Manchester Memoirs, Vol. xli. (1897), No. 11. 3 



profits. The greater part would be freight, and we should 

 be provided with a means of comparing the freight 

 charges with the values of the goods entering into the 

 trade, not piecemeal, but in bulk. 



Unfortunately it will not do to select at random our 

 pairs of countries for such a comparison. In the case of 

 the trade between France and Germany, for example, 

 the German records of imports are uniformly below the 

 French records of exports. Our own imports from 

 Germany are recorded at lower figures (since 1889) than 

 the German exports to this country. I cannot pretend to 

 give all the reasons for such divergencies in the records. 

 One influential cause in the latter case may be that a 

 considerable quantity of goods from Germany reach us 

 via Holland or Belgium, and are accredited to the country 

 of latest departure in place of that of ultimate origin. 

 Similarly the French records include goods passing 

 through Germany to other countries; the German figures 

 which apparently apply to the same goods only include 

 imports for German consumption. So far as possible 

 liability to error from such causes as these must be 

 guarded against. 



Next we come to a source of error more difficult to 

 treat, namely, systematic under- or over-valuation of the 

 goods concerned on one or both sides of the account. 

 Protective duties are a powerful stimulant to an under- 

 valuation of imports. A notable example is afforded by 

 the case of our trade with the United States of America, 

 from which I had hoped to obtain valuable evidence on 

 the subject of inquiry. During the five years ending 1880 

 American records of imports from the United Kingdom 

 showed an annual average of 27^ millions sterling. Our 

 records of exports to America showed an average of 24^ 

 millions. The difference of 12^% is a not unreason- 



