lags behind the change in individual circumstances, and is the cause of much criticism of those in authority. If, however, this policy of holding on to essentials is to be carried out, there will have to be an increased measure of economy—economy, not merely of money, but, in its original Aristotelian sense, of management of a household. This can only be done by attention to details, by a higher standard of public spirit, by which the services in health, education, etc., are looked upon by those who benefit as something for which they pay, and for which, in the long run, they are responsible. If the desire for education were widespread, there would be an immediate economy in school attendance officers, rota committees, and all the machinery devised to block the holes in the educational net. If the individual standard of care for health were raised as it can be raised by such movements as health weeks, baby weeks, etc., there would be a consequent reduction in the expenditure on Public Health. But the largest measure of economy of the household management type would come through a co-ordination of the activities of national departments, local authorities and voluntary organizations. Attention has recently been called to the advance of expenditure due to the system of grants-in-aid to local authorities, by which local authorities are led to spend money on the false assumption that the ratepayer will gain something to be paid for by the taxpayer. The discrepancy between the rating system and the tax-paying system is the root cause of many difficulties, but a wider understanding of finance would obviate the grosser evils. Under our English system of government, all recent legislation has been of specialized character dealing with specified classes, or a particular evil. As each need was recognized, a special administration was set up to deal with it, and we now have innumerable inquiry officers, inspectors, officials of various grades administering Acts of Parliament and regulations in varying ways. The whole relationship of national departments and local authorities requires revision and reorganization. Owing to the burden of rates on the ratepayer driving the local authorities to rely more and more upon subsidies from the National Exchequer, and to their refusing to undertake new burdens, social services have been identified with departmental activity, red tape and bureaucracy. Local government has suffered from a gradual atrophy.