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.

THE “ADVOCATUS DIABOLUS.”

It is possible to raise objections (and not necessarily foolish objections) to almost any thesis, and the thesis is not hurt thereby. The Vatican wisely employs an advocatus diabolus, whose paradoxical function is to establish the sanctity of a candidate for canonisation by alleging all of what is not saintly that he can rake up in the candidate’s career. Your correspondent has acted as advocatus diabolus to “Made in Germany.” He has said what there is to be said for the other side, and my book, I respectfully submit, is uninjured. Unfortunately in this case it is the case of the advocatus diabolus only with which most of his readers are acquainted—a circumstance calculated to obscure their judgment. To them I would say: Read my book; you can buy it for half-a-crown, or you can get it for nothing out of the Free Library. This is not a puff of my own wares; it is a necessity of the case. Until you have read the book you cannot form an opinion on the worth of the attack. The small space allotted to me for criticism of my critic is obviously quite insufficient to prove a case which was with difficulty compressed into 174 octavo pages; neither, apart from consideration of space, would you thank me for copying out matter already published elsewhere. You will therefore kindly bear in mind that the ensuing remarks are not a complete statement of my position, but only some supplementary criticisms prompted by the attack.

NOT A PROTECTIONIST PAMPHLET.

First, I join issue with respect to the motive and nature of my book. Your correspondent says that I lean to the conclusion that “the only way to prevent the commercial downfall of our country is to revise the Free Trade policy which we deliberately adopted fifty years ago,” and, as his readers will remember, he proceeds on that assumption, and reiterates that statement throughout his articles. It is really unpardonable. Would any of those readers, who were not also readers of my book, imagine that the first chapter of that book contains a disclaimer of holding a brief in favour of any particular doctrine or remedy, Fair Trade being specially named; that not more than seven of my 174 pages are concerned with Protection; that I strenuously and at considerable length advocate other reforms, and often point to other matters as being the determining causes of the decline in a particular trade? Your correspondent knew all this perfectly well, and yet, in order to damage my book with a Free Trade public, deliberately conveyed to them the impression that “Made in Germany” was merely a Protectionist pamphlet. He omitted all reference to technical education, the superiority of German business methods, and the other reforms whose advocacy formed the bulk of the book. And this is the man who sprinkles around charges of “misrepresentation,” and of having “skilfully conveyed a false impression”! From a child I was never much impressed by outbreaks of virtuous indignation.

THE CHARGE OF DATE-COOKING.

He reviles me for my dates, and in his own diagrams proves the wisdom of my choice. The object of my book was to show that England’s industrial supremacy was departing. Clearly the way to do this was to show the height to which that supremacy had attained, and to contrast it with the position to-day. Now, his first diagram shows that the highest point was reached at the commencement of the nineties. Of course, therefore, I made my comparisons beginning with that period, except where the decline had begun earlier. What is there wrong in this? Similarly I am derided as an “ingenious person” because, in order to show that our production of pig-iron was on the downward grade, I gave the figures for 1882, the highest year, and for 1894, the latest available year. If there were any truth in the charge of date-cooking I should have given to my readers the figures for 1892, which was the lowest year since 1882. It has suited the correspondent to misconceive the whole purport of my book. I was not writing an industrial history of Europe for use in schools. My work was to rouse the manufacturers of England to a sense of the danger threatening their dominion, and I went in detail through the various trades wherein this danger was apparent, showing how great they had been and what was their condition to-day. In different trades the decadence had begun at different periods; to take the same starting year of comparison in each case would, therefore, have been a stupid error. “Made in Germany” is a call to arms, not an academic disquisition on the movements of trade.

“ARTFUL AND INGENIOUS.”

But what of your correspondent’s method? With a large air of virtuous impartiality he adopts 1886 for his starting-point all through his tables. It may be my denseness, but beyond meaningless uniformity, I can see absolutely nothing in this method to commend it. I see, however, that it is very useful for optimistic purposes. Did it not strike the reader that, in most industries, 1886 was a year of bad trade, and that therefore its adoption as a starting year of comparison would result in a very inaccurate view of England’s former industrial glory? If I felt inclined to adopt his language towards myself I might be tempted to say that his choice of years was “artful” and “ingenious,” for to say, with blunt frankness, “I will take the last decade and stick to it all through,” is an admirable way to score with the unsuspecting public. The pose of impartiality is excellent. Your correspondent’s figures are doubtless as correct as they are interesting, but (in the light of the explanation I have given) I submit that those diagrams might as well have remained undrawn; they do not destroy the tables in “Made in Germany,” and, so far as dates are concerned, are ineffectual as a commentary.