ratio than that of her rival. Since 1800, her consumption has increased ninety fold, while that of England has not quite reached twenty fold. Taking a later date, however, the ratio stands otherwise. From the year 1821, England's consumption has grown to a treble quantity and a two-fold value; while that of France has advanced also to twice the value, but only to two and one-third in quantity. The reason of this last disparity is to be found in the different proportion consumed in the two countries of the finer staples. It is worth comparing also the influence of price on the custom-house returns. The amount shipped in 1825 is just about one-half of that in 1833, and yet the value of that half crop was greater than that of the whole. It may be a question, however, in that disastrous year who paid the difference.

Manufactured articles begin now to constitute a large and important item in the exports of the United States, standing second in value only to agriculture. Of these, previous to 1826, the general value alone was ascertained, distinguishing only whether of foreign or domestic materials. Since that period, the value of the several articles has also been ascertained and entered. Looking to the general result, the exports of 1833 stand as follows: of the sea, $2,402,469; forest, $4,906,339; agriculture, $55,343,421; manufactures, $6,923,922: making-domestic origin, $70,317,698 -foreign, $19,822,735: total value, $90,140,433.

That our foreign readers may see that we are still going on, we subjoin the estimated report of 1834, which is not yet authoritatively published.

Of imports and exports of Specie, our custom-house took no account until 1821. Since that time, they are regularly reported, and by the information they give have tended to dissipate many idle fears and false prejudices. The average up to 1831 stood thus: import about $6,500,000, export about $6,750,000, the surplus being in the light of a profitable manufacture from our own mines. Since 1831, our import has increased and our export decreased. In 1833 it stands-import, $6,624,261; export, $2,218,080. To this statement of our author we may now add the Secretary's report for 1834, ending 30th September, as reported to Congress.

Of the quantity and value of gold and silver consumed in the arts and domestic manufacture, it is not easy to arrive at any sufficient data; the amount is, however, greater than would at first be imagined. From personal inquiries, we would mention the weekly consumption of gold by a single manufacturer in New York, as rising $1000.

Chapter VI. treats generally of the foreign commerce of the United States, and opens with an examination of the Treasury mode of estimating our imports and exports. This leads to the vexed question "of the balance of trade," "which hitherto," says Mr. P., "has so much puzzled economists as well as others, and is indeed so difficult to solve." Now in the present state of knowledge this is hardly fair towards his inexperienced readers, still less to darken the matter further as he does, by stating one of these ordinary custom-house puzzles, with the grave question annexed-"Is this balance for or against the United States?" Now we will take the liberty to give as our answer, "neither." The balance stated as a difficulty is but one of ac- . count, and indicates to the United States neither profit nor loss. On this point we recommend to our author the opinion of Whately, late Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, and one of the clearest-headed reasoners of the present day. "The question of the balance of trade," says he, "has for centuries done more, and perhaps for centuries to come will continue to do more, to retard the improvement of Europe, than all other causes put together." (Lectures, &c.) But as this seems settling the whole question rather cavalierly, we will explain in few words how this matter strikes us.

(1.) As a general question, taking in a series of years and all the nations with whom we have commerce, there is no such thing as a permanent balance of trade either for or against the country -it is a mere question of figures and custom-house books. If asked for proof, we refer to the essential principle of all trade, that it is an exchange of equivalents, and consequently that imports and exports must in the long run balance, and as a matter of fact we refer to the present condition of our own country, which through its whole history both colonial and independent has always had this nominal balance of trade against it. It was this fact which first startled Adam Smith, and at length opened his eyes to the true nature of this mystery. (2.) As a national question, with any

single foreign power, such a balance may unquestionably permanently exist, as it does in fact between this country and England, that balance being made good by our shipments to other countries. But here again we deny the propriety of the terms, and protest against the inference drawn from them, as being "for and against," "favourable and unfavourable," the one side of such account being fully as profitable as the other. The proof of this is also conclusive. The merchant, for instance, who ships cotton to France, and sells a bill on London, is making an equal profit, and but an equal profit, with him who imports from England and buys his neighbour's bill to pay for it. (3.) Again, as a question of national imports and exports, for a single year there may be and probably always is a balance either one way or the other; but here also we deny any power of drawing an inference either "favourable" or "unfavourable," since taken in this light it is but a mere question of credit and book account, showing a balance sometimes on the "Dr." sometimes on the "Cr." side of the ledger; but whichever way it lie, it is in either case a matter of mutual convenience and common interest, the balance of one year being probably reversed by the operations of the following. And lastly we would add, as the only important view of the question, that while we reject the "balance of trade" when applied to national prosperity, yet to individual interest we not only admit its existence, but maintain it is that upon which in every foreign commercial operation market prices are dependant, and consequently the merchant's profit on the transaction. But then we say, that to arrive at the knowledge of this actual balance, we must look, not at custom house returns, but at the price of bills, that is, at the comparative value of money on the two sides of the Atlantic. Bills of exchange, therefore, and not custom-house returns, are the true barometer of commerce, and they alone teach "the balance of trade," in any rational and available sense, and that is the balance or comparative amount from week to week between exports and imports, or rather between shipments and orders-thus enabling the merchant to know into which scale he is to throw his weight for profit. Beyond this, we hold "the balance of trade" to be a mere matter of moonshine. Here, however, we must add, that this presumes a sound currency-one in which paper money rests upon so extended a metallic basis as not to be sensibly affected by a moderate shipment of specie. If the first dollar demanded from the Banks is to cause a general panic and diminution of commercial discount, why then we acknowledge the national balance becomes a more ticklish matter, and we must guard it as a man would a sore leg in walking; but still that proves, not that walking is a dangerous operation, but only that the man's leg is diseased and should be cured.

The principles adopted by our government in the official returns of the custom-house, are perhaps the best of any commercial

nation-certainly superior to those of England. The system, however, has been matured by degrees. Prior to 1821, the value of the exports alone was returned. Of imports, articles paying ad valorem duties, the collectors returned the value-of all others, whether paying a specific duty or free, they returned the quantity. In 1820, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed "annually to prepare statistical accounts of the commerce of the United States with foreign nations, including the kinds, quantity, and value, both of the imports and exports, and also of the navigation employed in foreign trade. The exports to be valued at their cost or real value at the place of exportation; the imports at their cost or worth at the foreign ports, from whence they were exported for importation into the United States." Of these official returns we are far from undervaluing the importance; we only protest against conclusions occasionally drawn from them by our author, in a matter upon which they do not afford all the data; as, for instance, what (even under our accurate system) becomes of the surplus freight carried by our merchantmen in the direct trade, and the whole proceeds of the carrying trade? Here certainly is an import without a corresponding export. How, too, does the account of our fisheries stand? carrying out nothing and bringing back millions. But we must not again enter on this subject. To those familiar with the present distribution of our foreign commerce, it is curious to compare it with the earliest Treasury report of the year 1792.

Exports to Spain and her dominions,

$2,005,907

Portugal and do.,

1,283,462

The imports of 1833, the last reported by our author, stand thus: Imports, $108,118,311; Exports, $90,140,433-Exhibiting, according to the "balance of trade" reasoners, the alarming amount of debt against us of near eighteen millions of dollars. Of these worthy gentlemen we are sorry still further to increase the fears, by adding that the recent Treasury report of 1834 gives a still more melancholy picture, viz.,

Imports, $123,093,351.

Exports,

97,655,321. Balance against U. S., $25,438,030. Our increase of imports being $14,101,541; of exports, only $6,655,321. Of the commerce of the port of New York an estimate may be formed from the following items:

1833.

Imports. $60,944,400

1834.

$76,875,365

Increase. $15,930,965

Estimated return of year now closing, $100,000,000; giving a further increase of more than $23,000,000.

In the scale of our foreign commerce, that with Great Britain ranks first, both in extent and value. From 1783 this trade was unregulated by treaty, until 1794. The commercial part of that compact expiring by its own limitation in 1804, it again stood without any permanent provision until 3d July, 1815, when an equalization of duties, for which the British government had long been pressing, between the United States and their dominions in Europe, was finally on our part acceded to. The wealth mutually resulting from this good understanding, and the enormous interchange to which it has led of mutual labour, greater unquestionably than the world has ever before seen between two independent nations, must make every lover of his country and of man pray for its long continuance. The dependence created by it is mutual as the benefit is equal, and woe, we say, betide him, who through rashness or ignorance would break that golden bond.

Of the sum total of our exports Great Britain and Ireland take about one-third, while of the sum total of our imports they furnish even more than that proportion. We are, in truth, their best customers, as they are ours. Of their manufactured exports, on an average of the years 1827, 1828, 1829, the United States were the purchasers of one-fifth of their woollen, one-third of their linen, one-fifth of their hardware, (in 1832 of one-half,) one-fourth of their silks, and one-tenth of their cotton goods. This last item may from its smallness excite surprise; still more perhaps that we are far from being in cottons her greatest customer. In 1829, Brazil purchased to more than double what we did. Of all the exports of British produce and manufacture, full one-half in value consists in fabrics of cotton, and of that raw material we supply three-fourths of the quantity she consumes.