WHY ENGLAND LEADS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2420, 27 March 1915, Page 29

WHY ENGLAND LEADS

A REVIEW BY LORD BRASSEY Supremacy in trade will be with the nation with the- greatest resource's in material .and personnel. This review l of the present status of Great Britain by Lord Brassey ; appeared recently in "System" : — Coai is the mainspring of all industrial activity, and Professor Chapman found .that the British collier is still 'first in efficiency. His wages are more liberal than those paid on the Continent. He fully earns them._ In the working of our mines our engineers reveal a nigh degreo of skill which is surpassed in no other country. In proportion to the natural resources at command, Great Britain. holds her own 'in the important field of'metallurgy. In volume of output we cannot keep pace with the United States. Jn • cheapness of. iproduction we have' not been beaten. While the output of iron ore from the mines of our own country is limited, we are advantageously placed for the importation of Spanish and Swedish pres. At Middlesbrough the cost of assembling the materials for a ton of pig-iron is less than at Pittsburg, , U.S.A. Our costs are less than in any part-of Germany. Sir Lowthian Bell found no smelting works in the Old World or the New, to compare : with those at Middlesbrough. • If more highly paid, British labour is, proportionately:.nlore efficient than German. The production per man _ is less on the Continent than in British industries: ' A British delegation studying these matters made the interesting discovery that if. the German, .employers sometimes surpass us in technical knowledge,' their British competitors prove more practical knowedge in tho management of labour, i - Regarding shipbuilding, we claimnnto t superior ability over the able naval architects of France and the. United States to produce models of perfect symmetry; but in the cost of building no. foreign country can compete with us.. The ability to build at low cost the tramp steamers, in which the great bulk of the oc^an-trade is . carried, is -the chief, secret of our success. Our workmen in the shipbuilding trade are second to none. Our builders are supplied with raw materials more cheaply than their foreign 'competitors. Turning out, asthey do, a large amount of tonnage of the same class, they are able to standardise types. Three or four itramp steamers of. the same design may ! sometimes , be seen in progress in our shipbuilding yards side by side. .. In the United States the cost of shipbuilding is from: 15 to 25 per, cent., freater than with us. iThe cost of ships as been frequently and minutely investigated by the ship-building officers of the French Navy, and always with the 6ame result, that we are found to build at least 25 per cent., and in many ins£ances_ more than 25, per cent., cheaper than is possible in France. The manufacture of locomotives is not developed in England on the scale reached in the United States, because railway companies have here manufactured for themselves. This' is. a questionable . policy. Standardisation has been the American secret of success. It results in cconomy and rapidity of work. But British Jocomotiyes show no in 7 feriority in. point of efficiency. when trials have been fairly made, as on the (Egyptian railways. , ' In the American engine the consumption of fuel, was found to be decidedly heavier than .ours. In the Belgian engines, materials, both of boilers and engines, were found to bo inferior, and the cost of repairs in consequence excessive. - In machinery for the manufacture.of

textiles Britain retains her long establislied leadership.

In agricultural implements we cannot compete with tho United States. This is due to the fact that our area does not lend itself to the gigantic harvests such as are gleaned in the New World; and, in consequence, there is less necessity for the elaboration of the mechanical reapers, mowers, and harvesters which ■are,used in America.

In machine tools British makers hold their own. American.manufacturers excel in the construction of lighter machines and specialised instruments, but in the construction of the more common tools which are used in every industry we are by no means backward. The Germans display a geniils for the unusual typo,of machinery—scientific instruments, for example. The machinery- that makes possible the giant industries of the world is still largely manufactured ■; in the United Kingdom.

' In the cotton industry'we retain our supremacy.':. English workers are unsurpassed in energy'and skill. I base this statement upon- investigation, which is supjxirtcd by _ Professor Schulze Gaevernitz, recognised as an authority. England:has fewer hands in 'its mills, in proportion to production, and less supervision is required. Therefore, although wages are higher in this country, tho cost of spinning is less than in Germany. Factory operatives there are not trained in their tasks from childhood, as in England. Our cotton industry is; more specialised. We reveal marked superiority in the weaving of goods of the finer kind—of which our exports chiefly consist.. American operatives, in cotton mills, are migratory. They a re. recruited from all 'parts of the world. They are not specially skilled. And American mills are chiefly concerned in supplying the home market. In considering efficiency, therefore, we should not forget that in the manufacture and sale, of cotton goods, by far,the most important of all manufactured articles sold in the markets'of the world, this country excels. 'We. can even beat India, where much cotton is grown.. In Bombay the mills ru'ti 350 days in the year, .at 11J hours per day. In Lancashire our mills run 306 days in the year, at 55s hours per week. Yet the cost of labour is less in Lancashire than in India. Li India operatives have less physical endurance and 'power of application than in England. Passing from cotton to wool, it can safely' be asserted that English wools are superior to German in softness, elasticity and finish. ' In our Jinen industry we lead tho world. Belfast, in this production, is unsurpassed. 'This is due to specialisation, whif.h ehabies each factory to confine itself to a few kinds and to bring them to the highest perfection at the lowest cost, i In the weaving and manufacture of silk we are behind France. But local condiflSns and facilities do not" permit us to compete with France in the production of silk goods. .' 1 In. chemicals we have been behind Germany, but we are making vast strides. Such firms, for example, as Messrs. Burroughs and Wellcome, who have a. world-wido reputation and trade, have founded laboratories for independent scientific research in chemistry, and, these developments point to awakening. ' ■ Turiling to our railway system we must tako into account many of-the exceptional conditions .in this country. The price of .land, the law expenses, tho character of the permanent .way, the station accommodation and the physical features of the country make it impossible to compare our railways with those o'f other lands. Our system, the pioneer of all railways* was built for an earlier age, when business was carried on on a smaller ' scale. A> change is desirable, but it must be gradual.- To model our traffic system on tho lines of that of tho United States would bo impossible. I believe that we shall make increasing progress in' the commercial warfare i with other nations'by more careful at-:

tention to technical eduoation Commercial education is not general enough, we are backward in the study of foreign languages, and in much of our instruction we are too theoretical. But there is a marked change for the better. Man-. Chester, Birmingham, the "University of London, and other colleges have installed Faculties of Commerce, Sheffield has a School of Applied Science. In many ways we have begun to recogniso the indispensable need of scientific training if Great Britain is to maintain. and steadily odd to her well-won commercial supremacy.