12 SEPTEMBER 1903, Page 14

SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH ON THE FISCAL CONTROVERSY.

[To TEE EDITOR OF. THE "SPECTATOR,"] Siu,—In the Spectator of August 29th you commented upon an article by Sir Michael Hicks Beach in the Monthly Beview, and you quoted and endorsed some figures as to the imports of wool in 1886 and 1901, from which he deduced that the woollen; trade of Great Britain is prosperous and increasing.

Of ceurse, any figures given by an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, sad endorsed by your paper, are sure to attract atten- tions and it is therefore of the greatest importance that the figures should be correct. Sir Michael, .however; has omitted to notice' that alarge quantity of our imported wool is re-exported, and when the adjustment is made, as in the letter enclosed from Mr. M. G. Thorburn, a well-known woollen manufacturer, the com- parison comes out very differently.

The quantity of wool left for home consumption appears to have been in 1886, 412,000,000 lb. ; 1901, 479,000,000 lb. ; 1902, 417,000,000 lb. Sir Michael's figures were: 1886, 598,000,000 lb. ; 1901, 715,000,000 lb. It is a pity that this simple error has been fallen into, as it greatly vitiates the comparison. It also should be remembered that a considerable portion of the foreign and Colonial wool re-exported from London comes back to us in the shape of manufactured goods, goods which have been manufac- tured under cheaper conditions both as to wages and hours of production than are possible in Great Britain.

The value of woollen goods so imported in 1902 was 49,822,066. I calculate that the wages and productive expenses (not including raw materials) would be £4,911,033, so that by this method our woollen operatives and manufacturers have lost nearly 45,000,000 sterling, which has gone into the pockets of the French and Germans.

To return to Sir Michael Hicks Beach's figures. After dealing with the woollen trade, he goes on to prove the prosperity of the iron trade by saying that the amount on which Income-tax was assessed in 1896-97 was 41,840,350, and in 1900-1 45,380,418, or just about three times as much as in the former year. There surely must have been something extraordinary to account for this great difference. It is not intended, I presume, to argue that this is the natural growth in four years. It is only as a guide to the future that statistics can be made of practical benefit, and hence the importance of accuracy in the figures themselves, as upon these depend the accuracy of the inferences to be drawn from them.

Deanfield, Hawick, N.B.