[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. ") Sin,—Your statement in the
Spectator of July 4th that I have made "unsupported strictures" on Mr. Fuller's letter compels 'me to support them,—though I should have thought it unnecessary. I read Mr. Fuller's letter in a hansom cab, and I saw at once what I felt could only be a hideous misprint, for without being a statist I knew that the cheques cleared could not possibly have increased £8,960,000,000 sterling in twenty, much less in fifteen, years. When I found that he had taken the total clearings for 1900 as the increase since 1886, and thereby made an error of £5,902,000,000, I examined some of his other figures. My next discovery was an error of £8,587,710 in the exports, he having omitted to deduct value of ships (included in 1900, not included in 1886). My third was an error of nine millions in the tonnage, and this was particu- larly eloquent, for in order to reach sixteen and three-quarter millions as the increase of British shipping he had added the much larger increase of foreign shipping trading in our own ports ! Now all these errors were absolutely patent to any schoolboy or printer's devil who took the smallest trouble to verify them ; they were all in the very abstract from which Mr. Fuller quoted. The letter appeared in the Times on Wednesday, the Spectator did not appear till Saturday, or say Friday ; at all events there were two clear days for verifica- tion by any one who thought them of the smallest interest. Of course no one was bound to trouble about them, but when a paper we have been accustomed to look upon as serious actually bases an article upon them, and, without verifying a single figure, not only swallows them whole, but holds them up to our admiration as an almost sufficient gospel of Free- trade, I think the public have a right to complain and to ask the Spectator, for the credit of journalism, to withdraw its valuable imprimatur too hastily given to what was, perhaps, only intended as a jets d'esprit,—for we know that wit at least is on the side of the Free-traders. To the rest of your com- ments on my letter I have little to say. Every one has the right to his own opinions on letters to the Times and to the Spectator, but I have heard opinions (on " Economist's " articles in the Times) from those whom you hope to lead you to victory which differ very widely from your own. Indeed, I have heard it said that if Protection is carried it will be due to the " Economist," the Cobden Club, and the Spectator. But is not the " two-and-two " argument a little unworthy of the Spectator ? It is the argument by which one proves that the sun goes round the earth, for it is seen to rise and set every day, and two and two are four ; by which one proves that an increase of income must mean an increase of capital, for two and two are four. And then you are unconsciously parodying the Duke of Rutland, who in 1846 used almost your identical words when he "required no political prophet to teach him that two and two made four, and that free,imports meant the ruin of this great country " !—I am, Sir, &c., OPEN MIND.
[We are glad to publish " Open Mind's " corrections of Mr. Fuller's figures, but we may point out that his errors, though we do not defend them, and greatly regret having quoted them, were . by no means essential to the Free-trade argu- ment,—differing in this way very greatly from Mr. Chamber- lain's blunder, which doubled the trade per head done with the self-governing Colonies. Yet we do not notice that " Open Mind " preaches any part of his sermon to Mr. Chamberlain for making, the blunder, or to, the Protectionist Press for. having quoted and used his figures without correction. ." Open ' Mind's " ponderous facetiousness at the expense of the Spectator will not, we think, be considered to require any reply.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
