that the Cleveland miner will repudiate the doctrine laid down in a short leader of the issue of the Philadelphia Press containing one of his communications and to which apparently special attention is directed. Speaking of Cleveland the editor observes:-"It is the most wonderful iron and coal district in the world. Nature has endowed it with untold riches, yet Free Trade has forced wages down to a point where the workman is compelled to labour for the common necessaries of life. The truth is that under Free Trade the masses in England have steadily grown poorer and the rich richer."

As a matter of fact the Cleveland miners know perfectly well that men of their class can earn nearly double the money received by their predecessors forty or fifty years ago in the times of protective duties in this country, while at the same time every shilling worked for today can purchase more than a shilling could do before the repeal of the Corn Laws. But whether this be true or not, our miners have no wish, as the language of the newspaper article would suggest, to have the necessaries of life enhanced by heavy import duties. Indeed their opinions on such a change would probably not be found to differ materially from those entertained by the agricultural population on Mr. Weeks' side of the Atlantic. Not even the competition offered to the Cleveland miner by his Belgian or German rival will induce him to alter his views on this question. With the knowledge that some 300,000 tons of foreign iron are brought into this country, he remembers, that in one shape or another, more than one-half the pig iron made in Great Britain is exported, where it has to meet the competition of those countries in which the principles of Free Trade have not been adopted, and where wages, contrary to the doctrine laid down by the editor of the Philadelphia Press, are very much lower than they are in Great Britain, notwithstanding its Free Trade policy.

I refrain from quoting the circumstance upon which the opinion of the Philadelphia newspaper is grounded, that "a few monopolists" (in Cleveland) "live in princely splendour where the workman is compelled to labour for the common necessaries of life." It is notorious at the present moment that the margin of profit throughout Great Britain is a very small one, and it is equally true that in former years of prosperity the ironstone miners of Cleveland earned as high a wage as is paid in the mine in the State of New York quoted by Mr. Weeks.

KK

SECTION XVIII.

THE CHIEF IRON-PRODUCING COUNTRIES COMPARED. IN the two sections immediately preceding, it has been attempted to shew that while our immediate neighbours on the Continent of Europe obtain the labour in their mines and iron works at considerably cheaper prices than those current in Great Britain, the iron-masters in the United States pay their workmen at much higher rates than those prevailing among ourselves. The mere ascertainment however of wages in various countries is only one step in comparing the resources of any one nation with those of others. To do this satisfactorily in the iron trade, we have, in addition to the cost of labour, to consider the nature of the natural deposits from which the minerals are drawn, the facility and consequent economy with which these raw materials are extracted, and finally the position of the markets in relation to the centres of production.

Although Sweden, Russia, and Austria are not without a certain degree of importance in the manufacture of iron, our attention will be confined, among European nations, to Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, and France, for they alone occupy conspicuous positions as exporters of the metal. Compared with its vast mineral resources the United States have up to this time made but little progress in dealing with markets outside their own limits. Having regard however to the fact, that North America has risen with unprecedented rapidity to the rank of being the second iron-making nation in the world, these resources will demand careful consideration; for upon their geographical position and character will depend the ability of the United States to meet European nations in the markets of the world.

Reference has already been made to the competition offered by the Continent of Europe to the iron trade of Great Britain. This is not

only encountered in neutral markets, but something like 312,000 tons of manufactured iron and steel were actually imported into the United Kingdom itself in the year 1882, chiefly from Germany and Belgium.

In order to exhibit the nature of the development of Germany as an exporting nation the following figures are given for the seven years ending with 1882:

40,862 658,266

315,729 507,046 559,275 552.553 664,012 770,874 775,395 48,871 75,113 63,637 62,137 65,617 83,624 915,932 1,044,619 1,042,905 1,040,315 1,184,518 1,134,103

The exports from Great Britain, Belgium, and France, for the last of these years, 1882, were as follows:

I have endeavoured to draw up a statement2 of the weight of iron exported from the United States, but this from the way in which the accounts are kept must only be regarded as a very rough approximation. In it I have, as in the case of Great Britain, Belgium, and France, assumed £25 per ton as the value of the exported machinery.

given in net tons of 2,000 lbs. 15,416 23,559 20,406 9,867 8,416 13,219

Machinery including agricultural implements, estimated weight in tons of 2,000 lbs....

Net tons

.121,506 156,489 137,374 130,018 132,721 160.605

...136,922 180,048 157,780 139,885 141,137 173.821

1 The estimates are based on the assumption of the average value of the machinery being £25 per ton.

2 Compiled from figures furnished by Mr. J. S. Jeans, Secretary of Iron Trade Association.

Notwithstanding the mere approximate character of this estimate it seems quite certain that in spite of the higher wages paid in the United States, the exports of that class of goods in which labour most largely enters occupies a very prominent position; the amount of machinery being apparently larger than that of the united quantities sent from Germany, France, and Belgium. This speaks very favourably either for the labour saving machines employed in the construction of the machinery, or for the superior excellence of the articles exported. Possibly both these advantages may play a part in securing for the American manufacturer so large a share of the world's custom in mechanical appliances. The value of the articles exported annually during the six years given above ranges from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 against perhaps something like £2,500,000 from Germany, France, and Belgium.

The vast extent of the exportation from Germany might reasonably lead to the inference that in the Zoll Verein we had a formidable rival in economy of production. I am not prepared to say that in periods of moderate prosperity a considerable trade may not be carried on by the German manufacturers, and this in some cases with a fair amount of profit. When however the article to be supplied is steel rails taken in large quantities, such as those required by the Italian railways, at the low prices which often prevail, it was formerly impossible to avoid a considerable loss falling to the share of the Westphalian and Belgian houses who compete with the English makers. About three years ago the quotations for a particular order were, from a Westphalian firm £5 2s. 6d., from an English house £5 2s., and from a Belgian company £5 1s. 6d., delivered at an Italian port. At that period I believe the native pig iron used in the manufacture of ingots by the three competitors was largely smelted from Spanish ore. Practically the sea transport was the only charge between Bilbao and the works of the firm who sent the English quotation referred to. So far as ocean freight is concerned, England stands in a somewhat more favourable position than Rotterdam or Antwerp, at which ports the ore is received for the Westphalian and Belgian works. Without claiming however any advantage in respect to this item, the conveyance of a ton of ore from Rotterdam to Westphalia costs about 5s., equal to about 13s. on every ton of rails. To this has to be added 5s. 6d. for the transport

of the rails for shipment at the loading port, so that the German maker is thus placed at a disadvantage of nearly 20s. per ton as compared with his rival in England. Now the total cost for labour on a ton of rails, from the ore to the finished article, is not such as to admit, with the cheaper labour referred to at page 573, of more than a mere fraction of this 20s. of disadvantage being recovered.

Of course when the steel rails produced in Germany have to be employed for the convenience of the German people, the German railmaker enjoys considerable advantages as compared with his British competitor. It will cost the latter about 12s. per ton to deliver his rails at the door of a Westphalian rail mill, in addition to which an import duty of 25s. per ton has to be paid, raising thus the additional burden to be borne by the English producer to 37s. per ton.

The unprofitable nature of the export trade carried on by Germany in steel rails in times of low prices may be inferred from the action of her own manufacturers. About the time at which the transaction referred to occurred, their government, moved by the representations of their inability to compete with English houses, imposed heavy duties on all those classes of raw and manufactured iron which for some years past had been admitted duty free. The result of this has been that the German consumer pays 40s. or 50s. per ton above the price obtained by the German rail-makers in their export trade. Thus the home consumer was not only called upon to pay the manufacturer a profit upon what is required for domestic use, but he has to make good a loss incurred in rails or other articles for foreign countries. The duties levied on iron and steel entering the German Zoll Verein are as follows:

Coal and iron ore are imported duty-free.

The charges of conveying ore to a Belgian ironwork, and of taking the rails back to Antwerp, are less than to Westphalia; but on the other hand coal costs more in Belgium than in Germany, so that, from this circumstance, the positions of the two are probably nearly equalised.

In respect to the importations of iron into Great Britain from Germany and Belgium, to which reference has been made in the