from the pressure. It has undoubtedly had this last effect, but it has only transferred the difficulty elsewhere. The Central Unemployed Body has since 1905 issued five reports, and these reports show:—
(1) That the vast majority of those applying have been casual labourers and certainly not those for whom the Act was intended;
(2) That the work provided has done nothing to permanently improve the position of those who have received it, and that the same people apply year after year;
(3) That it has been impossible to provide work for more than a very small proportion of those who apply.
Though, by the Unemployed Workmen Act, the period for which work is given has been extended from the odd days previously given to a maximum period of sixteen weeks, it is none the less a form of casual employment which the casual labourer comes to look upon as part of his normal means of subsistence. The last Annual Report of the Central Body shows that there were 51·3 per cent, of recurrent applications. The same people are also being assisted at other times, in a large proportion of cases, by the Poor Law, or their children are being fed by the Education Authority. In a return for a single district which was presented to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law it was shown that of 437 cases assisted by the Distress Committee, 234 were already known to the Guardians, and 81 again resorted to the Poor Law. These figures may be taken as fairly typical of the conditions prevailing elsewhere. It was pointed out when the Unemployed Workmen Act was under consideration that its effect would probably be to increase and perpetuate the evils of casual labour. In fact, it has established 23 schools of casual labour in London and nearly 150 in the whole country. When the Act was passed the hope was held out that the work given would be provided by voluntary subscription. Mr Long, addressing a meeting at the Local Government Board shortly before the Act
