figures were 490,508 tons and 1,325,724l. respectively, a reduction in quantity of 19 per cent., and in value of 52 per cent.-indicating not only a most serious decline in the volume of trade, but a much more serious decline in profit. In regard to manufactured iron-sheets, plates, bars, rods, and rails-the figures are quite as remarkable, the production of 1873 being 480,374 tons, valued at 5,573,0021., while that of 1876 was 369,560 tons, valued at 2,677,1921., a reduction in quantity equal to 23 per cent., and in value to 52 per cent. In articles of more elaborate workmanship, such as ordnance, small arms, and general hardware, the figures tell the same story of falling trade and vanishing profits. In 1873 the aggregate production amounted to 23,058 tons, and in 1876 to 17,576 tons, a reduction of 23 per cent., the value in the respective years being 428,0201. and 229,520l., or a reduction of 461 per cent.'

While the prospects in Belgium are discouraging, the Economist,' in the review of the trade of 1878, gives a brighter picture of the posture of affairs, especially in Durham. The substitution of mechanical power for manual labour in the steel rail manufacture, and for the old process of puddling, gives reason to hope that the British iron industry will hold its own against foreign competition.

In a French trade journal, the Bulletin of the Ironmasters' Committee,' we find the following statement of the exports of iron and steel from France, Belgium, and England during 1877 and 1876. statement showed the respective exports to have been:

This

Exports of steel from Belgium,

iron and

France,

and England.

American rivalry in tools and machinery.

Total.

303,391 277,063

1,550,875 1,437,904 + 112,971=7 per cent.

It is evident that the iron-makers in foreign countries, from which we were threatened with the most serious competition, had not been gaining ground on the manufacturers of this country.

While Belgium has proved its ability to compete with the United Kingdom in the cheap descriptions of iron employed for building purposes, the United States have shown themselves formidable competitors in the production of edged tools and some kinds of machinery. They exhibited admirable cutlery at Philadelphia. They have sent large quantities of hardware to Australia, and the Baldwin Company is said to have made an offer to supply a locomotive for 1,000l. less than the cost of an English engine. I cannot believe

that our manufacturers will suffer themselves to be beaten in the production of tools or locomotives. The competition they at present experience must be ascribed to the superior ingenuity of the American manufacturers, in producing light and well-shaped tools at a cheap rate by machinery, rather than to any advantage which they enjoy in the cost of labour. The comparative Exports of insignificance of the export trade in iron from the the United United States is conclusively established by the figures lately published by Mr. Fallows:

Exports from the United States.

iron from

States.

trell's com

American

and British

We have an important contribution, to what may Mr. Gasbe described as the pessimist literature on foreign com- parative petition, in the exhaustive report by Mr. Harris Gastrell view of on the iron trade of the United States. It was pre-f pared by that gentleman when holding the appointment ture. of Secretary of Legation at Washington. He gives a general comparison of the iron manufacture in Great Britain and the United States in the following passage: If one takes a general view of the States as producers of iron and steel, there are to be discovered several disadvantages as compared with a more compact and an older country like England. The higher price of labour, the higher rates of interest, the smaller accumulation of capital, the lesser period of manufacturing activity, are the chief of these, and need only to be

mentioned. The iron and steel industries are, out of Pennsylvania, at their beginning, except in a few large districts; and nascent industries are always at a disadvantage. Moreover, the manufacturing population is, under such circumstances, so to speak, sporadic, and the evils of shifting labour are doubly felt; whereas in Pennsylvania and the large centres of manufacture there is a trained and experienced manufacturing population. Against such disadvantages, however, the United States have an important advantage over an older country like England. America has no "past in manufacturing. There are no honoured ruts to upset the honest inventor. If a man makes a suggestion, it is readily tried; and, if the theory fail in practice, his superiors think no worse of him. He does not lose his place; but he tries again, and generally does better the next time. In England it used not to be uncommon to treat a man of suggestions as unpractical, and failure in one suggestion would have lost him his place and lost to him any future employment. It is true that there is a danger of having the manufacturing prospects spoiled by trusting too much to what are expressively called the "high-heeled " men of ideas; but "high-heelism" occurs more in costly construction than in suggestive invention. The general outcome of the readiness to try suggestions, and the respect for men of ideas, is, however, a decided advantage in favour of the United States. Hence the Americans are repeatedly getting a good start in saving labour and improving processes and machinery. A new suggestion is immediately inquired into, and, if it looks

prac

tical, is forthwith tried, and, in case of success, forthwith applied. The utilisation of the waste heat of the blast and other furnaces, the Burden Rotary Squeezer, the three high rolls, the nail, screw, and horse-shoe machines, the improvements on the Bessemer plant, and many other equally important and less important improvements, testify to the practical manner in which the United States have successfully striven to overcome disadvantages by intelligently avoiding the ruts of the past. Indeed, it is often affirmed on this side of the Atlantic that "England uses to-day in many of her manufactures tools and machinery inferior to American inventions which meet similar requirements."

thian

Bell's re

port.

It seemed to me very important to ascertain how Mr. Lowfar Mr. Harris Gastrell's criticisms were confirmed by men practically acquainted not only with the manufacture of iron, but with the ironworks in both countries. I accordingly consulted Mr. Lowthian Bell on this subject, and received from him the following interesting communication in answer to my inquiries:

In 1874, the date of Mr. Gastrell's report, the wages paid to all classes of men at the converters in America were much higher than those now prevalent there. In fact, at the same works, between my first and last visits to the United States, the difference is exactly 33 per cent. I have compared the cost for labour on this branch with that recently given me from a work in Great Britain, and there is a trifling difference on the ton of ingots in favour of this country at the present time. Mr. Gastrell mentions the quantity of steel made at