We are then told that "so long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings, goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury, and make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real, and cannot be permanent." A perfectly justifiable conclusion, if the statement was true; but all statistics prove that the poorer classes, at least those that will or can work, are paid a larger share than formerly for their share in what is produced, and wages generally are more uniform. To any one who has lived half a century, statistics are not necessary; the position of the working class then and now are so very different. Mr. George asks, "Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a minimum which will gain but a bare living ? " In reply, I should advise Mr. George to study the law of " supply and demand "-a law he has chosen to ignore, although it is the foundation-stone upon which political economy is built. It surprises Mr. George that the "labour-saving inventions of our age have not lightened the toil and improved the condition of the labourer." They have done so, fully in proportion to what labour deserves. Mr. George must be aware that many of these "labour-saving machines " had to be introduced because of the difficulty employers had to get their men to work regularly; and it seems natural and equitable that the skilled brain that invents and directs, and the capita that invests in productive machinery, should get the greater benefit from a "producing power" that makes them to a certain extent independent of labour. As a matter of fact, machinery, if it has not lessened, certainly has not increased