labor during this generation being much greater than in any generation preceding, and constantly increasing. Evidences, drawn from many independent sources, converge and prove this beyond question. A few enormous fortunes have been amassed during the present generation in this new and undeveloped continent, but under conditions which no longer exist. In our day, even in the United States, it is much easier to lose a great fortune than to make one, and more are being lost than made. It is rather surprising, therefore, that the Rev. Mr. Hugh Price Hughes should say: "Whatever may be thought of Mr. Henry George's doctrines and deductions, no one can deny that his facts are indisputable, and that Mr. Carnegie's 'progress' is accompanied by the growing 'poverty' of his less fortunate fellow-countrymen."

(2) Hughes's belief that "the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer" was a widely quoted aphorism of this period. It had little factual basis. Henry George (1882-1916), the American economist and author of Progress and Poverty (1879), justifying the "single tax," accepted the commonly held notion.

(3) Michael George Mulhall (1836-1900). His book, one of several on economic matters and statistics, appeared in England in 1887.

* In 1890 the number of farms in the United States was 4,564,641 and the average size 136 and 1/2 acres. -- ED. [Note in original edition.]

(4) The passage is from Spencer's Study of Sociology, pp. 256-59.

the enrichment of the country and of the laborer. Imagine one speaking of "growing poverty" in the United States! The American, more than any other workman, spends his savings for the purchase of a home. The savings-banks are only one of several depositories used by him.

ments that were the reverse of correct. I earnestly hope, therefore, that he will satisfy himself that every writer of authority is not deceived when he asserts that poverty, want, and pauperism are rapidly diminishing quantities; and most significantly so, not so much through almsgiving, or efforts of the rich, but because of an improvement through education in the habits of the people themselves - the only foundation upon which their continued progress can surely be built. Mr. Hughes can also readily learn another indisputable fact by inquiring at the shipyards of Glasgow, the iron and steel mills of Sheffield, the coal-mines of the Midlands, or at industrial establishments generally - namely, that the working-classes receive much greater compensation for their services than they ever did or now do for any other form of labor, and much greater than they could possibly receive, except for the establishment of great enterprises by men of wealth. In these days of excitement and exaggeration, let it always be borne in mind that at no period in the history of the English-speaking race, wherever that race resides, has it been so easy as it is to-day for the masses not only to earn comfortable livelihoods, but to save and have money in bank for a rainy day. When they fail to do so, the true reformer looks more to their habits than to existing conditions for a satisfactory explanation.

Europe, and in the United States still more, of recent origin, than in Britain; and the revenues of the masses are just in proportion to the ease with which millionaires grow. The British laborer receives more for one day's handling of the shovel than the blacksmith or carpenter of China, Russia, India, or Japan receives for a whole week's labor, and double that of his Continental fellow-workman. The skilled artisan of America receives more than twice as much as the artisan of Britain. Millionaires can only grow amid general prosperity, and this very prosperity is largely promoted by their exertions. Their wealth is not made, as Mr. Hughes implies, at the expense of their fellow-countrymen. Millionaires make no money when compelled to pay low wages. Their profits accrue in periods when wages are high, and the higher the wages that have to be paid, the higher the revenues of the employer. It is true, and not false, therefore, that capital and labor are allies and not antagonistic forces, and that one cannot prosper when the other does not.

is at hand when he who dies possessed of enormous sums, which were his and free to administer during his life, will die disgraced, and holds that the aim of the millionaire should be to die poor. It likewise pleads for modesty of private expenditure

forms of enterprise, such for example as the business of a great publishing house, the work of the father is propagated by his descendants?"

much, but without serious injury, since the duties matter of routine, seldom involving the welfare or of others; but the management of business, never.

(5) Lord Tollemache (1805-1890) was the landlord of two estates, totaling 33,000 acres, in Suffolk and Cheshire. He contributed a phrase and a practice to land reform by giving each of his 250 cottage tenants "three acres and a cow," from the rectums of which they could supplement their wages on neighboring farms. At the same time he divided his own estates into farms of 200 acres as the most profitable unit of cultivation. He had the most advanced ideas about a landlord's responsibility and knew every tenant and his capabilities. On his death in 1890 the Times characterized him "as the finest practical agriculturist in the country."

a smaller scale by Mr. Gladstone himself, in that earthly Paradise, Hawarden?"

(6) Gladstone's large private estate in Wales, site of an ancient castle.

(7) Lord Salisbury was a Cecil. The family, one of the most distinguished in English history, attained eminence at least as early as the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Robert Cecil, the first Earl of Salisbury, younger son of William Lord Burghley, was Queen Elizabeth's famous Lord Treasurer. A lineal descendant, Robert Arthur Talbot Cascoyne-Cecil, third Marquis of Salisbury, was born in 1830. His father, disapproving of the young man's marriage, gave him only a limited income. Thereupon he became a contributor to magazines, notably Bentley's Quarterly Review and the Saturday Review. On the death of an older brother in 1865 he became his father's heir. Meanwhile in the Commons he had made a reputation as a conservative and a foe of Gladstone. After serving as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and in other positions, he became in 1885 prime minister for the first time. Through the next fifteen years he recurrently held this office as well as that for foreign affairs. He left office for the last time in 1902 and died the following year.

ceeding to the office of Prime Minister, which office ten generations ago was filled by one of his ancestors, and asks: "Is not this tie of lineage a link binding him to honor and to public virtue?" Is not Mr. Gladstone unfortunate in naming Lord Salisbury in support of his views? I have always regarded him as a striking instance of the advantage of not being born to hereditary wealth and position. Like the great founder of the Cecils, Lord Salisbury himself was born a commoner - a younger son with a younger son's portion; and with the promptings of decided ability within him, he did everything in his power to prevent being narrowed and restricted by the smothering robes of rank and wealth. The laws of his country forced him to sink his individuality in a peerage, but for which English history might have told of a first and a second. Cecil, as it tells of a first and a second Pitt -- men too great to be obliterated as men by any title. It is a sad descent in historical rank from "Cecil" to the "Marquis" of anything. The highest title which a man can write upon the page of history is his own name. Mr. Gladstone's will be there; Gladstone he is, Gladstone he will remain, even if he tried to make future generations lose his commanding personality in the "Dukedom of Clydesdale," or any title whatever. But who among his contemporaries in public life is to stand this supreme test of masterdom? There is room for one only in each generation. It is safe to predict that, whoever he be, he will resemble "Gladstone" in one essential feature: he will be of the people, free from the dis-

advantage of hereditary wealth and position, and stamp his name and personality upon the glittering scroll. "Disraeli" promised well for a time, but he fades rapidly into Beaconsfield

(8) Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) became Earl of Beaconsfield in 1876 but did not exactly "fade" as statesman until 1880.

Marquis of Salisbury, his grandfather having been President.

(9) Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901), twenty third President of the United States, was the grandson of William Henry Harrison, the ninth.

(10) James A. Garfield (1831-1881) reputedly was the last president to be born in a log cabin.

(1l) James G. Blaine (1850-1893), Secretary of State in Garfleid's administration (1880-81) and again in 1889-1902, taught school at Western Military Institute, Georgetown, Kentucky, and at an institution for the blind in Philadelphia.

without exception the lineage of honest poverty - of laborious, wage-receiving parents, leading lives of virtuous privation, sacrificing comforts that their sons might be kept at school - lineage from the cottage of poverty, not the palace of hereditary rank and position.

25. Poor boys reared thus directly by their parents possess such advantages over those watched and taught by hired strangers, and exposed to the temptations of wealth and position, that it is not surprising they become the leaders in every branch of human action. They appear upon the stage, athletes trained for the contest, with sinews braced, indomitable wills, resolved to do or die. Such boys always have marched, and always will march, straight to the front and lead the world; they are the epoch-makers. Let one select the three or four foremost names, the supremely great in every field of human triumph, and note how small is the contribution of hereditary rank and wealth to the short list of immortals who have lifted and advanced the race. It will, I think, be seen that the possession of these is almost fatal to greatness and goodness, and that the greatest and best of our race have necessarily been nurtured in the bracing school of poverty-the only school capable of producing the supremely great, the genius.

among their fellow-citizens aids integrity and promotes thrift and prosperity."

(12) On the other hand, Carnegie, pained by the ingratitude of republics, bequeathed in his will an income of $10,000 a year to ex-President Taft and $5,000 a year each to Mrs. Grover Cleveland and Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt.

(13) English statesman and author (1838-1923), Secretary of Ireland under Gladstone and Secretary for India, 1905-1910.

iture and magnificence in the State, gave expression to the hope that the highly placed might learn that the truest dignity consisted in quiet and simple living. I do not quote his words but the sense of his reply. Mr. Gladstone himself will leave behind him many titles to the affection, gratitude, and admiration of his countrymen; but when the future eulogist says of him - as he will truly be able to say - what is said of Pitt upon his monument in G[u]ildhall, he will pay him the greatest of all tributes. These words are: "Dispensing for many years the favours of his sovereign, he lived without ostentation, and died poor." If we cannot have Mr. Gladstone preaching in favor of modest living upon the part of those in station, we rejoice that none excels him in the practice of that virtue. It is seldom we are permitted to extol the example beyond the precept of the sage.

questioning in the thought of the much greater portion of their means which is being spent upon others. But I do not profess that this is entirely satisfactory, and I am glad to agree with Mr. Hughes in the very low estimate he places upon this partial treatment of the serious question he has raised: "How much dare we retain for our own gratification?"

(l4) The Charity Organization Society Of New York was established in 1881 to correlate the efforts and grants of the many private charity organizations "engaged in teaching and relieving the poor of the city in their own homes." It was an example of a general movement in the late nineteenth century to introduce more efficiency and less duplication in the bestowal of private charity.

of the numerous persons who were receiving town aid. In forty instances he found that the applicants for charity had from five hundred to three thousand dollars in the savings bank; in one case, that of a woman who had been drawing 'town money' for years, it was found she had nearly twenty thousand dollars in a local bank."

The earnest reformer will think as much, if not more, of the preservation of the sound and valuable members among the poor, as of any real change which can be effected in those who seem hopelessly lost to temperance, industry, and thrift. He will labor more to prevent than to cure, feeling that it is necessary to remove the spoiled grape from the bunch, the spoiled apple from the barrel, mainly for the sake of the sound fruit that remains. He who would plunge the knife into the social cancer, if any good is to be effected thereby, must needs be a skilled surgeon with steady hand and calm judgment, with the feelings as much under control as possible; the less emotion the better.

good; they will continue to gather and leave fortunes to their families or spend them for magnificence as hitherto. I turn, therefore, for support to the views of the other contributors.

Mr. Carnegie tells us plainly, first, that the accumulation of stagnant wealth to be bequeathed to heirs is a vainglory in the giver, and may be a ruin to the receiver; secondly, that the bequeathing of wealth for charities when the man is gone out of life is an empty way of making a name for generosity; thirdly, that to distribute all beyond the reasonable and temperate reserves due to kindred and their welfare, inter vivos, or now in life, with his own will, judgment, and hand to works of public and private beneficence and utility, is the highest and noblest use of wealth. This is a gospel, not according to capital, but according to the mind and life of the Founder of the Christian world. It is nothing new. It is no private opinion or exorbitant notion of a morbid prodigality, but the words of soberness and truth. If men so acted they would change the face of the world.

In the long and arduous task of reconstructing society on a Christian basis, with due and careful regard to all legitimate existing interests, it would be an inestimable public service if every one whom Mr. Carnegie represents would follow the example of Mr. Carnegie in getting rid of his money as quickly as possible. Mr. Carnegie's gospel is the very thing for the transition period from social heathenism to social Christianity. If a man is so unfortunate as to have enormous wealth, he cannot do better than act upon Mr. Carnegie's distributive principles.

strong for them all; it is the business of the world." "The Gospel of Wealth" advocates leaving free the operation of laws of accumulation. It accepts this condition as unassailable, and seeks to make the best of it by directing into new and better channels the streams of accumulated and accumulating wealth, which it is found impossible to prevent. But in this, while we have Mr. Gladstone with us, we have regretfully lost Mr. Hughes, who rises in stern opposition and says: "If 'Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth'

(15) Matt. 6:19.

(16) Also attributed to Voltaire, Dialogue XIV, Le Chapon et la Poularde - "Men employ speech only to conceal their thoughts."

(17) Matt. 6:34

forces of Christianity are not thus to be successfully arrayed against the business of the world-the accumulation of wealth. The parable of the talents'

(18) Matt. 25:14-28.

that he may wisely administer for others good. His daily labor is a daily virtue. Instead of destroying, impairing, or disposing of the tree which yields such golden fruit, it does not degrade his life nor even his old age to continue guarding the capital from which alone he can obtain the means to do good. He may die leaving a sound business in which his capital remains, but beyond this die poor, possessed of no fortune which was free for him to distribute, and therefore, I submit, not justly chargeable with belonging to the class which "lay up their treasures upon earth."

Gain all you can by honest industry. Use all possible diligence in your calling. Lose no time. Gain all you can by common sense, by using in your business all the understanding which God has given you. It is amazing to observe how few do this -- how men run on in the same dull track with their forefathers.

Having gained all you can by honest wisdom and unwearied diligence, the second rule of Christian prudence is, "Save all you can." Do not throw it away in idle expenses -- to gratify pride, etc. If you desire to be a good and faithful steward, out of that portion of your Lord's goods which he has for the present lodged in your hands, first provide things needful for yourself, food, raiment, etc.

Second, provide these for your wife, your children, your servants, and others who pertain to your household. If then you have an overplus, do good to them that are of the household of faith. If there be still an overplus, do good to all men.

(19) John Wesley (1703-1791), the "founder" of Methodism, Mr. Hughes's denomination, accumulated about $250,000 by his writings. The quotations, as Carnegie cited them, are from the Works of John Wesley. There are several "first" American editions. The earliest to include this sermon, here numbered LIII, was published by J. & J· Harper (New York, 1826-1827), VI, 101. The sermon is numbered L in the First American Complete and Standard Edition from the Latest London Edition (New York: Emory & B. Waugh, 1831), I, 444.

us that Mr. Carnegie (as representing the millionaire class, of course) is an "anti-Christian phenomenon," a "social monstrosity," and a "grave political peril," and says that "in a really Christian country - that is, in a country constructed upon a Christian basis - a millionaire would be an economic impossibility." The millionaire class needs no defense, although Mr. Hughes thinks it no longer of use since joint stock companies provide the means for establishing industries upon the large scale now demanded. It is most significant that the business concerns which have given Britain supremacy are, with few or no exceptions, the creations of the individual millionaire - the Cunards, Ismays, Allens, Elders, Bessemers, Rothschilds, Barings, Clarks, Coatses, Crossleys, the Browns, Siemens, Cammels, Gillotts, Whitworths, the Armstrongs, Listers, the Salts, Bairds, Samuelsons, Howards, Bells,

(20) These are families who established great 19th century British enterprises-shipping and ship-building, finance, manufacturing, metallurgy, chemicals, textiles, armaments, mining, etc. -- and who in many cases promoted philanthropic and educational projects in England.

its management their personal affair, dividends are earned where before there were none. The railways of Britain being monopolies, and charging from two to three times higher rates for similar service than those of America, only manage to pay their shareholders a small return. It would be quite another story if these were the property of one or two able men and managed by them.

make a pretty pair out in search of some light work with heavy pay.

[Yet] Nature is made better by no mean
But nature makes that mean.
(21) Winter's Tale, Act IV, scene 3, line 89.

world, and, at intervals, delegates from these might meet together in one world-wide brotherhood, thereby strengthening each other in the desire and effort to do their best to improve the condition of the masses, and to bring rich and poor into closer union. Those who ask, "not how much we ought to give away, but how much we dare retain," would represent the advanced section. Passing from this through many gradations, those who still fondly plead for the continued hereditary transmission of wealth and position and for magnificence in station would constitute the other great wing of the army. All would be equally welcome, equally necessary, it being enough that members of the brotherhood feel that the duty of the day is that, intrusted as they are with surplus wealth beyond their wants, - as their conscience may determine these wants, - they should regularly set apart and expend all or a proportion, greater or less, of the remainder, for the good of their less fortunate fellows, in the manner which seems to each best calculated to promote their genuine improvement. Should Mr. Gladstone's suggestion find the response which it deserves, he will have added much to the usefulness of his life in a sphere happily far removed from and far above the political; a field in which there can be room neither for strife, jealousy, gain, nor personal ambition; a cause so high, so holy, that all its surroundings must breathe of peace, good will, brotherhood!