MR ROWNTREE'S PRIMARY POVERTY LINE
| s. | d. | |
| Expenditure on Food | 12 | 9 |
| Rent and Rates | 4 | 0 |
| Clothing, including Boots | 2 | 3 |
| Fuel | 1 | 10 |
| Lighting, washing materials, furniture, crockery, etc. | 0 | 10 |
| 21 | 8 |
It will be seen that nothing is allowed for drink, or tobacco, or newspapers, or postage stamps, or any relaxation whatever. Yet 15 per cent. of the working people of York were found to be living below a primary poverty line conceived on such a scale as this. For boots, clothing, underclothing, hats, furniture, glass, crockery, utensils, curtains, washing materials, and gas or oil, only 3s. 1d. per week or £8 per annum (32s. per head per annum). Need we wonder, then, if Lancashire is only called upon by 44,000,000 British people for £20,000,000 worth of cotton goods?
The Board of Trade recently gave us (Cd. 2337) some useful studies of workmen's budgets which show that even Mr Rowntree's 3s. 1d. per week for goods is a larger sum than is expended by most workmen's families with about 21s. per week. The Board of Trade examined 1,944 workmen's budgets with the following results:—
AVERAGE EXPENDITURE ON FOOD BY URBAN
WORKMEN'S FAMILIES IN 1904
| Number of Families. | Average no. of children living at home. | Average weekly income. | Average expenditure on food. | Balance of income after expenditure on food. | ||||
| s. | d. | s. | d. | s. | d. | |||
| Under 25s. | 261 | 3.1 | 21 | 4½ | 14 | 4¾ | 6 | 11¾ |
| Between 25s. and 30s. | 289 | 3.3 | 26 | 11¾ | 17 | 10¼ | 9 | 1½ |
| Between 30s. and 35s. | 416 | 3.2 | 31 | 11¼ | 20 | 9¼ | 11 | 2 |
| Between 35s. and 40s. | 382 | 3.4 | 36 | 6¼ | 22 | 3½ | 14 | 2¾ |
| Above 40s. | 596 | 4.4 | 52 | 0½ | 29 | 8 | 22 | 4½ |
As the Board of Trade point out "It is not to be supposed that the returns received represent in their exact proportions the different grades of working-class incomes in the towns of the United Kingdom. The higher range of family incomes is unduly represented in the returns, partly owing to the fact that the more intelligent operatives have supplied returns more readily and more accurately than those belonging to the unskilled labouring classes."
It is of interest to note that the 261 budgets under 25s. per week averaged 21s. 4½d. per week, which closely corresponds to Mr Rowntree's primary poverty line. The expenditure on food is seen to be 14s. 4¾d. or 1s. 6¾d. more than was allowed by Mr Rowntree. Thus only 6s. 11¾d. per week is left for all other expenditures, including rent, fuel, light, clothes and furniture. If we take the class above, between 25s. and 30s., we see that only 9s. 1½d. is left after payment for food. Even in the class earning from 30s. to 35s. the food bill leaves but 11s. 2d. per week for rent and all other requirements.
If we pass from the town to the country and inquire into the condition of the agricultural labourer we find an even smaller command of comfort. At the census of 1901 the number of agricultural labourers, shepherds, etc., was 956,000. What of cottons or woollens or boots or furniture can these command? The late Mr Arthur Wilson Fox in the invaluable Report (Cd. 2376) on the wages of agricultural labourers, which was such a labour of love to him, shows that their total earnings including the value of all "truck" vary from 14s. 6d. per week in Oxfordshire to 22s. in Durham, the average being 18s. 3d. for the whole of England. In Wales the average is 17s. 3d.; in Scotland 19s. 3d. and in Ireland only 10s. 11d. The expenditure on clothing in England varies between £6 and £10 by a family of six persons; in Ireland, of course, it is much less.
The simple truth is that the total demand for clothes and underclothes, hats, boots, furniture, china, glass, ironmongery, domestic utensils and other comforts by about 20,000,000 of people out of our population of 44,500,000 is exceedingly small. The greater part of slender incomes is absorbed by the cost of food and drink, and after provision is made for rent, fuel and lighting, the balance amounts to a few odd shillings. We need not wonder, then, that our textile industries have to meet such a modest home demand, or that the Mayor of Leicester cries out for a new industry to employ "surplus labour."