574 T]?E ECONOMIC JOURNAL various aspects of crime and its punishment, and the subject has received the ruiness of treatment which it demands. It would, however, be an ungracious task to quarrel too seriously with the publishers of this Social Scic?c Series. They afford the material for considering, from a variety of standpoints, many important questions connected with social reform. Mr. Dawson has collected a great number of facts in illustration of the U?earned Increment which attaches to the ownership of land. He is by no means free from bias, and his use of depreciatory epithets is scarcely calculated to encourage a belief in the sobriety or force of his reasoning. ?But he has a c?se which it is not difficult to present in a cogent form; for the increase of the rental derived from urban land is unquestionably in modern times immense. Mr. Dawson does not, however, appear to attach sufficient weight to the suggestive considerations, that in the case of agricultural land in old countries like England the increment has in many instances manifestly become a decrement, and that it might not to show the exist- be impossible to collect a similar mass of evidence ence and magnitude of 'unearned increments' forms of wealth but land. M. de Laveleye's discussion of suggestive even where it is not attaching to other Luxury is, like most of his writing, convincing. He adopts the severe attitude of the old Christian moralists, and regards luxury, which he defines as 'anything which does not answer to our primary needs, and which, since it costs much money to buy, and consequently much labour to produce, is only within reach of the few,' as 'pernicious to the individual and fatal to society.' He admits that it is ' entirely rela- tive,' but he will not o4?ree with M. Baudrillart, of whose Histoire du Luxe he makes a large but critical use, in allowing any rightful place to it in society, or in ascribing to its influence any consequences, which are even indirectly beneficial. It springs from vanity, sensuality, the instinct of adornment, or the desire for change. It is neither evidence, nor cause, of ' moral development'; for ' a certain level of culture creates wants,' but 'a still higher level retrenches them.' It is not 'necessary for the sake of keeping machinery employed '; for machinery may ensure 'more leisure' as well as 'more products.' It is not favourable to the' normal development of the faculties of the individual,' and is therefore morally wrong; it does not advance the accumulation of wealth, and is thus economically defective; it is incompatible with the 'equitable distribution ' of products, and accord- ingly' conflicts with. right and justice.' But one kin.d of luxury is justifiable, and that m 'public or state luxury, and thin only on con- dition that it is well and wisely directed.' In the following essay M. de Laveleye discusses the place of Law and Morals in Political Economy with the object of emphasising the intimacy of the con- nection; and a bibliography of his numerous writings is appended. The account of the Workb?g Class Moceme?t in America by Dr. and Mrs. Aveling is n?tur?lly coloured by their socialistic opinions.
