'^i^t ^mmm /s- THE FRENCH TREATY RECIPROCITY DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, On FRIDAY, AUGUST 12th, 1881, BY THE Right Hon. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN, M.R, Preside /it of the Board of Trade, [REVISED.] PUBLISHED FOR THE COBDEN CLUB BY Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. LOXDON, PARIS & NEW YORK, THE FRENCH TREATY AND RECIPROCITY. Mr. Ritchie moved : — " That an humble address be presented to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent to any com- mercial Treaty with France which proposes to substitute specific duties for ad valorem duties, to the disadvantage of any article of British manufacture, or in any way to raise the present rate of duties payable on such articles, and which does not leave Her Majesty's Government full liberty to deal with the question of bounties, or which would bind Her Majesty absolutely to its provisions for a longer period than twelve months." In the course of the debate Mr. Chamberlain said — At the commencement of the interesting and moderate speech just delivered by the honourable member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), he referred to speeches from this side of the House which in his opinion contained references to subjects outside and beyond the immediate issue under discussion. I cannot but think that the same criticism will apply to much that has fallen from the hon. gentleman himsplf; but I do not make this a matter of complaint. On the contrary, I do not hesitate to say that the real interest of this discussion consists in those portions of it which have reference to the new doctrines of Fair Trade, Reciprocity, and Retaliation, of which we have heard so much and know so little, and with respect to which we are naturally anxious to have accurate and definite information. I had hoped in view of this debate that at last we should be able to grasp the phantom which has so long eluded us. I confess that these expectations have been disappointed, and that even now after having listened attentively to everything which has fallen from the hon. member and from previous speakers on THE FRENCH TREATY his side of the House, I am still in the dark as to what,they mean, and even as to whether they understand their own meaning themselves. It is gratifying, no doubt, to be as- sured, as we have been by all of them, that they are opposed to Protection and in favour of " real " Free Trade, but it is difficult for a plain man to reconcile these assurances with the other statements which they have made. We have had expounded to-night several shades in the new heterodoxy which seems at last to have secured the patronage of the Conservative party. We have, in the first place, my hon. friend the member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), whose consistency we all gladly recognise, and who tells us that he stands before the House "unblushing," the last chairman of the old Protection Society, the last rose of summer for forty years left blooming alone, and now both gratified and astonished to see himself surrounded by so large a company. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr, Ritchie) refuses to go as far as the hon. member for North Warwickshire. He tells us that he is not in favour of Protection, but then he adds that he approves of counter- vailing duties, and that he considers that we should now do wisely to take up once more the weapons which we have pre- maturely abandoned — meaning by this expression the duties upon foreign produce by which in former times home industry was supposed to have been protected. Then we have the noble lord the member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon). He is indignant that an attempt should be made to mix him up, of all persons in the world, with the discarded doctrines of Protection. He protests, in almost pathetic tones, his ad- miration and respect for the deceased leaders of the Free Trade movement ; and I cannot avoid saying in passing that it is a characteristic fact in this and similar discussions that those who agree with the noble lord are fond of expressing their respect for the Free Trade leaders and political economists who are gone from us, and who cannot repudiate the heresies which are now attributed to them ; while they are unwilling to accord any authority at all to the utterances of those Free Traders and Economists who are still alive — who are the legitimate heirs and successors of the dead, and who continue and maintain their true faith and best traditions. ^ ^^ AND RECIPROCITY. The noble lord tells ns that he is in favour of " Fair Trade." I have a great respect for the noble lord, though I am not able to take him at his own estimate as the true repre- sentative of the trading classes and the commercial interests of this country. But it is in no disrespect to his general ability that I challenge him to point out to the House any practical distinction between what he calls Fair Trade, and what the rest of the world have hitherto consented to call Protection. He complains, for instance, with regard to tVie Cobden Treaty that it bound this country not to impose any duties on French produce, while it left the French free to levy duties not exceeding thirty per cent, on the products of English industry, and he says that this is not a fair arrange- ment. But how does he propose to alter it ? He may, of course, endeavour to persuade the French to give up their duties and to allow the free import of English goods. He knows, however, that this is impossible, and the only alterna- tive open to him is to meet the French in their folly and to impose duties not exceeding thirty per cent, on our imports from them. That may be right or it may be wrong, but at least the operation would produce a state of things exactly similar to that which existed under the Protective system which the noble lord professes to disapprove. On the whole, then, although the means are different and the language varies, it appears in every case, and in spite of protests to the contrary, that hon. members opposite do intend to revert to a system of Protection, although they prudently refuse to tell us the exact nature of the protective measures which they desire us to adopt. Although in this res[:^ct they continue indefinite and vague, we have at least as one result of the discussion a full statement of the grounds on which the claim for Reciprocity or Retaliation is based, and I am here to challenge the allegations which have been made, and to say with regard to them that they are, in the main, either greatly exaggerated or altogether inaccurate. Before I call the attention of the House to the facts and figures on which I shall rest my case, I have to notice a preliminary matter which has been referred to by the noble lord the member for Liverpool. In language so strong as to be almost offensive, he accuses the Government of prac- THE FRENCH TREATY tising concealment upon Parliament and the people. I emphatically repel these imputations of motive, and these insinuations, which are unworthy of the noble lord. I admit that he ought to be a good judge of what constitutes concealment. While he was a member of the late Adminis- tration he had much experience and practice in this matter ; and I will venture to say that the great difference between the late and the present Government is, that the present Government conceal nothing that they can possibly publish, while the late Government published nothing they could possibly conceal. Sir, the discovery of the noble lord is a monopoly of his own : the charge of concealment has not been made or supported by any other member. It has not been suggested on behalf of any representative commercial body, or on behalf of any of those organisations of working men whose interests the noble lord now undertakes to champion ; and the grounds on which he bases his accusa- tion are childish and frivolous in the last degree. He complains, in the first place, that we have not published the propositions which have been made to us from time to time on behalf of the French Government. He knows that we have been anxious to lay these propositions before the country, and that we have only been precluded from doing so by the express refusal of the French Government to allow them to be treated as otherwise than confidential. Then, in the second place, he refers to what he calls once more, in spite of contradiction, the refusal of the Government to give a translation of the general tariff We gave, at his request, a copy of this taritf in the original French, although we considered that it was entirely unneces- sarv, as the general tariff has not yet been the subject of discussion, and it may never have any practical in- terest for this country. The member for Sheffield (Mr. V/ortley) was the first to ask for a translation. Now, I beheve', it is usual not to refuse any return pressed for by any hon. member unless its publication is inconsistent with the interests of the public service, and, therefore, I did not refuse the request of the hon. member for Sheffield ; but I took him into my confidence, and explained to him the reasons which led the Government to think that the transla- AND RECIPROCITY. tion was unnecessary, and I asked him whether, under those circumstafices, he would not think it well not to press his motion. A few days afterwards the noble lord came down to the House, and, in a hectoring tone, and with a " stand and deliver " manner, demanded an explanation of what he called my extraordinary reply, and insisted on an imme- diate assent to the motion. I ventured to deprecate the noble lord's warmth, and I begged him to wait for a few days until I had had an opportunity of consulting the repre- sentatives of the commercial classes to know whether they considered the publication would be of general service. The noble lord has said to-night that we ought to have consulted the Chambers of Commerce at an earlier period ; but when I proposed to communicate with them, the noble lord expressed his contempt for these authorities, and declined absolutely to be bound by their opinion, preferring to rely upon his own special sources of information. This is the inadequate foundation on which the noble lord seeks to erect his superstructure of charge and accusation against the Government. He goes on to say that in a return which we presented some time ago we dropped out all information about agriculture, and he insinuates that this, too, was part of the insidious plan of the Government to withhold information from all concerned. Sir, the noble lord would have been more " straightforward," to use his own expression, if he had told the House that the return to which he refers was a special return, containing the changes of duty on the i;)rincipal articles of export from England to France. There is no considerable export of agricultural produce to France, and consequently it was not, and indeed could not have been included in this return. But when the noble lord the member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) asked for particular information on the point, I had no hesi- tation, whatever, in at once acceding to his request. Lastly, the noble lord complains that the Government did not take an earlier opportunity — during the winter I think he said — of consulting Chambers of Commerce and the mayors of the large towns with regard to the propositions of the French. The mayors of the large towns and the repre- THE FRENCH TREATY sentatives of the commercial classes are people of common sense, and they would not have thanked the Govern>nent if we had attempted to consult them before we had any proposition at all to lay before them. My honourable friend the Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles Dilke) has already pointed out that if it be an offence to delay the publication of documents connected with commercial nego- ciations, the late Government have much more to answer for than we. It is true that the noble lord disclaims any comparison between the present negociations and the arrange- ments with Servia which were withheld from Parliament during the time of the late Government. But my hon. friend did not rest his case upon this, but on the fact that in the negocia- tions on two several occasions — in Paris — in connection with the French Convention, the protocols and papers were not produced by the late Government. There is another case in point. In 1877 a most important commission was held in France to enquire into the state of industry in that country and into the condition of the labouring classes. This was a matter which had the greatest interest for the working classes here, whose claims on the present occasion the noble lord has without any authority assumed to represent. But what happened? When my right hon. the Vice-President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) again and again pressed the late Government to give a translation of the report of the pro- ceedings of this Commission it was refused by them on the score of expense. I am not now saying whether the refusal was justified or not, but I do complain that those who live in glass houses like the noble lord should be so exceedingly ready to throw stones. In listening to the speech of the mover of the resolution, I have had occasion to-night to ask myself several times what can be the object of the motion which he has made. I am driven to the conclusion that it is his desire and that of the hon. members who support him to prevent any treaty being negociated at all. I believe in i86o the Conservative party did all in their power to secure the failure of the negociations, and no doubt they are only consistent in now endeavouring to make it difficult for the Government to continue or to extend the provisions of the AND RECIPROCITY. treaty then concluded. The hon. member asks the House to agree to conditions precedent to the making of a treaty whicli every one knows are impossible, and if they were accepted by the House no treaty at all would be practicable. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already pointed out, forcibly and conclusively, that under this resolution if the French Government offered a treaty which on ninety-nine points out of a hundred was a great ameliora- tion of the existing Convention, the Government would be unable to agree to it if on the hundredth point, however unimportant it might be, there were any increase of duty, however small. But I want more particularly to call the attention of the House, to the third condition in the resolution of the hon. member. We are in the words of the resolution to conclude no treaty which does not leave us "full liberty to deal with the question of bounties." There is no doubt that this is aimed at the ' most favoured nation clause' which has been asserted on other occasions against the proposal of the hon. member to impose what he calls countervailing duties in the case of sugar. The effect of this condition would be, taken with those which precede it, that not only would the Government be unable to make what is ordinarily known as a commercial treaty, but they would not even be allowed to fall back upon a simple " most favoured nation clause," under which in the case both of France and other countries, English trade has derived the most striking advantages, and without which it would be possible for France to impose differential duties against all articles of English manufacture. On what ground" is this condition to be imposed ? It cannot be necessary in the case of the shipping bounties which the French have recently, most imprudently and foolishly in my opinion, undertaken to grant. There is nothing I believe in the treaty stipulations which would interfere with the right of the Government to re-enact the Navigation Laws if they were silly, enough to do so, after the experience of the past, and with full knowledge of the enormous and unexampled extension of British shipping which has taken place since the repeal of that legislation, and which has made the mercantile marine of this country the envy and astonish lO THE FRENCH TREATY ment of the world. * And as regards sugar, whatever might have been the case in the past there is now no ground for interference on this head either. In the course of the last eighteen months the French Government have reduced the duty on sugar by one-half, and have altered the method of testing for drawback, and by these two changes they have, in the opinion of the experts whom I have consulted, reduced the drawbacks until there is now no bounty at all, or at least no bounty of the slightest practical importance on the export of refined sugar. Bat suppose that my information is incorrect and that there still exists a bounty, or that one results in the future from changes in manu- facture. In this case who is to decide the amount of countervailing duty which is to be imposed as against the bounty ? There is not the slightest agreement between the different representatives of sugar refiners, the Board of Trade and other authorities, and the French Government and their experts, as to what is the precise amount of bounty in each case. Is it likely that any nation will allow us to be judge in our own cause, and to assert, as against their information and belief, the amount of duty which we are entitled to levy without infringing the ' most favoured nation clause ? ' The only result of such an attempt would be to lead to disputes and retaHation. The ' most favoured nation clause' would be whittled away until it practically ceased to exist, to the great injury of British commerce. I say, then, that it is impossible to regard the resolution otherwise than as an indication of the desire of the party opposite that no treaty at all should be concluded with France. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets has said that the people of this country would be unwilling to accept any treaty that did not greatly improve the existing condition of things. (Mr. Ritchie : I did not say so. What I said was that the people of this country would not accept any treaty which was not on equal terms with the treaty of i860.) I accept the hon. member's correction ; but if he did not say so, other speakers in the debate, and notably the noble lord the member for Liverpool, pressed his contention up to the limit I have stated. But though the noble lord, by putting * See Appendix, Table XIV. AND RECIPROCITY. II forward impracticable demands, would do his best to make a treaty impossible, I cannot doubt that he and his friends would be disposed to throw the whole blame for failure on the Government, and to ignore the part they themselves would have taken in securing this result. Before going further, 1 should like to ask the House to consider briefly what has been the effect of this treaty, whose continuance seems to be regarded with indifference by hon. members opposite. I find that in the ten years, 185 1 to i860, before the conclusion of the treaty, our average exports to France were ^^8,300,000 per annum. Of these, British produce, as distinguished from colonial and other produce, was represented by ^^4,400,000. Last year these_ figures had risen to a total export of ^^28,000,000, ^16,000,000 of this being for British produce alone. This return is 17 per cent, less than the return for 187 1, which was the highest year, and 10 per cent, more than the return for 1877, which was the lowest in the last decade; and I quote these figures because it is necessary to observe that there are great fluctuations in the trade, and nothing can be more unfair than to take only selected years for purposes of comparison. Now, coming to the imports, I find that for the first period of 1851-60 the average imports were ;^i 1,300,000, and they had risen in 1880 to about ;^42, 000,000, These figures are 40 per cent, greater than those for 187 1, the lowest year; and 10 per cent, less than those for 1875, which is the highest of the decade.* ^ But these figures, important and satisfactory as they are, do not represent the whole facts of the case. The re- turns of the Board of Trade, accurate in themselves, must be taken with qualifications and applied with knowledge. Thus the figure for the imports must be considerably re- duced if we wish to arrive at the actual amount of produce of French origin which is retained for consumption in this country. There are, for instance, large exports of textiles of different kinds from Switzerland to Great Britain which come through France, and cannot possibly be separated in * See also Appendix, Table I., showing the average annual trade with France, in periods of three years, from 1857 to 1880. THE FRENCH TREATY our returns from French imports. Again, much of what comes from France is taken into warehouse for a short time in this country, which is the great depot of the commerce of the world, but is only temporarily held here, and goes on quickly to its real and intended destination in the United States or our own colonies. With regard to the exports on the other hand, they have to be increased if the true amount of British trade with France is to be correctly ascertained. I am informed, for example, that British yarns intended for French manu- facturers in the Vosges go through by way of Antwerp, and would consequently appear in our returns as exports to Belgium, although really part of our transactions with France. When these allowances are made it will be seen that, satisfactory as are the figures derivable from the British trade statistics, they do not fully represent the importance to this country of the commerce which has been created and stimulated by the action of the Cobden Treaty. Passing now to more general considerations, I gather from the speeches which have been made, that it is the contention of honourable gentlemen opposite that during recent years English trade has been declining and leaving the country ; that wages have fallen, and that great suffering consequently exists among the working classes; that the profits of trade have disappeared, and that generally the country is on the verge of ruin. They also appear to think that foreign countries have benefited by our loss, and in proportion to it. Now, Sir, I challenge all these assertions. It is said that we take too optimistic a view of the present state of English industry, and I am prepared at the outset to make some admissions. I admit that the state of agriculture has been for some time such as to cause to all of us the greatest concern. I believe Mr. Caird has estimated that the difference in production from agriculture during the past three years, as compared with the normal average, has been equivalent to a loss of ;^i 50,000,000 sterhng. Some other economists have put it at double that amount ; and clearly it is impossible that ;£3oo,ooo,ooo, or even ;^i 50,000,000 can be subtracted from the purchasing power of the country without more or less affecting AND RECIPROCITY. 1 3 injuriously every other trade and interest. But this is not a question of Protection or Free Trade ; and the state of things which we deplore arises mainly from the absence of sun, and the unfavourable seasons of the last four or five years. Again, there have been special trades recently — as indeed in all preceding periods — which have been injuriously affected by special causes, and subject to special depression. The case of the Bradford trade is the best known instance of this ; but it is due almost entirely to a change of fashion, and is also independent of questions of Protection and Free Trade. Lastly, there has been no doubt a most serious diminu- tion in the profits of capital, due to the rash and violent speculation and over-j^roduction which prevailed a few years ago. The case of the coal trade is one in point. The production of coal in this country last year, which was the year of greatest depression, was, nevertheless, the largest ever turned out of our mines. The period when the demand for coal exceeded the supply was known as the coal famine, although even then more coal was being raised than in preceding years. But that famine induced a rise in price of something Uke i6s. a ton, and naturally brought into the trade a number of persons who opened fresh mines ; and, although the demand has continued, the supply has increased in still greater proportion, and there has been a consequent heavy fall in prices. The same thing has no doubt taken place in other trades, and notably in the great iron industry of the country. But a loss of profit from such a caifte must not be confounded with a loss of trade, or supposed to indicate approaching ruin. It has sometimes been said that grumbling is the secret of England's success, and no doubt while we are grumbHng we are continually tending to improvement and perfection ; but it would not be safe to accept, without further consideration, the complaints of those who are not doing so well as they think they ought, as representing accurately the general condition of the country. Statistics are against them ; the irresistible logic of facts is opposed to the pessimism which sometimes prevails. 14 THE FRENCH TREATY Let me call the attention of the House to some figures illustrating the more cheerful view which I have ventured to take of the situation. First, as to our foreign trade. I find that, with re- gard to exports, the total value of British produce ex- ported in the six years, 1869 to 1874, was p^i, 363,000,000; the total value for the succeeding six years, 1875 to 1880, was ;^i, 23 1,000,000, or a fall of nearly 10 per cent. But I must point out to the House that this fall was in value only, and that as, during the same period, there was a general reduction in price, averaging probably not less than 20 per cent, the real volume of our export trade has considerably increased, even during the worst period of depression, as compared with the period of greatest inflation.* And if even the value has not increased, and if the volume has not increased in greater proportion than has actually been the case, that, I may inform the House, is to be attributed, not to Free Trade, but to the action of my honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. This statement may appear paradoxical, but the House will re- collect that it was at the instigation of my learned friend that, some years ago, a committee sat, of which he was the chairman, to consider the subject of foreign loans. That committee destroyed the credit of more than one foreign country. They were no longer able to borrow money here, and as they could not get credit they could no longer take our goods. It cannot be considered a disadvantage that we do not sell to people who will never pay for what they buy ; but the result, no doubt, was temporarily to reduce the export of British produce. Coming now to the imports, I find that, after deduct- ing re-exports, they were, in the first period I have selected for comparison, ;^i, 701, 000,000, and, in the second, ;£t, 946,000,000, or an increase of about 14 per cent. There are some persons who regard the increase of imports with dissatisfaction, and it may be interesting to point out why it is that this increase has taken place. During the period referred to we largely increased our investments in * See also Appendix, Table II. AXD RECIPROCITY. 15 foreign countries. The interest on these investments had to be paid, and foreign countries have paid for them by exporting goods, which have, of course, swelled our import returns. And if honourable gentlemen opposite, the advo- cates of a reciprocity system, were successful in erecting some barrier by which these importations could be arrested, what would be the result ? Foreign countries must continue to pay their debts. Not being able to pay in goods, they would have for the time to pay in bullion and specie \ there would be an accumulation of the precious metals in this country, and that would speedily bring about a rise in the price of all other articles. When that rise had been esta.b- lished, our power to export would be diminished ; the amount of our exports would be reduced until the balance, or excess of imports over exports, was again re-established, although the volume of each would be lessened, to the enor- mous disadvantage of all concerned. In other words, the effect of an attempt to redress the balance would be promptly to lessen the value of our exports, but could not ultimately affect the diiference in amount between them and our imports. In confirmation of what I have said as to the increase in the volume of our trade, I now turn to some items ot our production.* I have taken the figures which I am going to quote from an interesting article in last week's Economist^ from which it appears that in the first period of six years, to which I have already referred, the production of coal was 710,000,000 tons; in the second it was 8i3,eoo,ooo. In pig iron the production increased from 37,000,000 tons to 39,000,000. The consumption of wool advanced from 1,064,000,000 pounds to 1,232,000,000 pounds; and the consumption of cotton from 7,215,000,000 pounds to 7,578,000,000. I might easily add to the Hst, but in all the principal articles of which we have returns the increase in our trade is equally marked.t But then it is said wages have been reduced, and the condition of the working class * See also Appendix, Tables III, and IV. t See also Appendix, Tables V., VI., VII., and XIV., showing increase in assessments to Income and Property Tax, Railway TrafBc, and Bankers' Clearing House Returns and Shipping. 1 6 THE FRENCH TREATY is that of great distress, in fact we have been given to- understand that they can hardly keep body and soul together. Undoubtedly there has been a reduction of wages in almost every trade from the level which they reached in the time of greatest inflation ; but, what is also true, is that the purchasing power of wages has become consider- ably greater in the same period, and, as a matter of fact it appears that the consumption of every important article of necessity or luxury by the working classes has shown a remarkable increase. Thus the consumption of sugar, an article which the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets is so anxious to increase in price, has advanced from ^2\ lbs. per head in 1869, to 63 J lbs. per head in 1880. It is not wonderful under these circumstances that the sugar trade, in spite of the desire of some of the refiners for protective duty, is in a condition of great prosperity — a fact which the returns leave beyond a doubt, and which is confirmed by information I have recently received to the effect that on a dissolution of partner- ship, in the case of a great firm in the north, while the original house is maintaining its production, the outgoing members of the firm have just purchased eight or ten acres of land in London on which they propose to erect a refinery at a cost of about ;2^i 50,000, which will turn out something like 70,000 tons of refined sugar per annum. Then, in the same period, the consumption of tea has in- creased from 3-63 lbs. to 4*59 lbs. per head per annum; of tobacco, from 1*35 lbs. to i'43lbs. ; and of spirits, British and imported together, from -98 of a gallon to i'09 gallons. It is impossible to ignore the significance of these facts, which show that whatever may have been the depression of trade it has not yet affected the power of the working classes to procure for themselves increasing quantities of the necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life.* There is one other article to the consumption of which I refer with some reserve, as I have been unable to check the figures which I have obtained from an interesting statistical work, called " The Progress of the World ; " but, in this book I find it stated that during the period of 20 years, * See also Appendix, Table VIII. AND RECIPROCITY. 1 7 •from 1831 to 1850, the consumption of wheat per inhabitant was 270 lbs. per annum. In the nine years, 1871 to 1879, i^ had risen to 341 lbs., and in the same period the price had fallen from 55s. per quarter to 48s., which is a fact of the more importance and interest because it has been shown by Dr. Farr, in his statistical abstracts, that the death-rate of the population falls 3 per cent, for each 2s. per bushel in the price of wheat. I may also refer to the subject of pauperism. If the working classes were being ruined in consequence of a mis- taken fiscal and commercial policy, the result would be manifest in the Poor Law returns, but on the contrary, it appears that while in 1869 1,167,000 persons were receiving pauper relief in England and Scotland, in 1880 the numbers had fallen to a little under 902,000 persons.* As regards emigration, while the total number of persons of British and Irish origin who left these shores in six years, 1869 to 1874, was 1,218,000, in the six years be- tween 1875 and 1880 the numbers fell to 850,000; and it is remarkable that in protected Germany, during that period, emigration has considerably increased.f I must now go back for a moment to the excess of imports over exports which causes so much anxiety to a certain class of persons in this country, and is regarded by them as a sign of weakness and a proof of our commercial decHne. I consider it on the contrary, as a fact, which ought to give us the greatest satisfaction, and I think I can show conclusively that this is the case. Let us take a com- prehensive view of the question. I find that during the last forty years, which embraces the whole Free Trade period, the total balance of trade or excess of imports over exports is roughly speaking, ;£i, 600,000,000. Now how is it supposed that this is paid for? It seems to be the idea with some persons that the whole of this vast sum has been paid by this country in what they call " hard cash," meaning bullion * See also Appendix, Table IX., showing amount of pauperism in the United Kingdom, and the proportion to population, from i860 to 1880. t See also Appendix, Table X., showing the proportion of emigration to population, 1869 to 1880; and Table XI., showing the increase in Savings Banks deposits. See also Table VI., for increase in Third Class Railway Traffic. 1 8 THE FRENCH TREATY and specie. But an examination shows that during the same period the imports of buUion and specie have exceeded the exports by something Hke ;2{^4o, 000,000, and therefore the total balance of goods and specie together must be taken at ;j^i, 640,000,000. Again, I ask, how is this accounted for ? Is it supposed that this country owes that sum to other nations ? Nothing can be farther from the fact. On the contrary, in the period to which I have referred, the indebtedness of other nations to this country has enormously increased. It is now estimated at not less than ^1,500,000,000, and no one I imagine would put its amount at the commencement of the period at more than ^500,000,000. Consequently, foreign coun- tries, while sending us ;£"i, 640,000,000 more than they have received from us, have at the same time got into our debt to the extent of ;£"i, 000,000,000. This investment has been made not in specie or bullion, but in English goods, and if it had not been made our exports would have been some- thing like ;£'i, 000,000,000 less, and the balance of trade would have been increased to the larger sum I have named. What does this enormous balance represent then ? In the first instance it represents the cost of freight, the carrying trade of the world, and especially of English goods, having passed almost entirely into English hands.* But over and above this item it represents nothing more nor less than the profit derived by this country from its external trade and the- interest from its investments abroad, during these forty years. There is another way of looking at this matter. Instead of taking it in bulk, consider the details of our foreign trade and let us follow out a particular transaction. I have seen it stated that in Birmingham there exists a profitable industry in the manufacture of idols for South African negroes, and another industry for the manufacture of guns warranted to- burst the first time they are fired. Generally speaking, I observe that everything which is said about Birmingham is. inaccurate, and I disclaim any beUef in these stories ; but suppose for the sake of argument that this charge against the morality of my fellow-townsmen could be substantiated, and that a Birmingham manufacturer sells a brass deity to # See also Appendix. Tables XII,, XIII,, and XIV. AND RECIPROCITY. 19 the negroes, or a gun such as those which were disposed of by the late Government to the number of 200,000 at the rate of 2S. 6d. a-piece ; then, if for either of these commodities the Birmingham trader received an ounce of gold, as he well might, in return, the transaction would appear in the statistical tables as an export of half-a-crown, and an import of about ^3. The balance of trade would be £^2 17s. 6d. against the Birmingham tradesman, and yet I do not think he would have any cause to be dissatisfied with the pecuniary results of the transaction. But why should what is profitable in the case of the individual become unprofit- able when multiplied by the thousand or the million in the case of the nation ? And yet this is the contention of gentlemen who fume and fret whenever the value of what we receive is greater than the value of what we give. I have a few more words to say on the proposition that foreign nations have benefited during the period of depression in this country. This supposition is entirely unwarranted by the facts. There are periods of depression in all countries, although it is important to bear in mind that they are not always co-incident, and that it is therefore unfair to compare the same years without taking circumstances into account. Taking first the case of France, and dealing with exports only as a test of prosperity, I find that the exports of domestic produce, which averaged in the two years 1858-9 ;^ 83, 000, 000, had increased in the two years 1878-9 to ;j^ 128,000,000, an increase of ^45,000,000, or 54 per cent. In the United Kingdom the increase in the same* period was from ;£" 123,000,000 to ^i^ 192,000,000, an actual increase of ;£69,ooo,ooo, and a percentage of increase of 57 per cent. On these figures I have to make two observa- tions : first, that it is more important to consider the actual increase in money than the percentage, because, as the initial figures in the case of foreign countries are very much smaller than those of English trade, the proportionate increase may well be larger, even when the actual increase is very much less ; and, secondly, I must point out that the increase, such as it is, in French trade is much greater thnn it would have been but for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. In other words, while the internal trade of France has 2C THE FRENCH TREATY ■suffered by the cession of territory, the external trade has increased by the transfer of this portion of her internal trade, or a confsiderable part of it, to the statistics of her external commerce. If to-morrow Ireland were separated from the United Kingdom, no doubt a large trade between the two countries would continue to exist, but it would go to swell the exports, and apparently to increase the foreign trade, and would cease to be reckoned as part of the in- ternal transactions of the country. Taking these facts into account it would appear, that in protected France the ad- vance and improvement in foreign trade has been much less marked and considerable than in Free Trade England. I have already referred to the fact that in 1877 trade in France was so bad that a commission was specially appointed to inquire into it. In the United States the depression preceded that in this country. It began and finished earlier ; but as a proof of its severity, I may mention that while from 1869 to 1873 the immigration into the United States averaged 200,000 per annum, in 1874 the balance of immigration over emigration was only about 1,000. In 1878 the iron industry was so depressed that according to the trade reports nearly two-thirds of the furnaces were out of blast, while in 1866 the total exports from the United States which had been ;^65, 000,000 in i860 had fallen to ;^2 7,000,000. Next year they were about double this amount — the fluctuations being largely due to the action of the Civil War, but they are illustrations of the fluctuations which take place in the trade of all countries at some time or another. I remember being in Belgium, at Liege, during the height of the depression in the iron trade in this country, and when it was supposed that Belgian manu- facturers were largely competing with us. I found there tlie same complaints as to loss of trade and of profit, and I was told that the manufacturers were working at a loss, and selling only to keep their works partially employed, while the shares of great iron companies both in Belgium and Westphalia had fallen in many cases much below par. And in connection with this I might mention a statement which was made to me by Mr. Hick, formerly an esteemed member of this House. I had seen in the newspapers^ as a AND RECIPROCITY. 21 proof of the extent of foreign competition, a report that the girders for a large factory in Lancashire had been purchased in Belgium, and I asked Mr. Hick to explain it. He said — " the best explanation I can give you is a contradiction, for those very girders were cast in my own foundry." The fact is that the effects and extent of foreign competition are almost always exaggerated. Unfounded statements are made and accepted as true without inquiry, but I am con- fident from my own experience that as regards the hard- ware and iron trades more especially, of which I know most, though I think the same remark would apply to other industries also, there never has been for any considerable time together, serious competition from foreign, manu- facturers with the standard industries of this country. Within the last few days I have seen an extract from a report of the Chamber of Commerce of Berlin in which a protest is made against the Protectionist policy of Prince Bismarck, and if time permitted I might multiply instances to show that, whatever the extent of the depression here may be, it has been in recent years paralleled or exceeded in every other country in the world. And now, sir, I turn to a consideration of the remedies which are proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, for a state of things which, as I have shown, exists largely at all events only in their imagination. We are to adopt a policy of Reciprocity and Retaliation. But, I want to know, what are the precise steps by which this policy is to be carried into effect ? Honourable gentlemen opposite do not agree among themselves. The hon. member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) is the only speaker who has gone into some details. He said that it is the duty of our working men to make some sacrifice in order to re-conquer the free and fair trade which we have lost. There is no doubt about the sacrifice which the working men would have to make in order to adopt the policy of the hon. gentleman. His view appears to be this — and I do not say that there is not an appearance of justification for it — we are to retaliate on foreign countries by putting on protective duties in order to induce them to take off the duties which they now levy on our goods. The hon. gentleman appeared to consider that 2 2 THE FRENCH TREATY his proposal was a temporary expedient, to be adopted with reluctance and regret, and to be abandoned as soon as pos- sible. But suppose foreign countries are not persuaded by the hon. gentleman, or by his retaliatory policy, to take off their duties ? How long is the experiment to last ? Is it to be for five years, or for ten years, or for twenty years, or for ever, that the working classes are to be called upon to make the sacrifices which it is admitted will be entailed upon them ? Then again, on what goods are we to retaliate ? On which of our imports are we to put duties ? That is a question of cardinal importance on which the advocates of Reciprocity ought to, but do not, agree. Does the hon. gentleman propos^, for instance, to tax foreign manufac- tures ? I understand him to say that it would be fooHsh in the last degree to attempt to put duties on the principal manufactures of foreign countries. (Mr. Ecroyd explained that he meant that it would be fooHsh to put the same duties. What he proposed was to put moderate duties on foreign manufactures.) I am glad to have the explanation of the hon. member. I understand that if the foreigner charges 40 or 50 per cent, duty on English manufactures, the hon. member would retaliate by putting 10 per cent, on the manufactures of the foreigner. But the hon. member is altogether inconsistent in such a proposal. He stands up as the advocate of " Fair " trade, but does he not see that it is just as unfair that there should be duties, say of 40 per cent, on one side and 10 per cent, on the other, as if there were 30 per cent, on one side and none on the other? Unless the duties imposed by us are the same as those imposed against us it is clear that trade will not be fair, although it will no longer be free. But there is another point which I submit to the consideration of the House. England is of all countries the most vulnerable in this matter — that is to say, that in spite of, or rather I am inclined to say, in consequence of the Protectionist poUcy of foreign countries, we export a great deal more than we import in the way of manufactures. (Mr. Ecroyd : The great bulk of our exports go to India and China.) I chal- lenge the view of the hon. member, and I say that there is no country with which we have trade of any importance to AND RECIPROCITY. 23 which our exports of manufactured goods are not in excess of our imports. Take the case of the United States as an example. That is the worst instance of Protection with which we have to deal. I am speaking from memory, and I do not pledge myself to the exact figure, but, roughly speaking, I am under the impression that we export about ;^i 6,000,000 of manufactured goods to the United States, while our imports are only about ;2f 3,000,000, the rest, and great bulk of our imports, consisting entirely of raw materials and food ; and, therefore, such a commercial war as the hon. member proposes would do us more harm than the foreigner, who might retaliate on our retaliation by prohibiting, or still further increasing his duties on, our goods, or even by putting a duty on the exports of articles which we do not produce for ourselves.* I have already asked how long these sacrifices are to be imposed on the working-men : for ten, for twenty, or for thirty years? (Mr. Ecrx^yd : No, no.) The hon. member only intends it as a temporary expedient, but the effect of such a policy will be to foster weak industries unsuited to the country, such, for instance, as those which existed in Coventry or at Bethnal Green, which, even in the times of Protection had only an unhealthy life, and which, when the time of experiment ceased, would be immediately destroyed, carrying with them in their ruin the fortunes of all who had been tempted by this mistaken policy to engage in them. (Mr. Ritchie: Wines.) Sir, I have already detained the House too long in answer to the speeches which hav« been made. If I am to undertake to answer arguments in the nature of interjections, I am afraid I shall have to make an excessive demand on the patience of hon. members. But the answer which I have made to the hon. member for Preston does not satisfy the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. It is the difficulty of this subject that every man has his own separate specific, though all call it by the same name of Reciprocity; but the Reciprocity of the Tower Hamlets differs from the Reciprocity of Preston ; and the * See also Appendix, Tables XV. and XVI., showing for 1880 exports of manufactures to United States ^24,607,000, and imports of manufac- tures, _^2,578,ooo. 24 THE FRENCH TREATY Reciprocity of the Tower Hamlets differs at different times in the evening. What I now understand the hon, member for the Tower Hamlets to say is that we ought to put a duty, not on manufactures generally, but on wines, and gloves, and silks. As regards silks and gloves, I have the same answer to make which I have already made to the hon. member for Preston. If they are not industries which can be maintained in this country without Protection, it would be most imprudent and unwise to foster them by unnatural means, and the result would only end in the misery and suffering of all concerned. Wine, no doubt, stands on a different footing. The duty on wine and on spirits is not protective ; it is partly fiscal and partly moral, and might be dealt with upon those considerations \ and if the treaty nego- tiations with France should break down, the English Govern- ment would be perfectly justified in dealing with the wine and spirit duties as they thought best for the interests of the country. Well then, does any one propose to put a duty on raw materials ? The hon. member for Preston, in the speech which he made at Exeter Hall, protested against so suicidal a proposal. Is it conceivable that we should ever be foolish enough to do away with the foundation of a great part of our trade, namely, the freedom with which we receive the raw material ? Take the case of sugar. Why is it that this trade has been so prosperous of late years, so much so that I have heard it currently reported that one of the leaders in this manufacture has made a fortune of one or two millions sterling in less than twenty years ? It is partly, at all events, in consequence of the injudicious bounty system adopted by other countries which has enabled our manufacturers to get their raw sugar at less than cost price, and has enabled them to undersell the manufacturers of the rest of the world, especially in neutral countries. This is a fact which the Austrians have begun to find out ; and manufacturers, both in Austria and in France, are naturally protesting against a system which places this immense advantage at the disposal of the British refiner. Lastly, sir, is any one bold enough to propose that we should put duties upon food. The hon. member for AND RECIPROCITY, 25 Preston no doubt has the courage of his convictions. He has referred to the sacrifices which he would require from the working classes, and he does not hesitate to make the demand upon them that they should pay an extra price of 10 per cent, upon the most important articles of their daily consumption. Well, sir, I can conceive it just possible, although it is very improbable, that under the sting of great suffering, and deceived by misrepresentations, the working classes might be willing to try strange remedies, and might be foolish enough to submit for a time to a proposal to tax the food of the country ; but one thing I am certain of, if this course is ever taken, and if the depression were to continue, or to recur, it would be the signal for a state of things more dangerous and more disastrous than anything which has been seen in this country since the repeal of the Corn Laws. With the growth of intelligence on the part of the working classes, and with the knowledge they now possess of their own power, the reaction against such a policy would be attended by consequences so serious that I do not like to contemplate them. A tax on food would mean a decline in wages. It would certainly involve a reduction in their productive value ; the same amount of money would have a smaller purchasing power. It would mean more than this, for it would raise the price of every article produced in the United Kingdom, and it would in- dubitably bring about the loss of that gigantic export trade which the industry and energy of the country, working under conditions of absolute freedom, has been able to create. Sir, I think I have now dealt in turn with the arguments which have been brought before the House. I may summarise my conclusions by quoting to the House the opinion of one entitled to respect as an authority on this subject. The extratt I am about to read is from a work entitled " Twenty Years of Financial Policy," and was written in 1862 by the right hon. gentleman the member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). It is, in my opinion, as applicable to the present state of things as it was to the time when it was written, and I do not suppose that the right hon. gentleman has swerved since then one iota from the views which he has so well expressed. He says : — 26 THE FRENCH TREATY. " The great fiscal and commercial measures of the last twenty years have wrought a wonderful change in the circumstances of the country. A complete revolution has taken place in many parts of our moral, social, and political system which may be directly traced, either wholly or in great part, to the effects of those measures. Our material wealth, too, has enormously increased — our trade has developed, and our manufactures have been carried to great perfection. There have been seasons of temporary, local, and partial suffering, and the changes which have proved beneficial to the public have sometimes pressed hardly on particular interests ; but, upon the whole, it can hardly be questioned that the condition of every portion of the community has been greatly improved by the new policy." In conclusion, I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the feeling in this country with reference to the present negociations. That feeling is not keen for the conclusion of a treaty, and would not be satisfied with any arrangement which was worse than the one now expiring ; but I believe it would be disappointed if any effort were spared to bring the negociations to a successful issue. As long, therefore, as there appears to be a chance of a happy result, we will not be forced by unwarrantable and frivolous charges of concealment and secrecy, or by attempts to impose extortionate or unreason- able conditions,, to give up the negociations in a pet, and without exhausting every means of arriving at an understanding, honourable and beneficial to both countries. The commercial results of the Cobden Treaty I have shown to be of great importance — of great value to this country, and of greater value still to France ; since the trade, large as it is, is a much smaller proportion of our total trans- actions than it is of those of our neighbours across the Channel ; but these results are, in my opinion, overshadowed by the political advantages of the good understanding which has so long prevailed. I hope that, by the exercise of wisdom and discretion, and good feehng on both sides, it may yet be possible to renew and to extend relations which have contributed so materially to the prosperity of both countries, and to the welfare and the peace of the world. APPENDIX. The following Tables, prepared by the Statistical De- partment of the Board of Trade are here added, as further illustrating the facts stated in the foregoing speech :^- Table I. — Showing the trade of the United Kingdom with France before and after the Cobden Treaty — in millions — from official statistics of the United Kingdom. Exports to France. z' ■^ Average Imports British Foreign of Three from and and Tota Years. France. Irish Produce. Colonial Produce. ;^— millions. £- -millions. ;^— millions. £--m 1857-59 14 5 5 10 1860-62 . 19 8 9 17 1863-65 . 27 9 15 24 1866-68 • 35 II 13 24 1869-71 • 34 14 12 26 1872-74 44 17 12 29 1875-77 . 46 ... 15 12 27 1878-80 . 40 15 12 27 Years. Total fob EACH OF LAST Three •• Years. 1878 .. . 41 15 12 27 1879 ... . . 38 ... 15 12 27 1880 ... . 42 16 . 12 28 28 APPENDIX. Table II. — Showing the total Imports and Exports of the United Kingdom for the six years, 1869-74 and 1875-1880, compared— in millions — from official statistics of the United Kingdom. A. — Imports. Years. Total Imports. Less Re- Exports. Net Imports. Years. Total Imports. Less Re- Exports. Net Imports. 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 Millions. 295 303 331 355 371 370 Millions. 47 44 61 58 Millions. 248 259 270 297 315 312 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 £ Millions. 374 375 394 369 363 411 Millions. 56 53 53 57 63 £ Millions. 316 319 341 316 306 348 1,946 Total 2,025 324 1,701 Total 2,286 340 B. — Exports of British and Irish Produce. £ Years. Millions 1869 . ... 190 1870 . . . . 200 1871 . ... 223 1872 . . ... 256 1873 • ... 255 1874 . ... 239 Total t,363 £ 'ears. Millions. 875 ... ... 223 S76 ... ... 201 877 ... ... 199 878 ... ... 193 879 ... ... 192 880 ... ... 223 Total ...1,231 Note. — The prices of the exports were much lower in the years 1875-80 than in the previous six years — especially cotton manufac- turers, coal and iron. (See Report to Board of Trade on Prices of Imports and Exports, C. 2484, Sept. 1880.) Subsequent to 1878, there was a further fall of prices. APPENDIX. 29 Table III. — Showing the amounts of Raw Material produced in the following Industries of the United Kingdom in the six years 1869 to 1874, and 1875 to 1880, compared: — A. — Production of Pig Iron. {Ill Thousands of Tons. ) Years. Tons. Years. Tons. 1869 5,446 1875 6,365 1870 5,964 1876 6,556 187I 6,627 1877 6,609 1872 6,742 1878 6,381 1873 6,566 1879 5,995 1874 5>99i 1880 7,749 Annual Average 6,223 Annual Average .. . 6,609 Years. 1869 1870 1871 1872 1874 B. — Production of Coal. {In Thousands of Tons.) Tons. 107,428 110,431 117,352 123,497 127,017 125,068 Annual Average 118,465 Years. 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 Annual Average Tons. 131,867 133.345 134,611 13^,655 133,808 146,819 135,517 30 APPENDIX. Table IV. — Showing the amounts of Raw Material used, or of Production in the following Industries of the United Kingdom in the six years 1869 to 1874, and 1875 to 1880, compared. A.— Cotton. {In Millions of lbs. and yards) Amount of Raw Cotton used in the United Kingdom. From Ellison's Circular. Number of Yards of Piece Goods Exported.* Years. lbs. Millions Years. lbs. Millions. Years. Yards. Millions. Years. Yards. Millions. 1869 1870 187I 1872 1873 1874 Annual ' Average 939 1,072 1,205 1,175 1,246 1,266 ■ 1,150 1875 1^76 IS77 1878 1879 1880 Annual Average 1,230 1,280 1,237 1,177 1,173 1,373 ■ 1,245 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 Annual Average 2,869 3,267 3,417 3,538 3,484 3,607 ^ 3,364 1875 3,562 1876 3,669 1877 3,838 1878 3,619 1879 3^725 1880 4,496 tTra^l} 3,818 * These particulars are given to show the increase of manufacturing better than the amounts of raw material consumed. The same quantity of cotton manufactures more yards than it did. B.— Wool. (From Schwartze dr* Co.^s Circular.') Amount of Raw Wool Used {in Millions of lbs.). Years. lbs. Millions. Years. lbs. Millions 1869 299 1875 ... . 351 1870 323 1876 369 1871 337 1877 373 1872 324 1878 352 1873 359 1879 321 1874 365 1S80 370 Annual Avera ge ... 334 Annual Average . .. 356 APPENDIX. 31 Table V, — Showing the Annual Gross Assessment to Property and Income Tax in the United Kingdom, in the six years 1869-74, and six years 1875-80, compared — in millions.* Years. Schedules Total Years, Schedules Total A. B. C. D. £. A. B. C. D. E. 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 Mils. 145 152 154 160 I MUs. 64 64 65 66 M.ls. '^ 39 40 42 £. MUs. 173 178 189 203 229 250 Mils. 24 26 27 28 30 31 Mils. 441 451 471 489 520, 549, 487! 1 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 i88ot £ Mils. 162 165 174 177 180 185 M,ls. 67 69 69 69 £ Mils. 42 42 40 40 40 40 A. 267 272 257 261 257 249 Mils. 33 34 30 31 32 32 £ Mils. 571 580 570 578 578 575 Annual Average 152 65 38 204 28 Annual Average 174 68 41 260 32 575 Under Schedule A all Lands, Tenements, &c., are assessed. ,, ,, B all Profits from the Occupation of Lands, &c., are assessed. ,, ,, C all Dividends, &c., payable out of the Public Revenue are assessed. ,, ,, D all Gains from Professions, Trades, Railways, Canals, &c., are assessed. ,, ,, E all Incomes, Pensions, &c., payable out of the Public Revenue, and by Corporate Bodies, &c., are assessed. * ;^6,ooo,ooo are added to Totals of earlier years in respect of gross assessments in Ireland, so as to make the figures comparable with those in later years, t Partly estimated. 32 APPENDIX. Table VI. — Showing the amount of traffic on railvvayf? of the United Kingdom in the six years, 1869--74, and 1875 — 80, compared :— A.— Total RECEirxs. Voo^o Goods Passenger Total Years Goods Passenger .j, , ^^^"^^^ Recejpts. Receipts. Millions. Millions. X ears. Receipts. Receipts. £, £ Millions. Millions. Millions. Millions. 1869 ... 22 .. 19 ■ 41 i?75 ..• 33 •• 26 ... 59 1870 ... 24 .. 19 •• 43 1876 ... 34 •• 26 ... 60 1871 ... 26 .. 21 •• 47 1877 ... 34 •• 27 ... 61 1872 ... 29 .. 22 •• 51 1878 ... 33 •• 27 ... 60 1873 ••• 32 .. 24 .. 56 1879 ... 33 •• 26 ... 59 1874 ... 32 •■ 25 •• 57 1880 ... 36 .. 27 .. 63 Annual ") Average i 27 .. 22 .. 49 Annual ) Average S 34 •• 26 .. 60 B. — Reci .IPTS FR( W TlIIR] 3 Class Passengers only. Years. Millions. Years. £ Millions 1869 ... ... 7 1875 13 1870 7 1876 14 1871 .. 8 1877 14 1872 .. 10 1878 14 1873 ., 12 1879 14 1874 12 1880 15 Annual ) Average [ .. 9 Annual | 14 Average ) Table VII. — Amount of Clearing in the London Bankers' Clearing House in the six years, 1869 to 1874, and 1875 to 1880, compared— in millions : — Years. £ 1869... 3>6o2 1870... 3,905 1871 ... 4,787 1872 .. . 5,993 1873 ... • 6,182 1874... 5,917 Annual \ Average > 5>o64 Years. £ 1875- 5,647 1876... 4.959 1877... 5,018 1878 ... 5,007 1879... 4,959 1880... 5,718 Annual ) Average ) 5,218 APPENDIX. 33 Tatsle VIII.— Showing per head of the ropulation o 1840, 1850, i860, and from the consumption of f tlie United Kingdo 1869 to 18S0. the following Article' m in each of the ycar^ l/^o.-- Sugar. Tea. Coffee. Tobacco. S.urit.'-- (ears. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. £;allF. 1840 15-20 I -22 I -08 0-86 0-97 ^IT 25-26 1-86 I-I3 I -00 I 04 i860 34-14 2-67 1-23 1-22 0-93 1869 42-56 3-63 0-94 1-35 0-98 1870 47-23 381 0-98 1*34 I -01 1871 46-80 3-92 0-97 1-36 I 06 1872 47-37 4-01 0-98 . 1-37 1-15 1873 51-59 4-11 0-99 I -4 1 1-23 1874 56-37 4-23 0-96 1-44 1-27 ^V\ 62-85 4-44 0-98 1-46 r-3o 1876 58-95 4-50 0-99 1-47 I 27 1877 64-96 4-52 0-96 1-49 123 1878 58-83 4-66 0-97 1-45 I-I9 1879 66-24 470 I 00 I -41 III 1880 63-68 4-59 092 1-43 I -09 Table IX.— Showing the average number of Paupers in receipt of relief in the United Kingdom in i860, and in each year from 1869 to 1880 — years ended Lady-day in England and Wales and Ireland, and Whitsunday in Scotland. Years. i860 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 Average Number of Paupers. 1,006,993 1,225,171 1,235,006 '=237,353 1,172,655 . 1,075.887 1,016,551 986,797 929,128 897,052 909,197 952,924 * 1,002,000 * Partly estimated. Number of Pauper' per 1,000 of Population. 35 40 40 39 33 31 30 28 27 27 28 29 34 APPENDIX. Table X. — Statement showing the proportion to the the Emigration from the United Kingdom of Persons of only, for each year from 1869 to 1874, and from 1875 ^^ averages for each period. Year or Period. Estimated Population at Middle of each Year and Period, 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 Six years, i86g ) to 1874. 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 Six years, to 18S0 1875 \ 30,913,513 31,205,444 31,513,442 31,835,757 32,124,598 32,426,369 3i,66g,834 32,749,167 33,093.439 33,446,930 33,799,386 34,155,126 34,505,043 33, 62 4, 8 4g Emigration of each Year, and average Annual Emigration of Period. 186,300 202,511 192,751 210,494 228,345 197,272 202, (p43 140,675 109,469 95,195 112,902 164,27 1 227,542 141,676 population of British Origin 1880, with the Proportion of Emigration to Population per cent. o'6o 0-65 o-6i o'66 071 o-6i o'64 0-43 0-33 0-28 o'33 0-48 0-66 0'42 Table XI. — Showing the deposits of the Savings' Banks of the United Kingdom in each of the years 1869 to 1880 (m Millions). Post Office Banks. Trustees' Banks. Total. Millions. Millions. Millions 1869 £\z ;^38 ;^5i 1870 15 38 53 1871 17 39 56 1872 19 40 59 1873 21 41 62 1874 23 41 I64 1875 25 42 67 1876 27 43 70 1877 29 44 n 1878 30 44 74 1879 32 44 -](> 1880 34 44 78 APPENDIX. 35 Table XII.— Statement of the per-centage of the foreign trade of the United Kingdom carried on in British ships compared (in thousands of tons). Proportion of Total Trade Carried on in British Ships. (Per cent.) 59 - • 5« • 58 ^(> 68 68 • 67 67 70 Total Foreign Total Carried in Average of Trade. British Ships. Three Years. (Thousands of (Thousands of Tons.) Tons.) 1854-6 19,582 11,537 1857-9 22,798 13,299 1860-2 25,940 15,094 1863-5 27,613 18,193 1866-8 32,566 22,095 1869-71 . 37,699 25,632 1872-4 44,123 29,485 1875-7 49,531 33,051 1878-80 54,349 38,025 Table XIII. — Statement showing the proportion of the tonnage of the United Kingdom to the tonnage of certain foreign countries at different dates, nmltiplying steam tonnage by four, to reduce it to a common denominator with sailing tonnage (in thousands of tons). United I^ingdom. (Thousands Per cent, of of Tons.) Total. ... 5,942 ... 42 .. ... 8,950 ... 49 .. ... 14,679 ... 55 .. Foreign Countries. Total Year. i860 1870 1880 (Thousands Per cent, of of Tons.) Total. 8,143 ... 58 .. 9,217 ... SI •• 11,992 ... 45 •• (Thousa#dj of Tons.) 14,085 18,167 26,671 * The Foreign Countries included are : France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria Hungary, Italy Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Greece, and the United States (oversea tonnage). 36 APPENDIX. Table XIV. — Showing the Shipping Trade of the United Kingdom at the date of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws, and in the six years 1S69 — 74 and 1875 — S°, compared {in niillions). A.— Entries and Clearances at Ports in the United Kingdom in the Foreign Trade. 1850 (the date of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws), 15 million tons. Years. 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 Annual Average Millions of Tons. 35 37 42 43 44 45 41 Years. 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 Annual Average Millions Tons. 46 51 52 52 53 59 52 B. -Tonnage belonging to the United Kingdom. (/« Thousands of Tons.) Thousand of Tons. s ( ^'%7 Sailing 1850 (The date of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws )< Steam. ( 3,565 Total. Years. Sailing. Steam. Total. Years. Sailing. Steam. Total. 1869 4,765 948 5,713 1875 4,207 1,945 6,152 1870 4,578 1,113 5,691 1876 4,258 2,005 6,263 1871 4,374 1,320 5,694 1877 4,261 2,139 6,400 1872 4,213 1,538 5,751 1878 4,239 2,316 6,555 1873 4,091 1,714 5,805 1879 4,069 2,511 6,580 1874 4,108 1,871 5,979 1880 3,851 2,723 6,574 Annual Average •4,355 1,417 S^ll^ Annual | Average i 4,148 2,273 6,421 Note. — It seems important to notice that while the aggregate of sailing and steam tonnage has increased, the increase is exclusively in steam tonnage, which is more effective than sailing tonnage as three or four to one. APPENDIX. 37 Table XV. — Showing the vakie of Exports of Articles of Food, Raw Produce, and Manufactured Goods of British and Irish Produce, from the United Kingdom to the United States in 1880, stated in thousands of pounds sterling : — Articles Raw Manufd. of Food. Produce. Goods. £ I £> Alkali 1.205 Apparel and Haberdashery 561 Arms, Ammunition, and Military Stores . . . 214 Bags and Sacks, empty 131 Beer and Ale "5 Bleaching Materials 202 Books, printed ... 279 Caoutchouc Manufactures 62 Chemical Products and Preparations ... 436 Coals, Cinders, and Fuel IIS Cotton Yarn 55 Cottons, entered by the yard 1.749 „ ,, at value 1,894 Drugs and Medicinal Preparations 62 Earthern and China Ware ... 904 Glass Manufactures 188 Hardware and Cutlery, unenuraerated 494 Leather, wrought and unwrought 135 Linens, entered by the yard 2,735 ,, at value ... 296 Jute Manufactures 975 Machinery and Mill Work 439 Metals : Iron, old 946 „ Pig 2,287 „ Wrought 6,814 Lead, Pig, Pipe, and Sheet ... » Tin, unwrought ■76 Oil Seed 27 Painters' Colours and Materials 122 Paper of all sorts (including hangings) 3S Pickles, Vinegar, and Sauces 87 Pags and other Materials for making Paper 635 ... Salt 183 ... Silk Manufactures 225 Skins and Furs of all sorts 984 Stationery, other than paper 74 Su^ar, refined, and Candy Wool, Sheep and Lambs' 28 620 Woollens, entered by the yard 2,531 ,, „ at value ... 83 A lother articles Total 12 362 1,472 19s 6,052 24,607 38 APPENDIX. Table XVI. — Showing the value of Food, Raw Material, and Manu- factured Goods (in thousands of pounds sterling) Imported from the United States of America into the United Kingdom in 1880. Articles of Food. Raw Produce. Manufactured Goods. £, L ! ^ Animals : — Animals :— Clocks . . . 1 154 Oxen & Bulls . 3,681 Horses . . . 35 Cotton Manufac Sheep & Lambs 161 Caoutchouc . . . 48 tures. . . 592 Swine .... ?3 Copper:— Hides, tanned. Bacon and Hams . 9 J 650 Ore 12 tawed, curried, Beef:— Regulus . . . II or dressed . . 1,195 Fresh .... 1,881 Un wrought and Iron and Stee Salted. . . . 526 partly wrought 10 manufactured, Butter .... l>344 Cotton : — unenumerated 1 213 Cheese .... 3,412 Raw .... 31,785 Oil :— Coffee .... 168 Hides not in any Chemical, Es- Corn : — way dressed . . 47 sential, or Wheat . . . 20, 1 jj Manures unenu- Perfumed . 16 Barley. . . . 169 merated . . . 153 Sugar :— Oats .... 22 Naphtha, Crude . 60 Refined. . . 161 Pease .... 192 Oil:- Tobacco, manu- Maize . . . 9,290 Spermaceti or factured, and Wheatmeal and i Head matter . 86 Cigars . . . ' 95 Flour . . . 5.435 Q12 Train or Blubber 9 Wood :— Oatmeal . . . Animal . . . ^IZ House Frames, Fish 453 Turpentine (or Fittings, and Fruit raw, unenu- Spirit of) . . 366 Joiners' work 106 merated . . . 665 Oil-seed Cake . . 1,694 Other Articles . 46 Hops 210 Petroleum . . . 1,276 Lard 1. 741 Rosin .... 323 Meat, un enume- Seeds, Clover, and rated :— Grass .... 239 Salted or Fresh . 148 1 Silver Ore . . . 9 Preserved other- Skins and Furs of wise than by i all sorts . . . 662 salting . . . 1,281 Sugar :— Pork salted . . . 545 Unrefined . . 14 Other Articles . . 1,420 Molasses . . . Tallow and Stear- rine Tar 40 ' » Tobacco, unmanu- factured . . . Wax Wood & Timber : 1,259 51 • Hewn .... Sawn or split . Staves .... Furniture and Hardwoods . Wool, Sheep, and Lambs. . . . Other Articles . . 461 584 75 97 35 954 Total . . . < 52,916 Total . . . ^ ^1,588 ToLc.1. . . 2,578