The Cotton Factory Times. — 1885-10-02 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

THE CAUSES OF BAD TRADE. To the Editor of the Cotton Factory Times.  Sir,—l read with some amusement the letter by your correspondent, Ph. Carter, in your last week's issue, under the heading of "The Causes of Bad Trade," which I presume was a reply to a Mr. Knowles' letter in a previous issue. Now, I have not read Mr. Knowles' letter, but I gather loom Mr. Carter's that he was arguing that the expenditure on drink and the army and navy were really the cause of the present state of trade. Mr. Carter commences his letter by referring to our army's success in the Indian Mutiny, and says what a deplorable thing it would have been for our trade and commerce if we had lost the co-operation of that great country. Of course this is all very nine, and I partially agree with him, but how does Mr. Carter know that we should not have succeeded so well without the conjunction of the sister country, because it is an old saying that nothing is impossible, and a change of events might very easily have taken place and India have been compelled to import our manufactures for the good and welfare of her own country. So far as trade and commerce is concerned we might scarcely have been any the worse. Of course there are other important points to examine and deal with, but they are for politicians and not for correspondents of the Factory Times. I hope your numerous readers will not infer that my opinions are in any way prejudiced against our combination with India, as I believe, and hope every member of our Great Britain may believe, that the well-being of our trade and commerce greatly depends upon that important country. Mr. Carter says to attribute the present depression of trade to either the cost in the army or the money spent in drink seems to him to be most absurd. Certainly his contention fails to prove what is the cause. On my own part lam inclined to accept Mr. Knowles' belief that the cost in the army and the money spent in drink has an important bearing on the depression, and I, for one, would advocate a modification (decrease) in the army and navy, because I firmly believe with our great free trade veteran, Mr. J. Bright, a large portion of the money spent extraneously for the purpose of supporting our army and navy ought to be placed in a channel for upholding and supporting our trade, and for the sociableness and prosperity of our fellow-creatures. Again, the same may be applied to the money spent in drink. If instead of consuming the many millions per annum in the purchase of that unnecesRary, degrading, and obnoxious stuff, drink, the money went to trade in obtaining proper clothing and food, the depression, I believe, would not at present exist. Your correspondent then goes on to condemn our grand free trade policy by Raying that to buy in the cheapest market can be carried to a suicidal extent. What bosh! He quotes a portion of a paragraph he has read, which he protests against, that the English Government purchase all their postcards from Germany. Well, they have a perfect right to do so if it is the best and cheapest market, and so much the better for Mr. Carter and myself. Again Mr. Carter cummemos writing on supposition. I will not give his own words, but a portion of the substance it contains, so that your readers may judge from his point of argumeut. He supposes the Government to discharge a number of workmen, filling their places with foreigners, and after a number of weeks in a state of starvation they form a deputation, and present themselves to the Government officials with a statement of their distress, but the officials are determined to have the cheapest labour, so the deputation has to quit, none the better for their visit. Mr. Carter appears to detest this sort of business, but, sir, I think it is quite genuine, as it can be applied, and is practised all round. Now, sir, allow me to suppose a moment two manufacturers, A and B, in a certain town, each making the same class of goods. A merchantman comes to A intending purchasing, but finds his price is too much, RO he leaves and pays B a visit, and learning his price to be a small percentage lower than A, he makes a purchase. Again, suppose an employer of 40 hands, whose }amines was not very prosperous, could not afford to pay his workman so much as other awn whose business is more extended and successful, according to Mr. Carter they mustleave at once, and I say so too if they can get more for their labour elsewhere. But Mr. Carter says in his letter " Hang the cheap markets if you apply the principle to the detriment of your countrymen." Would that not be to the detriment, and no doubt the ruin of that employer's business? I could produce numerous other of these suppositions, but it is unnecessarry, as your readers will be convinced, and at once see the inconsistency and lack of forethought on the part of your correspondent. Now, sir, I think I have already trespassed too far upon the valuable space of your paper, but before closing this epistle I wish to inform your reader. I have not written for the purpose of creating a controversy, as I am not at all inclined nor prepared to carry one out on Free Trade, which has often been discussed with much animation in previous years by tne lead. jog politicians of the day, but if your correspondent wishes to be enlightened on the subject I would advise him to refer to the speeches made by our great veteran, Mr. Bright, at the time when Free Trade was brought into existence, and who, only last week, in answer to Mr. Lees Knows, through the medium of the Manchester Gaardhtst, said "The only Fair Trade was Free Trade."—l am yours truly,