxious to the local sentiment.

Effects of Immigration.—The effects of emigration are negative in character; those of immigration are positive. (a) On population: immigration, of course, is a direct addition to the population of new countries, and greatly accelerates the growth by natural increase, especially as the immigrants are in the most productive ages of manhood and womanhood In the United States, for instance, out of a population of 76,303,387 (in 1800), there were 26,147,407 persons who were either foreign-born or who had one or both parents foreign-born. This does not mean that the population would have been twenty-six millions less if it had not been for immigration; for the rate of natural increase among the native-born might have maintained itself. Nevertheless, immigration has probably stimulated the growth of population. (b) Economic effects: The economic gain of immigration to new countries is evident. It adds directly to their available labour force, that is, to the number of adults engaged in the work of producing wealth.

According to the United States census of 1900, out of 29,073,233 (1900) persons engaged in gainful occupations, 5,851,399 or 20·1%, were of foreign birth. If we add to these the native whites of foreign parentage (5,300,924) we have 11,152,323 persons of foreign extraction or 39·4% of the total labour force. The foreign whites alone constituted 10·4% of the total number of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits; 11·4% of those in professional services; 25·7% in domestic and personal services; 19·2% in trade and transportation; and 30·6% of those engaged in manufacturing and mechanical industries. In addition to these, the native whites of foreign parentage constituted, in agriculture, &c., 10·6%; in professional service, 20·6%; in domestic and personal service, 16·4%; in trade and transportation, 25·7% in manufacturing and mechanical, 25·4% of all those engaged in those occupations. The labour force of the United States is thus made up very largely of immigrants and the children of immigrants.

Attempts have sometimes been made to put a money value on the economic gain by immigration. The amount of money brought by the immigrants is not large, and is probably more than offset by the money sent back by immigrants for the sup ort of families and friends at home or to aid them in following. Tffe valuable element is the able-bodied immigrant himself as a factor of production. It is said, for instance, that an adult slave used to be valued at from $800 to $1000, so that every adult immigrant may be looked upon as worth that sum to the country. Or, it has been said that an adult immigrant represents what it would cost to bring up a child from infancy to the age, say, of 15. This has been estimated by Ernst Engel as amounting to $550 for a German child. The most scientific procedure, however, is to calculate the probable earnings of the Immigrant during the rest of his lifetime, and deduct therefrom his expenses of living. The remainder represents his net earnings which he will contribute to the well-being of the new country. W. Farr reckoned this to be, in the case of unskilled English emigrants, about £175. Multiplying the total number of adult immigrants by any one of these figures, we get the annual value of immigration. Such attempts to put a precise money value on immigration are futile. They neglect the question of quality and of opportunity. The immigrant is worth what it has cost to bring him up only if he is able-bodied, honest and willing to work. If he is diseased, crippled, dishonest or indolent, he may be a direct loss to the community instead of a gain. So, too, the immigrant is worth his future net ieagnings to the community only if there is a demand for his labour.

Social and Political Ejects of Immigration.—The influx of millions of persons of different nationality, often of a foreign language and generally of the lower classes, would seem to be a danger to the homogeneity of a community. The United States, for instance, has felt some inconvenience from the constant addition of foreigners to its electorate and its population. The foreign-born are more numerously represented among the criminal, defective and dependent classes than their numerical strength would justify. They also tend to segregate more or less, especially in large cities. Nevertheless, the process of assimilation goes on with great rapidity. Intermarriage with the native-born occurs to a considerable extent. The influence of the physical environment leads to the adoption of the same mode of life. The most powerful influences, however, seem to be social. These are common school education and the adoption of one language (English); participation in political life, which is granted to all adult males after five years’ residence; and the general influence of social standards embodied in laws, institutions and customs already established. Doubtless immigration in the last fifty years of the 19th century had a modifying effect on American life; but on the whole the power of a modern civilized community working through individual freedom to assimilate elements not differing from it too radically has been displayed to a remarkable degree.

Restriction of Immigration.—New countries have sought to escape certain evils of indiscriminate immigration. These evils were as follows: (a) The immigration of criminals, paupers, persons diseased in mind or body, and persons unable to support themselves. By the Acts of 1882 and 1893 such persons were refused admission to the United States, and, when rejected, the steamship companies that brought them were compelled to take them back. The number debarred from 1896 to 1905 is shown in the following table:—

Causes.	1896	1897	1898	1899	1900	1901	1902	1903	1904	1905
Insane	10	6	12	19	32	16	27	23	33	92
Paupers	2010	1277	2261	2599	2974	2798	3944	5812	4798	7898
Diseased	2	1	258	348	393	309	709	1773	1560	2198
Assisted	—	3	79	82	2	50	—	9	38	19
Convicts	—	1	2	8	4	7	9	51	35	39
Prostitutes	—	—	—	—	7	3	3	13	9	24
Contract Labourers	776	328	417	741	833	327	275	1086	1501	1164
All other	1	1	1	1	1	6	7	2	20	445
Total debarred	2799	1617	3030	3798	4246	3516	4974	8769	7994	11,879

No law of international comity is violated by the refusal to receive these unfortunates. They should be taken care of at home. The English legislature in 1905 passed an act to prevent the landing of undesirable aliens, and the number refused admission in 1906 was 493. (b) Immigration sometimes increases the competition in the labour market, and thus lowers wages. One case is particularly aggravating, viz. when employers import foreign labourers in order to take the place of their men who are on strike. In 1885 the United States passed what is called the Contract Labor Law, forbidding the landing of any person who is under contract to perform labour in the United States. It is very difficult to discover such cases, but the number rejected is fairly large (see table above). (c) The immigration of men of alien race who refuse to assimilate with the natives is said sometimes to be a danger to the country. This at least is the excuse for the entire exclusion of Chinese labourers from the United States since 1882 (provisions made more severe in 1888 and 1892) (see also the article Coolie).

Internal Migration.—In modern times there is constant movement of population within national lines, from section to section, and especially from rural districts to the cities. No record is kept of this, and we can trace it only through the census statistics of birthplace. In the United States, for instance, it was shown in 1890 that more than 21·5 per cent. of the native-born inhabitants were living in a state other than that in which they were born. Still further, it appears that about one-half of the native-born inhabitants had moved out of the county in which they were born. In 1890 there were 1,233,629 natives of the state of New York living in other states. The movement is principally westwards in direction and along parallels of latitude. For instance, New York has made large contributions to the population of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and so on. Virginia has contributed largely to the population of West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. In Europe there is a similar movement; but it is difficult to make comparisons, because of the differences in the administrative areas. In England in 1891, 71·6% of the population were residing in their native county; in Prussia, 69·7% in the kreis; in France, 81·7% in the department; in Austria, 80·2% in the bezirk; in Switzerland, 82·1 % in the canton where they were born (Weber, Growth of Cities, p. 249). The most important phase of internal migration is the movement from the rural districts to the cities. The statistical results are shown in the following table extracted from the admirable work of Weber, just quoted:—

Percentage of Population living in Towns of 10,000 and over at Three Periods.

	About 1800 or 1801.	About 1850 or 1851.	About 1890 or 1891.
England and Wales	21·3	39·5	61·7
Scotland	17·0	32·2	50·0
Australia (7 colonies)	—	—	41·4
Belgium	13·5	20·8	34·8
Netherlands	29·5	29·0	31·3
Prussia (1816)	7·3	10·6	30·0
United States	3·8	12·0	27·6
France	9·5	14·4	25·9
Denmark	10·9	9·6	23·6
Italy	—	—	20·6
Ireland	7·8	10·1	18·0
Norway	3·3	5·3	16·7
Switzerland (1822)	4·3	7·3	16·5
Austria	4·4	5·8	15·8
Hungary	5·4	9·1	16·1
Sweden	3·9	4·7	13·7
Portugal	12·7	2·9	12·7
Russia	3·7	5·3	9·3

Everywhere the city population is increasing faster than the rural. In the United States the rate of increase per decade was as follows:—

Year.	United States.	In Towns of  8000 and over.	Rural Districts.
	%	%	%
1790–1800	35·1	60	34
1800–1810	36·4	69	35
1810–1820	33·0	33	33
1820–1830	33·6	82	31
1830–1840	32·7	68	30
1840–1850	35·9	99	30
1850–1860	35·6	75	30
1860–1870	22·6	59	15
1870–1880	30·1	40	27
1880–1890	24·9	61	15
1890–1900	20·8	37	14

In England and Wales the rural population increased in the aggregate during the first half of the 19th century, but at a gradually diminishing rate; in the second half of the century the population declined with varying regularity, until the decennium 1891–1900, when there was an increase. But notwithstanding this aggregate increase there are many rural districts which still show a steadily declining population. The urban population is increasing, as shown in the following table:—

Decennial Rate of Increase or Decrease.

Year.	Urban.	Rural.
	%	%
1851–1861	+21·9	+1·88
1861–1871	+28·1	−5·86
1871–1881	+25·6	−3·84
1881–1891	+18·5	−2·76
1891–1900	+15·22	+2·94

Somewhat the same phenomenon is seen in France. According to the census of 1891 not less than 55 out of the 87 departments had decreased in population; and out of the 32 that had increased, 7 showed a decrease in their rural parts when the large towns were deducted. In Germany the towns of 10,000 and over show a much more rapid increase than the rural districts; and the same fact is generally true of the other countries of Europe. This more rapid increase of population in cities is due only in part to migration from the country. Until the 19th century deaths generally exceeded births in cities, so that if it had not been for constant immigration the cities would not only not have grown, but would have decreased in population. Cities grow more rapidly now than formerly, because the excess of deaths over births has been turned into an excess of births over deaths. Thereby the cities are becoming less dependent upon immigration for increase of population than formerly, but the migration still goes on. The causes of migration from country to city are mainly economic. In early stages of culture men are scattered over the country, or at most gathered together in hamlets and villages. Each of these is self-sufficing, having its own artisans and handicraftsmen, and producing what it needs. With the beginning of exchange commercial centres spring up, situated on navigable streams and especially at points where land and water journeys are broken. With the growth of manufactures, industrial centres spring up where the division of labour can be fully provided for. In modern times two factors have accelerated this process, viz.: (1) the building of railways, which have developed commerce to a very great degree and favoured the large towns at the expense of the small; and (2) the invention of machinery, which has greatly increased the possibility of division of labour and manufactures on a large scale. The old handicraftsman has been superseded by machine labour and the village artisan by the factory hand. At the same time improvements in agriculture and the opening up of new countries have enabled the modern community to gain its food and raw material with a less expenditure of labour force, and the surplus agricultural population has gone to the city. The attractive influences upon individuals have been higher wages, greater scope for the ambitious, and the social advantages of city life.

The general laws of internal migration may be summarized (according to Ravenstein) as follows:—

1. The great body of migrants proceed only a short distance.

2. The process of absorption goes on as follows: The inhabitants of the country immediately surrounding a town of rapid growth flock into it; the gaps thus left in the rural population are filled up by migrants from more remote districts, until the attractive force of one of the rapidly-growing cities makes its influence felt, step by step, to the most remote corner of the land. Migrants enumerated in a certain centre of absorption will consequently grow less with the distance, proportionately to the native population which furnishes them.

3. The process of dispersion is the inverse of that of absorption, and exhibits similar features.

4. Each main current of migration produces a compensating countercurrent.

5. Migrants proceeding long distances generally go by preference to one of the great cities of commerce or industry.

6. The natives of towns are less migratory than those of the rural parts of the country.

7. Females are more migratory than males.

Authorities.—The statistics of migration are to be found in the official returns of different countries, especially the statistical tables relating to emigration and immigration published by the British Board of Trade, and the Reports (annual) of the Commissioner-General of Immigration of the United States. For general discussion see Philippovich, Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik (Leipzig, 1892). An exhaustive bibliography will be found in an article by same author, “Auswanderung,” in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften; R. Mayo-Smith, Emigration and Immigration, with bibliography (New York, 1890). For internal migration see A. F. Weber, Growth of Cities (New York, 1899). See also Ravenstein, “The Laws of Migration,” in Journal of Royal Statistical Society (1885 and 1889). Professor Flinders Petrie, in his Huxley Lecture for 1906 on Migrations (reprinted by the Anthropological Institute), deals with the mutations and movements of races from an anthropological standpoint with profound knowledge and originality.  (R. M.-S.; T. A. I.) 

Migration, in Zoology. In zoology considerable importance attaches to the problems of migration, by which is meant the wandering of living creatures into another, usually distant, locality in order to breed there; this implies a return, and the double phenomenon is annual. All other changes of the abode are either sporadic, epidemic, or fluctuating within lesser limits. Further, migration should not be confounded with “spreading,” which proceeds steadily, and in epicycles, with a totally different result. It need not be emphasized that hard and fast lines between these phenomena do not exist; they are often a question of degree. For instance, when the common toad, which is a strictly terrestrial creature, wanders every spring to a frequently distant pool in order to spawn there, this is a true migration. The same applies, strictly speaking, to those insects which hibernate in the ground, at the root of the tree on which they feed and breed. The grey plover breeds in the arctic circle and winters in equatorial countries. To complicate matters further, it is not necessary that the migration be undertaken periodically, more than once, by the same individual. For instance, the common eel ascends the rivers as an elver in its youth; years after it returns to the sea, there to breed and to die, whilst other fishes come and go, year after year. Further, some of the larger birds, for instance swans and cranes, are still immature in their second year, and yet they migrate like their older relations. It seems permissible to use this fact as an indication that the breeding as such is not the prime reason of their wanderings. The fundamental impelling agent must have been the want of food, and what we usually understand by migration cannot suddenly have sprung into existence to its full extent, but is more likely the cumulative effect of the doings of countless generations. The faculty of shifting the abode was of course always there, the necessity of moving further on was also present, and those which went in the wrong direction came to grief, while the others flourished and returned with their progeny. They did not at first cover enormous distances, but just enough to find unoccupied ground. The annual repetition became an established habit, at last an ineradicable instinct. There can be but little doubt that the prime impulse was want of food. The new growing grass on the prairie or on the veldt attracts every year those creatures which live upon pasture. The inter-tropical belt of the world is so crowded with creatures that there is the keenest competition, whilst in the temperate and cold regions is a long winter quiescence unfit for the support of many creatures, whereas in the summer these same regions are covered with new vegetation, with its concomitant abundance of insects and other invertebrates. The tables are decked again, and these opportunities are not wasted.

The process of migration, in its most striking cases, is now very complicated. Many a bird goes actually to the arctic regions for the shortest of summers, but spends most of the year within the tropics. On the other hand there are many species which do not go so far north, but stop to breed in the intermediate regions. We must not take the extremes when trying to unravel the development of the problem. The periodical migrations of mammals, with their more limited extent and greater leisure, are less perplexing. It has been argued with some show of reason that the real home of a bird is that country in which it was born, in other words where the species breeds, but this is not in every case a valid conclusion. It applies to most creatures, but it can well bear exceptions if we leave sentiment aside. When it comes to a question of domicile, the ten weeks’ sojourn of the swift, Cypselus, in England are more than weighted down by the nine months or more which these birds spend in southern countries, although we do not know whether they are resident there or roam about. The breeding time is the busiest period of a bird’s life; then the numbers of each species are suddenly multiplied, and so is the stress of providing food, and the particular food which is best for the young may not be available in every country. The idea that the arctic circle is the original home of the numerous kinds of birds which breed in it, whence they are now periodically driven away by stress, has been coupled with the glacial epoch, that supposed solution of so many difficulties. We have only to assume that the old, permanent home of these migrants was in the arctic region, that the progressing glaciation drove them away, of course towards the equator, and that, when times improved again, the birds returned to their old home. This sounds very plausible, but it involves huge assumptions. The birds, not the individuals, but the species, are supposed to have inherited such a loving reminiscence of their old home, that after thousands of years—with most of the small birds meaning as many generations—they returned at the first opportunity. It implies that their long continued sojourn in foreign lands, where—under this assumption—thousands of generations must have been bred and have spent all their lives, was not sufficient to naturalize them, so to speak, in other words to supplant the instinctive love of the primary ancient home. That the last glacial epoch has driven the limit of many kinds of animals and plants farther south is as certain as that many have recovered the lost ground after the reversion of the glaciation, but it must have been a very slow and steady process of spreading. It may, and probably does, account for the present annual visitations of arctic lands, as a phenomenon which has been evolved de novo, which would have come to pass even if no birds had existed in pre-glacial times.

How do birds manage to find their way, thousands and thousands of miles across land and water? This question has been extolled as a mystery of mysteries. It has been stated that the old birds show the way to the young, a speculation which does not apply to those many cases in which old and young notoriously travel at different times. It has been assumed that they travel by sight, taking advantage of certain landmarks; another untenable idea, since—experience having to be excluded in a flock of birds which made the journey for the first time—it implies that the young must have inherited the reminiscence of those landmarks! Others have likened the bird to a kind of compass, because in eastern Siberia E. von Middendorff found some migration routes to coincide with the direction of the magnetic pole. The whole question reduces itself to a sense of direction, a faculty which is possessed by nearly all animals; in some it is present to an astonishing extent; but the manifestations of this sense vary only in degree. The cat which escapes out of the bag finds its way back, directly or after many adventures. The bee, after having loaded itself with pollen, returns by the proverbial line to the hive which may be a mile away, but, move the small entrance hole in the meantime an inch to the right or left, and the bee will knock its head against the hive and blunder about; move the hive a few yards and bee after bee returning will be puzzled to find its hive again. They, maybe with the help of landmarks, have accustomed themselves to steer a course. Such instances need not be multiplied. The principle is the same whether the journey be one of a few yards or of many miles. Given the sense of direction, it is no more difficult to steer a course due north than it is to lay one south-east by east, provided always the impetus to be on the move. There is no mystery, except that we, the most intellectual of mankind, should so well nigh have lost this sense, and even this fact is simply an instance of the loss of a faculty through long-continued disuse.

Birds.—(The following account is to a great extent based upon A. Newton’s article “Birds” in Ency. Brit., 9th ed.)

In almost all countries there are some species which arrive in spring, remain to breed, and depart in autumn; others which arrive in autumn, stop for the winter and depart in spring; and others again—and these are strictly the “birds of passage”—which show themselves but twice a year, passing through the country without staying long in it, and their transient visits take place about spring and autumn. These three apparently different categories of migrants are all acted upon by the same impulse in spite of the at first sight dissimilar nature of their movements. The species which resort to Britain and to other temperate countries in winter are simply those which have their breeding quarters much nearer the poles, and in returning to them on the approach of spring are but doing exactly as do those species which, having their winter abode nearer the equator, come to us with the spring. The birds-of-passage proper, like our winter visitants, have their breeding quarters nearer the pole, but like our summer visitants, they seek their winter abode nearer the equator, and thus perform a somewhat larger migration. As H. Seebohm puts it (Geograph. Distrib. of the family Charadriidae, London):—

“They all represent birds which breed in the north and winter in the south. Every migratory bird wintering in England goes north to breed, and every migratory bird breeding in England goes south to winter. It is a rule without exception in the northern hemisphere that each bird breeds in the extreme north point of its migrations. To make the rule apply to the southern hemisphere as well it must be modified as follows: each bird breeds in the coldest climate which it visits on its migrations. . . . It is a remarkable fact that whilst there are many birds breeding in the northern hemisphere and wintering in the southern, it is not known that any land-bird breeds in. the southern and habitually winters in the northern! This is probably owing to the difference in the distribution of the land, there being no antarctic breeding grounds. . . . Birds breeding in the tropics are always resident, except when they breed on mountains, where the climate causes them to descend into the valleys for the winter.”

In many countries we find that while there are some species, such as in England the swallow or the fieldfare, of which every individual disappears at one period of the year or another, there are other species, such as the pied-wagtail or the woodcock, of which only the majority of individuals vanish—a few being always present—and these species form the so-called “partial migrants.” In England the song-thrushes receive in the autumn a considerable accession in numbers from the birds which arrive from the north, though the migration is by no means so well marked as it is on the continent, where the arrival of the strangers sets all the fowlers at work. In most localities in Britain the newcomers depart after a short sojourn, and are accompanied by so many of the homebred birds that in some parts of the island it may be safely declared that not a single song-thrush can be found from the end of November to the end of January, while in others examples can always be seen. Much the same may be said of the redbreast. Undeniably resident as a species, attentive scrutiny will reveal the fact that its numbers are subject to very considerable variation, according to the season of the year. At no time do our redbreasts collect in bands, but towards the end of summer they may be seen in the south of England successively passing onward, the travellers being mostly—if not wholly—young birds of the year; and so the great majority disappear, departing it may be safely presumed for more southern countries, since a few weeks later the markets of most towns, first in France and then in Italy, are well supplied with this species. But the migratory influence affects, though in a less degree, many if not most of the redbreasts that remain with us. Every bird of the northern hemisphere is to a greater or less degree migratory in some part or other of its range.

Want of food, and perhaps of the special, proper kind during the breeding season, seems to be the most obvious cause of migration, and none can wonder that those animals which possess the power of removing themselves from a place of scarcity should avail themselves of it, while it is unquestionable that birds possess this faculty in the greatest degree. Even among those species which we commonly speak of as sedentary it is only the adults which maintain their ground throughout the year. It has long been known that birds-of-prey customarily drive away their offspring from their own haunts so soon as the young are able to shift for themselves. The reason generally, and no doubt truly, given for this behaviour, which at first sight appears so unnatural, is the impossibility of both parents and progeny getting a livelihood in the same vicinity. The practice, however, is not limited to the birds-of-prey alone, but is much more universal. We find it to obtain with the redbreast, and if we watch our feathered neighbours closely we shall perceive that most of them indulge in it. The period of expulsion, it is true, is in some birds deferred from the end of summer or the autumn, in which it is usually performed, until the following spring, when indeed from the maturity of the young it must be regarded as much in the light of a voluntary secession on their part as in that of an act of parental compulsion, but the effect is ultimately the same.

The mode in which the want of sustenance produces migration may best be illustrated by confining ourselves to the unquestionably migrant birds of our own northern hemisphere. As food grows scarce towards the end of summer in the most northern limits of the range of a species, the individuals affected thereby seek it elsewhere. Thus doing, they press upon the haunt of other individuals: these in like manner upon that of yet others, and so on, until the movement which began in the far north is communicated to the individuals occupying the extreme southern range of the species at that season; though, but for such an intrusion, these last might be content to stay some time longer in the enjoyment of their existing quarters.

This seems satisfactorily to explain the southward movement of all migrating birds in the northern hemisphere; but when we consider the return movement which takes place some six months later, doubt may be entertained whether scarcity of food can be assigned as its sole or sufficient cause, and perhaps it would be safest not to come to any decision on this point. On one side it may be urged that the more equatorial regions which in winter are crowded with emigrants from the north, though well fitted for the resort of so great a population at that season are deficient in certain necessaries for the nursery. Nor does it seem too violent an assumption to suppose that even if such necessaries are not absolutely wanting, yet that the regions in question would not supply sufficient food for both parents and offspring—the latter being at the lowest computation twice as numerous as the former—unless the numbers of both were diminished by the casualties of travel.^[7] But on the other hand we must remember what has above been advanced in regard to the pertinacity with which birds return to their accustomed breeding-places, and the force of this passionate fondness for the old home cannot but be taken into account, even if we do not allow that in it lies the whole stimulus to undertake the perilous voyage.

A. R. Wallace in some remarks on the subject (Nature, x. 459) ingeniously suggests the manner in which the habit of migration has come to be adopted^[8]:—

“It appears to me probable that here, as in so many other cases, ‘survival of the fittest’ will be found to have had a powerful influence. Let us suppose that in any species of migratory bird, breeding can as a rule be only safely accomplished in a given area; and further, that during a great part of the rest of the year sufficient food cannot be obtained in that area. It will follow that those birds which do not leave the breeding area at the proper season will suffer, and ultimately become extinct; which will also be the fate of those which do not leave the feeding area at the proper time. Now, if we suppose that the two areas were (for some remote ancestor of the existing species) coincident, but by geological and climatic changes gradually diverged from each other, we can easily understand how the habit of incipient and partial migration at the proper seasons would at last become hereditary, and so fixed as to be what we term an instinct. It will probably be found that every gradation still exists in various parts of the world, from a complete coincidence to a complete separation of the breeding and the subsistence areas; and when the natural history of a sufficient number of species is thoroughly worked out we may find every link between species which never leave a restricted area in which they breed and live the whole year round, to those other cases in which the two areas are absolutely separated.”

A few more particulars respecting migration are all that can here be given, and it is doubtful whether much can be built upon them. It has been ascertained by repeated observation that in the spring-movement of most species of the northern hemisphere the cock-birds are always in the van of the advancing army, and that they appear some days, or perhaps weeks, before the hens. It is not difficult to imagine that, in the course of a journey prolonged throughout some 50° or 60° of latitude, the stronger individuals should outstrip the weaker by a very perceptible distance, and it can hardly be doubted that in most species the males are stronger, as they are bigger than the females. Some observers assert that the same thing takes place in the return journey in autumn—Seebohm, for instance, says that, from Europe, first go the young, then the males, having finished their moult of autumn, and lastly the females—but on this point others are not so sure, which is not surprising when we consider that the majority of observations have been made towards what is the northern limit of the range of the Passeres, to which the remark is especially applicable—in the British islands, France, North Germany and the Russian empire—for it is plain that at the beginning of the journey any inequality in the speed of travelling will not have become so very manifest. There is also another matter to be noticed. It has been suspected that where there is any difference in the size of birds of the same species, particularly in the dimensions of their wings, the individuals that perform the most extensive journeys would be naturally those with the longest and broadest remiges, and in support of this view it certainly appears that in some of the smaller migrants—such as the Wheatear (Saxicola oenanthe) and willow-wren (Phylloscopus trochilus)—the examples which reach the extreme north of Europe and there pass the summer possess greater mechanical powers of flight than those of the same species which stop short on the shores of the Mediterranean. It may perhaps be also inferred, though precise evidence is wanting, that these same individuals push further to the southward in winter than do those which are less favoured in this respect. It is pretty nearly certain that such is the case with some species, and it may well be so with individuals. H. B. Tristram has remarked (Ibis, 1865, p. 77) that, in many genera of birds, “those species which have the most extended northerly have also the most extended southerly range; and that those which resort to the highest latitudes for nidification also pass further than others to the southward in winter,” fortifying his opinion by examples adduced from the genera Turdus, Fringilla, Cypselus and Turtur.

For many years past a large number of persons in different countries have occupied and amused themselves by carefully registering the dates on which various migratory birds first make their appearance, and there is now an abundance of records so compiled. Still it does not seem that they have been able to determine what connexion, if any, exists between the arrival of birds and the weather; in most cases no corresponding observations have been made about the weather in the places whence the travellers are supposed to have come. As a rule it would seem as though birds were not dependent on the weather to any great degree. Occasionally the return of the swallow or the nightingale may be somewhat delayed, but most sea-fowls may be trusted, it is said, as the almanac itself. Foul weather or fair, heat or cold, the puffins (Fratercula arctica) repair to some of their stations punctually on a given day as if their movements were regulated by clockwork. Whether they have come from far or from near we know not, but other birds certainly come from a great distance, and yet make their appearance with scarcely less exactness. Nor is the regularity with which certain species disappear much inferior; every observer knows how abundant the swift (Cypselus apus) is up to the time of its leaving its summer-home—in most parts of England, the first days of August—and how rarely it is seen after that time is past.

It must be allowed, however, that, with few exceptions, the mass of statistics above spoken of has never been worked up and digested so as to allow proper inferences to be made from it, and therefore it would be premature to say that little would come of it, but the result of those exceptions is not very encouraging. E. von Middendorff carefully collated the records of the arrival of migratory birds throughout the Russian Empire, but the insight into the question afforded by his published labours is not very great. His chief object has been to trace what he has termed the isepipteses (ἶσος = aequalis, ἐπἰπτσις = advolatus) or the lines of simultaneous arrival, and in the case of seven species these are laid down on the maps which accompany his treatise. The lines are found by taking the average date of arrival of each species at each place in the Russian dominions where observations have been regularly made, and connecting those places where the dates are the same for each species by lines on the map. The curves thus drawn indicate the inequality of progress made by the species in different longitudes, and assuming that the advance is directly across the isepiptesial lines, or rather the belts defined by each pair of them, the whole course of the migration is thus most accurately made known. In the case of his seven sample species the maps show their progressive advance at intervals of a few days, and the issue of the whole investigation, according to him, proves that in the middle of Siberia the general direction of the usual migrants is almost due north, in the east of Siberia from south-east to north-west, and in European Russia from south-west to north-east. Thus nearly all the migrants of the Russian empire tend to converge upon the most northern part of the continent, the Taimyr peninsula, but it is almost needless to say that few of them reach anything like so far, since the country in those high latitudes is utterly unfit to support the majority. With the exception of some details this treatise fails to show more. The routes followed by migratory birds have been the subject of a very exhaustive memoir by J. A. Palmén, but it would be beyond our limits to do more than mention his results concisely. He enters very fully into this part of the inquiry and lays down with much apparent probability the chief roads taken by the most migratory birds of the palaearctic region in their return autumnal journey, further asserting that in the spaces between these lines of flight such birds do not usually occur. Broadly speaking, the birds of Europe, Russia and Western Siberia go for the winter to Africa, those of middle Siberia to Mongolia, and those of Siberia east of the Lena go towards Japan.

But lay down the paths of migratory birds, observe their comings and goings, or strive to account for the impulse which urges them forward as we will, there still remains for consideration the most marvellous thing of all—how do the birds find their way so unerringly from such immense distances? This seems to be by far the most inexplicable part of the matter. Year after year the migratory wagtail will build her nest in the accustomed spot, and year after year the migratory cuckoo will deposit her eggs in that nest, and yet in each interval of time the former may have passed some months on the shores of the Mediterranean, and the latter, absent for a still longer period, may have wandered into the heart of Africa. That particular form of bluethroat which yearly repairs to breed upon the mosses of the subalpine and northern parts of Scandinavia (Cyanecula suecica) is hardly ever seen in Europe south of the Baltic. Throughout Germany it may be said to be quite unknown, being replaced by a conspicuously different form (C. leucocyana), and as it is a bird in which the collectors of that country, a numerous and well-instructed body, have long taken great interest, we are in a position to declare that it is not known to stop in its transit from its winter haunts, which we know to be Egypt and the valley of the Upper Nile, to its breeding-quarters. Other instances, though none so crucial as this, could be cited from among European birds were there room here for them. In New Zealand there are two cuckoos which are annual visitors: one, a species of Chrysococcyx, is supposed to come from Australia, the other, Eudynamis taitensis is widely spread throughout Polynesia, yet both these birds yearly make two voyages over the enormous waste of waters that surrounds the country to which they resort to breed. But space would utterly fail us were we to attempt to recount all the examples of these wonderful flights. Yet it seems impossible that the sense of sight should be the faculty whereby they are so guided to their destination, any more than in the case of those which travel in the dark. J. A. Palmén asserted (op. cit. p. 195) that migrants are led by the older and stronger individuals among them, and, observing that most of those which stray from their right course are yearlings that have never before taken the journey, he ascribed the due performance of the flight to “experience.” There are many birds which cannot be said to migrate in company. While swallows, to take a sufficiently evident example, conspicuously congregate in vast flocks and so leave our shores in large companies, the majority of our summer-visitors slip away almost unobserved, each apparently without concert with others. Experience here can only signify the result of knowledge acquired on former occasions and obtained by sight. Now it was stated by C. J. Temminck (Manuel d’ornithologie, III. Introd., 1820) many years ago, and so far as would appear the statement has not been invalidated, that among migrants the young and the old always journey apart and most generally by different routes. The former can have no “experience,” and yet the greater number of them safely arrive at the haven where they would be. The sense of sight, essential to a knowledge of landmarks, is utterly insufficient to account for the success that attends birds which travel by night, or in a single flight span oceans or continents. Yet without it the idea of “experience” cannot be substantiated. We may admit that inherited but unconscious experience, which is really all that can be meant by instinct, is a factor in the whole matter—certainly, as Wallace seems to have proved, in originating the migratory impulse, but yet every aspect of the question is fraught with difficulty.

Less than nothing is known about the speed at which birds fly during their long stretches of migration. Gaetke, in his otherwise very interesting book, has startled ornithologists by various statements, but his calculations were based upon such crude observations that the results are ridiculous. For instance, he proved to his satisfaction that the grey or hooded crow, Corvus cornix, which notoriously is not a fast bird, flies from Heligoland to the coast of Lincolnshire in England at the rate of one hundred and twenty miles an hour. To the little bluethroat he assigned a velocity of two hundred and forty miles an hour, a statement as silly as that made by some fanciful observer in Portugal who convinced himself that “Turtle-doves leaving Kent or Surrey at dawn might easily be the very birds that a few hours later were skimming over the Portuguese pine forests on their way to Central Africa.” Fifty miles an hour would be a high average speed for most migratory birds, and there are no reliable data to tell how long such birds can continue their flight without interruption. All we seem to know is that not a few kinds manage, in various parts of the world, to cross enormous distances without the chance of a break. It was Gaetke’s notion that migration was for the most part carried on at such a height in the air as to be beyond our ken, and that what comes to our perception consists chiefly of the abortive or unsuccessful attempts, when birds are checked in their course, and being unable to proceed present themselves to our sight and hearing. Now for obvious reasons birds could not well fly at very great heights in very thin air, as experiments with pigeons released from balloons have shown, and the condor soaring far above the tops of the Andes is a myth. The few trustworthy instances in which birds have been observed through a telescope passing across the face of 'the moon have naturally yielded but vague calculations as to distance and height. W. E. D. Scott (Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, vi. 97–100), computed heights varying from 1 to 2 m. F. M. Chapman’s observations (Auk, 1888, pp. 37–39) resulted in a height of from 1500 to 15,000 ft.; average, say, 1 m. If the sky is clouded and the birds fly above the clouds the migration proceeds beyond our ken, and if for some reason or other they are below the clouds the phenomenon becomes to us very noticeable. It is well known “that on clear and bright nights birds are rarely heard passing overhead, while on nights that are overcast, misty and dark, especially if slight rain be falling, flocks may often be heard almost continuously.” It is in such weather, continues Newton, that birds while migrating are most vociferous, doubtless with the result that thereby the company of fellow-travellers is kept together.

There yet remain a few words to be said on what may be termed Exceptional Migration, that is when from some cause or other the ordinary practice is broken through. The erratic movements of the various species of crossbill (Loxia) and some allied forms afford perhaps the best-known examples. In England no one can say in what part of the country or at what season of the year he may not fall in with a company of the common crossbill (L. curvirostra), and the like may be said of many other lands. The food of these birds consists mainly of the seeds of conifers, and as its supply in any one locality is intermittent or precarious, we may not unreasonably guess that they shift from place to place in its quest, and may thus find an easy way of accounting for their uncertain appearance. The great band of nutcrackers (Nucifraga caryocatactes) which in the autumn of 1844 pervaded western and central Europe (Bull. Acad. Bruxelles, xi. 298), may also have been actuated by the same motive, but we can hardly explain the roaming of all other birds so plausibly. The inroads of the waxwing (Ampelis garrulus) have been the subject of interest for more than 500 years, and by persons prone to superstitious auguries were regarded as the forerunners of dire calamity. Sometimes years have passed without the bird being seen in central, western or southern Europe, and then perhaps for two or three seasons in succession vast flocks have suddenly appeared. Later observation has shown that this species is as inconstant in the choice of its summer as of its winter-quarters. One of the most extraordinary events known to ornithologists is the irruption into Europe in 1863 of Pallas’s sand-grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus). Of this bird, hitherto known only as an inhabitant of the Tatar steppes, a single specimen was obtained at Sarepta on the Volga in the winter of 1848. In May 1859 a pair is said to have been killed in the government of Vilna, on the western borders of the Russian empire, and a few weeks later five examples were procured, and a few others seen, in western Europe—one in Jutland, one in Holland, two in England and one in Wales. In 1860 another was obtained at Sarepta; but in May and June 1863 a horde computed to consist of at least 700 individuals overran Europe—reaching Sweden, Norway, the Faeroes and Ireland in the north-west, and in the south extending to Sicily and almost to the frontiers of Spain. On the sandhills of Jutland and Holland some of these birds bred, but they were all killed off. A much greater visitation took place in 1888, which met with the same fate. The number of birds was quite incalculable, the wave extending from Norway to southern Spain.

In comparison with the periodic annual migrations of so very many birds, those of other creatures are scarce and insignificant, excepting fishes.

Mammals.—Few trustworthy observations have been recorded. The most regular and least limited migrations seem to be those of the eared seals. The Walrus also goes each year to the north in the summer, further south in the winter. Delphinapterus leucas, one of the Cetacea, ascends the Amoor regularly on the breaking of the ice, a distance of 400 m. up the stream, Some bats are supposed to migrate. The American bison used to roam north and south, according to the season, in search of pasture; and similar periodic wanderings have often been recorded of various kinds of game on the South African veldt. They are all obviously a mere matter of commissariat and have little to do with the breeding, except in the case of seals.

In one way the lemming’s “migrations” are instructive. They are quite sporadic. When, owing to combination of some favourable circumstances they suddenly increase, enormous numbers forsake the highlands for the lowlands of Norway; not in a methodical way, but quite lawlessly; that means to say they radiate from their centres of dispersal. At any given spot, however, they seem to keep to the same direction, and no obstacles seem to divert their course. Those which arrive at the much indented coast are known even to rush into the sea, where of course they get drowned. There is no sense in this. The overcrowded condition of their home impels them to leave, and this impulse continues blindly. They do not attempt to settle anywhere between their home and the sea. A year or two after the irruption not a lemming is there to be found, and where during their stampede they come across suitable districts, they find these already occupied by resident lemmings.

Such and similar irruptions have no doubt taken place often during the world’s history; and yet such sporadic stampedes into a foreign country hardly ever lead to its regular settlement, especially when such a country possesses already a kindred fauna of its own.

Fishes.—Many fishes make periodic migrations for breeding purposes, which by their numbers and the distances travelled much resemble those of birds, but very little is known about these fishes. Take the incredible masses of herrings and their kindred; the collecting of the cod and its allies on their breeding-ground. According to D. S. Jordan (A Guide to the Study of Fishes, New York, 1905) some kinds are known mainly in the waters they make their breeding-homes, as in Cuba, southern California, Hawaii or Japan, the individuals being scattered at other times through the wide seas. The tunny, which has a world-wide distribution, arrives off the south coast of Portugal in the month of May; enormous numbers pass through the Straits of Gibraltar and support great fishing industries in the Mediterranean. In the month of August they return to the ocean (Apesca do Atum no Algarve em 1898, por D. Carlos de Braganza, Lisboa, 1899; with many maps).

Many fresh-water fishes, as trout and suckers (quoting Jordan) forsake the large streams in the spring, ascending the small brooks where their young can be reared in greater safety. Still others, known as anadromous fishes, feed and. mature in the sea, but ascend the rivers as the impulse of reproduction grows strong. Among such fishes are the salmon, shad, alewife, sturgeon and striped bass in American waters; Clupea alosa, the Allis shad, and C. finta, the Twait shad, Alepocephalus rostratus, the “maifisch” of the Rhine, in Europe. “The most remarkable case of the anadromous instinct is found in the king-salmon or quinnat (Onchorhynchus tschawytscha), of the Pacific coast. This great fish spawns in November, at the age of four years and an average weight of twenty-two pounds. In the Columbia river it begins running with the spring freshets in March and April. It spends the whole summer, Without feeding, in the ascent of the river. By autumn the individuals have reached the mountain streams of Idaho, greatly changed in appearance, discoloured, worn and distorted, On reaching the spawning-beds, which may be 1000 m. from the sea in the Columbia, over 2000 m. in the Yukon, the female deposits her eggs in the gravel of some shallow brook. The male covers them and scrapes the gravel over them. Then both male and female drift, tail foremost, helplessly down the stream; none, so far as certainly is known, ever survive the reproduction act. The same habits are found in the five other species of salmon in the Pacific. The salmon of the Atlantic has a similar habit, but the distance travelled is everywhere much less, and most of the hook-jawed males drop down to the sea and recover, to repeat the act of reproduction.”,

Few fishes are katadromous, i.e. their usual habitat is in rivers and lakes, but they descend into the sea for breeding purposes. The common eel is the classical example.

Insects.—D. Sharp makes the following remarks (Cambridge Nat. Hist. vi.): “Odonata are among the few kinds of insects that are known to form swarms and migrate. Swarms of this kind have been frequently observed in Europe and in North America; they usually consist of a species of the genus Libellula, but species of various other genera also swarm, and sometimes a swarm may consist of more than one species.

“Locust swarms do not visit the districts that are subject to their invasions every year, but as a rule only after intervals of a considerable number of years. . . . The irregularity seems to depend upon three facts, viz. that the increase of locusts is kept in check by parasitic insects; that the eggs may remain more than one year in the ground and yet hatch out when a favourable season occurs, and that the migratory instinct is only effective when great numbers of superfluous individuals are produced. . . . It is well established that locusts of the migratory species exist in countries without giving rise to swarms or causing any serious injuries. . . . When migration of locusts does occur it is attended by remarkable manifestations of instinct. Although several generations may elapse without a migration, it is believed that the locusts when they migrate do so in the direction taken by predecessors. They are said to take trial flights to ascertain the direction of a favourable wind, and that they alight and wait for a change. The most obscure point is their disappearance from a spot they have invaded. A swarm will alight on a locality, deposit there a number of eggs, and then move on. But after a lapse of a season or two there will be few or none of the species present in the spot invaded. In other cases they again migrate after growth to the land of their ancestors. It has been ascertained by the United States Entomological Commission that such return swarms do occur.”

See J. A. Palmén, Om Foglarnes flyttningsvägar (Helsingfors, 1874). The same in German: Über die Zugstrassen der Vögel (Leipzig, 1896). In this and the work of von Middendorff, already cited, reference is made to almost every important publication on the subject of migration, which renders a notice of its very extensive literature needless here, and a pretty full bibliographical list is given in Giebel’s Thesaurus ornithologiae (i. 146–155). Yet mention may be made of Schlegel’s Over het trekken der Vogels (Harlem, 1828); Hodgson’s “On the Migration of the Natatores and Grallatores as observed at Kathmandu” in Asiatic Researches (xviii. 122-128), and Marcel de Serres’s Des Causes des migrations des animaux et particulièrement des oiseaux et des poissons (Harlem, 1842). This last, though one of the largest publications on the subject, is one of the least satisfactory. S. F. Baird’s excellent treatise “On the Distribution and Migrations of North American Birds,” Am. Journ. Sc. and Arts (2nd ser. 1866), pp. 78–90, 187–192, 337-347; reprinted Ibis 1867, pp. 257–293. N. A. Severzoff, “Etudes sur le passage des oiseaux dans l’Asie centrale,” Bull. Soc. Nat. (Moscow, 1880), pp. 234–287; Menzbier, “Die Zu strassen der Vögel im europäischen Russland,” op. cit. (1885, pp. 291–369; Palmén, Referat über den Stand der Kenntniss des Vogelzuges, Intern. Ornith. Congr., Budapest, 1891; W. W. Cooke and C. H. Merriam, Report on Bird Migration in the Mississippi Valley, U.S. Dep. Agric.-Economic Ornithol., publ. 2 (Washington, 1888); Gaetke, Die Vogelwarte Helgoland (Braunschweig, 1891). In English: Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory (Edinburgh, 1895); A. Newton, article “Migration,” Dict. Birds (1893).  (H. F. G.) 

---

1. The figures relate only to the emigrants of each nationality emigrating from their own country to countries outside of Europe.
2. Exclusive of emigrants to Spanish colonies.
3. Russian emigrants from German ports.
4. Of these,  77,409 went to the Cape of Good Hope and Natal.
5. Of these, 152,797 went to the Cape of Good Hope and Natal.
6. Of these,  69,052 went to the Cape of Good Hope and Natal.
7. If the relative proportion of land to water in the southern hemisphere were at all such as it is in the northern, we should no doubt find the birds of southern continents beginning to press upon the tropical and equatorial regions of the globe at the season when they were thronged with the emigrants from the north, and in such a case it would be only reasonable that the latter should be acted upon, by the force of the former, according to the explanation given of the southward movement of northern migrants. But, though we know almost nothing of the migration of birds of the other hemisphere, yet, when we regard the comparative deficiency of land in southern latitudes all round the world, it is obvious that the feathered population of such as nowadays exists can exert but little influence, and its effects may be practically disregarded.
8. In principle F. W. Hutton had already foreshadowed the same theory (Trans. New Zeal. Inst., 1872, p. 235).