SOCIALISM IN' ENGLAND. 
293 
of wealth is dual, not tripartite ; capital is but a form of labour, 
and the law to be sought is the law which divides the produce 
between rent and wages. Accepting Ricardo’s law of rent, Mr. 
George finds as a corollary that wages also depend on the 
margin of cultivation, but inversely to rent, so that, as the 
margin of cultivation lowers, rent rises and wages fall. Finally, 
he finds that increase in population, improvements in the arts, 
—everything, in short, that augments the productive power of 
labour—tends to advance rent and not to advance wages. 
Hence it appears that the employer, whether capitalist or not, 
and the labourer are not the real antagonists, but factory lord 
and factory hand are both ground down by the common enemy 
of mankind, the landowner. 
It is unnecessary to expose the long chain of fallacies by 
which Mr. George arrives at this surprising result The critics 
of his book have been sufficiently numerous. M. de Laveleye 
has made some remarks upon it in a former chapter, and a 
more detailed criticism by the same writer will be found in the 
Contemporary Review for November, 1882. Mr. John Rae’s 
recent work on “ Contemporary Socialism ” comprises a long 
chapter vigorously criticising “ Progress and Poverty.” Mr. 
Mallock has also entered the lists against the prophet of San 
Francisco.* His other critics include the Duke of Argyle, 
Lord Bramwell, Professor Fawcett, Mr. Frederic Harrison, the 
late Mr. Arnold Toynbee, and his fellow-countryman. Professor 
F. Walker. Mr. George’s last book, “ Social Problems,” per 
haps because it has less pretensions to the character of a 
scientific work, is, in the main, less unsatisfactory and more 
suggestive than its more ambitious predecessor. It is worth 
noting, however, that Mr. George is advancing in revolutionary 
ideas. He now apparently advocates the repudiation of 
public debts, as resting, like private property in land, “on 
the preposterous assumption that one generation may bind 
another.” | 
Before noticing the societies which have been formed for 
carrying out Mr. George’s ideas, it will be convenient to give 
• See his “Property and Progress,” eh. i. (Murray, London, 1884). 
t “ Social Problems,” p. 154 (Kegan Paul, 1884).