SOCIALISM  IN  ENGLAND.

292
other  evidences  of  general  well-being.  Finally,  the  increase  of
the  return  to  capital  has  not  been  in  any  way  in  proportion,  the
yield  on  the  same  amount  of  capital  being  less  than  it  was,  and
the  capital  itself  being  more  diffused,  while  the  remuneration
of  labour  has  enormously  increased.”  It  is  quite  true,  however,
that  a  vast  amount  of  want  and  misery  exists  side  by  side  with
a  general  increase  in  well-being.  We  have  not  to  do  merely
with  averages,  important  as  they  undoubtedly  are  as  showing
the  general  tendency.  As  long  as  there  are  two  or  three
millions  of  people  in  extreme  want,  it  is  poor  satisfaction  to
think  that  vast  numbers  of  other  people  have  more  than  they
quite  know  what  to  do  with.  This  inequality  of  wealth,  even
if  diminishing,  is  certainly  large  enough  to  constitute  a  great
social  evil.  What  is  its  cause,  and  what  is  its  remedy?  If
Mr.  George  has  really  answered  these  questions,  he  has  done
a  great  service  to  humanity.
To  put  his  answer  shortly,  Mr.  George  finds  that  rent
swallows  up  the  whole  benefit  of  increased  production  in  every
progressive  community,  while  the  returns  to  labour  and  capital
are  stationary  or  even  diminishing.  His  remedy  is  to  make
land  common  property,  and  his  mode  of  applying  the  remedy
is  to  confiscate  rent  by  taxation.  By  rent,  Mr.  George  means
the  whole  annual  value  of  land,  less  “  the  clearly  distinguishable
improvements  made  within  a  moderate  period.”  It  appears,
then,  that  the  working  man  has  been  making  a  mistake  in
supposing  that  “  his  master  is  the  enemy,”  or  at  least  in
thinking  that  it  is  his  employer  who,  in  the  shape  of  profits,
gets  the  lion’s  share  of  the  produce.  Of  the  three  elements
into  which  profits  are  divisible—compensation  for  risk,  wages
of  superintendence,  and  return  for  the  use  of  capital—the  first,
according  to  Mr.  George,  need  not  be  considered  in  determining ­
  the  law  of  the  distribution  of  wealth,  as  risk  is  eliminated ­
  in  the  totality  of  transactions  ;  the  second  is  rightly  called
“  wages,”  and  should,  he  thinks,  be  classed  with  the  wages  of
the  ordinary  labourer  ;  while  the  return  for  the  use  of  capital
is  interest  which,  according  to  Mr.  George,  is  likewise  reducible
to  the  law  of  wages,  rising  and  falling  with  the  rise  and  fall  of
wages.  Hence  Mr.  George  concludes  that  the  primary  division