my comparisons beginning with that period, except where the decline
had begun earlier. What is there wrong in this? Similarly I am derided
as an "ingenious person" because, in order to show that our production
of pig-iron was on the downward grade, I gave the figures for 1882, the
highest year, and for 1894, the latest available year. If there were any
truth in the charge of date-cooking I should have given to my readers
the figures for 1892, which was the lowest year since 1882. It has
suited the correspondent to misconceive the whole purport of my book. I
was not writing an industrial history of Europe for use in schools. My
work was to rouse the manufacturers of England to a sense of the danger
threatening their dominion, and I went in detail through the various
trades wherein this danger was apparent, showing how great they had been
and what was their condition to-day. In different trades the decadence
had begun at different periods; to take the same starting year of
comparison in each case would, therefore, have been a stupid error.
"Made in Germany" is a call to arms, not an academic disquisition on the
movements of trade.

"ARTFUL AND INGENIOUS."

But what of your correspondent's method? With a large air of virtuous
impartiality he adopts 1886 for his starting-point all through his
tables. It may be my denseness, but beyond meaningless uniformity, I can
see absolutely nothing in this method to commend it. I see, however,
that it is very useful for optimistic purposes. Did it not strike the
reader that, in most industries, 1886 was a year of bad trade, and that
therefore its adoption as a starting year of comparison would result in
a very inaccurate view of England's former industrial glory? If I felt
inclined to adopt his language towards myself I might be tempted to say
that his choice of years was "artful" and "ingenious," for to say, with
blunt frankness, "I will take the last decade and stick to it all
through," is an admirable way to score with the unsuspecting public. The
pose of impartiality is excellent. Your correspondent's figures are
doubtless as correct as they are interesting, but (in the light of the
explanation I have given) I submit that those diagrams might as well
have remained undrawn; they do not destroy the tables in "Made in
Germany," and, so far as dates are concerned, are ineffectual as a
commentary.

THE ABUSE OF STATISTICS.

Your correspondent has a better case for his diagrams