Date.Membership.Number out
of Work.		Per Cent.
1905
January578,91039,3156.8
February578,70835,7786.2
March578,68432,5585.6
April575,96832,3485.6
May575,51229,4875.1
June576,34629,9955.2
July576,47229,8455.2
August578,44431,0465.4
September578,54230,6965.3
October584,28829,5605.0
November586,04027,7694.7
December581,63028,7344.9
1906
January588,12127,6144.7
February586,95626,0644.4
March585,37622,4653.8
April582,20121,0373.6
May590,91921,0803.6
June593,83021,7853.7
July595,63721,4643.6
August596,01022,5283.8
September598,61122,8263.8
October600,12226,3134.4
November604,37027,4464.5
December597,19829,2124.9
1907
January617,91125,9904.2
February618,57423,9323.9
March618,23022,0583.6
April619,59120,3103.3
May624,99321,0813.4
June622,58422,1893.6
July631,15823,2913.7
August632,06825,4584.0
September631,24128,9144.6
October638,78830,0794.7
November639,67832,0105.0
December644,29839,3436.1
1908
January649,789 40,5806.2
February639,07340,9006.4
March639,71643,8536.9
April638,23748,0357.5
May627,61349,5157.9
June653,32753,7668.2
July646,51153,1638.2
August648,58557,9128.9
September593,44455,7939.4
October591,05356,2009.5
November644,770 58,3499.1
December679,06061,6199.1
1909
January688,58859,7868.7
February696,68858,6708.4
March700,654 57,4508.2
April700,86757,2508.2
May699,77955,4737.9
June698,28455,3317.9
July693,84854,8777.9
August697,26853,9187.7
September695,72051,7497.4
October694,93049,6647.1
November696,41545,5696.5
December692,15345,9636.6
1910
January694,45647,2596.8
February701,25240,1215.7
March701,76636,5435.2
April699,93230,4754.4
May703,43929,7874.2
June702,52225,8663.7
July698,88826,6643.8

As to the amount of short time worked between 1900 and 1910, we have no adequate information, but as to unemployment the evidences have forced themselves upon public attention in every part of the country.

How ruthlessly the workman is made to bear the chief burden of bad trade and how, even in the best years, there is always a surplus of unemployed labour, can be clearly shown.

There are about 2,000,000 men and women Trade Unionists in the United Kingdom, belonging to some 1,300 Trade Unions, and forming but about one-seventh of the manual workers of the United Kingdom. Some of these Unions pay "unemployed benefits," and are therefore enabled to record accurately how many of their members are out-of-work. The membership of these particular Unions is about 650,000. The Board of Trade collects from them, monthly, details of the members out-of-work and these details are published in the official "Labour Gazette." From that publication I have compiled the table on pages 116-117, which shows faithfully, so far as about half a million of our workmen are concerned, how capital deals with labour. It covers the years since 1900, and continues the record printed on pp. 106-107 of "Riches and Poverty," edition 1905.

The period examined covers a complete trade cycle, with its fat years and lean years. I think the reader cannot fail to be struck with the extraordinary variations in the state of employment shown in the table. Even in the best year of the period, 1900, and in March, the best month of that year, 11,821 members were receiving out-of-work pay out of a total of 524,199, and before a month had passed 1,200 more men had been discharged. By January, 1901, the number of unemployed exceeded 21,000, or 4.0 per cent. By the end of 1901 the employers had rid themselves of 26,000 men out of 554,000. Throughout 1902 the number receiving out-of-work pay was round about 25,000 at the end of each month, the figure rising to 30,000 in December. By the end of 1903 another 7,000 were discharged, and in December 1904 the total rose to over 43,000 out of 574,000, or 7.6 per cent. In 1905 there was improvement, continuing in 1906-7. At the end of 1907, however, 39,000 out of 664,000 were out of work, and a year later 62,000 out of 679,000, or 9 per cent., were unemployed. 1909 saw recovery, which has happily continued until now (August 1910). At the end of July 1910 the unemployment rate had fallen to 3.8 per cent.

These facts relate, not to casual labourers, but to the flower of our skilled workmen—to a class of men who are least likely to suffer (1) because they are the most needed instruments of capital, and (2) because they are organized and best able to resist injustice. If we were able to set out the facts relating to all manual labourers we should probably get a picture even more distressing. It is at any rate unlikely that, amongst manual labourers as a whole, employment is better than in the chief Trade Unions.

In December 1904, the Hackney Town Council conducted a census of the unemployed of Hackney. It was carried out in a very sensible way. At a cost of about £150 every house in the borough was canvassed between December 12th, 1904, and January 31st, 1905, and particulars obtained from every person over 16 years of age found to be unemployed. The results were:—

Population
(1901)		Houses.Unemployed.
NorthHackney45,1109,152465
Central"69,3689,8371,090
South"104,79414,7512,963
Totals219,27233,7404,518

South Hackney, which contains the poor Homerton Ward, of course gave the worst results. The unemployed in South Hackney actually numbered 3 per cent. of its whole population, men, women, and children! Taking the borough as a whole, including well-to-do Stamford Hill, the unemployed rate came out at nearly 7 per cent. of the "employable" population of all classes. 530 cases of "pawning and selling home" were discovered. Thus, for all classes of workers in Hackney, the unemployment rate was almost precisely the same as the rate in the Trade Unions paying unemployment benefit. It is also worthy of note that, out of a total number of 4,315 males unemployed, as many as 1,477 were "labourers," and 1,167 of these "general labourers." These facts, impressive as they are, amount to an understatement of the case, however. Many of the unemployed, from feelings of delicacy, failed to record their condition for fear of public attention being directed to them personally. Mr Councillor Fairchild of Hackney told me that he knew of forty cases of unemployment not returned in the census. This goes to show that we are justified in taking the unemployed Trade Union rate as really representative of the whole body of labour. While, on the one hand, it excludes postmen, railway servants, policemen, and others who have quite regular work, it does not include the great mass of "labourers" and other casual workers whose state of employment must always be worse than that of the men belonging to the benefit-paying Trade Unions.

It is well to point out, for the facts are little known, the enormous sums expended by the chief Trade Unions in out-of-work pay. For recent years the figures have been:—