GEN. WALKER'S LECTURE.

The lecture last night was principally an answer to Henry George's "Progress and Poverty." Gen. Walker first commented on the position taken by Mr. Mill in his later years on the land tenure question, and then gave a complete statement of Mr. George's theory of rent and the nationalization of the land. As to Mr. George's three great arguments, he affirms that commercial disturbances are due to speculations in land. This assertion, however, has no evidence to support it, and is opposed to the opinions of all economists. Land is far from being an object peculiarly subject to speculation above all other things. Again Mr. George declares that the tendency towards the enhancement of the value of land above its present value withdraws large bodies of land from cultivation, and drives down the margin of cultivation. Facts show this statement to be entirely contrary to the truth. It is, moreover, unreasonable to assume that men will not allow their land to be cultivated, and so get the present rent, solely because they expect in future some higher rent.

The main proposition of Mr. George is this: Irrespective of the increase of population, improvements in the productive powers increases rent, and is thus opposed to the interest of the laborer. But if, as Mr. George asserts, in order to produce wealth both labor and land are necessary, will not an increase of wealth call for more labor as well as for more land. Mr. George neglects to think of the increased call for labor. But as a fact it is not true that an increase of wealth always calls for an increased demand for land. Increased production of wealth never calls for land without calling for labor, but it often does call for increased demand for labor without a demand for land.

In truth improvements tend to decrease rather than to increase rent. Improvements in transportation obviously decrease rent, by bringing new lands into cultivation, or rendering old lands more accessible. Improvements in agriculture have the same effect. Mr. George, therefore, has neither fact nor argument to uphold him.