: THEORY OF STATISTICS. 
2. Mlustration i.—It is required to throw some light on the 
variations of pauperism in the unions (unions of parishes) of 
England. (Cf. Yule, ref. 2.) 
One table (Table VIII.) bearing on a part of this question, viz. 
the influence of the giving of out-relief on the proportion of the 
aged in receipt of relief, was given in Chap. IX. (p. 183). The 
question was treated by correlating the percentage of the aged 
relieved in different districts with the ratio of numbers relieved 
outdoors to the numbers in the workhouse. Is such a method 
the best possible ? 
On the whole, it would seem better to correlate changes in 
pauperism with changes in various possible factors. If we say 
that a high rate of pauperism in some district is due to lax 
administration, we presumably mean that as administration 
became lax, pauperism rose; or that if administration were more 
strict, pauperism would decrease ; if we say that the high pauper- 
ism is due to the depressed condition of industry, we mean that 
when industry recovers, pauperism will fall. When we say, in 
fact, that any one variable is a factor of pauperism, we mean 
that changes in that variable are accompanied by changes in the 
percentage of the population in receipt of relief, either in the 
same or the reverse direction. It will be better, therefore, to 
deal with changes in pauperism and possible factors. The next 
question is what factors to choose. 
3. The possible factors may be grouped under three heads : — 
(a) Administration.—Changes in the method or strictness of 
administration of the law. 
(6) Environment.— Changes in economic conditions (wages, 
prices, employment), social conditions (residential or industrial 
character of the district, density of population, nationality of 
population), or moral conditions (as illustrated, e.g., by the statis- 
tics of crime). 
(c) Age Distribution.—the percentage of the population between 
given age-limits in receipt of relief increases very rapidly with old 
age, the actual figures given by one of the only two then existing 
returns of the age of paupers being—2 per cent. under age 16, 
1 per cent. over 16 but under 65, 20 per cent. over 65. (Return 
36, 1890.) 
It is practically impossible to deal with more than three factors, 
one from each of the above groups, or four variables alto- 
gether, including the pauperism itself. What shall we take, then, 
as representative variables, and how shall we best measure 
“ pauperism ” } 
4. Pauperism.—The returns give (a) cost, (6) numbers relieved. 
It seems better to deal with (8) (as in the illustration of Table 
192