TRADE v. MANUFACTURES.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.1
SIR,—It seems to me that in the discussion, Protection v. Free-trade, too little notice has been taken of the fact that England did not acquire her riches nor attain her commercial supremacy by manufacturing, but by trading. Putting aside Mr. Chamberlain's " smart " endeavour to pay the South African War bill, and at the same time divert public attention from the verdict of the War Commission, by protectionising England, is it not the jealousy and envy of manufacturers that have always sought to impose high prices upon the great body of their countrymen ? Yet it is not the manufacturer who has built up the wealth of England, but the merchant and trader. The manufacturer has his good years when he earns much ; these are regularly succeeded by bad seasons, when he has to keep his mills and his men going at a loss, and in the end is often left bare of the capital he started with. On the other hand, the great mercantile firms of London, Liver- pool, and Glasgow, as long as they are conducted with prudence, exist for centuries and amass vast fortunes. Not London alone but all England is the great free harbour of the world, and draws a profit out of innumerable foreign trans. actions, which it could no longer control if England became Protectionist and ceased to be the trading centre and goods distributor among the nations. As exhibiting the "gentle art" of losing foreign customers practised by English ex- porters, a letter containing the following passage has just been shown me : "As to your complaint, the goods are in every respect fully up to previous deliveries. Indeed, it would be quite impossible for these goods to be wrong, for various reasons." There you have the keynote,—it is quite impossible for us to be wrong. Infallible—and insular.—I am, Sir, &c.,
AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD.
Previous page
