arises not from uneconomical expenditure but from insufficient income.
Fortunately figures of greater scientific value than Mr. Mallock's are at our disposal. Mr. Booth's and Mr. Rowntree's investigations have become so familiar that they hardly bear quoting. Mr. Booth found 35•2 per cent. of the people of the north and east of London living on a family income of under a guinea per week; Mr. Rowntree found that of the people of York nearly 30 per cent. were "living in poverty." Investigations in West Ham showed that only in a small percentage of cases did married women engage in home work when their husbands were earning enough to keep their families.<refWest Ham: A Study. By E. G. Howarth and Mona Wilson.></ref> Inquiries conducted in Dundee,[1] Norwich,[2] and elsewhere substantiate the same conclusions. Many other sets of figures compiled by different methods are available and their meaning cannot be doubted. For instance, an investigation by Commissioner Cadman, of the Salvation Army, found that amongst the most unfortunate of their clientèle, 55•8 per cent. had lost their grip on decency owing to depressions in trade and 11•6 because they could not tide themselves over periods of sickness.
These facts are true of every industrial country. Great numbers of people are forced to live on incomes which are insufficient to enable them to make good their daily physio-
