The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-05-04 00:00:00

-
THE STOIJRBRIDGE OBSERVER.

THE STRENGTH OF ENGLAND.

In an elaborate statistical article discussing the forces
which this country and Itu:sist respectively, could bring to
bear at once on deci,ive points in the event of war being
declared, The Times says:—

. . . England, happily, has a larger force immediately
disposable than she is sometimes credited with, and
that in a long contest she could develop a power so
great that in comparison Russia cannot be considered
a fist-rate Power at all, but only one of the third or
fourth, if even Of so high a rank. The broad facts
are that although Russia in Europe has double the
population of the United Kingdom, yet our number
are so great as to supply an inexhaustible recruiting
ground, while the labour of the population is so
efficient that we can support in idleness, or in such a
special enterpiise as that of war, much larger num-
bers than it is possible fox Russia to support ;
that the quality of our people, man for man, is better;
that apart from our home strength, England has
a vast colonial empire witlL a population of
250,000,000, more or less available in a contest, while
Russia has but a scattered and empty territory in
Asia, the population being actually about 14 millions
only, while the administration of the territory is a
burden upon the Russian centre; that while the annual
revenue of the United Kingdom (79 millions) somewhat
exceeds that of the Russian Empire (about 70 millions
only), our revenue is easily raised and from a few
sources of taxation, and could easily be doubled or
trebled and more, but that of Russia is raised with
difficulty, and it is a question whether a few milli, ns
more could be added to it by any severity of taxation.
When it is considered, in addition to this, that
Russia is assailable at several points by England,
and so her resources can be seized and her power
crushed, yet England is practically invulnerable by
Russia, the inference is plain that in reality
the two Powers are not on the same level—that a
war which might destroy Russia as a Power would be
for England a war with limited liability' only, as
the Crimean war itself was, It has been easy also to
point out that in all particulars, both since the bei;in-
ning of the century and since the Crimean war, the
changes in population and resources have all been to
the advantage of England, We have now nearly half
the population of Russia, instead of one-third or one-
fourth, as at the beginning of the century; our mer-
cantile and war navies preponderate as they never did
before, Russia, by comparison, having neither mer-
cantile nor war navy to speak of; our manufactures
have multiplied, while Russia remains a country of
backward agriculture. Much of our Indian Empire
and a great part of our English-speaking colonies -have
been added to our dominion during the present
century, while Russia has had the doubtful advantage
of annexing Eastern Siberia, Central Asia, Poland,
and other burdensome possessions. In no one respect
has Russia advanced more rapidly, unless it be lately
in the cultivation of a land army after the German
system, which makes her more formidable at first to
her immediate neighbours on land, but net to a
Power like England, whose centre she cannot assail. . .

In the essentials of numbers and wealth England has
marvellously changed for the better since the days of
the great Napoleonic wars. At the very least, wealth
having doubled twice as fast as tke people, we have to
add to the doubling of our strength by numbers the
additional power we have obtained by the greater in-
telligence of the people and the greater effectiveness of
our industry in proportion to the numbers engaged.
The addition is not merely in propoition to the wealth
added; the gross amount added is, in fact, an addition
to our surplus resources. Say the people of Great
Britain in 1815, with a gross income of nearly
£300,000,000, or £25 per head, could spare £100,000,000
or one-third of that gross income, for the uses of the
State, whether in taxation or in loans' it is quite
clear that double the numbers with a gross
income of £5O per head could spare not only
twice 100 millions for the uses of the State,
but a very much larger sum. If they kept only
for their own private expenditure what they kept in
1815, the sum they could spare for the State would be
more nearly six hundred millions. Of course the rise
in the scale of living makes it impossible that this last
sum could be spared, but the difference between one
hundred millions and six hundred millions shows what
a vast margin there joust be for the Government of
England to draw upon if we are to make anything like
the efforts which the nation made at the beginning of
the century. It will be thought, perhaps, judging by
the talk which is often heard about increasing ex-
penditure, that the nation is using up its power in pro-
portionate extravagance, but nothing could be farther
from the truth. We have not even increased taxation
and expenditure in proportion to the growth of
our numbers. We have hardly increased our taxation
and expenditure at all. In 1826, 10 years 'after the
great wars' although taxes had been reduced in the
interval, the amount of taxation raised in the United
Kingdom was still £55,525,000; in 1851, just before
the Crimean War, the amount was £54,485,000; now,
the amount is £68,514,000. Instead of doubling, as
it might have done, had it increased propor-
tionally to our numbers, or quadrupling, as
it might have done, had it increased propor-
tionally to our wealth, the amount levied in taxa-
tion has only been added to by one-fourth part as
compared with what it was half a century ago.
Per head, in spite of our increase of wealth, it is only
41s. sd. now, against 495. sd. in 1826. There is thus
a wide margin for our Chancellors of the Exchequer,
even if they should not seek to go beyond raising the
sum of 200 millions, which might even now be raised,
merely keeping the proportions to numbers which
existed 60 years ago and making no allowance what-
ever for the intermediate increase of wealth. So far,
therefore, from indulging in national extravagance as
our wealth.has increased, we have kept far within
bounds, and there is a huge margin to come and go
upon before we even begin to lay upon shoulders more
able to bear them burdens like those which were
borne 60 years ago. Curiously enough, England
stands alone among European States in this diminu-
tion of national burdens. . . .

All this material and moral progress has also been.
coincident with an advance in political and social con-
tent, which we are sometimes apt to forget amid the
din of contests between labour and capital, but which
forces itself upon every reader of the modern history
of England. From 1800 to 1850 the history is full of
political and Trades Union riots, suspensions of habeas
corpus, breaking of machinery by infuriated workmen,
stack burning, and other social and industrial calami-
ties. Since 1850 we have hardly known what a politi-
cal riot is, and strikes and other contests between
capital and labour are hut seldom marked with violence
and crime. All the while our laws against crime and
political offences have become milder in them-
selves and in their application. The tone of
feeling and opinion in all these matters is
so different from what it was that we can hardly
imagine now the conditions of forty or fifty
years since, when social distress, crime, and political
agitation abounded. Sir James Mackintosh remarked,
with reference to the change of opinion about crime
alone, that he could almost think he had lived in two
different countries aril conversed with people who
spoke two different languages. The remark might be
much more general. The moral and social atmosphere
of the present time differs so greatly, and differs so
greatly for the better, from that of the period before
1830 or even before 1840, that it is hardly possible to
suppose a transformation so great could have been
made in little more than a single generation.
. . . One of the secrets of this wonderful advance
has undoubtedly been our happy freedom from Cone
tinental war, and our abstention from entangling
alliances. 'Without reflecting on our former policy—
for the circumstances of former periods, as, for
instance, during our great struggle with France, may
hive been such as to compel us to fight for European
freedom—we may, at least, note that, so far as one can
judge, the nation has been well. advised in disregarding
since the Crimean war all pretexts for the sup-
port of British prestige or more than doubtful
British interests by armed interference abroad. We
are now far stronger than we were in com-
parison with our neighbours, because we have not
competed with them in the race of bloated armaments
in time of peace; and the barbarous feelings and
habits of violence which protracted war stimulated
among us at the beginning of the century have been
changed for the better. In this way our taxation per
head has dimished, while that of our neighbours has
increased, although our increase of wealth and industrial
prosperity has been far greater than theirs. If we
had had such another war period as that at the
beginning of the century to go through, no such pro-
gress would have been possible. The amount
of the war outlay alone must have made an enormous
difference in the annual accumulations of capital and
the wages of the masses, and the state of war would
have affected the whole tone of feeling throughout the
country. The conclusion clearly is that on any new
emergency the results of the policy of the last 60 years
should be remembered. We see what is gained by
merely resting and suffering the internal growth of the
nation to proceed. Against all external changes ad-
verse to us an internal force is growing day by
day. Every ten years the addition to our popula-
tion alone without war is now almost as great as
the numbers Russia would add to her territory
by annexing half Turkey in Europe, while the
quality of our people and the capital they possess
alake,s the addition, perhaps, as valuable in point of
force as an addition to Russia of half the Turkish Em-
pire would be. We do not say that there can be no
events abroad calling for interference, or that there are
no such events at the present One. All we wish to
point out is that the strength we have acquired during
long years of peace, and our daily growing strength
as our numbers and capital increase, should
dispose us to be less and not not more jealous of
alleged encroachments—more and not less disposed to
go our own way, and pursue our own policy, as we see
other nations oppressed by the burden of enormous
armaments and wasting every now and again in a few
years or months of war the fruits of many years of
peace. Our want of preparation has perhaps been
excessive, but that is a defect which could be easily
corrected without adding much to our burdens.