Page:The Economic Journal Volume 1.djvu/591

REVI]?WS 5Of) lines by Mr. Graham Balfour. The district has grown enormously in population, and the occupations of its inhabitants are of almost every kind; but ' between the locality and its inhabitants there is as a rule no association nor necessary connection.' ' Most of them live in it only because it is within reach of their work.' In Chapter III. Mr. Argyle gives a description of some outlying parts of London, and, amongst them, a detailed account of the growing district of Walthamstow. In Chapter IV. Mr. Llewellyn Smith continues from the first volume his study of the influx of population, and reinforces the conclusions a.t which he there arrived. The influx from the country into London Is in the main a definite ' economic movement,' caused partly by the 'deyelopment of means of access,' and partly by the 'increasing relative advantages of town life,' and one of these advantages is that ' much of necessary town-work cannot be efficiently done by town-bred people.' The countrymen come as a rule not, as is often supposed, 'vaguely in search of work,' but 'definitely in pursuit of a known advantage.' They settle in the growing parts of London rather than in the overcrowded districts of the East and Central London; and the ' absolute low water-mark of immigration is in Bethnal Green,' ' almost coincident with the area' ' lately condemned' by the London County Council. Mr. Smith's chapter affords an apt illustration of the way in which Mr. ?Booth's based on inadequate London poverty and outside.' In Part IV. the subject of London children is considered, and the condition of elementary and secondary education examined. The results obtained from the School Board visitors, which form the book serves to correct previous impressions evidence; and he shows that the ' major part of distress is home-made and not imported from teachers. The schools in each district have been classified, and 'specimens'chosen for thorough examination, while the others have been treated ' in a more general way,' though in each case an ' estimate' has been obtained of the 'percentage of each class of children found in each school.' The teachers return a larger estimate of the poverty of London. Class A from '9 becomes 1'3 per cent. B from 7'5 becomes 10'5 per cent. C and D become 33'2 from 22'3 per cent. Mr. Booth does not, however, think that these results impeach the trustworthiness of his previous figures, which have been more thoroughly tested and- more carefully obtained. But the additional figures, he is of opinion, at least do not ' lighten the colours' in which the poverty of London has been painted. With Part IV. the second volume concludes; but a supplementary volume contains the maps and the tables in which the figures are given on which the colouring of the maps is based, together with a table showing the birthplaces of London residents born in other parts of the United Kingdom, which is employed by Mr. Llewellyn Smith as the primary basis of inquiry for the whole of Mr. Booth's investigations, are here subjected to the further test of statistics gathered from the