Sept. 22, 1887] 



NA TURE 



489 



you to the tables put in by the Board of Trade before the Royal 

 Commission on Trade Depression. Let me only state very 

 briefly that while the average annual amount of copper produced 

 from British ores amounted in 1855 to over 20,000 tons, in 1865 

 the amount was about 12,000 tons only, in 1875 under 5000 

 tons, and in 1885 under 3000 tons. As regards lead, again, 

 while the production about 1855 was 65,000 tons, and in 1865 

 about 67,000 tons, the amount in 1875 had been reduced to 

 58,000 tons, and in 1885 to less than 40,000 tons. In white 

 tin there is an improvement up to 1865, but no improvement 

 since, and the only set-off, a very partial one, is in zinc, which 

 rises steadily from about 3500 tons in 1858, the earliest date for 

 which particulars are given, to about 10,000 tons in 1885, con- 

 siderably higher figures having been touched in 1881-83. 

 There is nothing, then, in these figures as to miscellaneous 

 mineral production to mitigate the impression of the diminution 

 in the rate of increase in the great staples, iron and coal, in 

 recent years. 



Agricultural production, it is also notorious, has been at any 

 rate no better, or not much better, than stationary for some 

 years past, although down to a comparatively recent period a 

 steady improvement seemed to be going on. Making all allow- 

 ance for the change in the character of the cultivation, by which 

 the gross produce is diminished, although the net profit is not 

 affected to the same extent, and which migh*^ be held to argue 

 no real decline in the rate of general growth if the population, 

 diverted from agriculture, were more profitably employed, yet 

 the facts, broadly looked at, taken in connexion with the other 

 facts stated as to diminished rate of increase in other leading 

 industries, seem to confirm the supposition that there may have 

 been some diminution in the rate of increase generally. 



It is, unfortunately, impossible to state in a simple manner the 

 progress at diflferent dates in the great textile industries of the 

 country. Everything as regards these industries is thrown out 

 by the disturbance consequent on the American War. It does 

 not appear, however, that what has happened as regards the 

 main textile industries, cotton and wool, would alter sensibly 

 the conclusions above stated, drawn from the facts as to other 

 main industries of the country. If we take the consump- 

 tion of raw materials as the test, it would appear that the 

 growth in the cotton manufacture is from a consumption of 

 28 lbs. per head in 1855 to about 38 lbs. per head in 1875, while 

 in 1885 the consumption is nearly 42 lbs. per head, an increase 

 of 4 lbs. per head in the last ten years, against 10 lbs. per head 

 in the previous twenty. The percentage of increase in the last 

 twenty years must therefore, on the whole, have been less than 

 in the previous twenty, although in these twenty years the great 

 interruption due to the American Civil War occurred. Of course 

 the amount of raw material consumed is not here an absolute 

 test. There may be more spinning and weaving now in propor- 

 tion to the same quantity of raw material than was formerly the 

 case. But the indications are at least not so certain and direct 

 as when the consumption of raw material could be confidently 

 appealed to. As regards wool the comparison is unfortunately 

 very incomplete owing to the defect of data for the earlier years ; 

 but what we find is that the amount of wool consumed per head 

 of the population of the United Kingdom has in the last ten 

 years rather declined than otherwise from nearly 1 1 lbs. per head 

 in the five years 1870-74 to 10 lbs. per head only in the five 

 years 1880-84. Here, again, the explanation suggested as to 

 cotton — viz. that there may be more spinning and weaving now 

 in proportion to the same quantity of raw material than was 

 formerly the case — applies. But the answer is also the same, that 

 at any rate the indications of progress are no longer as simple as 

 they were. The reality of the former rate of advance is not so 

 clearly manifest. 



Of course I need hardly add that in the case of another great 

 textile, silk, there has been no progress, but the reverse, for 

 some years ; that this is also true of linen ; and that the 

 increase in the allied manufacture, jute, can only be a partial 

 set-off. 



In the textiles, then, as in other staple industries of the 

 country, the rate of advance in the last ten years, measuring by 

 things, and not merely by values, has been less than in the 

 twenty years immediately before. 



We pass on, then, to another set of figures included in the 

 short table above submitted. We may look not only at leading 

 industries of production directly, but at the broad figures of 

 certain industries which are usually held to reflect, as in a mirror, 

 the progress of the country generally. I refer to the railway 



traffics as regards the home industries of the country, and the 

 entries and clearances of shipping in the foreign trade as regards 

 our foreign business. 



As regards railways what we find is, if we take the receipts 

 from the goods traffic in the form in which they were summarized 

 for the Royal Commission on Trade Depression, viz. reduced to 

 so much per head of the population on the average of quin- 

 quennial periods, that in the five years 1860-64, which is as far 

 back as the figures can be carried, the receipts per head were 

 I is. ; ten years later, viz. in 1870-74, the receipts per head 

 were 185. ; and ten years later, viz. 1880-84, the receipts per 

 head were 21s. 7,d. The rate of growth shown in the first ten 

 years' interval is 63 per cent. ; in the second ten years' interval 

 it is only 18 per cent. ; and in the last year or two, I may add, 

 there has been no further improvement. Here the question of 

 the value of money comes in again, but this would only modify 

 partially the apparent change. There is also a question as to 

 railway extension having been greater in the earlier than in the 

 later period, so that growth took place in the earlier period 

 because there were railways in many districts where they had not 

 been before, and there was no room for a similar expansion in 

 the later period. But the difference in the rate of growth it will 

 be observed is very great indeed, and this explanation seems 

 hardly adequate to account for all the difference. At any rate, 

 to repeat a remark already made, the indications are no longer 

 so simple as they were. There is something to be explained. 



The figures as to the number of tons of goods carried are not 

 in the above table ; nor are such figures very good, so long as 

 they are not reduced to show the number of tons conveyed one 

 mile. But, quantum valeant, they may be quoted from the 

 Board of Trade tables already referred to. The increase, then, 

 in minerals conveyed between 1855 and 1865 is from about 40 

 million to nearly 80 million tons, or 100 per cent. ; between 

 1865 and 1875 it is from 80 to about 140 million tons, or 75 per 

 cent. ; and in the last ten years it is from 140 to 190 million 

 tons only, if quite so much, or about 36 per cent. only. As 

 regards general merchandise, again, the progression in the three 

 ten-yearly periods is in the first from about 24 to 27 million tons, 

 or rather more than 50 per cent. ; in the second from 37 to 63 

 million tons, or 70 per cent. ; and in the third from 63 to 73 

 million tons, or 16 per cent. only. As far as they go there is 

 certainly nothing in these figures to oppose the indications of a 

 falling-ofF in the rate of increase in the general business already 

 cited. 



Coming to the movement of shipping in the foreign trade, the 

 series of figures we obtain are the following, which relate to 

 clearances only, those relating to entries being of course little 

 more than duplicate,' so that they need not be repeated : 

 1855, 10 million tons ; 1865, 15 million tons ; 1875, 24 million 

 tons ; 1885, 32 million tons. And the rate of growth thus shown 

 is between 1855 and 1865 no less than 50 per cent. ; between 

 1865 and 1875 '^'3 l^ss than 60 per cent. ; and between 1875 ^^^^ 

 1885 about 33 per cent, only — again a less rate of increase in the 

 last ten years than in the period just before. Here, too, it is to 

 be noticed, what is unusual in shipping industry, that in the last 

 few years the entries and clearances in the foreign trade have 

 been practically stationary. The explanation no doubt is in part 

 the great multiplication of lines of steamers up to a comparatively 

 recent period, causing a remarkable growth of the movement 

 while the multiplication of lines was itself in progress, and 

 leaving room for less growth afterwards because a new frame- 

 work had been provided within which traffic could grow. But 

 here again it is to be remarked that the whole change can 

 hardly, perhaps, be explained in this manner, while the remark 

 already made again applies, that the fact of explanation being 

 required is itself significant. 



The figures of imports and exports might be treated in a 

 similar manner, as they necessarily follow the course of the 

 leading articles of production and the movements of shipping. 

 But we should only by so doing get the figures we have been 

 dealing with in another form, and repetition is of course to be 

 avoided. 



The short table contains only another set of figures, viz. 

 those of the consumption of tea and sugar, which are ^ain 

 commonly appealed to as significant of general material progress. 

 What we find as regards tea is that the consumption per head 

 rises between 1855 and 1865 from 2*3 to 3*3 lbs., or 43 per 

 cent. ; between 1865 and 1875 from 3*3 to 44 lbs., or 33 per 

 cent. ; and between 1875 and 1885 from 4*4 to 5 lbs., or 13^ 

 per cent. In sugar the progression is in the first period from 



