THE CRY OF “WOLF!”
One word more—Mr. Williams’s book has been defended, by himself and by others, on the ground that it is a useful warning, that the nation requires to be stirred up, and so on. Has Mr. Williams forgotten the story of the little boy who cried “Wolf! Wolf!” when there was no wolf? It is one thing to warn the country of a problematic danger in the dim future; it is another to scream in the market-place that the danger is at our doors. Mr. Williams’s book is one long scream—a literary scream, I admit, and therefore in some measure harmonious, but still a scream in the sense that there is no reason behind the noise that is made. The danger is not at our doors, our industrial glory is not departing from us, our trade is not being ruined by Germany. On the contrary, in spite of the remarkable progress of Germany in a few limited directions, the general figures show that we are fully maintaining our splendid lead, if indeed we are not actually bettering it. I cannot, therefore, admit this attempted justification of the character of Mr. Williams’s book. To quote Mr. Punch’s admirable picture, Mr. Williams, like his pupil Lord Rosebery, has been trying to make our flesh creep. There is more harm than humour in such a pastime. That the motives of both these disturbers of our nerves were patriotic I do not for a moment doubt; but their conduct is neither patriotic nor wise. It does us no manner of good to be for ever cheapening ourselves in the eyes of the world. A great nation should have dignity enough to be silent about her own greatness, neither on the one hand perpetually boasting of her pre-eminent virtue, nor on the other fretfully asking how her credit stands with other countries. We are what we are—what our forefathers and our own brains and arms have made us. Let us be content to possess our souls in peace, and to get on with our work.
APPENDIX.
MR. WILLIAMS’S REPLY.[3]
To the Editor of the “Daily Graphic.”
Sir,—The first reflection arising from a perusal of your correspondent’s criticism of “Made in Germany” is that perhaps it is as well that he and I are English and not French journalists. Across the Channel disagreeable formalities sometimes ensue when one writer takes to dealing in such expressions as “artfully picked out,” “trickery,” “gross exaggeration and suppression,” “misrepresentations,” “exaggerations—to use the mildest possible term,” “grossest exaggeration,” “skilfully conveyed a false impression,” “twisting the truth,” and others of like offensiveness. As they are a direct impeachment of my honour as a man, apart from my ability as an economist, I am compelled to preface my defence with a protest. The adoption of this style is a pity, too, in that it was wholly unnecessary. My antagonist was not in the position of the proverbially abusive lawyer; he had a case to state; and, apart from personalities and some other faults to be mentioned later, I sincerely congratulate him on the ability with which he has stated that case. Of course no one will mistake my meaning. By admitting that my opponent has a case I am not confessing defeat; I am simply testifying to the general truth of the saying that there are two sides to every question, albeit one side is the right one.
[3] This reply has been reprinted verbatim from the Daily Graphic. On the other hand, in preparing my own articles for republication I have made certain modifications with a view of meeting Mr. Williams’s objections, where I thought they were worth that trouble. Many of the objections have therefore lost their point; but I thought it better to let Mr. Williams’s reply stand as he wrote it.