Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 769, 26 November 1886, Page 22

In" this young country, where it is a subject of anxious thought and careful consideration how we can best bring about the establishment of local industries, it is both interesting and instructive to observe the experiences of older communities, and especially of our own Mother Country. Great Britain has long enjoyed supremacy as the first manufacturing nation of the worlds but that supremacy, long unchallenged, appears now to be in some danger. Recent Home papers have contained voluminous correspondence on the subject of “ buying goods abroad ” and “ foreign competition,” and earnest appeals have been made to “ patriotic Englishmen ” to, restrict their purchases to goods of British manufacture instead of buying in the cheapest market, irrespective of the quality or source of supply. It is denied that England is able to hold her own against Continental competitors in all instances, but where quality is taken into consideration, England generally comes out the best. It is alleged, for instance, that the German mantle trade, which a few years ago monopolised the London market, has passed almost entirely into the hands of English manufacturers, and that in the glass trade English makers monopolise the market for the better, it being only iu that coarsest quality of blown glass that Germans and Belgians can compete, “ notwithstanding the fact that their labour is much cheaper, and their hours of labour twice, and nearly thrice, as long as those of the British artisan who, nevertheless, receives wages to nearly double the weekly amount of those earned by his competitorontheothersideof the Channel.” In such articles as cutlery foreign makers cannotvcompete fairly, but some do so unfairly, indeed fraudulently, by marking their cutlery as “ Sheffield,” and by imitating the trade-marks of the best-British manufacturers. On the other hand it is admitted that technical education has enabled foreigners to compete successfully in some of the textile -trades. Thus England imported 2* millions of fine cotton goods for Home consumption, although the export of cotton goods amounted to more than seventy millions. But here we gain a little insight into one cause of England’s decadence in the manufacturing trade. It seems that when the first stress of foreign competition was felt, the English manufacturers, instead of still supplying the best , goods and insisting on a proportionate price, lost courage, and yielded at once to the demand for mere cheapness, necessarily involving a deterioration in the quality of the articles supplied. This went on until prices were cut down so low that quality became a secondary consideration. English goods then began to lose their high repute, and this afforded foreign manufacturers an opportunity of which they took prompt advantage. It is asserted that much trade has been lost through a careiess or ultra-conservative indisposition to adapt manufactures to the varying taste or fancy of the public. For instance, in the case of the 2i inillions-worth of fine cotton goods mentioned above as having been imported from the Continent, these consisted largely of printed calicoes from France and Germany. The preference given to them is said to be due solely to the superiority of their designs and colouring. It is stated that in England “ the chemical and artistic departments of the trade are those which have been most neglected in the training of employers and employed.” The first aniline colours, so largely used in this work, were in-

vented by an Englishman,'.but England depends' mainly on Germany and other Continental countries for her supply after sending thither much of the raw material for the production of ihe colours. Again it is confessed that nearly all the best designs for English calicoprinting are by foreign designers, or by English designers trained abroad ; and it is asserted that “ although the English colours surpass all others in quality and cheapness, if they were to depend for their sale upon English designs they would speedily be superseded by the calicoes of France, Germany, and Switzerland ” Just the reverse of this unfavourable state of things has happened in regard to Nottingham lace, which a few years ago was made almost wholly from French designs, but which now is nearly all made from Nottingham designs, this being the result of a School of Art having been established in that town and generously supported by the local manufacturers. Thus the taste iu design has kept pace with ’ the improvements in machinery. In paper, on the other hand, England is completely beaten by cheap foreign manufacture. Labour, raw materials, land and value of property, taxes, rates, &c., are enormously higher in England than abroad, and so the foreign maker can produce paper as good as the English at greatly reduced cost. For example, the wages of Continental paper-mill hands are said to be as low as a shilling a day ! In linen, again, the Irish makers have had to yield to the superiority of France and Belgium in weaving, bleaching, dyeing, and printing, according to the evidence of the Belfast manufacturers before the Technical Commission. The witnesses stated that “ even in the higher class of damasks, the Irish production was scarcely' holding its own, while in fancy and coloured goods, where a knowledge of design and chemistry comes most into play, the superior attractiveness of many Continental productions was placing the Belfast makers at a disadvantage, especially in large markets like America, where the Irish goods once enjoyed almost a monopoly. It is satisfactory to learn, however, that since this evidence was given, a weaving school has been associated with the Belfast School of Art, and that the results are very encouraging*. The British Trade journals, from two of which we have quoted once or twice in the foregoing remarks, are engaged in animated discussion on the subject of “ Foreign Competition.’’ One writer says :

The cause of the depression of trade in England is not that we can no longer manufacture as well and as cheaply as of yore, but that o.ur competitors are assisted by bounties and protective duties, and the railway system abroad being in the hands of the Government, goods for export are conveyed at nominal rates, whilst British industries are handicapped by heavy inland freights levied by irresponsible private railway companies whose natural object is to enhance their dividends, whilst that of foreign Goyernments is to foster an increase of trade, and we are the only nation in the world that admits free trad6. . . . What would become of Germany if she were to adopt England’s free trade policy ? Germany would be ruined. The protected countries of the world were long ignorant of the manufacturing art, or, at least, could not approach the skill of Eugland in this branch of industry. Things are entirely altered now in this respect, and England may therefore expect greatly increased embarrassment as long as her door stands wide open to the manufactures of all the world, while all the world closely shut and bar their doors against her. Xamby no means ignorant of the power and wealth of England; but were she ten times what the is in these respects, she could not struggle much longer in so unequal a fight against all the world. Another trade organ of the manufacturers puts the case more strongly from the Piotective aspect. He says: Considering that our country ha 3 undergone the process of conversion from agriculture to the workshop —as it undoubtedly has—is it not our duty as a nation seriously to entertain the solution of the problem of decrease of trade 1 Unless we do this, and do it satisfactorily, we shall simply possess some thousands of empty and idle factories, besides having upon our hands their thousands of idle and starving operatives. Something ought to and must be done before it is too late. Great Britain is the great source of money for the world ; we have drawn it from other nations who are now anxious to regain what was their own. They have purchased from us the means of creating wealth, and they are now naturally endeavouring to seek the reward of their outlay. We no longer occupy the position we enjoyed many years ago. None could compete with us then ; now all can, and it behoves us to protect our manufacturers in this charge of circumstances. Some national movement is necessary. This must be founded upon some protective principle ; and, now that we are simply the same as other nations in a trading and commercial sense, we can no longer afford to be the world’s benefactors.

It cannot be denied that these remarks contain the food for much earnest reflection. The moral to be deduced is not necessarily that at which those writers appear to have arrived—namely, that Protection would prove the panacea so long and vainly sought—but rather that thorough excellence of quality in'jail respects must be combined with cheapness of pro-

duction if success is to be attained. Heavy rates and taxes, high interest on money, and high wages, are all serious impediments in the way of manufacturers, but even these may be surmounted if the highest all-round excellence of quality be persistently maintained. The question is one of deep interest to a young manufacturing country such as New Zealand. It is a gratifying circumstance that in one of the most important of our rising industries—the wooffen manufacture-—the superior excellence of our New Zealand product appears to have won wo rid-wide reputation, and it is satisfactory to know that even in its brief experience the Wellington woollen goods have proved to be the best of all. If this high standard be maintained in all our New Zealand success ought to be assured.