MORE MISREPRESENTATIONS.
Attention was called in the last chapter to some of the picturesque
exaggerations--to use the mildest possible term--in which Mr. Williams
had indulged in dealing with the chemical trades. We now pass to the two
chapters which he devotes to the iron and steel and their "daughter
trades." And at the outset let it be clearly understood that I do not
for a moment deny that in some of these trades the 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. An infant four weeks old doubles
its age in a month; an adult takes thirty or forty years to double his.
Nor can we expect that the whole world will stand still while Great
Britain goes on every year adding to her strength. All that I do argue
is that the shooting-up of the German infant does us on the whole no
harm, and that there is nothing whatever in the figures of our trade to
suggest that full-grown England is approaching senile decay.
"ICHABOD! OUR TRADE HAS GONE."
With this general prelude let us turn to what Mr. Williams has to say
about the industries connected with iron and steel. He opens by
referring to a visit of the English Iron and Steel Institute to
Düsseldorf in 1880:--
"And when the time of feasting and talk and sight-seeing was
over, they returned to their native land, and there, in the
fulness of time, they perused the fatuous reports of the British
Iron Trade Association, which bade them sleep on, sleep ever.
And they did as they were bid, until the other day, when they
awoke to the fact that their trade was gone."
Another paragraph, headed "Ichabod!" begins:--
"And now all that is changed. The world's consumption (of iron)
is greater than ever before. Yet our contribution in the years
since 1882 has dropped at a rate well nigh unknown in the
history of any trade in any land. From the 8,493,287 tons of
1882 pig iron has gone hustling down to the 7,364,745 tons of
1894."
Truly Mr. Williams is an ingenious person. By picking out the two years
1882 and 1894 he has cunningly obscured the fact that the production of
pig iron, as of everything else, is subject to fluctuations, and that
1894, following worse years than itself, will in all probability be
followed by better. Here are all the figures for the last fifteen years
for which statistics are available, with the German figures set beside
them:--
PRODUCTION OF PIG IRON.
In Millions of Tons.
--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
|1880|'81|'82|'83|'84|'85|'86|'87|'88|'89|'90|'91|'92|'93|'94
--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
In the United | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Kingdom | 7·7|8·1|8·6|8·5|7·8|7·4|7·0|7·6|8·0|8·3|7·9|7·4|6·7|7·0|7·4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In Germany | 2·7|2·9|3·4|3·5|3·6|3·7|3·5|4·0|4·3|4·5|4·7|4·6|4·9|5·0|5·4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
These figures show that Germany has without doubt been rapidly gaining
upon us, but it is the grossest exaggeration to say that our trade "has
gone." As a matter of fact the output of pig iron in the United Kingdom
rose to 7·9 million tons in 1895, and--according to the _Economist_ of
November 11th--the estimated output for the present year (1896) is 8·7
million tons. If that figure is realised it will 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," we find--
"Under the general heading of iron, wrought and unwrought, the
returns of our German exports exhibit a fall from 374,234 tons
in 1890 to 295,510 tons in 1895.... Of unenumerated iron
manufactures Germany supplied us with 219,841 cwt. in 1890 and
with 311,904 cwt. in 1895."
Had Mr. Williams taken the trouble to convert the German figures from
cwts. into tons he might have found this comparison somewhat less
"odious." If we send Germany 295 thousand tons against 15 thousand tons
she sends us, our iron manufacturers have not much to grumble at. But,
as a matter of fact, no reliance can be placed upon these particular
figures, because, as was pointed out in a previous chapter, much of the
stuff that we get from Germany is credited in our Blue Books to Holland
and Belgium, and these countries in the same way are debited with a
large amount of British stuff that ultimately finds its way to Germany.
Exactly the same causes of error vitiate the figures published in the
German Green Books, and it may safely be asserted that there is no means
of ascertaining with even approximate accuracy how much British iron and
steel goes to Germany and how much German steel and iron comes to Great
Britain. What can be ascertained is the total export of German iron from
Germany to all parts of the world, and the total export of British iron
from the United Kingdom to all parts of the world. This comparison,
which is one of the best means of testing the relative progress of Great
Britain and Germany, is worked out in the 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.]
---------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
|1884|'85|'86|'87|'88|'89|'90|'91|'92|'93|'94
---------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
Total Exports from Germany | | | | | | | | | | |
(Metrical Measure) | ·8| ·7| ·8| ·8| ·7| ·7| ·6| ·8| ·8| ·8| ·9
| | | | | | | | | | |
Total Exports from Belgium | | | | | | | | | | |
(Metrical Measure) | ·4| ·3| ·3| ·4| ·4| ·5| ·4| ·4| ·4| ·4| ·4
| | | | | | | | | | |
Total Exports from United | | | | | | | | | | |
Kingdom (British Meas.) | 3·5|3·1|3·4|4·1|4·0|4·2|4·0|3·2|2·7|2·9|2·6
---------------------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
The above figures undoubtedly show a distinct decline in British exports
of iron and steel, but they also show that that decline is not due to
the increased invasion of our own or of neutral markets either by
Germany or by Belgium. It is due to a decline which subsequent events
have shown to be temporary in the world's demand for iron and steel
goods. Even were this decline permanent, it would not be the fault of
our manufacturers, nor--except as a device for reducing their personal
expenditure--is there any reason why these gentlemen should sit in
sackcloth and ashes.
STATISTICAL LEGERDEMAIN.
We pass to the subject of shipbuilding. Mr. Williams is good enough to
admit that England is actually at the head of the shipbuilding trade.
But having made this admission, a pang of regret comes over him, and he
tries to show that he is justified in putting even the British
shipbuilding trade on his "black list." This is his argument:--
"In 1883 the total tonnage built in the United Kingdom was
892,216; in 1893 it reached only 584,674; in 1894, 'tis true, it
rose to 669,492, but this is much below the total even of 1892,
which was 801,548."
Again one can only admire Mr. Williams's ingenuity. Reading his
paragraph, who would dream that between the years so skilfully selected
for comparison the trade had experienced an enormous drop, and
afterwards, to all intents and purposes, completely recovered itself;
that then a smaller drop had occurred, and that this in turn was being
fast made good? The best way to expose the above piece of statistical
legerdemain is to give without further comment the whole of the figures
for the past fifteen years. They will be found in the following table.
With figures such as these before him--and they must have been before
him--it is astounding that Mr. Williams should 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.
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
1881|1882|1883|1884|1885|1886|1887|1888|1889|1890|1891|1892|1893|1894|1895
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
609| 783| 892| 588| 441| 331| 377| 574| 855| 813| 809| 801| 585| 669| 648
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
These figures may be illustrated as follows:--
[Illustration]
SHIPS BUILT FOR FOREIGNERS.
But his perverse ingenuity does not end with the paragraph quoted. A few
lines lower down he says:--
"All these figures include vessels built for foreigners as well
as those for home and the Colonies. The year in which we built
most vessels for other nations was 1889, when we supplied them
with 183,224 tons. The four following years showed a progressive
decrease, getting down as low as 89,386 tons in 1893; and though
1894 showed an increase to 94,876 tons, their upward movement
was slight compared with the successive decreases of the
previous years."
The man who wrote these sentences obviously intended to convey to his
readers the impression that our trade in the building of ships for
foreign purchasers was a declining trade. That impression is false, and
it is a little hard to understand how Mr. Williams could fail to see its
falsity. The following figures show--what to most persons would be
sufficiently obvious on reflection--that the tonnage of ships launched
at our great yards varies largely from year to year. To pick out the
year 1889, as Mr. Williams does, and declare that since that year there
has been a decline in our sales to foreigners, is as grossly unfair as
it would be, on the other hand, to pick out the year 1885, and say that
since then there had been a fourfold increase.
SHIPS BUILT BY US FOR FOREIGNERS.
Thousands of Tons.
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
1881|1882|1883|1884|1885|1886|1887|1888|1889|1890|1891|1892|1893|1894|1895
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
108| 116| 124| 91| 36| 39| 70| 91| 183| 161| 139| 109| 89| 95| 128
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
WAR-SHIPS FOR FOREIGNERS.
The above figures include war-ships as well as merchant-ships built by
us for foreigners, and, noting this fact, Mr. Williams is distressed to
find what he calls a drop in our output of foreign war-ships. He
writes:--
"Still more remarkable is the drop in our supply of foreign
war-ships from 12,877 tons in 1874 to 2,483 in 1894."
What is even more remarkable still is the fact that Mr. Williams should
have dared to put such a statement before the public, knowing, as he
must have known, how completely it misrepresents the truth. I wonder
what he would have said of me if I had spoken of the remarkable
_growth_ in our output of foreign war-ships as evidenced by an
_increase_ from 14 tons in 1876 to 4,152 tons in 1895! Yet this
statement would have been every bit as justifiable as his own. The whole
truth of the matter of course is, that such an industry as the
construction of foreign war-ships must vary enormously from year to
year, and a comparison between any two single years can prove nothing,
except the folly or the _mala fides_ of the person who makes it. In
order that the reader may see for himself the source from which Mr.
Williams drew his "remarkable" statement, I append all the figures since
1870:--
WAR VESSELS BUILT FOR FOREIGNERS.
------------------+------------------+------------------
Years. Tons. | Years. Tons. | Years. Tons.
------------------+------------------+------------------
1870 970 | 1879 716 | 1888 1,899
1871 80 | 1880 385 | 1889 726
1872 40 | 1881 5,338 | 1890 3,437
1873 280 | 1882 447 | 1891 300
1874 12,877 | 1883 270 | 1892 2,792
1875 12,280 | 1884 2,339 | 1893 2,471
1876 14 | 1885 5,462 | 1894 2,483
1877 3,435 | 1886 840 | 1895 4,152
1878 2,482 | 1887 3,966 |
------------------+------------------+------------------
MACHINERY AND STEAM ENGINES.
It is becoming monotonous to follow Mr. Williams in detail through his
ingenious misrepresentations. I will therefore hastily pass 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 |11·9|13·5|13·2|11·2|10·2|11·1|12·9|15·3|16·4|15·7|13·9|13·8|14·2|15·0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
From | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Germany | 3·1| 3·3| 2·8| 2·5| 2·4| 2·6| 2·8| 3·1| 3·3| 3·3| 3·1| 3·2| 3·9| --
--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
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
bumper 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 quantities. 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 23·98d. to less than 8·85d. '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
anticipation 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
manoeuvres of the company-promoter will be seen from the figures relating
to cotton in the following table, and from the diagram that illustrates
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 | 1·0 | ·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 illustrated as follows:--
[Illustration]
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
passu_ 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 COMPETITION.
To still further reassure politicians and others who have been alarmed
by Mr. Williams's book, I may quote two passages from lectures on German
competition 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 quantities 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 classes 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 competition."
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 competition 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 competition, 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 Japan. In this case there is
also an important error in his arithmetic; but let that pass. The trick
consists in deluding the uncritical reader into the belief that German
trade with Japan 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.