employment in the case of a great and continually increasing majority. I
do not see how it will be possible for us to exclude or ignore this
class in our regimentation of the unemployed. Certainly our sympathies
go out very greatly after them. But beyond registering them in our
labour bureau, and acting as go-betweens in finding employment for a
small fraction of them, I do not see what more can be done. However, the
majority of them have well-to-do relations and friends to whom they can
turn, and except in cases of absolute destitution will not fall within
the scope of the present effort.

Passing over these we come to the poorest classes of peasant proprietors
who, having mortgaged their tiny allotments to the hilt, have finally
been sold up by the money-lender. Add to these again the more
respectable sections of day-laborers. Then there are the destitute among
the weavers, tanners, sweepers and other portions of what constitute the
low-caste community. Out of these take now the case of the weaver caste,
with whom we happen to be particularly familiar, as our work in Gujarat
is largely carried on among them. Since the introduction of machinery,
their lot has come to be particularly pitiable. In one district it is
reckoned that there are 400,000 of them. Previous to the mills being
started, they could get a comfortable competence, but year by year the
margin of profit has been narrowed down, till at length absolute
starvation is beginning to stare them in the face, and that within
measurable distance.

To the above we may add again the various gipsy tribes, who have no
settled homes or regular means of livelihood. Finally, there are the
non-religious mendicants, the religious ones being considered as not
coming within the scope of our present effort, being provided for in
charitable institutions of their own.