are not absolutely houseless, inasmuch as they are often able to share
the shelter of some relation or friend, it cannot be doubted that a very
large percentage of them might say, "Foxes have holes, and the birds of
the air have nests," but we "have not where to lay our heads."

Of the homeless poor there are two classes. The more fortunate find
shelter in those of the Dharamsalas, Temples and Mosques which contain
provision for such purposes. It must be remembered, however, that a
large number of such institutions are reserved for certain favored
castes, and are not therefore available for the out-caste poor. For the
rest, the uncertain shelter of verandahs, porticoes, market-places,
open sheds, and, in fine weather, the road-way, esplanade, or some shady
tree, have to suffice.

As already said, I am quite willing to admit that this question of
shelter for the poor is of secondary importance as compared with that of
their food-supply. And yet is it nothing to us that millions of the
Indian poor have no place that they can call "home," not even the meagre
shelter of the one-roomed hut with which they would gladly be content?
Is it nothing to us that superadded to the sufferings of hunger, they
have to face the sharp and sometimes frosty air of the cold weather with
scarcely a rag to their backs, and no doors, windows, or even walls to
keep off the chilly wind? Is it nothing to us that in the rainy season
they have to make their bed on the damp floor or ground, though to do so
means a certain attack of fever? Is it nothing to us that under such
circumstances the houseless poor should be converted into a dismal
quagmire in which moral leprosy, more terrible than its bodily
representative, should thrive and propagate itself? Certainly if the
Indian destitute are to have a "bullock charter" granted to them, it
will be necessary that it should sooner or later include suitable and