wholesale than it is to cater for a small number
of people, say a family.

Nevertheless, at the time this budget was com
piled, there was in that parish another family, not
of four, but eleven persons, who had to live on an
income, not of thirteen shillings, but of twelve shil
lings per week (eleven shillings in winter), and
which had, not a rent-free cottage, but a cottage
for which it paid three shillings per week.

This must be understood, and understood clearly:
Whatever is true of London in the way of poverty
and degradation, is true of all England. While
Paris is not by any means France, the city of
London is Eno-land. The frisrhtful conditions
which mark London an inferno likewise mark the
United Kingdom an inferno. The argument that
the decentralization of London would ameliorate
conditions is a vain thing and false. If the
6,000,000 people of London were separated into
one hundred cities each with a population of 60,000,
misery would be decentralized but not diminished.
The sum of it would remain as large.

In this instance, Mr. B. S. Rowntree, by an
exhaustive analysis, has proved for the country
town what Mr. Charles Booth has proved for the
metropolis, that fully one-fourth of the dwellers are
condemned to a poverty which destroys them
physicallv and spiritually; that fully one-fourth of

[[297]]

p296 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p297w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p298

v?