CLASSES AND MASSES.° Mn. MALLocx addresses this little volume to

"practical people, who realise how closely social problems are now con- nected with political ; " and "especially to people who are engaged in political work and speaking." In doing so he is led by becoming modesty to narrow the circle of his readers unnecessarily, for the brevity and clearness of his book should recommend it strongly to those who are neither practically nor politically inclined, but wish to know the main truths about the social questions which are re-echoed nowadays in the cloisters of the most secluded students. No writer of the present day can deal more lucidly than Mr. Matlock with figures and economic facts, and no one can apply clear-headed common-sense more effectively to the tangled problems with which they are connected. He gives us a few statistics and a diagram, and straightway we are rid of some horribly pessi- mistic doctrine that has been blared abroad by Socialistic agitators, and that has troubled easy-going folks like a night- mare, even though they have suspected all along that it was but a dream.

• Classes and Mati.es; or, Wealth. Wages, and Welfare in the United Kingdom:- a Handbook of Social Facts for Poltticat Thinkers and Speakers. By W. Mallock. London: A. and 0. 'Pack.

For instance, there is the assertion so commonly made by revolutionaries that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. This doctrine was propounded by Karl Marx, and endorsed by Carlyle, who ought to have known better. No one who has ever read it can forget the chapter in Sari or Resartas in which Herr Teufelsdrockh compares the two sects, Drudgism v. Dandyism, and remarks :—" To me it seems probable that the two Sects will one day part England between them ; each recruiting itself from the intermediate ranks, until there be none left to enlist on either aide I could liken Dandyism v. Drudgism to two bottomless boiling Whirlpools that had broken out on opposite quarters of the firm land; as yet they appear only disquieted, foolishly bubbling wells, which man's hat might cover-in; yet mark them, their diameter is daily widening, they are hollow Cones that boil-up from the infinite Deep, over which your firm land is but a thin crust or rind !" A more appalling picture could hardly be drawn, but it represents nothing that actually exists, and is based entirely on the bilious imaginings of the sage. Hear what Mr. Mallock has to say concerning the growth of wealth during the thirty years from 1850 to 1880 :—

" The reader is thus able to see at a glance how grotesque is the fallacy that represents the middle classes as being crushed out. He will see that, in absolute contradiction to the popular view, the middle classes are increasing with greater rapidity than the rich—in fact, that their increase is a most distinctive and extraordinary feature of the time ; whilst, if we compare their increase with that of the working classes, it becomes more startling and more extraordinary still. The total population increased from about 27,500,000 to 35,000,000; whilst the Income- tax-paying population was, as has been said already, 1,500,000 in /850 and more than 4,500,000 in 1881. If, then, we deduct these two amounts from the totals at the two dates, we have a working class population of 26,000,000 in 1850, and of 30,500,000 in 1881. The working classes have increased, therefore, by about 15 per cent., whilst the middle classes had increased by more than 300 per cent."

Instead of the poor becoming poorer, they are thus shown to be mounting rapidly into the comfortable middle class, under which title Mr. Matlock includes "individuals or families with incomes ranging from 2150 to 21,000." When the considerable fall in prices which has within the last thirty years reduced the cost of the necessaries of life so materially is also taken into account, it becomes evident that agitators

who have any respect for fac;;,-, will have to look about for a new set 61.--ciftensive weapons. But Mr. Iffallock's case is by !kg Means concluded with regard to this point. Not only has

the number of the comfortable class increased at a rate out of all proportion with that of the rest of the community, but the income of those who have been left behind in the " working " class shows a startlingly enormous aggregate advance. The facts given in the following passage seem almost incredible :—

"During the first sixty years of this century the income of the working classes rose to such an extent that in the year 1860 it was equal (all deductions for the increase of population being made) to the income of all classes in the year 1800. But there is a far more extraordinary fact to follow, and that is, that a result precisely similar has been accomplished since in one-half of the time. In 1880 the income of the working classes was (all deductions for the increase of population being made) more than equal to the income of all classes in the year 1850. Thus the working classes in 1860 were in precisely the same pecuniary position as the working classes in 1800 would have been had the entire wealth of the kingdom been in their hands; and the working classes of to-day are in a better pecuniary posi- tion than their fathers would have been could they have plundered and divided between them the wealth of every rich and middle-class man at the time of the building of the first great Exhibition. The wildest Socialist, the most discontented Radical, cannot possibly claim for the people more wealth than exists, no matter what revolution he might have it in his power to accomplish ; and few Socialists imagine that it would be possible to redistribute everything. And yet, in actual fact, this miracle has taken place—has taken place twice in the course of three generations—and has taken place, not only without any attempt at revolution, but in consequence of those very institu- tions against which would-be revolutionists protest."

Mr. Mallock proceeds to the question of the "living wage," which he discusses from a new and very interesting point of view, but it must be admitted that his reasoning is a little too abstruse for a popular hand-book of this description. The conclusion at which he arrives is that "the minimum standard of human living' is determined, and is necessarily determined, by the maximum which a man who pays no rent can extract from his own labour from the worst soil under cultivation." He points out that all life depends on food; nearly all our food comes from the soil; and therefore we eould none of us live unless the soil were cultivated. This is very true; but Mr. Mallock is avowedly confining his atten- tion to our own country, and the cultivation of the soil is a matter which is complicated more than any other by inter- national competition. And it is possible for advocates of a higher minimum standard to argue that the worst soils now tilled should go out of cultivation, since they do not yield sufficient comforts to the labourer. Nor is it enough to reply that "no sane person doubts that the soil of this country ought to be cultivated." The impossibility of fixing a mini- mum price for labour was, in our opinion, most clearly shown by M. Yves Gayot in a lecture of his, recently translated. He pointed out that wages are fixed, not by the employer of labour, but by the consumer of the product. "He both pays the wages and regulates them, for he fixes the price of the product which he wishes to buy. He can deny himself, can restrict his consumption, and if, by any artifice, by means of restrictions on the hours of labour or minimum rates of wages, the cost price of an article is raised above what suits the consumer, he goes on strike, and there is no law in the world which could compel him to buy what he does not choose to."

In his last chapter Mr. Mallock gives some very interesting figures, which fully bear out his contention that the poor are rapidly becoming more wealthy, from the last Census return, and certain estimates of the national wealth compiled by "Mr." (why not Sir Robert P) Giffen, and other statisticians.

He first of all dispels the "vague belief prevailing in the minds of many persons that there exists in this country an enormous unoccupied class of luxurious and useless persons." The unoccupied class is stated in the Census at "something like 55 per cent. of the whole number," and this figure is cer- tainly startling enough as it stands. But Mr. Mallock shows that we must deduct women and children, males over sixty-

five, lunatics, deaf and dumb, 8r.c. He continues :— "If we deduct these, we reduce the number of the unoccupied to two hundred thousand; and, again, of these two hundred thousand, more than forty thousand are men who have retired from business after their fifty-fifth year, and nearly six thousand are pensioners above the same age; whilst the number of males between twenty and sixty-five returned as 'living on their own means' is not more than ninety-two thousand."

This chapter also shows that a marked improvement has been effected in the housing of the poorer classes, and that the belief that the capitalist system is crushing out the smaller firms is not borne out by figures. We must quote one more passage :—

" There is the increase of 15 per cent, in the school teachers, which shows the progress of education ; there is an increase of 21 per cent, in the butchers, which shows a general increase of meat consumption ; there is an increase of 26 per cent. in the doctors, which shows the growing attention given to the popular health ; and, lastly, there is an increase of 53 per cent, in the persons who professionally minister to amusement. It may be said that a part of this increase is an increase in actors, singers, and others who amuse the wealthier classes. This is true; but the figures of the Census show us that the increase in this class was comparatively small, and that the great increase has taken place amongst showmen, tumblers, clowns, and BO forth—that is to say, in that precise section which ministers exclusively to the amusement of the poorer classes. The increase in this section is not less than 80 per cent. Thus the masses have become able in ten years very nearly to double their expenditure on amuse- ment."

One or two misprints should.be corrected in the next edition. On p. 110 " occupied " should be "unoccupied," and on

p. 137 "the" apparently stands for "no." In conclusion, may we be allowed to suggest that Mr. Mallock should give us more useful books of this sort, and fewer disagreeable novels P