5. The present low rate of natural increase in France is not necessarily due to its low birth-rate, as Ontario in Canada, with a similar birth-rate, had a death-rate of 10 per thousand, or a natural increase of 9 per thousand—nearly as great as our own. The low increase of France is therefore due to its high death-rate, not to its low birth-rate, and an explanation or remedy should be found for the former before objection is made to the latter. 6. Possibly as a result of the present agitation in France in favor of large families, the births in the first half of last year increased by 8,000 over those of the corresponding period of 1912. _Instead of producing a greater increase of population, the deaths increased by 12,000, so that the survivals actually diminished._ It appears from the foregoing that while it is true that France is increasing in population much more slowly than other countries, there is no justification for believing that an increased birth-rate would populate it more rapidly. Much more likely is it that the result would be the same as that shown in Ontario and other countries—a higher death-rate without any advantage as regards numbers. _Germany._—As France is held up as the awful example of a low birth-rate, so is Germany regarded as the good example of a high one. It is certainly fear of Germany that is responsible for so much of the anxiety concerning our birth-rate. That the population of Germany is increasing very rapidly is quite true, and it certainly has also a relatively high birth-rate. (Fig. 10). But the birth-rate has fallen rapidly since 1876, and despite this the natural increase of population has actually accelerated, because the death-rate has fallen still more rapidly. As the German death-rate is still considerably above the 9 or 10 per thousand line, there is plenty of room for this process to continue. The curve of actual increase of population in Fig. 1, shows that it has become exceedingly high of late years, despite the great fall in the birth-rate.