PROTECTION V. IMPROVED METHODS IN TRADE.
[TO TIM EDITOR OF THE "SPECTLTOR."]
SIR,—The country has spoken with no uncertain voice, and Protection now takes its place among Mr. Chamberlain's un- digested schemes; but the mazes of statistics, honest or mere figure-juggling, which have accompanied the controversy have been the means of stimulating interest in Great Britain's commerce among all classes to an almost unprecedented degree. Wonderful as has been the growth of our trade, no one will deny that better things could be done with improved methods. Visitors to the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the Continent of Europe are told many instances of the ignorance, stupidity, and obstinacy of certain British exporters. You mention one in the want of taste of a section of the hat trade (Spectator, January 13th, p. 55), and we hear from time to time how inferior American cotton goods, more artistically printed, rob the British manufacturer of his Canadian trade; how Japanese comp .adores take commissions from their English employers and fellow-countrymen, to the advantage of the German who, speaking the language, does his own bargaining; and how clothing factories were started in Sydney because we would insist on sending out as "stock sizes" garments which fitted Englishmen, but hung loosely on the tall and slim Australian. Many such stories as these are current. One, perforce, only hears one side, so perhaps they are only partly true, and surely other nations have their failings too ; but one learns enough to be sure that, through quite avoidable causes, the exporter often fails to give satisfaction. Now, Sir, I am sure a very large proportion of Free-traders—yes, and Protectionists too—would welcome a crusade, headed by the Spectator, directed against these very obvious shortcomings. Will the time ever come to this nation of shopkeepers when it will not be considered derogatory for the sons of great commercial houses to learn the principles of their trade at a national University,—a University which English society will, then consider on a pax with Oxford and Cambridge, and where modern languages, economics, the changes of national taste, and that true professionalism which must replace the amateur if we are to keep pace with that deadly-in-earnest man, the American, will be given full consideration? Now seems the great opportunity for the foundation of such national—as apart from local—institutions, or at any rate of a society for the promulgation of commercial intelligence in its widest sense, and I feel sure that any such scheme, initiated by the Spectator, would meet with ready support. I can only urge the importance of the subject as an excuse for this very
inadequate letter.—I am, Sir, &c., E. P.
Previous page
