CONCLUSION.
In the foregoing pages I have been obliged more than once to accuse Mr.
Williams of misrepresenting facts in order to bolster up his argument.
That accusation I cannot withdraw. It has been deliberately made because
the facts compelled it. Doubtless in the ordinary affairs of life Mr.
Williams is not less honourable than other men, but in his zeal to
establish a case, which cannot be established, he has blinded himself to
the main facts of the matter with which he was dealing, and has often so
quoted facts and figures as to convey an impression the reverse of the
truth. Even from his own point of view this was a pity, for it throws
discredit upon the whole of his work, whereas several of his statements
are quite true. It is, for example, true that Germany has made great
progress in the chemical and in the iron trades. It is also true that
her commerce is gaining a foothold 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 who can only discover a distorted image of the truth ten
years after the main facts have been clearly seen by those common folk
who are primarily concerned with them. To such individuals Mr. Williams,
without his picturesque exaggerations and strange twistings of the
truth, might have been really useful. As it is, he has only helped to
lead them astray. Indeed, it is much to be feared that these hasty
students of a big subject have by the perusal of Mr. Williams's
neatly-turned sentences and epigrammatic phrases acquired an impression
which no drab-coloured statement of simple fact will ever be able to
dislodge.
NOT ONLY A PROTECTIONIST PAMPHLET.
One ground of complaint Mr. Williams may possibly feel that he has
against me--that I have so far treated his book as if it were only a
Protectionist pamphlet. My excuse is that the spirit of the
Protectionist breathes in almost every page he has written. Nowhere does
he show the slightest grasp of the central fact that all commerce must
be mutual, that exports cannot exist unless there are imports to pay for
them; everywhere he speaks as if each useful commodity sent us from
abroad were a net loss to the British nation, and as if the people who
sent it were "robbing" us of our wealth. Nor is that all. I take his
chapter dealing with the reasons "why Germany beats us," and I find that
after examining some half dozen reasons in succession and dismissing
them as unimportant, he comes to Protection and 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 commercial federation of the Empire. I think, therefore,
that I have had good reason for concentrating my argument on these two
points.
TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND THE METRIC SYSTEM.
There are, however, several minor suggestions in "Made in Germany," and
I am glad to be able to express my full agreement with what Mr. Williams
said about technical education, about metric weights and measures, and
about the excessive conservatism of the English people. I agree with him
that it is monstrous that English lads should nowadays have no chance of
thoroughly learning any trade. The old system of apprenticeship is
almost dead, and the modern device of technical education remains a pure
farce, mainly owing to the political influence of trade unions. In the
same way I agree that it is ridiculous that Great Britain should go on
using a clumsy and exclusive system of weights and measures, when the
rest of the world is rapidly adopting the almost ideally perfect system
invented a hundred years ago by the French. This is a striking instance
of the conservatism and self-conceit of the English race, of which Mr.
Williams so justly complains. But in this particular case, as it
happens, it is not the commercial classes who are to blame. For years
Chambers of Commerce throughout the Kingdom have petitioned for the
legalisation of the metric system, and yet last Session when a Bill to
grant this prayer was at length introduced into the House of Commons by
the Government the most audible comment from the assembled wisdom 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 for which he desires
them. By him they are put forward as devices to help to stave off the
impending ruin of the country. For that purpose they are not needed, for
there is not the slightest real evidence that ruin is impending. On the
contrary, we are progressing rapidly in trade abroad and in prosperity
at home. It is solely because I believe that we are capable of making
even more rapid progress, and because I realise how great is the mass of
misery still to be removed, that I support Mr. Williams's demand for
technical education, for metric weights and measures, for the more
careful study of foreign languages, 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, by himself and by
others, on the ground that it is a useful warning, that the nation
requires to be stirred up, and so on. Has Mr. Williams forgotten the
story of the little boy who cried "Wolf! Wolf!" when there was no wolf?
It is one thing to warn the country of a problematic danger in the dim
future; it is another to scream in the market-place that the danger is
at our doors. Mr. Williams's book is one long scream--a literary scream,
I admit, and therefore in some measure harmonious, but still a scream in
the sense that there is no reason behind the noise that is made. The
danger is not at our doors, our industrial glory is not departing from
us, our trade is not being ruined by Germany. On the contrary, in spite
of the remarkable progress of Germany in a few limited directions, the
general figures show that we are fully maintaining our splendid lead, if
indeed we are not actually bettering it. I cannot, therefore, admit this
attempted justification of the character of Mr. Williams's book. To
quote _Mr. Punch's_ admirable picture, Mr. Williams, like his pupil Lord
Rosebery, has been trying to make our flesh creep. There is more harm
than humour in such a pastime. That the motives of both these disturbers
of our nerves were patriotic I do not for a moment doubt; but their
conduct is neither patriotic nor wise. It does us no manner of good to
be for ever cheapening ourselves in the eyes of the world. A great
nation should have dignity enough to be silent about her own greatness,
neither on the one hand perpetually boasting of her pre-eminent virtue,
nor on the other fretfully asking how her credit stands with other
countries. We are what we are--what our forefathers and our own brains
and arms have made us. Let us be content to possess our souls in peace,
and to get on with our work.
APPENDIX.
MR. WILLIAMS'S REPLY.[3]
[Footnote 3: This reply has been reprinted _verbatim_ from the
_Daily Graphic_. On the other hand, in preparing my own articles
for republication I have made certain modifications with a view
of meeting Mr. Williams's objections, where I thought they were
worth that trouble. Many of the objections have therefore lost
their point; but I thought it better to let Mr. Williams's reply
stand as he wrote it.]
_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 French journalists. Across the
Channel disagreeable formalities sometimes ensue when one writer takes
to dealing in such expressions as "artfully picked out," "trickery,"
"gross exaggeration and suppression," "misrepresentations,"
"exaggerations--to use the mildest possible term," "grossest
exaggeration," "skilfully conveyed a false impression," "twisting the
truth," and others of like offensiveness. As they are a direct
impeachment of my honour as a man, apart from my ability as an
economist, I am compelled to preface my defence with a protest. The
adoption of this style is a pity, too, in that it was wholly
unnecessary. My antagonist 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 congratulate
him on the ability with which he has stated that case. Of course no one
will mistake 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 every question, albeit one side
is the right one.
THE "ADVOCATUS DIABOLUS."
It is possible to raise objections (and not necessarily foolish
objections) to almost any thesis, and the thesis is not hurt thereby.
The Vatican wisely employs an _advocatus diabolus_, whose paradoxical
function is to establish the sanctity of a candidate for canonisation by
alleging all of what is not saintly that he can rake up in the
candidate's career. Your correspondent has acted as _advocatus diabolus_
to "Made in Germany." He has said what there 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 the _advocatus diabolus_ only with which
most of his readers are acquainted--a circumstance calculated to obscure
their judgment. To them I would say: Read my book; you can buy it for
half-a-crown, or you can get it for nothing out 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. The small space allotted to me for criticism of my critic is
obviously quite insufficient to prove a case which was with difficulty
compressed into 174 octavo pages; neither, apart from consideration of
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 statement of 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 correspondent says that I lean to the conclusion that "the only way
to prevent the commercial downfall of 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
that statement 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 a disclaimer of holding a brief
in favour of any particular doctrine or remedy, Fair Trade being
specially 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 other matters as being the determining
causes of the decline in a particular trade? Your correspondent knew all
this perfectly well, and yet, in order to damage my book with a Free
Trade public, deliberately conveyed to them the impression that "Made in
Germany" was merely a Protectionist pamphlet. He omitted all reference
to technical education, the superiority of German business methods, and
the other reforms whose advocacy formed the bulk of the book. And this
is the man who sprinkles around charges of "misrepresentation," and of
having "skilfully conveyed a false impression"! From a child I was never
much impressed by 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, and to contrast it with the
position to-day. Now, his first diagram shows that the highest point was
reached at the commencement of the nineties. Of course, therefore, I
made my comparisons beginning with that period, except where the decline
had begun earlier. What is there wrong in this? Similarly I am derided
as an "ingenious person" because, in order to show 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 the charge of date-cooking I should have given to my readers
the figures for 1892, which was the lowest year since 1882. It has
suited the correspondent to misconceive the whole purport of my book. I
was not writing an industrial history of Europe for use in schools. My
work was to rouse the manufacturers of England to a sense of the danger
threatening their dominion, 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 trades the decadence
had begun at different periods; to take the same starting year of
comparison in each case would, therefore, have been a stupid error.
"Made in Germany" is a call to arms, 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 he adopts 1886 for his starting-point all through his
tables. It may be my denseness, but beyond 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
reader that, in most industries, 1886 was a year of bad trade, and that
therefore its adoption as a starting year of comparison would result in
a very inaccurate view of England's former industrial glory? If I felt
inclined to adopt his language towards myself I might be tempted to 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 score with the unsuspecting public. The
pose of impartiality is excellent. Your correspondent's figures are
doubtless as correct as they are interesting, but (in the light of the
explanation I have given) I submit that those diagrams might as well
have remained undrawn; they do not destroy the tables in "Made in
Germany," and, so far as dates are concerned, are ineffectual as a
commentary.
THE ABUSE OF STATISTICS.
Your correspondent has a better case for his diagrams when he gives
weights as a set-off against 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 the inference
that the British manufacturer has nothing to complain of in the matter
of falling prices, I suggest that there is an abuse. Of course, in some
industries the decrease in the price of raw material has made it
possible to manufacture for a lower price, but your correspondent goes
much farther than the facts warrant when he assumes that the difference
in price is balanced by an all-round difference in raw material. He
forgets, for example, that coal, 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 was 8·45s.
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 champion instance of the cotton trade. Men
used to make fortunes at it. Whoever hears of fortunes being made to-day
in cotton manufacture? What we do learn is that recently fifty-two out
of ninety-three spinning companies were paying no dividend at all.
Prices are cut because of foreign competition. The foreigners have to
cut their prices too, but that does not make the fact of foreign
competition any the less disagreeable. I still think, therefore, that I
followed the right method in laying more stress on money than on weights
and measures, and anyway no harm could be done by it, because I used
money figures for comparison in both the English and the German tables.
To read your correspondent one would imagine that I had confined myself
to money figures when tabulating English trade, and to weights when
giving the corresponding instances from Germany. Your correspondent was
so preoccupied with my skilful conveyance of false impressions that he
apparently overlooked the misleading nature of many of his own
impressions.
EXCESS OF IMPORTS OVER EXPORTS.
This anxiety has also seemingly taken his attention away from
consistency in his own statements. 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 has
another sort of article in hand) he writes as follows:--"When two
tradesmen have mutual transactions, that man will feel that he is doing
best who sells more to his neighbour than he buys from him. And rightly
so!" That note of exclamation is his. It also represented my feelings
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 he chuckles 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 are living on our capital; even then the thing does not
work out quite happily. Shipping is all right, of course, but sale
commissions less so; they spell enrichment, doubtless, to a certain
class of City men, but the working and manufacturing classes generally
get nothing out of these foreign manufactures. Still less do they share
in the third item. It does not help this country's industries to aid the
establishment of rival industries abroad, which is what foreign
investments mostly mean; while when the returns on those investments are
used to purchase foreign 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 halt
in the process" of slipping away; but as his own figures show that the
sixty-seven millions of 1889 have dwindled in six years to the sixty
millions of 1895, I don't think I need occupy further space by combating
his assertion with figures of my own.
Yours faithfully,
ERNEST E. WILLIAMS.
_(To be concluded.)_
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
disingenuousness brought against me by your critic not only missed their
aim, but possessed a boomerang quality. 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. Williams
has artfully picked out half-a-dozen or so items of our imports from
Germany, and then exclaims in horror at the amount of 'the moneys which
_in one year_ have come out of John Bull's pocket for the purchase of
his German-made household goods.'" This, in vulgar language, is a
staggerer.
Let me explain my artfulness. In a half-jocular section in my first
chapter, I invited the reader just to look round his own house and make
an inventory of the German goods it probably contains. I helped him with
a list of the toys in the nursery, the piano in the drawing-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 of writing by enumerating the yearly
national bill which Germany presents to us for these household items.
The correspondent (to use his own admirable verb) "twists" this into the
implication 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, but has done so largely by the process of quoting me in
disconnected bits. I refer to his alkali trade section in the third
article. He quotes two or three sentences of mine commenting on some
startling English export figures I had just given. Then he misses out a
couple of most important pages, and finishes the quotation with two
sentences referring to the increase of German trade. This leaving-out of
the pith of the matter, and the bringing into juxtaposition of two sets
of unrelated semi-rhetorical remarks, gives to the quotation a forced
and rather _non sequitur_ air. The part that was left out is too long
for me to reproduce, but it comprises a number of most pregnant
instances of the havoc wrought in England's alkali trade, and of the
great progress made in the German trade. The correspondent might, with
advantage to the forwarding of public knowledge on the subject, have
made some reference to 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 my appeal 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 dealing with the chemical manure trade. Anyone acquainted with
the trade in sulphate of ammonia knows how the Germans are capturing it,
their estimated annual production amounting now to 100,000 tons. It is
among the most startling instances of Germany's wonderful progress in
her chemical trades. Even the correspondent loses heart, and is fain to
confess the expansion here. But in order that he may at all hazards
score a point, he introduces the argument that "probably the British
farmer ... does not regard this competition 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
set out to prove that the Germans are not beating us, and then, when he
tumbles against an instance to the contrary which repulses all attempts
to explain it away, turn round and say that it is a very good thing. It
is possible to score points in a way which does not improve the scorer's
position. Altogether, I venture to suggest to the correspondent that his
general case would have been strengthened had he passed over the
chemical trades in discreet silence.
SOAP IMPORTS FROM GERMANY.
Especially was he ill-advised when, for the purpose of bringing into
greater prominence my addiction to false statement, he burst out into
italics in the following sentence: "_So far as the Custom House returns
show, not one single ounce of foreign soap is imported into the United
Kingdom, either from Germany or from any other country._" Because the
German returns show an export of soap to England under three different
headings. The correspondent should have provided himself with Green
Books as well as Blue Books before he set out to demolish me. He would
then have learned--what he should have known anyway, considering the
attention he has given to the subject--that the English Custom House
returns do not show everything.
IMPORTS OF IRON.
This limited acquaintance with German statistics has caused the
correspondent to go wrong on other occasions. For instance, in the
fourth article he produces a table purporting to show our iron trade
with Germany, in which the iron exports from Germany to England cut a
very insignificant figure beside the English exports to Germany. To
quote his own words in another place--"Most impressive! if only it were
true." I had occasion the other day to get out a detailed list of the
German exports to England of iron and steel manufactures in 1891; they
reached a total of 109,956 tons. The correspondent gives 11,000 tons as
the total of iron manufactures; the complete total of iron and steel
manufactures, according to the source whence he obviously drew his
information, was about 16,000 tons. The explanation is of course that
the English returns do not always show the actual place of origin. (It
doesn't matter much; competition in any other name hits just as hard,
and Germany, after all, is but one rival out of many. I only used her as
an instance of foreign competition generally.)
A "PETTY ACCUSATION."
This particular table is, therefore, hopelessly wrong, and is certainly
valueless for any purpose of destructive criticism. It is on this page
that the correspondent brings against me a petty accusation of which he
should have been ashamed. He says that I have "skilfully conveyed a
false impression" by giving certain German figures in hundredweights and
English figures in tons. Surely he had the wit to see that I was merely
transcribing figures without stopping to translate them; and it is
difficult to imagine he could think I was so witless as to adopt a silly
sleight-of-hand trick such as that of which he accuses me, a trick which
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 the _Daily
Graphic_ correspondent's attack, for I have already exceeded the space
offered to me by the editor, though I have perforce left untouched a
number of points on which I should have liked to enlarge my defence. I
have not touched the two concluding articles in the series. The last is
a statement (more lucidly and ably put than anything I remember ever to
have read) of the Free Trade position in general and the case against a
Customs Union in particular; but I have recently elsewhere stated my
views on those subjects at length. Regarding the penultimate article, I
should like to say a word in conclusion. That article attacks me by a
side wind. It does not contest the facts contained in my book; on the
contrary, it leads off with an airy dismissal of "Mr. Williams and his
fanciful forebodings," and it shows, by much rhetorical writing and some
interesting illustrations, that England is a land flowing with milk and
honey and manufactures and money, and generally in a wonderful state of
millennial prosperity. My answer is two-fold. In the first place I must
congratulate the correspondent on the pleasant surroundings among which
alone his days can have been passed; but I should like to take him
through some awful wildernesses I know--deserts of "mean streets,"
where half-clothed, underfed children shiver for warmth and food at the
knees of women gaunt and haggard with the suffering which hopeless
poverty inflicts on them; and by way of explanation of these grisly
phenomena I would take him to the dock gates in the early morning, where
not unlikely he would see men literally fighting for entrance because
there is not work enough to go round. If that does not point him out the
cause with sufficient clearness I would suggest an examination of the
employment returns of the trade unions. There, by-the-by, he would see
the greatest want of employment to be in those trades where the pinch of
foreign competition--"the harmless growth of the German 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 to warn the nation in the day of its prosperity--such as it
is--that a grave danger was lurking in the way. The fact that the
easy-going man of business is surrounded by so many signs of industrial
prosperity, such as those which the correspondent details, only made it
the more important that he should be aroused to a knowledge of the
forces that were undermining the foundations.
Printed by CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
"LAND NATIONALIZATION."
Being an Examination of various Schemes for
Nationalizing and Taxing Land.
LONDON: METHUEN & Co.
_Price 2s. 6d._
_COBDEN CLUB LEAFLETS._
_Supplied by Cassell & Company, Limited, in Packets of 100, price 1s.
Those marked [*] 2s. Those marked [+] 4s. Those marked [++] 8s._
=6. Bread Tax Once More.= (From "PUNCH.")
=12. Mr. Cobden on "Re-distribution of Seats."=
=14. [*]Facts for Labourers.= By GEORGE W. MEDLEY.
=16. Facts for Farmers.= No. I.--DEPRESSION IN AGRICULTURE. By GEORGE W.
MEDLEY.
=23. [*]Facts for Farmers.= No. II.--DEPRESSION IN AGRICULTURE. By GEORGE
W. MEDLEY.
=30. The British Peasant on the Right Hon. J. Lowther's
Proposition=--that he should pay "a farthing a week" on his Bread to
benefit the Landed Interest.
=31. The Farmer of Kent.=
=34. The Rt. Hon. John Bright on "The Safety of the Ballot."=
=42. The Good Old Times.=
=44. Who Gave the Agricultural Labourer the Vote?= By C. COPPACK.
=45. [*]Richard Cobden.=
=46. Protection in New Countries.=
=48. [+]Market Rights and Tolls Restrictive of Trade.= By CHARLES
BRADLAUGH, M.P.
=49. The Rt. Hon. John Bright on Fair Trade.=
=53. Sir Robert Peel on "One-sided Free Trade."=
=56. [*]Butter-making by Machinery.=
=57. [+]Mr. Gladstone at Hawarden Flower Show, Aug. 24th, 1888.=
=58. [+]Small Fruit Farms.= By SAMPSON MORGAN.
=59. [+]Market Rights and Tolls.= No. II. By CHARLES BRADLAUGH, M.P.
=60. [*]Co-operative Dairy Farming in Denmark.= By G. J. HOLYOAKE.
=61. [+]Imported Flowers.= By SAMPSON MORGAN.
=62. Taxing Foreign Competing Imports.= By G. W. MEDLEY.
=66. Sir Lyon Playfair and the Sugar Convention.=
=74. Is Bounty-Fed Sugar Dishonest?=
=75. Merchandise Marks Act. Is Sugar from Bounty-giving Countries like
Fraudulently Marked Goods?= By the Rt. Hon. Lord FARRER.
=77. [*]The West Indies and the Sugar Convention.=
=80. Tithe and Rent, as they Affect the Hop Trade.= By J. J. TYLOR.
=91. Protection for Fruit Growers.= By SAMPSON MORGAN.
=92. [*]Poultry Keeping for Profit.= By EDWARD BROWN, F.L.S.
=93. [+]Apple Growing in England.= By SAMPSON MORGAN.
=99. [*]Lord Salisbury and Protection.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord PLAYFAIR.
=101. [+]The Cobden Club and its Work.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord PLAYFAIR.
=102. Mr. Gladstone's Latest Letter on Free Trade.=
=103. [*]What shall we do with Foreign Brushes?= By the Rt. Hon. Lord
FARRER.
=104. Economic Heresies.=
=105. [++]The Neo-Protection Scheme of the Rt. Hon. J. Chamberlain,
M.P.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord FARRER.
=106. Migration from the Country to the Towns.= By the Rt. Hon. F.
LEVESON GOWER.
=107. Australian Opinion on Mr. Chamberlain's Scheme of British and
Colonial Protection against Foreign Trade.=
WORKS PUBLISHED for the COBDEN CLUB
_By Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C._
=The German Bogey: A Reply to "Made in Germany."= By GEORGE W. MEDLEY.
Price _6d._
=A Study of Small Holdings.= By W. E. BEAR. Price _6d._
=Retaliation and Commercial Federation.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord FARRER.
Price _3d._
=Richard Cobden.= By RICHARD GOWING. _1s._
=Industrial Freedom.= By B. R. WISE. Price _5s._
=Wages and Hours of Labour.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord PLAYFAIR, K.C.B. Price
_3d._
=Tenancy and Ownership.= By JOHN WATSON, M.A. Price _1s._
=The Sugar Convention.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord FARRER. Price _1s._
=The Sugar Convention and Bill.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord FARRER. Price
_6d._
=What Protection does for the Farmer and Labourer.= By I. S. LEADAM,
M.A. _Fifth Edition._ Price _1s._
=Pleas for Protection Examined.= By AUGUSTUS MONGREDIEN. _6d._
=Popular Fallacies regarding Trade and Foreign Duties:= Being the
"SOPHISMES ÉCONOMIQUES" of FRÉDÉRIC BASTIAT. Adapted to the Present Time
by Sir E. R. PEARCE EDGCUMBE. _4th Edition, Revised._ _6d._
=Western Farmer of America.= By AUGUSTUS MONGREDIEN. _3d._
=The Transfer of Land by Registration under the Duplicate Method
operative in British Colonies.= By Sir ROBERT TORRENS, K.C.M.G. Price
_6d._
=Transfer of Land by Registration of Title.= By T. R. COLQUHOUN DILL,
B.A. Price _6d._
=The A B C of Free Trade.= By E. N. BUXTON. _New and Revised Edition._
Price _3d._
=The Caribbean Confederation.= By C. S. SALMON. _1s. 6d._
=Cottage Gardens and Fruit Culture.= By the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE,
M.P. Price _1d._
=The Tariffs of the United States.= By the Rt. Hon. Lord PLAYFAIR,
K.C.B. Price _3d._
=Agricultural Distress: Its Causes and Remedies.= By the Right Hon. C.
SEALE-HAYNE, M.P.
=Cobden Club Annual Meetings=, 1884, 1885, 1890-1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
=Cobden Club Dinner Reports=, 1893, 1896.
Biographical Works.
=Richard Cobden.= By RICHARD GOWING. With Portrait on a Tint as
Frontispiece. _Thirty-eighth Thousand._ Cloth, 1s.
=The Life, Letters, and Friendships of Richard Monckton Milnes, First
Lord Houghton.= By Sir WEMYSS REID. Two Vols., with Two Portraits. 32s.
=The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus, P.C., G.C.B.=
First Series, 1837-1862. With Portrait. Two Vols., 32s. Second Series,
1862-1879. Two Vols., 32s.
=The Life and Adventures of George Augustus Sala.= By Himself. Library
Edition, Two Vols., 32s. _Cheap Edition_, One Vol., 7s. 6d.
=The People's Life of their Queen.= By Rev. E. J. HARDY, M.A., Chaplain
to H.M. Forces. Fully Illustrated. 1s.
=The People's Life of William Ewart Gladstone.= Profusely illustrated.
Limp cloth, 1s.
=The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G.= By EDWIN
HODDER. Illustrated. _Cheap Edition_, 3s. 6d.
=Henry Allon, D.D., Pastor and Teacher.= By the Rev. W. HARDY HARWOOD.
6s.
=The Life of Nelson.= By ROBERT SOUTHEY. Illustrated with Eight Plates.
3s. 6d. (Also at 3d. and 6d. in the NATIONAL LIBRARY.)
CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, _Ludgate Hill, London_.
End of Project Gutenberg's Are we Ruined by the Germans?, by Harold Cox