BY R. M. JOHNSTON, F.L.S. • 181 



due to the vastly increased productive power obtained through 

 a greater knowledge of Nature's forces — more especially in 

 the uses of steam and electricity. The contrary allegation by 

 Mr. Henry G-eorge and others has no support from reason or 

 facts. 



It is clear, therefore, that the greatness or smallness of 

 accumulated wealth is not necessarily an index to the presence 

 or absence of individual comfort and happiness, but rather 

 both depend upon the relative proportions which the total 

 wealth and total population bear to each other. 



Erom this it is easy to show that the chief source of misery 

 and discomfort — or the diminution of necessary supply of 

 wants per head — is mainly due to the tendency of population, 

 in times of distress, to increase in a greater ratio than the 

 powers of production. 



The extravagant statement of Mr. Henry George, that 

 " there is nowhere any improvement which can be credited to 

 increased productive power," is too absurd, perhaps, to require 

 serious consideration. Yet it may be well to show by a simple 

 illustration its utter fallacy. 



Iiet us take one of the most important wants of man, 

 necessarily consumed alike by rich and poor, viz., common 

 water. 4:l*^o^gli ^^ natural reservoirs or channels, as in 

 springs, lakes, and rivers, it is generally a gratuitous gift of 

 Nature to all men, it has to be transferred to points of con- 

 sumption ; and although the gratuitous element never enters 

 into exchange price, it is generally a marketable commodity in 

 large centres of population where a large daily supply is 

 absolutely necessary. The element which here forms price is 

 labour of transfer. The labour of transferring water by 

 primitive means is great, as one gallon weighs 101b., and if 

 the distance be considerable both time and muscular powers of 

 labourer must be consumed, and, therefore, the carrier must earn 

 the equivalent of such time and labour as may be expended in 

 this most necessary service. It is true water, for the support 

 of a few individuals, may be supplied at a minimum of the 

 expenditure of time and labour; for their habitations might 

 be fixed contiguous to the natural supply ; but for large 

 towns this, for the most part, is quite impracticable. In the 

 latter case water supply would fall into one of the most 

 important divisions of marketable labour, and the price of 

 water to the consumer would be determined by the present 

 time and labour bestowed by water carriers engaged in the 

 service, plus the proportion of cost and maintenance of 

 equipment necessary — (anterior labour). 



Now, if we were to confine attention to the producer (only 

 about 44*2 per cent, of living persons are producers of 

 marketable wants), we would never perceive the full signi- 



