A modern illustration of the same principle appears to be given in New Zealand, where the practice of family restriction seems to be almost universal. In the _Standard_ of June 20th, 1912, appeared a note commenting upon the great and increasing prosperity of New Zealand; and it contains the following significant passage:— “The wages paid to employees and the output of the printing establishments in the country have pretty nearly doubled in the same ten years, rising respectively from £284,605 to £490,246 and £704,285 to £1,377,926. A curious point in connection with the grain mills is that while there were fewer establishments and fewer hands employed in 1910 than in the previous years—although wages are higher—yet the value of the output has almost doubled, being £1,248,001 as against £682,884.” Some mention should be made of the question of emigration. Strange as it may seem, emigration does not, as a rule, greatly mitigate the population difficulty (though it may have done so to a certain extent in Ireland), and it may even enhance it. The reason for this apparent paradox is not far to seek, and it serves to explain a good many common fallacies as regards the population question. Human beings are not all of equal producing power. Each child born into the world is an immediate consumer, and he remains a consumer without being a producer until his education and training are completed. After that time he becomes a producer, and, if of average talents, he may _for a certain period_ produce enough to support himself and perhaps a wife. It is at the beginning of the effective period that emigration so frequently takes place, so that the old country is burdened with all the consumption of immature children, without any possible return. Emigration can only be a remedy for over-population when it is emigration of non-producers, i.e., children, aged people, tramps, paupers, or lunatics; and it need hardly be said that these are not the types which emigrate, or who are wanted by the colonies. It is quite possible for an already greatly over-populated country to be in great need of further accessions of ready trained workers; but until someone discovers how our children may be born at this stage of development it is absolutely absurd to say that such a country is “calling out for population,” in the sense of needing a higher birth-rate. The fact that Ontario, in Canada, has experienced an increase of its death-rate following on an increase of its birth-rate is a vivid illustration of this absurdity. It is interesting to note, as a confirmation of this theory, that considerable changes in the rate of emigration appear to have had very little influence upon the death-rate. It may be, however, that emigration increases in times of dearth, and thus tends to prevent increased mortality. _NEO-MALTHUSIANISM AND EUGENICS. C. V. Drysdale, D.Sc._