The laws of evolution apply to social phenomena. Tested by these we see that the Shelter, the Municipal Lodging-house, and the Rowton House are replacing the common lodging-house. Is there any reason why they should not, when for the rich the hotel has replaced the inn? It is a question of national moment what provision should be made for the floating population of men and women.

In smaller towns the common lodging-house is disappearing (see Minutes of Evidence before Vagrancy Committee, section 1752). In London the accommodation is decreasing (see ibid., section 5784). Is this to be deplored or hastened? The poor must sleep somewhere. Let us first of all distinguish between the Free Charitable Shelter and Free Meals, and the question of provision of adequate housing accommodation for our floating population.

The provision for absolute destitution belongs to the State. Only the State, or the State through the Municipality, can exercise sufficient authority to sift the incapable and "won't-works" from the simply "unemployed." The former should be in some State or State-subsidised institution, unless supported by relatives. The "won't-works" require coercion. Any form of charity that impedes right State action is harmful. It has arisen because the State has shirked its duty. The public should be satisfied that every destitute man and woman gets bed and board, with even-handed justice, in return for a task, if capable, or with proper care if incapable. Then Free Shelters and Free Meals would disappear.

But provision of proper accommodation for those who are struggling to earn their living is another matter. Hitherto it has grown up haphazard, sanitary regulations have slowly been made, still more slowly enforced, and are often a dead letter.

If the question of the common lodging-house were simply that of enforcing on the proprietor of a certain house, by means of adequate inspection, a certain standard of cleanliness and decency, there would still be reasons why a Municipal lodging-house or charitable Shelter would, if under strict supervision, be a better provision for the poor. I will tabulate these.

But it is not a question merely of the state of the common lodging-house. Bound up with this is the fact that around the common lodging-houses in each large town is growing up silently a great evil, a network of single "furnished rooms," which are the last refuge of evicted householders, but also the home of immorality. The insufficient provision of the common lodging-house is being silently largely supplemented by these. These evils are flagrant. Yet they cannot be suppressed. The homeless must have somewhere to go. The crowding of slum areas by "lodgers" is as grave an evil.

The "way out" is to provide in every town, under charge of the Municipality, well-regulated sanitary and sufficient accommodation. As a national provision is required, Municipalities of smaller towns might be encouraged by loans for building purposes on national credit, Government in return exercising care as to expense. Glasgow has shown that such enterprises

(1) Suppress the poor insufficient houses,

(2) Provide adequate return on capital,

(3) Lead to the rise of still better accommodation for working men.

A Municipal lodging-house should be linked to remedial agencies, and a chain should exist on routes of travel.

Especially for women, municipal lodging-houses are a necessity. With regard to the question of "bunks" versus "beds," it is strange that while on the one hand for sanitary reasons the Government allows plank beds and wire mattresses, it is about to enforce for a class confessedly dirtier (see Vagrancy Report, 335) a universal bed. The idea that "inspection" can keep beds clean without stoving is futile. Some of the vermin most troublesome to get rid of are microscopic. Also the idea that people undress to go to bed, and do not undress in a bunk, is not correct. The class that possess only "what they stand up in" possess no night garments. Women keep some of their garments on. Men may undress (for protection from vermin). All the garments not worn all night are usually tucked into the bed for fear of thefts. I have seen women undressing similarly in a bunk. The Salvation Army keeps its shelters spotlessly clean and free from vermin. Unless cleansing of the person is compelled by law, all that can be done for the lowest class of all is to provide some easily cleansed resting-place (see p. 30. Something must be done to prevent the scandal of "sleeping out" in our wealthy cities.

The popularity of the Shelter shows it meets a social need. Also in connection with public institutions, remedial action and sorting into classes is possible, which is impossible in places provided for private profit. We should aim at getting every individual into a safe and sanitary shelter at night. How can a destitute woman find 3s. 6d. per week for bare shelter? If she pays this should not it entitle her to a place which is clean, where she can keep herself clean, and can keep her self-respect?