The Otago Daily Times

Monday, November 16, 1885.

Few books dealing with social and economic problems have been more widely read in recent years than Mr Henry George's "Progress and Poverty." Written with evident sincerity of purpose and earnestness of tone, and also in very forcible and persuasive language, it appealed not only to the sympathies of the working classes themselves but to those of a number of educated and thoughtful people who had pondered in vain the problem with which it proposed to deal. In many quarters it was hailed as a new gospel, the herald of glad tidings to the toiling myriads who seemed to be toiling in vain. More sturdy believers in the received doctrines of political economy were, however, not so easily led astray by Mr George's brilliant appeals to the sympathies of his readers, and we doubt if any political economist of eminence has been in any degree converted to his views. It was felt, however, that the book demanded a reply from the orthodox school, and the best and most complete reply we have yet seen is that which first appeared in the "Quarterly Review," and was last year reprinted under the title "Property and Progress." It is from the pen of Mr W. H. Mallock, and is to be found in our Athenæum library. We commend this volume to those of our readers who, having been struck with Mr George's remarkable theories, and also somewhat puzzled, desire to see the other side of the question fairly and calmly argued. Mr Mallock gives full credit to Mr George for the skill with which he states his case, and indulges in no vituperation; but he mercilessly deals with all his main positions, and points out the fallacies on which his arguments are founded. He speaks of him as an "unselfish philanthropist," as "the friend of the poor and not the enemy of the rich," and adds, "Morally, therefore, he fully deserves a hearing; and our condemnation of his doctrines, though it will certainly not be softened, will at least be accompanied by a certain respect for himself. . . . Gross as his errors are, they are the errors of a vigorous thinker; and he falls into delusions which most men would escape from from pursuing arguments that most men would be blind to.

In proceeding to answer Mr George's arguments he deals with them under five heads, which he states are the page break author's main propositions. Firstly, as the production of wealth grows greater the share that goes to the labouring class grows less; secondly, the labouring class creates its own wages as it receives them, it being wholly false that wages are drawn from capital; thirdly, population does not increase faster than do the means of subsistence, and thus the current explanations of poverty are no explanation at all; fourthly, poverty really is caused by the appropriation of land by individuals; fifthly, poverty would be cured by the confiscation of land by the State. As to the first point, Mr Mallock says (p. 78) that "all who have studied the subject carefully are unanimous in declaring that it is wholly untrue. The poverty that underlies civilisation is no doubt a terrible evil; it may easily develop into a dangerous one; but so far is it from being relatively an increasing evil that there is every reason to believe it to be somewhat diminishing; whilst as to the middle classes, instead of being destroyed by modern progress, they are, on the contrary, its special and most evident product." In regard to the relation between wages and capital, and to the Malthusian theory of the pressure created by increased population, Mr Mallock, we think, very conclusively shows that Mr George misstates the problem, and thus entirely misleads himself by his own illustrations. Scarcely less conclusive is our author's exposition of the effect of making every occupier a tenant of the State, and he maintains with much force that under such a regime, "in the long run, so far as the general public are concerned, the evils Mr George complains of would remain wholly unaltered; that rents would be no lower; land no easier to get; and that the beggar might go houseless in the streets, exactly as he does now"—(page 69). We cannot in the brief space of one article reproduce all Mr Mallock's arguments; our desire is rather to attract attention to the book itself, which also contains several other papers with regard to socialistic theories, and one especially interesting on the "Statistics of Agitation." From this latter paper we make one or two extracts of figures bearing on the main positions of Mr George. The writer shows (page 211) that "in proportion to the increase of the population as a whole the class with incomes between L150 and L300 has increased during the past 30 years by 148 per cent., the class with incomes between L300 and L600 by 130 per cent., the class with incomes between L600 and L1000 by 77 per cent., and the class with incomes above L1000 by 76 per cent.," and he further shows that while the average of each increase in the lowest class is greater, the average of each increase in the higher class is actually less. Then with regard to the distribution of the land, he shows (p. 215) that the landed aristocracy, all told, number about 5000. Just below them come 4800 owners with estates that average 700 acres. Then come 32,000 with estates that average 200 acres; then 25,000 with estates that average 70 acres; and then 72,000 with estates that average 20 acres—the total number of the smaller proprietors being thus not less than 133,000, while the urban proprietors, with their quarter acre and the suburban proprietors, with their four acres, number no fewer than 820,000. The gross rental of England is about ninety-nine million pounds, and of this only thirty millions goes to the aristocracy, while those owners in England and Scotland who own estates of less than 50 acres enjoy a rental greater by four millions than the whole agricultural rental of both countries 30 years ago. He further shows (p. 225) that of the whole annual income of the United Kingdom—some twelve hundred millions—only one-eighth in all represents rentals of land, page break and only one-twenty-fourth rentals enjoyed by the landed aristocracy. If such figures are carefully considered, it will be seen how enormously the evils of landlordism have been exaggerated by Mr George, and that if he wants a redistribution of wealth he cannot possibly stop at the ownership of land, but must attack the profits of trade as well. We assume the correctness of Mr Mallock's figures, since he quotes the highest statistical authorities, and has himself too high a reputation to imperil it by careless statements which could easily be refuted. Taking them together, the papers contained in the volume from which we have quoted are at least valuable contributions to the controversy, and the onus now lies on the disciples of Mr George to refute this refutation.