cannot be said to have ignored the precept “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” because they have so selected the times for the conceptions of their children as to enable them to give those children a better upbringing rather than have selfishly left the sequence of their offspring to blind chance.

The argument that the nation should foster large families in order more quickly to people the untenanted portions of the Empire, and so add to the strength and wealth of 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, £400; 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 portions of communities should be fully considered and its strength and its weakness disclosed by full discussion? The world looks to its leaders for reasoned guidance, not for assertion which may be but the husk of a thought that has gone. What is wanted is reasoned consideration, not unreasoned condemnation. For churchmen and statesmen alike, opportunism helps in situations which are small, but never in those which are large; there clarity of principle alone stands forth as a beacon to light the path.

The