The second part of my speech dealing with birth control (or what in strict accuracy should be called conception control) has aroused more controversy, but I venture to think that some, at least, of the criticism directed against my argument will disappear with a perusal of this full text of my speech. Therein will be found condemnation of infertile marriages and a strong plea that children are essential to the health and happiness of man and woman, are necessary to each other and of vital importance to the nation. The difference between my critics and myself is not as to the vital necessity of the family following marriage, but rather this—they would like to see the large families prevalent fifty years ago restored (and where means and circumstances are favourable, such large families may be the source of much happiness); whereas under present-day conditions I should regard them as seldom attainable and desirable, and would favour smaller families of children born at predetermined intervals. A married couple who have produced four children in twenty years 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.