because men are still taught to regard
life as an "insoluble mystery," instead of as a "mathematical
problem." I have, therefore, thought it advisable to analyze freely
what Mr. George has said in "Progress and Poverty." The book is
written to explain why, "when population is densest, wealth greatest,
and the machinery of production and exchange most highly developed,
we find the deepest poverty, the sharpest struggle for existence,
and the most enforced idleness;" and it is asserted as a fact,
"that modern material progress does not merely fail to relieve
poverty - it actually produces it." If so, perhaps Mr. George
will explain why it is that in 1861, in 655 unions and parishes,
with a population of 19,886,000, there were 1,033,974 paupers;
in 1871, in 647 unions and parishes, with a population of 22,706,03l,
there were 1,081,926 paupers; but in 1881, in 647 unions and parishes,
and a population of 25,965,97], there were only 803,126 paupers.
All reliable information proves the opposite of what Mr. George
asserts; and, bad as things are in 1884, it seems to me that,
owing to railways and free trade, there has been a more general
"levelling up" of the people during the last forty years than
at any preceding time in the world's history. It is not true that
"the rich are growing richer, the poor poorer," but the reverse.
It is interesting to consider how wealth was distributed amongst
the three
