IS ENGLAND GOING TO THE DOGS.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 30 July 1901, Page 4

IS ENGLAND GOING TO THE DOGS.

An article on “The Economic Decay of England’’ in the May number of the Contemporary, from the pen of the author of “Drifting,” is enough to give the patriotic Britisher what the Americana term “a spell of the dry gins.” There is very little that is new in its sensational statements and comparisons, the ground having been gone on before by other writers, who have predicted a social, industrial, and political upheaval of the Empire. It has been well said by a famous politician—who no doubt had proved the matter for himself—that there were three degrees in the art of lying—“lies, condemned lies, and statistics” I—But the writer of the article in the Contemporary Review does not confine himself to displaying alarming comparative results by the aid of figures—he is bold enough to express his opinions in plain English, and enter into competition with the prophets. The British nation, wo are told, is “living on its capital”! Its rural industries are “sick unto death” 1 The manufacturing industries are being assimilated by the United States and Germany somewhat in the same manner as the wolf absorbed the lamb. The shipping trade “will be rapidly ruined,” and if things are not soon changed Great Britain will be “bankrupt within ten years, economically and politically” 1 Whilst it was wallowing in the mire, the colonies are to look on with disgust on the formerly great nation “which can neither feed nor clothe itself, no pay for its wasteful living." The position, however, is not altogether hopeless, for this Jeremiah of the latter-day prophets closes his lachrymose wailings with an italicised line—“only by energy and patriotism can the consequences be averted.” It is refreshing to turn from this prodiction of an industrial eatoclysm to the opinion expressed recently by a leading British manufacturer, Mr Alfrey C. Ozler, of Birmingham He puts the case from a manufacturer's point of view with considerable force ; and after admitting that it has long been clear to those who consider it that modern conditions of commerce must bring abhut a further specialisation of production to such countries as offer the most favorable conditions for any given industry, he remarks : —“ln these days of telegraphic quotations, cheap postage, and other quick and cheap transit, commerce is no longer national, but cosmopolitan, and must become more so. The industries for which British aptitudes and conditions are most favorable will increase and multiply in a growing world ; those for which the conditions of other countries are most favorable will dwindle hero and slip from us. This is inevitabie, and need not cause alarm ; the ineeease in our appropriate industries will far more than counterbalance the diminution of the inappropriate. It would seem wiser to look ahead and transfer the energies which are now devoted to the trades which must dwindle rather then join the shrieking brotherhood of public men who, frightened at the symptoms of change which they do not understand, cry with one accord ; “ The British manufacturer is an ass.” Peers, Cabinet Ministers, professors, schoolmasters, lawyers, public speaker everywhere—for the platform is monopolised by those who never manufacture any single article except, perhaps, their own trumpets—join the chorus of denunciation and proffer their advice. For the sake of brevity, let mo call these the ignorant classes (as regards trade). It may surprise the ignorant classes to learn that during the last four or five years the British manufacturer has kept at full output and in full employment every ablebodied artisan whom his country did not need elsewhere. What more could ho do ? Yet during this period of greatest productive activity the alarmist cries have increased in shrillness.” Mr Osier has not boon persuaded by the “ shrill cries ” of the alarmist that the t j ihnic illy educated German or the acute Yankee is a better man than the British manufacturer, and he emphasises the point that the homo trade—internal consumption representing nearly nine-tenths of the national turn-over—is almost invariably left out of the calculations. “ There are no returns of the major trade, our homo trade ; so it has come about that the sole criterion of our prosperity or otherwise is found in tho monthly figures of our minor trade, the surplus tenth of which goes abroad.” The Premier of Ontario (the Hon. G. W. Ross) writes in a Canadian magazine an article that is the very antithesis of that in the Contemporary mentioned above.

“The growth of the British Empire is one of the marvels of the nineteenth century,” says Mr Boss, and he points out that, in spite of vast immigrations to Canada, Australia, and other parts of the world, the population of the United

Kingdom has out-distanced that of every other country. “ British energy is many sided,” he says, “and is no less puissant in the arts of peace than in the arts of -war.” Mr Boss gives an illustration or ‘two on this point: “A century ago the value of all the cotton, linen, and woollen goods prodticcd by Britain was £22,000,000; the average value now is £170,000,000. A century ago the total consumption of raw cotton, wool and flax in the factories of Great Britain was 200,000,0001 b ; in 1889 the consumption was 2,617,000,0001 b. In these industries alone there arc £200,000,000 stcriin g invested in capital, and at least 5,000,000 people employed as operators. Another illustration : The steam power employed by Great Britain in her industries in 1835, just before Queen Victoria ascended the throne, amounted to 41,000 horse-power; in 1890 it amounted to 10,000,000 horse-power —Estimating one horse-power of steam as being equal to the work of sixteen men, Britain has added, by the expansion of steam power for industrial purposes, 160,000,000 men to her natural working capacity.”

Mulhall gives the following as the trade tier head of the principal countries of the world:—Great Britain, 390 shillings: Germany, 156 ; United States, 100; France, 163; Russia, 27. The Canadian writer remarks: —

“ Notwithstanding the gigantic strides made by Germany within the last few years, there is still a largo distance between her capital productiveness and that of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. In point of industrial activity Canadians compare favourably. Taking our population at 5,000.000 and our total trade as being at £356,000,000, our foreign trade represents 284 shillings per head, being larger than Germany, the United States or France.”

The comparative tables of the world’s shipping cited by Mr Ross do not support (remarks a contemporary) tho statement that Great Britain is in a condition of “galloping consumption ” ; and all things considered, the antidotes given by the British manufacturer and the Canadian stateman to the nauseous draught* of those who see nothing but disaster ahead are timely and refreshing But apart altogether from what comparative statistics are made to prove, there is a good deal in the concluding contention of the Premier of Ontario: — “ With all the expansion of the Empire and trade and commerce which I have noted, the most significant in my judgment, "as indicating tho growth of British power, is the sentiment of Imperial unity. Britain is admittedly a great nation if we regard her as the central force of the Colonial Empire which, hy her energy and her splendid statesmanship, she has built around her. For many years her thought of empire was ‘cribbed, cabined, and confined’ to the island home from which she looked out, sometimes with disdain, upon the rest of the world. In later years her Imperial vision has been enlarged, and she sees new (as she never saw before) in her colonial possessions elements of power and security. The growth of Imperialism, instead of being the antithesis of democracy, as is held by some, is the greatest security winch could bfe given to the democratic character of British institutions.