Then they resort to the cynical conclusion that it wouldn’t do much good to repeal the laws anyway, because the rich who oughtn’t to use the information would do it even more than they do now, and the result would be still fewer children, while the “ignorant poor,” who ought to use it, wouldn’t, and the horde of “undesirables” would go on increasing just the same. And again we present the instance of Holland where the rich average larger, and the poor, smaller families than any other country in Europe. And we gently remind them that the use of contraceptives can never be made compulsory, nor can anyone frame legislation which will open the eyes of the selfish rich to the joys and values of parenthood. These results can come from education, not from legislation. All that the laws can do is to give freedom of access to knowledge, but the wise use of knowledge is a matter of mental, moral, and spiritual growth. And they admit that too. They look very serious and responsible by the time they arrive at saying, “Yes, but what methods do you propose to teach?” Some of them even assume that somehow or other we think the law itself can _establish good methods_! Whereupon we make it plain that the question of methods is the sphere of the medical scientists, that it is not for us laymen to presume to teach, and much less is it possible for the laws to determine methods. All the laws can do is to give freedom to the scientists to give the world the knowledge that has been locked in their brains and only given out surreptitiously on occasions. And all we ask is the opportunity to help to make the knowledge of the scientists accessible to all who need it. Their final question is “who wants these laws changed, where is the demand?” We tell them that practically everyone wants it who understands it, and that brings up a most significant phase of the birth control movement, which has a unique psychology, in that the mass of people who want information and want the laws changed so they can get it, do not and will not shout their wishes from the housetops. The nature of the subject is one which largely inhibits an _articulate_ demand. But that the majority of the people want it, and are ready to say so, if they can do it without being conspicuous is remarkably well proven by the article elsewhere in this issue, entitled: “Do the People Want It?”