686 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 



by the thoroughgoing adoption of the principle of individualising. But the 

 policy of their opponents also involves hardship to some in that compulsion is one 

 of its integral elements. Disagreements between the two schools are brought into 

 high relief when the population question is taken into account. 



It is easier to decide what we desire with respect to the relation of the State 

 to the course of our individual lives than to determine which of the two bodies 

 of sociological doctrine (outlined in the paper) approximates closer to the truth. 



2. The Poverty Figures. By Professor D. H. Macgregor, M.A. 



Our estimate of the amount of poverty in England is based upon three 

 inquiries — those of Booth, Rowntree, and Chiozza Money. 



The last of these is a national inquiry, based upon income-tax statistics. 

 Denning the ' poor ' as those who do not pay income-tax and have less than 

 160/. a year, Mr. Money finds they number 39,000,000 people, or nine-tenths 

 of the population. But since the average family income is only 200Z. per annum, 

 we can scarcely take 1601. as indicating the limit of real distress, unless we 

 admit that we are a poor nation on the whole. It is better simply to say that 

 nine-tenths of the people do not reach the level of 1607. a year. 



The inquiries of Booth and Rowntree are local and deal more especially with 

 poverty in the sense of distress. It is on the basis of these inquiries that the 

 statement is commonly made that one-third of the nation — or about 14,000,000 

 people — is living in real poverty. This statement has been so exploited by 

 both political parties that it has passed into the current coin of social discussion. 



As these local inquiries are only two, no national inference ought to be 

 made from them, unless the convergence of their results is very close. It is 

 usually thought that this is the case. My purpose is to show, on the contrary, 

 that there is an extremely great divergence, and that it is time to protest against 

 what is at least a great misconception. 



I do not wish to question the separate results of the two inquiries. I accept 

 it as fact that Mr. Booth found 31 per cent, of poverty and 8-4 per cent, of 

 great poverty in London ; and that Mr. Rowntree found 28 per cent, of poverty 

 and 9.9 per cent, of great (or primary) poverty in York. 



My aim is to show first that their definitions of poverty are so different that 

 simply to compare the numerical results — 28 and 31 per cent. — is out of the 

 question ; second, that when the inquiries are reduced to the same basis the 

 results are so extremely divergent that they must be left in their separateness 

 for the present. 



First, then, what did Booth count? He tells us very distinctly that by a 

 poor family he means one whose income is not more than 21s. -a week ; and that 

 a ' very poor ' family is one having not more than 18s. a week. It is purely and 

 entirely an income test, which he himself calls 'arbitrary.' About 31 per cent, 

 of the people in London have up to 21.?. a week, including 8.4 per cent, who 

 have less than 18s. a week. But where Booth counted one thing Rowntree 

 counted two things. He first counted primary poverty — which means incomes 

 of not more than 21.?. Sd. a week — and of this he found 10 per cent, in York ; 

 and then he proceeded to count secondary poverty, which is a question not of 

 income but of expenditure, and which Booth did not count at all. Of this 

 there was 18 per cent. — much the greatest part of York poverty. It is clear, 

 therefore, that if anything is to be compared with Booth's 31 per cent, of 21s. 

 incomes it is Rowntree's 10 per cent, of 21s. Sd. incomes : and that' to compare 

 the two gross results is absurd. It is as if Booth had counted red-haired people 

 and Rowntree fair-haired people. 



Second, let the two inquiries be reduced to the same basis. How much of 

 Rowntree's poverty is there in London and how much of Booth's poverty in 

 York ? Fortunately it is possible to find this out on the data of the two books. 

 The number of people in York who do not earn more than 21s. a week is, 

 according to a table of Rowntree's, 8£ per cent. We have thus got a more 

 exact comparison. In the same way we can find from Booth's book that the 



