returns be considered satisfactory? If they really want us to know the exact dimensions of the extent of alien immigration, there can be no difficulty in the way. The Act exists; it is only for the Government to put it into force; it is only a question of method, of means, and of men. But if they do not want us to know, that is another matter, and pressure should be brought to bear until the required information is forthcoming. Such then is the remedy, such are the difficulties in the way of its being applied. They are easily surmounted. The real _crux_ of the question is this. Is such a remedy justified by the circumstances of the disease? I submit, for reasons already given, that it is. State intervention is an extreme measure; as a rule it is better to let natural laws take their course, to see what can be done by individual effort, mutual help, organization, and combination. Men of the school of thought of Mr. Herbert Spencer and Mr. Auberon Herbert would probably denounce such a measure as "socialistic," in that it would limit the freedom of the individual, and limit the utility of his individual capital by forbidding him to employ it in certain ways. I admit the plausibility of their strictures in many instances, but not in this one. The key-note of such a measure as that which I have indicated, would be to help the weak, and to protect those who are not able to help themselves. Speaking generally, I am not a believer in what is termed "grandmotherly legislation." You cannot make men sober, religious, industrious, or moral by Acts of Parliament. The experiment has been tried, and failed. But you can at least remove all the stumbling-blocks in the way of their becoming so. In this particular instance, individual effort has been tried and failed. It has been found to be useless in stemming the tide of pauperism and degradation which pours in upon us from abroad. Therefore, in the last extremity, we resort to the State as the natural protector of our people. It has been urged as an objection to such a measure that it would violate the principles of Free Trade. The fact that this movement is supported by many whose fidelity to Free Trade principles is above suspicion, is a sufficient answer to that objection.[37] But even were it otherwise--what then? Free Trade is not a fetish. It was made for man, and not man for it. There is no such thing as Free Trade in human bodies. You cannot argue that the economic laws which are applicable to goods should govern man. You cannot confuse humanity with commodities. You may exclude commodities by a tariff if you please--that is not an immoral principle. You may let in commodities freely if you choose; but to let in human bodies to compete with those who are natives of the soil, who are your flesh and blood, and who already have the greatest difficulty in supporting life--to allow this, because to shut them out would be violating the principle of Free Trade, is to sacrifice a principle to a name.