It is not enough that because in our large towns there are men who want work which we cannot give them, we should be justified in sending them to the colonies; quite the contrary; we are justified in assuming that our own "failures" " are not equal to those of our people who " succeed," and there is nothing to justify us in assuming that those who fail here will succeed better elsewhere. Men emigrate and succeed-yes, but they are the higher type of men-those who want to make progress, and who, thinking the prospect in the new world better than in the old, work and save, and get away as soon as possible. I fail to see that the combination of qualities necessary for men to succeed in the colonies are very different to what are required here. With emigration, as with many other schemes suggested for the solution of the social problem, poverty," it seems to me the State had better not interfere. The man who is anxious to go, will by his industry and thrift, get away. If the colonies want a certain kind of labour, they will bid high for it, and the labourer will be attracted to that employer who pays the most for his services. State-aided emigration is supported by one; reclaim the waste lands by another. But who is the State to aid,-the improvident, the thriftless, and the useless ; or the industrious and the able? What right have we to send to other lands our "failures?" Is it policy to send away those who can earn for us what they consume? As regards the waste lands, those who argue for their reclamation forget that at the present time a living is not to be made out of well-cultivated land, land in good condition; what chance has inferior land in the struggle? Land, we are told, is