to be done.  If there are at hand just enough workers to do it, the wages will be sufficiently high to allow a decent standard of living.  If, on the other hand, there are present more than enough workers willing to do the work, a number of them must remain without work and wages, while those who are employed get the lowest wages they will consent to take.  Thus it will seem of prime importance to keep down the population of low-skilled workers to the point which leaves a merely nominal margin of superfluous labour.  The Malthusian question has in its modern practical aspect narrowed down to this.  The working classes by abstinence from early or improvident marriages, or by the exercise of moral restraints after marriage can, it is urged, check that tendency of the working population to outgrow the increase of the work for which they compete.  There can be no doubt that the more intelligent classes of skilled labourers have already profited by this consideration, and as education and intelligence are more widely diffused, we may expect these prudential checks on “over-population” will operate with increased effect among the whole body of workers.  But precisely because these checks are moral and reasonable, they must be of very slow acceptance among that class whose industrial condition forms a stubborn barrier to moral and intellectual progress.  Those who would gain most by the practice of prudential checks, are least capable of practising them.  The ordinary “labourer” earns full wages as soon as he attains manhood’s strength; he is as able to support a wife and family at twenty as he will ever be; indeed he is more so, for while he is young his work is more regular, and less liable to interruption by ill-health.  The reflection that an early marriage means the probability of a larger family, and that a large family helps to keep wages low, cannot at present be expected to make a deep impression upon the young unskilled labourer.  The value of restraint after marriage could probably be inculcated with more effect, because it would appeal more intelligibly to the immediate interest of the labourer.  But it is to the growing education and intelligence of women, rather than to that of men, that we must look for a recognition of the importance of restraint on early marriages and large families.

Sec. 3.  The “Emigration” Remedy.—­The most direct and obvious drainage scheme is by emigration.  If there are more workers than there is work for them to do, why not remove those who are not wanted, and put them where there is work to do?  The thing sounds very simple, but the simplicity is somewhat delusive.  The old laissez faire political economist would ask, “Why, since labour is always moving towards the place where it can be most profitably employed, is it necessary to do anything but let it flow?  Why should the State or philanthropic people busy themselves about the matter?  If labour is not wanted in one place, and is wanted in another,