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,”  perhaps ­
  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).