It is becoming monotonous to follow Mr. Williams in detail through his ingenious misrepresentations. I will therefore hastily pa.s.s over the many pages which he devotes to "black-listing" sundry iron and steel manufactures. His black list, which includes "steam engines," "other machinery," and "tools and implements" of industry, is arrived at by giving only the figures for 1890 onwards and ignoring the preceding years. The unfairness of this procedure need not be again pointed out.

The figures for a decade, or for a longer period, show that trade moves up and down, and that a depression in one year or group of years is succeeded by an elevation a few years later. Throughout his book, in instances too numerous to be especially mentioned, 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 him that the truth was the exact opposite to his representation of the facts. Here are the figures for the last fourteen years, showing the relative progress of Great Britain and Germany in the export of all kinds of machinery, including the domestic sewing machine and the locomotive engine.

EXPORTS OF MACHINERY OF ALL KINDS.

(Including Steam Engines and Sewing Machines.)

In Millions Sterling.

--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---- |1882|1883|1884|1885|1886|1887|1888|1889|1890|1891|1892|1893|1894|1895 --------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---- From | | | | | | | | | | | | | | United | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kingdom |119|135|132|112|102|111|129|153|164|157|139|138|142|150 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Germany | 31| 33| 28| 25| 24| 26| 28| 31| 33| 33| 31| 32| 39| -- --------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

TEXTILES.

To our textile industries Mr. Williams has devoted a chapter which is one of the gloomiest in his book. Let it be at once admitted that we are no longer the monopolists of the textile industries of the world to the extent to which we once were. Nor could any sane man expect that we should for ever retain our former exceptional position. Other nations move as well as we. They buy the machines which we invent and make; they employ our foremen to teach them the arts we have acquired, and in time they learn to weave and spin for themselves instead of coming to us for every yard of cloth or every pound of yarn. This relative advancement of foreign nations and, too, of our own Colonies and Dependencies was and is inevitable. It is part of the general industrialization of the world.

But what we have to note with satisfaction is that this process has involved little or no positive loss to us, that we are still far ahead of all other nations in the production of textiles, and that even in those cases, notably the woollen industry, where our export has fallen off we can point to an increased demand by our own people for the goods we manufacture. It is not in this spirit that Mr. Williams will look at any British industry. Even where he has a fairly good case, he spoils it by gross exaggeration and by the suppression of counterbalancing facts.

COTTON YARN AND THE PRICE THEREOF.

Dealing first with cotton, he follows his usual device of picking out b.u.mper years, and then exclaiming, "See what a fall since then!" he goes on:-

"A consideration of moment is that this decline in values does not signify a corresponding decline in quant.i.ties. On the contrary, in yarn manufactures, with an actual increase in the exported weight, there is a decrease in the cash return. Thus in bleached and dyed cotton yarn and twist there was a qualitative rise between 1893 and 1895 from 36,105,100 lb. to 40,425,600 lb., with a fall in the value thereof from 1,862,880 to 1,832,477. Between 1865 and 1895 the average price per lb. of cotton yarn declined from 2398d. to less than 885d. 'Tis a good enough explanation of the vanishing dividends, the low wages, the lack of enterprise and initiative."

Mr. Williams must either be very innocent, or expect his readers to be.

He apparently has forgotten that the most important element in the price of cotton yarn is the price of the raw cotton out of which the yarn is spun. What the Lancashire spinner cares about is not the absolute price of yarn or the absolute price of raw cotton, but the margin between the two. If that be satisfactory his profit is secure. Therefore, the mere statement that the prices of yarn have fallen so much in so many years, by itself explains nothing. As a matter of fact the price of cotton yarn has followed, and continues to follow, very closely the price of raw cotton, the spinners' margin remaining fairly constant. It is useless to go back to 1865, when the most careless economist might surely have remembered that the American war made 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, from figures kindly supplied by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the average margin between the price of a pound of standard yarn (32's twist) and a pound of standard cotton (middling American). The result shows that while the spinners' margin was slightly less in 1895 than in 1893, it stood at practically the same figure as in 1892 and 1894, and was a good deal higher than it had been in 1886. So that here 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 the cotton trade, or at any rate not so rapidly as in the days when cotton spinners waxed fat on the labour of tiny children who had to be flogged to keep them awake. It is also true that many joint-stock spinning companies have paid no dividends, and that many have collapsed altogether. But those who know anything of Lancashire know that a very large number of these companies were not started in response to any real increase in the demand for cotton goods, nor on account of any genuine antic.i.p.ation of such an increase. They were started, as a good many companies are started in a county south of Lancashire, in order to put money into the promoters' pockets. Having served that purpose they were allowed quietly to collapse. Lancashire does not miss them. That the cotton trade, as a whole, is in a healthy condition in spite of these manuvres of the company-promoter will be seen from the figures relating to cotton in the following table, and from the diagram that ill.u.s.trates them:-

TEXTILES.

YARNS. Ten Years' Exports. In Millions of Lbs.

-----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- | 1886| 1887| 1888| 1889| 1890| 1891| 1892| 1893| 1894| 1895 -----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Cotton | 254 | 251 | 256 | 252 | 258 | 245 | 233 | 207 | 236 | 252 Jute | 31 | 24 | 27 | 34 | 34 | 33 | 26 | 29 | 35 | 35 Linen | 16 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 17 Silk | 6 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 Woollen | 46 | 40 | 43 | 45 | 41 | 41 | 45 | 50 | 53 | 61 -----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

PIECE GOODS, ETC. Ten Years' Exports. In Millions of Yards.

-----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- | 1886| 1887| 1888| 1889| 1890| 1891| 1892| 1893| 1894| 1895 -----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Cotton |4,850|4,904|5,038|5,001|5,125|4,912|4,873|4,652|5,312|5,033 Jute | 216| 244| 232| 265| 274| 284| 266| 265| 233| 255 Linen | 164| 164| 177| 181| 184| 159| 171| 158| 156| 204 Silk | 7| 7| 8| 10| 10| 6| 6| 6| 6| 7 Woollen[2] | 273| 281| 264| 268| 253| 223| 213| 194| 168| 242 -----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

[Footnote 2: Includes "Woollen Tissues," "Worsted Coatings and Stuffs," "Damasks, Tapestry, and Mohair Plushes," "Flannels,"

and "Carpets and Druggets."]

The figures for cotton piece goods may be ill.u.s.trated as follows:-

[Ill.u.s.tration]

LINEN, SILK, AND WOOLLENS.

So much for cotton! With regard to linen, it is unnecessary to follow in detail what Mr. Williams says, for he himself admits that the decline which has taken place since the 'sixties is largely due to a change in fashion, jute and cotton goods taking the place of linen. In the last decade, however, as will be seen from the above table, the linen industry has held its own. With regard to silk, the figures show that there is no cause for serious alarm. In woollens, on the other hand, there is apparently better ground for Mr. Williams's mourning. The table on the preceding page points to a distinct downward tendency in our export of woollen manufactures, a tendency which has been only partly checked by the inflation of 1895. If this were the whole truth about our woollen trade, it might be conceded that here at any rate Mr. Williams had made out his case. But it is not the whole truth. Almost _pari pa.s.su_ with this decline in our export of woollens, which began some twenty years back, there has been a steady increase in the consumption of our woollen manufactures by our own people, and this increased home demand has _more than made good_ the decline in the foreign 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 raw wool into the United Kingdom was 342,000,000 lb.; during the years 1890-94 the average was 475,000,000. That gives the measure of the enormous increase in the amount of the raw material worked up by our woollen manufacturers. Take next the question of the amount of labour employed. Unfortunately, there are no official figures since 1890, but that year will serve. Here is the comparison:-

PERSONS EMPLOYED IN WOOLLEN AND WORSTED MILLS.

----------+-----------+-----------+----------- | Men. | Women. | Children.

----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1870 | 94,000 | 116,000 | 24,000 1890 | 118,000 | 156,000 | 23,000 ----------+-----------+-----------+-----------

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

THE NATURE OF GERMAN COMPEt.i.tION.

To still further rea.s.sure politicians and others who have been alarmed by Mr. Williams's book, I may quote two pa.s.sages from lectures on German compet.i.tion recently delivered in the West Riding. The first is from a lecture by Professor Beaumont, delivered in the Yorkshire College in October last. From the report in the _Leeds Mercury_ of October 10th, I take the following:-

"In the woven fabrics imported from Germany we have examples of the standard of workmanship attained in German mills. These textures chiefly comprise low mantle cloths and cloakings, and limited quant.i.ties of dress stuffs composed of mixed materials, showing that almost invariably it was the price which caused these goods to sell in British markets. Viewed from this standpoint, there is an impregnable argument in favour of our industrial pursuits; for in all cla.s.ses of fancy fabrics of a high quality, whether in woollen, worsted, cotton, linen, or jute materials, the manufacturers of the United Kingdom have scarcely felt the effects of German compet.i.tion."

My second quotation is from a lecture delivered by Mr. Swire Smith, of Keighley, at the Bradford Technical College, and reported in the _Bradford Observer_ of November 27th last:-

"Those who tell us that our English worsted industry is being ruined by the compet.i.tion of Germany, must be unaware of the fact that the German worsteds, whose increasing exports were creating such alarm among the Fair-traders, are mainly composed of yarns 'made in Bradford.' Indeed, Bradford afforded a concrete example of the effect of German compet.i.tion, for it would be difficult to say which country had benefited most by it. The export of woollen, worsted, and alpaca yarns to Germany in the average of the following periods of years amounted in 1880-85 to 41,500,000 lb. per year; 1890-95, to 63,800,000 lb.

per year; and 1895, to 78,900,000 lb. Bradford had been the greatest contributor to German success in the weaving of worsteds and alpacas, and Germany had been the greatest contributor to the success of the spinning industry of Bradford by buying its yarns. To put a tax on German worsteds that would shut them out of England would stop the sale of Bradford yarns in Germany."

THE "PERCENTAGE TRICK."

That is enough about woollens. About jute a couple of sentences will suffice. In order to make the facts in this trade look worse than they are-there is nothing really bad about them-Mr. Williams first places German figures in marks side by side with English figures in pounds sterling, and then plays what can only be called the "percentage trick."

The German increase in eleven years, he says, is at the rate of 1,100 per cent., while the British is only 19 per cent. Remarkable! Yet Mr.

Williams might have discovered from his own figures, if he had only taken the trouble to turn marks into pounds, that the German increase in eleven years was only 107,000, while the British increase was 412,000.

In other words, our increase was almost four times as great as Germany's, and our total is now 2,588,000, against their total of 117,000. Exactly the same percentage trick is employed by Mr. Williams in comparing German and English trade with j.a.pan. In this case there is also an important error in his arithmetic; but let that pa.s.s. The trick consists in deluding the uncritical reader into the belief that German trade with j.a.pan is increasing faster than our own, whereas during the period selected by himself for comparison our increase has been almost exactly double the German increase. It is by devices such as these that Mr. Williams has succeeded in filling his pages with gloomy statements and gloomier prophecies. To track him further along his tortuous path would be profitless. "Here ends," he writes at the close of one of his most despairing and most deceptive chapters, "the tale of England's industrial shame." If candour should be an essential to fair controversy, there is other shame than England's to be ended.

CHAPTER V.

OUR GROWING PROSPERITY.

Having now shown, both generally and in detail, how absolutely void of foundation are many of the most gloomy statements in "Made in Germany,"

we can dismiss Mr. Williams and his fanciful forebodings, and examine instead the direct and abundant evidence of the growing prosperity of our country. The first point to notice is the immense development of our shipping industry. In the last quarter of a century the tonnage of shipping engaged in foreign trade entering our ports has more than doubled, and this increase has been steady and persistent, with no retrogression worth noticing in any year. But that is not all. Twenty years ago the proportion of British ships engaged in this foreign trade of ours was only 67 per cent. of the total; it is now well over 72 per cent. In the same period the number of tons of shipping per hundred of the population, taking entries and clearances together, has risen from 130 tons to 200 tons. No other country can point to such figures.

Germany, starting from small beginnings, has improved rapidly, but her totals are insignificant compared with our own. Only 43 per cent. of her foreign trade is carried in her own ships, as against nearly 73 per cent. in our case, while per hundred of the population the shipping to and from her ports is less than a quarter of ours. If we turn to France we find that while the total shipping to and from French ports has increased as rapidly as with us, the proportion carried under the French flag has appreciably fallen. In the case of the United States there has been a still greater fall. Twenty years ago 33 per cent. of the foreign trade of the United States was carried in United States ships, now the proportion is only 23 per cent. The following table shows the growth of shipping of all kinds to and from British ports:-