CHAPTER I.

Produced by Irma Spehar, Markus Brenner and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This

file was produced from images generously made available

by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

ARE WE RUINED BY THE

GERMANS?

BY

HAROLD COX,

FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

_Republished from the "Daily Graphic" for the Cobden Club._

[Illustration]

CASSELL and COMPANY, LIMITED:

_LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE._

PREFACE.

The greater part of the contents of this little volume appeared

originally in the _Daily Graphic_, in the form of a series of six

articles written in criticism of Mr. Ernest Williams's "Made in

Germany." To these articles Mr. Williams replied in two letters, and to

that reply I made a final rejoinder. In the present reproduction this

sequence has been abandoned. For the convenience of readers, and for the

economy of space, I have anticipated in the text all of Mr. Williams's

objections which appeared to me to have any substance, and, in addition,

I have modified or omitted phrases, in themselves trivial, upon which he

had fastened to build elaborate but unsubstantial retorts. By doing this

I have been able to preserve the continuity of my argument and at the

same time to cut down a somewhat lengthy rejoinder into a brief

concluding chapter. Incidentally a few new points and some further

figures have 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 what the author of "Made in Germany" was able to say for himself,

his letters are reprinted _verbatim_ in an Appendix. I am indebted to

the proprietors of the _Daily Graphic_ for their courteous permission to

republish the articles, and to the Committee of the Cobden Club for

undertaking the republication. I have only to add that the opinions

expressed throughout are my own, and that the Cobden Club does not

necessarily endorse every one of them.

H. C.

GRAY'S INN,

_December, 1896._

CONTENTS.

CHAP. PAGE

I.--OUR EXPANDING TRADE 1

II.--GERMANY: ONE OF OUR BEST CUSTOMERS 8

III.--PICTURESQUE EXAGGERATIONS 14

IV.--MORE MISREPRESENTATIONS 21

V.--OUR GROWING PROSPERITY 33

VI.--LET WELL ALONE 43

VII.--CONCLUSION 54

APPENDIX 57

ARE WE RUINED BY THE GERMANS?

CHAPTER I.

OUR EXPANDING TRADE.

In a little book recently published, an attempt is made to show that

British trade is being knocked to pieces by German competition, that

already the sun has set on England's commercial supremacy, and that if

we are not careful the few crumbs of trade still left to us will be

snapped up by Germany. This depressing publication, aptly entitled "Made

in Germany," has received the quasi-religious benediction of an

enterprising and esoteric journalist, and the puff direct from a

sportive 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 so

widely criticised. It consists largely of quoted statistics and

deductions therefrom, and few readers will have the means at hand for

verifying the many figures quoted, while fewer still will have the

patience to compare them with other figures which the author omits to

mention. As a necessary consequence, a large number of persons will

believe that Mr. Williams has proved his case, and some of them will

jump to the conclusion, which is evidently the conclusion to which Mr.

Williams himself leans, that the only way to prevent the commercial

downfall of our country is to reverse the Free Trade policy 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 be

certain before taking action, or before taking thought which is

preliminary to action, that we know our facts, and all our facts. The

second 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

erred by overlooking facts which told on the other side. On general

grounds, considering the signs of prosperity on every side, it seemed to

me impossible that the condition of our foreign trade could be so bad as

the author of "Made in Germany" paints it. A cursory glance at a few

staple figures convinced me that my general impression was a sound one,

that our trade was not going to the dogs, and that Mr. Williams had only

succeeded in producing so gloomy a picture by fixing his gaze on the

shadows and shutting his eyes to the sunlight. On this supposition I

began a more critical examination of his book, not with a view to

refuting his positive statements, but with a view to showing that in

spite of the ugly facts which he had, on the whole usefully, brought to

light, there were counterbalancing considerations from which we might

draw, at any rate, partial consolation. This I propose to do, but in

addition I shall be able to show that many of Mr. Williams's alleged

ugly facts are not in reality so ugly as he makes them look, and that

what he has done, in his eagerness to prove his case, is to so choose

his figures and so phrase his sentences as to convey in particular

instances an entirely false impression. How this is done will be shown

in detail later on. For the present it is sufficient to state that it is

done, and that some of the most alarmist statements in "Made in Germany"

will not bear critical examination. In a word, the author, in his

polemical zeal, has sinned both sins--he has suggested the false and he

has omitted the true; he has misrepresented, in particular instances,

the facts to which he refers, and he has not referred at all to facts

which refute his general argument.

THE WHOLE TRUTH.

It is with these that I propose first to deal, with the facts which show

that our trade is in a very healthy condition, and that though Germany

is also doing well and hitting us hard in some trades, there is no

reason to believe that her prosperity is, on the whole, injuring us. And

to guard myself, at the outset, against a temptation to which Mr.

Williams has frequently succumbed--the temptation of picking out years

peculiarly favourable to my argument--I propose to take the last ten or

the last fifteen years, for which statistics are available, and to give

wherever possible the figures for each year in the whole period. The

figures that will be here quoted are all taken from official records,

except when otherwise stated.

OUR TOTAL TRADE FOR TEN YEARS.

The first point to attack is the question of the total import and export

trade of the United Kingdom. The figures are contained in the following

table:--

TEN YEARS' TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Exclusive of Bullion and Specie).

In Millions Sterling.

--------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

|1886|1887|1888|1889|1890|1891|1892|1893|1894|1895

--------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

Total Imports | 350| 362| 388| 428| 421| 435| 423| 405| 408| 417

Total Exports | 269| 281| 299| 316| 328| 309| 292| 277| 274| 286

+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

Excess of | | | | | | | | | |

Imports | | | | | | | | | |

over Exports | 81| 81| 89| 112| 93| 126| 132| 128| 134| 131

--------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

These figures may be illustrated as follows:--

[Illustration]

These figures hardly bear out the statement that "commercial dry rot,"

to use one of Mr. Williams's favourite phrases, has already laid hold of

us. In spite of the fall in prices, the money value of our trade, both

import and export, has fully maintained its level. It is true that the

year 1886, with which the diagram starts, was a year of depression, but

the point which I wish to bring out by the diagram is not that 1895 was

a better year than 1886, but that the general course for 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 money totals of our trade in different

years is necessarily inconclusive, because no account is taken of

prices. To get a true comparison between any two years, say 1895 and

1890, we ought to calculate what the value of our trade in 1895 would

have been if each separate commodity had been sold at the prices of

1890. Were this done, it would probably be found that 1895, instead of

showing a decline, would show an immense advance. A similar comparison

has been privately worked out in one of the Government offices for the

years 1873 and 1886 with startling results, which I am permitted to

quote. It must be premised that only certain articles are entered in our

returns by quantity as well as by value, and it is therefore only

between these that such a comparison as I have indicated can be made. In

1873, the total declared value of our exports of these articles was 172

millions sterling; in 1886, it was 131 millions, showing an apparent

fall of 41 millions. But if these exports of 1886 had been declared at

the prices of 1873 the total value would have been 215 millions. In this

sense, then, our aggregate trade in these commodities in 1886, instead

of being 41 millions worse than 1873, was 43 millions better. This is

undoubtedly an extreme illustration, for the prices of 1873 were

exceptionally high, and those of 1886 exceptionally low. Nevertheless,

the illustration is most instructive as showing how extremely misleading

it may be to compare values only, without taking account of quantities.

Unfortunately, when we are dealing with the total trade of a country, a

comparison of values is the only comparison possible, for there is no

other common denominator by means of which varied articles--say, steam

ploughs, cotton piece-goods, and patent 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 happen that

there is such a large and growing excess of imports over exports? Surely

that is a bad sign." On the face of it, why should it be? It only means

that we are, apparently, getting more than we give, and most people do

not in their private relations regard that as a hardship. There are,

however, people to be found who, seeing that we every year buy more

goods than we sell, will jump to the conclusion that we must pay for the

difference in cash. Where we are to get the cash from they do not pause

to think. Hitherto the Welsh hills have resolutely refused to give up

their gold in paying quantities, and as for the silver which we separate

from Cornish lead, it is worth something less than £50,000 a year. The

notion then that we pay for our foreign purchases with our own gold and

silver may be dismissed at once, although a hundred years ago this same

delusion had not a little influence in shaping our commercial policy. As

a matter of fact, instead of sending gold and silver out of the country

to pay for our excess of imports, we almost every year import

considerably more bullion and specie than we export. The actual figures

are given in the following table:--

THE MOVEMENTS OF BULLION AND SPECIE.

In Millions Sterling.

----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

|1886|1887|1888|1889|1890|1891|1892|1893|1894|1895

----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

Imports Gold |12·9|10·0|15·8|17·9|23·6|30·3|21·6|24·8|27·6|36·0

" Silver | 7·5| 7·8| 6·2| 9·2|10·4| 9·3|10·7|11·9|11·0|10·7

Exports Gold |13·8| 9·3|14·9|14·5|14·3|24·2|14·8|19·5|15·6|21·4

" Silver | 7·2| 7·8| 7·6|10·7|10·9|13·1|14·1|13·6|12·2|10·4

+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

Total excess or | | | | | | | | | |

deficiency of imports | - | + | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | +

over exports of gold | | | | | | | | | |

and silver together | ·6| ·6| ·5| 2·0| 8·8| 2·3| 2·4| 3·6|10·8|15·0

----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----

EXCESS OF IMPORTS OVER EXPORTS.

The movements of gold and silver then, instead of helping to explain the

excess of imports over exports, only increase the need for explanation.

Happily, the explanation that can be given, though it cannot be

statistical, is fully sufficient. It is fourfold. In the first place the

Custom House returns do not include in the tables of exports the large

export which we every year make of ships built to order for foreign

buyers, so that our exports appear smaller than they really are by at

least five millions a year. Secondly, an allowance must be made for the

profit on our foreign trade. If, in return for every pound's worth of

British goods sent out from our ports, only a pound's worth of foreign

goods came back, our merchants would make a better living by selling

penny toys along the Strand. What the 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, we at once account for some £30,000,000

sterling in the difference between our exports and imports. The third

item in the explanation is the sum earned by British shipowners for

carrying the greater part of 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 high one. Lastly, we have the enormous sum annually due

to this country for interest on the money we have lent abroad. The

amount of this annual payment can again only be guessed at, but it

probably exceeds £100,000,000 a year. Adding then these four items

together, and making every allowance for over-estimates, we not only

account for the 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 to South Africa, steel rails to India, coal to South America;

the interest due to us comes home in the form of American wheat,

Argentine beef, Australian wool, Indian tea, South African diamonds.

THE WORLD'S TRIBUTE.

Of what do the Protectionists complain? Would they have us forego the

interest we are owed? Apparently Mr. Williams would, for he says (page

19) that we ought not to spend all our income from foreign investments

"in foreign shops." How else, in the name of the Prophet, are we to

receive all or any part of what is due to us from foreigners, whether it

be due for interest on investments, or for goods carried, or for ships

sold? Does Mr. Williams mean that we are to compel foreign nations to

pay us a couple of hundred millions a year in actual gold and silver,

and then dig a hole in the ground and sit on our hoard like an Indian

cook who has saved money out of the perquisites of his profession? Gold

and silver are useless to us beyond a very few millions every year; if

more bullion were sent the market would reject it. If we are to be paid

at all we must be paid in foreign commodities, and the mechanism of

commerce enables us to select just those commodities which we most want.

This is the whole story of our excess of imports over exports.

Furthermore, that excess would be even greater than it is did we not

every year send fresh millions abroad on loan to our Colonies and

foreign countries, to produce in due course (it is to be hoped)

additional hundreds of thousands in the way of interest.

OUR _ENTREPÔT_ TRADE.

There is one other important point to be dealt with in considering the

movement of our trade as a whole. It is this--that part of the enormous

quantity of goods we import is not consumed by ourselves, but is

re-exported to foreign countries or to our Colonies. For many reasons it

is interesting to distinguish these re-exports from the exports of goods

produced within the United Kingdom. The separate figures for the last

fifteen years are given in the following table:--

OUR _ENTREPÔT_ TRADE AND OUR HOME TRADE.

In Millions Sterling.

--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---

|1881|'82|'83|'84|'85|'86|'87|'88|'89|'90|'91|'92|'93|'94|'95

--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---

Re-exports of | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Imported Goods| 63| 65| 66| 63| 58| 56| 59| 64| 67| 65| 62| 65| 59| 58| 60

Exports of | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Home Produce | 234|242|240|233|213|213|222|235|249|264|247|227|218|216|226

--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---

Total Exports | 297|307|306|296|271|269|281|299|316|329|309|292|277|274|286

--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---

There is not much to grumble at in these figures. Our _entrepôt_ trade,

which was supposed to be slipping away, seems somewhat to halt in the

process, in spite of the notorious and not entirely unpleasing fact that

our Colonies are now doing a larger direct trade with foreign countries

than ever before. At the same time the figures for the exports of our

own goods are most satisfactory if we take into account the lower range

of prices at which our manufacturers are now working. Altogether there

is nothing in the general figures of our trade to justify the wild

statements that "dry rot" has set in, and that "the industrial glory of

England is departing."

Are we ruined by the Germans? · 第 1 / 7 章