Part 1197

"We are a nation of land-traffickers, but our ancestors in the colonies traded and traveled almost entirely by water. There were but twelve miles of land-carriage in all the province of New York; beyond Albany the Indian trade was carried on by 'three-' or 'four-handed batteaus,' sharp at both ends, like the Adirondack boat of to-day. Yachts, with bottoms of black oak and sides of red cedar, brought wheat in bulk and peltries down the Hudson; other craft carried on the domestic trade of New York town with the shores of Long Island, Staten Island, and the little ports beyond the Kill von Kull. … The first regular wagon-carriage from the Connecticut River to Boston did not begin until 1697; Massachusetts had then been settled seventy years. The flat-bottomed boat, which has since played so important a part in the trade of the Ohio and the Mississippi, and whose form was probably suggested by that of the 'west country barges' of England, appears to have been used for floating produce down the Delaware before 1685. In the Chesapeake colonies, until late in the provincial period, there were almost no roads but the numerous bays and water-courses, and almost no vehicles but canoes, row-boats, pinnaces and barks. Places of resort for worship or business were usually near the waterside. … But of all means of travel or trade the Indian canoe was the chief. … Roads in the colonies were hardly ever laid out, but were left where Indian trail or chance cart-track in the woods had marked them. … From England, along with bad roads, the colonists brought the pack-horse which, in Devon and Cornwall, at the close of the last century, still did the carrying, even of building-stones and cord-wood. Most of the inland traffic of the colonial period was done by packing. … The Germans, whose ancestors had four-wheeled vehicles in the days of Julius Cæsar, made good roads wherever they planted themselves. While their English neighbors were content to travel on horseback and to ford and swim streams, the Salzburgers in Georgia began by opening a wagon-road twelve miles long, with seven bridges, 'which surprised the English mightily.' Pennsylvania, the home of the Germans, alone of the colonies built good straight roads; and the facility which these afforded to ten thousand freight-wagons was the main advantage that gave Philadelphia the final preeminence among the colonial sea-ports, and made Lancaster the only considerable inland mart In North America. … Proximity to the wampum-making savages at one end of Hudson River navigation and to the beaver-catchers at the other made New York the chief seat of the fur trade. Wagon-roads, soil, climate, and an industrious people made Philadelphia the principal center of the traffic in bread and meat. The never-ending line of convenient shore that bordered the peninsulas of Maryland and Virginia, and gave a good landing-place at every man's door, with a tobacco currency, rendered it difficult to build towns or develop trade among the easy-going planters of the Chesapeake and Albemarle regions. A different coast-line, and rivers less convenient, made Charleston the rich and urbane commercial and social center of southern Carolina. Until about 1750 Boston was the leading sea-port, and its long wharf, 2,000 feet in length with warehouses on one side of it, was the New World wonder of travelers. Five or six hundred vessels annually cleared out of Boston in the middle of the 18th century for the foreign trade alone, and the city contained between twenty and thirty thousand people at the outbreak of the Revolution. But Newport, with its thirty distilleries to make rum of the molasses brought from the islands, and its seventeen sperm-oil and candle factories to work up the results of the whaling industry, had nearly half as many ships in foreign trade as Boston, and three or four hundred craft of all sorts in the coast-wise carrying trade. He was thought a bold prophet who said then that 'New York might one day equal Newport'; for about 1750 New York sent forth fewer ships than Newport, and not half so many as Boston. … But Philadelphia—planted late in the 17th century—outstripped all rivals, and for the last twenty years of the colonial period was the chief port of North America. … The imports and exports of the two tobacco colonies together were far larger than those of Philadelphia, but their profits were far less."

_E. Eggleston, Commerce in the Colonies (Century, June, 1884)._

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English: 18-19th Centuries. Rising prosperity and commercial supremacy. Successful War, Free Trade and Steam Power.

"If we look at the state of the European powers after the conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, we shall see how favourable our position then was. In the first place, England had seriously crippled her commercial rival, France, both in her Indian and American possessions, and thereby had gained extensive colonial territories which afforded a ready market for British goods. Spain, which had been allied with France, had lost at the same time her position as the commercial rival of England in trade with the New World. Germany had for some time ceased to be a formidable competitor, and was now being ravaged by internal conflicts between the reigning houses of Austria and Prussia. Holland, which had once been England's most serious rival—especially in foreign commerce—was at this time in a similar condition, and had greatly declined from the prosperity of the 16th and 17th centuries. Hence England alone had the chance of 'the universal empire of the sole market.' The supply of this market was in the hands of English manufacturers and English workmen, so that the great inventions which came into operation after 1763 were thus at once called into active employment, and our mills and mines were able to produce wealth as fast as they could work, without fear of foreign competition. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that in the ten years, from 1782 to 1792, our entire foreign trade was nearly doubled, the exact figures being: 1782, imports £10,341,628, exports £13,009,458; 1792, Imports £19,659,358, exports £24,905,200. And this remarkable progress was still kept up even during the great continental wars which were caused by the French Revolution, and which lasted for almost a quarter of a century. … {3720} In spite of the almost entire loss of our trade in some directions, English commerce improved in others; and, in fact, any loss was more than counterbalanced by an increase in regard to the (now independent) United States, Russia, Venice, Germany, and Northern Europe, as well as with the West and East Indian colonies, both British and foreign. In fact, many of the countries whom France had compelled to become our enemies found themselves unable to do without British manufactures, especially as their own industries were suffering from the warfare that was going on on the Continent, and therefore had to find means to procure our goods. … The close of the 25 years of continental war (1815) is sometimes taken as being the date when the modern system of commerce may be said to have had its beginning. Up to that time, although great changes and advances had been made, the spirit of monopoly and the general restrictive policy which characterised previous centuries, were still, to some extent, in force. But not very long after the peace that was won by the battle of Waterloo, a remarkable change was made in the commercial policy of England. … We now come to the beginnings of freedom of trade."

_H. de B. Gibbins, British Commerce and Colonies, pages 91-102._

"When the wars of the French Revolution began, the foundations of a great empire had already been broadly laid; and when it ended, England stood out as a power which had grown greater in the struggle. … Dutchman, Dane, and Spaniard, Frenchman and Venetian, all ancient competitors of England, fell before her; and, when the sword was sheathed in 1815, it was no exaggerated boast to call her mistress of the seas. These facts should never be lost sight of in any consideration of the causes which have led us to where we now are. Without these preparatory steps, both in domestic industries and in foreign wars and conquests, England would not, with all her material advantages, have been so entirely the gainer by the progress of the last fifty years as she has so far proved to be. … There is the more need to remember this because the time immediately following the war was one of severe domestic suffering, and of much retrograde legislation, conceived with a view to, if possible, lessen that suffering. … The worst of all the laws which then restricted trade were those relating to the exports and imports of corn, which the younger men of to-day have well-nigh forgotten. … It was not till after long years of agitation by John Bright, Richard Cobden, and other leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, that the landed party gave way sullenly, and assented, amid the most gloomy predictions of impending ruin, to the repeal of the sliding scale altogether, and the virtual abolition of all corn laws by the substitution of a fixed duty of 1 s. per quarter. Thus recently was one of the most oppressive pieces of fiscal legislation that man could have conceived withdrawn; and not until 1849, when that law came into force, could the industries of the country be said to be anything like unfettered. Yet twenty years more passed before this shilling duty—the last rag of protection—was itself flung aside, and the import of corn became perfectly free. … But many other changes had in the meantime taken place, all tending more and more to throw off the shackles of trade. … As late as 1840 our customs tariff was described in the report of a committee of the House of Commons as 'presenting neither congruity nor unity of purpose;' as 'often aiming at incompatible ends,' seeking both to produce revenue and to protect interests in ways incompatible with each other. There were no fewer than 1,150 different rates of duty chargeable on imported articles, … and the committee gave a list of 862 of such articles which were subject to duty, seventeen of which then produced 94 per cent. of a revenue amounting to £23,000,000. … The present customs tariff contains less than two dozen articles all told, and including those on which duty is imposed to countervail the excise charges on internal products. The ordinary import articles on which duty is charged number only seven. … But there is yet another hindrance the removal of which has to be noticed, and which, till removed, cramped England very seriously, viz. the navigation laws and the great trade monopoly of the East India Company. … It took longer time … to accomplish the complete deliverance of our mercantile marine from the baneful influence of 'protective' jealousy than to accomplish any other great free-trade reform. A tentative effort to lessen the consequences of confining the carrying trade of England to English ships was made in 1825 by Mr. Huskisson; but it was not till 1854 that complete free trade on the sea was granted by the abolition of any restriction as to the nationality of vessels engaged in the coasting trade of the kingdom. … Here, then, we have noted briefly the various steps and leading characteristics of the commercial reforms which, in this country, either paved the way for or secured the benefit of the great outburst of enterprise and influx of wealth which began in the second quarter of the present century. These various reforms constitute, so to say, the negative side of the modern commercial prosperity which this country built upon the foundations of her world-wide empire; and, in order to get a complete outline of the position which we at present occupy, we must now revert briefly to the positive side of the subject; we must find out where the great modern wealth has come from, and on what it has been based. Freedom of trade no doubt did much to call wealth and enterprise into being; but in what did this wealth consist? Happily the leading features are not difficult to trace. Although the foundations of the great manufacturing industries of this country lie far back in the past, their development, like the growth of free-trade principles, is quite modern, and dates in reality from the day when George Stephenson won the competition at Liverpool with his locomotive 'the Rocket,' settling thereby the question of railroad travelling by steam beyond dispute. The mere stimulus to all kinds of mining and manufacturing industries which this victory and the subsequent railway operations gave, was itself enough to cause the trade of this country to press forward by 'leaps and bounds.' Since November 1830, it may be said to have done so; and the mere fact that England was the originator of the railway systems of the world, and that she contained within herself almost boundless materials wherewith to supply those systems, would itself suffice to explain the pre-eminence which from that day to this has been unquestionably hers. {3721} The great natural resources of the country were first employed in supplying the materials for home development, and then gradually the wealth thus acquired by digging in the bowels of the earth was utilised in tempting or leading other nations into a career of 'progress' similar to our own. In spite of the many losses which individuals suffered in the early days of this progress, the nation grew steadily richer and its stores of realised wealth increased with every new enterprise almost that it took up. … Each year the realised wealth of the one before told, as it were, in swelling the working power of the nation, and in enlarging the business capacities and scope of its credit. … Side by side with the increased produce of the country, the increased manufactures, and the increasing wealth, there were growing up facilities for intercommunication with all parts of the world, and with that an increasing tendency to emigration. The home hives were constantly throwing off young swarms, which, settling now in America, now in Australia, now in Africa, became so many new centres of demand, so many links in the trade chain that we had bound round the world."

_A. J. Wilson, British Trade (Fraser's Magazine, September, 1876), pages 271-277._

"The almost unlimited expansion which becomes marked about 1850 and culminates in 1873, has been pointed to by many different people as proof of the great effect of different measures or inventions; as a matter of fact, it was due to no one cause, but was rather the result of multitudinous discoveries and events, acting and reacting on each other. Perhaps the following list of dates shows this most clearly;—

Opening of first English railway, 1830; Wheatstone's telegraph, 1837; first ocean steamer, 1838; settlement in New Zealand, 1840; reduction of duties on raw materials, 1842; repeal of Corn Laws, 1846; commercial treaty with France, 1860.

Here are seven events of widely different natures, each of which must have had its effect in the period under consideration, and it would be useless, even if it were possible, to weigh the separate result of each. We cannot estimate, we can obtain no criterion of the vast effects of the adoption of Free Trade. Three things, however, are clear;— First, that till the suffocating restrictions were removed, trade could not expand; when exports were prohibited, imports could not be plentiful; when imports were taxed, the demand at enhanced prices could not be great. Secondly, if every restriction was removed from every branch of trade, there would be no increase without natural causes of manufacture and demand, no increased demand without a cheapening or improvement of supply; that, in fact, Free Trade is the method, not the source, of commerce, and that the claim of this increase as the direct result of freedom and a proof of its expediency is an inaccurate exaggeration. Thirdly, that the date of the marked commencement of the expansion coincides exactly with the reductions and abolitions of duties, pointing to the fact, borne out by all concurrent events, that the adoption of Free Trade was the opening of the valve which allowed the forces of commerce full play. … It was in the trades of comparatively recent establishment, in England especially, that there were immense outputs (of cotton goods and machinery, for instance), in great excess of the home demand; and this could only pay if the foreign demand grew in proportion to the growing efficiency; that is to say, our newer industries became the most important, and were marked as our division of international labour. The foreign demand, indeed, for our manufactures and our machines was extraordinary. Now, every country is trying to rival our goods, and each to produce for herself the manufactures she requires; then, rivalry was out of the question. … On every side new markets were opened; old trades were increased, new developed. The railways built with our materials opened up districts hitherto inaccessible; this acted as a fresh stimulus to our manufacturers—more capital was forthcoming, and more railways were built. Not only were countries, with which we had already established some trade, brought nearer and in closer relation, but new countries were discovered. Australia and New Zealand were ready to take our surplus population, and were not behindhand in the new system of development. Our older colonies also increased. With each emigration the number of our customers abroad was multiplied. In 1850 and 1852 this process was accelerated by the news of the gold discoveries in California and Australia. So great was the emigration and the consequent demand for ships that all freights were increased, and, with a short lull, this continued till 1856. … The last great impetus was given by the Suez Canal, by which the journey to India and the East was quickened by one-half, and, at the same time, rendered more secure."

_A. L. Bowley, England's Foreign Trade in the Nineteenth Century. chapter 4._

See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (pages 3073-3077).

COMMERCE: MODERN: The Americans: A. D. 1856-1895. Decay of American shipping interests.

"Down to the year 1856, the United States had rapidly advanced in commercial greatness, and had overcome all the obstacles which had clustered about their path. At that time we were close upon the heels of England, and everything pointed to our speedily passing her in the race for commercial supremacy. Since then our commerce has steadily declined,—a misfortune usually attributed to the civil war, and subsequently to the competition of more profitable forms of investment. These circumstances no doubt hastened the loss of our commerce; but, as Lieutenant Kelley points out, they are not the true causes of its decline, inasmuch as that began before the civil war. The origin of our difficulties lay in the abandonment of our old policy, which, from the beginning of the century, consisted in surpassing all the world in the quality and speed of our ships and in our naval architecture. With the substitution of iron for wood we began to drop behind, until, with a population of 55,000,000, we have a tonnage but little greater than we had when half as numerous. Moreover, our percentage of wrecks is larger than that of any other seafaring people, and our ships and steamers are shorter-lived.

_The Question of Ships (Atlantic Monthly, June, 1884, pages 859-861)._

{3722}