f the British Dominions, requires serious
attention, not in isolation, but in conjunction with other
considerations, and calls forth varying opinions from economists.

On the other hand, emigration into _foreign_ lands would seem to be a
source of weakness to a nation. The feeding, clothing and educating of a
young Briton cost the nation a definite sum of money, say, L400; if at
the age of twenty, when he is ready to produce, that young Briton
emigrates to a foreign state, he is a definite loss to the country of
his birth and the country of his adoption is the gainer.

From another standpoint the criticism is made that I have not urged the
paramount necessity of diminishing the population of these islands. With
the economic soundness of this view others are better fitted to deal,
but no economic considerations would outweigh the importance of child
life inspiring the homes of the land, and if the number and sequence of
children can be regulated by the parents' circumstances, these homes
will increase in number, will start when parents are younger and confer
greater benefits alike on the family and the State. If need be, the
State could grant a progressive rebate of taxation, and educational
facilities for each of three children born after the second and where
the father is twenty-five years of age or upwards.

It is held by some that artificial birth control is contrary to
Christian morals. This is the view firmly held by the Roman Catholic
Church, and since the governance of the Roman communion is based on
"authority," its decisions are binding on its members and command our
respect. But pronouncements of Protestant communions do not owe their
force to "authority," but to the conviction they carry in the minds and
consciences of their people, and no clear scriptural sanction for the
condemnation of birth control has been given, nor does the report of the
Lambeth Conference vouchsafe any reasons why it is physically and
morally harmful.

A distinguished prelate of our Church has characterised the views herein
set forth as "very unguarded."[1] If by that expression he means
"careless," he cannot have done me the honour of reading my speech,
which, whatever its demerits, bears ample evidence of carefully
considered thought and expression. If by "unguarded" he means
"outspoken," I will plead justification. For is it not time that a
question which deeply concerns not only the thought, but the practice of
the thinking po