| Average, 1880-84. |
Average, 1885-89. |
Average, 1890-94. |
Average, 1896-99. |
Average, 1900-04. |
Increase, 1880–1904. | ||
| Absolute | Relative | ||||||
| Mill. £. | Mill. £. | Mill. £. | Mill. £. | Mill. £. | Mill. £. | Per Cent. | |
| England | 206⋅4 | 196⋅9 | 199⋅0 | 199⋅5 | 225⋅3 | 18⋅9 | 9 |
| Germany | 92⋅8 | 99⋅6 | 100⋅2 | 114⋅8 | 149⋅9 | 57⋅1 | 61 |
| France | 73⋅1 | 69⋅9 | 73⋅6 | 79⋅5 | 94⋅5 | 21⋅4 | 29 |
| United States | 25⋅9 | 28⋅7 | 34⋅2 | 55⋅0 | 87⋅8 | 61⋅9 | 239 |
Here, with respect to the most vital department of our trade, we have an unmistakable picture of decline in our international position. We are beaten absolutely and relatively alike. We are beaten by every one of our protected competitors. France beats us.
What is the reason? We have our Colonies, where our traditional pre-eminence, as we shall see, is not yet forfeited—where the same language, similar tastes, and a common Imperial citizenship still help to retain for us the advantage we nowhere else enjoy. We have the richness of our coal deposits and their unique proximity to the factory and the wharf. We have still a geographical position more favourable than that of any of our competitors with regard to the world's markets as a whole. We have our unapproached facilities for shipbuilding and shipping.
Nor are we told why we are beaten when we inquire into the question of our relative industrial efficiency. Every improvement in technical education must be valuable, but it is certain that on the whole we do not fail for want of skill. In the greatest of our trades, the Lancashire cotton operative does twice the work of the German cotton operative in a given time, and does it better; while British ships, British locomotives, British
