Movatterモバイル変換

ARE WE RUINED BY THE
GERMANS?

BY

HAROLD COX,

FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

Republished from the “Daily Graphic” for the Cobden Club.

CASSELL and COMPANY,Limited:

LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE.

PREFACE.

The greater part of the contents of this little volume appearedoriginally in theDaily Graphic, in the form of a series of sixarticles written in criticism of Mr. Ernest Williams’s “Made inGermany.” To these articles Mr. Williams replied in two letters,and to that reply I made a final rejoinder. In the present reproductionthis sequence has been abandoned. For the convenienceof readers, and for the economy of space, I have anticipated in thetext all of Mr. Williams’s objections which appeared to me tohave any substance, and, in addition, I have modified or omittedphrases, in themselves trivial, upon which he had fastened to buildelaborate but unsubstantial retorts. By doing this I have been ableto preserve the continuity of my argument and at the same timeto cut down a somewhat lengthy rejoinder into a brief concludingchapter. Incidentally a few new points and some further figureshave been added to the articles. This arrangement, unfortunately,deprives Mr. Williams’s reply of most of its original piquancy; but,in order that my readers may have an opportunity of seeing whatthe author of “Made in Germany” was able to say for himself,his letters are reprintedverbatim in an Appendix. I am indebtedto the proprietors of theDaily Graphic for their courteous permissionto republish the articles, and to the Committee of theCobden Club for undertaking the republication. I have only toadd that the opinions expressed throughout are my own, and thatthe Cobden Club does not necessarily endorse every one of them.

H. C.

Gray’s Inn,
December, 1896.

CONTENTS.

[1]Are we Ruined by the Germans?

CHAPTER I.
Our Expanding Trade.

In a little book recently published, an attempt is made to show thatBritish trade is being knocked to pieces by German competition, thatalready the sun has set on England’s commercial supremacy, and thatif we are not careful the few crumbs of trade still left to us will besnapped up by Germany. This depressing publication, aptly entitled“Made in Germany,” has received the quasi-religious benediction ofan enterprising and esoteric journalist, and the puff direct from asportive ex-Prime Minister. Thus sent off it is sure to be widely circulated,and, being beyond dispute well written, to be also widely read.Unfortunately—such is the nature of the book—it cannot be sowidely criticised. It consists largely of quoted statistics and deductionstherefrom, and few readers will have the means at hand forverifying the many figures quoted, while fewer still will have thepatience to compare them with other figures which the author omitsto mention. As a necessary consequence, a large number of personswill believe that Mr. Williams has proved his case, and some of themwill jump to the conclusion, which is evidently the conclusion towhich Mr. Williams himself leans, that the only way to prevent thecommercial downfall of our country is to reverse the Free Tradepolicy which we deliberately adopted fifty years ago.

THE ART OF EXAGGERATION.

That may or may not be a wise thing to do, but at least let us becertain before taking action, or before taking thought which is preliminaryto action, that we know our facts, and all our facts. Thesecond point is as important as the first. On hastily reading Mr.Williams’s book for the first time, my impression was that he had only[2]erred by overlooking facts which told on the other side. On generalgrounds, considering the signs of prosperity on every side, it seemedto me impossible that the condition of our foreign trade could be sobad as the author of “Made in Germany” paints it. A cursoryglance at a few staple figures convinced me that my general impressionwas a sound one, that our trade was not going to thedogs, and that Mr. Williams had only succeeded in producing sogloomy a picture by fixing his gaze on the shadows and shuttinghis eyes to the sunlight. On this supposition I began a morecritical examination of his book, not with a view to refuting hispositive statements, but with a view to showing that in spite ofthe ugly facts which he had, on the whole usefully, brought tolight, there were counterbalancing considerations from which wemight draw, at any rate, partial consolation. This I proposeto do, but in addition I shall be able to show that many ofMr. Williams’s alleged ugly facts are not in reality so ugly as hemakes them look, and that what he has done, in his eagerness toprove his case, is to so choose his figures and so phrase his sentencesas to convey in particular instances an entirely false impression.How this is done will be shown in detail later on. For the present itis sufficient to state that it is done, and that some of the mostalarmist statements in “Made in Germany” will not bear criticalexamination. In a word, the author, in his polemical zeal, hassinned both sins—he has suggested the false and he has omitted thetrue; he has misrepresented, in particular instances, the facts towhich he refers, and he has not referred at all to facts which refutehis general argument.

THE WHOLE TRUTH.

It is with these that I propose first to deal, with the facts whichshow that our trade is in a very healthy condition, and that thoughGermany is also doing well and hitting us hard in some trades, thereis no reason to believe that her prosperity is, on the whole, injuringus. And to guard myself, at the outset, against a temptation towhich Mr. Williams has frequently succumbed—the temptation ofpicking out years peculiarly favourable to my argument—I proposeto take the last ten or the last fifteen years, for which statistics areavailable, and to give wherever possible the figures for each year inthe whole period. The figures that will be here quoted are all takenfrom official records, except when otherwise stated.

[3]OUR TOTAL TRADE FOR TEN YEARS.

The first point to attack is the question of the total import andexport trade of the United Kingdom. The figures are contained inthe following table:—

Ten Years’ Trade of the United Kingdom

(Exclusive of Bullion and Specie).
In Millions Sterling.

These figures may be illustrated as follows:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

These figures hardly bear out the statement that “commercial dryrot,” to use one of Mr. Williams’s favourite phrases, has already laidhold of us. In spite of the fall in prices, the money value of ourtrade, both import and export, has fully maintained its level. It is[4]true that the year 1886, with which the diagram starts, was a year ofdepression, but the point which I wish to bring out by the diagram isnot that 1895 was a better year than 1886, but that the general coursefor the whole period of ten years shows no downward tendency.Later on I shall give a diagram, covering a period of fifteen years,which brings out the same point even more clearly. It is important,however, at once to point out that the mere comparison of the moneytotals of our trade in different years is necessarily inconclusive, becauseno account is taken of prices. To get a true comparison between anytwo years, say 1895 and 1890, we ought to calculate what the valueof our trade in 1895 would have been if each separate commodity hadbeen sold at the prices of 1890. Were this done, it would probably befound that 1895, instead of showing a decline, would show animmense advance. A similar comparison has been privately workedout in one of the Government offices for the years 1873 and 1886with startling results, which I am permitted to quote. It must bepremised that only certain articles are entered in our returns byquantity as well as by value, and it is therefore only between thesethat such a comparison as I have indicated can be made. In 1873,the total declared value of our exports of these articles was 172 millionssterling; in 1886, it was 131 millions, showing an apparent fall of 41millions. But if these exports of 1886 had been declared at theprices of 1873 the total value would have been 215 millions. In thissense, then, our aggregate trade in these commodities in 1886, insteadof being 41 millions worse than 1873, was 43 millions better. Thisis undoubtedly an extreme illustration, for the prices of 1873 wereexceptionally high, and those of 1886 exceptionally low. Nevertheless,the illustration is most instructive as showing how extremelymisleading it may be to compare values only, without taking accountof quantities. Unfortunately, when we are dealing with the totaltrade of a country, a comparison of values is the only comparisonpossible, for there is no other common denominator by means ofwhich varied articles—say, steam ploughs, cotton piece-goods, andpatent medicines—can be brought into our table.

OUR IMPORTS OF GOLD AND SILVER.

To return to our diagram—it may be asked, “How does it happenthat there is such a large and growing excess of imports overexports? Surely that is a bad sign.” On the face of it, why shouldit be? It only means that we are, apparently, getting more than we[5]give, and most people do not in their private relations regard that asa hardship. There are, however, people to be found who, seeing thatwe every year buy more goods than we sell, will jump to the conclusionthat we must pay for the difference in cash. Where we are toget the cash from they do not pause to think. Hitherto the Welshhills have resolutely refused to give up their gold in paying quantities,and as for the silver which we separate from Cornish lead, it is worthsomething less than £50,000 a year. The notion then that we payfor our foreign purchases with our own gold and silver may be dismissedat once, although a hundred years ago this same delusion hadnot a little influence in shaping our commercial policy. As a matterof fact, instead of sending gold and silver out of the country to payfor our excess of imports, we almost every year import considerablymore bullion and specie than we export. The actual figures aregiven in the following table:—

The Movements of Bullion and Specie.

In Millions Sterling.

EXCESS OF IMPORTS OVER EXPORTS.

The movements of gold and silver then, instead of helping toexplain the excess of imports over exports, only increase the need forexplanation. Happily, the explanation that can be given, though itcannot be statistical, is fully sufficient. It is fourfold. In the firstplace the Custom House returns do not include in the tables ofexports the large export which we every year make of ships builtto order for foreign buyers, so that our exports appear smaller thanthey really are by at least five millions a year. Secondly, an allowancemust be made for the profit on our foreign trade. If, in return[6]for every pound’s worth of British goods sent out from our ports, onlya pound’s worth of foreign goods came back, our merchants wouldmake a better living by selling penny toys along the Strand. Whatthe average profit is on our foreign trade there is no means of knowing,but putting it as low as 10 per cent. on the double transaction, weat once account for some £30,000,000 sterling in the differencebetween our exports and imports. The third item in the explanationis the sum earned by British shipowners for carrying the greater partof the sea-commerce of the world. This sum has been estimated at£70,000,000 a year, but that is only a guess, and it is certainly a highone. Lastly, we have the enormous sum annually due to this countryfor interest on the money we have lent abroad. The amount of thisannual payment can again only be guessed at, but it probably exceeds£100,000,000 a year. Adding then these four items together, andmaking every allowance for over-estimates, we not only account forthe whole excess of imports over exports, but have a balance over,which means that we are still exporting capital to foreign countries.The capital we export goes out in the form of mining machinery toSouth Africa, steel rails to India, coal to South America; the interestdue to us comes home in the form of American wheat, Argentinebeef, Australian wool, Indian tea, South African diamonds.

THE WORLD’S TRIBUTE.

Of what do the Protectionists complain? Would they have usforego the interest we are owed? Apparently Mr. Williams would,for he says (page 19) that we ought not to spend all our income fromforeign investments “in foreign shops.” How else, in the name of theProphet, are we to receive all or any part of what is due to us fromforeigners, whether it be due for interest on investments, or for goodscarried, or for ships sold? Does Mr. Williams mean that we are tocompel foreign nations to pay us a couple of hundred millions a yearin actual gold and silver, and then dig a hole in the ground and sit onour hoard like an Indian cook who has saved money out of theperquisites of his profession? Gold and silver are useless to usbeyond a very few millions every year; if more bullion were sent themarket would reject it. If we are to be paid at all we must be paidin foreign commodities, and the mechanism of commerce enables usto select just those commodities which we most want. This is thewhole story of our excess of imports over exports. Furthermore, thatexcess would be even greater than it is did we not every year send[7]fresh millions abroad on loan to our Colonies and foreign countries, toproduce in due course (it is to be hoped) additional hundreds ofthousands in the way of interest.

OURENTREPÔT TRADE.

There is one other important point to be dealt with in consideringthe movement of our trade as a whole. It is this—that part of theenormous quantity of goods we import is not consumed by ourselves,but is re-exported to foreign countries or to our Colonies. For manyreasons it is interesting to distinguish these re-exports from theexports of goods produced within the United Kingdom. Theseparate figures for the last fifteen years are given in the followingtable:—

OurEntrepôt Trade and our Home Trade.

In Millions Sterling.

There is not much to grumble at in these figures. Ourentrepôttrade, which was supposed to be slipping away, seems somewhat tohalt in the process, in spite of the notorious and not entirely unpleasingfact that our Colonies are now doing a larger direct tradewith foreign countries than ever before. At the same time thefigures for the exports of our own goods are most satisfactory if wetake into account the lower range of prices at which our manufacturersare now working. Altogether there is nothing in thegeneral figures of our trade to justify the wild statements that“dry rot” has set in, and that “the industrial glory of England isdeparting.”

[8]CHAPTER II.
Germany: One of Our Best Customers.

In the previous chapter it was shown that the general figures of ourimport and export trade gave no indication of the ruin of ourcommerce either by Germans or by anybody else. In the presentchapter it is proposed to show that though Germany is among thekeenest of our trade competitors, she is also one of our best customers.For a sufficient indication of the truth of this proposition we haveonly to turn to the annual statement of the trade of the UnitedKingdom. It is true that the figures there published are notentirely satisfactory, because much of the trade of Germany isshipped from Dutch or Belgian ports, and credited to Hollandand Belgium respectively. But this is probably also true, and toabout the same extent, of British goods destined for Germany, andtravellingviâ Belgium or Holland, so that in comparing importsand exports this factor may be neglected. The same cause of errorwill probably be also present to the same extent in successive years,so that we can ignore it when comparing one year with another.Purely for comparative purposes then the annexed table, and thediagram illustrating it, are sufficiently accurate, although the actualfigures for any one year by itself have, for the reasons given, littlepositive value.

Our Total Trade with German Ports.

In Millions Sterling.

These figures may be illustrated diagrammatically as follows:—

[9](By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

A VERY SATISFACTORY TRADE.

These figures furnish a striking answer to the alarmists who can seein Germany nothing but a vigorous and not too scrupulous rival. Inevery year during the last ten years she has apparently bought morefrom us than she has sold to us. It is quite true that all the thingsshe has bought from us were not produced or manufactured by us.A portion of her purchases consists of foreign or colonial goods sentto London, or Liverpool, or Hull, and there purchased for re-sale inGermany. But in the same way some of the goods we buy fromGermany certainly had their origin in other countries, and have onlypassed through Germany on their way to us; so that the fairest wayof making a comparison is to take the whole trade in each case.Moreover, thisentrepôt trade of ours is not in itself a thing to besneezed at; it contributes a goodly fraction of the wealth of the cityof London. In order, however, to complete the picture of our tradewith Germany, the following table is appended, distinguishing in eachof the ten years under review the home produce exported from theforeign and colonial goods re-exported. This table shows that in purelyBritish goods we are doing a very satisfactory trade with Germany.Taking averages, we see that during the ten years our export of our[10]own manufactures and produce to German ports was at the rate of£17,800,000 a year, against a total import from German ports of£25,900,000, this figure including both German goods and othercountries’ goods passing through Germany. If we recollect thaton the whole our imports from the outside world must be very muchlarger than our exports, for the reasons detailed in the precedingchapter, it will be seen that these two figures, even by themselves, arenot unsatisfactory.

Analysis of our Trade with German Ports.

In Millions Sterling.

OUR PRINCIPAL CUSTOMERS.

Let us now go a step further and compare our trade with Germanyand our trade with other principal customers. The comparison isworked out in the following table, which shows the total imports intothe United Kingdom from the respective countries, and the totalexports from the United Kingdom to the same countries:—

Trade of the United Kingdom with the following Countries.

Ten Years’ Average, in Millions Sterling, according toBritish Returns.

These figures are taken from the British Custom House returns,and are subject to the objection to which allusion has already been[11]made, that the Custom House authorities have no means of ascertainingthe real origin of goods entering this country, nor the real destinationof goods leaving it. Thus, for example, everyone knows that there isa considerable trade between Great Britain and Switzerland, yetSwitzerland has no place at all in the Custom House returns, because,having no seaboard, all her goods must pass through foreign territory,and each package is credited by our Customs House to the port—French,or Belgian, or Dutch—through which the package passes toEngland. In order, therefore, to provide some check on the abovefigures, I have averaged in the same way the figures collected bythe different foreign countries in their Customs Houses. Theseforeign and colonial figures have no more title to be considered absolutelyaccurate than ours, nor do they cover quite the same ground.Their value lies in the rough confirmation they give of the veryrough conclusion which we are able to draw from our own figures:—

Trade of the following Countries with the United Kingdom.

Ten Years’ Average, in Millions Sterling, according toForeignand Colonial returns.

On the whole, these figures tally more closely with those derivedfrom British returns than might have been expected, and if we makeallowance for the fact that the Colonial figures include treasure, itwill be seen that both tables show that Germany is our best customerafter the United States and India.

THE ALARMIST’S ARTS.

In order to obscure this important fact, while alarming the Britishpublic with the notion that English manufacturers are being ruinedby German competition, Mr. Williams picks out half a dozen or soitems of our imports from Germany, and then exclaims in horror at[12]the amount of “the moneys whichin one year have come out of JohnBull’s pocket for the purchase of his German-made household goods.”He prefaces his list with the unfortunate remark that the figures aretaken from the Custom House returns, “where, at any rate, fancy andexaggeration have no play.” That is so; the fancy and exaggerationare supplied by Mr. Williams. In 1895, he says, Germany sent uslinen manufactures to the value of £91,257. He omits, however, tomention that according to the same authority—the Custom Housereturns—the value of the linen manufactures which we sold toGermany was £273,795. Again, he mentions that we bought fromGermany cotton manufactures to the value of £536,000, but he issilent on the fact that our sales to Germany amounted to £1,305,000.He does not even hesitate to pick out such a trumpery item as£11,309 for German embroidery and needlework, but he forgets totell his readers that the silk manufactures which in the same year wesold to Germany were worth £92,000. In the same way, were itworth doing, one could go through the whole of Mr. Williams’s list,pitting one article against another. It would be labour wasted. Thesimple fact is that, according to the authority upon which Mr.Williams relies for all the figures just quoted, our total exports toGermany exceed our total imports from Germany, and no trickerywith particular items can destroy, though it may obscure, thatbroad fact.

A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE POLICY.

But, for the reasons already explained, in replying to Mr. Williams Ido not rely wholly on British figures. It is from the double testimonyof British and foreign figures that I deduce the fact that of all ourcustomers Germany is one of the best. The practical moral of thisfact is sufficiently obvious. In private business a tradesman does notgo out of his way to offend a good customer, even though thatcustomer is also a keen trade competitor. He bestirs himself insteadto keep ahead, if possible, of his rival without doing anything todestroy the mutually profitable trade relationship between them.Such palpable considerations of expediency are ignored by our latter-dayProtectionists, among whom Mr. Williams deservedly ranks as aleading prophet. Their ambition is to induce the Colonies todiscriminate in their tariffs between goods from the Mother Countryand goods from foreign countries, admitting the former on favourableterms and penalising the latter. It is avowedly against German[13]competition that this policy is directed, and we are light-heartedlytold to risk our trade with one of our best customers on the chance ofencouraging trade with Colonies which so far have shown much moreeagerness to sell their goods to us than to buy ours. Even supposingthat this policy succeeded in destroying the whole of the Germanexport trade to our Colonies and Possessions, the possible gain to uswould be very small.

Here are the figures of the trade of our three principal Colonieswith the United Kingdom and with Germany, derived in each casefrom the Colonial returns:—

Trade of the following British Possessions with the UnitedKingdom and with Germany.

Ten Years’ Average, in Millions Sterling or Millions Rx.

Thus these great groups of Colonies and Dependencies togetherbuy rather less than £3,000,000 worth of German goods againstmore than £60,000,000 worth of British goods. Yet in order to crushthis fractional competition of Germany in neutral markets, in order toscrape up these crumbs that have fallen from our table, we are invitedto risk the loss of a direct trade with Germany worth nearly tentimes as much as all the crumbs heaped up together.

[14]CHAPTER III.
Picturesque Exaggerations.

It has now been shown, first that there is nothing in the generalfigures of our import and export trade to warrant the alarmist viewexpressed in “Made in Germany,” and secondly, that the countrywhose rivalry is supposed to be ruining us is one of the best of all ourcustomers. What I propose to do in the present chapter is to examinesome of the detailed statements in Mr. Williams’s book and to show thatin many cases the inferences he draws are so seriously exaggerated as toamount to a positive misrepresentation of the facts. For the purposesof this examination we cannot do better than begin with the chapterwhich Mr. Williams devotes to chemicals. “The chemical trade,” hetells us, “is the barometer of a nation’s prosperity.... Thediscomforting significance of the appearance of chemicals in thisBlack List of mine will, therefore, be at once apparent.” More followsabout a “Bottomless pit for capital,” and “Germany seizing theoccasion while England has let hers slide,” and so on.

THE ALKALI TRADE.

Thus much for generalities with regard to the chemical trade;now for details. Let us begin with alkalies, which Mr. Williams selectsfor special comment. He says:—

To the average reader this paragraph would certainly suggest thatat least half our trade in alkali had already disappeared, and that theremainder would soon be gone to the devil or elsewhere. I have notverified Mr. Williams’s statement with regard to the early seventies,but it is quite sufficient to point to the course of the trade during the[15]last fifteen years. Both quantities and values are given in thefollowing table:—

Exports of Alkali from the United Kingdom.

These figures show that our alkali trade has been on the wholeremarkably steady, except for the slight ups and downs in successiveyears to which all trades are liable.

To show these ups and downs more graphically, I have drawn thefollowing diagram, covering the last ten years’ exports:—

Diagram of the Quantities of British Alkali Exported.

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

If the reader will examine this diagram and the more completefigures given above he will be able to see how completely misleadingare Mr. Williams’s sensational statements about the British alkali trade.I do not for a moment deny that the German alkali trade has maderemarkable progress; I only assert that there is no evidence that“our trade has gone to the devil.”

CHEMICAL MANURES.

We turn next to chemical manures. On this subject Mr. Williamsremarks:—

It may be true—probably is true—that the industry of Germanyis expanding in this as in almost every other branch of the chemicaltrades. It is also true that the value of chemical manures sent byGermany to this country—still only a quarter of what we send toGermany—is increasing. What is not true is the statement thatEngland’s grip on the trade is “obviously relaxing.” The figuresare given below. They do not look much like a relaxed grip.

Exports of Chemical Manures from the United Kingdom.

In Millions Sterling.

The figures for the past ten years are illustrated in the followingdiagram:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

SOME SUPPOSITIONS ABOUT SALT.

Salt is the next subject to which Mr. Williams turns. What hehas to say about it is more picturesque than accurate:—

Most impressive! if only it were true. So far as the world marketis concerned, the figures below give no indications of the havocalleged to have been wrought by the machinations of the Salt Union.

Exports of British Salt.

So far as India is concerned, Mr. Williams is doubly wrong. Inthe first place, German salt has not “to a large extent oustedEnglish.” During the past five years—it was only in 1889 that thewicked Salt Union came into being—Indian imports of salt havebeen as follows:—

Indian Imports of Salt.

Thousands of Tons.

This does not look as if English salt were being ousted byGerman. In the second place, it is not true that German salt is muchcheaper than Cheshire, at any rate so far as the Indian market isconcerned. It will be found by reference to the Indian Blue Booksthat the price of German salt imported into India in 1894-5 works outto 17·6 rupees per ton, and the price of English salt only to 17·0[18]rupees per ton. In other words, German salt was of the two slightlythe dearer. So much for the salt bogey which Mr. Williams hadconjured up.

CHEMICAL DYE STUFFS.

We next pass to chemical dye stuffs. It is undoubtedly true thatin this branch of manufacture Germany has gone ahead at a remarkablerate, and it is also probable that some of our manufacturers haveallowed themselves to be passed in the race by neglecting the scientificmethods which Germans employ. But that is no reason why Mr.Williams should exaggerate his case. In order to magnify the fallin our trade, if such there be, he picks out the year of highest export(1890) and says, Lo! since 1890 our export of dye stuffs has droppedfrom £530,000 to £473,000. One cannot tell whether this is a realdrop in trade, or merely the consequence of a fall in price, but this wedo know—that the value of our exports fluctuates largely from yearto year, and that 1895 was a good average year. The figures for tenyears are given below:—

Values of Dye Stuffs Exported.

FANCY SOAPS AND FANCY ASSERTIONS.

The last point in Mr. Williams’s chapter on the chemical tradeswith which it is worth while to deal is what he says about soap:—

[19]If this paragraph means anything at all, it means that even in thesoap industry our manufacturers are being beaten by the foreigner.To what extent foreign soap is imported into the United Kingdom itis impossible to ascertain, for no separate entry under that head iskept at the Custom House. But from the German Green Books onemay learn that in 1895 Germany sent to Great Britain soap valued at£35,700. The amount sent by France may have been as much, andprobably the United States also sent us a little. The total export ofGerman soap to all parts of the world in 1895 was valued at £197,000.Now for the British side of the case! As to the total productionand consumption of soap in this country, no figures are available, buteveryone knows how enormous is the consumption of soap producedby English firms whose names are household words. In addition totheir providing for the wants of probably ninety-nine out of a hundredof their own countrymen, our soap manufacturers do an enormousand rapidly growing business abroad.

Here are the figures:—

Exports of Soap from the United Kingdom.

The following diagram illustrates the almost continuous increasein the value of our soap exports during the last ten years:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

[20]Looking at the above figures, it will be seen that in the last sixyears alone we have added to our exports a sum greater than thetotal yet attained by Germany. Is it necessary to say more? Whatpessimistic madness could have led Mr. Williams to “black-list” sucha splendidly-thriving and notoriously profitable industry as this,just because he finds a few thousand hundredweight of foreign soapcreeping into the country?

[21]CHAPTER IV.
More Misrepresentations.

Attention was called in the last chapter to some of the picturesqueexaggerations—to use the mildest possible term—in which Mr.Williams had indulged in dealing with the chemical trades. We nowpass to the two chapters which he devotes to the iron and steel andtheir “daughter trades.” And at the outset let it be clearly understoodthat I do not for a moment deny that in some of these tradesthe progress of Germany has been relatively more rapid than our own.A child, if it is to grow at all, must move faster than an adult. Aninfant four weeks old doubles its age in a month; an adult takesthirty or forty years to double his. Nor can we expect that thewhole world will stand still while Great Britain goes on every yearadding to her strength. All that I do argue is that the shooting-upof the German infant does us on the whole no harm, and that there isnothing whatever in the figures of our trade to suggest that full-grownEngland is approaching senile decay.

“ICHABOD! OUR TRADE HAS GONE.”

With this general prelude let us turn to what Mr. Williams hasto say about the industries connected with iron and steel. He opensby referring to a visit of the English Iron and Steel Institute toDüsseldorf in 1880:—

Another paragraph, headed “Ichabod!” begins:—

[22]Truly Mr. Williams is an ingenious person. By picking out thetwo years 1882 and 1894 he has cunningly obscured the fact that theproduction of pig iron, as of everything else, is subject to fluctuations,and that 1894, following worse years than itself, will in all probabilitybe followed by better. Here are all the figures for the last fifteenyears for which statistics are available, with the German figures setbeside them:—

Production of Pig Iron.

In Millions of Tons.

These figures show that Germany has without doubt been rapidlygaining upon us, but it is the grossest exaggeration to say that ourtrade “has gone.” As a matter of fact the output of pig iron in theUnited Kingdom rose to 7·9 million tons in 1895, and—according totheEconomist of November 11th—the estimated output for thepresent year (1896) is 8·7 million tons. If that figure is realised itwill be the largest on record. So much for Mr. Williams’s “Ichabods,”and all his talk of departed glory!

COMPARISONS SAID TO BE “ODIOUS.”

Turning to another paragraph headed “Odious Comparisons,” wefind—

Had Mr. Williams taken the trouble to convert the Germanfigures from cwts. into tons he might have found this comparisonsomewhat less “odious.” If we send Germany 295 thousand tonsagainst 15 thousand tons she sends us, our iron manufacturershave not much to grumble at. But, as a matter of fact, no reliancecan be placed upon these particular figures, because, as was pointed[23]out in a previous chapter, much of the stuff that we get from Germanyis credited in our Blue Books to Holland and Belgium, and thesecountries in the same way are debited with a large amount of Britishstuff that ultimately finds its way to Germany. Exactly the samecauses of error vitiate the figures published in the German GreenBooks, and it may safely be asserted that there is no means ofascertaining with even approximate accuracy how much British ironand steel goes to Germany and how much German steel and ironcomes to Great Britain. What can be ascertained is the total exportof German iron from Germany to all parts of the world, and the totalexport of British iron from the United Kingdom to all parts of theworld. This comparison, which is one of the best means of testingthe relative progress of Great Britain and Germany, is worked out inthe following table:—

Iron and Steel Goods.

In Millions of Tons, Metrical and British.
[A Metrical Ton = 2,204 lb.; a British Ton = 2,240 lb.]

The above figures undoubtedly show a distinct decline in Britishexports of iron and steel, but they also show that that decline is notdue to the increased invasion of our own or of neutral markets eitherby Germany or by Belgium. It is due to a decline which subsequentevents have shown to be temporary in the world’s demand for ironand steel goods. Even were this decline permanent, it would not bethe fault of our manufacturers, nor—except as a device for reducingtheir personal expenditure—is there any reason why these gentlemenshould sit in sackcloth and ashes.

STATISTICAL LEGERDEMAIN.

We pass to the subject of shipbuilding. Mr. Williams is goodenough to admit that England is actually at the head of the shipbuildingtrade. But having made this admission, a pang of regret[24]comes over him, and he tries to show that he is justified in puttingeven the British shipbuilding trade on his “black list.” This is hisargument:—

Again one can only admire Mr. Williams’s ingenuity. Readinghis paragraph, who would dream that between the years so skilfullyselected for comparison the trade had experienced an enormous drop,and afterwards, to all intents and purposes, completely recovereditself; that then a smaller drop had occurred, and that this in turnwas being fast made good? The best way to expose the above pieceof statistical legerdemain is to give without further comment thewhole of the figures for the past fifteen years. They will be found inthe following table. With figures such as these before him—and theymust have been before him—it is astounding that Mr. Williamsshould have ventured to put shipbuilding on his black list.

Fifteen Years of British Shipbuilding.

Total Output of British and Irish Yards.
In Thousands of Tons.

These figures may be illustrated as follows:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

[25]SHIPS BUILT FOR FOREIGNERS.

But his perverse ingenuity does not end with the paragraphquoted. A few lines lower down he says:—

The man who wrote these sentences obviously intended to conveyto his readers the impression that our trade in the building of shipsfor foreign purchasers was a declining trade. That impression isfalse, and it is a little hard to understand how Mr. Williams could failto see its falsity. The following figures show—what to most personswould be sufficiently obvious on reflection—that the tonnage of shipslaunched at our great yards varies largely from year to year. Topick out the year 1889, as Mr. Williams does, and declare that sincethat year there has been a decline in our sales to foreigners, is asgrossly unfair as it would be, on the other hand, to pick out the year1885, and say that since then there had been a fourfold increase.

Ships Built by us for Foreigners.

Thousands of Tons.

WAR-SHIPS FOR FOREIGNERS.

The above figures include war-ships as well as merchant-shipsbuilt by us for foreigners, and, noting this fact, Mr. Williams isdistressed to find what he calls a drop in our output of foreignwar-ships. He writes:—

What is even more remarkable still is the fact that Mr. Williamsshould have dared to put such a statement before the public, knowing, ashe must have known, how completely it misrepresents the truth. Iwonder what he would have said of me if I had spoken of the remarkable[26]growth in our output of foreign war-ships as evidenced by anincreasefrom 14 tons in 1876 to 4,152 tons in 1895! Yet this statementwould have been every bit as justifiable as his own. The whole truthof the matter of course is, that such an industry as the constructionof foreign war-ships must vary enormously from year to year, and acomparison between any two single years can prove nothing, exceptthe folly or themala fides of the person who makes it. In order thatthe reader may see for himself the source from which Mr. Williamsdrew his “remarkable” statement, I append all the figures since1870:—

War Vessels Built for Foreigners.

MACHINERY AND STEAM ENGINES.

It is becoming monotonous to follow Mr. Williams in detailthrough his ingenious misrepresentations. I will therefore hastily passover the many pages which he devotes to “black-listing” sundryiron and steel manufactures. His black list, which includes “steamengines,” “other machinery,” and “tools and implements” of industry,is arrived at by giving only the figures for 1890 onwards and ignoringthe preceding years. The unfairness of this procedure need not beagain pointed out. The figures for a decade, or for a longer period,show that trade moves up and down, and that a depression in oneyear or group of years is succeeded by an elevation a few years later.Throughout his book, in instances too numerous to be especiallymentioned, Mr. Williams has persistently ignored this obvious fact.Again and again he has picked out years favourable to his argument,while even a cursory glance at a series of years must have shown himthat the truth was the exact opposite to his representation of the facts.Here are the figures for the last fourteen years, showing the relativeprogress of Great Britain and Germany in the export of all kinds of[27]machinery, including the domestic sewing machine and the locomotiveengine.

Exports of Machinery of All Kinds.

(Including Steam Engines and Sewing Machines.)
In Millions Sterling.

TEXTILES.

To our textile industries Mr. Williams has devoted a chapter whichis one of the gloomiest in his book. Let it be at once admitted thatwe are no longer the monopolists of the textile industries of the worldto the extent to which we once were. Nor could any sane man expectthat we should for ever retain our former exceptional position. Othernations move as well as we. They buy the machines which weinvent and make; they employ our foremen to teach them the artswe have acquired, and in time they learn to weave and spin for themselvesinstead of coming to us for every yard of cloth or every poundof yarn. This relative advancement of foreign nations and, too, ofour own Colonies and Dependencies was and is inevitable. It is partof the general industrialization of the world. But what we have tonote with satisfaction is that this process has involved little or nopositive loss to us, that we are still far ahead of all other nations inthe production of textiles, and that even in those cases, notably thewoollen industry, where our export has fallen off we can point to anincreased demand by our own people for the goods we manufacture.It is not in this spirit that Mr. Williams will look at any Britishindustry. Even where he has a fairly good case, he spoils it by grossexaggeration and by the suppression of counterbalancing facts.

COTTON YARN AND THE PRICE THEREOF.

Dealing first with cotton, he follows his usual device of picking outbumper years, and then exclaiming, “See what a fall since then!”he goes on:—

Mr. Williams must either be very innocent, or expect his readers tobe. He apparently has forgotten that the most important element inthe price of cotton yarn is the price of the raw cotton out of whichthe yarn is spun. What the Lancashire spinner cares about is notthe absolute price of yarn or the absolute price of raw cotton, but themargin between the two. If that be satisfactory his profit is secure.Therefore, the mere statement that the prices of yarn have fallen somuch in so many years, by itself explains nothing. As a matter offact the price of cotton yarn has followed, and continues to follow,very closely the price of raw cotton, the spinners’ margin remainingfairly constant. It is useless to go back to 1865, when the most carelesseconomist might surely have remembered that the American warmade cotton dear, and machines were less efficient than they now are.But I have taken the trouble to work out for the last ten years, fromfigures kindly supplied by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, theaverage margin between the price of a pound of standard yarn (32’stwist) and a pound of standard cotton (middling American). Theresult shows that while the spinners’ margin was slightly less in 1895than in 1893, it stood at practically the same figure as in 1892 and1894, and was a good deal higher than it had been in 1886. So thathere again there is no real foundation for Mr. Williams’s statement.

THE DAYS OF BIG FORTUNES.

It is undoubtedly true that big fortunes are no longer made in thecotton trade, or at any rate not so rapidly as in the days when cottonspinners waxed fat on the labour of tiny children who had to beflogged to keep them awake. It is also true that many joint-stockspinning companies have paid no dividends, and that many havecollapsed altogether. But those who know anything of Lancashireknow that a very large number of these companies were not startedin response to any real increase in the demand for cotton goods, noron account of any genuine anticipation of such an increase. Theywere started, as a good many companies are started in a county southof Lancashire, in order to put money into the promoters’ pockets.[29]Having served that purpose they were allowed quietly to collapse.Lancashire does not miss them. That the cotton trade, as a whole, isin a healthy condition in spite of these manœuvres of the company-promoterwill be seen from the figures relating to cotton in thefollowing table, and from the diagram that illustrates them:—

Textiles.

Yarns. Ten Years’ Exports. In Millions of Lbs.

Piece Goods, etc. Ten Years’ Exports. In Millions of Yards.

The figures for cotton piece goods may be illustrated asfollows:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

[30]LINEN, SILK, AND WOOLLENS.

So much for cotton! With regard to linen, it is unnecessary to followin detail what Mr. Williams says, for he himself admits that the declinewhich has taken place since the ’sixties is largely due to a change infashion, jute and cotton goods taking the place of linen. In the lastdecade, however, as will be seen from the above table, the linenindustry has held its own. With regard to silk, the figures show thatthere is no cause for serious alarm. In woollens, on the other hand,there is apparently better ground for Mr. Williams’s mourning. Thetable on the preceding page points to a distinct downward tendency inour export of woollen manufactures, a tendency which has been onlypartly checked by the inflation of 1895. If this were the whole truthabout our woollen trade, it might be conceded that here at any rateMr. Williams had made out his case. But it is not the whole truth.Almostpari passu with this decline in our export of woollens, whichbegan some twenty years back, there has been a steady increase in theconsumption of our woollen manufactures by our own people, and thisincreased home demand hasmore than made good the decline in theforeign demand.

THE EXPANSION OF OUR WOOLLEN INDUSTRY.

The proof of this statement will be seen in the following figures.During the five years, 1870 to 1874, the average yearly import of rawwool into the United Kingdom was 342,000,000 lb.; during the years1890-94 the average was 475,000,000. That gives the measure of theenormous increase in the amount of the raw material worked up byour woollen manufacturers. Take next the question of the amountof labour employed. Unfortunately, there are no official figures since1890, but that year will serve. Here is the comparison:—

Persons Employed in Woollen and Worsted Mills.

These figures are doubly satisfactory, for they point, first, to alarge increase in the adult labour employed; and, secondly, to asmall but gratifying decrease in child labour.

[31]THE NATURE OF GERMAN COMPETITION.

To still further reassure politicians and others who have beenalarmed by Mr. Williams’s book, I may quote two passages fromlectures on German competition recently delivered in the WestRiding. The first is from a lecture by Professor Beaumont, deliveredin the Yorkshire College in October last. From the report in theLeeds Mercury of October 10th, I take the following:—

My second quotation is from a lecture delivered by Mr. SwireSmith, of Keighley, at the Bradford Technical College, and reportedin theBradford Observer of November 27th last:—

THE “PERCENTAGE TRICK.”

That is enough about woollens. About jute a couple of sentenceswill suffice. In order to make the facts in this trade look worse thanthey are—there is nothing really bad about them—Mr. Williams firstplaces German figures in marks side by side with English figures in[32]pounds sterling, and then plays what can only be called the “percentagetrick.” The German increase in eleven years, he says, is atthe rate of 1,100 per cent., while the British is only 19 per cent.Remarkable! Yet Mr. Williams might have discovered from his ownfigures, if he had only taken the trouble to turn marks into pounds,that the German increase in eleven years was only £107,000, whilethe British increase was £412,000. In other words, our increase wasalmost four times as great as Germany’s, and our total is now£2,588,000, against their total of £117,000. Exactly the same percentagetrick is employed by Mr. Williams in comparing German andEnglish trade with Japan. In this case there is also an importanterror in his arithmetic; but let that pass. The trick consists indeluding the uncritical reader into the belief that German trade withJapan is increasing faster than our own, whereas during the periodselected by himself for comparison our increase has been almostexactly double the German increase. It is by devices such as thesethat Mr. Williams has succeeded in filling his pages with gloomystatements and gloomier prophecies. To track him further alonghis tortuous path would be profitless. “Here ends,” he writes atthe close of one of his most despairing and most deceptive chapters,“the tale of England’s industrial shame.” If candour should be anessential to fair controversy, there is other shame than England’sto be ended.

[33]CHAPTER V.
Our Growing Prosperity.

Having now shown, both generally and in detail, how absolutelyvoid of foundation are many of the most gloomy statements in “Madein Germany,” we can dismiss Mr. Williams and his fanciful forebodings,and examine instead the direct and abundant evidence of thegrowing prosperity of our country. The first point to notice is theimmense development of our shipping industry. In the last quarterof a century the tonnage of shipping engaged in foreign trade enteringour ports has more than doubled, and this increase has beensteady and persistent, with no retrogression worth noticing in anyyear. But that is not all. Twenty years ago the proportion ofBritish ships engaged in this foreign trade of ours was only 67 percent. of the total; it is now well over 72 per cent. In the sameperiod the number of tons of shipping per hundred of the population,taking entries and clearances together, has risen from 130 tons to 200tons. No other country can point to such figures. Germany, startingfrom small beginnings, has improved rapidly, but her totals areinsignificant compared with our own. Only 43 per cent. of herforeign trade is carried in her own ships, as against nearly 73 percent. in our case, while per hundred of the population the shipping toand from her ports is less than a quarter of ours. If we turn toFrance we find that while the total shipping to and from Frenchports has increased as rapidly as with us, the proportion carried underthe French flag has appreciably fallen. In the case of the UnitedStates there has been a still greater fall. Twenty years ago 33 percent. of the foreign trade of the United States was carried in UnitedStates ships, now the proportion is only 23 per cent. The followingtable shows the growth of shipping of all kinds to and from Britishports:—

[34]Twenty-Five Years’ Shipping to and from Ports of theUnited Kingdom.

Entries and Clearances together, in Millions of Tons.

In order to further compare our progress with the progress of othercountries the following table has been prepared to show the relativeposition of the principal countries now and twenty years ago. If weconsider merely the rate of progress, the German percentage ofincrease is undoubtedly better than ours. But in national life, asin individual, it is not percentages but amounts that are important,and the table shows that while Germany has added 6,000,000 tons toher shipping, we have added 27,000,000 tons to ours. As long asanything similar to that proportion is maintained we have no need tofear German rivalry.

British and Foreign Shipping.

In Millions of Tons.

The figures for 1890-94 may be illustrated diagrammaticallyas on opposite page.

It must be noticed that this comparison takes no account ofthe enormous carrying trade done by this country for foreigncountries or British Colonies trading with one another; nor arethere figures available for showing how in this matter we comparewith our rivals. The figures, if they existed, would show that inthis international industry Great Britain is first, and the rest of theworld nowhere.

[35] United Kingdom.
Germany.	France.	United States.

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

Before passing to another point it is worth while to call attentionto the enormous development of the coasting branch of our shippingtrade, as shown in the figures given above. This branch of shippingis really of the nature of internal traffic, as distinguished from foreigntrade. That it should have increased so steadily and so rapidly isby itself a striking proof of the commercial activity of the country.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR RAILWAYS.

Proof even more convincing is apparent in the enormous developmentof our railway system. It is difficult to know from which sidefirst to approach the tremendous figures in which this development isportrayed. Taking, at hazard, mileage first, we find within the lasttwenty-five years an increase of 6,000 miles in our railway system—namely,from 15,000 in 1870, to 21,000 in 1895. Of this increase,2,000 miles are due to the last decade. Looking next at the capitalexpenditure, we find that in the ten years from 1885 to 1895 thetotal capital of the various railway companies of the United Kingdomrose from 816 millions sterling to 1,001 millions. Part of this immenseincrease was, it is true, only nominal, being due to consolidation ofstock, etc. But when all allowance has been made on that score,we are left with a real net increase in the ten years of 170 millions[36]sterling. During the same period of ten years the receipts frompassenger traffic rose from 30 millions sterling to 37 millions,while the receipts from goods traffic rose from 36 to 44 millions.In the last quarter of a century the number of passengers carried bythe railways, exclusive of season-ticket holders, has risen from337 millions to 930 millions. Were it possible to record the numberof journeys made by season-ticket holders, we should obtain aneven more striking picture of the development of passenger trafficon our railways. Such figures as are available are given in thenext table, and illustrated by the accompanying diagrams:—

The Railways of the United Kingdom.

Ten Years’ Work and Receipts.

The figures may be illustrated diagrammatically as follows:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

[37]

1870—337 Millions.

1895—930 Millions.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (exclusive of season-ticket holders).
(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

[38]These diagrams and the figures they illustrate hardly look asif the nation were on the verge of decay, ruined by German cheapgoods. If such be the signs of national collapse, no country in theworld can be called prosperous. For there is this feature aboutour railway development which entirely differentiates it from therailway expansion of newer countries—that every pound of capitalrequired has come out of our own pockets: we have borrowedfrom no one. Instead, while planking down in ten years 170 newmillions to add to our own railways, we have been lending with largehands to railway builders in every part of the globe.

LENGTHENING TRAM LINES.

From railways we pass to tramways. Here the figures are lessconsiderable in amount, but they are striking enough. In 1876 therewere only 158 miles of tramway open for public traffic; by 1885 thatnumber had risen to 811 miles, and by 1895 to 982 miles. In thesame periods the paid-up capital had increased from 2 millionssterling to 12, and thence to 14 millions. Lastly, between 1885 and1895 the number of passengers carried upon tramways has risen from365 millions to 662 millions. These figures are principally interestingbecause the tramcar is essentially a popular means of conveyance. Ifthe working-classes of this country are being reduced to starvation, asthe Protectionists say, by the invading Teuton, it is astounding thatthey should be able to afford so many pennies to pay for tram fares.

POST OFFICE EXPANSION.

From this last comparatively limited but not unimportant test ofthe general prosperity of the country, we pass to the Post Officereturns. Next to the test of railway traffic, already dealt with, nobetter evidence of the prosperity and commercial activity of a countrycan be found than is furnished by the growth of post office business.A nation whose trade is being filched from it by foreigners, whoseblast furnaces are cold, and whose looms are silent, as Mr. Williamswould have us believe, does not add every year forty million letters tothe amount of its correspondence. Yet this is what we have beendoing in the United Kingdom for a good many years past. Startingfrom the year ending March 31st, 1878, when a slight alteration wasmade in the method of presenting the statistics, we find that in the[39]nineteen years that have since elapsed the number of letters deliveredannually has increased from 1,058 millions to 1,834 millions. In thesame period postcards have increased from 102 millions to315 millions; newspapers and book packets, from 318 to 821 millions.Moreover, the increase has been steady, with one significant exception.In the year 1894-95, which was notoriously a year of bad trade, therewas a drop in the number of letters delivered. The drop was morethan made good in 1895-96. Turning to telegrams, we find a similarstory. Here we are compelled to start with the year 1886-87, the firstcomplete year after the introduction of sixpenny telegrams. In theten years that have since elapsed the number of telegrams deliveredhas steadily increased from 50 millions to 79 millions.

EVER-GROWING INCOMES.

Another test of our national prosperity is furnished by the incometax returns. When the annual value of the property and profitsassessed for income tax exhibits a steady increase, it is hard tobelieve that our manufacturers, and all the classes that depend uponthem for support, are being ruined by Germans or by anybody else.Here are the figures:—

Income Tax Assessments.

In Millions Sterling.

The return from which the above figures are taken stops with theyear 1894; but a somewhat similar comparison was brought up todate in the last Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.The following table is taken from the “explanatory memorandum”that accompanied that speech:—

[40]Yield per Penny of the Income Tax.

With such figures as these available it is difficult to understand howpeople can continue to pour forth nonsense about the ruin of ournational industries. During the very decade in which the blight ofGerman competition was supposed to have destroyed the profits ofour manufacturers, it is clear from the above infallible test that theincomes of our commercial, professional, and property-owning classeshave been growing with increasing rapidity.

REDUCTION OF NATIONAL DEBT.

Passing from taxation to the question of what has been done withthe taxes, it is sufficient to select one fact for comment—the enormousreduction in the National Debt. Here are the figures:—

The Indebtedness of the Nation.

That is to say, that within the past ten years—the years of allegeddepression and blight—we have reduced our national indebtedness byover 90 millions sterling. During the same period it is worth whileto point out that we have expended enormous sums in the almostcomplete reconstruction of our navy. Meanwhile Germany—thehated rival—has, since the war, added as many millions to her debtas we in ten years have taken from ours.

[41]SOME STAPLE COMMODITIES.

In case the pessimists and the Protectionists should be still unconvincedby these proofs of national prosperity, let us turn to a newseries of tests, the test of consumption. The great staple commoditieswhich we will first take (cotton, wool, and coal) are partly requiredfor manufacturing purposes and subsequent export, and partly forhome use. The word “consumption” covers both uses, and wecannot, except in the case of wool, readily ascertain to which use thegreater effect is attributable. In the case of wool it so happens, aswas previously pointed out, that our export trade in manufacturedgoods has declined. But since the total consumption of raw woolby the United Kingdom has gone on increasing, it is clear that thedecline in woollen exports has been more than made good by theincreased home demand, unless, indeed, it be imagined that woollenmanufacturers go on weaving an endless web which nobody wears.Nor is that all, for the figures of our import trade show that inaddition we are importing considerable and increasing quantities offoreign woollen manufactures. So that not only have the homeconsumers more than recouped the British woollen manufacturer forthe decline of his export business, but so great is their purchasingpower that they can, at the same time, afford to send abroad for freshwoollen stuffs to please their fancy. Here are the figures showingthe consumption by the inhabitants and manufacturers of the UnitedKingdom of three staple articles referred to:—

Consumption of Cotton, Wool, and Coal in theUnited Kingdom.

With regard to the figures for cotton in the above table, it is onlynecessary to remark that the British manufacturer, whether for saleabroad, or for sale at home, is clearly working up more stuff thanever before. The figures for wool have already been explained.[42]With regard to coal, the figures necessarily include both domesticand industrial consumption; but whichever be the more importantelement, the totals are remarkably healthy.

PERSONAL AND DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE.

An even better test of the increased spending power of the nationis furnished by the figures giving the rate of consumption of sucharticles of everyday use as tea, sugar, and tobacco. It will be seenfrom the following table how rapidly our national consumption ofthese staple articles has increased during the past decade—the decadeof alleged ruin:—

Tea, Sugar, and Tobacco.

It is useless to worry the reader with further figures. Evidencesof the prosperity of the country are around us on every side for thoseto see that have eyes to see—a higher standard of dress in every classof the community; better built and better furnished houses for artisanand labourer, as well as for millionaire; new public buildings, newlibraries, new hospitals; improved paving, improved water-supply,improved drainage; more newspapers, more theatres, more lavishentertainments; in a word, a higher standard of comfort or of luxuryin every domain of life.

[43]CHAPTER VI.
Let Well Alone.

The preceding chapters have been mainly statistical. Their objecthas been to show, by producing the best evidence available, thatalarmists like the author of “Made in Germany” have no real groundfor their fears, that British trade is not going to the devil, but that, onthe contrary, the nation as a whole is in a condition of marvellous andstill rapidly-growing prosperity. If that be so, if there be no disease,then obviously is there no need for the remedy which Mr. Williamsand other Protectionists are anxious to foist upon the country. Butthough that conclusion will be sufficiently obvious to most minds,there are among us hypochondriacal persons who never think thatthey are quite well, and these unfortunates will still hanker after somepatent medicine to cure their imaginary ills. It is worth while, therefore,briefly to point out how utterly unsuited to our alleged ailments,even if they existed, is the remedy which the Protectionists propose.

THE CASE FOR PROTECTION.

Personally I am not a fanatical believer in Free Trade, or, for thatmatter, in anything else except the law of gravitation and the rules ofarithmetic. I am quite willing to admit that there are circumstancesunder which a Protectionist tariff might be advantageous to a country.But the practical question is whether, under the present circumstancesof Great Britain, Protection is likely to bring any advantageto her. In dealing with that question I will venture at the outset todeny that Protection has been any real advantage to Germany. TheProtectionists are fond of arguing that the heavy import duties whichGermany levies on British goods have enabled German manufacturersin the first place to secure their home market, and in the secondplace to build up an enormous export trade at our expense. Theargument is plausible, but it suffers from one fatal defect: it is[44]unsupported by facts. As one reads the writings and listens to thetalk of Protectionists, one’s mind becomes unconsciously saturatedwith the notion that British trade is rapidly declining and Germantrade as rapidly increasing. It is upon this implied proposition thatall their arguments are based; this is the primary postulate uponwhich rests their whole house of cards.

THE ALLEGED EXPANSION OF GERMAN TRADE.

But what are the facts? I have looked carefully through the figuresshowing the progress of German trade during the last ten or fifteenyears, and I can discover no difference in character from the figureswhich show the progress of British trade. Let the reader look for himself.He will find the figures for fifteen years set out in the followingtable, and a diagram to illustrate them. Let him notice that whatis called theentrepôt trade, consisting of goods merely passing throughthe one country or the other, is in these figures excluded from thecomparison. Thus “British imports” here means the total importsinto the United Kingdom,minus those goods which are subsequentlyre-exported; “British exports” means all articles of British productionexported from the United Kingdom. The same interpretationapplies to the German figures, all goods in transit through Germanyone way or the other being excluded. The comparison is thereforecomplete. And what does it show? That, so far from Germany’sexport trade increasing by leaps and bounds, while ours is steadilydeclining, German trade has followed, though at a lower level, thesame general course as British trade. Therefore, whatever else Protectionmay have done for Germany, it certainly has not improvedher export trade as compared with that of the United Kingdom. Aneven more striking demonstration of the utter hollowness of the Protectionistcase can be seen when we turn from exports to imports. IfProtection is to do anything for a country it must at least diminishimports from abroad while increasing exports from home. That isthe whole object of Protection, the great ambition which every Protectioniststatesman sets before him. Has Protection done this forGermany? Once again let the reader look for himself at the figuresand the diagram. He will see that while German exports haveremained stationary, German imports have very largely increased,and moreover that their increase has been relatively greater than theincrease of imports into Free-Trade England.

[45]British and German Trade Compared.

Fifteen Years’ Imports and Exports, exclusive of Goods in Transit.
In Millions Sterling.

These figures may be illustrated diagrammatically as follows:—

(By permission of the Proprietors of the “Daily Graphic.”)

[46]WOULD PROTECTION HELP US?

So far, therefore, as Germany is concerned, Protection has been,for the general ends for which it was intended, a complete failure. Isthere any reason to believe that it would be more successful in GreatBritain? Every consideration of common sense points the other way.What Germany had to do was to build up comparatively new industries,in face of the overwhelming competition of Great Britain.In some instances she has been successful, and in some instances it ispossible that Protection may have helped her by giving particularmanufacturers an advantage in their home market at the expense ofthe whole German nation. But in England we have no such task toundertake. Our industries are already established; our wares arealready known in every quarter of the globe; it is our competitionthat every other manufacturing country dreads. Nor is that the onlydifference. In Germany and in France and in the United States it isthe home market that Protectionist manufacturers and Protectioniststatesmen are anxious to secure. All their efforts are directedtowards preventing their own citizens from purchasing British orother foreign goods. But with us the home market is not theprimary consideration. Our business is with the whole world: ourcustomers are of every race and colour from the patient Chinaman tothe restless New Englander, from the supple Bengalee to the Africansavage. If we can keep their custom we need have no fear of ourpower to satisfy the wants of our own countrymen.

ON WHAT SHALL WE LAY A TAX?

It is, indeed, just because the advance of Germany in a fewlimited directions has scared some people into the belief that we arelosing our foreign trade, that such books as Mr. Williams’s “Made inGermany” are written. The whole point of their lament is thatGermany is ousting us from neutral markets. Assume that it is so—thoughit is not—what then? How will Protection help us tomaintain the hold we are said to be losing? All that Protection cando is to make more difficult the entry of foreign goods into our owncountry. But what are the foreign goods that enter our country?Four-fifths at least are food or the raw materials of manufacture. Insupport of this statement I must refer the reader to the CustomHouse returns to make his own classification. After going throughthe figures carefully I arrive at the following rough result for1895:—

Colonel Howard Vincent, I see, puts the total of manufactured goodsat 80 millions. His figure will serve as well as mine. Either showsclearly enough the character of the great mass of our imports. Onwhich of the two main branches, on food or on raw materials, do theProtectionists propose to levy a tax? It is a strange way of helpingour manufacturers in their struggle for the markets of the world toimpose additional taxation on the food of their workpeople or on theraw materials of their industry.

A NEW ROAD TO FORTUNE.

There remains the comparatively small amount of manufacturedgoods we import, representing articles which our manufacturers cannotor will not produce at all, or cannot produce so cheaply as theforeigner does. Supposing we taxed every one of these articles as itentered our ports, where would the advantage be to British manufacturerswhose main ambition is to send their goods abroad? Thereis, it is true, just one possibility of benefit to them. It is possiblethat the imposition of a tax on some of these foreign manufacturedarticles would enable the British manufacturer so to raise his prices inthe home market that he could afford to forego all profit on his salesabroad and sell to his foreign customers at or below cost price.That is the only conceivable way in which a Protective tariff couldhelp the British manufacturer in his rivalry with his German competitorsfor the markets of the world. As for the cost of this topsy-turvysystem of trade it is to be borne of course by that patient assthe British public. The British consumer is to be compelled to paymore dearly for certain goods in order that some other people, Japsor Chinamen, may be able to buy those goods below cost price.Here, again, I will not assert that such an apparent act of folly isnot worth committing under given conditions. I can imagine a firmor a country consenting for a time to work for less than no profit inorder to get a foothold in a new market. But we already have thefoothold, and have already worked it for what it is worth. If now wediscover that, for one reason or another, there is no more profit in it,[48]surely our wisest policy is to try something else. Otherwise wemight continue for ever to sell at a loss—individual or national—forthe sole pleasure of adding to the total figures of our turnover.Even the Protectionists would hardly contend that along such lineslay national prosperity.

INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE.

There is, however, another, though not entirely distinct, proposalfor dealing with the alleged mischief of German competition. It isthis—that we should try and persuade our Colonies and Possessionsto give preferential treatment to our goods in return for a similarpreference accorded by us to their goods. It would be unfair to callthis scheme Protectionist in the ordinary sense of the term, for it isinspired as much by the desire to bring about a closer union ofdifferent portions of the empire as by the fear of foreign competition;but as it is with the question of foreign competition that we are hereprimarily concerned, we will deal first with the Protectionist side ofthe proposal. On this side the object aimed at is the destruction or diminutionof foreign competition in our Colonial markets. Undoubtedly,were the Colonies willing to make the necessary tariff adjustmentsin our favour, that object could be attained and our German rivalscould be excluded in part or in whole from Canada, from Australia,from India, or from the Cape. So far so good. But what wouldthat exclusion be worth to us? In a previous article I referred tofigures showing how insignificant as compared with our own isGerman trade with our Colonies. It is worth while to present thesefigures in a fuller form. They will be found in the following table:—

Imports into the following British Possessions.

Average of the Three Years—1890, 1891, 1892.
In Millions Sterling.

[49]These figures are, unfortunately, two or three years behind date,and probably a later return would show that the proportion of Britishexports to our principal Colonies had fallen off and the Germanproportion somewhat increased, but this change has certainly notbeen sufficiently great to affect the general aspect of the table. Thattable shows that more than half of the total import trade of ourColonies is in our hands, and that our three principal rivals togetherhave little more than a tenth of the whole trade. Indeed, were it notfor the inevitably big trade of the United States with Canada, ourthree rivals together would only have about one-fifteenth of the tradeof our Colonies. As for Germany in particular the table shows thatthe amount of the trade she has so far been able to secure is absolutelyinsignificant in comparison with our figures.

THE COST TO THE COLONIES.

“But,” argue the preferentialists, “German trade with our Colonieshas been growing rapidly, and may continue to grow.” Possibly itmay, if our manufacturers go to sleep; but what we have here toconsider is whether it is worth while to take any political action tostop the possible growth of a competing trade which at present isinsignificant in amount. Remember that if such action is taken bythe Colonies to please us, we shall have to pay a price for theircomplaisance—for their loss by the exclusion of German or anyother foreign goods would be twofold. In the first place the Colonialconsumer would suffer. He now buys certain German goods becausethey suit him best, either in quality or in price. That privilege it isproposed to take from him. His loss is therefore certain. Secondly,there is a considerable danger of injury to the Colonial producer. Ifthe Colonies close their markets to German goods Germany mayretaliate by closing her markets to Colonial goods; and Germany is,so far as the trade goes, a fair customer to the British Colonies.Here are the figures:—

Trade of British Possessions with Germany.

Average of Three Years (1890, 1891, 1892).—In Thousands Sterling.

[50]WHAT CAN WE OFFER?

This table shows that the Colonial producer stands to lose asmuch, or more, than the Colonial consumer by cutting off tradeconnections with Germany. What can we offer in return? It issuggested by the advocates of preferential trade that we should offerbetter terms to Colonial products in our markets. But already allColonial products, except tea and coffee, enter the United Kingdomfree, therefore we can only give better terms to the Colonies byimposing a tax on those foreign products which compete with theprincipal Colonial products. What, then, are these competing products?With some trouble I have extracted from the Custom House returnsthe following list of articles in which there seems to be tangiblecompetition between foreign countries and British Possessions:—

Colonialversus Foreign Goods.

Principal Competing Articles Imported into the United Kingdom in 1895.
Millions Sterling.

[51]It will be seen that without exception the articles in the above listbelong either to the category of raw materials or to that of food.Any taxation therefore imposed upon any portion of these articles forthe benefit of the Colonial producer would be a disadvantage to theBritish manufacturer, either by increasing the cost of his raw materialor by diminishing the effective wages of his workpeople. Rememberingthat the main object of the British manufacturer is to keep hishold on the markets of the world, is it likely that he would everconsent to allow himself to be handicapped by such taxation? Forall you can offer him in return is preferential treatment in Colonialmarkets, whereas more than three-quarters of the trade he wishesto retain is with foreign countries.

DIVERGENT AMBITIONS.

There is, however, an even more fundamental difficulty, whichneither Colonial nor British preferentialists have yet had the courageto face. It is this:—That the Colonist and the Britisher are aimingat different ends. The Britisher wishes to expand in ever-increasingproportions his manufacturing business, and it is solely because hethinks that he may possibly get a better market for his manufacturesin the Colonies than in foreign countries that he gives even momentaryapproval to the idea of preferential trade. But no Colonist looksforward to his country remaining for ever the dumping ground forBritish manufactures. He wishes, and wisely wishes, to manufacturefor himself, and he has deliberately arranged his tariffs with that end.Towards realising this ambition it will advance him nothing to shutout the puny Teutonic infant and let in the British giant. In likemanner, if we turn from manufactures to agriculture we find the sameessential divergence of view. The Colonial producer regards Englandas the best market for his meat and corn and butter. But the Britishfarmer wants none of it. If he is to be ruined by competition fromabroad he would as lief that the last nail were driven into his coffinby Argentine beef as by New Zealand mutton.

A DREAM OR A NIGHTMARE?

These objections go to the root of the matter, and show howfutile it is to hope that the Mother Country and the Colonies will everagree on any scheme of preferential trade. But need we, therefore, sitdown sorrowing? Does the dream of inter-Imperial trade, if we[52]come to examine it closely, really hold all the beauties that its shadowyshape suggests? Take it either way. Take the scheme either as anend in itself, or as a means to an end. As for the first hypothesis, iftrade is itself an end, it matters to us nothing whether we trade withforeigners or fellow subjects; all we have to think of is the profitableness,immediate or prospective, of the trade itself. And from thispoint of view a growing trade with Germany is worth a good dealmore than a declining trade with Australasia. But most advocatesof inter-Imperial trade would not admit that their dream is an end initself. They adopt the second of the two hypotheses just mentioned,and look upon the expansion of inter-Imperial trade as the mostconvenient means of drawing the Colonies closer to the MotherCountry, and to one another.

DOES TRADE UNITE?

With that end no one will quarrel; but how will preferential tradepromote it? The preferentialists assume that mutual trade must ofnecessity promote the closer union of different parts of the Empire.Neither in individual life nor in national life can any fact be found tosupport that assumption. A man does not necessarily make abosom friend of his baker and his butcher; he may even be at daggersdrawn with his tailor. As for nations it might almost be said thatthere is the least love exchanged between those who exchange mostgoods. We are splendid customers to France; we buy French goodswith open hands and ask for more, yet where is the love of France forEngland? Never for a moment do the French cease to gird at usand to try and thwart our national projects solely because we aredoing in Egypt what they have done in Tunis and are on the wayto do in Madagascar. Germany, on the other hand, is one of our bestcustomers; yet at the beginning of this year, when there seemed to bea chance of war with Germany, a feeling of elation ran through thewhole of England. One more illustration: when in December, 1895,President Cleveland’s Message aroused all decent folk on both sidesthe Atlantic to protest that war between the United Kingdom andthe United States was impossible, was it of trade interests that allmen thought, or of the tie of common blood? Or, again, did Canadapause to calculate that her best customer was her Southern neighbour,or did she for a moment weigh that fact against the loyalty she owedto the Mother Country?

[53]A NEXUS STRONGER THAN CASH.

The simple truth is that trade has no feelings. We all of us buyand sell to the best advantage we can, and on the whole we do wisely.It is a shrewd saying that warns men to beware of business transactionswith their own kinsfolk; nor do we need a prophet to tell usthat an attempt to fetter Colonial trade for our own benefit may loseus more affection than it wins us custom. After all, why worry?Our world-embracing commerce is to-day as prosperous as ever it hasbeen. The loyalty of our Colonists no one questions. Let well alone.Our industrial success has not hitherto been dependent on favouringtariffs, nor is there the slightest evidence that old age has yet laidhis hand upon our powers. As for the closer union between ourColonists and ourselves, it will hardly be promoted by asking themto sacrifice their commercial freedom to increase the profits of ourmanufacturers, nor by taxing our food to please their farmers. Itis indeed a sign of little faith to even look for a new bond of empirein an arrangement of tariffs. The tie that binds our Coloniststo us will not be found in any ledger account, nor is ink the fluidin which that greater Act of Union is writ.

[54]CHAPTER VII.
Conclusion.

In the foregoing pages I have been obliged more than once to accuseMr. Williams of misrepresenting facts in order to bolster up his argument.That accusation I cannot withdraw. It has been deliberatelymade because the facts compelled it. Doubtless in the ordinary affairsof life Mr. Williams is not less honourable than other men, but inhis zeal to establish a case, which cannot be established, he hasblinded himself to the main facts of the matter with which hewas dealing, and has often so quoted facts and figures as to conveyan impression the reverse of the truth. Even from his own point ofview this was a pity, for it throws discredit upon the whole of hiswork, whereas several of his statements are quite true. It is, forexample, true that Germany has made great progress in the chemicaland in the iron trades. It is also true that her commerce is gaining afoothold in Eastern markets once almost exclusively our own. These,and several other perfectly true statements, are to be found in Mr.Williams’s pages, and might have been edifying to exalted persons whocan only discover a distorted image of the truth ten years after the mainfacts have been clearly seen by those common folk who are primarilyconcerned with them. To such individuals Mr. Williams, without hispicturesque exaggerations and strange twistings of the truth, mighthave been really useful. As it is, he has only helped to lead themastray. Indeed, it is much to be feared that these hasty students ofa big subject have by the perusal of Mr. Williams’s neatly-turnedsentences and epigrammatic phrases acquired an impression whichno drab-coloured statement of simple fact will ever be able todislodge.

NOT ONLY A PROTECTIONIST PAMPHLET.

One ground of complaint Mr. Williams may possibly feel that hehas against me—that I have so far treated his book as if it were onlya Protectionist pamphlet. My excuse is that the spirit of the Protectionistbreathes in almost every page he has written. Nowheredoes he show the slightest grasp of the central fact that all commerce[55]must be mutual, that exports cannot exist unless there are importsto pay for them; everywhere he speaks as if each useful commoditysent us from abroad were a net loss to the British nation, and as ifthe people who sent it were “robbing” us of our wealth. Nor isthat all. I take his chapter dealing with the reasons “why Germanybeats us,” and I find that after examining some half dozen reasons insuccession and dismissing them as unimportant, he comes to Protectionand exclaims, “Here at last, we are on firm ground.” Again,in his next chapter he specifies “Fair Trade” as the first of the“things that we must do to be saved.” The second is the commercialfederation of the Empire. I think, therefore, that I havehad good reason for concentrating my argument on these two points.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND THE METRIC SYSTEM.

There are, however, several minor suggestions in “Made inGermany,” and I am glad to be able to express my full agreementwith what Mr. Williams said about technical education, about metricweights and measures, and about the excessive conservatism of theEnglish people. I agree with him that it is monstrous that English ladsshould nowadays have no chance of thoroughly learning any trade.The old system of apprenticeship is almost dead, and the moderndevice of technical education remains a pure farce, mainly owing tothe political influence of trade unions. In the same way I agree thatit is ridiculous that Great Britain should go on using a clumsy andexclusive system of weights and measures, when the rest of the worldis rapidly adopting the almost ideally perfect system invented ahundred years ago by the French. This is a striking instance of theconservatism and self-conceit of the English race, of which Mr. Williamsso justly complains. But in this particular case, as it happens, it isnot the commercial classes who are to blame. For years Chambers ofCommerce throughout the Kingdom have petitioned for the legalisationof the metric system, and yet last Session when a Bill to grantthis prayer was at length introduced into the House of Commonsby the Government the most audible comment from the assembledwisdom of the nation was a silly guffaw.

NO SIGNS OF DECAY.

Let me, however, not be misunderstood. I agree with Mr.Williams that these things are desirable, but not for the reason forwhich he desires them. By him they are put forward as devices to[56]help to stave off the impending ruin of the country. For that purposethey are not needed, for there is not the slightest real evidencethat ruin is impending. On the contrary, we are progressing rapidlyin trade abroad and in prosperity at home. It is solely because Ibelieve that we are capable of making even more rapid progress, andbecause I realise how great is the mass of misery still to be removed,that I support Mr. Williams’s demand for technical education, formetric weights and measures, for the more careful study of foreignlanguages, and generally for a greater readiness to receive new ideas,and a greater promptitude to meet new wants.

THE CRY OF “WOLF!”

One word more—Mr. Williams’s book has been defended, byhimself and by others, on the ground that it is a useful warning, thatthe nation requires to be stirred up, and so on. Has Mr. Williamsforgotten the story of the little boy who cried “Wolf! Wolf!” whenthere was no wolf? It is one thing to warn the country of a problematicdanger in the dim future; it is another to scream in themarket-place that the danger is at our doors. Mr. Williams’s book isone long scream—a literary scream, I admit, and therefore in somemeasure harmonious, but still a scream in the sense that there is noreason behind the noise that is made. The danger is not at ourdoors, our industrial glory is not departing from us, our trade is notbeing ruined by Germany. On the contrary, in spite of the remarkableprogress of Germany in a few limited directions, the general figuresshow that we are fully maintaining our splendid lead, if indeed we arenot actually bettering it. I cannot, therefore, admit this attemptedjustification of the character of Mr. Williams’s book. To quoteMr.Punch’s admirable picture, Mr. Williams, like his pupil Lord Rosebery,has been trying to make our flesh creep. There is more harmthan humour in such a pastime. That the motives of both thesedisturbers of our nerves were patriotic I do not for a moment doubt;but their conduct is neither patriotic nor wise. It does us no mannerof good to be for ever cheapening ourselves in the eyes of the world.A great nation should have dignity enough to be silent about herown greatness, neither on the one hand perpetually boasting of herpre-eminent virtue, nor on the other fretfully asking how her creditstands with other countries. We are what we are—what our forefathersand our own brains and arms have made us. Let us becontent to possess our souls in peace, and to get on with our work.

[57]APPENDIX.

MR. WILLIAMS’S REPLY.[3]

To the Editor of the “Daily Graphic.”

Sir,—The first reflection arising from a perusal of your correspondent’s criticism of“Made in Germany” is that perhaps it is as well that he and I are English and not Frenchjournalists. Across the Channel disagreeable formalities sometimes ensue when one writertakes to dealing in such expressions as “artfully picked out,” “trickery,” “gross exaggerationand suppression,” “misrepresentations,” “exaggerations—to use the mildestpossible term,” “grossest exaggeration,” “skilfully conveyed a false impression,” “twistingthe truth,” and others of like offensiveness. As they are a direct impeachment of my honouras a man, apart from my ability as an economist, I am compelled to preface my defence witha protest. The adoption of this style is a pity, too, in that it was wholly unnecessary. Myantagonist was not in the position of the proverbially abusive lawyer; he had a case to state;and, apart from personalities and some other faults to be mentioned later, I sincerely congratulatehim on the ability with which he has stated that case. Of course no one willmistake my meaning. By admitting that my opponent has a case I am not confessing defeat;I am simply testifying to the general truth of the saying that there are two sides to everyquestion, albeit one side is the right one.

THE “ADVOCATUS DIABOLUS.”

It is possible to raise objections (and not necessarily foolish objections) to almost anythesis, and the thesis is not hurt thereby. The Vatican wisely employs anadvocatus diabolus,whose paradoxical function is to establish the sanctity of a candidate for canonisation byalleging all of what is not saintly that he can rake up in the candidate’s career. Yourcorrespondent has acted asadvocatus diabolus to “Made in Germany.” He has said whatthere is to be said for the other side, and my book, I respectfully submit, is uninjured.Unfortunately in this case it is the case of theadvocatus diabolus only with which most of hisreaders are acquainted—a circumstance calculated to obscure their judgment. To them Iwould say: Read my book; you can buy it for half-a-crown, or you can get it for nothingout of the Free Library. This is not a puff of my own wares; it is a necessity of the case.Until you have read the book you cannot form an opinion on the worth of the attack. Thesmall space allotted to me for criticism of my critic is obviously quite insufficient to prove acase which was with difficulty compressed into 174 octavo pages; neither, apart from considerationof space, would you thank me for copying out matter already published elsewhere.You will therefore kindly bear in mind that the ensuing remarks are not a complete statementof my position, but only some supplementary criticisms prompted by the attack.

NOT A PROTECTIONIST PAMPHLET.

First, I join issue with respect to the motive and nature of my book. Your correspondentsays that I lean to the conclusion that “the only way to prevent the commercial downfall of[58]our country is to revise the Free Trade policy which we deliberately adopted fifty years ago,”and, as his readers will remember, he proceeds on that assumption, and reiterates thatstatement throughout his articles. It is really unpardonable. Would any of those readers,who were not also readers of my book, imagine that the first chapter of that book contains adisclaimer of holding a brief in favour of any particular doctrine or remedy, Fair Trade beingspecially named; that not more than seven of my 174 pages are concerned with Protection;that I strenuously and at considerable length advocate other reforms, and often point to othermatters as being the determining causes of the decline in a particular trade? Your correspondentknew all this perfectly well, and yet, in order to damage my book with a Free Tradepublic, deliberately conveyed to them the impression that “Made in Germany” was merelya Protectionist pamphlet. He omitted all reference to technical education, the superiority ofGerman business methods, and the other reforms whose advocacy formed the bulk of thebook. And this is the man who sprinkles around charges of “misrepresentation,” and ofhaving “skilfully conveyed a false impression”! From a child I was never much impressedby outbreaks of virtuous indignation.

THE CHARGE OF DATE-COOKING.

He reviles me for my dates, and in his own diagrams proves the wisdom of my choice.The object of my book was to show that England’s industrial supremacy was departing.Clearly the way to do this was to show the height to which that supremacy had attained, andto contrast it with the position to-day. Now, his first diagram shows that the highest pointwas reached at the commencement of the nineties. Of course, therefore, I made my comparisonsbeginning with that period, except where the decline had begun earlier. What isthere wrong in this? Similarly I am derided as an “ingenious person” because, in order toshow that our production of pig-iron was on the downward grade, I gave the figures for 1882,the highest year, and for 1894, the latest available year. If there were any truth in thecharge of date-cooking I should have given to my readers the figures for 1892, which wasthe lowest year since 1882. It has suited the correspondent to misconceive the whole purportof my book. I was not writing an industrial history of Europe for use in schools. My workwas to rouse the manufacturers of England to a sense of the danger threatening theirdominion, and I went in detail through the various trades wherein this danger was apparent,showing how great they had been and what was their condition to-day. In different tradesthe decadence had begun at different periods; to take the same starting year of comparisonin each case would, therefore, have been a stupid error. “Made in Germany” is a call toarms, not an academic disquisition on the movements of trade.

“ARTFUL AND INGENIOUS.”

But what of your correspondent’s method? With a large air of virtuous impartiality headopts 1886 for his starting-point all through his tables. It may be my denseness, butbeyond meaningless uniformity, I can see absolutely nothing in this method to commend it.I see, however, that it is very useful for optimistic purposes. Did it not strike the readerthat, in most industries, 1886 was a year of bad trade, and that therefore its adoption as astarting year of comparison would result in a very inaccurate view of England’s formerindustrial glory? If I felt inclined to adopt his language towards myself I might be temptedto say that his choice of years was “artful” and “ingenious,” for to say, with blunt frankness,“I will take the last decade and stick to it all through,” is an admirable way to scorewith the unsuspecting public. The pose of impartiality is excellent. Your correspondent’sfigures are doubtless as correct as they are interesting, but (in the light of the explanation Ihave given) I submit that those diagrams might as well have remained undrawn; they do notdestroy the tables in “Made in Germany,” and, so far as dates are concerned, are ineffectualas a commentary.

[59]THE ABUSE OF STATISTICS.

Your correspondent has a better case for his diagrams when he gives weights as a set-offagainst money figures, and I cannot, of course, take exception to the use of those statistics.But I do take exception to their abuse; and when he attempts to draw from them theinference that the British manufacturer has nothing to complain of in the matter of fallingprices, I suggest that there is an abuse. Of course, in some industries the decrease in theprice of raw material has made it possible to manufacture for a lower price, but your correspondentgoes much farther than the facts warrant when he assumes that the difference inprice is balanced by an all-round difference in raw material. He forgets, for example, thatcoal, which in most manufactures is an item of prime importance in the cost of production,is not cheaper than it used to be in his favourite year 1886. Then the average price was8·45s. per ton, in 1894 it was 10·50s. per ton. Wages, too, are an even more important item,and these are on the upward grade. So also are rent, rates and taxes. Take his championinstance of the cotton trade. Men used to make fortunes at it. Whoever hears of fortunesbeing made to-day in cotton manufacture? What we do learn is that recently fifty-two outof ninety-three spinning companies were paying no dividend at all. Prices are cut becauseof foreign competition. The foreigners have to cut their prices too, but that does not makethe fact of foreign competition any the less disagreeable. I still think, therefore, that Ifollowed the right method in laying more stress on money than on weights and measures, andanyway no harm could be done by it, because I used money figures for comparison in boththe English and the German tables. To read your correspondent one would imagine that Ihad confined myself to money figures when tabulating English trade, and to weights whengiving the corresponding instances from Germany. Your correspondent was so preoccupiedwith my skilful conveyance of false impressions that he apparently overlooked the misleadingnature of many of his own impressions.

EXCESS OF IMPORTS OVER EXPORTS.

This anxiety has also seemingly taken his attention away from consistency in his ownstatements. In the first article he rejoices over the fact that our imports exceed our exports,regarding that circumstance as a sign of prosperity; in his second article (when he hasanother sort of article in hand) he writes as follows:—“When two tradesmen have mutualtransactions, that man will feel that he is doing best who sells more to his neighbour than hebuys from him. And rightly so!” That note of exclamation is his. It also represented myfeelings when I read the statement. I am also quite at one with him in the quoted remark,but (as in my poor way, I tried to be consistent) I am at issue when in his first article hechuckles over the excess of imports. Suppose that excess to be made up entirely of shipping,sale commissions, and interest on foreign investments, and that it does not imply that we areliving on our capital; even then the thing does not work out quite happily. Shipping is allright, of course, but sale commissions less so; they spell enrichment, doubtless, to a certainclass of City men, but the working and manufacturing classes generally get nothing out ofthese foreign manufactures. Still less do they share in the third item. It does not help thiscountry’s industries to aid the establishment of rival industries abroad, which is what foreigninvestments mostly mean; while when the returns on those investments are used to purchaseforeign goods it is again difficult to see exactly where the English industrial classes come in.With regard to the entrepôt trade, your correspondent says that it “seems somewhat to haltin the process” of slipping away; but as his own figures show that the sixty-seven millionsof 1889 have dwindled in six years to the sixty millions of 1895, I don’t think I need occupyfurther space by combating his assertion with figures of my own.

Yours faithfully,
Ernest E. Williams.

(To be concluded.)

[60]MR. WILLIAMS’S REPLY.—II.

To the Editor of the “Daily Graphic.”

Sir,—In my first article I endeavoured to show that the charges of disingenuousnessbrought against me by your critic not only missed their aim, but possessed a boomerangquality. I will ask your attention to another instance. In his second article your correspondent,in order to damage my reputation for intellectual honesty, writes:—“Mr. Williamshas artfully picked out half-a-dozen or so items of our imports from Germany, and thenexclaims in horror at the amount of ‘the moneys whichin one year have come out of JohnBull’s pocket for the purchase of his German-made household goods.’” This, in vulgarlanguage, is a staggerer.

Let me explain my artfulness. In a half-jocular section in my first chapter, I invited thereader just to look round his own house and make an inventory of the German goods itprobably contains. I helped him with a list of the toys in the nursery, the piano in thedrawing-room, the servant’s presentation mug in the kitchen, the pencil on the study table,&c., and then tried to give point and solidity to my little excursion into the lighter style ofwriting by enumerating the yearly national bill which Germany presents to us for thesehousehold items. The correspondent (to use his own admirable verb) “twists” this into theimplication above quoted, and writes as though these were the only figures I had adduced.Ingenuous, is it not?

THE ALKALI TRADE.

Now to another matter wherein the correspondent has superficially scored a point, buthas done so largely by the process of quoting me in disconnected bits. I refer to his alkalitrade section in the third article. He quotes two or three sentences of mine commenting onsome startling English export figures I had just given. Then he misses out a couple of mostimportant pages, and finishes the quotation with two sentences referring to the increase ofGerman trade. This leaving-out of the pith of the matter, and the bringing into juxtapositionof two sets of unrelated semi-rhetorical remarks, gives to the quotation a forced andrathernon sequitur air. The part that was left out is too long for me to reproduce, but itcomprises a number of most pregnant instances of the havoc wrought in England’s alkalitrade, and of the great progress made in the German trade. The correspondent might, withadvantage to the forwarding of public knowledge on the subject, have made some referenceto these facts, even had it cramped the space at his disposal for inveighing against my“grossly inaccurate impressions.” Here is a case which illustrates the necessity of myappeal to the reader to go direct to the incriminated book.

THE CHEMICAL MANURE TRADE.

Neither can I admire the correspondent’s sudden and peculiar change of method in dealingwith the chemical manure trade. Anyone acquainted with the trade in sulphate ofammonia knows how the Germans are capturing it, their estimated annual productionamounting now to 100,000 tons. It is among the most startling instances of Germany’swonderful progress in her chemical trades. Even the correspondent loses heart, and is fainto confess the expansion here. But in order that he may at all hazards score a point, heintroduces the argument that “probably the British farmer ... does not regard thiscompetition of German with English manure manufacturers as altogether disadvantageous.”This is all very well; but even a hard-pressed critic cannot serve two masters; he cannot setout to prove that the Germans are not beating us, and then, when he tumbles against aninstance to the contrary which repulses all attempts to explain it away, turn round and saythat it is a very good thing. It is possible to score points in a way which does not improvethe scorer’s position. Altogether, I venture to suggest to the correspondent that his general[61]case would have been strengthened had he passed over the chemical trades in discreetsilence.

SOAP IMPORTS FROM GERMANY.

Especially was he ill-advised when, for the purpose of bringing into greater prominencemy addiction to false statement, he burst out into italics in the following sentence: “So faras the Custom House returns show, not one single ounce of foreign soap is imported into theUnited Kingdom, either from Germany or from any other country.” Because the Germanreturns show an export of soap to England under three different headings. The correspondentshould have provided himself with Green Books as well as Blue Books before he set outto demolish me. He would then have learned—what he should have known anyway, consideringthe attention he has given to the subject—that the English Custom House returnsdo not show everything.

IMPORTS OF IRON.

This limited acquaintance with German statistics has caused the correspondent to gowrong on other occasions. For instance, in the fourth article he produces a table purportingto show our iron trade with Germany, in which the iron exports from Germany to Englandcut a very insignificant figure beside the English exports to Germany. To quote his ownwords in another place—“Most impressive! if only it were true.” I had occasion the otherday to get out a detailed list of the German exports to England of iron and steel manufacturesin 1891; they reached a total of 109,956 tons. The correspondent gives 11,000 tons as thetotal of iron manufactures; the complete total of iron and steel manufactures, according tothe source whence he obviously drew his information, was about 16,000 tons. The explanationis of course that the English returns do not always show the actual place of origin. (Itdoesn’t matter much; competition in any other name hits just as hard, and Germany, afterall, is but one rival out of many. I only used her as an instance of foreign competitiongenerally.)

A “PETTY ACCUSATION.”

This particular table is, therefore, hopelessly wrong, and is certainly valueless for anypurpose of destructive criticism. It is on this page that the correspondent brings against mea petty accusation of which he should have been ashamed. He says that I have “skilfullyconveyed a false impression” by giving certain German figures in hundredweights andEnglish figures in tons. Surely he had the wit to see that I was merely transcribing figureswithout stopping to translate them; and it is difficult to imagine he could think I was sowitless as to adopt a silly sleight-of-hand trick such as that of which he accuses me, a trickwhich would not deceive a child in the lowest standard of a Board school.

FANCIFUL FOREBODINGS?

Here I must bring to an end my short, detailed criticism of theDaily Graphic correspondent’sattack, for I have already exceeded the space offered to me by the editor, thoughI have perforce left untouched a number of points on which I should have liked to enlargemy defence. I have not touched the two concluding articles in the series. The last is astatement (more lucidly and ably put than anything I remember ever to have read) of theFree Trade position in general and the case against a Customs Union in particular; but Ihave recently elsewhere stated my views on those subjects at length. Regarding the penultimatearticle, I should like to say a word in conclusion. That article attacks me by aside wind. It does not contest the facts contained in my book; on the contrary, it leads offwith an airy dismissal of “Mr. Williams and his fanciful forebodings,” and it shows, by muchrhetorical writing and some interesting illustrations, that England is a land flowing withmilk and honey and manufactures and money, and generally in a wonderful state ofmillennial prosperity. My answer is two-fold. In the first place I must congratulate thecorrespondent on the pleasant surroundings among which alone his days can have beenpassed; but I should like to take him through some awful wildernesses I know—deserts of[62]“mean streets,” where half-clothed, underfed children shiver for warmth and food at theknees of women gaunt and haggard with the suffering which hopeless poverty inflicts onthem; and by way of explanation of these grisly phenomena I would take him to the dockgates in the early morning, where not unlikely he would see men literally fighting forentrance because there is not work enough to go round. If that does not point him out thecause with sufficient clearness I would suggest an examination of the employment returns ofthe trade unions. There, by-the-by, he would see the greatest want of employment to bein those trades where the pinch of foreign competition—“the harmless growth of theGerman infant,” he phrases it—is most in evidence.

A WARNING.

In the second place, I would point out to him that the initial object of my book was towarn the nation in the day of its prosperity—such as it is—that a grave danger was lurkingin the way. The fact that the easy-going man of business is surrounded by so many signs ofindustrial prosperity, such as those which the correspondent details, only made it the moreimportant that he should be aroused to a knowledge of the forces that were undermining thefoundations.

Printed byCassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.