HF 2.044 UC-NRLF B 3 lib 155 2^ PRICE ONE PENNY The Policy of Dear Food PRICES OF PROVISIONS IN ENGLAND AND GERMANY BY Dr. CARL VON TYSZKA [Reprinted from The Westminster Gazette.^ Published by CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD., La Belle Sauvage, Ludgate Hill, London, E.C., FOR THE COBDEN CLUB, Caxton House, Westminster, S,W. 1910 The Policy of Dear Food PRICES OF PROVISIONS IN ENGLAND AND GERMANY BY Dr. CARL VON TYSZKA [Reprinted from The Westminster Gazette^ Published by CASSELL & COMPANY, LTD., La Belle Sauvage, Ludgate Hill, London, E.G., FOR THE COBDEN CLUB, Gaxton House, Westminster, S.W. 1910 THE POLICY OF DEAR FOOD PRICES OF PROVISIONS IN ENGLAND AND GERMANY By Dr. Carl von Tyszka.* I.— PRICES OF WHEAT. The great importanc-e of the prices of provisions for the standard of life of the population is obvious, inasmuch as they constitute the main factor in the question of real wages. If we compare two countries, the fiscal policy in one of which has developed from Protection to Free Trade, while the other has abandoned Free Trade for Protection, an examination of the pro- gress of prices of provisions will show clearly the effect of Pro- tection. When the protective duty and every increase thereof leads to an enormous increase in the price of provisions, as is actually the case in Germany, this is a proof that Protectionism is contrary to the interests of the imasses of the entire country. I have compiled a table giving the prices of wheat from 1771 to 1909 in England and Wales and in Berlin. The figures for the English prices are taken from the publications of the Board of Agriculture. Those for Berlin from 1771 to 1865 come from the " Jahrbuch fur die Amtliche Statistik der Preussischen Staates," 11 Jahrjang, 1867; from 1866 to 1909, from the publications of the Statistical Bureau of the City of Berlin. For purposes of comparison the * Dr. Carl von Tyszka, who has recently been studying conditions in this country, is a distinguished German economist, whose contributions to the Berliner Tageblatt on the subject of food prices have attracted international attention^ iw33^526 English and German figures have been converted into thousands of kilograms, which is, roughly, equal to 20cvi't. In the year 1771 the price of wheat in England was consider- ably higher than in Berlin (223.14 shillings per 1,000 kgs., as compared to 178.92 marks). England was at that time a Pro- tectionist State, and had not only a high duty upon imported corn, but, furthermore, granted a subsidy on the export of corn. In Prussia, on the other hand, the economic policy of Frederick the Great then prevailed, a system directed, above all, to promote the commerce and industry of Prussia, but which, nevertheless, was very favourable to agriculture. The constant rise in the price of wheat in England led, in the years 1773-4 to the abolition of the subsidy for the export of corn, which led, as a matter of fact, to a very considerable fall in the price of wheat from 1775. The population of England continued to increase, and industry and commerce flourished, with the result that British agriculture was no longer in a position to supply the requirements of the in- creasing population. The import of corn was, nevertheless, heavily burdened, with the inevitable result of a corresponding rise in the price of wheat. Then came in 1793 the war with Napoleon, which ended in the naval defeat of the latter in Trafalgar Bay. Napo- leon, having no other means of damaging his powerful enemy, decreed the closure of the Continent against British goods, a pro- ceeding which produced an enormous effect. For one thing, the price of wheat, which was 69s. per quarter in 1799, suddenly rose to 113s. lOd. in 1800. In 1801 the price rose to 119s. 6d., or 548.85s. per 1,000kg., a point which it never reached either before or since, with the single exception of 1812, when it amounted to 126s. 6d., or 581.00s. per 1,000kg. In Prussia, too, during the worst period of national defeat — 1805 — the price was also excep- tionally high, amounting to 323.09 marks ; in 1808 it was 272.89 marks; in 1812, 208.03 marks; in 1817, 300.60 marks. Yet in Prussia, after the war was over, the price of wheat began rapidly to fall, the natural course of trade not being hampered either by a considerable import duty or export premium. In England the condition of affairs was very different. In that country the Napo- \eoi;iiQ war had led to an extraordinary increase in the profits of the agricultural classes, which was also naturally accompanied by an extraordinary increase in rent and the prices paid for land, which was much in excess of the real value. Then came an exceptionally fine harvest in the year 1813, which led to a fall in the price of wheat from 109s. 9d., or 504.07s. per 1,000kg:., to 74s. 4d., or 341.40s. per 1,000kg., in the following year. This m'hs, however, a misfortune for the farmers, as, with the excessive rent and prices paid for land, agriculture was only profitable when high prices prevailed for wheat, as in the preceding years, or during the ex- clusion of British products from the Continent. Now, as the agri- cultural classes in England feared that a further fall in the price of wheat would result from the cessation of this exclusion, and as they were all-powerful in Parliament, they passed the Corn Law of 1815, which prohibited all import of corn when the price was lower than 80s. per quarter. The result was that the price of corn was kept at a consistently high level — in 1816, 360s. 6d. per 1,000kg. ; In 1817, 445s. l|d.; in 1818, 396s. l^d. In Berlin, on the other hand, the prices were in 1816 only 219.68 marks; in 1817, 300.60 marks; in 1818, 253.61 marks. The prohibition of corn imports caused the greatest damage to English industry, which at that time afforded subsistence to about two-thirds of the entire population. This was due not only to the fact that manufacturers were obliged to pay higher wages to their hands, but still more to the damage done to export trade by the manner in which the British Corn Laws led Continental countries, and particularly Germany and France, to raise a high Customs barrier against English products. Thus, the Corn duties damaged British industry doubly : by a diminution of exports due to Continental reprisals, and by a reduction of the home consumption, owing to the poverty of the working-class consumer. As is well known to economic students of the period in question, these Corn Laws resulted in extreme misery among the working-class population of England. Not only did English industry suffer from the continuance of high Corn duties, but also English agriculture, and, in particular, the agricultural labourer, the distress throughout the country districts continuing until their abolition, thanks to the efforts of Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League. The abolition of the Corn Laws was followed, as will be seen, by an immediate fall in the price of wheat. As late as 1846 the price of wheat in England was 251s, Id. per thousand kgs., as compared to 199.000 marks in Berlin. In 1851, on the other hand, the price in England had sunk to 176s. lOd., as against 162.05 marks in Berlin. Since then England has no longer ex- perienced high prices for wheat in the English market, at a time when low prices were paid on the Continent. On the contrary, since the abolition of the Corn Laws and the adoption of Free Trade, the price of corn has steadily fallen, apart from a few tem- porary periods of higher prices. From this time forward there is an absolute change in the respective positions of England and Prussia. While England was a Protectionist and Prussia a Free Trade State in the necessaries of life, the prices of wheat were higher in England than in Berlin; for a time both countries imposed no duties on the necessaries of life, or, only in Prussia, a very small duty, and the prices of wheat in England were somewhat, but not for long, higher than in Berlin. But from the moment that Germany adopted Protec- tion in these articles the price of wheat immediately began to rise in a proportion far greater tlian that in England. Up to the beginning of the 'seventies Germany was predomi- nantly an agricultural country, which exported corn and supplied the English market. It is true that since 1819 there was a very small duty on corn — that is, first 18 pfennige, or about 2d., then, in 1824, 50 pfennige, or 6d., and afterwards, in 1857, 20 pfennige, or 2d. per scheffel of wheat, which is equivalent to 40| kilograms. This was, however^ in practice of no importance, as Germany was a corn-exporting country. From 1865 to 1879 Germany was a Free Trade country, prac- tically in industrial products as well as in the necessaries of life. The change to Protection in both respects occurred in the latter year. The situation In Germany was similar to that which prevailed in England fifty to sixty years previously. The successful war with France brought a large quantity of capital into the country. Even in the 'sixties the population was increasing rapidly, and trade and industry flourished. It seemed as if agriculture could look for- ward to a brilliant future in the presence of an increasing popula- tion, with increasing power of consumption at home, and, on the other hand, the prospect of a growing export, and particularly of an export trade with England. Then came the great economic crisis of 1873-4, and, as one of the consequences of this crisis, the flood- ing of the European market by American and Russian wheat, which was rendered possible by the previous great extension of railway and steamship transport. The hopes of the German agriculturists, who had vested large sums in agriculture, were disappointed. There, as in England half a century before, the land was much over- capitalised, so that it could only pay during periods of high prices, while the price of wheat had fallen in consequence of foreign com- petition. The German agriculturists consequently became appre- hensive as to their future, as they feared to lose not only their export, but their home trade. They consequently demanded, exactly as the English agriculturists had done fifty years pre- viously, the adoption of Protection duties, with the object of main- taining the price of corn. Bismarck, although at first offering a certain opposition, finally gave way. In 1879 a small duty of one mark per 100 kilograms was imposed on the import of corn. As this, in consequence of its comparative moderation, had not the effect desired by the agriculturists (indeed, the price of corn showed a slight decline in the beginning of the 'eighties), pressure was brought upon Bismarck with a view to the adoption of stronger measures. In 1885 the duty was raised to 3 marks per 100 kilo- grams, and in 1887 to 5 marks. The result was what might have been expected — an increase in tihe price of corn. It is true that Bismarck, replying in the Reichstag before the increase of the duty to certain Liberal members, declared that the increased tax would be paid by the foreigner. That the contrary was the case was soon proved by experience. As a matter of fact, the whole amount of the duty was borne by the consumer, having been added to the price of wheat and bread. Before the increase of the corn duty in the 'eighties the British and German prices were very much about the same. In England in 1884, as a matter of fact, they were slightly higher — 163s. lOd., 8 as against 162.20 marks in Berlin. After the introduction of the increased duty in 1887 the price of wheat in Berlin was higher than in England by nearly the total amount of the duty; in 1889, 136s. 8d. in England, 187.70 marks in Berlin — that is to say, one-third higher. The effect of the corn duty damaged industry in two directions — first through the reduction of the standard of living and of the real wages of the working-classes; and, to at least an equal degree, in the hampering of export trade, particularly with the United States and Russia, which resorted to reprisals. An agitation began in favour of a change in this policy. After the fall of Prince Bis- marck, his successor, Count Caprivi, in 1891, concluded treaties of commerce for a period of twelve years, under which the duty on wheat was reduced from 5 marks to 3.50 marks per lOOkgs. The result was a fall in prices, which began to be manifest in 1893, a year before the treaties came into force. The price, which was in 1891 224.20 marks, had fallen in 1893 to 151.50 marks, and in 1894 to 136.13. In this year, as a concession to the agricultural classes, the certificate of identity in connexion with the export of corn was abolished. The result was that from this time forward the price of corn in Germany has been kept steadily at a level marked at least by the addition of the duty to the price prevailing in the world's market. The German agricultural classes were dis- satisfied with the reduction of the duty, and founded what is known as the Agricultural League, or " Bund der Landwirte," which began an agitation in favour of an increase in the duties on food- stuffs. Under the pretext of securing Protection for national pro- duction, they exerted in reality every effort to defend and to in- crease the rents drawn by the landowning class. Unfortunately this agitation was successful, and the Government prepared an autonomous tariff, with a duty on wheat of 7 marks per lOOkgs. This Bill was forced through the Reichstag on December 14, 1902, by measures that are regarded as decidedly unfair by the Free Trade minority which opposed it. Fortunately, however, the 7 marks duty could not be maintained, as it was found impossible to con- clude any commercial treaty on that basis. It had actually to be reduced to 5.50 marks in the course of negotiations for the commer- cial treaties. The German Free Traders had predicted the result — namely, the g-eneral, g^reat, and continuous increase of prices, a chang-e in which it is impossible at this moment to foresee. The new duties came into force in 1906; in 1907 the price of wheat was 206.17 marks per l,000kgs., as compared to 179.61 marks in 1906 (in Eng^land in 1907 the price was but 140.46s.). Since 1907 the price of wheat in Germany has remained always dearer than in England by more than the amount of the duty. England. Berlin. 1907 140.46 206.17 1908 146.97 211.22 1909 170.70 233.89 The German consumer has, therefore, to pay the difference out of his own pocket, and is thus in a worse position than the English consumer by a sum exceeding the amount of the duty on wheat. Professor Brentano, of Munich, calculates that while the burden per head imposed upon the corn-consuming public of Germany by the duties on rye, wheat, and oats, amounts to 18s. 5|d. per head, only 2s. Id. of this sum goes to the Imperial Treasury, while the remainder finds its way into the pockets of the landlords, who grow the bulk of the corn produced in Germany. The prophecies of the German Free Traders in other direc- tions were also borne out by the facts, as, for instance, in the case of the damage done to German export trade by these duties, which led to a barricading policy on the part of some of Germany's own best customers in Europe, such as Russia and Austria. The crisis of 1907 and 1908 was particularly damaging to German industry, and in the reports of many of the largest of the German Joint Stock Companies complaints are made of the difficulties caused to German export trade by the increase of the protective duties. The respective positions in wheat prices in Germany and England have changed from 1771 to 1909, a change due to the substitution of Free Trade for Protection in the one case and of Protection for Free Trade in the other In 1771 the price of wheat in Protec- tionist England was 223.14s. per thousand kgs., as compared with *P. D.K. lO 178.92 marks in Free Trade Prussia. In 1909 the price in Free Trade England is 170.70s., and in Protectionist Prussia 233.89 marks. The lesson taught by the intervening figures, which repre- sent a very instructive development in both countries, is one that proves up to the hilt the effect of a Protectionist duty in increasing the price of the necessaries of life. In a subsequent article I pro- fuse to deal with the effect of the Protectionist duty m increasing the price of meat. II.— PRICES OF CATTLE AND MEAT. In my last article I proved that the duty on wheat increased its price frequently beyond the amount of that duty, and produced figures which gave a death-blow to the legend, borrowed by Mr. Chamberlain from Prince Bismarck, that the foreigner pays the duty. Not only the price of corn and bread, but also the price of meat is very considerably increased by these protective duties. Let us first take into consideration the prices of live stock as taken for England from the publications of the Board of Agricul- ture, and for Berlin and other German towns from their municipal statistics.* A glance at the accompanying chart will show the movement of prices of live stock in the two countries from 1879 to 1908-9 far more effectively than words. Up to 1879 there was free trade in live stock and meat in Germany. The population had not increased to such an extent that German agriculture was not in a position to supply its needs in this direction. The prices of cattle in Germany were considerably lower than in England. Then followed a period in which the prices of cattle fell in Germany as well as in England in consequence of the large supply of fodder. German agricultural circles, however, were not at all satisfied wath this condition of affairs, and demanded the imposition of higher duties than those granted by Bismarck in 1879, when he * The prices for London are per stone of 81b. (sinking the offal) and are con- verted into cwts. of about SOkgs. each for comparison with Berlin. The Berlin prices are giren for 50kgs, carcase weight y / ^ X ^ V ^ \, \ ■^ ~---, \ N, S \ A / ^ ^ < s. ^ ^ \ <^ >( } s ^ K ^iw- <^ >' \ r ^ •N / ^ ,/ X J ^ A \^ k* J ^ > / / N V / y r ^ ^ 1 jf^ / / oiafi^ .^ .^^ »^i~- / / ^ ^ ^f' ^ / \ \ •"•^^t Sfc— / .^ .^ / / \ <^ oo ^ cq f^ 1^ t-^ t^ t^ Kn "o '<:) n:^ y:) '--^ '^ >r., w-^ o English prict in shillings per cwt. and Germa?i in marks per fifty kilograms. o 12 introduced the duty on corn, viz., 20 marks per head on oxen and corresponding duties on other cattle. Although the prices had not fallen at all to the same degree as in England, the German Government in 1885 increased the duty on oxen from 20 to 30 marks per head. The consequence was an immediate and con- siderable increase in the price of cattle from 1888 to 1891. In 1885 the cattle price in Berlin was per SOkgs. 55.42 marks, in 1886 52.90 marks, in 1887 51.13 marks, in 1889 54.89 marks, in 1890 60.14 marks. The reduction of the duties on oxen by Count Caprivi from 30 marks to 25.50 marks prevented a further increase in prices, although it did not lead to a permanent cheapening of meat. In England, on the other hand, the prices steadily declined. In 1890 British cattle cost per cwt. 67s. 8d., the price in Berlin being 60.14 marks. In 1894 the price in England was 63s. and in Berlin 60.17 marks. In 1898 the price of British cattle had sunk to 59s. 5d., that is to say, less than the Berlin price, which was 61.79 marks. In the matter of meat supply, England has benefited doubly from Free Trade. In the first place indirectly, through the free ad- mission of foreign food; and, secondly, from the fact that her agri- cultural classes have not, like those of Protectionist Germany, been led by the duty on wheat to cultivate as much corn as pos- sible on unsuitable soil, but were induced by Free Trade conditions to devote their whole energy to supplying the country with cheap and good meat. The duties of the Caprivi commercial treaties were regarded as quite insufficient by the German agrarians. The unscrupulous agitation of the League of Agriculturists led in 1902 to an increase in the duties on cattle. In the tariff of that year the duties which were previously charged per head of cattle were changed into duties per weight, and at the same time very largely increased. They amounted to 18 marks per lOOkgs. live weight for oxen, pigs, and sheep. Calculated per head these duties amount to 90 marks for oxen, and 18 marks each for pigs and sheep. Fortunately for the German consumer it was impossible to maintain these high duties in the commercial treaties with other countries. They were reduced for oxen to 40 marks per head, 13 for pigs to 9 marks, and for sheep to 8 marks. A burden of 27 marks per lOOkgs. was actually imposed upon fresh meat as com- pared to the 45 marks at first proposed. Within these duties was constituted the enormous additional burden for the German people. Up to the year 1902 the price of cattle in England, with the one exception of 1898, had always been higher than in Germany. From 1903-4 onwards, the contrary is the case. The price of cattle in Berlin since then has been considerably higher than in London. In 1902 British cattle were sold in London at 68s. lOd. per cwt., the corresponding price in Berlin being 65.75 marks for SOkgs. In 1904, on the other hand, the price in London was 64s. 2d., in Berlin it had risen to 70.67 marks. While in the following years the price remained about the same level in London it showed a constant increase in Berlin, where in 1905 it amounted to 73.54 marks, in 1906 to 78.92 marks, in 1907 to 80.21 marks, and in 1908 to 76.83 marks; that is to say, in Berlin the price was in 1905 higher by the total amount of the duty and in 1906, 1907, and 1908 con- siderably more than the amount of the duty dearer in Berlin than in London. Tlhus the German consumer and not the foreigner had again to pay a very considerable excess price for the sole advan- tage of the agricultural classes. The foillowing table gives the price of cattle during the last period of increased prices 1904 to 1909. The London prices are taken from the " Weekly Returns of Market Prices " issued by the Board of Agriculture : CATTLE. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. Fat cattle, Shorthorns, first quality : London 6L4 61.4 60.3 63.5 64.9 66.0 Fat cattle, first quality : Berlin 70.67 73.54 78.92 80.21 76.83 74.17 Fat cattle, first quality : Munich 71.40 76.17 80.00 84.92 78.41 82.08 PIGS. Bacon pigs, first quality : Salford 46.10 54.0 56.11 54.11 52.3 59.10 Pigs, first quality : Berlin 59.96 66.00 68.21 57.17 60.06 72.50 Pigs, first quality : Munich 50.50 63.67 65.33 55.20 58.20 65.50 14 It is evident that the enormous increase in the price of cattle cannot fail to affect the price of meat. This is dearly proved by the second chart. Here we have the wholesale prices of beef at the Central Market in London and in Berlin (Central Market Hall) from 1888 to 1908-9. The English prices given for comparison with Berlin are given in cwts. and shillings, those of Berlin being in units of 50kgs. and marks. The chart begins with the first great increase in the price at Berlin (there is no statistical material for a comparison with previous years). The German prices, which were formerly much lower, rose in 1890, and now the prices in both cou/nitries are remaining roughly about the same level. From 1903 onwards the prices of beef in Berlin in consequence show an enormous rise, and far exceed those of the London prices : 1900 London 58s. 3d. per cwt. Berlin 58.58 marks per 50kg. 1903 London 56s. Od. per cwt. Berlin 60.68 marks per 50kg. 1907 London 57s. 2d. per cwt. Berlin 69.71 marks per 50kg. 1908 London 60s. 7d. per cwt. Berlin 69.73 marks per 50kg. It will be of interest to give a short survey of the prices of certain categories of meat in London and Berlin from 1904 to 1909, which clearly shows the enormous burden imposed upon the German consumer by the Protectionist duty. The English prices are taken from the " Weekly Returns " published by the Board of Agriculture, and those of Berlin from the publications of the Municipal Statistical Bureau of that city : BEEF. English beef, first quality : 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. London 54.0 51.7 51.2 52.3 54.6 55.3 Beef, first quality : Berlin 61.03 63.41 68.29 69.71 69.73 69.97 English beef, second quality : London 52.2 49.5 48.8 50.5 52.2 52.8 Beef, second quality : Berlin 53.48 56.36 62.06 64.98 65.19 64.57 I 5 X Hl \ \ s 7 N s, / \ 5 v K **^ ^ ^-^ • ■- \ ? % \ \ k ,> / f s. y ^ 1 ^ V ^ «-, A ^ J ^/ r 1 ( ^^ ■\ '--^, \ N 1 • -> o 1 , ^ n Ui Ui CJ G S » -i-> ^4-^ u c3 (U a JD cr M-( u -• (U ^4-1 Jl: o ■4— > <-l-l yj 0) c ro M-l ttJ o u. Dh « o <-> 1— t u lU a, G ^ c; (U r^ G H G • i— « x: (-4 f^4 t^ ■^ ^ ^ f^i (*|- ^ Ki x:> •o x:) ■^ Ki ''-> '^ English price in shillings per cwt. and German in marks per fifty kilograms. i6 l^.S.A. & Canadian (port killed) second quality : London 47.5 44.9 45.8 48.3 50.8 50.3 Beef, third quality : Berlin 47.13 50.48 55.48 58.66 57.77 58.89 Argentine chilled beef, first quality • London 44.2 39.0 38.6 42.6 46.4 43.4 Beef, fourth quality, " Fres- ser," from 1907 : Berlin 39.14 42.46 48.91 57.82 52.85 49.03 MUTTON. English mutton, first quality* : London 68.2 67.1 70.2 69.0 65.8 56.8 Mutton, first quality : Berlin 62.33 66.50 72.40 70.40 68.30 63.0 New Zealand mutton, first quality : London 43.9 42.6 40.0 41.5 40.6 34.2 Mutton, second quality : Berlin 53.01 56.18 63.12 64.96 60.83 53.15 PORK.+ British pork, first quality : London 53.4 59.9 63.4 58.4 55.1 60.9 Pork : Berlin 49.91 65.07 67.75 55.91 58.98 68.21 VEAL. British veal, first quality : London 66.9 67.9 67.3 66.8 67.7 64.4 \'eal, first quality ; Berlin 78.26 83.37 86.81 86.42 90.67 86.70 It is true that the German Protectionists contend that the duty has had nothing to do with the increased prices of cattle and meat which occurred; the latter being, they say, a result of the bad harvest of 1904, which led to a shortage in fodder and a great increase in its price. That is so far true that the shortage in 1904 ■was the immediate occasion of the increase of price in cattle and meat in the following year. But the fact that instead of a tem- *It should be observed that the quality of English mutton is, as the writer has personally had reason to observe, very much superior to the German. tThe British pork mentioned in this table is of first quality, while on the other hand the official Berlin statistics draw no distinction between the different qualities of pork, which therefore include in the latter case the inferior qualities. 1/ porary increase of price Germany has had to suffer from a chronic one is due exclusively to the Protectionist Tariff. The foregoing tables show clearly that a country with a Pro- tectionist Tariff is far more exposed than a Free Trade country like England to the accidental variations in agricultural pro- duction, and suffers much more from its changes, than a Free Trade country in which they are compensated for by free imports from other countries. III.-DECLINE IN THE GERMAN CONSUMPTION OF MEAT, &c. The fact that a great increase in the cost of living has been the inevitable consequence of high Protectionist duties is naturally disagreeable enoiugh to Protectionists both in England and Ger- many. But the figures of the official statiistics speak a language too clear to be denied. Some of the German towns are in a position to furnish tolerably reliable statistics of con- sumption — that is to say, those which still raise an octroi duty on provisions. Among the towns in this category are Dresden and Munich, but not Berlin. In Dresden the consump- tion per head of meat fell from 72.23kgs. in 1900 to 58.72kgs. in 1909* — that is, about 19 per cent. The consumption of beef alone fell within the same period from 21.40kgs. to 16.66kgs., or about 22 per cent. ; of pork from 31.21 to 25.04kgs., or 20 per cent. ; of veal from 7.52 to 5.84kgs. (23 per cent.); and of mutton from 3.04 to 1.95kgs. (about 33 per cent.). The poorer classes were obliged to renounce to a large extent the consumption of nutritious meat for the much cheaper but innutritious potato, the consumption of flour and bread also declining during the same period. * The figures for 1909, which have not yet been published, have been kindly supplied to the writer by the Director of the Statistical Bureau of that city. i8 CONSUMPTION PER HEAD OF THE POPULATION. Flour and Wheat Flour Rye Flour and Bread. and Wheat Bread. Rye Bread, kgs. kgs. kgs. 113.51 49.08 64.44 1900 1909 104.36 43.00 61.36 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF PROVISIONS PER HEAD IN IN DRESDEN. Total Mutton Total meat and meal con- • goat flour sump- flesh and Year. tion. Beef. Veal. Pork. bakery. 1900 72.23 21.40 7.52 3.04 31.21 113.51 1901 69.80 20.89 7.51 3.14 29.30 113.75 1902 65.88 20.46 6.93 2.96 26.34 112.57 1903 61.45 18.43 6.02 2.36 25.70 109.45 1904 64.18 18.19 6.19 2.15 27.37 111.12 1905 59.81 17.29 5.59 2.25 24.39 107.34 1906 57.59 16.86 5.36 2.18 23.13 104.41 1907 59.38 16.26 5.49 2.01 26.19 104.62 1908 59.45 16.09 5.77 1.97 26.37 103.08 1909 58.72 16.66 5.84 1.95 25.04 104.36 Munich shows, as appears from the following official table, a very similar condition of affairs. It must, however, be observed that from 1908 onwards, in consequence of an improved system of collecting the statistics, the figures are no longer capable of com- parison with the preceding years. KILOGRAMS Wheat Rye flour flour and and rye wheat bread. bread. 49.08 64.44 48.22 65.53 48.17 64.38 46.70 62.75 49.40 61.72 47.56 59.77 45.75 58.66 46.14 58.48 43.30 59.78 43.00 61.36 Beef, first Beef, second Average from quality 1896-1900 ... 20.2 1901-1905 ... 17.8 1906 16.1 1907 14.9 1908 16.1 1909 17.9 quality, 15.1 14.4 13.1 12.8 14.7 15.1 Veal. 19.7 16.6 15.2 15.4 20.7 2L1 Pork 20.3 18.7 15.2 21.3 23.6 20.3 Total consumption of meat. 81.4 75.4 69.3 74.3 85.9 85.7 The chart which accompanies this article clearly shows the manner in which consumption is dependent upon the rate of prices. It shows the retail prices in Dresden of pork, the meat which, owing to its cheapness, is most largely consumed by the working-classes, together with the consumption per head of the o a p _o O JO JO -^ JO _^o JO x:) JO .^ JO ex |OT mm IKM [»•« p* »* . m", ' '-' N s "«% ^ s \ 1** / / 7 \ ^ — -* rt** j*» *» ^ S** **^ \ \ \ •i*. ^ ■*», ^ 1^ jr X y X k| ^ ^ ^1 Z' / ^. ,llf? ^ ^ ^ V V, V N '^ s \ J / nf \ \ \ «0* «*> ^ **• ^ #*»' \ s ^ -use ^ *j. <5* ** _-f ^ ^ ^ X ^ s, S •*«* Sfe d / / A >flf ^ ^ ^ S'* ■^ •^ "^ Ss " r" ^ s^ ^ / /- / ^ ^ ^ ^ IIP \ \ — f^ / \ \ \ ^ 3SB ■*. ^ ^ \*in > -^ ^ ^ s, *»* *** ^ \ \ t^ f^ 3^ (S*" JP* K S ^ io > 5^ f^ N ? ."^"^^ f^^ PS X. y Retail price in pfennige per Yz kilogram. Consumption per head of the population in kilo- grams. 20 population for the first three months of the year, from 1903 to 1909. A comparison is made between the same months in the different }ears, as a direct chronological comparison would be somewhat misleading, or at least lack clearness, on account of the fact that, quite apart from all economic considerations, there are consider- able differences in the consumption between the different months, due to the difference of temperature ; the consumption in winter being, for example, much higher than in summer in all years, while the supply of fish and fowl also affects the con- sumption of pork. It is clearly manifest from this table that every increase in price in the different years is immediately followed with a decrease in the consumption. The years 1905-7, which were marked by a great increase in the price of pork, also show a very considerable decline in its consumption, a decline more noticeable in the winter months of those years than during the summer. It is scarcely possible to imagine a clearer and more unmistakable proof that the increase in the prices of the neces- saries of life has led to decreased consumption by the masses of the German people. We are in possession of the silaughiter-house srtraitiistics for the wihole of the Kingdom of Saxony for the period 1903-8. This shows tlhat the number of oxen killed has declined firom 43,464 in 1903 to 36,663 in 1908. On the other hand, the number of horses and dogs slaugihtered for food ihas enormoiusjy increased. In 1903 the number of horses slaughtered was 9,802 ; in 1908 it had increased to 12,011. The dogs slaughtered in 1903 numbered 2,619, and in 1908 3,776. The following table gives the complete figures for itihe slaughter of oxen, pigs, horses, and dogs : Year. Oxen. 1903 43,464 1904 40,593 1905 39,434 1906 36,784 1907 35,640 1908 36,663 Pi^s. Horses. Dog-s. ... 1,144,485 . . 9,802 .. 2,619 ... 1,257,657 . . 10,383 .. 2,643 ... 1,118,505 . . 12,689 .. 3,603 ... 1,112,599 . . 12,930 .. 3,738 ... 1,327,145 . . 11,695 .. 3,797 ... 1,338,089 . . 12,011 .. 3,776 It wii'Iil be observed that tihe foiregoiing tiable shows the in crease in the slaughter of horses in these years of 2,209, or nearly a 21 quarter, and of dogs 1,157, or nearly one-third. In pre- sence of the decline in the same period of the number of oxen slaiuigihtered — (tlhayt lis to siay, the best quality of meat — this is a dear pTiaof of the growing poverty of the German people, what- ever brJJiliiamt figures may be published by the Protectionists as evidence of the increasing prosperity of the population. TIhe Fortnightly Review for July published an article by '* Poliiitiicus " eaiitdtled " Tihe German Workiing-Mam," in which, by meains of arbitrary mianiipulaifcion of German statistics of occupa- tion and cornsumption, it is endeavoured to prove that the welfare of tihe Genman working-class has increased. I am tin a position to show that, sio far as these figures deal with the necessaries ol' life, tihe wiriter's conclusions are unfounded. On page 41 the writer gives the statisticsi of the consumption pen.- head of the popultation of rye, wheat, barley, oats, potatoes for 1879, 1889, 1899, and 1906, and beef and pork for 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1907. He gives the foUowiimg figures : AVERAGE CONSUMPTION PER HEAD OF POPULATION. In Kilogrammes. Rye. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Potaitoes. 1879 ... 125.1 . .. 50.6 ... 40.6 ... 85.3 , ,.. 281.2 1889 ... 106.4 . .. 56.2 ... 50.6 ... 78.4 , ... 423.1 1899 ... 144.6 . .. 89.8 ... 69.5 ... 116.9 , ... 581.1 1906 ... 143.5 . .. 94.4 ... 82.5 ... 126.3 , ... 592.6 VIPTIO N OF ME.'\T, EXCLUSIVE OF VEAL, MUTTON, POULTRY, AND GAME IN SAXONY. Beef. Pork. Total. 1880 ... Ill 18.1 .... 29.2 1890 14 20 6 .... 34.6 1900 . 1907 . 15 2 27 9 43.1 14.4 27.9 42.3 From the increase in the consumption of wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, beef, and pork, the writer infers an increase in the wel- fare of the German people. But, apart from the fact that it is not permissible to take single years as characteristic of the whole period, there is the further objection to this method of dealing with statistics that the figures for consumption throughout all Ger- many have in this respect no significance. If it be desired to 22 Study the conditions of life of the German working-classes it is necessary to go into the great cities and to consider the town and country independently of each other. The increase in the con- sumption of wheat is of slight significance for the improvement of the standard of living of the German worker. The German worker does not eat wheat bread, his consumption of wheat con- sisting exclusively in the comparatively small proportion of it which is used in the so-called black bread, or mixture of rye, and occasionally barley, with wheat, which he regularly con- sumes. The increase in the consumption of wheat flour is to be attributed to the fact that, in consequence of technical improve- ments, many of the German agricultural classes who formerly ate rye bread now eat wheat bread. The decline in the consumption of rye and second quality beef, and the great increase in the consumption of potatoes, should rather be considered as evidence of the growing poverty of the people than otherwise. But there is another consideration which largely vitiates the conclusions drawn by " Politicus." This is the fact, well known to statisticians and economists, that the increase in the figures of German consumption from 1879-1906 is to a very great extent to be attributed less to the actual increase per head of the population than to the greatly improved method of taking the statistics. This consideration shows the dubious character and the comparative untrustworthiness of statistics of consumption when carried over a long period of years, and when they are extended over all Germany instead of being confined to particular towns. This applies more particularly to the statistics given in the Fortnightly Review article concerning the increase in the price of German cattle and pigs. Everyone who, like myself, has worked in German statistical bureaux knows that in particular in the periodical statistics of live-stock great progress is made in each new census. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the contradiction that in spite of the apparent great increase of German live-stock the import of cattle and meat, and particularly of pigs, should have increased. According to the Fortnightly Review, page 34, the cattle in Germany numbered, in 1900, 18,939,692 ; in 1904, 19,331,568; in 1907, 20,630,544; wtele the pigs were, in 1900, 23 16,807,014 ; In 1904, 18,920,666 ; in 1907, '22,146,532. On the other hand, I may point out that on deducting the exports from the imports under these heads we find that the excess of imports was as follows : Year. Cattle. Pigs. 1900 62,059 65,101 1904 89,491 40,466 1906 61,957 104,570 1907 47,601 34,463 1908 49,494 88,613 1909 39,942 121,604 When we take into comsiideration the foregoing excess of im- ports and the rapid increase in the price of provisions already menitiioned, it is obviioais that the increase in the numbers of Ger- man Idive-sitock given by " PoLitious " can onJy be explained by the consitant iimprovement in the method of taking the census. As a matter of fact, this consitant improvement in statistical methods in Germany also tends seriously to vitiate the comparisons made with the income-tax returns of former years, which are advanced as an argument to prove the increasing welfare of the German miasises. The lundenliable fact that in Germany a very considerable quantity of horse-flesh and dog-flesh is consumed as Ihuman food is, of course, very disagreeable to the writer of the Fortnightly Review article, as also to our German Protectionists. " Politi- cus," ho/wever, goes a little beyond my countryman in his attempt to 'Wiriggle out of an uncomfortable siLtuation; he actually states that the German working-iman eats horse- and dog-flesh for the sample reason tihat he prefers tihem to beef and pork. It is pos- sible, though I personally have never heard of a case, that humor- ous individual Germans, in conversation with Tariff Reform trippers, may have stated that they prefer horse- and dog-flesh to pork and beef, but if they did make this astounding statement it will ihave been "their fun" or a case of " sour grapes." The informant of *' Politious " must have a very sligiht knowledge of Germany and the German working-classes if this contention be ^■eally serious. As a matter of fact^ an Germany the distaste aj:id 24 conitempt for horse- and dog-fles'h is as g^reo't as In England itself. The popular term of " Pferdewurst " (" horse-sausage ") applied in German towns to all indifferent sausages is sufficient evidence of tlhe poor repute of horse-flesh among our people. No; the Genm^an worker does not eat horse- and dog-flesih through any preference for the very poor food furnished by the wonn-out horse and the equally worn-out draft-dog, which form the vast majority of the supply, but simply because he cannot afford to buy the better beef, mutton, and pork owing to the high price at which they are sold in Germany in consequence of its Proteotionist taruff. Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Bells Sauvage, London, E.G. CoBDEN Club Publications. The Book of the International Free Trade Congresa, Price IS. By post, is. 4d. Tariff Makers: Their Aims and Methods. A Sequel to Fact V. Fiction. Price is. Fallacies of Protection : Being Bastiat's " Sophismes Econo- miques," translated by Dr. Stirling, with an Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith, M.P. Price is. net. Insular Free Trade, Theory and Experience. By Russell Rea, M.P. 6d. The Case against Protection. By E. Cozens Cooke, 3d. The "Scientific" Tariff: An Examination and Exposure. Price 3d. Cobden's Work and Opinions. By Lord Welby and Sir Louis Malet. Price id. Things Seen and Things Not Seen. Translated from the French of F. Bastiat. Price id. Shipping and Free Trade. By Russell Rea, M.P. Price 3d. The Lessons of History on Free Trade and Protection. By Sir Spencer Walpole. Price ad. The Colonial Conference : The Cobden Club's Reply to the Preferential Proposals. Price 6d. What Protection Does for the Farmer and Labourer. By L S. Leadam. Price 2d. Fact V. Fiction in Two Open Letters to Mr. F. E. Smith, M. P., from Henry Vivian, M.P. Price id. 14 DAY USE ^^^o^3D COI -— ,S MPT. ^NS. This ^-''i^lhrd^-o ««tr«ette „ca«. p^lj^. . 1 ^Vq are subjeci Tariff Ref Lord The Effect c Price How Protec. Protection 4 I The Fiscal Pi ot the I a Parliai Price id Imports and E Hon. RussELl7T?MI oce. By the Right The Empire Aspect of Preference. By Senator Pulsford. Price id. 'i>i ;/:.;, J '5 GAYLAMOUNT ^ jj PAMPHLET BINDER ' ^ Manufaduttd by feGAYLORD BROS. Inc. Syracuse, N. V. Stockton, CaKf. YC ?499i