The significance of such figures as these can scarcely be over-estimated.  Although it might fairly be urged that the lowest dip in trade depression truly represented the injury inflicted on the labouring-classes by trade fluctuations, we will omit the year 1886, and take 1887 as a representative period of ordinary trade depression.  The figures quoted above are supported by Trade Union statistics, which show that in that year among the strongest Trade Unions in the country, consisting of the picked men in each trade, no less than 71 in every 1000, or over 7 per cent., were continuously out of work.  That this was due to their inability to get work, and not to their unwillingness to do it, is placed beyond doubt by the fact that they were, during this period of enforced idleness, supported by allowances paid by their comrades.  Indeed, the fact that in 1890 the mass of unemployed was almost absorbed, disposes once for all of the allegation that the unemployed in times of depression consist of idlers who do not choose to work.  Turning to the year 1887, there is every reason to believe that where 7 per cent, are unemployed in the picked, skilled industries of a country, where the normal supply of labour is actually limited by Union regulations, the proportion in unskilled or less organized industries is much larger.  It is probable that 12 per cent, is not an excessive figure to take as the representative of the average proportion of unemployed.  In the recent official returns of wages in textile industries, it is admitted that 10 per cent, should be taken off from the nominal wages for irregularity of employment.  Moreover, it is true (with certain exceptions) that the lower you go down in the ranks of labour and of wages, the more irregular is the employment.  To the pressure of this evil among the very poor in East London notice has already been drawn.  We have seen how Mr. Booth finds one whole stratum of 100,000 people, who from an industrial point of view are worse than worthless.  We have no reason to conclude that East London is much worse in this respect than other centres of population, and the irregularity of country employment is increasing every year.  Are we to conclude then that of the thirteen millions composing the “working-classes” in this country, nearly two millions are liable at any time to figure as waste or surplus labour?  It looks like it.  We are told that the movements of modern industry necessitate the existence of a considerable margin supply of labour.  The figures quoted above bear out this statement.  But a knowledge of the cause does not make the fact more tolerable.  We are not at present concerned with the requirements of the industrial machine, but with the quantity of hopeless, helpless misery these requirements indicate.  The fact that under existing conditions the unemployed seem inevitable should afford the strongest motive for a change in these conditions.  Modern life has no more tragical figure than the gaunt, hungry labourer wandering about the crowded centres of industry and wealth, begging in vain for permission to share in that industry, and to contribute to that wealth; asking in return not the comforts and luxuries of civilized life, but the rough food and shelter for himself and family, which would be practically secured to him in the rudest form of savage society.