I don't think British society in Victorian times had the same level of education and basic income/living standards as they do today (my perspective is mostly from Dickens' writing though; I haven't done much research into this area personally).
"Progress" is generally considered to be the first derivative of societal wealth, not the zeroth, and generally measured logarithmically rather than linearly. So, basically, "percentage annual increase in GDP" (or other similar measure, ignoring the questionability of any one of them for now). I don't have proof as to which of modern China and Victorian England is progressing more quickly, but the claim at least passes the smell test. (Personally I wouldn't trust either number I could get, as I think China is probably lying about their growth percentages and Victorian growth percentages would be a historical estimate only, so comparing two numbers I consider unreliable would not produce much information.)
I'm having a hard time understanding this comment. Are you saying that GDP growth of Victorian Britain == GDP growth of present China? If so, that is not the point I'm making at all. Income inequality is what I'm more concerned with: you can have spectacular economic growth and the gains can still be restricted to a small percentage of the population.
