478 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 



parison of incomes below that limit. France, again, has a special 

 knowledge of its agricultural wealth, by means of the cadastre, 

 and the system of registration and taxation of transfers of 

 property, but it has not equal means of estimating its income 

 from manufacturing. Money also is itself variable in value from 

 time to time, as measured by the average of the commodities or 

 services it is used to exchange, and in comparing two countries, 

 as regards their production measured in money, no little care 

 would be needed. I have seen few attempts to do so in which 

 attention has been paid to the necessary conditions and diffi- 

 culties, or in which the existence of such dangers and difficulties 

 has even been recognised. The Americans in their census have 

 attempted a great deal in this direction, but the least that can 

 be said is that the result has not been encouraging. 



Coming next to imports and exports, the point I would urge 

 first is the initial difficulty of a bare comparison oi the figures 

 themselves. Imports and exports, instead of giving us easy 

 statistics for many of the purposes for which they are used, are 

 really very difficult. I refer especially to the values. Imports 

 are stated in one country at the value of the goods as at the place 

 of shipment ; in another as at the place of arrival. In one 

 counti-y the basis of the statement is a declaration of the value 

 by the importer, checked by the Customs authorities ; in 

 another there is an efficient commission of values, which takes 

 note of market prices, and fixes official prices for everything at 

 more or less frequent intervals. The same with the exports. 

 The denominators are hardly ever the same in any two 

 countries. The result is, that there are continual mistatements 

 by amateurs on such questions as a comparison of two countries 

 in resjDect of the progress of their foreign trade, or in respect of 

 what is called the balance of trade. The falling off of the 

 foreign ti-ade of one country is contrasted with the growth of 

 the foreign trade of another country at the same time, the truth 

 being that in the one case, owing to the system of valuing by 

 merchants' declarations, the volume of the foreign trade 

 expressed in money responds instantly to variations^ in market 

 price, while, in the other, owing to the system of official prices 

 fixed at intervals, the volume of trade does not respond at once 

 to variations in market price. In one country again what is 

 called an adverse balance of trade appears to be larger in pro- 

 portion than it is in another country, largely because the 

 imports are valued as at the place of arrival, including freight 

 and other charges to that place ; while in the country with 

 which comparison is made, the value is taken at the 

 place of shipment, and does not include such additions. 

 In the latter case, therefore, the exports form a total more nearly 

 approximating that of the imports than in the former. All 

 this confusion is due simply to the fact that the units of the 

 imports and exports are not, in fact, the same. The record is 

 not made in the same way. 



Assuming, however, that the record is made in the same ^vay 

 formally, there remain some essential differences in the foreign 

 trade of different countries, which make comparisons between 

 them most difficult, and it is mainly to one or two of these 



