tinued throughout the war; and the tramp had practically disappeared from London life when the war came to an end. Thus the number of persons relieved in the casual wards in London on January 1, 1913, was 534; 292 in 1914, 224 in 1915, 125 in 1916, 102 in 1917, 88 in 1918, and 40 in 1919. The number increased as a result of demobilization to 76 in 1920 and 206 in 1921.

In 1912 there were 28 casual wards in London; in 1913 under the Metropolitan Asylums Board there were 13; in 1918 there were only 6.

A further indication of the disappearance of the London vagrant is to be found in the decrease in the number of persons found homeless at night in London. The census of persons' found homeless in streets, on staircases, or under arches for the period 191419 was as follows: on a single night in 1914, 434; on or about the same date in 1915, 178; in 1916, 44; in 1917, 28; in 1918, 9; in 1919, 8.

The course of casual pauperism throughout England and Wales was very much like that in London. The figures in Table XIII, however, indicate that during August, 1914, the numbers for the country as a whole did not fall off so rapidly as in London. Early in 1915, the poor-law inspectors of the Local Government Board reported a general decrease in vagrancy. The report

Persons accommodated in casual wards, common lodging-houses, Rowton houses, and shelters not licensed as common lodging-houses are not included in this

census.

of the Local Government Board for the year ending March 31, 1915, called attention to the fact that all but one of the inspectors had reported "a large decrease in their respective districts for the year, especially for the last quarter." The single exception was in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire. In all other parts of the country, homeless casuals and tramps were disappearing. Extracts from reports of some of the poor-law inspectors are of interest. Thus, Inspector A reported that "returns for the Hertfordshire vagrancy committee show in the quarter ended 31st March, 1915, a decrease of 2,179 vagrants, or 22.4 per cent, as compared with the corresponding quarter of last year.'

Inspector B said, in commenting on the decrease of 14 per cent in his district: "The whole of this astonishing decrease has occurred in the last half of the year. . . . It may therefore be inferred that practically the whole of the decrease is due to the abnormal demand for man-power which set in as a result of the war."

Inspector D reported that in a few neighborhoods where public works were under construction, "able-bodied working men traveling thither have been admitted to the casual wards, but for the most part the men now coming to the casual wards are those who are incompetent, either from mental, moral, or physical defect."

Another inspector said that the reductions in casual pauperism strongly supported "the view that the number of absolutely unemployable men on the roads is very small, but that, besides the considerable number who are not willing to work, the majority of tramps in normal times are unable to obtain employment on account of inferiority in skill or stamina."

In the report of one inspector three important causes were assigned for the decrease in vagrancy that was everywhere apparent. These were (1) the widespread good trade conditions and demand for labor, (2) the formation of vagrancy committees, and the introduction of the way-ticket system, and (3) the mobilization of army reserve men who were on the road, and the enlistment of other vagrants.'

As in London, so in the whole of England and Wales, the decline in the number of casual paupers which set in so soon after the beginning of the war continued throughout the war. Taking the numbers relieved on or about the first of January each year, there were in 1914, 7,719 persons in the casual wards, and this number fell to 5,351 in 1915, 4,034 in 1916, 2,885 in 1917, 1,556 in 1918, and 1,053 in 1919. In 1920, however, as a result of postwar conditions, the number rose to 2,086.

Discussing the situation on January 1, 1916, the New Statesman noted that "for the first time in three centuries the ablebodied pauper has practically disappeared out of the land." Up and down the country the able-bodied wards of the workhouses had been "emptied of all who were really able-bodied; the army of tramps on the road, estimated in bad years at as many as 80,000, has dwindled to a few poor stragglers; the casual ward stands often night after night unoccupied." The significance of this change was not lost sight of. This remarkable disappearance of the able-bodied pauper, according to the New Statesman,' brought home "an uncomfortable conviction of our uncharitableness in believing evil of our fellow-creatures. These vagrants, these melancholy workhouse inmates, were after all, not so incurably 'workshy' as we had complacently assumed." It was pointed out that these ex-casuals were at the lowest level of the wage-earning group. They had not left the workhouses for comfortable jobs at fabulous wages. They were for the most part earning not more than a pound a week, or at the most as much as thirty shillings. Contractors and farmers and wharf-foremen in different parts of the country were said to be actually getting unskilled laborers at such rates, with food 40 per cent above normal prices. But the war had demonstrated that the able-bodied wards would be emptied whenever there was any reasonable assurance of a continuity of hard manual toil at four or five shillings a day.

In consequence of the decline in the number of homeless men and women, casual wards in the workhouses became empty and were quickly put to other uses. In 1918 the Local Government Board reported that superfluous casual wards were being closed

not agree that Fisher's formula expresses the all-sufficient truth may thus welcome a practical compromise using his form where another is not specifically required, in order to eliminate the multiplicity of possible results and thus facilitate comparisons.

VII. WHY 1924 WEIGHTS GIVE THE LOWER RESULT

But why should 1907 weights give this higher result? One might at first expect the contrary-that 1924 production would amount to more when judged by the standards (i.e., weights) of its own year. One might even jump to the conclusion that the lower result with the 1924 weights indicated an industry not responsive to changes in demand, and which therefore failed to emphasize the most valuable commodities. We shall see, however, that this does not at all follow from the data we used.

The reason why the use of the base year weights of 1907 gives a higher figure than the end year weights of 1924 is that those commodities whose production increased most during the period experienced an even more rapid decline in their relative value per unit. This caused the commodities whose quantities increased most to include in 1924 a smaller percentage of the total value added by manufacture than they had formed in 1907.

But this fact that the commodities which increased most suffered a more than corresponding fall in unit values may in turn be explained by one or both of the following factors: (a) that, to coin a new expression, their relative elasticities of demand through time were less than unity. This is equivalent to saying that their relative flexibilities of value through time were greater than unity. While a more detailed discussion of this concept is reserved for a future treatment, when a formula for its measurement will be offered, it should perhaps be stated that it differs from the Marshallian concept of elasticity by including not merely changes on the demand curve resulting from changes in the quantity of the commodity in question but also changes of the demand curve resulting from changes in the quantity of other commodities; (b) that the actual historical cost curves of these commodities had a sharper downward slope to the right than those of the commodities which did not show such an advance in physical output.

If, over a period of time, the marginal cost of the A commodities (those whose quantities increased more than the average) increased less or diminished more than those of the B commodities (those whose quantities increased less than the average), then the unit values of the former would be less and their quantities greater than would have been the case with identical cost curves. If the fall in unit values more than counterbalanced the greater increase in quantities, the results would be lower weights in the case of the A commodities for the end year than for the base, which is, of course, precisely what happened in fact.

It is, of course, impossible to tell which of these two main forces had the greater influence, but the whole subject is one that merits further inductive study.

VIII. DIFFERENCES PRODUCED IN SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL GROUPS BY THE TWO METHODS OF WEIGHTING

The detailed results for different industries repay considerable study. Although Table V nearly explains itself, we will call attention here to a few of the more important showings:

1. In general, base year weights produce the higher result for each detailed group just as they did for the final index. The exceptions are non-ferrous metals and textiles. In both cases, the opposite result was due to one or more peculiarities in the relation between production changes and value changes as recorded. In the case of copper, this seems to have been due to a drastic decrease in the cost of production; in the case of linen, jute, and hemp, demand seems to have decreased drastically. The result in both cases was a much greater decrease in the weights (based on value) than the decrease in physical production. In the case of copper and brass alloys, woolen goods, clothing, millinery, hosiery, boots and shoes, there was a much greater increase of weights than of production. This indicates a comparative increase of real value per unit. It might be brought about by a general shifting of demand (shift of the schedule to the right), but is most probably due to our inability to measure the full extent of the increase in production from increased fabrication. Thus the unit of product is not the same in the last year as in the first, and from being a finer product it gets a higher relative value.