WEALTH-HANDLERS v. WEALTH-PRODUCERS TO THE EDITOR OF THE National Review. SIR,-The Board of Trade figures recently published giving the result of our foreign trade for 1925, showing an increase of £45,419,025 imports, and a decrease of £27,880,427 exports, with a total adverse balance of the enormous amount of £395,000,000, bear eloquent testimony to the harm done to the producing classes by Mr. Churchill's return to the Gold Standard; on the other hand the greatly increased profits of all the banks show how the wealth-handlers have benefited by this policy, so strongly urged by the great majority of bankers, proving conclusively once again that the interests of producers and financiers are not always identical, whatever bankers may say to the contrary. Contrast the plight of the cotton, shipbuilding, coal, engineering, and iron and steel trades, with the prosperity of the banks, stores, and other wealth-handlers. The Press, no doubt inspired, is full of predictions of good trade in 1926. The same thing was said in January 1925, and we now have in the Board of Trade figures the doleful realization of the optimistic utterances, and so long as the Government persist in their present monetary policy I fail to see how 1926 can be any better. The effect of the Budget was to put up our prices approximately 10 per cent. in foreign markets, while at the same time reducing by a like amount the prices of imports from foreign countries, thus helping imports and penalizing exports. And this at a time when above all things it is important to increase our export trade. In 1921, in reply to a letter of mine protesting against the restriction of the issue of currency notes, the late Lord Milner wrote as follows: "Needless to say I entirely agree with you. Did I not say, months ago, in the House of Lords, 'The one thing that terrifies me in looking ahead is the fear of a restriction of credit'? I always knew this mad nonsense would come, but I hope the protests of the business world will check it before it goes too far." Nearly five years have passed since then, culminating in this last disastrous year, and the protests of the business world, save for the request of the Federation of British Industries that a Committee of Inquiry should be set up, have been practically non-existent. Such is the glamour of the fetish of the Gold Standard, and the ignorance of most manufacturers and workpeople on the subject. How long are the wealth-producing manufacturers and their work people going to be content to be sacrificed to the interests of the wealth handlers? If to-morrow morning we could wake up and find the dollar exchange 4 dollars to the pound instead of 4.85, the whole position would be altered. Our exports would be 20 per cent. cheaper in foreign markets, and our coal, iron and steel, and other commodities, would pour into them, while at the same time foreign manufactured goods coming into this country would be 20 per cent. dearer. Our exports would expand enormously, and our imports would decrease, and the adverse trade balance would be greatly reduced. Revenue would go up by leaps and bounds, and the dole would disappear. If prices rose-what, one may ask, is the good of cheapness that merely increases the number of unemployed? It is also a general fallacy to suppose that an industry such as the cotton trade benefits by a rise in the exchange, which has the effect of cheapening the raw material. For it must be remembered that the same cause which reduces the prices of the raw cotton increases the price of the finished product by a like amount when sold abroad. To save, say, 10 per cent. on the raw material, a portion of your costs, and to lose 10 per cent. on the finished total product, is precious poor business. When the dollar was 3.22 to the pound, and the cotton trade had to pay in consequence a greatly increased price for its raw cotton, the cotton trade was booming. To-day, when the dollar is 4.85, and the raw material is to that extent cheaper, the trade is in extremis. Yours faithfully, T. B. JOHNSTON. THE CALL OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE EDITOR OF THE National Review. DEAR SIR, I think you will be interested to learn that, as a result of the article on South Africa by Lady Milner, which appeared in the December number of the National Review, I have received a great number of inquiries from people with fixed incomes who are desirous of settling in South Africa. Several families have already decided to proceed to South Africa and a number of others are seriously considering the step. My Association is only too happy to give assistance, and the fact that we are in a position to give the best disinterested advice and treat each case on its individual merits naturally appeals to people who are contemplating taking advantage of the very low cost of living, combined with the glorious climate of South Africa. Yours faithfully, M. M. HARTIGAN, THE RED TERROR IN RUSSIA TO THE EDITOR OF THE National Review. SIR,-Not long since a book was published by Messrs. J. M. Dent, entitled The Red Terror in Russia, by S. P. Melgounov, the son of the well-known historian of that name. Melgounov's experiences during the Terror are set forth in this volume, which is much more, however, than a record of personal hardships and cruelties suffered at the hands of the Terrorists; it is a valuable historical document, the truth of which cannot justly be gainsaid. The January Quarterly spoke of the book as " searching, terrible, convincing." Indeed, it is. One might fairly call it the most terrible book ever printed. And the illustrations! They are few, but they are appalling enough, in all conscience. Yet this book does not appear to have met with the attention it so abundantly deserves. The great and eminent, in pulpit, on platform, in the Press, have for the most part allowed it to go on its way in silence. But everyone ought to read it-not least those who, from sentimental or commercial reasons, are for ever urging English people to let "bygones be bygones," and hold out the hand of fellowship to Bolshevism-that is, to speak frankly, the Cheka. The book should be read in conjunction with G. Popoff's work The Cheka, which appeared last year. If anyone, after reading these two books, can still hold a belated brief for Bolshevism, then Heaven help him! Nobody else can he is beyond the pale of argument. In the hope of drawing the attention of your readers to Melgounov's invaluable history of one of the greatest tyrannies-and the bloodiest. --ever known, I venture to send you this letter. May I add that the Terror in Russia is not a thing of the past? The massacres of last December prove that. The Red Iniquity is still urgent and active in 1926. Not without good reason, Dean Inge (see the Morning Post of February 11th) spoke of Lenin as "the most Satanic character in all history." Lenin, indeed, has gone to his own place; but the diabolism he fathered still lives on. February 15th. Faithfully yours, E. H. BLAKENEY. FRAGMENTS AND SUB-FRAGMENTS (By a Correspondent) 66 JUDGING from the outside, the parlous plight of Liberalism does not promote the unity of the fragment which is all that now remains of the mighty host that ruled the country from Land's End to John o' Groats in the spacious days of Gladstone. Thus there is a "Radical Group," under the leadership of Mr. Walter Runciman, which has issued a manifesto directed to the address of Mr. Lloyd George, explaining that their raison d'être is to uphold the "Radical principles," consequently they repudiate as a test of Liberal faith allegiance to any one individual." Besides this Group the attenuated Party of 39 contains at least two other Bodies-namely, a Right Wing, composed of old Asquithians, and a still Righter Wing, who, having been returned by Conservative votes, are usually found in the Government Division lobby. Precisely where the "Leader," Mr. Lloyd George, fits into this minute mosaic it were as hard to say as it is to indicate his actual followers. The "National Liberals," as Lloyd Georgians began by calling themselves, were originally on the Right of the Liberal Party, but the Wizard is manifestly looking Leftwards and signalling to Mr. Snowden and any other Socialists who will give him "the glad eye." As there is no chance of my advice being heeded, I run no risk of damaging the Conservative Cause by pointing out that the only hope of effective opposition lies in the withdrawal of Mr. Lloyd George to his own fireside. This step he cannot entertain because of his idée fixe that Downing Street-to say nothing of Chequers-exists for his exclusive benefit. He was so long in office that he cannot reconcile himself to any other form of existence, and no doubt while the cash-obtained no one knows how, though most of us can guess-holds out he will not lack a following of sorts. The latest defection is Mr. Herbert Fisher, who has tardily discovered that "the duties of my academic position are incompatible with the effective discharge of my office as Member of Parliament," though it was explained, when Mr. Fisher became Warden of New College, Oxford, that there was no conflict between them. |