38 PKO( EEDIXGS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE. 



the means of subsistence. These two facts are fundamental in soci- 

 ology. They explain the migrations of mankind, and they explain 

 why progress was made in methods of producing food and in the aits 

 genernlly. So far from being in conflict with natural theology, they 

 are amongst the most striking proofs of omniscience on the part of 

 the Creator of society, for all sociological progi-ess is conditioned on 

 these two great principles. 



Mr. Douglass said that while he concurred in the important 

 conclusions arrived at by the speaker, there were matters of 

 detail that might fairly be challenged. Professor F"awcett 

 makes the statement that because there are three agents of 

 production — land, labour, and capital — therefore we may 

 assume that there should be three recipients of the product — 

 the landowner, the capitalist, and the laborer. This the 

 speaker characterized as being a most slovenly examination of 

 one of the most important questions in the whole range of 

 Economics, and atrociously illogical. 



The term " land," as an agent of production, is very objec- 

 tionable. The sun is an agent of production ; so is rain, and 

 to include these under the term " land " is very misleading. 

 Then what an absurdity to assume that the product is to be 

 divided amongst the agents of production, for how can we 

 give a share to the sun or the rain ? And then if it were true 

 that each agent of production should receive a share of the 

 product, in what way can we say that the mere appropriator 

 of ground rentals is an agent of production. While Malthus 

 had emphasized one fact in Economics, the speaker thought 

 he sadly overlooked another still more important fact. "It 

 may be true that increased population drives population to 

 poorer lands, and thus reduces production in one direction, 

 namely, of agricultural products ; still it is not true that 

 increased population diminishes the aggregate production. 

 For, put a man in isolation on the prairie and he will be poor, 

 howev^er great the natural advantages. Give him a companion 

 and the two will together produce more than twice the pro- 



